The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-04-16 City Council - Public Agenda-1491'4- o 0 -c9 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds APRIL 16, 2013 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-5671 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2013. B. AM-5666 Approval of claim checks #201326 through #201472 dated April 4, 2013 for $1,847,241.94 (reissued checks #201395 $118.27 & #201396 $104.26), and claim checks #201473 through #201594 dated April 11, 2013 for $188,617.98 (reissued check #201527 $68.49). Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60108 through #60123 and #60136 for $469,312.58, benefit checks #60124 through #60135 and wire payments of $201,375.27 for the period March 16, 2013 through March 31, 2013. C. AM-5675 Approval of claim check #201595 dated April 11, 2013 for $219.00. D. AM-5637 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Jaimie Winnett and Rick Patneaude ($8,388.20). E. AM-5668 Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 Regarding Classes. F. AM-5670 Authorization for Mayor to sign annual Special Event Contracts. G. AM-5655 Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Water Utility Easement H. AM-5653 Report on final construction costs for the Talbot Road Grind and Overlay Small Works Project and acceptance of project. I. AM-5657 Quarterly Public Works Project Report J. AM-5661 Surplus of computers and monitors and donation to InterConnection. K. AM-5662 February 2013 Monthly Financial Report L. AM-5679 Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles. M. AM-5659 HR Reporting Director special assignment. N. AM-5660 Acting Development Services Director assignment. 4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. (5 Minutes) Proclamation in honor of Earth Day, April 22, 2013. AM-5621 6. (5 Minutes) Proclamation in honor of the opening of the Swedish Cancer Institute at Edmonds. AM-5667 7. (60 Minutes) Training and possible action regarding draft Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of AM-5651 Order as the City Council's new Rules of Procedure. 8. (30 Minutes) Public Hearing on an amendment to the Capital Improvement Program, Capital AM-5665 Facilities Plan and Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program to add the State Route-99 Gateway/Revitalization project. 9. (15 Minutes) Authorization to conduct a real estate appraisal and appropriation of funds - City AM-5593 Owned Admiralty Acres Lot #12 (Snohomish County Tax Parcel ID No. 00370800101200). 10. (60 Minutes) Continued discussion on incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's AM-5664 Comprehensive Plan. 11. (5 Minutes) Formal request from King County and the City of Seattle for $5,000 to support a AM-5669 Health Impacts Assessment of the Pacific Gateway Coal Terminal proposal. 12. (15 Minutes) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of April 8 and 9, 2013. AM-5673 13. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 14. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 15. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 16. (5 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN AM-5671 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2013. Recommendation Review and Approval Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Attachments 04-02-13 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 11:29 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 11:40 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 04/11/2013 09:56 AM Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 3. A. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES April 2, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Lora Petso in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Lora Petso, Mayor Pro Tern Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Pro Tern Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Earling, Mayor 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Earling. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #201232 THROUGH #201325 DATED MARCH 28, 2013 FOR $388,116.14. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL REPLACEMENT CHECK #60107 FOR $40.83. C. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CANYON PARK TREATMENT SOLUTIONS. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 1 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the stepback recommendation from the Planning Board and the obvious, arbitrary 30-foot height limit included in the charts. He was unable to find anything in the Planning Board minutes indicating 30 feet would be the new building height. He reminded Councilmembers of their election promises with regard to downtown building heights, recalling the building heights were 25 feet with an additional 5 feet allowed for other amenities, design, roofs, etc. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, relayed that Mr. Hertrich inappropriately spoke during Audience Comments regarding an item scheduled on the agenda as a public hearing and therefore should not be allowed to speak again during the public hearing. Val Stewart, Edmonds, Vice Chair, Planning Board (PB), said she would refer to the PB's work but would also express her own opinions. The PB spent over 16 meeting hours working through the Harbor Square Master Plan (HSMP). She noted the challenge Council faces making sure the Port's original plan is respected and limiting the level of detail appropriate for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council will have an opportunity to review a project action should that occur. A motion to deny the HSMP was defeated and now a revised Master Plan or revised Subarea Plan is being discussed that includes Council comments, addresses the PB's 14 amendments, and retains a portion of the original HSMP. She encouraged Council to refer to it as a revision out of respect for both the Port and PB and to build on the work that has been accomplished rather than tossing it aside. The HSMP was not called a "subarea" plan throughout the PB's meetings; that term was brought up later to afford more flexibility with regard to timing of adoption. The fourth criterion for qualifying the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan was not addressed by the PB as there was not going to be a change to the comprehensive plan map. She posed several questions for the Council to consider during their review: What is the unique feature on the Port's property that everyone in this City values? Don't we owe it to future generations to fix the sins of the past or is it enough to just get to "no net loss"? While restoring what we all treasure, can't we come up with a version of the Plan that will be a draw not only for our Edmonds citizens but also for visitors? Why not allow residential? Just don't be specific. Wouldn't it be better to encourage a diverse housing mix especially to attract the younger creative class who honestly don't value having a car but seek places to gather, public amenities and transportation alternatives? Density does not necessarily equate with height. Imagine smaller units, fewer cars, and live work options. She referred to the Planning Board's recommendation that any potential redevelopment go through a third party verified green building program. She thanked the Council for doing this challenging work for the greater good of citizens and the generations to come. Mayor Pro Tern Petso requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday ponder whether a person who spoke under Audience Comments on a public hearing topic could speak again during the public hearing if he chose. 5. MAYORS DAY OF RECOGNITION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE PROCLAMATION Paulette Jacobsen, Director, Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) at Catholic Community Services, explained RSVP is a retired and senior volunteer program, part of the Corporation for National Community Service. They had 1,000 volunteers in Snohomish County who supported 91 non -profits, providing 181,118 hours of service; 200 of the volunteers were from Edmonds. On April 9, Mayors across the nation will recognize National Service Volunteers. She introduced retired Advisory Council Member Linda McCullough. Mayor Pro Tern Petso read a proclamation proclaiming April 9, 2013 as National Service Recognition Day, and encouraged residents to recognize the positive impact of national service in our city, to thank those who serve; and to find ways to give back to their communities. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 2 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON A DRAFT PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TO APPLY DESIGN STANDARDS TO THE BD2, BD3 AND BD4 ZONES TO REPLACE THE REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDING STEP -BACKS. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A PROVISION EXEMPTING SMALL DECORATIVE 'BLADE SIGNS' FROM SIGN CODE AREA CALCULATION LIMITATIONS. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained the Planning Board's original recommendation to remove the step -back requirements from the BD zones was made in 2011. The Council held a public hearing on July 26, 2011. In 2012, although supportive of replacing the stepback requirements in the BD zone with design standards, the Council wanted design standards in place before removing the step -back requirement. It was referred to the Planning Board and the Board has provided this recommendation. By way of background, he reviewed how height limits have changed over time: • First zoning code in 1956: 45 feet • 1964: 35 feet • 1981: 30 feet o Pitched roof / modulated design / step -backs • Codes since 1981 have addressed what happens in the 5 feet above 25 feet, but the 30-foot height limit has remained unchanged • 2005 - step -back required to increase building height from 25 to 30 feet Mr. Chave displayed photographs of buildings constructed prior to 1956: historic forms that still exist, noting there are common features such as first floor windows; pedestrian awnings; differentiation between the first floor and upper floor using materials and design elements; and rhythm or distinctive breaks in facades. He displayed photographs of buildings constructed 1956 to 1981, what he termed as the "simplified box," unadorned with little architectural character. The solution in 1981 was 25 + 5 feet with some kind of design feature such as a pitched roof. He displayed photographs of buildings constructed 1981 to 1997, commenting they tended to be "buildings with hats." Beginning in 1997 there was a requirement for modulated buildings. He displayed photographs of buildings constructed 1997-2005, explaining the result was different roof forms and some attempt to differentiate vertical forms with a lot of repetitive elements. He pointed out there is a difference between building rhythm and breaking up a large fagade into individual elements. Mr. Chave summarized: • Buildings prior to 1956 o Pedestrian scale & orientation o A richness of materials & architectural detail o Vertical detailing • 1956 to 1981 o Larger scale, very simple buildings o Lacking in architectural detail • 1981 to 1997 o Some improvement in architectural detail o Pitched roofs as an add -on or afterthought • 1997 to 2005 o More architectural elements included o More attention to vertical elements o "Busy" horizontal elements Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 3 Mr. Chave noted one of the differences between historic buildings is richness in material and craftsmanship. Even when craftsmanship is not present, the details and rhythm of the buildings fit into the overall feel. Although buildings can be historic at 50 years old, he did not view many of the buildings constructed more recently as historic; they are typical of the period but not historic. While the concern in recent years has been height, it should be about design, the overall appearance of buildings and how they fit into the streetscape. Mr. Chave summarized the existing code requirements: • Retail core / BD1: o No step -backs o Mandatory design standards • Other BD zones (BD2 — 4) o Mandatory 15-foot step -backs o Design objectives (not design standards) The Board's recommendation is to remove the 15-foot stepback in the BD2-4 zones and replace it with design standards. He provided photographs of 15-foot step -backs in downtown Kirkland and Old Town Bellevue, noting they are typically on much taller buildings. He displayed photographs of Chanterelle's and the Edmonds Theater, commenting step -backs do not complement traditional commercial building styles. Using Chanterelle's as an example, he pointed out step -backs would not allow traditional buildings to be built. He explained the facades on historical buildings were viewed as a desirable downtown element. The intent is to adopt design standards that are consistent with some of the old building types and rhythms found downtown. He relayed downtown property owners have indicated the 15-foot step - back is a building killer and at least one developer concluded that a building utilizing that requirement was not feasible. He displayed photographs of buildings that echo traditional building styles and new construction that often tries to duplicate traditional building styles such as Mill Creek Towne Center. The Board's recommendation eliminates the 15-foot step -back requirement in the downtown BD2, 3 and 4 zones and replaces it with the same regulations that work in the BD1 zone; a height limit of 30 feet and the BD1 zone design standards. With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comment about being unable to find where the idea of 30 feet came from, Mr. Chave referred to the Board's January 9, 2013 minutes, page 8, 3rd paragraph, Board Chair Reed suggested to simplify the code language, 30 feet should be inserted. Mr. Chave noted this made sense because otherwise the language was convoluted with a base height of 25 feet with a 12-foot ground floor and the 12-foot ground floor was already required. He emphasized the 30-foot height was not a height increase. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the Council approved 25 +5 feet to a maximum of 30 feet in October 2012. Mr. Chave responded that seemed to be the consensus of the Council although the Council did not take formal action to approve it as the Council wanted to see the design standard language before taking final action. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee had reviewed this issue. Mr. Chave answered yes, at the outset of the process in 2011. The Planning Board had a joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board to discuss the design standards. Councilmember Bloom asked when roof modulation was removed from the code. Mr. Chave answered it is still applicable in some parts of the City such as the BC zones in lower downtown including the Salish Crossing property. In 2005-2006, the idea of roof modulation was replaced with step -backs. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 4 Mayor Pro Tem Petso referred to horizontal rhythm, noting large buildings not occupying entire blocks in the past. In recent years buildings are the size of an entire block without any horizontal modulation or rhythm. She asked whether the Planning Board's recommendation addressed that issue. Mr. Chave advised he would have to research that. Mayor Pro Tem Petso observed BD5 was also being amended. Mr. Chave answered BD5 is the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. The language for BD5 retains the step -back because that area needs a special process. There is already a 15 foot setback requirement for larger buildings in that area. Staff's recommendation to the Planning Board was to consider BD5 separately in the context of the plan that was adopted for that area because it is unique and needs to have its own rules. Mayor Pro Tem Petso observed it appeared an extensive change was made to the BD5 language. Mr. Chave answered the language that was otherwise applicable to all the BD zones was retained for BD5. Although it looks like a big change in the markup copy, it is actually status quo. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the blade signs were reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave answered yes. He explained the intent is to make small signs that hang under awnings an easy process. Mayor Pro Tem Petso asked whether the blade sign proposal was reviewed by the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee. Mr. Chave answered it was not, this was the first presentation to the Council. Councilmember Johnson asked how blade signs apply in the BDI zone. Mr. Chave answered the same way as the other BD zones. The proposal is any blade sign under 4 square feet does not count against the overall signage. A business that wants a small blade sign simply undergoes a staff review to ensure there is enough clearance. There is no review of the overall building square footage and allowable sign space. Councilmember Johnson observed the public hearing was in regard to BD2-4 and asked whether a separate process was necessary for the blade sign exemption for BD1. Mr. Chave answered the blade sign exemption was for the BD zones, not just BD2-4. Councilmember Bloom referred to a Planning Board Member's question that it was "his understanding of the current code the additional height from 25 to 30 feet could only be achieved with a step -back. Eliminating the step -back requirement as proposed would mean a developer could achieve the maximum height with certain design accommodations. He asked what a developer might provide in terms of amenities or design features in order to obtain the maximum height. Mr. Chave answered the BD design standards provide illustrations that give a good idea of what would be expected." Councilmember Bloom asked whether it was the Planning Board's understanding that the design standards would be required to obtain the additional 5 feet in height and whether there had been any discussion regarding amenities that would be necessary to obtain the additional 5 feet. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board agreed the design standards apply regardless of the building height. Councilmember Bloom asked if the Planning Board discussed 25 + 5 feet with an additional amenity of some sort. Mr. Chave answered no; they focused on design standards that would apply consistently across the board. The idea of incentive zoning and other kinds of incentives was not discussed. There is some of that built into the BD zones; for example buildings over a certain size require open space be provided. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained Roger Brooks' presentation talked about the importance of including blade signs on storefronts in the retail area. Blade signs are often used to attract pedestrians or drivers who do not see the storefront because they are traveling perpendicular to the front of the business. He displayed photographs of blade signs in Fairhaven, noting the design of the signs add to the attractiveness of the streetscape. Blade signs are typically much thinner than wall signs. He noted 3-4 businesses have approached him about installing a blade sign but do Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 5 not want to go through the sign process. The proposal is to allow a blade sign up to 4 feet and it would not count against the sign square footage allowed on the building fagade. He summarized blade signs help pedestrians and drivers see businesses more clearly. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas recalled Roger Brooks mentioning that blade signs often identify the merchandise or service a business provides. Mr. Clifton agreed Mr. Brooks talked about the importance of a business listing what they sell on the blade sign. Council President Pro Tern Fraley- Monillas asked why the blade sign issue was included with the design standards in the BD2-4 rather than separately. Mr. Clifton responded the Council directed the Planning Board to look at the design guidelines for the BD2-5 zones and it is very appropriate that the signage allowed in those zones be part of the design standards. Councilmember Bloom recalled blade signs identify the product a business sells; the examples Mr. Clifton provided did not show that. She asked if that would be allowed? Mr. Clifton answered it would, noting blade signs can also hang from awnings provided they maintain a minimum clearance above the sidewalk. Mayor Pro Tem Petso opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Doug Spee, Edmonds, a property owner in the BD2 zone, commented this is a very fair approach to the challenge to get development going downtown. He liked that the same design standards would apply to BD1-4. He noted the Council need not fear ugly or boxy buildings as the ADB review is a very challenging, effective process that, in his case, produced a better building. Once a developer complies with the design guidelines, they still must go through ADB review. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented he was involved in the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and recalled the last element the Council worked on in 1981 was building heights. He recalled the Harbor building on Main Street was the driver for the 25-foot height. He noted Mr. Chave did not show the view of the Olympics and Puget Sound. The code was written to preserve the downtown area and the entire area was zoned BC. Another dimensional requirement in 1981 was that 51% of the building had to be commercial. Edmonds lacks commercial zones and more condominiums are being built than the City needs. He questioned whether the condominiums on 5th Avenue represented the small town character of Edmonds. If Councilmembers liked big, boxy buildings, he recommended they raise the building height from 25 feet to 30 feet tonight. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, clarified when he spoke under Audience Comments, he was speaking about elections, now he was talking about building heights that have been arbitrarily changed to 30 feet. He noted in the BD zone the height limit was raised due to the extra height of the first floor level; the BD2-4 zones were not required to have an increased first floor height. He recalled there were incentives in the past to create extra design features in exchange for additional height such as modulated rooflines, modulated building walls and sloped roofs. He summarized this was an arbitrary increase in height without any requirements. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented if Councilmembers did not support the proposed changes, it meant they liked the current situation. The current situation is not construction of an abundance of beautiful buildings; it is no buildings being built. He was a Councilmember in February 2006 when the new BD zones were implemented to replace the BC zone; no buildings have been constructed since then in a BD zone except for the rebuilding of two banks. David Arista, Edmonds, owner of a building in the BD2 zone, expressed his support for the Planning Board's recommendation to replace the requirement for building step -backs. He does not plan to redevelop his building any time soon, but if he did in the future he wanted the opportunity to do so Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 6 without a step -back. He commented a 15-foot step -back did not make sense for a building 25-30 feet in height. He also supported the proposal to exempt blade signs, explaining blade signs are very helpful as drivers do not see the front of the building but a blade sign catches their attention. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tem Petso closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked the current height limit in the BD1-4 zones. Mr. Chave answered BD1 is 30 feet, BD 2, 3 and 4 is essentially 25 feet and the ability to go to 30 feet with certain things, mainly a step -back. That is why the Planning Board felt if they removed the step -back requirement, there was no reason to call it 25 + 5 anymore because 25 + 5 = 30. In the BD4, there are two options, a commercial building that requires the 15-foot step -back or a multi -family building up to 30 feet with a front yard setback. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas observed if the Council kept the height the same and removed the step -back, the height limits would be 30 feet in BD 1 and 25 feet in BD 1, 2, 3 and 4 zones. Mr. Chave answered that would essentially be lowering the height limit in the BD 2, 3 and 4 zones because there is no option to go from 25 feet to 30 feet. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas observed the only option currently to go from 25 feet to 30 feet is the step -back. Mr. Chave agreed. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked if the option to go from 25 feet to 30 with a step -back was adopted because of building modulation. Mr. Chave answered the genesis of the step -back was a concern with the appearance of the street front. At the time there was a feeling that somehow 25 feet provided a more pedestrian -friendly environment; historically what makes more sense is the design rather than imposing an artificial step -back. That is evident in the design of historic buildings. The primary focus of the Planning Board and ADB Members' discussion was that design is important and the step - back does not really produce good design and in fact is not consistent with historic designs. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked whether design standards instead of a step -back could be required to go from 25 feet to 30 feet in the BD2-4 zones. Mr. Chave answered under the Planning Board's proposal, design standards would be required regardless of building height. Design standards address variation in material, detailing on facades, etc. Mayor Pro Tem Petso asked if horizontal modulation was addressed. Mr. Chave answered not directly; there is discussion about materials and differentiation of facades, but nothing that sets an absolute number when one portion of the building transitions to another and no horizontal standard is included. Mayor Pro Tem Petso observed adopting this tonight would not provide any improvement for a building that runs the full length of the block. Mr. Chave answered it would, such as the detailing that enhances the fagade. There is just not a specific standard that addresses horizontal spacing although that would be relatively easy to add. He referred to the first page of the design standards (page 83 of the packet), 22.43.010 Massing and Articulation, A. Intent. To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box -like buildings and articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale. A sentence could be added something like "buildings shall echo historic horizontal building spacing or building elements consistent with the historic pattern of the city." He noted it would be different on each block or fagade depending on the historic pattern. He referred to the photographs of historic buildings where there is a distinctive difference between one section of the building frontage and another. Mayor Pro Tem Petso asked whether that would need to go back to the Planning Board or could it be included in the ordinance for approval by Council. Mr. Chave answered the intent is there; if a majority of the Council wanted to include that language, it could be included in the ordinance. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 7 Mayor Pro Tern Petso referred to Mr. Chave's statement that the BD1 building height is 30 feet, yet when she looked at the table in the packet, 25 is crossed out and replaced with 30. She noted it appeared a change was being made to BD L Mr. Chave answered buildings in BD 1 are required to have a 15-foot ground floor; with a 15 foot ground floor, the building can be 30 feet tall; therefore, from a practical standpoint, the height limit in BD1 is 30 feet. That was why Planning Board Chair John Reed recommended changing the table. Mayor Pro Tern Petso observed the same change was being made in the table for the BD2, 3 and 4 zones, changing 25 feet to 30 feet. She asked if it would be possible to eliminate the step -backs, adopt the design standards and not change the table, leaving the height limit at 25 feet. Mr. Chave answered yes, but it would mean no possibility of going from 25 feet to 30 feet. Mayor Pro Tern Petso agreed, pointing out the extra 5 feet could be achieved via a development agreement, incentive zoning or other ideas that have been discussed. Mr. Chave advised that would require a separate process. Councilmember Bloom observed open space was required for a larger bulk building. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Bloom recalled being at Council meetings when the Gregory Building was approved where citizens were in opposition to the building design. The former City Attorney said three errors were made by the Planning Department in approving the building but nothing could be done because an appeal had not been filed during the 21 day LUPA period. She recalled one of the errors was related to open space. Mr. Chave responded he was not directly involved with that project but recalled there was split zoning on the property and a bay window that extended beyond the fagade that was not picked up during building review. There was nothing regarding open space at the front of the building. The provisions in the BD zones that he referenced earlier, page 11 of the zoning chapter (page 79 of the packet), Open Space Requirements, for buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet, at least five percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space, is a new requirement that was not in place until the BD zones were adopted. The intent of the open space requirement was to encourage pocket open spaces along a building frontage, particularly larger buildings such as a full block. There is also language regarding where the open space should be located. It is not an incentive; it is a requirement for a large building. The discussion regarding the Gregory Building was related to the back of the building. Councilmember Bloom observed there are a number of buildings that have been built under the current 25 + 5 building code that many citizens have not been happy with, including Old Milltown and the Gregory. She was agreeable to eliminating the step -back but was concerned with eliminating 25 + 5 without any tradeoff for the additional 5 feet. She was also supportive of blade signs. She appreciated Mr. Spee's comments tonight and at the Planning Board that there is a lot of fear. She noted the fear is due to buildings that have been constructed that citizens have had issues with. Mr. Chave responded the ADB and Planning Board looked at it differently. From a practical standpoint, they felt the height limits were established at 30 feet and the discussion is really about the overall fagade and design of the building, not what occurs above 25 feet. Councilmember Bloom asked what the highest part of the Gregory Building is, recognizing that portions of buildings can be higher than the height limit due to the topography. Mr. Chave answered the overall height of the Gregory was 30 feet. He referred to the photo of the building with the curved roof which looks like a 2-story building at the street, but is a 4-story building down the hill. The opposite happens on the other side of the street where the uphill slope is behind the building. The Gregory appears taller because it takes advantage of the slope behind the building. That is a function of the way height limits are calculated and the topography. There has been discussion in the past about establishing height limits at the street front; but that was not done because it was such a huge change. Councilmember Bloom asked how tall the front of the Gregory Building is. Mr. Chave guessed it was 33- 34 feet and the back of the building was less than 30 feet. Councilmember Bloom observed that was the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 8 reason citizens view this as a height increase; some buildings seem quite large due to the topography. Mr. Chave agreed a building's height calculation depends on the site's topography. In response to the comment that the City was not getting anything in return, Mr. Clifton assured the City was getting something in return — BD1 design standards applied to the BD2-4 zones. He noted the BD1 design standards were adopted after the development that Councilmember Bloom referred to. The two developments that have occurred since then, the banks, particularly the one at P and Main Street, would not have been allowed under the proposed design standards because they do not reflect the desired downtown urban form. The bank building looks like it belongs in a suburban office park; it would have been better to gut the existing building and build around the fagade than to build that building. He found it interesting that the Council was fearful when they had already approved BD1 guidelines that require a 15- foot first floor ceiling height which allows a 30-foot building in the most concentrated and intimate area of the downtown, but did not want to allow that in the rest of downtown. He noted the intent of the BD1 design standards was to require building design and construction that reflected the architectural style that many in the community find attractive such as the Beeson building, Chantrelle's, Edmonds Theater, the Starbucks building, etc. He found the 15-foot step -back arbitrary and had never understood why it was imposed. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED CODE CHANGES AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL TO INCLUDE THE PROVISION EXEMPTING SMALL DECORATIVE BLADE SIGNS FROM SIGN CODE AREA CALCULATION LIMITATIONS. Councilmember Peterson commented by adopting the design standards, it is no longer a tradeoff, it is forcing good design which is a great step toward ensuring buildings fit the feel of downtown. Although not anti -development, the design standards are the City showing a heavier hand and requiring good building design regardless of the height. As Mr. Clifton pointed out, these design standards are required in BD1, a zone that citizens are adamant about protecting, and it makes sense to expand them to the surrounding zones. Amendment #1 MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD A SENTENCE THAT THE BUILDINGS SHALL ECHO HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT HORIZONTALLY. Mayor Pro Tern Petso referred to Mr. Chave's indication that it would be a simple matter to ensure buildings demonstrate horizontal rhythm by adding a sentence to the ordinance. Mr. Chave responded the intent is stated in the code. He displayed a picture of a block that reflected building rhythm, noting the additional language would not prohibit or otherwise restrict construction of a large building, but it would address the fagade and appearance at the street. Vote on Amendment #1 UPON ROLL CALL, THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM, AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Amendment #2 MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE STEP -BACKS, ADOPT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES BUT LEAVE THE BUILDING HEIGHTS AT 25 FEET. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 9 Councilmember Peterson reiterated the design standards were created with a great deal of public input for the most intimate area of the City, around the fountain, and he did not understand the reasoning behind Mayor Pro Tern Petso's motion. He pointed out many of the buildings on the Historic Register could not be built with a height limit of 25 feet. If the goal is an historical element, which he supports, he questioned how that could be accomplished with this motion. Councilmember Bloom recalled during a past discussion there was an indication that incentive zoning was included in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked if the option for incentive zoning applied to all zones. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the City Council always adopts incentive zoning anywhere in the City it wished. Councilmember Bloom asked what would be required to adopt incentive zoning to allow an additional 5 feet with certain amenities. Mr. Taraday referred to the memo his office prepared regarding incentive zoning, explaining there needs to be a careful balance between the public benefit that is sought and the deviation that the City is willing to accommodate. The tradeoff only works if the benefit and deviation are in balance; just the right amount of public benefit and just the right amount of incentive to the developer. That needs to be carefully considered and he was uncertain that there had been any analysis regarding how much going from 25 to 30 feet was worth economically and what a developer would be willing to provide in the way of an amenity to gain the additional 5 feet in height. The drafting of the incentive is a simple process; the analysis of whether it will actually work to generate the amenity has not been done with regard to an increase from 25 to 30 feet. Councilmember Bloom asked whether development agreements could be used to allow an additional 5 feet and get something in exchange. Mr. Taraday said staff could be asked to develop a proposal that would accomplish that and bring it to the Planning Board for review and ultimately to the City Council. Councilmember Johnson commented she had been following this issue for some time and it was both simple and confusing. In the interest of clarity for elected officials, developers, staff and citizens, Planning Board Chair Reed suggested changing the minimum height from 25 feet to 30 feet. It was her understanding the building height was 30 feet prior to the adoption of step -backs and it will be 30 feet once the step -back requirement is eliminated, yet the table indicates the height is 25 feet. At the very least, this is a PR nightmare. She suggested being clear about what the standards were, what they are and what they will be. She agreed the 15-foot step -back was not a good idea. She referred to Figure 16.43.4 that illustrates uphill and downhill examples, observing that depending on the topography, the frontage could be above 30 feet. She summarized the goal was improved communication between advisory boards and the City Council; her preference would have been for the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee to have reviewed the Planning Board's recommendation so that there could have been an in- depth discussion with staff. In the interest of expediency and because this has been discussed since 2011, she supported making a decision tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Johnson's comments that the goal was clarity and pointing out 25 + 5 = 30 feet. The proposal simplifies the regulations. She referred to Roger Brooks' suggestion #5, keep it simple. The amendment would require buildings to echo historical horizontal design. She agreed this is a PR nightmare in that this has been going on since 2011. She summarized the step -back was being removed and building heights were not being raised because 25 + 5 = 30 feet. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas disliked step -backs particularly in shorter buildings. She spoke in favor of blade signs. She supported the amendment to keep building heights at 25 feet. Vote on Amendment #2 UPON ROLL CALL, THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS AND BLOOM, AND MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, YAMAMOTO, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 10 Mayor Pro Tem Petso said she will not support the main motion; in order for her to support the main motion, both amendments would have needed to pass. She thanked everyone for their work on this; the positive is improved design standards will be adopted and they will be further improved before final adoption via the amendment. Councilmember Bloom echoed Mayor Pro Tem Petso's comments, stating she supported the removal of the step -back requirement and supported blade signs but would vote against the main motion due to the 30-foot height limit. Councilmember Johnson expressed her support for extending the BD1 design standards to the BD2, 3 and 4 zones. Vote on Main Motion UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO VOTING NO. Mayor Pro Tem Petso declared a brief recess. 7. EDMONDS STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN — PRESENTATION OF DRAFT FINAL REPORT. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton reported the Planning Board (PB) and Economic Development Commission (EDC) conducted a joint meeting open to the public on January 23, 2013. The City Council was also invited. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for Beckwith Consulting Group (BCG) to present information related to a Draft Strategic Action Plan Report dated December 21, 2013. PB and EDC members asked questions and discussed next steps with Mr. Beckwith. Following the January 23, 2013 joint PB/EDC meeting, Mr. Beckwith submitted a revised Draft Strategic Action Plan dated February 8, 2013 to the City. The document was forwarded to the City Council, PB and EDC members, City staff, Chamber, Senior Center, etc. The document was also provided to the Strategic Action Plan subcommittee consisting of City Council/PB/EDC members and City staff. All entities were asked to review the document and provide comments. On March 5, 2013, the Strategic Action Plan Committee met to discuss the February 8, 2013 document. During the meeting, the committee focused primarily on BCG's proposed five strategic objectives, related plan actions, who/which entity would perform in a lead capacity and as participants, etc. Using comments provided during the meeting, revisions were made to the document and clean/redlined versions were again provided to City Council, PB and EDC members, City staff, Chamber of Commerce, Senior Center, and others and each was asked to provide comments by Friday, March 22, 2013. The redlined document and comments submitted by reviewers were then sent to BCG to give them time to review and prepare the final draft products for the April 2, 2013 City Council meeting. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to provide Tom Beckwith an opportunity to present information related to the Final Draft Strategic Action Plan. Following the presentation, the City Council may be interested in conducting a public hearing on the Final Draft Strategic Action Plan or the Council could approve the Plan tonight in order to begin implementation. Mr. Clifton introduced Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting Group, who introduced Steve Price, Beckwith Consulting Group. Mr. Beckwith provided an overview of the Strategic Action Planning process: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 11 Purpose • Why? o Economic trends impacted Edmond's fiscal sustainability requiring the city to make strategic decisions about services and projects that reflect citizens desires and aspirations. • What? o Short (3-5 year) and midterm (5-10 year) actions by the city and all other possible participant parties with which to integrate Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facility Program (CFP), and annual city budgets. • Who? o Community organizations and interest groups, business owners, employees, customers, young adults, the public at large, and finally a random survey of registered voter households. • How? o Overview by 31 member Joint Committee composed of City Council, Economic Development Commission (EDC), and Planning Board (PB). • Result? o 86 specific actions with citywide priorities, lead agents and participants, schedules, and performance measures (plus 2 added but not ranked). Process — Six joint Committee Retreats • Retreat #1: Validated the process and scope of work • Retreat #2: Reviewed demographic/socioeconomic scans • Retreat #3: Reviewed fiscal trends in Edmonds and Washington cities and Budgeting for Objectives (BFO) approach • Retreat 44: Reviewed results of the focus group sessions, surveys of businesses, employees, customers, young adults, and residents; the 3 public charrettes, and the open house • Retreat #5: Reviewed results of the open house survey and refined the contents of the random sample survey of registered voter households • Retreat 46: Reviewed results of the random sample survey of registered voter households and the implementation process Process — Public Outreach Focus group sessions 20 focus group sessions (Appendix B) 96 Adult resident survey mail -back and internet (Appendix C) 681 Business owner survey mail -back survey (Appendix D) 219 Employee survey mail -back and internet (Appendix E) 86 Customer survey mail -back and internet (Appendix F) 484 Young adult mail -back and internet (Appendix G) 119 Charrettes 2 adult and 1 young adult (Appendix H) 150 Open house hand -back and internet (Appendix I) 213 Voter survey random sample controlled mail -back and internet (Appendix J) 466 Total Participations (including some multiple events per person) 2,514 Mr. Beckwith reviewed the result of the Strategic Action Planning Process. Strategic objectives (the 86 action tasks are organized around these five) 1. Economic health, vitality, and sustainability a. Foster a dynamic and diverse economy b. Take advantage of special and unique characteristics c. Enhance economic and employment opportunities d. Build on the community's history, heritage, natural resources, and livability to promote Edmonds as a tourist destination e. Effectively develop, market, and promote Edmonds arts and cultural heritage and brand (Arts & Culture) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 12 f. Promote a permit and licensing process to promote business recruitment, expansion, and retention 2. Maintain, enhance, and create a sustainable environment a. Build a community that balances protection, economic health, and social needs 3. Maintain and enhance Edmonds community character and quality of life 4. Develop and maintain a transportation and infrastructure system to meet current and future needs a. Create efficient, effective, and balanced transportation system to meet current and future needs b. Provide quality services, facilities, and infrastructure 5. Responsible, accountable, and responsive government a. Provide efficient and effective delivery of service b. Promote and encourage an active and involved community c. Ensure a safe and secure environment for residents, businesses, and visitors Mr. Beckwith reviewed an example of an action task which includes the lead, ranking, complexity, months, strategic objective, participants, implementation schedule, and potential performance measures. Next, he reviewed Strategic Action Plan Implementation Particulars: Strategic actions and priority or rank • Who defined the strategic action tasks? o Public input from focus group sessions, surveys, and charrettes helped define the actions that were desired to be accomplished within the next 10 years in the city regardless of who would be the implementing agent. • Who defined the priorities and what were they? o Voter household survey ranked each and every action on a scale of 1-5 where 1 was the lowest and 5 the highest priority. The scores were grouped into 1-2, 3, and 4-5 scores then ranked where 4-5 scores were: 68%-50% = very high 29 = 34% 49%-40% = moderate -high 24 = 28% 39%-32% = moderate -low 15 = 17% 32%-21 % = low 15 = 17% 21%-13% = very low 3 = 3% • What are the financial implications of the task priorities? o The action tasks, including some of the city tasks, do not compete for the same source of funds. Many of the action tasks will be accomplished by parties with funds other than the city — Port, WSDOT, Chamber, etc. • What do the priorities signify? o The priorities indicate voter household opinions of the overall priority of each and all actions on a citywide basis (e.g., the survey sample) for accomplishment within the next 10 years regardless of who would be the implementing agent or the source of financing. • How will the city use the priorities for city actions? o Where the city is the lead agent, the priorities will be used in the Budget for Objectives (BFO) process to determine how the city's limited financial and staff resources will be budgeted or allocated amongst the city's lead actions. • How will the priorities be used where the city is not the lead? o Depending on whom the lead agent(s) is, the organization will likely follow the same process as the city in determining how to allocate resources to accomplish the action tasks. • Will the action tasks be accomplished in rank order? o Not likely nor should that be an objective. Some of the action tasks will require lead times necessary to form participant groups, secure outside funding, conduct environmental reviews, etc. Consequently, even if a task is a high priority it may take a number of months or years to fully initiate and achieve results. • Should a low priority task be ignored or deferred? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 13 o Not if the lead agent is successful in getting it accomplished or primed for accomplishment. The Strategic Action Plan is opportunistic and multifaceted looking to implement as many community desired actions as possible involving as many participant interests in the community as possible as events and circumstances allow. Should the list of action tasks be reduced or tasks eliminated? o It is not necessary to eliminate an action if it scores a moderate -low to very low priority if there is an interest group who is willing to take the lead and implement the action without unduly using city funds or resources. The Strategic Action Plan is holistic defining all actions city residents wished to see accomplished within the next 6-10 years without limitations on who would be the party to implement or fund them. Complexity • What does complexity mean? o Complexity refers to the degree of ease or difficulty that may be involved in implementing each action task. Low complexity tasks may involve a single implementing agent following a simple process. High complexity tasks may involve multiple agents, including where the city is not the lead or the authorizing agent, and a complex process that involves public participation, environmental assessments, permits, hearings, and other procedures. • Who determined complexity? o A subgroup of the Joint Committee and Department Directors determined the complexity assessments ranging from low, moderate, high, and very high. Months and Implementation Schedule • What do months mean? o Months refer to the probable production time involved in implementing an action task accounting for the specific steps that would be involved in implementing an action task and its degree of complexity. An ongoing entry indicates the action task is a continuous activity. Who determined months? o A subgroup of the Joint Committee and Department Directors determined the probable number of months that would be involved in each task. How do months relate to an implementation schedule? o The Strategic Action Plan defines the action tasks desired to be implemented within the next 6-10 years. The schedules shown assume each task would be initiated as soon as possible and extend through the number of months assigned to the task. In reality, actual schedules will depend on who the lead agent is, how many other tasks they are responsible for, what complexities are involved in the implementation, when funding is available, and other opportunistic variables. Participants and Lead Participants • Who are the participants and how were they determined? o The participant lists include all parties who will be affected by or on an individual action task. The lists were determined from the focus group sessions, survey comments, charrettes, and by the consultants and staff. • Who are the lead agents? o The lead agents are assumed to be the primary implementing party, where there is a single agent, or the facilitating and implementing parties where there are multiple leads. In some instances the lead agent may be the authorizing or approving agent — as in City Council. How were the lead agents selected? • How were the lead agents selected? o In some instances lead agents were self-selected based on the actions they proposed during the focus group sessions, survey comments, or charrettes. In other instances, the lead agents Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 14 are presumed to be the most likely party who has the predominant interest and benefit in the action, and the resources with which to accomplish or facilitate the action with other affecting or affected participants. How did the action task priorities distribute where the City is the lead agent versus others? Lead Agent VH MH ML L VL Total Edmonds Only 10 12% 8 9% 9 10% 8 9% 0 0% 35 41 % Edmonds w/other leads 13 15% 8 9% 3 3% 3 3% 1 1% 28 33% Other leads w/Edmonds 4 5% 2 2% 2 2% 2 2% 1 1% 11 13% Other leads only 2 2% 6 7% 1 1% 2 2% 1 1% 12 14% Total 1 2 34% 6 28% 1 17% 21 17% 1 3% 86 100% • How are the lead agents distributed between the city and others? o Though Edmonds elected officials and staff are involved in a largenumber of action tasks, they are not the lead or primarily implementing party in a large number of them — such as in the business district development, arts and culture, hospital, etc. • Who are the other lead agents? o There are a large number of other public agents (Port of Edmonds, WSDOT, Sound Transit) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs — Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, Chamber of Commerce) listed as lead agents who have authority, responsibility, or benefit from an action task for which they are listed as lead. • Will this require additional organizations? o It could, depending on who the participants and the lead agents determine will be most effective and representative of the costs and benefits. • What will result if the lead is not interested or able? o Then the lead will pass to another interested party or parties or the action will not be accomplished. Performance Measures • What are the suggested performance measures? o The performance measures are indicators or benchmarks by which to measure the progress and effectiveness of the implementation of each action task. A low score on a performance measure indicates the action task is not achieving the desired result and may need to be reassessed or revised to achieve the results listed in the performance measure. • How were the performance measures determined? o The performance measures were defined by existing city benchmarks, by comparison with benchmarks from other cities, and from objective parameters defined by the nature of the action task function. Additional performance measures may be added as action tasks are further defined and implemented • How will the performance measures be gauged? o Some of the performance measures are objective measurements — i.e., the number of tons recycled per year, miles to the nearest park, etc. Others depend on community surveys where the public indicates the degree to which they are satisfied with various conditions — such as perception of safety, access to jobs, satisfaction with appearances, etc. Strategic Action Plan Updates • When will the Strategic Action Plan be updated? o Ideally, this Strategic Action Plan defines key objections, tasks, responsibilities, schedules, performance measures, and other particulars for the next 6-10 years concurrent with updates to the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Program (CFP), and annual city budgets. However, should an unforeseen event require, the Strategic Action Plan can be updated if and when City Council deems necessary. Mr. Beckwith described initiating the Strategic Action Plan — what to do next: • Finalize the draft document and complete Council hearings. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 15 o Review and confirm action task complexity, months, lead agents, participating parties, schedules, performance measures, and other particulars with which to initiate action. To the question whether the Council needs to adopt or approve the plan, Confirm suggested lead agents and participants. o Assign the action tasks to the lead agents and work with them, city included, in formulating detailed contents, schedules, funds, and other particulars. Where necessary, create new ad hoc groups to take the lead on tasks involving multiple lead agents and interests. Coordinate with other city, public agency, and NGO programs. o Update city documents including the Comprehensive Plan, CFP, annual city budgets, and other agency and NGO plans, projects, and programs to reflect the strategic objectives, action tasks, and performances defined in the Strategic Action Plan, Monitor performance and adjust particulars as necessary. o Score and evaluate performance of each lead agent and participants on the accomplishment of the action tasks using the performance evaluation measures or benchmarks to make adjustments, revise approaches, and other particulars. To the question whether the Council needs to adopt or approve the plan, Mr. Beckwith explained adopt means it becomes a formal document. He preferred the Council approve the Plan to give staff some direction about what they wanted to achieve and so that the non-public players have a sense that it is okay to pursue their objectives. Mr. Beckwith reviewed what can be initiated in the next 12 months: • Pending update to the Park, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan. o Could initiate work on up to 17 action tasks including Anderson Center, Yost Pool, Senior Center, Civic and Woodway Fields, youth activities and participations, off -road trails, on - road bike networks, and a parks fiscal sustainability strategy among others where Parks is the lead, shares the lead, or may facilitate others. • Pending update to the Cultural Arts Plan (CAP). o Could initiate work on up to 10 action tasks including branding and themes, market surveys and promotions, central clearinghouse, cultural arts website, and funding 4th Avenue cultural corridor, among others where Cultural Services Division is the lead, shares the lead, or may facilitate others. • Pending update to the Cultural Arts Plan (CAP). o The PROS and CAP planning process could initiate work on 27 of the 86 identified actions tasks or 3 1 % of the total tasks over the next year! Mr. Beckwith provided examples from the Chehalis Renaissance Project: • What is the Chehalis Renaissance Plan? o A citywide plan with projects in community building, economic development, quality design, traffic and parking, and downtown development. • What is the overall goal — the bottom line? o Make the Chehalis area a more attractive place in which to live, enhance job opportunities and involvement of youth, increase tourism traffic, and grow the retail base to enhance local shopping. • What is the mission of the Chehalis Community Renaissance Team (CCRT)? o Driven by voluntary leadership, broad community participation, and using disciplined project management - implement the Council -approved plan. • What is different about the Chehalis Renaissance Project and the Chehalis Community Renaissance Team (CCRT)? o Driven by volunteers — the city is a partner. o Counts on and encourages citizens to provide leadership and work in partnership with CCRT. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 16 o Relies primarily upon private investments and donations. o Success is a combination of many small, some medium, and a few large projects. o A chance for citizen volunteers to put a permanent stamp on the Chehalis area. 21 active CCRT members. • CCRT has completed 21 action tasks to date. • CCRT is working on 15 projects. Mr. Beckwith summarized the message to the community at large is that we are in this together. This is not the community defining their wishes and then asking when they will get done. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Edmonds already has a number of volunteer groups that do a variety of things. She asked who becomes the ringleader and if it would be Mr. Clifton. Mr. Beckwith answered the ones where the City is the lead, a lead will have to be identified. For example if it is related to parks, the lead will be Ms. Hite or if is related to arts, the lead will be Ms. Chapin. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Roger Brooks' presentation and his recommendation to get rid of the Strategic Plan and have an Action Plan instead. She asked Mr. Beckwith his thoughts on that, recognizing this was an Action Plan. Mr. Beckwith explained when planning first began in the 1960s, it was very process oriented. The public is comfortable with that process. The trend now has been what is being done/achieved. The City has plenty of documents that identify the goals and vision; the community wanted to identify specific issues they wanted done or improved upon. The difference between a Strategic Plan and an Action Plan is this plan emphasizes who is responsible, how success is measured, how complex it is, how to get started, etc. He summarized this plan is a complement to other efforts. Mayor Pro Tern Petso relayed one of her concerns is the presence of so many low priority items on the list for which the City is the lead. Her concern was these items would divert staff time away from things that were not identified in the questionnaire but were of importance to the Council. For example pages 14-15 of the Strategic Action Plan have four low priority items regarding making code amendments to encourage mixed use development in various parts of town. Those items did not generate a lot of support and she was concerned staff would not be working on the code rewrite if they were working on these low priority items. The code rewrite has been underway for several years and offers the potential to reduce land use litigation and ensure good development and fair treatment. She asked how the Council could be sure time was not diverted to low priority items in the Strategic Action Plan and away from other important business. Mr. Beckwith answered the original task was to create mixed use standards citywide. For the purposes of the survey, it was broken into ten different areas. He noted regulations were usually not a high priority but respondents identify with the area they live. He suggested not pursuing them as ten different areas, but rather as consolidated development regulations that address those areas. Some of the items will also be utilized in Budgeting For Objectives including the use of resources, budget availability, staff availability to determine which items are pursued. He did not expect the low priorities to be addressed in that process unless it was something that was easy, low hanging fruit. For example, wayfinding signs have been designed and just need to be funded. That would achieve a very visible result very quickly and show momentum although it is not one of the highest priorities. Mr. Price added the action items came out of the various citizen -based charrettes. The intent of the charrettes was to determine what the community thought was important. The comments from the charrettes were grouped by the consultant and staff into 86 tasks. Whether they are rated low, they were mentioned by the community as an item they wanted to see action on. Although a task may have been rated low compared to other tasks, it was identified by the community. He summarized in a way all the tasks are worthy of undertaking. Mayor Pro Tern Petso referred to the relocation of the Senior Center that generated 44% of the lowest possible ranking. She was concerned with adopting a Plan that included that as a task when it was not a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 17 top priority. She wondered whether that 44% would have said they did not want to include it as a task if they had been given that option. Mr. Beckwith explained the reason the registered voter survey was done at the end was to determine prioritization of City funds. If something is a high priority, consideration needs to be given to how to use City funds on that task and if it is a low priority, that is an answer when someone asks why an item is not being pursued. With regard to the Senior Center, not all the respondents use the Senior Center and he would not expect the entire city to rank that as a high priority. The question did not say City funds would be used; it said the City may help facilitate what happens there but the seniors must pay for it. Although it is a low priority citywide, he cautioned against removing it and suggested the seniors be allowed to determine how to do it. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas asked if the Strategic Action Plan was a roadmap for Budgeting By Priorities/Budgeting For Objectives. Mr. Beckwith explained one of the strategies in Budgeting For Objectives is to ask departments to develop a strategy for achieving an action with an emphasis on alternatives; some objectives will require a multi -departmental action plan to achieve it. He noted in the first year of Budgeting For Objectives, most cities keep it internal, allow only city departments to bid and later allow non -city entities to bid. He noted the Strategic Action Plan focused on what citizens wanted to achieve that they thought was not being done. There are a number of tasks that would need to be included in Budgeting For Objectives that were not considered problems that needed to be addressed such as infrastructure, public safety, etc. and actions still need to address those. Budgeting For Objectives is much more comprehensive than only the tasks in the Strategic Action Plan. Councilmember Johnson noted Mr. Beckwith was able to easily identify the three lowest priorities and asked if he could identify the top 10-12 priorities among the 29 top priorities. Mr. Beckwith answered that would be difficult off the top of his head; noting each category contained 2-3 tasks that were ranked very high. Of the very high tasks, 29 involve only the City; the majority involve the City helping someone else. Councilmember Johnson wanted to be able to identify the highest priorities and to easily communicate them. There is a tremendous amount of information in the Plan but summarizing it is very difficult because it includes 86 different action tasks. Mr. Beckwith responded the highest priorities are identified on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the Strategic Action Plan. The highest priorities are distributed between categories and have diverse lead agencies. He encouraged the City to look to other partners. For example in Chehalis, the city designed a wayfinding sign program, but the Port, Chamber and Economic Development District paid to implement it. Councilmember Johnson advised the appendix identifies both mandatory and discretionary services. Mandatory services included public safety, utilities, streets and some general services; discretionary services include parks and recreation, cultural services and library. She was concerned with balancing the responsibility to operate the City and the priorities in the Strategic Plan in Budgeting For Objectives. Mr. Beckwith responded one of the issues, even without the recession, was the initiative that limited property tax increases to 1%/year. The legislature requires the city to fund mandatory services first but innovative ways can be considered to fund discretionary services. For example, he suggested going back to the community to ask how to pay for them such as a general levy lid lift, a levy lid lift dedicated to a specific purpose, a Metropolitan Park District, etc. Mayor Pro Tem Petso observed there were two alternatives, 1) approve or adopt the plan, or 2) hold a public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a public hearing needed to be held when the Strategic Plan was the result of a great deal of public involvement. Mr. Clifton clarified it was not staff's recommendation to hold a public hearing; he listed tonight's presentation as an action item in the event the Council wanted to conduct a public hearing. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 18 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN. Mayor Pro Tern Petso preferred to hold a public hearing despite the extensive public process to create the plan. She pointed out it has been a long time since the survey was done and the questions determined. She would like to hear whether there were any serious objections to the tasks that were ranked as low priorities and which of the very high priorities were truly the most important to citizens. She did not support approving the Plan tonight for those reasons. Councilmember Peterson expressed his support for the motion, pointing out the Plan would never be perfect; there would always be tasks that someone does not like. The public input, including the telephone survey, were legitimate ways to hear from the public. He was pleased with the rankings and felt it was time to move forward and get other players outside City government involved. He noted most of the items on the list would come back to the Council. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Strategic Action Plan is a living document, priorities may shift and not all 29 high priorities could be accomplished in one year. There are a tremendous number of volunteer groups in the City that are willing to help and are just waiting for the opportunity. She supported approving the plan tonight. Councilmember Johnson commented Beckwith Consulting Group conducted an extensive public outreach; more people were involved in this process than was anticipated. It is a snapshot in time; what people thought when asked these questions, participated in the charrette or attended a public meeting. As a Strategic Action Plan the Council is not obligated to any decisions; it reflects the work done for this plan. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (6-1), MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO VOTING NO. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Petso had no report. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis reported she will be out of town in Charlotte, North Carolina, for the April 9 and 16 Council meetings. The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee meeting will be held on April 8 at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall. The meeting will include review of the WRIA 8 pre -application for the Edmonds Marsh, special event contracts, development agreements and incentive zoning. Councilmember Buckshnis wished Jack Bevan a Happy Birthday, noting he helped her with the Adopt -A - Park project as well as Adopt -A -Flower Basket and Adopt-A-Flowerbed. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas thanked the City for the Mayors Day of Recognition for National Service Proclamation. She encouraged everyone to volunteer their time for whatever cause they chose. Councilmember Peterson thanked staff, particularly Mr. Clifton, Ms. Hite, Ms. Chapin and others who put a lot of time into the Strategic Action Plan. Next, he reported Mayor Earling and the Sister City Commission, a delegation of 24 Edmonds residents, are visiting Hekinan, Japan. This is the 25th anniversary of the Sister City relationship with Hekinan. Councilmember Johnson congratulated former Councilmember Jack Bevan who celebrates his 90th birthday today. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 19 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the executive session was only an update and could be delayed until the next regular Council meeting. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not necessary as the Council meeting was adjourned without the Council meeting in executive session. 12. ADJOURN The Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 20 AM-5666 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Ronald Cone Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action "information Subject Title Submitted By: 3. B. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Approval of claim checks #201326 through #201472 dated April 4, 2013 for $1,847,241.94 (reissued checks #201395 $118.27 & #201396 $104.26), and claim checks #201473 through #201594 dated April 11, 2013 for $188,617.98 (reissued check #201527 $68.49). Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60108 through #60123 and #60136 for $469,312.58, benefit checks #60124 through #60135 and wire payments of $201,375.27 for the period March 16, 2013 through March 31, 2013. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: 2013 2,706,547.77 Fiscal Impact: Claims $2,035,859.92 Claims reissued checks $291.02 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $469,312.58 Payoll Benefit checks and wire payments $201,375.27 Total Payroll $670,687.85 Attachments Claim Checks 04-04-13 Claim Checks 04-11-13 Payroll Benefit 03-31-13 Payroll Summary 03-31-13b Payroll Summary 03-31-13a Proi ect Number 04-11-13 Inbox Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Ronald Cone 04/11/2013 03:06 PM Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 03:09 PM Dave Earling 04/11/2013 04:32 PM Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 04:43 PM Started On: 04/11/2013 08:04 AM vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201326 4/4/2013 072627 911 ETC INC 22883 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total : 100.00 201327 4/4/2013 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC C113033366 BULLDOG GROMMETS BULLDOG GROMMETS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 221.50 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 39.99 Total : 261.49 201328 4/4/2013 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 317538 MEADOWDALE SERVICE AGREEMI MEADOW DALE SERVICE AGREEMI 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 7.12 Total : 82.12 201329 4/4/2013 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC BLD 2013.0135 Refund of online permit fees - site not Refund of online permit fees - site not 001.000.257.620 120.00 Tota I : 120.00 201330 4/4/2013 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000007503 Traffic Control - 12" Red Ball LEDXL Traffic Control - 12" Red Ball LEDXL 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 557.40 12" Yellow Ball LEDXL 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 753.52 12" Green Ball XI 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 72.25 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 131.41 Total : 1,514.58 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 201331 4/4/2013 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 13-0140 201332 4/4/2013 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM 201333 4/4/2013 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC 201334 4/4/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 201335 4/4/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 201336 4/4/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 201337 4/4/2013 001527 AW WA AM I DO 16498 WG55 655-6725928 0418384-IN 0414678-IN 7000626864 PO # Description/Account Amount WWTP MONTHLY JANITORIAL SER WWTP MONTHLY JANITORIAL SER 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 334.00 Total : 334.00 UKULELE UKULELE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 184.80 Total : 184.80 WWTP LABORATORY NPDES TEST WWTP LABORATORY NPDES TEST 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 165.00 Total : 165.00 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 41.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 3.94 Total : 45.38 WWTP - DIESEL FUEL WWTP - DIESEL FUEL 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 3,082.03 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 292.80 Total : 3,374.83 WWTP DIESEL FUEL SUPPLIES WWTP DIESEL FUEL SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 3,328.12 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 316.18 Total : 3,644.30 2013 Annual Dues - J Waite & Phil Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201337 4/4/2013 001527 AWWA (Continued) 2013 Annual Dues - J Waite & Phil 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 1,811.00 Tota I : 1,811.00 201338 4/4/2013 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0313 Background checks Background checks 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 90.00 Total : 90.00 201339 4/4/2013 074371 BAKERCORP 1402342-001 E1 FD.DEWATERING EQUIP E1 FD.Dewatering Equip 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,548.33 Total: 1,548.33 201340 4/4/2013 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 3043 CEMETERY AD CEMETERYAD 130.000.64.536.20.44.00 108.00 Tota I : 108.00 201341 4/4/2013 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 4972 E2GA.SERVICES THRU 2/22/13 E2GA.Services thru 2/22/13 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 2,093.65 E2GA.Services thru 2/22/13 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 2,558.90 Total: 4,652.55 201342 4/4/2013 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING & 055701 CONCRETE RECYCLE CONCRETE RECYCLE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 574.87 Total : 574.87 201343 4/4/2013 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON AUBUCHON 16452 JOY OF ART 16452 JOY OF ART 16452 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 165.00 Tota I : 165.00 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201344 4/4/2013 073817 BOWERS, DOUGLAS TBD REFUND D BOWERS TBD REFUND 2013 D BOWERS TBD REFUND 2013 D BOWERS 139.000.344.70.000.00 20.00 Tota I : 20.00 201345 4/4/2013 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMAN 16370 YOGA 16370 YOGA 16370 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 247.23 YOGA 16376 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 552.24 YOGA 16394 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 315.00 YOGA 16381 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 511.20 YOGA 16373 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 504.45 YOGA 16392 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 702.90 YOGA 16399 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 508.28 Total : 3,341.30 201346 4/4/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12632199 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES C50 Contract charges for the C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 83.35 Contract charges for the C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Contract charges for the C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201346 4/4/2013 073029 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) Total : 273.74 201347 4/4/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12631529 WWTP CONTRACT 001-0601079-00 W WTP CONTRACT 001-0601079-00 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 Total : 85.80 201348 4/4/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12617186 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier MARCH 2O13 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14 12617187 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for MARCH 2O13 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for MARCH 2O13 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for MARCH 2O13 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for MARCH 2O13 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for MARCH 2O13 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.45.00 6.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59 PW Office Copier for MARCH 2O13 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201348 4/4/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.65.519.91.45.00 68.55 12617188 WATER SEWER COPIER Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.68 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.68 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71 Total : 441.15 201349 4/4/2013 068484 CEMEX LLC 9425492365 Roadway Liquid Asphalt Roadway Liquid Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 55.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 5.23 9425755463 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 210.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 19.95 Tota I : 290.18 201350 4/4/2013 074370 CERILLIANT CORPORATION 318755 WWTP - LAB ANALYSIS WWTP - LAB ANALYSIS 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 527.86 Total : 527.86 201351 4/4/2013 074166 CHILD ADVOCACY CTR OF SNO CO 0000000361 INV#0000000361 CUST#391 - EDMC CHILD INTERVIEW SPEC 1 ST QTR 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 944.35 Total : 944.35 201352 4/4/2013 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS BLD20130299 FAC - Trash Enclosure Permit Page: 6 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201352 4/4/2013 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS (Continued) FAC - Trash Enclosure Permit 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 75.00 Tota I : 75.00 201353 4/4/2013 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2460 E3FB.REIMBURSEMENT OF 50% OF E3FB.Reimbursement of 50% of Pert, 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 2,958.92 Total : 2,958.92 201354 4/4/2013 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TF WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TF 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 14.03 Total: 14.03 201355 4/4/2013 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE83710201 WWTP FACILITY REPAIR WWTP FACILITY REPAIR 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 18.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 10.03 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 2.67 Total : 30.70 201356 4/4/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS w2535508 WWTP - JANITORIAL SUPPLIES WWTP - JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 300.15 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 28.51 Tota I : 328.66 201357 4/4/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2533320 Fac Maint - Cleaners, Bleach, Furn Fac Maint - Cleaners, Bleach, Furn 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 569.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 54.08 Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201357 4/4/2013 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABS (Continued) Total : 623.38 201358 4/4/2013 073667 COBURN, LI COBURN 3/28/13 3.25 HOURS VOLLEYBALL GYM A7 3.25 HOURS VOLLEYBALL GYM A7 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 32.50 Total : 32.50 201359 4/4/2013 070323 COMCAST 8498310300721433 CEMETERY BUNDLE CEMETERY BUNDLE 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 116.50 Total: 116.50 201360 4/4/2013 074369 CONSOLIDATED FOODS INC 0263935-IN EGG HUNT CANDY EGG HUNT CANDY 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 61.54 0265525-IN EASTER CANDY EASTER CANDY 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 196.86 Tota I : 258.40 201361 4/4/2013 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING MARCH 2O13 DRY CLEANING FEB/MAR - EDMON CLEANING/LAUNDRY FEB/MAR 201 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 849.20 Tota I : 849.20 201362 4/4/2013 005965 CUES INC 383163 Sewer - Camera Repair Fees Sewer - Camera Repair Fees 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 671.44 Labor 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 200.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 63.79 Tota I : 935.23 201363 4/4/2013 072189 DATASITE 33182 INV#33182 ACCT#61515 - EDMOND SHREDDING 1 TOTE 3-14-13 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 40.00 Page: 8 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201363 4/4/2013 072189 072189 DATASITE (Continued) Total: 40.00 201364 4/4/2013 068190 DATEC INC 30638 INV#30638 - EDMONDS PD MOBILE DOCKING STATION 121.000.25.517.90.35.00 495.00 Freight 121.000.25.517.90.35.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 121.000.25.517.90.35.00 48.17 Total : 555.17 201365 4/4/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 329602 Unit 651 POL - Antennas Unit 651 POL - Antennas 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 131.20 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.23 Total : 152.43 201366 4/4/2013 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS March 2013 DRS MARCH 2O13 DRS March 2013 DRS contributions less 811.000.231.540 156,117.16 Total : 156,117.16 201367 4/4/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3348 MINUTE TAKING 3/26 City Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 342.00 Tota I : 342.00 201368 4/4/2013 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 03312013 STATE LOBBYIST MARCH 2O13 State lobbyist charges for March 201' 001.000.61.519.70.41.00 4,135.00 Tota I : 4,135.00 201369 4/4/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1707763 DOUGLAS FIR DOUGLAS FIR Page: 9 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201369 4/4/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 59.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.70 Tota I : 65.67 201370 4/4/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1731300 Fac Maint - Wet/Dry Vac Fac Maint - Wet/Dry Vac 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 99.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 9.50 1743380 FAC - Concrete Blocks, Patio Blocks, FAC - Concrete Blocks, Patio Blocks, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 188.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.93 1743402 FAC - Concrete Building Blocks FAC - Concrete Building Blocks 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 55.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.29 Tota I : 377.08 201371 4/4/2013 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 20540 100PC BIT 100PC BIT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.95 Total : 10.94 201372 4/4/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC E319 TUBING TUBING 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.57 Page: 10 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201372 4/4/2013 074302 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LL( (Continued) Total : 6.59 201373 4/4/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC E32213 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.34 Total : 15.29 201374 4/4/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20E WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20E 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 119.66 6-01130 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94" WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9< 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 25.63 6-01140 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 501 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 501 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 992.43 Tota I : 1,137.72 201375 4/4/2013 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 112237 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEME Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 Total : 152.00 201376 4/4/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0856601 MAINT PER COPYA6995 MAINT PER COPYA6995 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 19.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 1.82 0860231 MAINT PER COPYA7027 MAINT PER COPYA7027 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 95.21 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 9.04 Tota I : 125.22 Page: 11 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 201377 4/4/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0860241 201378 4/4/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 086029 201379 4/4/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 085510 PO # Description/Account Amount CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 C Meter charges 02/28/13 - 3/30/13 B&' 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 54.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 5.20 Total : 59.98 METER READING Meter Reading 3/30 to 4/30 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 188.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 17.94 Total : 206.78 WATER SEWER COPY USE Water Sewer Copy Use - 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.36 Water Sewer Copy Use - 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.35 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.51 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.51 PW COPY USE PW Copy Use MARCH 2O13- 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 13.17 PW Copy Use MARCH 2O13- 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 7.46 PW Copy Use MARCH 2O13- 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 7.46 PW Copy Use MARCH 2O13- 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.27 PW Copy Use MARCH 2O13- 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.27 PW Copy Use MARCH 2O13- 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.27 Page: 12 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201379 4/4/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 1.25 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 0.71 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.71 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.50 085549 FLEET COPY USE Fleet Copy Use MARCH 2O13 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.29 Tota I : 63.09 201380 4/4/2013 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG 16480 TAEKWON-DO 16480 TAEKWON-DO 16480 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 40.00 Tota I : 40.00 201381 4/4/2013 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 10175 CORNER PARK PLAQUE HOLDERS CORNER PARK PLAQUE HOLDERS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 349.23 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 33.18 Total : 382.41 201382 4/4/2013 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 21001 Sr Center Inducer Motor Repair Sr Center Inducer Motor Repair 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 932.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 13 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201382 4/4/2013 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 88.54 21565 City Hall - Air Conditioner Service anc City Hall - Air Conditioner Service anc 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,532.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 240.54 Total : 3,793.08 201383 4/4/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28049 ALUM. SLEEVE ALUM. SLEEVE 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 423.02 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.19 Total : 463.21 201384 4/4/2013 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 443 12096 CEMETERY LETTERING CEMETERY LETTERING 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 26.01 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 2.49 Total : 28.50 201385 4/4/2013 009880 FEDEX 2-216-12381 WWTP SHIPPING - RETURNED ITE WWTP SHIPPING - RETURNED ITE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 9.95 Total : 9.95 201386 4/4/2013 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 33113 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 7,950.00 Total : 7,950.00 201387 4/4/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC WP000234 Water - Large Blue Totes Water - Large Blue Totes 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 142.80 Page: 14 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201387 4/4/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.57 Tota I : 156.37 201388 4/4/2013 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH 16539 IRISH DANCE 16539 IRISH DANCE 16539 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 240.00 IRISH DANCE 16538 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 69.00 Total : 309.00 201389 4/4/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 41.74 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 70.08 Total : 111.82 201390 4/4/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GR WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GR 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.08 253-017-7256 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRAI WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRAI 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.18 425-771-5553 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESE, WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESE, 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 97.76 Tota I : 356.02 201391 4/4/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SF POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SF 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67 253-020-6656 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI Page: 15 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201391 4/4/2013 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 21.95 425-776-6829 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION A 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.40 Tota I : 175.02 201392 4/4/2013 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA GAVIOLA 16468 TAEKWON-DO 16468 TAEKWON-DO 16468 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 285.50 Tota I : 285.50 201393 4/4/2013 012198 GFOA 0153002 MEMBERSHIP #300168462 D SHAR Membership 5/1/13 - 4/30/14 - D Shai 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 250.00 Total : 250.00 201394 4/4/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9095332723 FLAGGING TAPE FLAGGING TAPE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.32 Total : 15.66 201395 4/4/2013 073755 GRAMANN, MARIAN 3-31725 RE:#1 001 -5004431 UTILITY BILL RE RE:#1 001 -5004431 Utility refund due 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 118.27 Total: 118.27 201396 4/4/2013 073754 GRAVES, EDWARD & MARCA 2-24615 RE:#1 001 -5013695 UTILITY BILL RE RE:#1 001 -5013695 Utility refund due 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 104.26 Tota I : 104.26 201397 4/4/2013 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007E2449 WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES - V WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES - V 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 495.00 Page: 16 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201397 4/4/2013 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS (Continued) Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 75.41 Tota I : 570.41 201398 4/4/2013 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007E2450 Water Quality - CL2 Analizer Pump H Water Quality - CL2 Analizer Pump H 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 323.28 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.01 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 31.85 Tota I : 367.14 201399 4/4/2013 074096 HENDERSON, YOUNG & COMPANY 544-1303 PARK/REC IMPACT FEE STUDY 7.3 PARK/REC IMPACT FEE STUDY 7.3 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 1,533.00 Total : 1,533.00 201400 4/4/2013 067099 HOLLEMAN, JOHN 33 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 1,715.69 Total : 1,715.69 201401 4/4/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2252791 WWTP- CREDENZA FOR CONFERE WWTP- CREDENZA FOR CONFERE 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 673.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 63.94 Tota I : 736.94 201402 4/4/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2253848 WWTP OFFICE SUPPLIES WWTP OFFICE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 172.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 16.42 Page: 17 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201402 4/4/2013 073548 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) Total : 189.22 201403 4/4/2013 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3671118 INV#3671118 CUST#100828 - EDMC 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPEF 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 246.20 HANDLING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 36.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.39 Total : 306.49 201404 4/4/2013 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE KEARNS 16476 TAEKWON-DO 16476 TAEKWON-DO 16476 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 196.00 TAEKWON-DO 16472 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 46.00 Total : 242.00 201405 4/4/2013 074340 KEYS ORGAN IZATIONALCONSULTING COE 0313 WWTP - COACHING SESSION WWTP - COACHING SESSION 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 480.00 Total : 480.00 201406 4/4/2013 074330 KING, BEN 3/16/13 - 3/31/13 GEOSPATIAL DATA COLLECTION & Geospatial Data Collection & Mappinc 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,090.98 Total: 1,090.98 201407 4/4/2013 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK Lawler3-2013 Training - Edmonds Comm College - Training - Edmonds Comm College- 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 393.41 Total : 393.41 201408 4/4/2013 061814 LEYDA, SHERRIE 32813 REFUND FOR TRAVEL TO TRAININi REFUND FOR TRAVEL TO TRAININi 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 112.35 Page: 18 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201408 4/4/2013 061814 061814 LEYDA, SHERRIE (Continued) Total : 112.35 201409 4/4/2013 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 134595 WWTP - HVAC PREVENTIVE MAIN? WWTP - HVAC PREVENTIVE MAIN? 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 522.92 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 49.68 Total : 572.60 201410 4/4/2013 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 463814-00 Fac Maint - Compressor Senco Fac Maint - Compressor Senco 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 125.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 11.88 Total : 136.88 201411 4/4/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 48276995 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 125.51 48474557 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 819.87 48544834 WWTP- REPAIR AND REPLACE WWTP- REPAIR AND REPLACE 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 241.69 Tota I : 1,187.07 201412 4/4/2013 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 15930 Microfilm services Microfilm services 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 437.24 Total : 437.24 201413 4/4/2013 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER 03/27/13 2.5 HOURS GYM MONITOR 3/27/20' 2.5 HOURS GYM MONITOR 3/27/20- 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 25.00 Tota I : 25.00 Page: 19 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201414 4/4/2013 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-249864 WWTP - OIL SEALS, WWTP - OIL SEALS, 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 99.45 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 9.45 Tota I : 108.90 201415 4/4/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0332085-IN Sewer - Gas Sensor Sewer - Gas Sensor 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 220.00 Water/Sewer - Bib Overalls 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 107.30 Water/Sewer - Bib Overalls 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 107.30 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 11.82 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 3.08 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 3.07 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 22.03 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 10.49 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 10.48 0340477-IN Water Sewer - Work Sweatshirts Water Sewer - Work Sweatshirts 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 156.20 Water Sewer - Work Sweatshirts 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 156.20 Freight 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 6.50 Freight 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 6.50 Page: 20 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201415 4/4/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 15.47 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 15.45 0341917-IN Sewer - NTRLE Gloves, and WYPALI Sewer - NTRLE Gloves, and WYPALI 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 135.05 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 36.21 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 16.27 Total : 1,039.42 201416 4/4/2013 064006 NORTH WEST INSTRUMENT SERVICES 12167 INV#12167 - EDMONDS PD ANALYTICAL & PRECISION BALAN( 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 285.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 27.08 Total : 312.08 201417 4/4/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-629553 RENTALS HAINES WHARF RENTALS HAINES WHARF 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 1-632658 RENTALS YOST POOL RENTALS YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99 1-636334 RENTALS HICKMAN PARK RENTALS HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.88 Tota I : 1,119.64 201418 4/4/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 050809 INV#050809 ACCT#520437 250POL HEAT SEAL POUCHES - LETTER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 35.61 POST IT NOTES 3x3 Page: 21 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 201418 4/4/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 201419 4/4/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 201420 4/4/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 25.94 BLACK RETRACTABLE PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 47.28 PATROL MEMO BOOKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.90 FILE FOLDERS JAN-DEC 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.76 HEAT SEAL POUCHES- INDEX 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.99 DYMO ADDRESS LABELS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.42 MEDIUM BINDER CLIPS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 1.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.02 Tota I : 161.60 040806 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 218.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 20.76 Tota I : 239.24 845877 PW Admin Supplies - Clip Boards PW Admin Supplies - Clip Boards 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 39.18 Sewer - HP Ink 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 49.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 3.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.66 947442 PW Admin Supplies PW Admin Supplies Page: 22 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201420 4/4/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 15.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 1.44 Total: 113.15 201421 4/4/2013 074365 OGONOWSKI, JAMES BLD 20120974 Overpayment of Plan Review Fee Overpayment of Plan Review Fee 001.000.257.620 226.00 Total : 226.00 201422 4/4/2013 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 23700 104TH AVE WEST 23700 104TH AVE WEST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.57 0060860 23700 104TH AVE W 23700 104TH AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 79.83 Total : 95.40 201423 4/4/2013 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR 4381039 Unit 775 - Radiator Unit 775 - Radiator 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 109.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.36 Total : 119.36 201424 4/4/2013 007800 PETTY CASH Jan01-March29 JANUARY 1 THRU MARCH 29 PETT ITE Meeting & Lunch - Bertrand Hous 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 25.00 Parking & ICC Meeting 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 3.00 Camera repair shipping charges 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 6.68 Charger cor & adapter for City I -Pad 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 14.50 Stormwater Inspection supplies, Ham Page: 23 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201424 4/4/2013 007800 PETTY CASH (Continued) 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 26.35 Mileage to WRIA8 and SCT meeting 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 46.78 Stormwater Inspection Supplies - 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 4.37 ICC Workshop - Charles Miller 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 20.00 Mileage to SCITT Meeting in Everett- 001.000.67.532.20.43.00 10.31 Parking at training seminar - Lief 001.000.62.524.20.43.00 12.00 Total : 168.99 201425 4/4/2013 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 03282013 REFILL POSTAGE METER 250-00299 Postage for City Meter 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 8,000.00 Total : 8,000.00 201426 4/4/2013 073150 POLLARD, ANDREA F 223 Flagging Class - 1 Storm Flagging Class - 1 Storm 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 75.00 2 Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 150.00 1- Water 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 75.00 Total : 300.00 201427 4/4/2013 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 206552 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L� Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei Page: 24 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201427 4/4/2013 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 2.89 206654 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L� Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 2.89 206664 Sewer - Cues Return Postage for Rer Sewer - Cues Return Postage for Rer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 15.46 206777 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L� Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 2.89 Tota I : 50.23 201428 4/4/2013 074368 PRICE MEDIA INC 13367 CONQUER THE HILL AD CONQUER THE HILL AD 001.000.64.571.22.44.00 270.00 Total : 270.00 201429 4/4/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 730531 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 25.04 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 25.04 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF Page: 25 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201429 4/4/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE (Continued) 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 22.54 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 28.80 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 12.52 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 11.26 Total : 125.20 201430 4/4/2013 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ 16425 FELDENKRAIS 16425 FELDENKRAIS 16425 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 120.00 Tota I : 120.00 201431 4/4/2013 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 13-036S 02-2013 CLEAN AIR ASSESSMENT Q2-13 Clean Air Assessment per RC\ 001.000.39.553.70.51.00 5,806.75 Total : 5,806.75 201432 4/4/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 791-880-700-4 SERVICE AT YOST POOL SERVICE AT YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 132.29 Total : 132.29 201433 4/4/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 525-492-600-8 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 265.16 532-232-313-9 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 761.57 Total : 1,026.73 201434 4/4/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000134574 MARKER PETERSON ROLOFF MARKER PETERSON ROLOFF 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 418.00 00000134754 MARKER INSCRIPTION Page: 26 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201434 4/4/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC (Continued) MARKER INSCRIPTION 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 Total: 518.00 201435 4/4/2013 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 004148 Storm Dump Fees Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,417.67 Total : 1,417.67 201436 4/4/2013 006841 RICOH USA INC 5025485395 Additional images MP171 SPF Additional images MP171 SPF 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 5.12 Total: 5.12 201437 4/4/2013 074161 ROGER URBANIAK URBANIAK 16561 GATHERING AND IDENTIYING 1656 GATHERING AND IDENTIYING 1656 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 49.50 Tota I : 49.50 201438 4/4/2013 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 1-866381 Unit 21 - 12V Unit 21 - 12V 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 203.56 Total : 203.56 201439 4/4/2013 074256 RYDIN DECAL 282178 RESIDENTIAL PARKING DECALS Residential Parking Decals 121.000.25.517.90.31.00 778.00 Freight 121.000.25.517.90.31.00 20.17 Total : 798.17 201440 4/4/2013 072725 SAGACITY CUSTOM PUBLISHING 2013-2487-2 PAYMENT FOR WA STATE TRAVEL Final payment on 2013 ad in WA Stat 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 911.09 Total: 911.09 Page: 27 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 201441 4/4/2013 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 201442 4/4/2013 071774 SEYMOUR, MARTA 201443 4/4/2013 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 201444 4/4/2013 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 201445 4/4/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 2318127 Storm - Cold Patch Asphalt Storm - Cold Patch Asphalt 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,255.22 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 119.25 Total : 1,374.47 SEYMOUR 03/27/2013 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 500.00 Total : 500.00 88202 E2FB.SERVICES THRU 3/16/13 E2FB.Services thru 3/16/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 13,593.43 Total : 13,593.43 Q2-2013 Q2-2013 FIRE SERVICES CONTRA( 02-2013 Fire Services Contract Payn 001.000.39.522.20.51.00 1,555,694.75 Total : 1,555,694.75 2013-2711-1 610 PINE ST 610 PINE ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.68 2015-5730-3 750 15TH ST 750 15TH ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 363.86 2016-1027-6 750 15TH ST 750 15TH ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.17 2017-6210-1 SPRINKLER SYSTEM SPRINKLER SYSTEM 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 145.69 2021-6153-5 OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER Page: 28 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201445 4/4/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 117.95 2044-6743-5 FIVE CORNERS SPRINKLER FIVE CORNERS SPRINKLER SYSTE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 85.88 Tota I : 761.23 201446 4/4/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 54.94 2004-2241-8 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,122.00 2015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 53.37 2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 50.41 2042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 121.52 Total: 3,402.24 201447 4/4/2013 037521 SNO CO TREASURER 00479000100302 2013 FIRST HALF SURFACE WATEI 2013 Surface Water Charges - 23009 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 263.49 Tota I : 263.49 201448 4/4/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 MONTHLY DISPOSAL FEES MONTHLY DISPOSAL FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 521.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.68 Tota I : 569.63 Page: 29 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 201449 4/4/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 201450 201451 201452 201453 4/4/2013 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4/4/2013 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Invoice 103583 103585 103586 103588 2498116-01 Q1-13 Leasehold Tax 4/4/2013 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3232347 4/4/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100468423.001 PO # Description/Account CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 Total Street - Work Jacket - T Hanson Street - Work Jacket - T Hanson 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 9.2% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 Total 01-13 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY 01-13 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY 001.000.237.220 Total Sewer - Earmuffs Sewer - Earmuffs 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total Traffic Control - Supplies Traffic Control - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Amount 550.68 674.47 555.23 459.89 2,240.27 84.00 7.73 91.73 5,653.60 5,653.60 48.26 4.58 52.84 108.45 Page: 30 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201453 4/4/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.30 S100473529.001 PS - Fluorescent Lights PS - Fluorescent Lights 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 178.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.97 Total : 314.33 201454 4/4/2013 073675 STUART SUMNER TBD REFUND - 2 TBD REFUND 2013 - S SUMNER FC TBD REFUND 2013 - S SUMNER FC 139.000.344.70.000.00 20.00 TBD REFUND -1 TBD REFUND - S SUMNER FOR 86 TBD REFUND - S SUMNER FOR 86 139.000.344.70.000.00 20.00 Total : 40.00 201455 4/4/2013 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER TALLMAN 03/29/13 SOFTBALL ATTENDANT 25.5 HOUR SOFTBALL ATTENDANT25.5 HOUR 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 255.00 Tota I : 255.00 201456 4/4/2013 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 63159 EMBRIODERY GARMENTS EMBRIODERY GARMENTS 001.000.64.574.35.24.00 49.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.574.35.24.00 4.75 Tota I : 54.70 201457 4/4/2013 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 62898 Water/ Sewer - 79 Work T Shirts Water/ Sewer - 79 Work T Shirts 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 421.95 Water/ Sewer - 79 Work T Shirts 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 421.95 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 31 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201457 4/4/2013 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA (Continued) 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 40.10 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 40.08 Tota I : 924.08 201458 4/4/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1814753 NEWSPAPERAD Ordinance 3916 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 25.80 1814754 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3915 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 27.52 1814763 NEWSPAPER AD Hearing amend ECDC Code 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 46.44 Total : 99.76 201459 4/4/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 355426 VALVES AND FAUCET VALVES AND FAUCET 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 297.65 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.21 355754 VALVE REPAIR KIT VALVE REPAIR KIT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 576.67 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 56.20 Tota I : 984.41 201460 4/4/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 355420 Library - Lavatory Faucet Library - Lavatory Faucet 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 185.44 Page: 32 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201460 4/4/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC (Continued) Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.60 Total: 214.29 201461 4/4/2013 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 46122 MARINE BEACH FENCE DAMAGE A MARINE BEACH FENCE DAMAGE A 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 755.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 71.73 Tota I : 826.73 201462 4/4/2013 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 907211 Sewer - Tracing Dye Sewer - Tracing Dye 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 81.95 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 22.42 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.92 Total: 114.29 201463 4/4/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 28972938 WWTP - PART TIME OFFICE CLERK WWTP - PART TIME OFFICE CLERK 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 549.90 Total : 549.90 201464 4/4/2013 047605 WA ST TREASURER 1 ST QTR 2013 EDMONDS FORFEITURES-1 ST QTF 1 ST QTR/PROCEEDS/DRUG/CASH 104.000.237.100 442.60 Total : 442.60 201465 4/4/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5847 LETTERHEAD FOR FINANCE DEPT Letterhead for Finance dept 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 165.00 Page: 33 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201465 4/4/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 15.68 Tota I : 180.68 201466 4/4/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5852 BUSINESS CARDS MAYOR'S OFFIC 250-00297 Business Cards -Dave Earling double 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 48.75 250-00297 Carolyn LaFave 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 23.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 4.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 2.26 5853 BUSINESS CARDS FOR PD, P& R 250-00295 Business Cards -Mark Marsh 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 250-00295 Mel Moore 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 250-00295 Greg Mills 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 250-00295 James Lawless 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 250-00295 Justin Lee 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 250-00295 Josh McClure 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 250-00295 Alan Hardwick 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 250-00295 Linda Mack 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 250-00295 Amy Collins 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 250-00295 Stacie Trykar 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.36 Page: 34 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201466 4/4/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC (Continued) 250-00295 Michael Richardson double sided 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 38.36 250-00295 Cliff Edwards 130.000.64.536.20.49.00 13.36 250-00295 Sarah Cocker 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 13.36 250-00295 Frances White Chapin 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 13.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.33 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.20.49.00 1.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 2.54 5854 BUSINESS CARD FOR MAYOR 2 color logo on back of bus.card 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 42.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 3.99 Total : 357.56 201467 4/4/2013 068270 WETHERHOLT & ASSOCIATES PS 37099 WWTP - ON -SITE INSPECTION & RI WWTP - ON -SITE INSPECTION & RI 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 273.00 Tota I : 273.00 201468 4/4/2013 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 122209 TURF TURF 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 328.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.24 Tota I : 359.96 201469 4/4/2013 074366 WSB SHEET METAL CO BLD 2013.0247 Refund -Wrong selection of items duri Refund -Wrong selection of items duri Page: 35 vchlist 04/04/2013 9:35:39AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 36 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201469 4/4/2013 074366 WSB SHEET METAL CO (Continued) 001.000.257.620 30.00 Tota I : 30.00 201470 4/4/2013 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 42 MARCH 2O13 UMPIRES MEN'S AND MARCH 2O13 UMPIRES MEN'S AND 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 1,188.00 Total : 1,188.00 201471 4/4/2013 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1015 MAR-13 RETAINER Monthly Retainer - March 2013 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,390.00 Total : 13,390.00 201472 4/4/2013 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0161469 Traffic Control - Perforated tube 8-36" Traffic Control - Perforated tube 8-36" 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 75.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 15.09 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.56 Total : 98.65 147 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 1,847,464.47 147 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,847,464.47 Page: 36 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201473 4/11/2013 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 317563 SERVICE AT SENIOR CENTER SERVICE AT SENIOR CENTER 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 105.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 9.98 Total: 114.98 201474 4/11/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 413487 WOMEN'S 4'S VOLLEYBALL FROM WOMEN'S 4'S VOLLEYBALL FROM 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 23.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 2.24 Total: 25.80 201475 4/11/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6737880 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 41.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 3.94 Total: 45.38 201476 4/11/2013 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM PARKS FAX MODEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 45.36 Total: 45.36 201477 4/11/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 68895 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #300 Plus Web: 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 221.63 UB Outsourcing area #300 Plus Web: 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 221.63 UB Outsourcing area #300 Plus Web: 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 228.33 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 516.45 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201477 4/11/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 516.45 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 21.06 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 21.06 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 21.68 Total: 1,768.29 201478 4/11/2013 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 80105 RANGER NAMEBADGES RANGER NAMEBADGES 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 1.67 Total: 19.17 201479 4/11/2013 073853 BECKWITH CONSULTING GROUP 04012013 STRATEGIC PLAN CONSULTANT IN Strategic Plan consultant Task # 20 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 1,930.00 Total: 1,930.00 201480 4/11/2013 002258 BENS EVER READY 7216 INV#7216 - EDMONDS PD SERVICED 4-5# FIRE EXTINGUISH[ 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 38.00 2 EXTINGUISHERS RECHARGED 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 24.00 REPLACED HYDRO IN 1 EXTINGUI: 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 35.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 9.22 Tota I : 106.22 201481 4/11/2013 002258 BENS EVER READY 7098 Fire Extinquisher Service - Library - 6 Fire Extinquisher Service - Library - 6 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 201481 4/11/2013 002258 BENS EVER READY 201482 4/11/2013 074307 BLUE STAR GAS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 36.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - FAC - 12 F 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 117.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - Cemetery 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 51.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - Parks Sho 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 122.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - Yost - 5 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 30.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - City Hall - 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 82.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - Old PW - 7 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 48.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - Museum - 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 24.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - PW - 15 & 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 125.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - MCH - 3 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 18.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - Pier - 1 & 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 16.00 Fire Extinquisher Service - PS - 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 218.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 85.50 Total: 972.50 0691989-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 822.00 0693932-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 822.00 Total : 1,644.00 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 201483 4/11/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 970496 977624 979870 4.1..1 984133 PO # Description/Account Amount INV#970496 - EDMONDS PD - GREE UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 216.00 T-NECK COTTON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 22.50 MOCK TURTLE NECK SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 22.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.80 INV#977624 - EDMONDS PD - BOW UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 216.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.52 INV#979866 - EDMONDS PD - SPEE BALLISTIC VEST-2ND CHANCE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 725.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 68.88 INV#979869 - EDMONDS PD - CRY: BALLISTIC VEST-2ND CHANCE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 725.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 68.88 INV#979870 - EDMONDS PD - MORI BALLISTIC VEST-2ND CHANCE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 725.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 68.88 INV#980664 - EDMONDS PD - RICH, ATAC STORM BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 115.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.93 INV#984133 - EDMONDS PD - DA= Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201483 4/11/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP (Continued) BALLISTIC VEST- 2ND CHANCE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 725.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 68.88 989644 INV#989644 - EDMONDS PD - DA= NAME TAGS "D.J.DAWSON" 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 9.90 SEW YRS OF SERVICE ON COGS 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 3.00 SEW NAME TAGS OF COGS 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 1.70 992428 INV#992428 - EDMONDS PD - DA= NEW BALANCE UNIFORM SHOES 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 109.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 10.45 Total: 3,963.77 201484 4/11/2013 067947 BROWNELLS INC 08763992.00 INV#08763992.00 ACCT#00557761 - ARMORER'S TOOL -FLAT DK EARTF 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 19.47 ROLL PIN STARTER PUNCH 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 3.64 GUN LUBE FLIP TOP 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 13.20 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 13.95 Total: 50.26 201485 4/11/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 192275 STEEL WIRE, LENSES AND GLOVE STEEL WIRE, LENSES AND GLOVE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 69.84 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201485 4/11/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.64 Total: 76.48 201486 4/11/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY192039 Water - CO2 Supplies Water - CO2 Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.27 Total: 49.27 201487 4/11/2013 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 113000771 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,701.00 Total: 1,701.00 201488 4/11/2013 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10014 INV#10014 CUST#1430 - EDMONDE VERIZON PHONE NARCS 03/2013 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 95.22 Total: 95.22 201489 4/11/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2536074 WWTP - JANITORIAL SUPPLIES FO WWTP - JANITORIAL SUPPLIES FO 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 293.52 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 27.88 Total: 321.40 201490 4/11/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2537525 Fac Maint - Supplies - Cleaner, TT, Fac Maint - Supplies - Cleaner, TT, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 514.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.87 Total: 563.27 201491 4/11/2013 062891 COOK PAGING WA 9016745 WATER WATCH PAGERS WATER WATCH PAGERS Page: 6 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201491 4/11/2013 062891 COOK PAGING WA (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.25 Total: 4.25 201492 4/11/2013 074378 COOK WELDING SERVICES 1295 Unit 31 - Crack Repair in Water Tank Unit 31 - Crack Repair in Water Tank 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 80.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 7.60 Total: 87.60 201493 4/11/2013 004867 COOPER, JACK F 37 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 617.000.51.522.20.23.00 133.98 Total: 133.98 201494 4/11/2013 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 27579 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, M WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, M 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 415.88 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 39.51 Total: 455.39 201495 4/11/2013 074375 CRMA INVESTMENTS LLC 4-28850 #4291-2041898 UTILITY REFUND #4291-2041898 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 68.42 Total: 68.42 201496 4/11/2013 005965 CUES INC 383988 ILLICIT DISCHARGE DECTECTION ILLICIT DISCHARGE DECTECTION 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 8,950.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 850.25 Total: 9,800.25 201497 4/11/2013 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3271185 E3FC.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT E3FC.RFQ Advertisement Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201497 4/11/2013 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE (Continued) 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 912.00 3273433 E3JA.ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDE E3JA.Advertisement for Bids 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 368.60 Total: 1,280.60 201498 4/11/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 331305 INV 331305 EDMONDS PD GHD024, CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-02444 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 FUELSURCHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 8.08 331306 INV 331306 EDMONDS PD GHD-14� CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-14989 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 331308 INV 331308 EDMONDS PD GHD-15C CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-15003 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 331309 INV 331309 EDMONDS PD PL22598 CALIBRATE RADAR PL22598 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 331436 INV 331436 EDMONDS PD XE01579 CALIBRATE RADAR XE01579 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 331437 INV 331437 EDMONDS PD GHD-03f CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-03892 Page: 8 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201498 4/11/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 (Continued) 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 Total: 503.73 201499 4/11/2013 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2013030031 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Autocad 2013 subscription renewal 1 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 405.85 Autocad 2013 subscription renewal 1 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 405.85 Autocad 2013 subscription renewal 1 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 405.97 Infrastructure design suite premium 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 879.49 Infrastructure design suite premium 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 879.49 Infrastructure design suite premium 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 879.74 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 191.69 Infrastructure design suite premium 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 462.50 Infrastructure design suite premium 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 462.50 Infrastructure design suite premium 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 462.64 Infrastructure design suite premium 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 267.22 Infrastructure design suite premium 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 267.22 Infrastructure design suite premium 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 267.31 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 2.09 Page: 9 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201499 4/11/2013 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES (Continued) Freight 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 2.09 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 2.10 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 191.63 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 191.63 Total: 6,627.01 201500 4/11/2013 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2013030367 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for March 2013 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 940.00 Tota I : 940.00 201501 4/11/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3351 INV#13-3351 - EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-0172 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 78.00 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-0519 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 87.00 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #09-3272 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 36.00 Total: 201.00 201502 4/11/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3353 MINUTE TAKING 4/2 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 279.00 Total: 279.00 201503 4/11/2013 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 147992 FUEL FILTER FOR MOWER FUEL FILTER FOR MOWER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.75 20711 FUEL FILTER PARKS Page: 10 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201503 4/11/2013 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS (Continued) FUEL FILTER PARKS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.40 Total: 36.31 201504 4/11/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP BRANTING 16896 BRANTING 16896 KINDERMUSIK BRANTING 16896 KINDERMUSIK 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 50.00 Total: 50.00 201505 4/11/2013 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2013-04-01 04/13 RECREATION SERVICES COP 04/13 Recreation Services Contract F 001.000.39.555.00.41.00 5,000.00 Total: 5,000.00 201506 4/11/2013 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 208441 INV#208441 CLIENT #308 - EDMOM EXAM -MEDICAL PROBLEM - DASH 001.000.41.521.26.41.00 43.74 X-RAY - DASH 001.000.41.521.26.41.00 108.15 X-RAY, ADDITIONAL VIEWS - DASH 001.000.41.521.26.41.00 125.56 SEDATION-DOMITOR - DASH 001.000.41.521.26.41.00 69.07 208564 INV#208564 CLIENT #308 - EDMOM METRONIDAZOLE 500 MG 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 35.24 DIAWIN TABLETS 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 17.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 4.97 Total: 403.83 201507 4/11/2013 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 180655 INV#180655 CLIENT #5118 - EDMOI` Page: 11 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201507 4/11/2013 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL (Continued) SPAY DOG - IMPOUND #8805 001.000.41.521.70.49.01 130.00 SPAY DOG - IMPOUND #8818 001.000.41.521.70.49.01 97.50 Total: 227.50 201508 4/11/2013 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 113455 RADIX MONTHLY MAINTAGREEME Radix Monthly Maint Agreement -- 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 Total: 152.00 201509 4/11/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 086025 COPIER CHARGES C5051 Copier charges C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 57.90 Copier charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 57.90 Copier charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 57.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 5.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 5.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 5.50 086142 COPIER CHARGES C1030 Copier charges C1030 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 3.17 Copier charges C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 3.17 Copier charges C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 3.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 0.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.30 Page: 12 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201509 4/11/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.30 Total: 200.55 201510 4/11/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 086139 1 Meter charges for Planning Dept. C1( Meter charges for Planning Dept. C1( 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 9.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 0.92 086140 1 Meter charges for Building Division's Meter charges for Building Division's 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 16.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 1.55 Total: 28.47 201511 4/11/2013 009800 FACTORY DIRECT TIRE SALES 64771 TUBE PARKS TUBE PARKS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.85 Total: 32.85 201512 4/11/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28137 JOBBER JOBBER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 39.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.79 Total: 43.73 201513 4/11/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0373169 Fire Hydrant and Adaptor Fire Hydrant and Adaptor 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,480.81 7.7% sales tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 191.03 Page: 13 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201513 4/11/2013 009815 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) Total: 2,671.84 201514 4/11/2013 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 129693 TEST NETWORK WIRES PUBLIC Si Test network cables at Public Safety 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 160.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 15.20 Total: 175.20 201515 4/11/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 41.69 425-744-1691 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 41.03 425-776-5316 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MO GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MO 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 110.34 Total: 193.06 201516 4/11/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9053235645 Unit 33 - Air Hoses Unit 33 - Air Hoses 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 270.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.69 9094652337 Fac Maint - Return Fac Maint - Return 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -44.03 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -4.18 9095341864 PS - V Belt PS - V Belt 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 41.67 9.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.84 9095390457 Fac Maint - Supplies Page: 14 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201516 4/11/2013 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.87 9095390465 Fleet Shop Supplies - Hose Clamps Fleet Shop Supplies - Hose Clamps 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 142.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 13.50 Total: 459.22 201517 4/11/2013 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 136350/1 Water - Supplies - Brass connectors Water - Supplies - Brass connectors 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 903.30 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 85.81 136924/1 Water - Brass Connectors Water - Brass Connectors 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 32.25 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.06 Total: 1,024.42 201518 4/11/2013 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 134966 Unit 681 - O Seals, Solenoid Unit 681 - O Seals, Solenoid 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 55.92 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.31 FOCS330566 Unit 450 - Repairs Unit 450 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 99.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.50 Tota I : 170.68 Page: 15 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201519 4/11/2013 064721 HATZENBUHLER, HAROLD 34 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 617.000.51.522.20.23.00 241.52 Total: 241.52 201520 4/11/2013 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 14804 INV 14804 EDMONDS PD DIVE PHY DIVE PHYSICAL - KINNEY 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 335.00 Total: 335.00 201521 4/11/2013 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fac Maint Supplies - Seat Covers, Fac Maint Supplies - Seat Covers, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 222.90 Total: 222.90 201522 4/11/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2257646 Misc. office supplies including copy Misc. office supplies including copy 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 301.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 28.66 Tota I : 330.39 201523 4/11/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2257314 Office Supplies Office Supplies 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 17.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 1.69 2257669 Office Supplies Office Supplies 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 75.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 7.22 Total: 102.69 201524 4/11/2013 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 3054894 INTERNET FOR PRESCHOOL INTERNET FOR PRESCHOOL Page: 16 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201524 4/11/2013 068952 INFINITY INTERNET (Continued) 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 15.00 Total: 15.00 201525 4/11/2013 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 000009229 Unit M16 - Hood Lift Support Unit M16 - Hood Lift Support 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.98 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.88 000009490 Fleet - Shop Supplies Fleet - Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 268.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 25.46 000009903 Shop Supplies - Silencer Bands, Shop Supplies - Silencer Bands, 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 25.38 Wiper Blades Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 27.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 4.48 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.77 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 2.84 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.01 000010157 Unit 36 -Lift Support Unit 36 -Lift Support 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 30.32 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.01 Page: 17 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201525 4/11/2013 069040 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS (Continued) Total: 451.93 201526 4/11/2013 073780 KAMINS, CHAD E9FB.Ret Release E9FB.RETAINAGE RELEASE E9FB.Retainage Release 422.000.223.400 13,185.02 Total: 13,185.02 201527 4/11/2013 073995 KATHLEEN DEN 5-05675 RE:#30065382 UTILITY REFUND DL RE:#30065382 Utility Refund due to 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 68.49 Tota I : 68.49 201528 4/11/2013 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KIDZ SOCCER 16413 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16413 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16413 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 219.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16414 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 329.40 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16415 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 366.00 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16416 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 256.20 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16417 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 219.60 Total: 1,390.80 201529 4/11/2013 074326 KIMBALL MIDWEST 2896427 Fleet - Black Flex Bumper Fleet - Black Flex Bumper 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 18.06 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.72 Total: 19.78 201530 4/11/2013 074376 KRISTINA MILLS & LORI SYKAS 4-07025 #611049102-KK UTILITY REFUND #611049102-KK Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 142.07 Total: 142.07 Page: 18 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201531 4/11/2013 074217 KRUEGER SHEET METAL CO 27281-5 WWTP - ROOF PROJECT C383 WWTP - ROOF PROJECT C383 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 913.24 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 86.76 Total: 1,000.00 201532 4/11/2013 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 3243993MB Water - EZ Street Asphalt Water - EZ Street Asphalt 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,020.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 96.90 3244591 MB Water - EZ Street Asphalt Water - EZ Street Asphalt 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,058.76 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 100.58 Total: 2,276.24 201533 4/11/2013 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 31222 Dent SFR Addition. Task order No. Dent SFR Addition. Task order No. 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 500.00 Total: 500.00 201534 4/11/2013 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC APR-2013 04-13 LEGALS FEES 04-13 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 32,000.00 Total: 32,000.00 201535 4/11/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 676189 Unit 40 - Serpentine Belt Unit 40 - Serpentine Belt 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 33.15 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.15 676233 Unit 40 - Idler Pulley Unit 40 - Idler Pulley Page: 19 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201535 4/11/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.09 676545 Unit 18 - Hydraulic Filter Unit 18 - Hydraulic Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.15 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.25 676558 Unit 54 - Split Loom Unit 54 - Split Loom 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.72 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.64 676804 Unit 66 - Relay Unit 66 - Relay 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.16 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.54 677352 Unit 66 - Fuel Filter Unit 66 - Fuel Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.35 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.55 Total: 117.74 201536 4/11/2013 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 823933 LINE TRIMMER LINE TRIMMER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.38 Tota I : 27.43 201537 4/11/2013 074373 MARK & JULIE HOLTER 2-20525 #611038509-KK UTILITY REFUND #611038509-KK Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 84.50 Page: 20 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201537 4/11/2013 074373 074373 MARK & JULIE HOLTER (Continued) Total: 84.50 201538 4/11/2013 019940 MC COMAS, GARY 36 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 589.68 Total: 589.68 201539 4/11/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 48704740 WWTP - REPAIR AND REPLACE WWTP - REPAIR AND REPLACE 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 438.06 48744778 WWTP - MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES WWTP - MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 21.94 48895512 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, I WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, I 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 284.58 Total: 744.58 201540 4/11/2013 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0491596-IN Fleet Filter Returns Fleet Filter Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -74.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -7.06 0491756-IN Fleet - Filter Inventory Fleet - Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 21.85 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.08 0493656-IN Fleet- Filter Inventory Fleet- Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 13.21 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 1.26 0493816-IN Unit 66 - Filters Unit 66 - Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 130.43 Page: 21 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201540 4/11/2013 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.39 0494247-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 62.42 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 5.93 Total: 168.14 201541 4/11/2013 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 40188 WWTP - SUPPLIES, BISULFITE WWTP - SUPPLIES, BISULFITE 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 751.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 71.38 Total: 822.78 201542 4/11/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-638464 RENTALS CIVIC FIELD RENTALS CIVIC FIELD 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 Total: 112.35 201543 4/11/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 369 Planning Board Minutes 3/27/13. Planning Board Minutes 3/27/13. 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 160.00 000 00 370 Architectural Design Board Minutes o Architectural Design Board Minutes o 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 160.00 Total: 320.00 201544 4/11/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 147992 SHREDDER, USB SHREDDER,USB 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 246.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 23.39 Total : 269.55 Page: 22 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201545 4/11/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 109601 INV#109601 ACCT#520437 250POL KLEENEX FACIAL TISSUE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 44.68 RETRACTABLE BLACK PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 18.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.02 Total: 69.40 201546 4/11/2013 073751 OKANOGAN COUNTRY SHERIFF OK CO JAIL 3-2013 MARCH 2O13 INMATE HOUSING MARCH 2O13 INMATE HOUSING 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 1,658.50 INMATE MEDICAL CARE 001.000.41.523.60.31.00 8.84 Total: 1,667.34 201547 4/11/2013 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC, PLLC MARCH 2O13 March 2013 Hearing Examiner service March 2013 Hearing Examiner service 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 2,083.75 Total: 2,083.75 201548 4/11/2013 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 31300258 E2CC.SERVICES THRU 3/8/13 E2CC.Services thru 3/8/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 7,131.13 Total: 7,131.13 201549 4/11/2013 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00067307 Unit 106 - Transmitter Unit 106 - Transmitter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,302.69 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.81 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 125.17 Total: 1,442.67 201550 4/11/2013 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 100935 INV#100935 - EDMONDS PD Page: 23 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201550 4/11/2013 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC (Continued) TOW 1994 CADILLAC #ADN2745 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total: 173.01 201551 4/11/2013 008350 PETTY CASH PETTYCASH 040813 PETTY CASH PARKS AND REC 0401 PRESCHOOL SUPLLIES - RICE 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 10.69 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES -PLATES 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 2.15 ADMIN SUPPLIES- BATTERIES 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 3.82 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES -POSTER 1 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 1.08 DISCOVERY SUPPLIES -ROCKS FC 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 10.56 DISCOVERY CAMP SUPPLIES 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 6.57 DISCOVERY SUPPLIES CAMP 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 8.76 GYMNASTICS CLEANING SUPPLIE; 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 35.18 DISCOVERY SUPPLIES BOOKS 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 21.85 FERRY BOAT FIELD TRIP WITH PRI 001.000.64.575.56.49.00 2.00 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES -BANANAS 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 2.09 PARKS MAINT BACKFLOW VALVE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.95 GYMNASTICS STICKERS 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 8.76 PARKS MAINT TRAINING, BAT FORI Page: 24 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201551 4/11/2013 008350 PETTY CASH (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 15.00 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS BOOKS 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 5.48 PRESCHOOL SCIENCE SUPPLIES - 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 3.26 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES -POSTER l 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 2.12 ARTS OFFICE SUPPLIES, BEST BO 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 13.13 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS CAMP SU 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 5.54 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS -SEWING 001.000.64.574.35.41.00 27.38 Total: 203.37 201552 4/11/2013 068411 PHILLIPS 66 - CONOCO 76 5387906 CAR WASH #48 CAR WASH #48 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 4.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 0.44 Total: 5.03 201553 4/11/2013 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 206560 WWTP - UPS GROUND TO VOGEL, WWTP - UPS GROUND TO VOGEL, 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 22.07 Total: 22.07 201554 4/11/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2445047 ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 105.84 Total: 105.84 201555 4/11/2013 074342 PROTHMAN COMPANY 2013-3847 Finance Director Services for 3/16 - Finance Director Services for 3/16 - 001.000.31.514.20.41.00 6,921.60 Page: 25 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201555 4/11/2013 074342 074342 PROTHMAN COMPANY (Continued) Total: 6,921.60 201556 4/11/2013 074377 RICK & KRISTINA HAGEMEIER 1-36415 #605037 UTILITY REFUND #605037 Utility refund due to estimat( 411.000.233.000 77.61 Total: 77.61 201557 4/11/2013 070042 RICOH USA INC 88792239 Renton MP171SPF Reception copier Rent on MP171SPF Reception copier 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66 Tota I : 30.66 201558 4/11/2013 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 26436 CRAZE PRINTING SUMMER 2013 CRAZE PRINTING SUMMER 2013 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 4,090.21 CRAZE PRINTING 117.100.64.573.20.44.00 2,054.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 388.57 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.44.00 195.21 Total: 6,728.78 201559 4/11/2013 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY MAR 2013 INVOICE 03/31/13 ACCT#70014 - EC #121170 - 10 NPC 3/25/13 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 113.20 Total: 113.20 201560 4/11/2013 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-213467 Unit 338 - Bearings, Oil Seals Unit 338 - Bearings, Oil Seals 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 34.96 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.32 03-214257 Unit 338 - Bearings, Oil Seals Unit 338 - Bearings, Oil Seals 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 34.96 Page: 26 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201560 4/11/2013 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.32 03-215399 Unit 102 - Battery Unit 102 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 118.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.30 03-215543 Unit 649 - Oil Supplies Unit 649 - Oil Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 100.68 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.56 03-216400 Unit 775 - Filter Unit 775 - Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.83 03-216401 Unit 775 - Oil, Trans Fluid Unit 775 - Oil, Trans Fluid 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 167.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.87 03-217291 Unit 379 - Trans Fluid, Filters, V Unit 379 - Trans Fluid, Filters, V 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 127.58 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.12 03-217433 Unit 36 - Brake Pads Unit 36 - Brake Pads 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 68.15 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.47 03-217439 Unit 58 - Brake Parts Supplies Unit 58 - Brake Parts Supplies Page: 27 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201560 4/11/2013 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 103.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.84 03-217521 Unit 58 - Filter Kit Unit 58 - Filter Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.03 03-217608 Unit 58 - Filter Unit 58 - Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.79 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.46 03-217786 Unit 39 - Filter Supplies Unit 39 - Filter Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.13 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.53 Total: 883.68 201561 4/11/2013 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 13-0986 Unit 31 - 6" Camlock Cap Unit 31 - 6" Camlock Cap 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 49.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.66 Total: 53.66 201562 4/11/2013 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 88252 E2FC.SERVICES THRU 3/16/13 E2FC.Services thru 3/16/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,805.00 88253 E2FC.GRANT.SERVICES THRU 3/1E E2FC.Grant. Services thru 3/16/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 2,819.38 Total: 4,624.38 Page: 28 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201563 4/11/2013 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 198249 Unit 338 - Towing Unit 338 - Towing 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 15.01 Total : 173.01 201564 4/11/2013 074027 SHIELDS, RACHEL SHIELDS UNIFORM 2013 UNIFORM DISCOVERY PROGRAM UNIFORM DISCOVERY PROGRAM 001.000.64.574.35.24.00 39.99 Total: 39.99 201565 4/11/2013 036955 SKY NURSERY 75851 FLOWER PROGRAM PERENNIALS FLOWER PROGRAM PERENNIALS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 527.60 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 50.12 Total: 577.72 201566 4/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-2646-0 1000 EDMONDS ST 1000 EDMONDS ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.69 2022-5063-5 930 9TH AVE N 930 9TH AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.69 Total: 63.38 201567 4/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2019-9517-2 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMON WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMON 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 31.68 2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 8.41 Total: 40.09 201568 4/11/2013 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2013-1548 INV#2013-1548 - EDMONDS PD Page: 29 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201568 4/11/2013 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE (Continued) MAR BOOKINGS - 53.67 @ $94.95 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 5,095.97 MAR HOUSING - 462.83 @ $65.94 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 30,519.01 1000324956 INV#1000324956 CUST#SSH00095 E SCSO RANGE USAGE 9.5 HRS 2/27 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 475.00 SCSO RANGE USAGE 9 HRS 2/28/1 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 450.00 Total: 36,539.98 201569 4/11/2013 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 1000325278 SOLID WASTE CHARGES MARCH SOLID WASTE CHARGES MARCH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 515.00 Total: 515.00 201570 4/11/2013 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER March 2013 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 1,102.61 Total: 1,102.61 201571 4/11/2013 069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC 1130221-2 Telemetry System Tech Support Telemetry System Tech Support 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 270.00 Telemetry System Tech Support 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 270.00 1130402-2 Telemetry System Tech Support Telemetry System Tech Support 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 180.00 Telemetry System Tech Support 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 180.00 Total: 900.00 201572 4/11/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLINi WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLIN, Page: 30 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201572 4/11/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 Total: 29.95 201573 4/11/2013 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3234583 Sewer - Medical Supplies Sewer - Medical Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 41.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.99 Total: 45.98 201574 4/11/2013 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3002216154 INV 3002216154 EDMONDS PD MEDIUM BOX DISPOSAL 3/26/13 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 52.67 Total: 52.67 201575 4/11/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100475987.001 PHILIPS METAL LAMP PHILIPS METAL LAMP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 293.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 27.84 S100486859.001 BALLAST BALLAST 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 54.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.19 Total : 380.69 201576 4/11/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100436127.001 Fac Maint - Elect Supplies Fac Maint - Elect Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 451.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 42.85 S100480638.001 Fac Maint - Elec Supplies Fac Maint - Elec Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 88.04 Page: 31 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201576 4/11/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.36 S100480695.001 Fac Maint - Metal Halide Lamps (7) Fac Maint - Metal Halide Lamps (7) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 171.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.33 S100483511.001 FAC - Elect Supplies FAC - Elect Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.68 Total: 786.34 201577 4/11/2013 074374 SUSAN DUNN 1-29525 #10-29546 UTILITY REFUND #10-29546 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 209.42 Total: 209.42 201578 4/11/2013 074372 TAMAS & ANNA PAUL 2-29700 #02-259-13 UTILITY REFUND #02-259-13 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 93.77 Total: 93.77 201579 4/11/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1811095 Noble/PLN20130001 legal notices. Noble/PLN20130001 legal notices. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 30.96 1814108 ADB Agenda legal notices. ADB Agenda legal notices. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 49.88 Total: 80.84 201580 4/11/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 356198 VALVE REPAIR VALVE REPAIR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 285.73 Page: 32 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201580 4/11/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC (Continued) Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 28.10 Total: 323.93 201581 4/11/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 355935 PS - Supplies PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 81.38 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.62 Total: 99.28 201582 4/11/2013 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 282929 TOURISM AD IN PORTLAND OREG( Tourism ad in Portland Oregonian via 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 1,800.00 Total: 1,800.00 201583 4/11/2013 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 19723 Unit 54 - Keys Unit 54 - Keys 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.67 Total: 7.67 201584 4/11/2013 070774 ULINE INC 50106901 INV#50106901 CUST#2634605 - EDI SCRUBS IN A BUCKET 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 90.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 10.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 9.59 Page: 33 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201584 4/11/2013 070774 070774 ULINE INC (Continued) Total: 110.51 201585 4/11/2013 062693 US BANK 5923 YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION ON DEMAI On demand subscription to webinars 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 540.00 Total: 540.00 201586 4/11/2013 062693 US BANK 5848 WFOA2013 MEMBERSHIP S MAGE Washington Finance Officers Associa 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 50.00 Total: 50.00 201587 4/11/2013 062693 US BANK 8313 ENG CREDIT CARD.MARCH 2O13 Smart Commuter Grant Charges - Me 001.000.39.517.90.49.00 100.00 E1GA.Sno. Co. Recorded Document 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 3.00 Total: 103.00 201588 4/11/2013 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WF 0469282-WA Street - DOT Street - DOT 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 65.00 Total: 65.00 201589 4/11/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9702055582 C/A571242650-0001 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Bld De 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 186.03 Blackberry Cell Phone Service City C 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 56.00 iPad Cell Phone Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 260.14 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 131.64 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Planni 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 387.89 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Econ Page: 34 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 201589 4/11/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 001.000.61.519.70.42.00 75.04 Blackberry Cell Phone Service 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 277.03 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Faciliti 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 91.00 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Financ 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.03 Blackberry Cell Phone Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 40.01 Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 297.29 Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 218.99 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Mayor 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 85.04 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 55.02 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 787.06 Blackberry Air Cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 877.49 Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Ac 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 106.73 Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Si 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 35.98 Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW W 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 38.00 Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW W 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 37.99 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 95.03 Blackberry Cell Phone Service WWTI 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 121.02 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Water Page: 35 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201589 4/11/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 135.04 iPads for M Johnson, J Whatmore, M 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 3,016.59 iPads for M Johnson, J Whatmore, M 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 689.84 9702163552 C/A 772540262-00001 Lift Station access - testing 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 15.02 Total: 8,211.94 201590 4/11/2013 064858 VISITORS GUIDE PUBLICATIONS 12-0429 AD IN SNO CO VISITOR'S GUIDE 2C 1/2 page display ad in Sno Co Visitor' 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 2,295.00 Total: 2,295.00 201591 4/11/2013 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2013-2037 INV 2013-2037 EDMONDS PD SPEE INTERVIEW & INTERROGATION - S 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 50.00 Total: 50.00 201592 4/11/2013 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 48923 INV#48923 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2008 MAZDA#674-XAX 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total: 173.01 201593 4/11/2013 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 113007511 INV#113007511 EDM301 - EDMOND,' BACKGROUND CHECKS MAR 2013 001.000.237.100 478.50 Total: 478.50 201594 4/11/2013 064800 WEHOP 465556 FLOWER PROGRAM BSKT SANTAN FLOWER PROGRAM BSKT SANTAN 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 61.90 Page: 36 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 04/11/2013 7:42:03AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 201594 4/11/2013 064800 WEHOP (Continued) Freight 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 55.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 11.12 Total: 128.17 122 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 188,686.47 122 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 188,686.47 Page: 37 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 610 - 03/16/2013 to 03/31/2013 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 60124 04/05/2013 mebt AST TTEE 79,902.58 0.00 60125 04/05/2013 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,150.00 0.00 60126 04/05/2013 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00 60127 04/05/2013 flex FLEX -PLAN SERVICES, INC 315.83 0.00 60128 04/05/2013 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,495.64 0.00 60129 04/05/2013 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3,241.05 0.00 60130 04/05/2013 cope SEIU COPE 62.00 0.00 60131 04/05/2013 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 2,992.87 0.00 60132 04/05/2013 sdu STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 250.00 0.00 60133 04/05/2013 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 356.00 0.00 60134 04/05/2013 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,215.57 0.00 60135 04/05/2013 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 16,356.00 0.00 108,454.54 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 1996 04/05/2013 aflac AFLAC 4,758.71 0.00 1999 04/05/2013 front FRONTIER BANK 87,953.52 0.00 2000 04/05/2013 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 208.50 0.00 92,920.73 0.00 Grand Totals: 201,375.27 0.00 4/4/2013 Page 1 of 1 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 610 (03/16/2013 to 03/31/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 120 SICK SICK LEAVE - L & 1 8.00 266.84 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 401.50 13,089.51 122 VACATION VACATION 695.00 25,829.58 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 85.00 2,922.38 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 102.00 3,123.43 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 179.00 6,300.09 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 42.00 1,722.34 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 57.50 2,345.80 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 242.50 7,997.06 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 159.75 6,928.92 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 2.00 100.17 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 18.47 925.03 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 8.00 434.05 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 14,485.25 518,586.25 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 112.00 4,869.73 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 36.00 1,752.86 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLAW 4.00 385.01 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 203.50 12,377.29 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 0.25 14.67 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 47.63 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,355.97 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 97.50 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 160.75 0.00 904 MISCELLANEOUS Lump -Sum Payout 0.00 26,043.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 23.56 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 158.62 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 80.05 Cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 137.44 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 513.04 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 95.89 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 795.84 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 722.30 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 834.14 04/04/2013 Page 1 of 2 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 610 (03/16/2013 to 03/31/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 4,920.31 furls SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 109.00 3,501.93 fmlV VACATION Family Medical Leave Vacation 34.00 1,593.53 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 211.31 Iq1 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,928.00 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 1,518.30 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 4,669.31 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1 % 0.00 390.18 Iq5 LONGEVITY Longevity 3% 0.00 66.98 Iq6 LONGEVITY Longevity .5% 0.00 225.29 Iq7 LONGEVITY Longevity 1.5% 0.00 604.09 Iqh LONGEVITY Longevity Hourly 0.00 0.00 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 191.78 ooc MISCELLANEOUS 5% OUT OF CLASS 0.00 239.28 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 44.66 phy MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,617.18 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 147.00 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 290.85 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 147.00 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 251.77 0.00 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 302.03 17,494.74 $663,387.50 Total Net Pay: $460,128.31 04/04/2013 Page 2 of 2 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 643 (03/01/2013 to 03/31/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours 170 REGULAR HOURS 174 REGULAR HOURS 191 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS Amount 0.00 7,000.00 0.00 200.00 5.00 3,587.89 5.00 $10,787.89 Total Net Pay: $8,282.19 04/04/2013 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA Revised 4/11/2013 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD Revised 4/11/2013 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WM d Res r WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC EOLB c332 c342 STR E1AB c343 STR E1 DA c354 c372 STM El FA c336 c339 STM E1FF c341 STM STM E1 FM c374 SWR E1GA c347 WTR c370 WTR E1JA c333 WTR E1JC WTR E1JE c344 c345 c340 ds Museum Exterior Repairs Project Senior Center Roof Repairs Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming ntersection Improvements Sunset Walkway Improvements SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades Storm Contribution to Transportation Proiects lbr Develop -IPDES Capacity) Street & SR104 Storm Drainaae Alternatives nville Creek Culvert Replacement 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Updat 2011 Waterline Replacement Program 76th Av Extension Edmonds General Facilities PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment 2012 Waterline Replacement Progran WTR c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update IR _ � Improvement Fj& STR E2AC c404 Citvwide Safetv Improvements c405 WTR E2CA c388 c389 STR E2CC c399 STM E2FA c378 c379 1Wy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) 2012 Waterline Overlay Program Pioneer Way Road Repair 5th Ave Overlay Project Interurban Trail amw North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Revised 4/11/2013 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements 012 Sanitary Sewe SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STM E3FB c407 STM E3FD c409 STM SWR E3GA c398 3 Citywide Drainage Repl 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) JlorthstreMe Abandon 2013 Sewerline Replacement Proiect Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program OVD Watermain Improvements STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project rive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Proaram E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01/08) c300 BNSF Double Track Project= SWR E8GD c301 Citv-Wide Sewer Improvements Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project albot Rd SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Desian Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 4/11/2013 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STIR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STIR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STIR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STIR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 EBMA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 EBMB Marina Beach Additional Parking STIR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 EBGA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c300 EBGC BNSF Double Track Project SWR c301 EBGD City -Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STIR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 EOIA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 EOFC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 EOLA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STIR c329 EOAA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 EOLB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c336 E1 FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c339 E1 FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1 FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study Revised 4/11/2013 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Accounting Funding Number WTR c346 SWR c347 STM c349 STIR c354 WTR c363 STIR c368 SWR c369 WTR c370 General c372 STM c374 WTR c375 STM c376 STM c378 STM c379 STM c380 STM c381 STM c382 WTR c388 WTR c389 SWR c390 STIR c391 STIR c392 WTR c397 SWR c398 STIR c399 STIR c404 STIR c405 STM c406 STM c407 STM c408 STM c409 STM c410 STIR i005 STM m013 Revised 4/11/2013 Enaineerin Protect Number E1JD E1 GA E1FH E1 DA EOJA E 1 CA E2GA E1GB E 1 EA E1FM E1JK E1FN E2FA E2FB E2FC E2FD E2FE E2CA E2CB E2GB E2AA E2AB E3JA E3GA E2CC E2AC E2AD E3FA E3FB E3FC E3FD EYE E7AC E7FG Project Title PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Sunset Walkway Improvements 2010 Waterline Replacement Program 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Main Street Watermain Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements 2012 Waterline Overlay Program Pioneer Way Road Repair Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Transportation Plan Update 9th Avenue Improvement Project 2013 Waterline Replacement Program 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project 5th Ave Overlay Project Citywide Safety Improvements Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements NPDES PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD 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) c409 E3FD WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA Revised 4/11/2013 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA STIR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STIR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 4/11/2013 PROJECT NUMBERS (Phase and Task Numbers) Phases and Tasks (Enaineerina Division Phase Title ct Construction ds Design pl Preliminary sa Site Acquisition & Prep st Study ro Right -of -Way Task Title 196 Traffic Engineering & Studies 197 MAIT 198 CTR 199 Engineering Plans & Services 950 Engineering Staff Time 970 Construction Management 981 Contract 990 Miscellaneous 991 Retainage stm Engineering Staff Time -Storm str Engineering Staff Time -Street swr Engineering Staff Time -Sewer wtr Engineering Staff Time -Water prk Engineering Staff Time -Park AM-5675 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Ronald Cone Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Submitted By: 3. C. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim check #201595 dated April 11, 2013 for $219.00. Recommendation Approval of claim check. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Year: 2013 Revenue: Expenditure: 219.00 Fiscal Impact: Claims $219.00 Fiscal Impact Attachments Claim Checks 04-11-13a Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Ronald Cone 04/11/2013 03:06 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 03:09 PM Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 04:30 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 04:43 PM Fonn Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 04/11/2013 10:13 AM Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 04/11/2013 10:06:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 201595 4/11/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account 9702055582a C/A 571242650-0001 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers Amount 219.00 219.00 219.00 219.00 Page: 1 AM-5637 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Linda Hynd Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Information Committee Action: 3. D. Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Jaimie Winnett and Rick Patneaude ($8,388.20). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A Claim for Damages has been received from the following: Jaimie Winnett 8610 240th St. SW, #B 13 Edmonds, WA 98026 ($8,388.20) Rick Patneaude 8610 240th St. SW, #B 13 Edmonds, WA 98026 ($8,388.20) Winnett/Patneaude Claim for Damages Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 12:11 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 01:41 PM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 04/02/2013 11:18 AM Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form Received by Member MEMBER CITY/ORGANIZATION: Edmonds, WA Please take note that Jaimie Winnett and Rick Patneaude, who resides at 8610 2401h St SW #B13 Edmonds, WA 98026, mailing address Same as previous address listed, home phone # Jaime: 360-421-7475 Rick: 425-280-3527, work phone #Jaimie: 206-441-5597, is claiming damages against the City of Edmonds in the sum of $8,388.20 arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: January 27, 2013 TIME: 12:45 pm LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE:19614 801h Avenue West #B, Edmonds, WA 98026 DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe occurrence explaining the nature of the defects or acts of negligence causing damages. On January 27, 2013 at around 12:45pm I (Jaimie Winnett) noticed a small amount of water near our front door. It was small enough to think I could use 2 bath towels to mop it up. I then opened the front door and noticed the drain in front of our door was backing up and spilling over the doorway. At that point Rick Patueaude and I started trying to scoop the water out of the small depression in front of our door. While scooping the water out, we noticed it smelled quite bad and then realized this was not water but sewage. We had tried calling our landlord so he could call a plumber but could not get ahold of him we decided to call a plumber ourselves. We were advised to call 911 and ask the fire department to come and shut off our water, we did and when the fire department arrived they advised us they could not do anything because this was the city sewage system. A plumber finally arrived and snaked our drain. He snaked the drain 50 feet and told us that because he could not find anything within 50 feet there must be a block or clog in the city sewer system and there was essentially nothing we could do besides save what wasn't already destroyed. We started to find the things we wanted to save and moved things outside. At this point there was about two inches of water standing in the living room and it then started coming out of the shower and toilet as well. Soon the whole apartment was completely flooded. Essentially everything we owned was destroyed; we could only save a few pieces of furniture. We were also advised that anything that was touched by water needed to be disposed of. Around 2:30 the sewage water stopped flooding into out apartment, there was roughly 4 inches of sewage throughout the apartment. (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. Dan Spenser, Plumber called to our apartment day of incident 7818 2016t St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 425-361-7197 Chris Querubin, Landlord of our apartment 19614 801h Ave West #A Edmonds, WA 98026 City of Edmonds Utility Manager (Do not have name or contact info) 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes X No --No insurance company. If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: **ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY" License Plate # Driver License # Type Auto: (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone #: Phone #: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: **NONE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED** I, '.�G 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. X X - 'SignatdWof Claimant(s) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of _ f>, L , 20 j-3. 'NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State or*, ington RECFUV� RECEIVED • APR 01 2013 � N�a i0ue��a -?� APR 0 3 2013 �'��,Qii.: A��iG~O LERK EDMONDS CITY C EDMONu6 CITY CLERK AM-5668 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Renee McRae Department: Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn 3. E. Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 Regarding Classes. Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1. Previous Council Action The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee reviewed the Interlocal Agreement at the April 1 meeting and forwarded it to the April 16 Council consent agenda. Narrative The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department is contracting with Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 to provide CPR/First Aid classes. The interlocal agreement lays out the terms and conditions of the agreement. The City will advertise, register students, collect fees, and pay the District a fee for each student registered. The District will provide the facility, staff, materials and equipment necessary to conduct the classes. Attachments SCFD 1 Interlocal 04-08-13 Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Renee McRae Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Form Review Date 04/11/2013 01:40 PM 04/11/2013 04:32 PM 04/11/2013 04:43 PM Started On: 04/11/2013 08:51 AM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1 REGARDING CLASSES THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS (the "City") and SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1 (the "District"), both municipal corporations organized under the laws of the State of Washington (collectively, the "Parties"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Chapters 39.33 and 39.34 RCW permit agencies to enter into agreements to engage in cooperative activities on municipal property; and WHEREAS, the District has historically conducted CPR/First Aid classes for members of the community; and WHEREAS, the District is willing to provide CPR/First Aid classes and other mutually agreeable classes on the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: TERMS 1. Classes. The District agrees to conduct CPR/First Aid classes and other mutually agreeable classes in cooperation with the City. The Parties shall agree on the subject matter and the dates for such classes in advance. 2. Fee. The City shall pay the District a fee for each student attending a class. Initially, the fee shall be $50 per enrolled student, but the District may increase this fee by giving notice to the City prior to publishing the recreation brochure. The fee shall be paid to the District regardless of whether the student actually attends the class. The fee shall be due and payable to the District 30 days after the class roster is turned into the City. The City may charge an administrative fee in addition to the District's fee. 2.1 Any class which does not have a minimum number of students as mutually agreed between the District and City shall be cancelled, or rescheduled. 3. District Obligations. The District shall provide instructors, materials, and equipment necessary to conduct the class. 4. City Obligations. The City shall be responsible for all administrative aspects of scheduling and advertising for the class, enrolling the students, collecting fees from the students, and remitting the appropriate fee to the District. 5. Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall be become effective immediately upon execution by the Parties and filing with the Snohomish County Auditor or posting -1- on the website for either party or other electronically retrievable public source as required by RCW 39.34.040. This Agreement shall be of indefinite duration, but may be terminated by either party according to its terms. 6. Termination. Either party may terminate this agreement with 90 days advance written notice. 7. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Snohomish County Superior Court. 8. No Employment Relationship Created. The Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an employment relationship between the City and the District. 9. No Entity Created. The Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a separate legal or administrative entity between the City and the District. 10. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered jointly by the City and the District under the supervision of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Director of the City and the Assistant Chief of Prevention of the District. 11. Notices. Notices to the City shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds Attn: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Director 121 5th Avenue, North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the District shall be sent to the following address: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 Attn: Assistant Fire Chief of Prevention 12310 Meridian Avenue Everett, WA 98298 -2- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of this day of 2013. SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1 Ed Widdis, Fire Chief ATTEST: Marsha Moore, District Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: -3- CITY OF EDMONDS David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting April 8, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Council Member Kristiana Johnson Council Member Diane Buckshnis Members of the Public Present: John Reed Val Stewart Don Hall Ron Wambolt Staff Present: Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Rob Chave, Acting Dev. Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services / Economic Development Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney The committee convened at 4:00 p.m. in the Fourtner Meeting Room, City Hall. Annual Special Event Contracts A brief discussion was held concerning the annual Special Event Contracts. ACTION: Committee forwarded to Council on consent. 2. Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 Regarding Classes. A brief discussion was held concerning the Interlocal Agreement. ACTION: Committee forwarded to Council on consent. 3. Discussion regarding development agreements / incentive zoning. City Attorney Jeff Taraday summarized the distinction between development agreements and incentive zoning, and that the two concepts could result in very similar zoning constructs, i.e. that the city could identify benefits or developments that are to be incentivized, and the incentives that the city was willing to `give' in exchange. The best place to start would be for the Council to discuss the types of things it wanted to see happen; this could be done city-wide, or targeted to a specific area. Benefits could be things like affordable housing or open space, or specific uses such as a boutique hotel in the downtown area. Incentives could be a variety of things, such as additional density or height, or reductions in other requirements (such as parking). Incentive zoning can be tailored to a specific location, such as Highway 99 or a portion of downtown. The Committee discussed what areas they would like to explore, with most of the discussion focusing on the potential for addressing the need for a boutique hotel downtown and whether some incentives could be developed for Highway 99. The Committee agreed to further discuss the incentive zoning/development agreement issue at its next meeting, focusing the discussion on downtown and Highway 99. 4. Discussion of Planning Report The Committee discussed how tracking of items referred by Council to the Economic Development Commission or Planning Board could be done. Planning Board members Valerie Stewart and John Reed noted that they intended to keep up their periodic reports to Council, and AM-5670 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Renee McRae Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Information Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign annual Special Event Contracts. Action 3. F. Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the annual Special Event Contracts for the Market, Edmonds Arts Festival, July 4, Taste of Edmonds, and the Car Show. Previous Council Action The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee reviewed the Annual Special Event Contracts for the Market, Edmonds Arts Festival, July 4, Taste of Edmonds, and Car Show at the April 1 meeting and forwarded them to the April 16 Council consent agenda. Narrative There are no significant changes this year to any of the contracts. Attachments 2013 Market Contract 2013 EAF Contract 2013 July 4 Contract 2013 Taste Contract 2013 Car Show Contract 04-08-13 Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Renee McRae Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Form Review Date 04/11/2013 01:40 PM 04/11/2013 04:32 PM 04/11/2013 04:43 PM Started On: 04/11/2013 09:18 AM CONTRACT CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY May 4-October 5, 2013 The following is an agreement ("Agreement") between the CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and the EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY (hereinafter referred to as the "Historical Society") (collectively, the "Parties"). WHEREAS, the Edmonds South County Historical Society has operated in the past a spring and summer market, providing a marketplace for Edmonds residents to display their wares, which uniquely promotes artists and other small business persons and their products; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in addition to providing an opportunity for economic development and a recreational resource to the citizens of Edmonds, the event promotes tourism to the community and could provide an initial springboard for the development of a small business; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the considerations the City provides are more than adequately recompensed by the promises of the Historical Society and the public benefit to be derived from this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions and performances set forth below, the Parties hereto agree as follows: Responsibilities of the City. 1.1 Garden Market (May 4 through June 22): The City shall provide up to 40 parking spaces located on the south and west sides of the police parking lot for farmer/producer based vendors each Saturday. 1.2 Summer Market (June 29 through October 5): • The City shall provide use of the right of way, Bell Street between 5th and 6th Avenues and 5tn Avenue between Bell and Main Streets, by the Historical Society for the "Summer Market" event, each Saturday (Exception: No Summer Market during Taste of Edmonds, Saturday August 10.) • The City shall allow vendor parking on the south, east and west sides of the police parking lot each Saturday (Exception: No Summer Market during Taste of Edmonds, Saturday August 10.) All use and configuration of tents and other temporary facilities used in this event shall be inspected and reviewed prior to the event by Edmonds Fire Marshal or designated representative, in accordance with the provisions of the Open Air Market Ordinance. Tarps, tents, canopies and covers shall be tested and labeled for fire resistance. Also, all participants shall be required to adhere to all provisions of State and local law to insure that no lasting or permanent damage is done to any public facility or property. The Fire Marshal or the City, in accordance with its lawful authority under statute and ordinance, may use their discretion to cancel this event or to prohibit the attendance of the general public in certain areas when doing so would be a violation of state law or local ordinance. • The City shall install Summer Market banners as provided by Historical Society at approved sites. Historical Society shall obtain a Street Banner Permit and pay the required fee. The City shall install appropriate "No Parking Saturdays" signage on both 5th Avenue South and Bell Streets in late June and provide portable street barriers. 2. Responsibilities of the Historical Society. 2.1 Garden Market (May 4 through June 22) and Summer Market (June 29 through October 5): • Set up hours begin at 6:00 a.m. on Saturdays on 5th Avenue and 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays on Bell Street. • During the Garden Market and Summer Market, the sections of the Police parking lot not used by the Market will be reserved for police parking only. Parking restrictions will be posted and vendor and customer parking shall not be allowed in this area. Violators may be towed at their own expense. • For Summer Market, parking restrictions shall be posted indicating violators will be towed. Police Department will attempt to notify owners. If not located by 6:30 a.m. police will proceed to have violating vehicles towed. • For Summer Market, street barricades are in place at 6:00 a.m. on Saturday and removed by 5:00 p.m. Exception: The street barricade at 5th Avenue and Main Street will not be placed until after Sound Disposal enters 5th Avenue to access the alley next to the Museum for Saturday morning pickup. Sound Disposal will enter 5th Avenue from Main Street and access the alley by 8:00 a.m. at the latest. • Historical Society shall obtain necessary Street Use Permits for Summer Market. 2.2 The Historical Society shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Historical Society's General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to provide that the Historical Society's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Historical Society's insurance and shall not contribute to it. The Historical Society shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. 2.3 The Historical Society agrees that the Market is a public event. The Historical Society further agrees that areas constituting the City -Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement, including but not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens, meeting halls and squares, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Historical Society shall permit citizens attending events open to the general public at a City -Provided Site during the Market to exercise therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference. 2.4 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single -use plastic checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to plastic bags used to carry out cooked food or provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. The Historical Society will encourage its vendors to comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable. 2.5 The Historical Society shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Historical Society's performance, or nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver by the Historical Society of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this Agreement. 2.6 Neither the Historical Society nor any of its officers, agents, or employees shall discriminate in the provision of services under this Agreement against any individual, partnership, or corporation based upon race, religion, sex, creed, place of origin, or any other form of discrimination prohibited by federal, state or local law. 2.7 In addition, the Parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901 as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (hereinafter the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City, and employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Historical Society warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the event described in this Agreement. 2.8 Historical Society agrees to the following Market days: Garden Market: Saturdays, May 4 through June 22, 2013 Summer Market: Saturdays, June 29 through October 5, 2013 (No Market August 10, due to Taste of Edmonds). 3 Historical Society agrees to the following Market hours of operation: Garden Market open: 9:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. Set up: 7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. Takedown: 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Summer Market open: 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. Set up: 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. (6:00 a.m. start on 5th Avenue; 7:00 a.m. start on Bell Street) Takedown: 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. 2.9 The City shall have no responsibility or liability for the provision of security services nor shall it be liable for any loss or damage incurred by the Historical Society or the participants in this event. 2.10 Historical Society shall provide fire watch for all times in and around the booths and displays open to the general public as part of this event. 2.11 Historical Society shall provide sufficient portable sani-cans. Sani-cans will be discretely placed at a location(s) to be agreed upon by the City and the Historical Society. The City agrees to allow the use of one space in the parking lot south of City Hall to be used for the placement of two sani-cans for the length of the "Summer Market" (June 29 to October 5, 2013). 2.12 Individual vendors are responsible for packing out all of their own garbage. Historical Society may deposit up to twelve (12) thirty-three gallon bags of garbage generated in their area in the dumpster located in the Public Safety Center's trash enclosure that abuts Fire Station 17. 2.13 Historical Society shall arrange for and pay for a recycling container(s) from Sound Disposal. Container(s) shall be stored and serviced in the Public Safety Center's trash enclosure that abuts Fire Station 17. 2.14 Upon the completion of the event, Historical Society shall make adequate provisions for the cleanup and restoration of all sites rented or provided under terms of this Agreement. 2.15 Historical Society shall pay the City all permit fees, in accordance with provisions of open air market, Ordinance #3015, for the above -mentioned facilities use and services at least ten (10) days prior to the event. 2.16 Colored flags or banners may not be placed in the existing holes in the public sidewalk designated for the American flag program. 3. Miscellaneous. 3.1 Entire Agreement, integration and amendment. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the rights and obligations created hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements, written or oral, between the Parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with the provisions herein. This Agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the Parties hereto. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the Parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue. 3.2 Force majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond the Parties' reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay. 3.3 Relationship between the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or representative of the Historical Society shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. The Historical Society alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. DATED this day of CITY OF EDMONDS: David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 2013. EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: By: Its: _ Date: CONTRACT CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED June 6-June 19, 2013 The following is an agreement ("Agreement") between the CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and the EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED (hereinafter referred to as the "Festival Association") (collectively, the "Parties"). WHEREAS, the Festival Association has for many years sponsored a public event known as the Edmonds Arts Festival which provides educational and artistic benefits to the citizens of Edmonds; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in addition to providing an educational opportunity, the Edmonds Arts Festival showcases Edmonds' artists and helps promote tourism and thereby the economy of Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the considerations to be provided to the Festival Association by the City are more than adequately recompensed by the compensation provided by the Festival Association and from the public benefits received by the citizens of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions and performances set forth below, the Parties hereto agree as follows: Responsibilities of the City. Certain Festival Association obligations includedl 1.1 From 10:00 p.m., June 6 to 5:00 p.m., June 18, 2013, the City shall provide Rooms 206, 207, 208, 209 (parallel bars will not be taken down), 112, 113, 114, 115, and 123 of the Frances Anderson Center. The Frances Anderson Center gym shall be provided from 1:00 p.m., June 6 to 12:00 midnight, June 17, 2013. Gym shall be available for use by 8:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 18, 2013. Under no circumstances shall the Festival Association have access to the Sculptor's Workshop, Rooms 210 and 211. 1.2 The City shall provide the Library Plaza Room from 8:00 a.m., Thursday, June 6 until 12:00 midnight, Monday, June 17, 2013 at which time the Festival Association agrees to have the carpet professionally cleaned so that it is dry and ready for set up at 7:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 18, 2013. 1.3 All of the rooms identified herein shall be under the exclusive control of the Festival Association during the period identified due to the high value of the arts and crafts works that shall be located therein. The City shall make its best efforts to limit foot traffic not related to the Festival Association activities to a minimum. Two sets of the required keys plus three additional room keys will be checked out to the Festival Association President, or designee, who shall be responsible for security of all Festival Association displays and supplies. The Festival Association may cover the vending machines from 12:00 noon, June 12 through June 16, 2013. 1.4 During the evening of June 12, 2013, the Festival Association shall have exclusive control of the hallways serving the rooms it is allowed to use for that evening starting at 5:00 p.m. During this time, the Festival Association shall hold the Annual Benefit from 5:30 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. The Fire Marshall will do an inspection of the tented area prior to the start of the party for life safety issues. Alcoholic drinks may be served at the Benefit, so long as the Festival Association obtains all required state licenses and approvals to serve alcohol. The lighted display shall be reserved for the use of the Festival Association. The City shall provide ample trashcans for the evening of June 12, 2013. Clean up is the responsibility of the Festival Association. 1.5 The City shall provide the Frances Anderson ballfield, playfield, courtyard and amphitheater, and the Edmonds Plaza from Noon, June 12 through midnight, June 17, 2013. The playfield shall be provided for Artwork Booths. It is recognized that the City may choose to sprinkle the field prior to the Edmonds Arts Festival to reduce dust as watering the field is the only means the City has to control dust. The sprinkling system shall be turned off by 8:00 a.m., June 12, 2013. The Festival Association agrees to reduce the size of the infield cover to cover the infield only. In addition to the Playfeld, the Festival Association shall be provided the paved area west of the outdoor stage for the food concession area. The Library Plaza to the west of the Anderson Center shall be used for special functions suitable to the area. The Festival Association shall utilize and shall be provided up to fifteen (15) picnic tables at the concession area and up to fifteen (15) garbage cans around the outside area, and shall provide the City with a schematic drawing of where the garbage cans and picnic tables are to be placed by June 3. The Festival Association shall provide two volunteers for eight hours each to assist with the moving and placement of picnic tables and garbage cans and shall provide a truck and volunteers to move and set up the information booths. The Festival Association shall be responsible for providing a dumpster for trash and grease traps for waste water disposal. The Festival Association shall provide the City with a list of supplies (trash can liners, paper towels, etc.) which the City shall order. The Festival Association will pay the invoices for all supplies in a timely fashion. The City shall check the stage to insure that it is in safe and usable condition. 1.6 Eighth Avenue shall be closed between Main Street and Dayton Street for an additional food concession area and eating tables from 8:00 a.m., June 12, through 12:00 noon, June 17, 2013. The City shall provide and install safety barriers at both ends of the closed street. The Festival Association shall obtain a street closure permit as a part of its obligations under paragraph 2.9. 1.7 Except as provided below, the Festival Association shall have exclusive use of the parking lot between the Anderson Center and the Edmonds Library for permit parking from June 12 through June 17, 2013, provided, however, that the Festival Association shall provide nine parking permits and marked stalls for Library staff/patrons, which include three handicapped parking stalls. The Dayton Street book drop and the Library receiving area must remain open at all times. The City shall provide official handicapped parking signs. One 2 load/unload space each will be marked on Dayton and Main Street, and up to two spaces on 8th Avenue. 1.8 The Festival Association shall have exclusive use of the Civic Center dirt soccer/football field (excluding all turf areas) from 2 p.m., June 12 until 8 a.m., Monday, June 17, 2013. The field will be used exclusively for all -day parking of exhibitors and staff. Entrance adjacent to Boys & Girls Club prohibited except in an emergency. 1.9 The City shall install Edmonds Arts Festival street banners at all approved sites. One additional banner on the east wall of the Frances Anderson Center will be installed by the City. 1.10 The City shall provide fifteen (15) amps of electrical service to each duplex outlet: the Festival Association must supply any additional power. A Festival Association representative and a City representative from Public Works will meet prior to June 7, 2013, to draw up an interior and exterior electrical plan. The Festival Association is responsible for notifying PUD of hookups and scheduling inspection of temporary panels. The Festival Association must have temporary panels and power poles removed by 12:00 Noon, Wednesday, June 19, 2013. The Festival Association shall not draw power from the Frances Anderson Center. 2. Responsibilities of the Festival Association. 2.1 The Festival Association will operate the Edmonds Arts Festival consistent with its educational purposes and shall not illegally discriminate in the provision of the event or in its entrance requirements against any person or organization in violation of state or federal statute or local ordinance. 2.2 In addition, the Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901 as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City and employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Festival Association warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the event described in this Agreement. 2.3 The Festival Association agrees that the Edmonds Arts Festival is a public event. The Festival Association further agrees that areas provided by the City that are covered under this Agreement, including but not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens, meeting halls and squares, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Festival Association shall permit citizens attending events open to the general public during the Edmonds Arts Festival to exercise therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference on City property. 3 2.4 RCW 70.93.093 concerning event recycling became effective in Washington on July 22, 2007. The Festival Association will place clearly marked recycling containers throughout the event area for the collection of aluminum, glass or plastic bottles or cans, and arrange for recycling services. 2.5 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single -use plastic checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to plastic bags used to carry out cooked food or provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. The Festival Association will encourage its vendors to comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable. 2.6 The Festival Association shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Festival Association's performance, or nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver by the Festival Association of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this Agreement. 2.7 The Festival Association shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $3,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $3,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Festival Association's General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that the Festival Association's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Festival Association's insurance and shall not contribute to it. The Festival Association shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the premises described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. 2.8 Displays and artworks shall not be hung from conduits or sprinkler pipes. Exits and exit signage shall not be obstructed except with specific approval of the Fire Marshal or his designee. Nothing shall be attached to any piece of art displayed by the City, or on any metal surface, within the Edmonds Art Festival premises made available by the City to the Festival Association and covered by this Agreement. The Festival Association shall be responsible for removing all paint, wires, and modifications made to the building for the Festival and restoring the premises to its original condition. No stakes shall be used on grassy areas of the Plaza. A Festival Association representative shall meet with a member of the City's Parks and Recreation Department prior to June 7, 2013 and on June 19, 2013 to inspect the facility to 4 document the "original" and post event condition of the Anderson Center, the Plaza Rooms, and outside areas. 2.9 The Festival Association shall be responsible for picking up all trash and removing all items and equipment related to the Edmonds Arts Festival by 5:00 p.m., June 18, 2013. This includes the grounds as well as the buildings. The City shall provide the Festival Association with one mop, pail, and broom to use for cleanup, supplies for the toilet facilities, and keys to dispensers. The Festival Association will provide sufficient portable sani-cans and wash stations. The Festival Association will take over cleaning and stocking the restrooms from 5:00 pm, June 12 to 5:00 pm, June 17, 2013. 2.10 The Festival Association shall provide manpower to assist relocating City equipment and furniture to the storage rooms. Also, City clients shall have access to the weight room (200A) for drop -in use up until 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 12, 2013, and starting again at 8:00 a.m., Monday, June 17, 2013. The clients shall use the alternate Main Street entrance (no access through the gym). The City shall secure the hallway between the gymnasium and the weight room by 12:00 noon, Friday, June 7. The hallway must be opened by 2:00 p.m., June 12 and must remain open, clear and unobstructed for egress during the Edmonds Arts Festival. 2.11 The Festival Association shall be responsible for all required city and state permits. The Festival Association shall submit all required application(s) and fees(s) for the Street Banner Permits provided for by this Agreement. All permits will be arranged through a designated representative of the City. The Festival Association is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits for serving alcohol on the premises from the state. 2.12 The Festival Association shall post "NO DOGS" signs on the Edmonds Arts Festival grounds and the Civic Center Field as per City Ordinance. The Festival Association shall notify vendors of this ordinance as part of their registration instructions, and also inform vendors that this ordinance will be enforced. This provision shall not apply to service animals for the disabled. 2.13 The Festival Association shall be responsible for cleaning rugs, floors, stairs, and otherwise restoring the buildings to their original condition, including professional cleaning of the Plaza Room carpet, rooms 201, 209, 112 (if used), 114 and main floor hallway, elevator lobby and ramp. The Festival Association shall pay for special cleaning of all paved food concession areas, restore all areas to their original condition, and wash east -facing windows on the first and second floor of the Frances Anderson Center by 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 19. (Care must be taken particularly with the Daycare windows below ground level which have exhaust fans that are not able to be sealed). The Festival Association shall hot water power wash the Plaza and all pedestrian walkways around the amphitheater and Frances Anderson Center as well as the Library Plaza area and steps to the Library parking lot. The Festival Association will be responsible for installing drain guards on all affected storm drains prior to the beginning of the Edmonds Arts Festival, and for removing them after clean-up is complete. Drain guards will be provided by the City. Power washed materials (litter, etc.) must be collected and disposed of and not pushed to adjacent areas. Disposal of waste water shall be according to the City policy using grease traps provided, cleaned and picked up, by the Festival Association. 5 2.14 The Festival Association shall provide a fire watch for all times the buildings and displays are open to the general public. The Edmonds Fire Marshall or representative shall inspect the Frances Anderson Center with the Festival Association President, or designated representative, prior to June 7, 2013 and any potential problems will be noted and reported prior to Fire Marshall's briefing. At 9:00 a.m., June 12, 2013 Fire Marshall shall brief designated representatives of the Festival Association of the location and use of fire apparatus in the Anderson Center and Library Plaza Rooms. The Festival Association President and appointed representatives will be the responsible Festival Association individuals for performing fire prevention and fire watch activities. 2.15 The Festival Association shall insure that: 2.15.1 Kilns, barbecues, forges and other sources of heat shall be insulated from turfed areas to prevent the heat from killing the grass and sterilizing the soil. All heat producing appliances in locations other than the food vending area shall be approved by the Fire Department and may require conditions for their acceptable use. Food vendor installations will be inspected prior to the Edmonds Arts Festival opening. Tarps, tents, canopies and covers shall be listed and labeled for flame resistance. 2.15.2 Vehicles shall only be allowed on turfed areas to load and unload, with adjacent streets and Civic Center Soccer Playfield (dirt field) used for parking during the Edmonds Arts Festival. Food Court concessions will use the Main Street entrance for loading and unloading. The Festival Association shall notify all individual residents of the affected areas of 8th Avenue and provide general notice to all the citizens of the closure of 8th Avenue. 2.15.3 The Festival Association will provide gate control and parking supervision to ensure orderly and efficient parking, and restrict parking to the sand/dirt surface within the track area. Use of the jogging track, tennis courts, softball field, and Boy' & Girls' Club activities should not be impacted. The Festival Association may be charged time and/or materials to return the area to its original condition. 2.16 The Festival Association shall submit a cleaning/damage deposit of $1,000.00 to the City prior to May 6, 2013. The deposit shall be refunded to the Festival Association if, upon inspection, all is in order, or a prorated portion thereof as may be necessary to reimburse the City for loss or cleaning and supply costs. 2.17 The Festival Association shall pay the City a fee of $6,600.00 ($5,960 for Anderson Center, under stage storage, Plaza Room and environs and $640 for Civic Field) for the use and services of the above mentioned facilities in this Contract, pay directly to the contractor for supplies provided through the City for the actual cost of supplies furnished by the City within thirty (30) days of mailing of a final bill by the City. All fees are due by May 6, 2013. 2.18 Notices. All requests for additional services and concerns of the Festival Association shall be directed by the Festival Association President to the City's designated representative, Ren6e McRae (425.771.0232). L 3. Miscellaneous. 3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the rights and obligations created hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements, written or oral, between the Parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with the provisions herein. This Agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the Parties hereto. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the Parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue. 3.2 Force majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond the Parties' reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay. 3.3 Relationship between the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or representative of the Festival Association shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. The Festival Association alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. DATED this day of , 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS: EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION David O. Earling, Mayor Its: Date: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney CONTRACT THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Thursday, July 4, 2013 The following is an agreement ("Agreement") between the CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter referred to as "City") and the GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (hereinafter referred to as "Chamber") (collectively, the "Parties"). WHEREAS, the Chamber proposes to conduct a public celebration honoring Independence Day - 4th of July through a parade and fireworks display; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to participate in the sponsorship of such events by providing the consideration set forth in this Agreement in order to enhance the safety of the public celebrations for its citizens and to offer a reasonable alternative to the use of private fireworks which the Council finds in many situations to be unsafe; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions and performances set forth below, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Responsibilities of the City City shall provide: 1.1 Use of City streets as diagrammed in Exhibit A - Parade Route, for parade to occur on July 4, 2013. City will provide traffic barriers and will set up and take down sound system to be located at the Edmonds Theater. City shall put up banners at approved sites. 1.2 Use of Civic Center Playfield for setup to start at 9:00 a.m. and Fireworks to occur at approximately 10 p.m., July 4, 2013. 1.3 Use of 6th Avenue South between Bell Street and Sprague Street from 6:00 p.m. until 11:00 P.M. 1.4 Barricades at 0h Avenue South and Bell and 6th Avenue South and Sprague. 1.5 A power hookup at the west end of the grandstand and power for the band. 1.6 Two signs at each entrance to the Park indicating no fireworks or alcohol allowed. 1.7 City is responsible for stringing flags, caution tape or line that clearly delineates spectator areas from fireworks staging areas. 2. Responsibilities of the Chamber 2.1 To assume all responsibility for coordination of the 4th of July Parade, including but not limited to hiring off -duty police officers to police the route and assuring that all participants are informed of and abide by the parade rules to insure that no participants draw people viewing the parade onto the parade route. 2.2 To obtain the necessary Street Banner Application (from Public Works 425-771- 0235) and Parade Permit (Police Department 425-771-0200). Fees for the preceding two permits will be waived for this event. A Street Use Permit is not needed. Chamber will ensure that pyrotechnic provider submits Application for Fireworks Display Permit accompanied by a $30.00 public display permit fee (Edmonds Fire Marshal 425-771-0215). A copy of their State pyrotechnic license shall be provided with their application. The Chamber shall obtain ASCAP and any other copyright licenses necessary. 2.3 To provide for security and sani-cans along the parade route and fireworks display. 2.4 To pick up, deliver, and return to storage in City Park gazebo and Parks Maintenance area all needed 3' X 10' and 10' X 10' staging sections. 2.5. To hook up electrical power made available by the City at the west end of the grandstand. 2.6 To provide 10 yards of sand for the pyrotechnic display and provisions for cleanup and removal after the event. 2.7 To assume all responsibility for fireworks display. A State -licensed pyrotechnics operator shall abide by local ordinances and make necessary permit applications for local approval. State guidelines and operational requirements shall be adhered to for safe operation of fireworks. 2.8 To authorize a maximum of three stationary self-contained vendors on closed sections of 5th or Main Streets off the parade route. No vendors will be authorized along the parade route. To authorize not more than ten vendors on 6t' Avenue South between Bell Street and Sprague for the evening fireworks. Vendors shall operate at specified locations and shall not block park entrances or fire hydrants. Vendors must be self-contained; no power hookups are available for vendors. Vendors are responsible for having appropriate permits and for compliance with all local and state requirements. 2.9 To provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Chamber's General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that the Chamber's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, self insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Chamber's insurance and shall not contribute to it. The Chamber shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than ANII. 2.10 To remove all garbage to the size of a cigarette butt, including metal and litter debris, equipment, and any and all other items made necessary by or used in the provision of this event. 2.11 The Chamber agrees that the 4th of July celebration is a public event. The Chamber further agrees that areas constituting the City -Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement, including but not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens, meeting halls and squares, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Chamber shall permit citizens attending events open to the general public at City -Provided Site during the 4th of July celebration to exercise therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference. 2.12 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single -use plastic checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to plastic bags used to carry out cooked food or provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. The Chamber of Commerce will encourage its vendors to comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable. 2.13 RCW 70.93.093 concerning event recycling became effective in Washington on July 22, 2007. The Chamber will place clearly marked recycling containers throughout the event area for the collection of aluminum, glass or plastic bottles or cans, and arrange for recycling 6Y�r�i[K�91 2.14 The Chamber shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Chamber's performance, or nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver by the Chamber of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this Agreement. 2.15 The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901 as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City, and employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Chamber warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the event described in this Agreement. 2.16 The Chamber shall be responsible to restore all public spaces to their original condition, including removing and disposing of any and all litter and trash. K 3. Miscellaneous. 3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the rights and obligations created hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements, written or oral, between the Parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with the provisions herein. This Agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the Parties hereto. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the Parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue. 3.2 Force majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond the Parties' reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay. 3.3 Relationship between the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or representative of the Chamber shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. The Chamber alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. DATED this day of 92013. CITY OF EDMONDS: GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Ron Clyborne, Chamber President 4 7th Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce 4th of July Main Parade Route Cnric � ceMe� m = e Ba s & Playfield a+ m G Is luh 6th xxxx Barricades Main Parade Route Public Restroorns Public Phones ® Parade Announcers Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce 4th of July Children's Parade Route Idly fmsarryy us o Church a,urchc xx Civic Cede 5 eo s 8 Play�el — a go m e Gi 's luh m xx E. x xxx xx 11 6th x �s Pad Sourd Prblic 0 Ctrls[ian Safety Cdl a Complex 5th J xxxx Barricades 41h Children's Parade Route 4' ❑m fiPublic Restrooms xx xx Public Phones �y 3rd ® Parade Aruiounca•s ' ❑ 2rd Chlldre Parade Check- J2 41" of July Parade Participant's Map (Parking for Parade Support Vehid es = Parade A P ■ long east ade participants } a of 7th Avenue i MUST approach 7th .} Check -In from Casp ers Check -In quc LL and 7th — m B sd Playfiel v � a 3 u 6th ipn Safety & Gor {y, arryle40 x m . � X Ll ah FIB;;, I --IFxx�xsclLJ xxxx Roadcl—rebarricades - M Parking for Support Vehicles -,L_1 4 Parade gaging Area L 2rd ■ NO PARKING (church orchurchparW ng ld) Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce 4t' of July Fireworks and Evening Festivities r ,&1VZWFrqrMW _ — Bo-ys Civc o g Stadium Cluh Bih yet Sound Puhlic Christian Safety Colle a Gorrplex - n ers n � nfPr lih ra n, fvrWng tnt Bth 41h 3 Vendor Area _ on 6' Ave. N Civic Center Playfield 6th Avenue Booths will be on the west side of 6th. They will not block entrances or fire hydrants. 6 CONTRACT CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE August 7-13, 2013 The following is an agreement ("Agreement") between CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and the GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (hereinafter referred to as the "Chamber") (collectively, the "Parties"). WHEREAS, the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce has for a number of years conducted a public event known as "A Taste of Edmonds" and proposes to do so again in 2013; WHEREAS; the City Council finds that A Taste of Edmonds provides distinct benefits to the City by showcasing Edmonds' restaurants and other local businesses while providing a unique recreational opportunity for its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such an event enhances tourism and promotes economic development as well as providing an opportunity for good clean fun to its citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions and performances set forth below, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Responsibilities and Rights of City 1.1 City shall provide use of surfaces on Civic Center Field (excluding the tennis courts), Bell Street including Centennial Plaza between 5t' & 6th Avenues, and 6t' Avenue from Bell Street north to Daley Street, and south approximately 80' to first drive on west side for use by Chamber for the "Taste of Edmonds" event (the "Event"), so as to allow for the following: (a) The Event setup shall begin on Wednesday, August 7, 2013, at 8:00 a.m. Barricades to be in place at 8:00 a.m. (b) All surfaces listed shall remain available to the "Taste of Edmonds" until final cleanup by Tuesday, August 13, 2013, at noon. (c) City shall designate eight (8) additional handicapped parking spaces to be located in an area to be agreed upon by City and Chamber officials. 1.2 All use and configuration of structures, booths and other permanent or temporary facilities used in the Event may be inspected and reviewed by City Fire Chief, Police Chief, Building Official and Parks and Recreation Director or their designees to determine the facilities in use comply with the provisions of State and local law, as well as to insure that no lasting or permanent damage shall be done to any public facility or property. 1.3 Edmonds Fire Marshal shall inspect the facilities prior to the opening to the general public on or before 10:00 a.m., August 9, 2013, as the Parties shall agree and note all potential problems. Prior to the opening of the Event, Chamber shall correct all problems related to fire safety. In the event that such problems are not corrected, City may at its sole discretion cancel the Event or prohibit the attendance of the general public in certain areas, if in the opinion of the Fire Marshal and at the sole discretion of City, any violation or other condition that threatens life, health or property has not been corrected. 1.4 City shall provide barricades and barricade placement and removal for the Event. 1.5 City shall provide padlocks as required on location for tennis courts and other areas from which public access is restricted during the Event. City shall also provide removal of the padlocks. 1.6 City shall provide water access behind the opening between booths 187 and 188 for use by the food vendors. 1.7 City shall provide access to storage area of portable stage to beer garden at time of stage installation and at time of stage removal. 1.8 City shall provide basketball hoop removal and re -installation on basketball courts located near the Boys & Girls Club building. 1.9 City shall install Taste of Edmonds street banners as provided by Chamber at approved sites. Chamber shall obtain a Street Banner Permit and pay the required fee. 1.10 City has the right to check the noise level of any amplified sound equipment or other source and require that the volume be reduced if it exceeds the safety limits recommended by the Seattle King County Department of Health or levels set forth in the ordinances of the City of Edmonds. 1.11 City shall provide and oversee police supervision of the Event under the command of the Chief of Police or his designee. Police staffing levels and fees to be paid to the City will be mutually determined by the Chief of Police, or his designee, and the Chamber Executive Director. 2. Responsibilities and Rights of Chamber 2.1 The Chamber shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Chamber's General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that the Chamber's insurance shall be the primary insurance. Any insurance, self insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Chamber's insurance and shall not contribute to it. The Chamber shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. 2.2 The Chamber agrees that the Taste of Edmonds is a public event. The Chamber further agrees that areas constituting the City -Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement, including but not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens, meeting halls and squares, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Chamber shall permit citizens attending events open to the general public at City -Provided Site during the Taste of Edmonds to exercise therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference in a designated free speech zone that does not violate fire and ADA codes. 2.3 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single -use plastic checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to plastic bags used to carry out cooked food or provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. The Chamber of Commerce will encourage its vendors to comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable. 2.4 RCW 70.93.093 concerning event recycling became effective in Washington on July 22, 2007. The Chamber will place clearly marked recycling containers throughout the Event area for the collection of aluminum, glass or plastic bottles or cans, and arrange for recycling services. 2.5 The Chamber shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Chamber's performance, or nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver by the Chamber of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this Agreement. 2.6 Chamber may in its discretion limit the participation of any vendor who produces duplication in order to adequately recognize limitations of space, failure to comply with applicable State or local health, liquor, or other requirements of law, and in order to provide an adequate and interesting diversity compatible with the recreation of the citizens of Edmonds. 2.7 Neither Chamber nor any of its officers, agents, or employees shall discriminate in the provision of service under this Agreement against any individual, partnership, or corporation based upon race, religion, sex, creed, place of origin, or any other form of discrimination prohibited by federal, state or local law. 2.8 The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901 as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City, and employees of any vendor at the Event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Chamber warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the Event described in this Agreement. 3 2.9 Chamber shall obtain any necessary Street Use and Parks Facility Use Permits and pay the required fees. (See site plan attached as Exhibit "A"). 2.10 Chamber shall restrict field parking to approved areas. Chamber shall have security at permit parking entrance area to limit public access. City has the right to close the parking area for the Event if parking is not limited to the agreed upon area. 2.11 Chamber shall ensure that all booths/beer garden/wine garden have the necessary state permits for serving and selling alcohol. Chamber agrees to make its best effort to prevent service of alcohol to minors, including segregation of the beer garden and wine garden, posting security at the entrances of the beer garden and wine garden and checking identification in accordance with common practice. Chamber shall obtain any copyright licenses necessary for presenting licensed live and recorded music. 2.12 Chamber agrees to the following general open hours of the Taste of Edmonds: Friday, August 9, 2013: Saturday, August 10, 2013 Sunday, August 11, 2013: 11:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 11:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 11:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Chamber agrees to keep the hours of operation in the Beer Garden and Wine Garden within the following schedule: Friday, August 9, 2013: 11 a.m.-10:00 p.m. (Last call 9:30 p.m., no service after 9:45 p.m.) Saturday, August 10, 2013: 11:00 a.m.-10 p.m. (Last call 9:30 p.m., no service after 9:45 p.m.) Sunday, August 11, 2013: 11:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. (Last call 6:30 p.m., no service after 6:45 p.m.) 2.13 Chamber shall provide any and all security services necessary during the night time hours (night time hours being defined as those hours which the Event is not in operation), sufficient to reasonably secure the area and facilities provided. City shall have no responsibility or liability for the provision of security services nor shall it be liable for any loss or damage incurred by Chamber or the participants in the Event. 2.14 Chamber shall provide a fire watch for all times in and around the booths and displays open to the general public as a part of the Event. 2.15 Chamber shall provide a sufficient number of portable sani-cans and wash stations (approximately 35 sani-cans, 2 of which must be handicapped accessible, and a minimum of 5 wash stations). 2.16 Chamber shall provide fence installation and removal at the Beer Garden and Wine Gardens. 2.17 Chamber is responsible for contracting with appropriate vendors for power. No power is available from the Civic Center complex. 4 2.18 Chamber shall provide labor and equipment for the portable Beer Garden pouring station (PS) to: (1) pickup the PS elements at the City's storage location, (2) set up the PS, (3) take down the PS, (4) cleanup the PS elements, and (5) return the PS elements to the City's storage location. 2.19 Garbage service shall be contracted and paid for by Chamber. 2.20 Upon the completion of the Event, Chamber shall make adequate provisions for the cleanup and restoration of all sites rented or provided under the terms of this Agreement, including steam cleaning and pressure washing whenever required for all hard surfaces impacted by the Event. Storm drains are to be covered with filter fabric to capture grease and debris. 2.21 Cleanup areas include area as described in paragraph 1.1 and all streets immediately surrounding the Event perimeter. 2.22 All garbage to the size of a cigarette butt, debris, litter, equipment, and any other and all other items made necessary by or used in the provision of the Event shall be picked up and removed by 12:00 noon, Tuesday, August 13, 2013. 2.23 A final inspection of the Event area shall be conducted by City Parks Maintenance Division to determine if all areas are clean and returned to their original condition. 2.24 Chamber shall submit a cleaning/damage deposit of $1,500.00 to City prior to Monday, July 8, 2013. The deposit shall be refunded to Chamber if, upon inspection, all is in order, or a prorated portion thereof as may be necessary to reimburse City for loss or cleaning costs. 2.25 Chamber shall pay City all permit fees for the above -mentioned facility use ($1,060.00 facility rental) prior to Monday, July 8, 2013, and shall reimburse City for the actual costs of supplies or services furnished by City, unless otherwise established, within thirty (30) days of mailing of a final bill by the City. 2.26 Colored banners or flags may not be placed in the existing holes in the public sidewalk designated for the American flag program. 3. Miscellaneous. 3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the rights and obligations created hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements, written or oral, between the Parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with the provisions herein. This Agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the Parties hereto. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the Parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue. 3.2 Force majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond the Parties' reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay. 3.3 Relationship between the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or representative of Chamber shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. The Chamber alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. DATED this day of CITY OF EDMONDS: David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 2013. GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Ron Clyborne, President SPRAGUE FIRE ^, � Qa�eo®fl�oQcnol�mta�7omomaQo ll� r-"- BEER STAGE I PARIGNI i wswn AREA 6TH ANq BELL BOYS AND aRLS CLIP 1 VENDOR PARKING BEER GARDEN i i m0®L7�ICJmCi7D® ®® m® co Ulm _ ® oc co ma cr■ m mA on ma oD ® 0 mm CC CC no mm mr� ag ® m Cm cm GCI EEO mmGmi7®C®amm Co om mm D© mG ml, GC Cm QG IN CC mQ t9m Cm CC om RV PARKING --------------------- VENDOR RVPARKING i a MAIN W,F TABLES KIDS STAM_ AREA a__ U ('-� ^ .,. .»..O.. WINE PLAY GARDEN S'I�I "' I GRAND STAND GR4UI w � a = 0 Z O 0 LLJ LL O LLJ Q cM T— O N BELL ST. A TASTE OF EDMONDS ALLEY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE September 8, 2013 The following is an agreement ("Agreement") between CITY OF EDMONDS ("City"), and the GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ("Chamber") (collectively, the "Parties"). WHEREAS, the Chamber has proposed to hold a public event known as the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Classic Car Show ("Classic Car Show" or "Event"); WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the "Classic Car Show" provides distinct benefits to the City by showcasing the City while providing a unique recreational opportunity for its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such an event enhances tourism and promotes economic development as well as providing an opportunity for good clean fun to its citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions and performances set forth below, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. City and Chamber agree that: 1.1 City shall provide use of the following surfaces by Chamber for the Classic Car Show: • "Center Round" around the fountain in downtown Edmonds at 5th Avenue and Main Street, • Main Street from the East side of its intersection with 3rd Avenue to the West side of its intersection with 6th Avenue, • 4th Avenue S. from the South side of its intersection with Bell Street to the North side of its intersection with Dayton Street, and again from the South side of its intersection with Dayton Street to approximately 100 feet south down 4th Avenue, • 5th Avenue, from the North side of its intersection with Walnut Street to the North side of its intersection of the northern leg of Bell Street, • Dayton Street, from the West side of 5th Avenue to the East side of 4th Avenue, • City Hall parking lot located immediately South of the City Hall building at 121 5th Avenue N and the parking lot under City Hall. (The above areas shall be hereinafter referred to as the "City -Provided Site.") 1.2 One or several days before the Event, City shall place signs so as to clear the City - Provided Site of all vehicles from 2:00 a.m. on the date of the event until 7:00 p.m. on the same day. 1.3 City shall provide barriers near the following 13 locations for street closures required to contain the City -Provided Site described in Paragraph 1.1: Pine and 561, to close 5th Avenue north to Walnut, Maple and 5th, to close Maple Street east of 5th Avenue Dayton and 6th, to allow local access only on Dayton between 6th Avenue & 5th Avenue Dayton and 5th, to close 5th Avenue north and south of Dayton Street Dayton and 5th, to close Dayton west of 5th Avenue Dayton and 4th, to close Dayton east of 4th Avenue Walnut and 5th, to close 5th Avenue north and south of Walnut Street Main and 5th, to close 50h Avenue to the most northern portion of Bell Main and Oh, to close Main Street west of 6th Avenue Main and 3rd, to close Main Street east of 3rd Avenue 4th and Bell, to close 4th Avenue south of Bell Street 4th and Dayton, to close 4th Avenue north and south of Dayton Street; and On 4th, to close 4th Avenue 100 ft. immediately south of Dayton 1.4 City shall arrange for access control of 5th Avenue South at Walnut Street from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on the date of the Event. Chamber will be responsible for paying the actual cost of the overtime wages incurred by the City of the police officer to be stationed at the intersection. This intersection will not be closed to general traffic east and west, but access will be controlled and may be limited during this time period to allow for the safe staging of Event vehicles. There will be a committee member at the intersection with the police officer to designate which vehicles will be part of the Event. 1.5 Above barriers shall be delivered so as to allow Chamber to position such barriers at 5:00 a.m. the day of the Event. The number of barriers left by City at each of the eight locations shall be sufficient to provide adequate street closure. Chamber shall remove same barriers at 7:00 p.m. on the same day. 1.6 City shall also provide street closure barriers for the purpose described in Paragraph 1.7 near the following intersections: Maple Street and 6th Avenue, to close Maple west of 6th; and Alder Street and 6th Avenue, to close Alder west of Oh 1.7 Chamber shall position such barriers at 5:00 a.m. the day of the Event so as to provide adequate street closures and prevent traffic from 6th Avenue to turn onto Maple Street or Alder Street from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. Chamber shall remove such barriers at 10:00 a.m. on the same day. 1.8 On the day of the event, Chamber shall place traffic cones on the center -dividing line of 5th Avenue between Pine Street and Walnut Street from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. 2 1.9 Chamber shall obtain any necessary Street Use Permits and pay the required fees. Police, Fire, and Public Works will meet with Chamber of Commerce officials to resolve any remaining or potential issues of traffic control and barricades prior to the event, but shall have no authority to waive the requirements of city ordinance or state law. 1.10 The Chamber shall be permitted to establish and operate five outdoor dining gardens within the City -Provided Site during the Event. These gardens shall not exceed 15 x 25 in dimension, and shall be fenced in a manner that clearly establishes and distinguishes their boundaries. Maximum capacity of the dining gardens shall be determined by the Edmonds Fire Marshall. Dining gardens shall provide tables, chairs and umbrellas for use by their diners. No alcohol shall be served or permitted in the dining gardens. Food and non-alcoholic drinks may be served in the dining gardens, but no food preparation shall be permitted therein. Dining gardens shall be sponsored by local restaurants, and shall be located near each sponsoring restaurant. Dining gardens shall open no earlier than 4AM and shall close no later than 5:00 p.m. during the Event. 1.11 All use and configuration of structures, booths and other temporary facilities used in the event shall be inspected and reviewed by Edmonds Fire Marshall, Police Chief, Building Official and Parks and Recreation Director or their designees to determine whether the facilities in use comply with the provisions of State and local law, as well as to insure that no lasting or permanent damage shall be done to any public facility or property. Edmonds Fire Marshal shall inspect the facilities prior to the opening to the general public on or before 7:00 a.m., September 8, 2013, as the Parties shall agree and note all potential problems. Prior to the opening of the event, Chamber shall correct all problems. In the event that such problems are not corrected, City may at its sole discretion cancel such event or prohibit the attendance of the general public in certain areas, if in the opinion of the Fire Marshal and at the sole discretion of City, anything that threatens life, health or property shall appear. 1.12 City has the right to check the noise level of any amplified sound equipment or other source and require that the volume be reduced if it exceeds the safety limits recommended by the Snohomish County Department of Health or levels set forth in the ordinances of the City of Edmonds. 2. Chamber Responsibilities In addition to the above and in consideration of the use of the facilities and services above described, Chamber agrees to the following: 2.1 The Chamber shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and a copy of the endorsement naming City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Chamber's General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that the Chamber's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, self-insurance, or 3 insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Chamber's insurance and shall not contribute to it. The Chamber shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than ANII. 2.2 The Chamber agrees that the Classic Car Show is a public event. The Chamber further agrees that areas constituting the City -Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement, including but not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens, meeting halls and squares, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Chamber shall permit citizens attending events open to the general public at City -Provided Site during the Classic Car Show to exercise therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference. 2.3 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single -use plastic checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to plastic bags used to carry out cooked food or provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. The Chamber will encourage its vendors to comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable. 2.4 The Chamber shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Chamber's performance, or nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver by the Chamber of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this Agreement. 2.5 The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901 as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City, and employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Chamber warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the event described in this Agreement. 2.6 Chamber shall provide any and all security services necessary to reasonably secure the area and facilities provided, including the City -Provided Site. City shall have no responsibility or liability for the provision of security services nor shall it be liable for any loss or damage incurred by Chamber or the participants in this Event. 2.7 Chamber shall provide a fire watch for all times in and around the booths and displays open to the general public as a part of this Event. 2.8 Chamber shall provide sufficient wash stations and approximately 12 sani-cans that may be placed on site the night preceding the Event. Garbage service, if necessary, shall be contracted and paid for by Chamber. 4 2.9 Upon completion of the Event, Chamber shall make adequate provisions for the cleanup of all sites provided under the terms of this Agreement so as to restore them to the same state of cleanliness as existed the night prior to the Event. Cleanup of all relevant street pavements shall be completed by 7:00 p.m. on that day. Cleanup of sidewalks shall be completed by 11:00 p.m. on that day. Cleanup areas include the City -Provided Site as described in Section 1 and all streets immediately surrounding the Event perimeter. A final inspection of the Event area shall be conducted by a designated City official to determine if all areas are clean and returned to their original condition. 2.10 Chamber shall pay City all permit fees for the above -mentioned facility use and services at least ten (10) days prior to the Event, and shall reimburse City for the actual costs of supplies or services furnished by City (excluding those agreed to in Section 1) within thirty (30) days of mailing of a final bill by the City, provided such supplies and services are approved and listed by all Parties to this Agreement in a signed addendum to this Agreement prior to the date which they purport to be required. 2.11 Colored banners or flags may not be placed in the existing holes in the public sidewalk designated for the American flag program. 3. Miscellaneous. 3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the rights and obligations created hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements, written or oral, between the Parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with the provisions herein. This Agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the Parties hereto. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the Parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue. 3.2 Force majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond the Parties' reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay. 3.3 Termination. The City shall have the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to unilaterally terminate this Agreement should the same become necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare; in which case, the City shall provide written notice of the same to the Chamber. 3.4 Relationship between the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or representative of the Chamber shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. The Chamber alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. DATED this day of , 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS: GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: David O. Earling, Mayor Ron Clyborne, President ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting April 8, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Council Member Kristiana Johnson Council Member Diane Buckshnis Members of the Public Present: John Reed Val Stewart Don Hall Ron Wambolt Staff Present: Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Rob Chave, Acting Dev. Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services / Economic Development Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney The committee convened at 4:00 p.m. in the Fourtner Meeting Room, City Hall. Annual Special Event Contracts A brief discussion was held concerning the annual Special Event Contracts. ACTION: Committee forwarded to Council on consent. 2. Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 Regarding Classes. A brief discussion was held concerning the Interlocal Agreement. ACTION: Committee forwarded to Council on consent. 3. Discussion regarding development agreements / incentive zoning. City Attorney Jeff Taraday summarized the distinction between development agreements and incentive zoning, and that the two concepts could result in very similar zoning constructs, i.e. that the city could identify benefits or developments that are to be incentivized, and the incentives that the city was willing to `give' in exchange. The best place to start would be for the Council to discuss the types of things it wanted to see happen; this could be done city-wide, or targeted to a specific area. Benefits could be things like affordable housing or open space, or specific uses such as a boutique hotel in the downtown area. Incentives could be a variety of things, such as additional density or height, or reductions in other requirements (such as parking). Incentive zoning can be tailored to a specific location, such as Highway 99 or a portion of downtown. The Committee discussed what areas they would like to explore, with most of the discussion focusing on the potential for addressing the need for a boutique hotel downtown and whether some incentives could be developed for Highway 99. The Committee agreed to further discuss the incentive zoning/development agreement issue at its next meeting, focusing the discussion on downtown and Highway 99. 4. Discussion of Planning Report The Committee discussed how tracking of items referred by Council to the Economic Development Commission or Planning Board could be done. Planning Board members Valerie Stewart and John Reed noted that they intended to keep up their periodic reports to Council, and AM-5655 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Jeanie McConnell Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Action Information Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Water Utility Easement Recommendation Authorize Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Water Utility Easement 3. G. Previous Council Action On April 8, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda at the April 16, 2013 Council meeting. Narrative The City of Edmonds approved civil construction plans for the Willowdale Townhomes project located at 20734 76th Ave W on December 17, 2008 and construction for the development was substantially complete by May 2011. Since that time, Washington Federal Bank has taken ownership of the property and is working to complete the last remaining items that were required as a condition of final project approval. One of the project requirements was to provide water utility easements to the City for the water meters, and fire hydrant that were located on private property. The legal easement documents have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Easement Vicinity Map Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 04/10/2013 04:56 PM 04/11/2013 08:03 AM 04/11/2013 09:43 AM 04/11/2013 11:46 AM 04/11/2013 01:41 PM Started On: 04/09/2013 11:30 AM Return Address: City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 - Sth Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Grantor(s): Washington Federal Grantee: City of Edmonds Abbreviated Legal: Southeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 27 North, Range 04 East, W.M. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 006143-000-010-00 WATER UTILITY EASEMENT Property Address: NIA IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantor(s) herein, the undersigned, WASHINGTON FEDERAL, hereby grant(s) to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Municipal Corporation, a permanent easement for the installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of water meter services, mains, fire hydrants, and necessary appurtenances, over, across, through, and below the following described property, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions thereon interfering with the location, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of said water meter services, mains, fire hydrants, and necessary appurtenances, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement hereby granted is located in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and is more particularly described as the following property: See Attached Legal Description and Exhibit A THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, maintenance, and repair of said utility or utilities, provided the grantor(s), their heirs, or assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within the permanent easement. DATED THIS DAY OF Y l 2013 Ricka Gerstmann Washington Federal STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF K. J- ) On this day personally appeared before me Ricka Gerstmann, to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS i 'A -DAY OF 20 �3 Notary Public State of Washington JOY N. PARDUE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES September 23, 2014 NOARYIPUBLIC in and for the St a of Washington, residing at 6e0_44e, VA � 14950 007.doc r;. i MAIN] 4 k i _ `1 That portion of Lot 10, Willowdale Gardens Division No. 1, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, at Page 72, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of said Lot 10; THENCE South 00' 42' 47" West, 49.70 feet along the East line thereof to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE continuing South 00" 42' 47" West, 2.00 feet along said line, THENCE North 89' 17' 13" West, 6.00 feet; THENCE North 00' 42' 47" East, 2.00 feet; THENCE South 89' 1T 13" East, 6.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described being within Unit A, WillowdaleTownhomes Master Condominium, according to the Survey Map and Plans recorded under Auditor's File No. 201212195001, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Project: Willowdale Townhomes Job No. 14950 March 14, 2013 DJS/kme 14950L001.doc 14950exh01.dwg LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Lot 10, Willowdale Gardens Division No. 1, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, at Page 72, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of said Lot 10; THENCE South 000 42' 47" West, 78.41 feet along the East line thereof to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE continuing South 00° 42' 47" West, 5.00 feet along said line; THENCE North 890 17' 13" West, 5,00 feet; THENCE North 00" 42' 47" East, 5,00 feet; THENCE South 890 17' 13" East, 5.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described being within Unit A, Willowdale Townhomes Master Condominium, according to the Survey Map and Plans recorded under Auditor's File No. 201212195001, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Projeal: Wilkwvdale Townhomes .lob No. 14950 March 14, 2013 DJS/kma 14950L001 Aoc 14950exhQ1.dwg WATER METER EASEMENT The north 27.00 feet of the East 5.55 feet of Lot 10, Willowdale Gardens Division No. 1, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, at Page 72, records of Snohomish County, Washington, and being within Unit A, Willowdale Townhornes Master Condominium, according to the Survey Map and Plans recorded under Auditor's Pile No. 201212195001, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Project: Willowdale Townhornes .fob No, 14950 March 14, 2013 DJS/krna 14950L.001.doc 14950exh01.dwg 0 N 00�_S S89" 17' 130E UNIT A 6,00' SQQ°42'47"W, 2,00' S89" 17'13"E U.Uu rn1 � n S89'17'13"E t i(�h �j YV1L- �f�r- Jim 5.00' S00'42'47"W S89'17' 13 14950\survey\ 149S0exh01--wgter. SCALE: HORIZONTAL 1 "=20' VER77CAL N/A � SOUR �4�t4 KENT, WA 98032 � $51-6222 4251-8782 FAX �A'GEtiG`� CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Fon a tv 0 n .r 4 b 0 •n S89' 14'48°'E _ t 30,00, -WATER METER 10=205 EASEMENT IRRIGATION METER FIRE HYDRANT EASEMENT m FOUND 2" BRASS I DISK W/ "X" 208TH STREET S _ NS8'12'42"W 1 /14/20113 &-Q4 AM KM ARDERSON JOB NUMBER WILLOW®ALE 14950 T®WNHOMES 14950L,001.doe SHEET WATERLINE EASEMENTS o APPROVED DJS DATF [l3 4 13 Willowdale Townhomes &bp§.L �a... :P 32A = '',2l1mi9 Inv." f- bw i to 26" -. x '' r7S5 # 26401 x 2A413 21141 1 a'c.s21 *" xpygt COS PLACE 41W2gM�t1G q4 TARY !L erN 2654, to 1 F��w�951• g rp 6 275 i- ; I aoes2, o OD4'�.le3o 211622 aYdlli MaiCOLLEGE �rcltCuunC .206"iF5u2 .J razn4 x :qzm , 7mz . 7f13 M1 18 2e71F 1 MLWKIN 207w� .r 710 aura OS MJFI'39VIS}36� T SW. cJ S'1 F� MID }S20 �� 73M - _ R29 A` gS232Ci m25 2081 G. 3L' F 2U>) h1929 �` 279Q1, umAu: I'h"ALJ! 2g0e1 7�xe 4J•-.. •' ~ 2a 29944 ? 2aaq3 2Ct2a - �10 'T2292 446t 2DJfl aseix w 201! * 2a91 r � i I w � 2U91ir �2]9� r®irt r, 7315 73na � � � r• 2 �i� EE]YCyIUL L-!4 7M-� 3f €,fir 'bJ2G24 ' Fr RIB ppd 21 Iq' ggFi+l hl moos 2l%m rw 7a 211 w R ridudm rtiio I a 2"12 2111 -75 T 7 1 y M03 7 21114 7111■ Mn EfjlF7lMoo FldB 311 F&W1YQ1rle °li'8tX �cos w CLAW� ar,mUNw f Gi �-72921129 17113 ;} 212TH ST SWW , w 'a'i 763C ,3f — Vicinity Map 20734 — 76t" Ave W AM-5653 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Rob English 3. H. Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Robert English Type: Action Information Subiect Title Report on final construction costs for the Talbot Road Grind and Overlay Small Works Project and acceptance of project. Recommendation Accept project. Previous Council Action On April 8, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda at the April 16, 2013 Council meeting. Narrative In 2012, the City constructed a new storm drain system to improve the conveyance of stormwater flow near the 8200 block of Talbot Road. The City hired Northwest Asphalt, through the City's Small Works Roster Process, to complete the restoration of pavement disturbed during construction of the new storm drain system. The pavement work is now complete and the project is ready for acceptance. The initial contract with Northwest Asphalt was for $54,167.01. One change order was approved for $4,093.58 and paid for additional costs needed to restore the pavement based on field conditions found beneath the existing pavement. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 04/10/2013 04:57 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 04/11/2013 08:03 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 09:43 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 11:46 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 01:41 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/09/2013 09:46 AM Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 AM-5657 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Rob English Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Subject Title Quarterly Public Works Project Report Recommendation The report is being provided for information. Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Information Infnrmntinn Previous Council Action On April 8, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda at the April 16, 2013 Council meeting. Narrative Attached is the quarterly report for capital improvement projects managed by the Public Works Department. The first quarter report for 2013 contains information on the estimated project budget, 2013 budget, change orders, funding sources and schedule. Quarterly PW Project Report Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 04/10/2013 04:59 PM 04/11/2013 08:03 AM 04/11/2013 09:43 AM 04/11/2013 11:32 AM 04/11/2013 11:40 AM Started On: 04/09/2013 11:40 AM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS Capital Improvement Program Project City or Bud get Schedule Status Total 2013 Change City Complete "Active Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s)# Advertise Const Phase Comments Project Description Type Frances Anderson ADA Upgrades Facilities Consultant $200,000 $170,000 _ _ 016 After Winter Des -Budget Authority for the project work was approved through Design is 2013 the first quarter budget amendment. complete -Design work is completing in early April. .Permit application follows. -Construction period nowtargeted to start August 19th and run 8 weeks. 4170,000 2013 Budget Amendment (Feb). Public Works Yard Water Quality Facilities Consultant $397,960 $263,500 _ $311,379 422 Jun-13 ummer 20' Des • Consultant hired to design waste handing facility at Public Upgrade (Vehicle Waste Facility Works Yard, construction 2013 (75 % grant funded). Upgrade & Cover for Material • Purchase of spoil pile covers completed (100 % grant funded) Piles) 76th Avenue West175th Place Parks Gray & $3,704,064 $12,000 $1,282,613 _ 125 Apr-09 Nov-10 CI -Out -Construction is complete. West Walkway Osborne •A settlement has been reached with the contractor and the project will be closed -out in spring 2013. -Change Order 1: $59,895; Change Order 2: $28,584; Change Order 3: $22,117; Change Order 4: $10,096; Change Order 5: $15,799; Change Order 6: $131,547; Change Order 7:$245,297;Change Order 8: $167,739; Change Order #9: $25,109; Change Order #10: $19,618; Change Order #11: $92,710; Change Order#12: $139,100; Change Order#13: $325,000. •$77,000-2012 Budget Amend (1st Qtr) •$103,000-2012 Budget Amend (May) •$30,000-2012 Budget Amend (December) •$12,000-2013 Budget Amend (Feb) Dayton Street Plaza Parks Barker $160,605 $168,000 _ _ 132 TBD TBD On -Hold -Coordinating with Parks Dept to possibly go to construction in 2013 •$168,000 - 2013 Budget Amend (Feb) Interurban Trail Parks KPFF $2,430,000 $27,000 $145,556 $1,325,703 132 May-11 Jun-12 CI -Out • Construction is complete. • Plant establishment period to end in spring 2013. • Change order 1: $37,757 • Change order 2: $2,240 • Change order 3: $41,003 • Change order 4: $13,412 • Change order 5: $7,257 • Change order 6: $4,680 • Change order 7: $0 • Change order 8: $33,275 • Change order 9: $4,152 • Change order 10: $1,780 • $314,414-Budget Amendment (1st Qtr) •$27,000-2013 Budget Amendment (Feb) 2012-Alder/De/lwood/Beach Sewer City $1,257,627 $1,224,500 _ _ 423 May-13 Oct-13 Des •Design80% Complete P11244th Sewer Replacement -Coordination with OVWSD to transfer ownership of pipe for sewer west of 224th & 76th completed Sept 18, 2012. Interlocal signed with OVW SD for repairs of a small portion of sewer east of 224th & 76th signed August 2012. •244th project to be done separately by OV WSD Spring 2013 •Dellwood site to be completed at a later date so that more pressing sites can be addressed. Expected Ad Date for Beach Place and Alder May 2013. *Easement acquired at Ebb Tide Site acquired and approved by council on Feb 2013. 2013 Sewer Replacement Project Sewer CHS $2,027,000 $1,982,000 _ _ 423 May-13 Nov-13 Des *Construction Surveying complete Nov. 2012. *Design in progress. AlderCIPP(Citywide CIPP Sewer Sewer City $306,000 $302,600 _ _ 423 Jun-13 Oct-13 Des *Design Alder Site Complete Rehab) Project was bid in August 2012. No responsive bidders. *Construction delayed until 2013 due to bidding climate. Project will be added to the 2013 projects so that it is more likely to be bid by contractors. *Additional sites to add being assessed. 4/4/2013 PAGE 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS Capital Improvement Program Project City or Bud get Schedule Status Total 2013 Change City Complete "Active Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s)# Advertise Const Phase Comments Project Description Type Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, Sewer CHS $4,602,121 $3,484,900 423 Aug-12 Oct-13 Con • Construction contract awarded to Razz Construction. 14 & 15 • Construction begins Lift Station 9 on 2/4/13. Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Sewer BHC $218,100 $99,100 _ _ 423 _ _ Study -First draft of report expected spring 2013. Plan -Modeling of sewer network in progress. -Contract finalized and Notice to proceed given March 2012. 238th St Drainage to Hickman Storm City $646,260 $646,260 _ _ 422 Jun-13 Oct-13 Des • Project broken into two phases due to grant for sidewalks. Park • Phase I to be constructed in 2013 (Alley infiltration system upgrade south of 107th PL W. and 102nd AVE W. infiltration system upgrade - behind church). • Phase II stomwater improvemnts on 238th St SW with sidewalk in 2014 (connect to Hickman Park infiltration). 95th/93rd PI Stormwater Storm City TBD $226,000 _ _ 422 Mar-14 Jul-14 On -Hold _ Improvements City -Wide Drainage Improv. Storm City $149,000 $149,000 _ _ 422 _ _ Pre/Des/C • Willow Creek Ouffall Inspected; minor repairs required, will be onst completed 2Q 2013 Dayton St & SR 104 Drainage Storm Consultant $283,000 $283,000 _ _ 422 _ _ Study • Draft Alernatives Anlayais Report expected early 2Q 2013 Improvement Study • Public Meeting scheduled for 2Q 2013 Dayton St. Storm Improvements Storm City TBD $40,000 _ _ 422 _ _ On -Hold _ (6th to 8th) Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds Storm Consultant $150,000 $100,000 _ _ 422 _ _ Study • Draft Early Feasibiltiy Study due early 2Q 2013 Marsh Feasibility Study • Pre -proposal for futher work to RC/SRF Board 2Q 2013 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Storm City $106,000 $106,000 _ _ 422 Apr-13 Oct-13 Des • McAleer Creek culvert replacement @ 90 % Design; Project managed by City of Mountlake Terrace. • Edmonds contrated with consultant to evlauate different weir configurations that may help with flooding. Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Storm Consultant $200,000 $200,000 422 _ _ Study • Consultant Selection process completed. Retrofit Study • Scope and Contrat to Council early 2Q 2013 • Grant applicatio to Ecology for additional funds will be submitted early 2Q 2013 Talbot Rd/Perrinville Creek Storm City $95,000 $95,000 422 _ May-13 CI -Out • Construction complete (Paving completed 1st Q 2013) Drainage Improvement & Habitat • Culvert inspections completed;no defects found. Enhancement -Phase II • Tide gate feasibility study to be competed in 2013 *Change Order #1: $1,939.90 *Change Order #2:-$68,047.10 *Change Order #3: $15,907.42 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Street Perteet $5,781,000 $719,700 _ $4,769,000 112 Apr-14 Dec-14 Des • Design at 75%. Improvements • Grant funding is included in all project phases. 5th Avenue Overlay Project Street Otak, Inc. $774,000 $774,000 _ $551,000 112 & 421 May-13 Oct-13 Des *Design at 30 *Federal Project, $551,000 grant and $223,000 in Water Utility Funding. *Funding Agreement for preliminary engineering obtained February, 2013 •Otak, Incorporated awarded contract for Preliminary Design in the amount of $62,810.00. *Design is on schedule 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Street Dave Evans $2,760,000 $450,800 _ $940,397 112 TBD TBD Des • Design at 30%. Intersection Improvements • Grant funding is included in the design and ROW phases. Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Street DKS $300,000 $295,000 _ $300,000 n/a Jun-13 Dec-13 Des • Design funds have been obligated and the design phase Will Display & Cabinet Upgrades begin in February (for completion in May). • Construction is scheduled to take place this Summer. 4/4/2013 PAGE 2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS Capital Improvement Program Project City or Bud get Schedule Status Total 2013 Change City Complete "Active Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s)# Advertise Const Phase A11V Pro ect Description T e Five Corners Roundabout(212th Street Dave Evans $3,476,000 $3,134,200 _ $2,399,500 112 Dec-13 Sep-14 Des • Design at90%. St. SW @ 84th Av. W) 421 • An Open House was held on January 9, 2013. 422 • Grant funding is included in all project phases. 423 • Water, Storm & Sewer Utility Funds are contributing to project funding. Main St. @ 9th Ave. (interim Street City $10,000 $10,000 _ _ 112 _ Dec-14 Pre • Project programmed for 2013 in 2013-2018 CIP. solution) State Route (SR) 99International Street CH2MHill $615,800 $208,100 _ $662,000 129 Apr-12 May-13 Con • Construction at 50 % (started last October). District Enhancements (Phase 1 • Weather suspension until Spring'13. and 2) • $208,100 - 2013 Budget Amend (Feb) State Route (SR) 99International Street TBD $684,000 $98,000 _ $684,000 112 April-14 Dec-14 Pre • The consultant will be determined based on qualifications. District Enhancements (Phase 3) • The grant covers 100 % of the design and construction costs. • The construction of this project could be combined with the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project since both are within close proximity of each other and have a similar construction timeline. Sunset Walkway Improvements Street TBD $1,101,000 $88,000 _ $159,000 112 May-14 Dec-14 Pre • The conceptual layout was completed by Parametrix in February'12. Main Street Pedestrian Lighting Street Parametrix $1,737,101 $220,000 $42,405 $1,225,000 12 421 42 Jul-12 Dec-12 CI -Out -Construction complete from 5th Ave to 6th Ave • Construction close-out in progress. •$312,000 - 2012 Budget Amendment (August) • Substantial Completion 12/14/12 • Change Order 1 - $15,099.14 • Change Order 2 - $1,193.00 • Change Order 3 - $1,020.18 • Change Order 4 - $639.24 • Change Order 5 - $16,335.51 • Change Order 6 - $3,169.57 • Change Order 7 - $1,968.00 • Change Order 8 - $2,980.00 2011 Replacement Program- Water MSA $2,364,506 $5,000 $50,112 _ 421 Jun-11 Mar-12 CI -out •Construction Complete March 2012. Waterline -Construction Closeout in Progress. Substantial completion reached march 2012. •Change order#1 $24,070.93 •Change order #2 $33,785.22 •Change order #3 ($7,744.22) •2012 Budget Amendment $390,000 (1st Qtr) -Council Approval March 19, 2013. -Awaiting remainder of affidavits prior to continuing with closeout process. •2013 Budget Amendment $5,000 (Feb) 2012 Citywide Waterline Overlay Water City $526,400 $5,000 -$17,071 _ 421 Jul-12 Nov-12 Cl-Out •Construction Complete Project •Contract completed ahead of schedule and 12 % under budget •A final Change Order of-$17,071 was written to reflect the budget underrun. -Accepted by Council February, 2013 2012 Replacement Program- Water City $1,150,000 $10,000 -$18,490 _ 421 Jun-12 Nov-12 cl-out -Construction completed Nov 2012. Waterline -Change Order#1-$18,489.58 2013 Replacement Program- Water City $2,137,980 $2,092,980 _ _ 421 Mar-13 Nov-13 Ad -Design complete March 2013. Waterline 76th Ave W Waterline Extension Water Roth Hill $725,000 $665,800 _ _ 421 Oct-12 Sep-13 Con *Construction began March 18, 2013 with Lynnwood Project approved by council Dec 2012. •$175,000-2013 Budget Amendment (Feb). 4/4/2013 PAGE 3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS Capital Improvement Program Project City or Bud get Schedule Status Total 2013 Change City Complete **Active Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s)# Advertise Const Phase Comments Project Description Type Pioneer Way Road Repair Water City $40,000 $0 _ _ 421 Mar-13 Nov-13 Pre -Surveyor and geotechnical engineer hired to assess condition of Pioneer Way post Dec 2011 Watermain break. •Geotechnical Report recommends monitoring of road and slope too -Budget Amendment $40,000 (2nd Qtr) -Waterline at break site to be relocated in 2013 and included as part of 2013 W atermain Replacement Program. Aeration Basin Air Diffuser W WTP Brown & $237,000 $237,000 _ _ 414 Apr-12 Jan-13 CI -out -The project is completed. We are in the process of closing the Upgrade for Energy Savings Caldwell project. ATS Replacement and new W WTP HDR $900,000 $100,000 _ _ 414 Apr-13 Sep-13 Ad • The project is out to bid. Estimated completion is Sept 30, switchgear 2013. Engineers estimate came in much higher than expected. Fiber Optic Network Installation W WTP Triunity $117,000 $117,000 _ _ 414 Mar-12 Dec-12 CI -out -The construction is completed however we are waiting on final Engineering as -built drawings before project close-out. Incinerator testing and evaluation W WTP CH2M Hill $75,000 $75,000 _ _ 414 _ Jan-13 Study -The stack testing was completed in January 2013. While the for compliance with new SSI testing indicated we can narrowly achieve the new standards, regulations we are conducting a pilot test of a new technology to determine whether or not it will improve performance for Edmonds in the future. We continue to investigate the source of mercury in the influent. Lighting Upgrade for Energy W WTP Energy $56,000 $35,862 _ _ 414 Jun-11 Dec-12 CI -out *The project is completed. Check warrant #195233, dated Savings Industries December 17, 2012, was received in the amount of $2,915.11. With the retrofit of the light fixtures to LED lights and the addition of lighting control sensors, we have estimated 20,033 kWh savings. This amounts to approx. $1,402.00 per year estimated savings on the electric bill. Non -Potable Water Pump W WTP City $40,000 $35,000 _ _ 414 Mar-12 Oct-12 CI -out •This project is completed. Check warrant #195862, dated Modification for Energy Savings December 31, 2012, was received in the amount of $31,451.58. With the modifications to the NPW water system and controls, we have estimated 166,858 kWh savings. This is significantly better than we expected. This amounts to approx. $11,513.00 per year estimated savings on the electric bill. Roof Replacement for Three W WTP Wetherholt $362,000 $362,000 _ _ 414 41102 Jan-13 CI -out *This project is completed and we have begun the project close - Buildings out process. Switchgear access - Catwalk W WTP Brown & $75,000 $75,000 _ _ 414 Jun-12 Dec-12 CI -out *The project has been completed. Caldwell VFD Replacements W WTP City $100,000 $50,000 _ _ 414 Feb-12 Jul-13 Con •VFD's are on site. 1 is completely installed - others will be installed in 2013. **Active Phase Ad Advertisina Pre Preliminary Design Des Design ROW Right-of-WaV Acquisition Ad Advertise for Contruction Bids Con Construction CI -Out Close-out Construcion Contract Studv Stud 4/4/2013 PAGE 4 AM-5661 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Ronald Cone Department: Finance Submitted By: Sarah Mager Committee: Type: Information Information Subiect Title Surplus of computers and monitors and donation to InterConnection. Recommendation Authorization to surplus 45 CPUs and donate them to InterConnection. Previous Council Action 3. J. Narrative From 2010 till February 2013 computers have come off warranty or, that have passed their useful life due to the upgrade to Windows 7. Of this equipment, some portion may have a useful life outside the City. It is 45 computers are proposed to be donated to InterConnection (http://www.interconnection.org/) a company who states: "We connect your computers with underserved communities around the world". Donating this equipment to Interconnection will insure that it will be given to a non-profit organization for a good cause. It also means that this equipment will not wind-up in a landfill. Attachments Surplus PC List Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Ronald Cone 04/11/2013 07:06 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 09:43 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 11:32 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 11:40 AM Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 04/10/2013 09:42 AM Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Model SN# UNKNOWN 15679437UKA9N80P PZ583UA#ABA 2UA5470LQ7 PZ583UA#ABA 2UA5470LQJ EQ167US#ABA 2UA61302YJ EQ167US#ABA 2UA61302Y M EQ167US#ABA 2UA63108K3 EQ167US#ABA 2UA63108K4 EQ167US#ABA 2UA63108K5 RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DGJ DZ216AV 2UB50204HV DZ216AV 2UB505086H DZ216AV 2UB50SO86P DZ216AV 2UB505086R DZ216AV 2UB50SO86T DZ216AV 2UB505086Y DZ216AV 2UB50SO86Z DZ216AV 2UB5050870 DZ216AV 2UB50SO872 DZ216AV 2UB5050876 DZ216AV 2UB50SO87H DZ216AV 2UB505087J DZ216AV 2UB5050B6F DZ216AV 2UB51204X2 DZ216AV 2UB51204X3 DZ216AV 2UB515801ZP DZ216AV 2UB5310G B4 818932U KCFM4R4 830749U KCNBACY 8189D7U KCRA20B 8189D7U KCRA20N 830741U KCXSGLL 830749U KCZSLBX 830725U KLFZABM 830725U KLGPM7W 830725U KLNPWIZ PZ583UA#ABA MXL5370G8J PZ583UA#ABA MXL5370G9J PZ583UA#ABA MXL5370GB5 PZ583UA#ABA MXL5370GBB PZ583UA#ABA MXL54800G8 PZ583UA#ABA MXL602093Q PZ583UA#ABA MXL6020942 PZ583UA#ABA MXL6020B4C PZ583UA#ABA MXL6020B4F PZ583UA#ABA MXL60500NZ AM-5662 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Ronald Cone Department: Finance Committee: Subiect Title February 2013 Monthly Financial Report Recommendation N.A. For informational purposes only. Previous Council Action N.A. Narrative February 2013 Monthly Financial Report Inbox Reviewed By Finance Ronald Cone City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Sarah Mager Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Submitted By: Sarah Mager Type: Information Tnfnrm atinn Attachments Form Review Date 04/11/2013 07:06 AM 04/11/2013 09:43 AM 04/11/2013 11:31 AM 04/11/2013 11:40 AM Started On: 04/10/2013 09:43 AM 3. K. E �� of 0 FEBRUARY 2013 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Ins. 1$9° General Fund activity year-to-date brought a deficit of $2.6 million to fund balances. Several specific revenue line items are tracking ahead of budget so far through February. These include Natural Gas Tax (24% of budget), Electric Utility Tax (22% of budget), Gas Utility Tax (27% of budget), Pull Tabs Tax (25% of budget), Amusements (66% of budget), Franchise Fees (average of 28% of budget), General Business License (73% of budget), Non -Resident Business License (54% of budget), Animal Licenses (24% of budget), and Real Estate Excise Tax (18% of budget). At the end of February, 17% of the year had expired. Overall, General Fund expenditures are on track with 18% of budget spent to date. Salaries and Wages for all departments are at 17% of budget, and Overtime is at 13% of budget. No departments are over budget. General Fund 14 - 12 $11.02 10 $8.47 $8.37 o 8 ❑ General 6 c - Fund 4 2 Dec 2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 1 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND BALANCES FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD 001-General Fund $ 4,829,369 $ 2,312,440 $ 2,704,831 $ - $ (2,124,538) 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 387,319 361,196 330,359 - (56,960) 011-Risk Management Fund 244,000 244,000 (220,078) - (464,078) 012 -Contingency Reserve Fund 5,283,425 5,283,425 5,284,166 - 741 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,859 55,859 - (0) 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,064 1,352 1,709 - 645 016-Building Maintenance 213,999 213,506 213,536 Total General Fund $ 11,015,035 $ 8,471,778 $ 8,370,382 $ - $ (2,644,653) FEBRUARY 2013 DASHBOARD YEAR TO DATE TREND COMPARED TO PROJECTIONS REFERENCE GENERAL FUND REVENUES General Fund Revenue Positive 23.14% Page 9 Sales & Use Tax Revenue Neutral Do 1.17% Page 10 Gas Utility Tax Revenue V Negatived -4.30% Page 10 Telephone Utility Tax Revenue Positive 10.07% Page 11 Electric Utility Tax Revenue Neutral 1.88% Page 11 EXPENDITURES General Fund Expenditures Page 12 NON —GENERAL FUND REVENUES Real Estate Excise Tax Positive 30.83% Page 9 Key to revenue trend indicators: Positive =Positve variance of> 2% compared to projections. 44 Neutral 110, =Variance of -1 % to +2% compared to projections. Warning =Negative variance of-1% to 4% compared to projections. TNegativeT =Negative variance of >-4% compared to projections. 2 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW Combined governmental fund activity through February brought a deficit of $2 million to fund balances. The General Fund was responsible for a deficit of $2.6 million, the special revenue funds for an increase of $687,607, and the remaining was due to an increase of $2,960 in the debt service funds. Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances - Combined 14 18 12 $14.56 $11.02 10 $12.16 $12.60 General 12 c g $8.37 Fund r_ 0 o — Special 6 Revenue Debt 6 4 $4.22 Service .67 2 $0.01 $0.011 1 Dec 2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Dec 2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 3 CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD General Fund $ 11,015,035 $ 8,471 ,778 $ 8,370,382 $ - $ (2,644,653) Special Revenue 3,530,072 3,671,304 4,217,679 - 687,607 Debt Service 11,014 13,971 13,974 - 2,960 Governmental Funds $ 14,556,121 $ 12,157,053 $ 12,602,035 $ - $ (1,954,086) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW Activity in all special revenue funds year-to-date brought an increase of $687,609. The graph below shows the total fund balances for all nineteen special revenue funds as of December 2012, January 2013, and the current ending balance as of February 2013. Special Revenue Funds 5 $4.22 4 $3.67 3 o Specia I 2 Revenue 1 Dec2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 4 FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- Special Revenue ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW Utility Fund Activity through February brought an increase of $511,693 in the Enterprise Funds. 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 — 30,000,000 — 20,000,000 — Enterprise Funds- Fund Balances 43,942,247 44,227,513 43,961,906 10,000,000 22,592 Dec 2012 17542818 7,823,883 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 421- Water Utility Fund 422 - Storm Utility Fund 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ENTERPRISE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 12,322,592 $ 12,670,274 $ 12,542,818 $ - $ 220,226 422 - Storm Utility Fund 7,552,075 7,649,140 7,823,883 - 271,808 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,942,247 44,227,513 43,961,906 - 19,659 Enterprise Funds $ 63,816,914 $ 64,546,926 $ 64,328,607 $ - $ 511,693 $47, 800,000 $37,800,000 $27, 800,000 $17, 800,000 $7,800,000 $(2,200,000) Enterprise Fund Balances as of February 28, 2013 Water Utility Fund Storm Utility Fund Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 5 SUMMARY OVERVIEW At the end of February, 17% of the year had expired. Year-to-date activity brought a deficit of $1.4 million to the City -Wide fund balances, bringing the total to $84 million. Of the year-to-date deficit, a $2 million deficit was generated by governmental funds, an increase of $543,745 was generated by Enterprise (Utility) Funds, an increase of $89,194 was generated by Internal Service Funds, and a deficit of $31,815 was generated by the Pension Trust Fund. CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES CITY-WIDE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD Governmental Funds $ 14,556,121 $ 12,157,053 $ 12,602,035 $ - $ (1,954,086) Enterprise Funds 63,816,914 64,546,926 64,360,659 - 543,745 Internal Services Fund 6,463,723 6,368,320 6,552,917 - 89,194 Pension Trust Fund 216,693 188,438 184,878 - (31,815) City-wide Total j $ 85,053,451 $ 83,260,738 $ 83,700,488 j $ - $ (1,352,963) Governmental Fund Balances as of February28, 2013 Limited Tax G.O. Bond Fund $681 L.I.D. Guaranty Fund $22,238 Sister City Commission $8,719 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund $ 20 545 Parks Trust Fund $149,944 Parks Construction Fund 1 $ 27,872 Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 1 $56,609 Special Projects Fund $18,385 Gifts Catalog Fund $226,22 Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq 1 $423, 36 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 1,091,297 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts $65,931 Youth Scholarship Fund $15,079 Employee Parking Permit Fund $76,354 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund $114,543 Memodal Street Fund $17,672 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 1 $419, 53 Combined Street Const/Improve ($284,733) Street Fund $37,609 Drug Enforcement Fund $133,010 General Fund 5 8,370,382 $1 $2,000,000 M. INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW Internal Service Fund activity through February brought an increase of $89,194. We began the year with a fund balance of $6.5 million and currently at the end of February; we see an ending fund balance of $6.6 million. Internal Service Fund Balances 6.46 $6.37 $ 6.5 5 6 5 LA r_ 4 511-Equipment Rental Fund 3 2 1 Dec2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 7 FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES INTERNAL SERVICE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD 511 -Equipment Rental Fund $ 6,463,723 $ 6,368,320 $ 6,552,917 $ - $ 89,194 Internal Service Funds $ 6,463,723 $ 6,368,320 $ 6,552,917 $ - $ 89,194 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Agency/Issuer Investment Ty Washington State Local Investment Pool Government Investment Pool Opus Bank Certificate of Deposit FHLMC Bonds FHLMC Bonds FFCB Bonds TOTAL City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of February 28, 2013 (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity/ Call* Yield to Weighted (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Various $13,296,151 Various 0.17% 0.131 % Investment Mix State Investment Pool Certificate of Deposit Bonds (a) To maturityor call date, whichever occurs first. 24 9/17/2012 500,000 9/17/2014 0.60% 0.018% 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 6/28/2013 0.90% 0.054% 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2013 0.75% 0.045% 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 3/19/2013 0.54% 0.032% 0.28% 0.279% % of Total Summary 79.2% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.11 % 3.0% Current State Pool rate 0.17% 17.9% Blended Edmonds rate 0.28% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 1,216,011 $ 1,216,011 $ 1,818,957 49.58% February 3,001,808 1,785,798 3,696,503 23.14% March 5,069,810 2,068,001 April 7,688,984 2,619,174 May 15,056,423 7,367,439 June 16,705,631 1,649,208 July 18,630,860 1,925,229 August 20,240,653 1,609,794 September 21,816,557 1,575,904 October 24,495,080 2,678,522 November 31,203,426 6,708,346 December 32,858,589 1,655,163 General Fund 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 23.14% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to receipt of the 2012 4th quarter Franchise Agreement payments in January 2013. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2013 Real Estate Excise Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance BudeetForecast BudeetForecast Actuals January $ 55,653 $ 55,653 $ 69,441 24.77% February 88,310 32,657 115,535 30.83% March 129,657 41,347 April 187,545 57,887 May 241,350 53,805 June 303,047 61,697 July 363,652 60,605 August 430,206 66,554 September 492,808 62,602 October 555,912 63,105 November 604,828 48,916 December 650,000 45,172 Real Estate Excise Tax 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 1,818,95tN4onthly MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ---*--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 30.83% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to a larger number of sales transactions than were expected. O City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2013 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 6 000 000 January $ 390,013 $ February 884,364 March 1,235,989 April 1,600,252 May 2,031,316 June 2,414,769 July 2,801,571 August 3,255,906 September 3,657,629 October 4,069,329 November 4,525,665 December 4,913,150 390,013 $ 406,956 4.34% 5,000,000 494,351 894,736 1.17 4,000,000 351,625 364,263 3,000,000 431,064 383,453 2,000,000 386,802 1,000,000 454,335 401,723 Sales and Use Tax 411,700 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 456,336 387,485 Budget *The variance of 1.17% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2013 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 112,509 $ 112,509 $ 94,836-15.71% February 230,573 118,064 220,665 -4.30% March 338,041 107,468 April 428,064 90,023 May 504,039 75,974 June 561,033 56,994 July 602,742 41,709 August 632,326 29,584 September 659,759 27,432 October 688,968 29,210 November 738,628 49,660 December 811,174 72,546 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 *The variance of -4.3% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Gas Utility Tax JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --4--Actuals/Trend Budget 10 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2013 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 95,577 $ 229,350 376,493 479,057 608,761 713,226 853,959 989,418 1,092,061 1,256,775 1,349,920 1,529,498 1, 6uu,uuu 95,577 $ 134,596 40.825. 1,600,000 133,773 252,444 10.07% 1,400,000 147,142 1,200,000 102,564 1,000,000 129,705 104,465 800,000 140,733 600,000 135,459 400,000 102,643 200,000 164,714 - Telephone Utility Tax 93,146 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY RUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I 179,578 tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 10.07%listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The Budget Forecast is taken from a five year average. Due to lower revenues in years 2008-2009, the variance from budget to actual is greater. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2013 Flectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 151,925 $ 320,049 474,600 631,769 769,731 882,641 989,535 1,081,971 1,180,465 1,265,812 1,372,881 1,475,638 1,500,000 151,925 $ 153,240 0.87% 168,124 326,077 1.88% 1,250,000 154,551 1,000,000 157,169 137,963 750,000 112,909 106,895 500,000 92,436 98,494 250,000 85,346 Electric Utility Tax 107,070 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 102,757 --0--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 1.88% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals 35,000,000 January $ 3,211,752 $ 3,211,752 $4,106,837 27.87% February 5,660,240 2,448,488 5,821,040 2.84% 30,000,000 March 7,874,761 2,214,521 25,000,000 April 10,938,142 3,063,381 20,000,000 May 12,920,118 1,981,976 June 16,195,870 3,275,752 15,000,000 July 18,970,269 2,774,399 10,000,000 August 21,423,098 2,452,829 September 24,244,769 2,821,671 5,000,000 Octohpr 26551.229 2306.460 General Fund November 29,074,901 2,523,672 I 1,818,9MonthlyMAR APR MAY TUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I December 32,959,503 3,884,602 tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 2.84% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2013 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance BudeetForecast BudeetForecast Actuals January $ 1,818,292 $ 1,818,292 $ 2,450,235 34.75% February 2,358,291 539,999 2,488,604 5.53% March 2,684,562 326,271 April 3,827,781 1,143, 219 May 4,037,949 210,168 June 5,809,316 1,771,367 July 6,611,919 802,602 August 6,990,130 378,211 September 7,896,141 906,011 October 8,278,209 382,068 November 8,689,214 411,005 December 11,467,569 2,778,355 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 Non -Departmental JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -4--I Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 5.53% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to the 1st quarter Fire District #1 made in January 2013. 12 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2013 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 20,374 $ 43,014 66,053 85,839 105,708 127,575 152,874 175,926 194,771 221,092 242,345 273,623 300,000 20,374 $ 15,899-21.96% 22,641 38,445-10.62% 250,000 23,038 200,000 19,787 19,869 150,000 21,866 25,299 100,000 23,052 50,000 18,845 26321 City CouncH 21,253 I 1,818,95Nlonthly MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 31,278 tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of-10.62% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Office of City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 300,000 January $ February $ March $ April $ May $ June $ July $ August $ September $ October $ November $ December $ 20,148 $ 40,542 $ 60,202 $ 79,760 $ 99,078 $ 118,442 $ 138,932 $ 158,492 $ 177,640 $ 198,963 $ 219,266 $ 238,374 $ 20,148 $ 19,244 -4.49% 1250,000 20,394 38,426 -5.22% 19,660 1 200,000 19,559 150,000 19,317 19,364 100,000 20,491 19,559 50,000 Office of Mayor 19,148 21,322 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 20,304 19,108 1 -4--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -5.22% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 13 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2013 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 21,417 $ 21,417 $ 19,264-10.05% February 43,437 22,020 39,680 -8.65% March 71,550 28,113 April 94,953 23,403 May 119,752 24,799 June 141,891 22,139 July 165,641 23,750 August 186,678 21,037 September 212,715 26,036 October 233,346 20,631 November 254,495 21,149 December 287,190 32,695 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 *The variance of -8.65% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Human Resources JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Actuals/Trend Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2013 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 53,643 $ 112,911 175,311 237,725 296,077 360,063 418,105 479,445 537,638 599,224 660,765 729,506 NUU,000 53,643 $ 51,789 -3.46% 700,000 59,267 115,326 2.14% 62,400 600,000 62,414 500,000 58,352 400,000 63,987 300,000 58,042 61,340 200,000 58,193 100,000 61,585 - Municipal Court 61,541 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 68,741 --O--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 2.14% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 14 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Economic Development/Community Services 2013 Economic Development/Community Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 23,621 $ 23,621 $ 23,455 -0.70% February 59,476 35,855 54,572 -8.24% March 90,712 31,236 April 120,039 29,327 May 152,347 32,308 June 179,102 26,755 July 217,136 38,034 August 242,932 25,796 September 271,956 29,024 October 302,512 30,556 November 328,886 26,374 December 373,314 44,428 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 *The variance of -8.24% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City Clerk Economic Development/Community Services JAN FEB MAR APR MAY RUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --#---Actuals/Trend Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 1600,000 January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 46,581 $ 92,331 145,417 190,728 246,108 293,563 344,299 388,440 438,924 482,314 532,305 586,831 46,581 $ 37,742-18.98% 1500,000 45,750 83,146 -9.95% 400,000 53,085 45,311 300,000 55,380 47,455 200,000 50,736 100,000 44,142 50,484 City Clerk 43,390 1,818,9541onthlyMAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 49,991 54,526 --4--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -9.95% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The negative variance shown above is due to unspent monies for the Public Records/Document Management System decision project. This project was started in November2012, so we expect thatfuture projections will be more in line with budget. 15 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services 2013 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 41,302 $ 41,302 $ 92,733 124.53% February 107,298 65,997 139,675 30.17% March 158,751 51,453 April 207,167 48,416 May 262,166 54,999 June 315,619 53,452 July 362,425 46,806 August 424,811 62,386 September 471,078 46,267 October 532,480 61,402 November 602,576 70,096 December 723,534 120,958 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Information Services JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 30.17 listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to purchase of the new Broadcast System, as well the temporary contract work for Information Services.. Finance City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2013 Cumulative Monthly TFD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 72,772 $ 139,622 202,376 261,262 319,205 386,389 447,973 502,922 563,970 632,771 699,652 768,484 zsuu,uuu 72,772 $ 57,510-20.97% 700,000 66,850 132,734 -4.93% 62,753 600,000 58,886 500,000 57,944 400,000 67,183 300,000 61,584 54,949 200,000 61,048 100,000 68,802 - Finance 66,881 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 68,832 --4--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -4.93% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 16 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2013 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 41,600 $ 83,200 124,800 166,400 208,000 249,600 291,200 332,800 374,400 416,000 457,600 499,200 600,000 41,600 $ 45,000 8.17% 41,600 85,621 2.91% 500,000 41,600 400,000 41,600 41,600 300,000 41,600 41,600 200,000 41,600 41,600 100,000 City Attorney 41,600 T I 41,600 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 41,600 1 tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 2.91% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Police City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 9 000 000 January $ 711,698 $ February 1,410,348 March 2,145,943 April 2,840,086 May 3,527,398 June 4,308,719 July 5,026,944 August 5,739,849 September 6,480,625 October 7,196,799 November 8,160,013 December 8,931,185 8,000,000 711,698 $ 711,651 -0.01% 7,000,000 698,649 1,406,388 -0.28% 6,000,000 735,595 694,143 5,000,000 687,312 4,000,000 781,321 3,000,000 718,225 2,000,000 712,905 1,000,000 740,777 Police 716,174 1,818,9-Monthly MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 963,214 771,172 -4--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -.28% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 17 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2013 Development Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Development Services Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 1,800,000 January $ 130,011 $ 130,011 $ 134,416 3.39% 1,600,000 February 261,991 131,980 262,483 0.19% 1,400,000 March 406,268 144,277 1,200,000 April 539,522 133,254 1,000,000 May 673,721 134,199 800,000 June 805,445 131,724 July 931,841 126,396 600'000 August 1,069,195 137,354 400,000 September 1,204,663 135,468 200,000 October 1,348,572 143,909 November 1,481,034 132,462 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 1,619,042 138,008 ♦Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of .19% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2013 Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Parks & Recreation Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals r 3,500,000 January $ 218,823 $ 218,823 $ 206,466 -5.65% 3,000,000 February 455,695 236,872 441,862 -3.04% March 711,038 255,343 2,500,000 April 958,565 247,527 2,000,000 May 1,214,257 255,692 June 1,530,104 315,847 1,500,000 July 1,920,254 390,150 1,000,000 August 2,310,306 390,052 September 2,615,670 305,363 500,000 October 2,863,419 247,750 - November 3,094,270 230,851 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 3,398,517 304,247 Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -3.04% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 18 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2013 Public Works Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Public Works Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 400,000 January $ 27,007 $ 27,007 $ 26,193 -3.01% 350,000 February 52,806 25,799 53,241 0.82% March 79,315 26,509 300,000 April 104,820 25,505 250,000 May 130,712 25,892 200,000 June 156,718 26,006 July 192,014 35,296 150,000 August 217,880 25,866 100,000 September 244,097 26,217 50,000 October 270,921 26,824 November 295,226 24,305 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 324,517 29,291 tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of .82% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2013 Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % Facilities Maintenance 1,400,000 January $ 106,672 $ 106,672 $ 98,355 -7.80% 1,200,000 February 220,921 114,249 209,083 -5.36% March 343,665 122,743 1,000,000 April 478,949 135,284 800,000 May 552,523 73,574 June 670,350 117,826 600,000 July 775,460 105,110 400,000 August 878,941 103,481 September 997,041 118,100 200000 October 1,099,774 102,733 November 1,211,822 112,048 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 1,344,159 132,337 --0--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -5.36% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 19 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2013 Engineering Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast ActuaIs % Engineering 1,400,000 January $ 114,878 $ 114,878 $ 116,885 1.75% 1,200,000 February 230,253 115,375 232,112 0.81% March 344,777 114,524 1,000,000 April 468,076 123,299 800,000 May 577,613 109,537 June 692,774 115,161 600000 July 811,036 118,261 400,000 August 927,998 116,962 September 1,048,742 120,745 200,000 October 1,171,924 123,182 November 1,285,309 113,385 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 1,394,485 109,176 --#--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of .81% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 20 CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Adopted Budget 2/28/2013 Revenues Variance 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,858,589 $ 3,696,503 $ (29,162,086) 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 350,350 52 (350,298) 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 418,200 22 (418,178) 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 123,223 741 (122,482) 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 645 (14,355) 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,900 30 (56,870) 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,175 15,836 (4,339) III STREET FUND 1,406,800 204,910 (1,201,890) 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,223,755 333,652 (5,890,103) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 59,891 1,561 (58,330) 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 27 2 (25) 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 52,870 8,743 (44,127) 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,120 4,862 (13,258) 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,025 2 (2,023) 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 9,932 (9,068) 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 662,600 115,679 (546,921) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 650,600 115,579 (535,021) 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 20,483 12,231 (8,252) 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 166,187 (56,613) 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,950 23,539 (96,411) 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,010,350 143,231 (1,867,119) 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 228 71 (157) 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 14,600 2,808 (11,792) 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,517 1 (3,516) 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 100,901 (544,099) 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 2,956 (19,174) 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 22,230 4 (22,226) 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 - (1,009,902) 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, - - - 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 32,052 32,052 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,625,680 895,895 (9,729,785) 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,486,716 721,420 (2,765,296) 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 11,020,123 1,377,796 (9,642,327) 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,361,972 234,873 (1,127,099) 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 45,400 28 (45,372) $ 73.569.206 S 8.222.743 S (65.346.463) % Received 11 0 0 1 4 0 78 15 5 3 9 17 7 31 19 1 21 1 11 21 CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - S UMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Adopted Budget 2/28/2013 Expenditures Variance 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,959,503 $ 5,821,040 $ (27,138,463) 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,400 57,012 (562,388) 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 661,000 464,100 (196,900) 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 - (15,000) 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,000 493 (204,507) 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,033 1,448 (78,585) Ill STREET FUND 1,557,715 281,447 (1,276,268) 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,324,984 141,292 (6,183,692) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 139,800 3,349 (136,451) 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 68,500 100 (68,400) 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,726 - (26,726) 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 868 (3,132) 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 - (19,000) 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,286,500 9,273 (1,277,227) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 668,534 - (668,534) 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 32,317 2,482 (29,835) 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 7,993 (214,807) 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 152,761 20,523 (132,238) 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,093,200 1,711 (2,091,489) 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 63 (4,537) 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 101,570 (543,430) 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 - (22,130) 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 - (1,009,902) 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, - - - 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 9,201,851 675,670 (8,526,181) 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,565,772 449,613 (4,116,159) 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 16,830,109 1,358,137 (15,471,972) 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,095,372 145,680 (949,692) 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 108,790 31,842 (76,948) $ 80,620,299 $ 9,575,706 $ (71,044,593) % S 1 1 1% 1 12% 22 CITY OF EDMONDS CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - S UMMARY Fund No. Title 001 GENERAL FUND 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE TOTAL GENERAL FUND 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND III STREET FUND 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 1/1/2013 2013 2013 2/28/2013 Beg. Balance Revenues Expenditures Difference End. Balance $ 4,829,369 $ 3,696,503 $ 5,821,040 $ (2,124,538) $ 2,704,831 387,319 52 57,012 (56,960) 330,359 244,000 22 464,100 (464,078) (220,078) 5,283,425 741 - 741 5,284,166 55,859 - - - 55,859 1,064 645 - 645 1,709 213,999 30 493 (463) 213,536 11,015,035 3,697,992 6,342,645 (2,644,653) 8,370,382 118,622 15,836 1,448 14,388 133,010 114,146 204,910 281,447 (76,537) 37,609 (477,093) 333,652 141,292 192,360 (284,733) 421,142 1,561 3,349 (1,789) 419,353 17,669 2 - 2 17,672 105,899 8,743 100 8,643 114,543 71,492 4,862 - 4,862 76,354 15,945 2 868 (866) 15,079 55,999 9,932 - 9,932 65,931 984,892 115,679 9,273 106,405 1,091,297 308,357 115,579 - 115,579 423,936 216,473 12,231 2,482 9,749 226,221 (139,809) 166,187 7,993 158,194 18,385 53,593 23,539 20,523 3,016 56,609 686,352 143,231 1,711 141,520 827,872 149,873 71 - 71 149,944 817,737 2,808 - 2,808 820,545 8,781 1 63 (62) 8,719 - 100,901 101,570 (669) (669) 3,496 2,956 - 2,956 6,452 22,234 4 - 4 22,238 (15,397) - - - (15,397) 681 - - - 681 - 32,052 - 32,052 32,052 12,322,592 895,895 675,670 220,226 12,542,818 7,552,075 721,420 449,613 271,808 7,823,883 43,942,247 1,377,796 1,358,137 19,659 43,961,906 6,463,723 234,873 145,680 89,193 6,552,917 216,693 28 31,842 (31,814) 184,878 TOTALALLFUNDS $ 85,053,451 $ 8,222,743 $ 9,575,706 $ (1,352,963) $ 83,700,488 We are currently using the estimated 2012 ending fund balance numbers for funds 421, 422, and 423. These will be updated when actuals are in; due to the change in how these funds are structured. 23 This page is intentionally left blank. 24 Pagel of 3 Title REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX EMS PROPERTY TAX VOTED PROPERTY TAX LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX NATURAL GAS USE TAX 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX GAS UTILITY TAX SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX WATER UTILITY TAX SEW ER UT ILIT Y T AX ST ORMWAT ER UT ILIT Y TAX T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX PULLTABS TAX AMUSEMENT GAMES LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI AMUSEMENTS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS ANIMAL LICENSES STREET AND CURB PERMIT OTR NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS DUI - CITIES LIQUOR EXCISE TAX LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS SHARED COURT COSTS MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Revenues Variance %Received $ 9,781,109 $ 95,844 $ (9,685,265) 1% 2,775,282 29,698 (2,745,584) 1% 916,103 9,449 (906,654) 1% 4,913,150 894,736 (4,018,414) 18% 8,706 2,062 (6,644) 24% 520,417 103,185 (417,232) 20% 1,475,638 326,077 (1,149,561) 22% 811,174 220,665 (590,509) 27% 287,710 50,173 (237,537) 17% 904,613 136,504 (768,109) 15% 470,000 87,384 (382,616) 19% 274,600 55,286 (219,314) 20% 730,910 131,498 (599,412) 18% 1,529,498 252,444 (1,277,054) 17% 61,385 15,500 (45,885) 25% 731 51 (680) 7% 212,350 48,671 (163,679) 23% - - - 0% 25,673,376 2,459,227 (23,214,149) 10% 5,555 - (5,555) 0% 1,030 300 (730) 29% 6,060 4,025 (2,035) 66% 627,816 167,992 (459,824) 27% 95,806 22,058 (73,748) 23% 8,287 2,938 (5,349) 35% - 5,000 5,000 0% 214,415 52,692 (161,723) 25% 106,297 78,085 (28,212) 73% 18,422 3,345 (15,077) 18% 39,274 21,100 (18,174) 54% 9,500 9,773 273 103% 345,436 41,374 (304,063) 12% 13,205 3,184 (10,021) 24% 50,000 1,850 (48,150) 4% 7,070 2,019 (5,051) 29% - - - 0% 1,548,173 415,735 (1,132,438) 27% 1,191 - (1,191) 0% 10,000 1,061 (8,939) 11% 6,000 419 (5,581) 7% 185,181 - (185,181) 0% 8,828 2,281 (6,547) 26% 12,572 3,134 (9,438) 25% 33,290 8,546 (24,744) 26% 7,704 1,799 (5,905) 23% 20,000 - (20,000) 0% 301,761 - (301,761) 0% 3,030 - (3,030) 0% 1,500 - (1,500) 0% 591,057 17,240 (572,317) 3% 25 Title C ITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Page 2 of 3 %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,065 179 (886) 17% D/M COURT REC SER 172 11 (161) 6% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN 188 20 (168) 11% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 72 55 (17) 76% PHOTOCOPIES 4,572 737 (3,835) 16% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,500 630 (3,870) 14% ASSESSMENT SEARCH 5 - (5) 0% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 100,000 5,760 (94,240) 6% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,011 - (1,011) 0% SNO-ISLE 57,236 14,445 (42,791) 25% PASSPORTSAND NATURALIZATION FEES 9,571 1,375 (8,196) 14% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 - (26,000) 0% OCDETF OVERTIME - 1,113 1,113 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 11,615 - (11,615) 0% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 2,470 (33,530) 7% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 2,750 - (2,750) 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 532 176 (356) 33% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 27,808 13,304 (14,504) 48% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 7,438 (52,562) 12% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 165 - (165) 0% BOOKING FEES 5,711 577 (5,134) 10% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,577 1,145 (4,432) 21% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 23,976 1,597 (22,379) 7% DUI EMERGENCY AID 67 - (67) 0% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 814,318 217,529 (596,789) 27% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 496 35 (461) 7% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 698 74 (624) 11% CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,360 578 (3,782) 13% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,624 115 (1,509) 7% FIBER SERVICES 36,438 5,480 (30,958) 15% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,272 1,200 (6,072) 17% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 213 171 (42) 80% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 625 (5,991) 9% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 38,000 7,725 (30,275) 20% PLAN CHECKING FEES 216,457 33,239 (183,218) 15% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,911 425 (2,486) 15% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,200 - (1,200) 0% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 1,455 (3,545) 29% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 12,000 1,705 (10,295) 14% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,921 1,845 (9,076) 17% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 56,000 - (56,000) 0% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 5,500 1,163 (4,337) 21% LOCKER FEES 300 - (300) 0% SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 - (32,000) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 - (69,300) 0% PROGRAM FEES 780,000 64,048 (715,952) 8% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 115,500 25,070 (90,430) 22% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 31,600 - (31,600) 0% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 660 - (660) 0% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 1,520,248 299,749 (1,220,499) 20% 4,148,225 713,264 (3,434,961) 17% 26 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Title Budget Revenues Variance %Received PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,214 832 (9,382) 8% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 24,000 2,409 (21,591) 10% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 213,000 22,126 (190,874) 10% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 20,086 1,827 (18,259) 9% SPEEDING DOUBLE 77 - (77) 0% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,034 - (2,034) 0% OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 1,002 93 (909) 9% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 31,592 3,679 (27,913) 12% PR -HANDICAPPED 794 - (794) 0% PARKING INFRACTION LOC 404 - (404) 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 3,000 178 (2,822) 6% DWI PENALTIES 9,200 (639) (9,839) -7% DUI - DP ACCT 415 265 (150) 64% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 8 - (8) 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 2,502 (30,498) 8% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 539 20 (519) 4% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 14,000 (3,721) (17,721) -27% COURT DV P ENALT Y ASSESSMENT 1,491 225 (1,266) 15% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - 29 CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 113,265 11,635 (101,630) 10% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 40,000 3,079 (36,921) 8% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 292 3 (289) 1% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 7,444 300 (7,144) 4% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 485 790 305 163% 526,342 45,632 (480,738) 9% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 8,000 106 (7,894) 1% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,250 143 (1,107) 11% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,491 569 (4,922) 10% PARKING 8,790 1,580 (7,210) 18% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 140,000 9,415 (130,585) 7% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 3,040 1,480 (1,560) 49% LEASES LONG-TERM 143,000 27,763 (115,237) 19% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 4,500 432 (4,068) 10% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 6,200 - (6,200) 0% PARKS DONATIONS 4,300 1,700 (2,600) 40% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,400 200 (1,200) 14% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,486 - (1,486) 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 1,750 862 (888) 49% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - 358 358 0% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 465 10 (455) 2% CASHIER'S OVERAGES✓SHORTAGES 44 1 (43) 2% OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 561 (2,439) 19% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 66 2 (64) 3% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 182 - (182) 0% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 978 133 (845) 14% NSF FEES - POLICE 91 - (91) 0% NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - 90 90 0% 334,033 45,404 (288,719) 14% TRANSFERS -IN: INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER -IN - - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER - In (From 121) 25,086 - (25,086) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER (From 127) 12,297 - (12,297) 0% 37,383 - (37,383) 0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 32,858,589 $ 3,696,503 $ (29,160,705) 11% 27 This page is intentionally left blank. W:3 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 1 of 6 %Used GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 12,069,872 $ 2,002,204 $ (10,067,668) 17% OVERTIME 415,100 54,802 (360,298) 13% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 193,388 802 (192,586) 0% BENEFITS 4,094,462 672,693 (3,421,769) 16% UNIFORMS 61,110 8,087 (53,023) 13% SUPPLIES 374,244 33,948 (340,296) 9% SMALL EQUIPMENT 117,050 8,694 (108,356) 7% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,949,484 204,157 (1,745,327) 10% COMMUNICATIONS 204,660 24,237 (180,423) 12% TRAVEL 36,742 1,441 (35,301) 4% ADVERTISING 40,865 2,234 (38,631) 5% RENTAL/LEASE 834,943 135,425 (699,518) 16% INSURANCE 396,193 395,999 (194) 100% UTILITIES 414,600 63,127 (351,473) 15% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 320,547 62,547 (258,000) 20% MISCELLANEOUS 279,880 68,717 (211,163) 25% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,099,655 2,051,379 (6,048,276) 25% ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE 190,000 - (190,000) 0% EXCISE TAXES 5,500 465 (5,035) 8% INT ERFUND TRANSFER (009,111,112,116) 1,325,185 - (1,325,185) 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 21,603 (63,397) 25% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 946,595 - (946,595) 0% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,014 - (64,014) 0% OTHER DEBT - 478 478 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 185,614 - (185,614) 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS 5,000 (5,000) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 201,800 - (201,800) 0% INTERFUND RENTAL 48,000 8,000 (40,000) 17% 32,959,503 5,821,040 (27,138,463) 18% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE(009) BENEFITS $ 435,000 $ 39,414 $ (395,586) 9% IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 176,400 17,598 (158,802) 10% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,000 - (8,000) 0% MISCELLANEOUS - - 0% 619,400 57,012 (562,388) 9% RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS $ 661,000 464,100 (196,900) 70% 661,000 464,100 (196,900) 70% HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFTFUND (014) SUPPLIES $ 2,000 $ - $ (2,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 (2,000) 0% ADVERTISING 1,000 (1,000) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 (10,000) 0% 15,000 (15,000) 0% BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES $ 10,000 $ $ (10,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,000 (20,000) 0% REPAIRS& MAINTENANENCE 5,000 493 (4,507) 10% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 170,000 - (170,000) 0% 205,000 493 (34,507) 0% DRUG INFO RCEMENTFUND (104) SUPPLIES $ $ - $ 0% FUEL CONSUMED 2,000 881 (1,119) 44% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - (5,000) 0% COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 567 (1,666) 25% REPAIR/MAINT 800 - (800) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 (20,000) 0% INTERGOVTL SVC 50,000 - (50,000) 0% 80,033 $ 1,448 $ (78,585) 2% 29 Page 2 of 6 C TIY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Title Budget Expenditures Variance %Used SALARIES AND WAGES $ 447,655 $ 71,251 $ (376,404) 16% OVERTIME 18,400 3,679 (14,721) 20% BENEFITS 197,283 30,383 (166,900) 15% UNIFORMS 6,000 2,476 (3,524) 41% SUPPLIES 240,000 30,844 (209,156) 13% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 - (26,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32,700 3,966 (28,734) 12% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 380 (3,120) 11% TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0% ADVERTISING 350 - (350) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 159,134 26,225 (132,909) 16% INSURANCE 87,204 87,201 (3) 100% UTILITIES 267,750 22,639 (245,112) 8% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 25,000 2,313 (22,687) 9% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 - (8,000) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 4,000 89 (3,911) 2% INTERFUND TRANSFER - 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 31,665 (31,665) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 2,074 - (2,074) 0% 1,557,715 281,447 (1,276,268) 18% COMBINED S TREET C 0 NS T/IMPRO VE (112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 1,152,100 $ 36,940 $ (1,115,160) 3% INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT (to 112,117) 378,500 - (378,500) 0% LAND 909,400 - (909,400) 0% CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 3,502,300 75,590 (3,426,710) 2% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 - (72,203) 0% INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,481 - (4,481) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 306,000 28,762 (277,238) 9% 6,324,984 141,292 (6,183,692) 2% MUNIC IPAL ARTS AC Q UIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES $ 4,200 $ $ (4,200) 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 (1,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 116,700 1,875 (114,825) 2% TRAVEL 50 12 (38) 24% ADVERTISING 4,000 1,450 (2,550) 36% RENTAL/LEASE 550 - (550) 0% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 300 (300) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 12 (9,988) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 - (3,000) 0% 139,800 3,349 (136,451) 2% MEMO RIAL S TREIEI TREE FUND (118) SUPPLIES $ - $ - $ 0% 0% HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 14,500 $ $ (14,500) 0% ADVERTISING 37,500 (37,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 100 (2,400) 4% INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 117, 132) 14,000 - (14,000) 0% 68,500 S 100 (68,400) 0% EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES $ 1,640 $ - $ (1,640) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001) 25,086 (25,086) 0% 26,726 (26,726) 0% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS $ 4,000 $ 868 $ (3,132) 22% 4,000 868 (3,132) 22% TOURISMPRO MOTIONALFUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 10,500 $ - $ (10,500) 0% ADVERTISING 4,500 (4,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 (4,000) 0% 19,000 (19,000) 0% 30 Title REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING UTILITIES REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 132) CONST RUCT ION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126) MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER TO FUND 231 LAND GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001) SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES CFIVIE EERY MAINTEVANCEQMPRO VEMINT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT INTERFUND SERVICES PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES PARKS TRUSTFUND (136) INTERFUND TRANSFER SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES STUDENT TRIP MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DIS TRIC T (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 29,000 $ 11,245 337,000 (2,079) - 107 Variance (17,755) (339,079) Page 3 of 6 % Used 39% -1% - 0% 185,000 (185,000) 0% 635,500 (635,500) 0% 100,000 (100,000) 0% - - 0% 1,286,500 9,273 $ (1,277,334) 1% $ $ $ 0% 438,910 (438,910) 0% 200,000 (200,000) 0% 17,550 (17,550) 0% 12,074 (12,074) 0% 668,534 (668,534) 0% $ 14,020 $ 432 $ (13,588) 3% 6,000 2,050 (3,950) 34% 12,297 - (12,297) 0% 32,317 2,482 (29,835) 8% $ 31,700 $ $ (31,700) 0% 171,600 (171,600) 0% 19,500 7,993 (11,507) 41% 222,800 7,993 (214,807) 4% 68,605 $ 11,624 $ (56,981) 17% 3,500 - (3,500) 0% 33,188 5,204 (27,984) 16% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 7,000 245 (6,755) 4% 20,000 1,268 (18,732) 6% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 1,412 233 (1,179) 17% 500 - (500) 0% 3,000 108 (2,892) 4% 5,256 876 3,800 (3,800) 0% 500 - (500) 0% 4,000 964 (3,036) 24% - - 0% - 0% 152,761 $ 20,523 $ (127,858) 13% $ - $ $ 0% 1,907,500 911 (1,906,589) 0% - - 0% 182,700 - (182,700) 0% 3,000 800 (2,200) 27% 2,093,200 1,711 (2,091,489) 0% $ $ $ 0% 0°0 $ 500 $ $ (500) 0% 2,600 (2,600) 0% 1,500 63 (1,437) 4% 4,600 S 63 4,537 1% $ $ 1,714 $ 1,714 0% 5,000 5,000 - 100% 640,000 94,856 (545,144) 15% 645,000 101,570 (543,430) 16% 31 Page 4 of 6 Title INTERFUND TRANSFER LID GUARANTY FUND (213) INTERFUND TRANSFER 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND (234) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS INTEREST WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 117,414) MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND SERVICES CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 22,130 $ $ (22,130) 0% 22,130 (22,130) 0% $ 825,372 $ $ (825,372) 0% 184,530 (184,530) 0% - 0% 1,009,902 (1,009,902) 0% $ $ $ 0% 0% #DIV/0! $ 756,455 $ 118,775 $ (637,680) 16% 24,180 2,753 (21,427) 11% 285,866 49,033 (236,833) 17% 6,840 364 (6,476) 5% 143,505 8,423 (135,082) 6% - - 0% 1,725,000 101,110 (1,623,890) 6% 140,000 16,915 (123,085) 12% 10,400 105 (10,295) 1% 173,136 15,163 (157,973) 9% 30,280 5,651 (24,629) 19% 3,400 - (3,400) 0% 560 - (560) 0% 91,205 15,632 (75,573) 17% 67,699 67,607 (92) 100% 28,000 5,108 (22,892) 18% 24,160 1,228 (22,932) 5% 307,630 51,587 (256,043) 17% 30,000 5,188 (24,812) 17% 904,893 136,504 (768,389) 15% 927,500 - (927,500) 0% 85,000 (85,000) 0% 2,532,580 (2,532,580) 0% 2,025 (2,025) 0% 209,471 (209,471) 0% 45,839 (45,839) 0% 280,306 (280,306) 0% 16,553 - (16,553) 0% - 175 175 0% 349,368 74,351 (275,017) 21% 9,201,851 $ 675,670 $ (8,526,181) 7% 32 Page 5 of 6 Title S TO RM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UT ILIT ES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112, 117) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 414, 423) MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES C TTY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 568,591 $ 91,870 $ (476,721) 16% 6,000 1,068 (4,932) 18% 232,141 36,913 (195,228) 16% 6,540 2,819 (3,721) 43% 50,000 572 (49,428) 1% 4,400 - (4,400) 0% 599,190 77,273 (521,917) 13% 3,480 212 (3,268) 6% 4,300 - (4,300) 0% 500 - (500) 0% 217,412 35,704 (181,708) 16% 8,418 8,407 (11) 100% 10,000 1,481 (8,519) 15% 11,860 - (11,860) 0% 106,100 13,012 (93,088) 12% 45,000 16,682 (28,318) 37% 291,600 55,286 (236,314) 19% 237,766 - (237,766) 0% 1,458,400 (1,458,400) 0% 101,469 (101,469) 0% 82,906 (82,906) 0% 32,063 (32,063) 0% 187,245 - (187,245) 0% - 83 83 0% 300,391 108,233 (192,158) 36% 4,565,772 449,613 4,116,159 10% $ 1,653,859 $ 266,362 $ (1,387,497) 16% 73,000 27,657 (45,343) 38% 677,979 107,434 (570,545) 16% 11,190 1,450 (9,740) 13% 482,505 42,085 (440,420) 9% 90,000 28,691 (61,309) 32% 3,000 - (3,000) 0% 16,400 1,880 (14,520) 11% 1,024,236 300,008 (724,228) 29% 40,280 5,042 (35,238) 13% 7,400 - (7,400) 0% 2,500 - (2,500) 0% 133,736 22,203 (111,533) 17% 157,117 156,092 (1,025) 99% 931,200 129,647 (801,553) 14% 90,000 7,330 (82,670) 8% 211,100 37,106 (173,994) 18% 290,000 37,756 (252,244) 13% 470,000 87,384 (382,616) 19% 1,125,280 - (1,125,280) 0% 141,000 - (141,000) 0% 7,924,700 20,287 (7,904,413) 0% 195,602 - (195,602) 0% 222,625 (222,625) 0% 138,939 (138,939) 0% 125,421 (125,421) 0% 16,551 - (16,551) 0% - 41 41 0% 574,489 79,681 (494,808) 14% - 16,830,109 S 1,358,137 (15,471,972) 8% 33 Title CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 6 of 6 %Used EQUIPMENTRENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 228,064 $ 22,925 $ (205,139) 10% OVERTIME 1,000 886 (114) 89% BENEFITS 100,397 11,173 (89,224) 11% UNIFORMS 1,000 277 (723) 28% SUPPLIES 76,000 8,780 (67,220) 12% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - (1,000) 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 321,800 3,254 (318,546) 1% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 329 (7,672) 4% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 227 (773) 23% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 214 (2,786) 7% RENTAL/LEASE 9,996 1,548 (8,448) 15% INSURANCE 34,083 32,700 (1,383) 96% UTILITIES 14,000 2,013 (11,987) 14% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 60,000 12,992 (47,008) 22% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 1,317 (4,683) 22% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 119 (2,381) 5% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 217,532 46,927 (170,605) 22% INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 - (10,000) 0% - 1,095,372 S 145,680 (949,692) 13% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 63,000 $ 7,012 $ (55,988) 11% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 43,790 24,830 (18,960) 57% PROF SERVICES 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 108,790 31,842 (76,948) 29% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 80,620,299 9,575,706 (70,855,320) 12% 34 Title CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES MUNICIPAL COURT CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY ATTORNEY NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PARKS & RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE Title WATER UTILITY FUND STORM UTILITY FUND SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2013 Adopted Budget 273,623 $ 238,374 287,190 729,506 586,831 1,492,018 499,200 11,467,569 8,931,185 373,314 1,619,042 3,398,517 1,718,975 1,344,159 32.959.503 $ 2/28/2013 penditures 38,445 $ 38,426 39,680 115,327 83,146 272,409 85,261 2,488,604 1,406,388 54,572 262,483 441,862 285,354 1 Variance (235,178) (199,948) (247,510) (614,179) (503,685) (1,219,609) (413,939) (8,978,965) (7,524,797) (318,742) (1,356,559) (2,956,655) (1,433,622) CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN S UMMARY 2013 Adopted Budget $ 9,201,851 $ 4,565,772 16,830,109 $ 30,597,732 $ 2/28/2013 .penditures 675,670 $ 449,613 1,358,137 2,483,419 $ Variance (8,526,181) (4,116,159) (15,471,972) (28,114,313) % Used % Used 14% 16% 14% 16% 14% 18% 17% 22% 16% 15% 16% 13% 17% 16% 18% 7% 10% 8% 8% This page is intentionally left blank. 36 Page 1 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Title Budget Expenditures Variance %Used CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 114,618 $ 20,000 $ (94,618) 17% OVERTIME 2,000 100 (1,900) 5 % BENEFIT S 68,165 11,620 (56,545) 17% SUPPLIES 1,000 88 (912) 9% PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,082 6,029 (47,053) 11% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 260 (2,740) 9% TRAVEL 2,500 276 (2,224) 11 % RENTAL/LEASE 490 72 (418) 15% REPAIRS✓MAINT 1,500 - (1,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 - (27,268) 0% 273,623 38,445 (235,178) 14% O FFIC E O F MAYO R SALARIES $ 183,722 $ 30,998 $ (152,724) 17% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 41,852 6,962 (34,890) 17% SUPPLIES 2,000 148 (1,852) 7% PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,500 - (1,500) 0% COMMUNICATION 1,400 85 (1,315) 6% TRAVEL 2,000 - (2,000) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 184 (2,216) 8% REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 50 (2,950) 2% 238,374 38,426 (199,948) 16% HUMAN RES O URC ES SALARIES $ 169,000 S 25,357 $ (143,643) 15% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 6L680 7,897 (53,783) 13% SUPPLIES 2,000 532 (1,468) 27% SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 32,000 5,297 (26,703) 17% COMMUNICATIONS 500 30 (470) 6% TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0% ADVERTISING 5,000 311 (4,689) 6% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 184 (1,816) 9% REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 - (6,000) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 8 410 72 (8,338) 1% 287,190 39,680 (247,510) 14% MUNICIPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 464,471 $ 74,207 $ (390,264) 16% OVERTIME 100 - (100) 0% BENEFITS 168,526 24,625 (143,901) 15% SUPPLIES 9,159 1,822 (7,337) 20% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 - (2,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60,500 11,605 (48,895) 19% COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 241 (2,359) 9% TRAVEL 1,250 461 (789) 37% RENTAL/LEASE 650 140 (510) 22% REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 281 (719) 28% MISCELLANEOUS 19,250 1,945 (17,305) 10% 729,506 115,327 (614,179) 16% 37 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 2 of 4 %Used CITY C LERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 305,572 $ 50,490 $ (255,082) 17% BENEFIT S 92,771 15,347 (77,424) 17% SUPPLIES 13,760 1,777 (11,983) 13% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,751 1,536 (83,215) 2% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 9,321 (40,679) 19% TRAVEL 250 - (250) 0% ADVERTISING 3,690 978 (2,712) 27% RENTAL/LEASE 25,000 2,655 (22,345) 11 % REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 - (8,037) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,041 (1,959) 35% 586,831 S 83,146 503,685 14% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 682,370 $ 129,018 $ (553,352) 19% OVERTIME 4,000 1,045 (2,955) 26% BENEFITS 220,100 37,550 (182,550) 17% SUPPLIES 35,700 1,093 (34,607) 3% SMALL EQUIPMENT 87,500 7,080 (80,420) 8% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 126,350 25,365 (100,985) 20% COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 7,991 (50,969) 14% TRAVEL 3,300 - (3,300) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 8,988 1,663 (7,325) 19% REPAIR/MAINT 171,750 34,257 (137,493) 20% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 5,744 (2,256) 72% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 21,603 (63,397) 25% 1,492,018 272,409 (1,219,609) 18% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 499,200 $ 85,261 $ (413,939) 17% MISC PROSECUTOR - - - 0% 499,200 85,261 (413,939) 17% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 136,000 $ - $ (136,000) 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 40,000 2,931 (37,069) 7% PROFESSIONAL SVC 380,000 32,396 (347,604) 9% COMMUNICATIONS - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 396,193 395,999 (194) 100% MISCELLANEOUS 55,156 40,065 (15,091) 73% INTERGOVT SVC 7,532,912 2,012,671 (5,520,241) 27% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 190,000 - (190,000) 0% EXCISE TAXES 5,500 465 (5,035) 8% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 1,325,185 - (1,325,185) 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 946,595 - (946,595) 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,014 - (64,014) 0% OTHER DEBT - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 185,614 - (185,614) 0% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS 5,000 - (5,000) 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES - 478 478 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 201,800 - (201,800) 0% 11,467,569 2,488,604 (8,978,965) 22% 38 Page 3 of 4 C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title SALARIES OVERTIME HOLIDAY BUYBACK BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTL SVC INT ERFUND RENTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN SALARIES BENEFIT S SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 5,169,010 $ 882,277 $ (4,286,733) 17% 400,000 52,590 (347,410) 13% 193,388 802 (192,586) 0% 1,728,703 296,942 (1,431,761) 17% 52,410 7,134 (45,276) 14% 94,100 11,975 (82,125) 13% 14,300 1,077 (13,223) 8% 95,200 7,587 (87,613) 8% 33,592 2,163 (31,429) 6% 16,300 704 (15,596) 4% 375 36 (339) 10% 538,344 88,851 (449,493) 17% 16,115 526 (15,589) 3% 35,300 7,017 (28,283) 20% 496,048 38,708 (457,340) 8% 48,000 8,000 (40,000) 17% 8,931,185 1,406,388 (7,524,797) 16% $ 213,304 $ 35,623 $ (177,681) 17% 62,052 10,402 (51,650) 17% 1,500 164 (1,336) 11% 800 - (800) 0% 60,804 6,905 (53,899) 11 % 1,490 204 (1,286) 14% 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 24,500 - (24,500) 0% 2364 244 (2,120) 10% 500 - (500) 0% 4,000 1,030 (2,970) 26% 373,314 54,572 (318,742) 15% $ 1,032,549 $ 188,219 $ (844,330) 18% 1,300 25 (1,275) 2% 358,465 65,852 (292,613) 18% - - - 0% 13,000 1,033 (11,967) 8% 1,100 - (1,100) 0% 145,600 (1,532) (147,132) -1% 4,000 475 (3,525) 12% 1,600 - (1,600) 0% 3,000 291 (2,709) 10% 32,828 5,437 (27,391) 17% 500 - (500) 0% 25,100 2,684 (22,416) 11 % 1,619,042 262,483 (1,356,559) 16% $ 1,007,140 $ 166,641 $ (840,499) 17% 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 342,150 60,326 (281,824) 18% 360 - (360) 0% - - - 0% 2,000 320 (1,680) 16% 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 6,700 623 (6,077) 9% 600 - (600) 0% - 264 264 0% 13,408 2,234 (11,174) 17% 1,800 - (1,800) 0% 10,300 1,705 (8,595) 17% 1,394,458 232,112 (1,162,346) 17% 39 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTLSVC PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENTAL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED MINOR EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS TO TAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 1,745,631 $ 254,325 $ (1,491,306) 15% - 1,043 1,043 0% 584,326 88,710 (495,616) 15% 5,340 720 (4,620) 13% 131,925 10,134 (121,791) 8% 3,250 - (3,250) 0% 405,297 23,704 (381,593) 6% 28,218 986 (27,232) 3% 5,942 - (5,942) 0% 4,300 354 (3,946) 8% 149,152 21,957 (127,195) 15% 135,000 17,130 (117,870) 13% 51,845 15,662 (36,183) 30% 77,596 7,137 (70,459) 9% 70 695 - (70,695) 0% 3,398,517 441,862 (2,956,655) 13% $ 225,381 $ 40,042 $ (185,339) 18% 200 - (200) 0% 76,157 10,898 (65,259) 14% 5,100 1,097 (4,003) 22% 200 5 (195) 2% 1,200 95 (1,105) 8% 500 - (500) 0% 10,779 714 (10,065) 7% 2,600 390 (2,210) 15% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 1,400 - (1,400) 0% 324,517 S 53,241 (271,276) 16% $ 621,104 $ 105,006 $ (516,098) 17% 2,500 - (2,500) 0% 249,515 32,633 (216,882) 13% 3,000 233 (2,767) 8% 65,000 4,084 (60,916) 6% - - - 0% 6,000 217 (5,783) 4% 13,000 1,763 (11,237) 14% 44,940 7,490 (37,450) 17% 277,000 45,607 (231,393) 16% 60,000 11,821 (48,179) 20% 2 100 228 (1,872) 11% 1,344,159 209,083 (1,135,076) 16% 32,959,503 5,821,040 (27,138,463) 18% 40 AM-5679 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Phil Williams Department: Public Works Submitted By: Kody McConnell Committee: Finance Type: Action Information Subiect Title Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles. 3. L. Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City vehicles. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Previously, the City has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost-effective method to manage surplus items. The following surplus vehicles are ready to be auctioned: Unit # 650-POL 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FAHP71VX8X145650 Unit # 424-POL 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FAHP71V08X114424 Unit # 10-STR 2001 Dodge Ram 3500 Flatbed Vin# 3136MC36521M571411 Unit # 96-STR 1999 Chevrolet C3500 Flatbed Vin # 1GBKC34JIXF061017 Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact Revenue: 16,000 Fiscal Impact: Monies will be deposited into B-Fund Replacement Account. Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kody McConnell Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 01:50 PM Dave Earling 04/11/2013 04:29 PM Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 04:43 PM Started On: 04/11/2013 01:49 PM Expenditure: AM-5659 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Information Subiect Title HR Reporting Director special assignment. Action 3. M. Recommendation The Mayor requests Council to approve the continuation of the special assignment, HR Reporting Director with Ms. Hite. As authorized by City Personnel Policy and City Ordinance and approved by the Mayor, the special assignment and Special Duty Pay is being requested for approval by Council for the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, Carrie Hite for an additional one year period (from the previous approval date on 4/17/12). The Personnel Committee is forwarding this to Council for approval. Previous Council Action The Mayor and Council approved Special Duty Pay for the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, Carrie Hite to serve as the Reporting Director for HR for a one year period on 4/17/12. Narrative This reporting structure has been working well and continues to work well for the City and the Human Resources department. Several major projects and negotiations were successfully accomplished in the last year under this reporting arrangement. It is strongly recommended that this reporting structure continue for the benefit of the organization. Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Form Review Date 04/11/2013 01:40 PM 04/11/2013 04:33 PM 04/11/2013 04:43 PM Started On: 04/10/2013 09:37 AM AM-5660 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Information Subiect Title Acting Development Services Director assignment. Action 3. N. Recommendation The Mayor is requesting Council to approve an additional period of the appointment of acting Director for Development Services for Rob Chave to include Jan 1, 2013-December 31st, 2013, and the corresponding out of class pay. The Personnel Committee is forwarding to Council for approval. Previous Council Action The Mayor & Council originally approved the Acting Development Services Director and corresponding out of class pay assignment in March of 2012. Narrative Mr. Chave has been doing a great job in covering the duties of the Development Services Director. In addition, he has been working with a team of staff to improve customer service on the 2nd floor, and adjust work assignments with the Building Official departure. We have no additional funds in the budget to hire a new Development Services Director, and it makes sense to cotinue Mr. Chave's service in the acting position. Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Form Review Date 04/11/2013 01:40 PM 04/11/2013 04:33 PM 04/11/2013 04:43 PM Started On: 04/10/2013 09:39 AM AM-5621 5 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Dave Earling Submitted By: Carolyn LaFave Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information "information Subject Title Proclamation in honor of Earth Day, April 22, 2013. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative This Earth day -- April 22, 2013 marks the 43rd anniversary of the birth of the modern environmental movement which started in 1970. Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, then a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, proposed the first nationwide environmental protest "to shake-up the political establishment and force this issue onto the national agenda." On the first Earth Day in 1970, 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums to demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment. Denis Hayes, the national coordinator, and his youthful staff organized massive coast -to -coast rallies. Thousands of colleges and universities organized protests against the deterioration of the environment. "Earth Day worked because of the spontaneous response at the grassroots level," said Sen. Gaylor Nelson. "We had neither the time nor resources to organize 20 million demonstrators and the thousands of schools and local communities that participated. That was the remarkable things about Earth Day. It organized itself." This year's Earth Day theme is "The Face of Climate Change". The Earth Day Network will tell the world the stories of people, animals and places affected by climate change — and of those stepping up to do something about it... together we've reached 1,019,859,264 acts of green — help us reach 2 billion. The Earth Day Network encourages all to "join the movement" by taking action. Go to act.earthday.org to find out how you can participate in Earth Day 2013. Earth Day 2013 Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/09/2013 11:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/09/2013 01:25 PM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 03/25/2013 03:06 PM Final Approval Date: 04/09/2013 Pr r Ila 11 City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Earth Day EARTH DAY NETWORK 2013 WHEREAS, the global community now faces extraordinary challenges, such as global health issues, food and water shortages, and economic struggles; and WHEREAS, all people, regardless of race, gender, income, or geography, have a moral right to a healthy, sustainable environment with economic growth; and WHEREAS, it is understood that the citizens of the global community must step forward and take action to create a green economy to combat the aforementioned global challenges; and WHEREAS, a green economy can be achieved on the individual level through educational efforts, public policy, and consumer activism campaigns; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to broaden and diversity this global movement to achieve maximum success; FURTHERMORE, let it be known that the City of Edmonds, Washington hereby encourages its residents, businesses and institutions to use EARTH DAY to celebrate the Earth and commit to building a sustainable and green economy; NOW THEREFORE BE YF RESOLVED that I, David O. Earling, Mayor, hereby pledge this Earth Day, April 22, 2013, to support green economy initiatives in Edmonds and to encourage others to undertake similar actions. David O. Earling, Mayor April 16, 2013 I AM-5667 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Tnfnrm.M+;nn Submitted By: Committee Action: Subject Title Proclamation in honor of the opening of the Swedish Cancer Institute at Edmonds. Recommendation Previous Council Action 717 Carolyn LaFave Narrative On April 2, 2013, Swedish/Edmonds opened their new Cancer Institute on the Edmonds Campus. This facility is anticipated to handle as many as 175 patient visits each day and provide increased access to cancer -care services for people living in the south Snohomish and north King county areas. An open house will be held on April 17 from 4-7 pm to allow the community to tour this new two-story, 17,102 square foot, state-of-the-art facility. Swedish Cancer Institute Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 09:43 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 11:30 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 04/11/2013 08:26 AM Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Swedish Cancer Institute at SWEDISH Edmonds Day Edmonds Apr1117 2013 WHEREAS, Swedish Cancer Institute, medical oncology, on the Edmonds campus opened April 2, 2013; and WHEREAS, they will hold a public open house on April 17 from 4-7 pm; and WHEREAS, the two-story, 17,102-square-foot facility is anticipated to handle as many as 175 patient visits each day and provide increased access to cancer -care services for people living in the south Snohomish and north King county areas; and WHEREAS, the facility at Swedish/Edmonds will provide high -quality and comprehensive medical -oncology services to patients through an infusion unit, laboratory, pharmacy and access to Swedish's electronic medical record system; and WHEREAS, as a hospital -based department, patients will also have access to social work, support groups, American Cancer Society navigation and resources, financial counseling, cancer -specific patient education classes, and an education/resource wall; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I, David 0. Earling, Mayor, do hereby proclaim April 17, 2013 SWEDISH CANCER INSTITUTE AT EDMONDS DAY and urge all citizens to attend the open house celebration for self -guided tours, light refreshments and a chance to talk to medical professionals who care for c r patients and their families. s 4r - t� I David 0. Earling, Mayor April 16, 2013 AM-5651 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: 60 Minutes Submitted For: Council Department: City Council Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Type: Information Information 7. Submitted By: Jana Spellman Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Subject Title Training and possible action regarding draft Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's new Rules of Procedure. Recommendation Previous Council Action This agenda item was discussed at the 2013 Council Retreat and forwarded to the Public Safety/Personnel Committee for further discussion. Below is an excerpt from those minutes: Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 2 "4. CITY COUNCIL PROCESSES A. ROBERT'S RULES Councilmember Johnson explained the Council has been operating for the past 39 years under Resolution No. 292. She acknowledged there are other ways, but she feels Robert's Rules is the best alternative. She referred to Attachment 4, a decision tree for determining whether to continue using Resolution No. 292 or adopt Robert's Rules. City Attorney Jeff Taraday suggested the City Council adopt a complete set of Robert's Rules as its official rules and distribute a shorter primer on the rules to Councilmembers to allow the Council to familiarize themselves with the rules. Councilmember Johnson suggested training on Robert's Rules be provided during a work session. Summary: Schedule a work session and have an ordinance prepared for review by the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee." This agenda item was discussed at the 2/12/2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee. (Attachment 5: Feb. 12, 2013 PS/Personnel Committee Minutes). The action taken by the PS/P Committee is in the excerpt below: "Presentation to Council on Robert's Rules of Order is on the extended agenda for our April 16 Council Meeting. Council President Petso will be asked to put the draft resolution adopting Roberts Rules of Order on the agenda for discussion and vote at a Council Meeting following this (April 23 or later)." Narrative The Council will be given a presentation by Ann MacFarlane of Jurassic Parliament regarding Robert's Rules of Order with an opportunity for questions. The Council will also give consideration to approving the draft Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING RESOLUTION 292, WHICH ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS; ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. Attachment 7: Resolution 292 Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2013 Revenue: Expenditure: $450.00 Fiscal Impact: The fee for this presentation will be paid out of the Council Miscellaneous Budget line item: 001.000.11.511.60.49.00. Attachments Attachment 1 - Should Council Adont Robert's Rules of Order Attachment 2 - Which Parliamentary Authority Should Council Choose Attachment 3 - A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making Attachment 4 - Decision Tree Attach 5: 2/12/13 PS/P Committee Minutes Attach 6: Draft Resolution regarding Robert's Rules of Order Attach 7: Resolution 292 Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 10:53 AM Dave Earling 04/11/2013 11:50 AM Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 01:41 PM Started On: 04/08/2013 09:47 AM Jurassic ATTACHMENT 9 Should Our Council Adopt Robert's Rules of Order? Ann G. Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian "Council/Commission Advisor" published by the Municipal Research S�Services Center of Washington, April 2011 The State of Washington gives city councils wide authority to decide how they will carry on their business: "The council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and may establish rules for the conduct of council meetings and the maintenance of order." RCW 3$A.r2.12o Some councils have adopted, by resolution or ordinance, a set of guidelines for this purpose, and others have not. Many of these guidelines include reference to Robert's Rules of order, using such language as "meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order and these council rules of procedure, In case of conflict, the council rules of procedure shall prevail." Recently it was suggested to Jurassic Parliament that Robert's Rules of order is too complicated for small cities and towns, and they would do better not to adopt it. We agree that the book is complicated, but we believe that Robert's Rules still provides the best and most useful set of rules of order for civic bodies in our state —provided that folks are willing to do a little work and learn how to use Robert's Rules properly. Our argument runs like this: r. The fundamental principles in Robert are common to all our civic discourse and are not hard to learn. Everyone participating in council debate and discussion should understand that the majority will rule, that the minority have rights that must be respected, that members have a right to information to help make decisions, that courtesy and respect are required, that all members have equal rights, privileges and obligations, and that members have a right to an efficient meeting. 2. The use of written motions and amendments provides an efficient and fair way to consider proposals and modify them in accord with the group's preferences. The method is a little unusual, in that amendments are taken up before the motion is voted on, but once groups get used to it, the system works well. 3. Robert's rule that no one may speak a second time until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken once is vital to equalizing power imbalances and giving everyone a fair shake in discussion. We believe that it should be observed by all groups, whether or not they have formally adopted Robert. rw over 4. Robert provides "special rules for small boards" that can be useful for smaller councils, should they choose to apply them. S. Robert also allows groups to develop and apply their own "special rules of order," so if a body wishes to change something in Robert, it is perfectly free to do so. i In sticky situations, "do-it-yourself" rulemaking can lead to ad hoc invention of rules, likely supplied by the chair on his own authority. A chair who makes up rules or improvises on the basis of vague memories from student government days is a sure path to problems, especially if the rule -maker has an air of authority about him (or her). 7. While councils often rely on their attorney for advice in this arena, in our experience few attorneys have had serious training in parliamentary procedure and few correct the common and widespread misunderstandings about Robert's Rules. S. A body cannot do its work without some guidelines. Failing to adopt Robert doesn't mean that there are no guidelines -- but without a specific "parliamentary authority," in times of conflict a group will be driven back to rely on "common parliamentary law." Finding out what "common parliamentary law" requires and how it applies to a given situation is likely to be complicated and expensive, requiring time and attention from legal counsel and qualified parliamentary consultants. Far better to have set the terms of discourse in advance, so that everyone knows and agrees to the way they will consider matters. We believe that adopting a set of common-sense guidelines based on Robert's Rules, incorporating Robert by reference for the more unusual or complicated situations that may arise, and then committing to the education necessary to get everyone on the same page, will pay big dividends for every council willing to make the effort. That education can be quite affordable. Every city budget ought to be able to provide a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief to each council member. This little book is a splendid summary of the rules applicable to all but the most exceptional situations. At s7.00 it's an amazing buy, and you can read it in an evening. Should our council adopt Robert's Rules of Order? © Jurassic Parliament eon. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE This material is provided for your personal use. Permission is hereby granted to make electronic or paper copies provided that the material is left uncharged_The purchaser may not otherwise modify, copy, distribute. transmit, display perform. reproduce, publish, iicense, create derivative works from, transfer or sell any information or services contained in this publication or obtained from our website, or usethe content of our website for public or commercial purposes, including any text, images, audio or video, without the written permission of Jurassic Parliament. Jurassic Parliament reserves the right to update our webste at anytime without noticetoyou. If you would like to use or quote this material for any purpose otter than expressly as authorized herein, contact the Jurassic Pariiament office. DISCLAIMER This material is provided for general educatmnal purposes. Jurassic Parliament makes no representation about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published as part of these servicesforany purpose.All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind_ Jurassic Parliament hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, includingall warranties and conditions of merchantability, whether express, implied or statutory, fitnessfor a particular purpose, title and non infringement. Nothing written here constitutes legal or business advice. Readers with specific questions are advised to seek an appropriate credentialed authority to address their issues. 6o3 Stewart Street, Suite 61o, Seattle, WA 98toi TEL 206.542.8422 I FAX 206.626.0392 info@jurassicpartiament.com I www. jurassicparliament.com ATTACHMENT 2 JAU'ra s s IC Which Parliamentary Authority Should We Choose? Organizations intending to choose a parliamentary authority to guide their meetings have several different choices. This article describes some common authorities. We welcome feedback from our readers who use any of these authorities about the good points or disadvantages they find in them. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. This is the most commonly used authority in the United States. By some estimates about ninety percent of the voluntary associations in our country use Robert. Widespread use, breadth of coverage, and the availability of many excellent resources on Robert make this book our first choice. However, be warned that over the years, the book has become extremely detailed. At first glance, it is quite intimidating - the current official version is over goo pages long. Jurassic Parliament offers many tools to help you get the most out of Robert and apply it in a pragmatic way to your meetings. Current version: i1th edition. Be sure to use the official text, and not some publisher's knock -off based on earlier, out-of-date versions. See our article "Which Robert's Rules of Order Should I Buy?" for guidance on this point. It is also useful to refer to Robert's Rules of OrderIn Brief - a short volume which is not an authority, but which serves as an introduction to Robert. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. Alice Sturgis wrote the original version of this authority, referred to as "TSC" or "Sturgis." It is well -written and easy to follow. Many medical associations use Sturgis as their authority. However, the book does not cover as many situations as Robert, and it shifts some authority from the group itself to the person running the meeting (the presider). This seems more efficient at first glance, but the added authority may go to the presider's head, and cause him or her to behave in a dictatorial fashion. Sturgis also differs from Robert in some parliamentary actions like "to reconsider" or "to fill a blank" Current version: 4th edition The Modern Rules of Order. Donald Tortorice prepared this slim volume for the American Bar Association, though the ABA does not use it during its own meetings. A mere 6o pages long, it may seem a tempting choice. However, Michael Malamut, an attorney and professional registered r► over Price $0-99 May not be photocopied Contact ouroffice for multiple copy permission and pricing parliamentarian, has given it a poor review in one of the leading parliamentary journals. He states that the author derived his expertise from sitting through business corporation meetings, not meetings of nonprofit associations, and the result shows in his work. This book includes "typical minutes" and a chart of motions. Current version: 3rd edition. The Democratic Rules of Order. Fred and Peg Francis of British Columbia, Canada wrote these rules, 76 pages. It seems a good compilation of standard procedure, without a lot of detail. Includes a two - page summary and an example of a meeting governed by these rules. Current version: 9th edition. Rosenberg's Rules of Order. Dave Rosenberg, a Superior Court Judge in California, has prepared these rules, available as an eight -page PDF on the World Wide Web. The rules seem unobjectionable but obviously do not provide the detail that may be needed in complex situations. We found the mathematics on voting given in the addendum to be rather peculiar. Many legislatures in the U.S. use Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. Professional parliamentar- ians may turn to Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure and Riddich's Rules of Procedure. Bourinot's Rules of order is widely used in Canada. Hugh Cannon has written Cannon's Concise Guide to Rules of Order, a lively introduction. And if all else fails, you can turn to Thomas Jefferson for A Manu al of Parliamentary Procedure. We welcome suggestions about adding to this list or modifying the descriptions. Contact us at info @jurassicparliament.com. Which Parliamentary Authority Should We Choose? © Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE This material is sold for the personal use of the purchaser. Permission is hereby granted to make electronic or paper copies it number according tothe hcenSe which you have purchased. The purchaser may not otherwise modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer or sell any information or services contained in this publication or obtained from our website, or use the content of our website for public or commercial purposes, including any text, images. audio or video, without the written permission of Jurassic Parliament. Jurassic Parliament reserves the right to update our website at anytime without notice to you. If you would like to use or quote this material for any purpose other than expressly as authorized herein, contact the Jurassic Par hament office, URl_ www.jurassicparliamentcom. DISCLAIMER This material is provided for general educational purposes. Jurassic Parliament makes no representation about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published as part of these services for any purpose_ All such documents and related graphics are provided"as is" without warranty ofanykind JurassicPartiamenthereby disciaimsa#I warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all warrantiesand conditions of merchantability.whether express, implied or statutory, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non -infringement Nothing written here constitutes legal or business advice, Readers with specific questions are advised to seek an appropriate credentialed authorityto address their issues. Jou'r ass 1C 603 Stewart Street, Suite 61o, Seattle, WA 98joz TEL 206.542.8422 1 FAX 2.06.626.0392 info@jurassicparliament.com I www. jurassicparliament.com A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making Posted on November 5, 2012 by €lyron Kats!:. One of the things that has always fascinated me as a student and observer of local government has been the process that local legislative bodies use to discuss, debate, and formulate policy decisions. To my mind, much of what constitutes "good government" is a direct consequence of an open, fair, and effective legislative decision - making process. The open and fair parts are regulated by state laws relating to issues such as campaign finance reporting, public records disclosure, and open public meetings. Effectiveness, on the other hand, is left to the local legislative body. While there are a lot of moving parts in this process and, therefore, lots of opportunities to improve it, one critical aspect, and the focus of this blog post, has to do Kith the way local legislative bodies deliberate on the policy issues that come before them. When acting in their formal legislative capacity, local councils come together for a very specialized purpose -- to discuss, debate, and finally decide on important issues affecting their communities. It is at this point during the give and take of their policy discussions, where arguments are put forth, opinions are swayed, and votes are taken. It's not true that councilmembers always come to such meetings with their minds already made up, as some citizens and members of the press seem to think. So, it is important not only that these discussions take place, but that they be conducted in ways that promote the best possible exchange of information and ideas. To this end, one simple but effective technique designed to improve this process was suggested by Ann Macfarlane, one of MRSC's long-time Council/Commission Advisors, in her zoog column, "Using; the Round Robin Method for Efficient Council Meetings." Ann's column contains some sage advice for local legislative bodies interested in improving both the efficiency and the quality of their meetings. In it she argues that the `round robin method' for council deliberation contained in Roberts Rules of Order is one of the best ways to promote a "fair and judicious discussion of issues in which each member has an equal opportunity to participate." Of course, local government advisory boards and commissions can also benefit from this type of discussion format. In a round robin format, each council or board member participating in key policy discussions is given the opportunity to speak once, going around the table, before anyone can speak a second time. While this may seem like a minor procedural issue, anyone who has spent any amount of time participating on a council, board, or commission knows that who speaks, when, and for how long, can often have profound impacts on the outcomes of many important policy discussions. The round robin format seeks to level the playing field a bit by ensuring that all council and board members have the opportunity and, in fact, are prompted to weigh in on particular issues. Councils or boards that have no rules of procedure or that do not pay attention to the details of how their meetings are conducted are more prone to falling into habits and routines that can reduce their effectiveness as decision - making bodies. How many times have you been at a meeting where one or two members dominate the discussion, either because they are always the ones who speak up first or because they feel compelled to answer every challenge to their point of view? Members don't have to be rude or inconsiderate to end up dominating the discussion. They may just be enthusiastic, which, unfortunately, can have the same negative impact. In either case, to the extent that other members who have valuable opinions to share become less inclined or able to add their thoughts to the mix, the quality of the discussion and ultimately the decision itself can suffer. Then there are situations where, for whatever reasons, some members may just be reluctant to jump in and offer their opiniorriguaw http://insight.mrsc.org/20l2/ll/05/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma.,, 1/24/2013 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 2 of 3 Sometimes this is because thev may feel that they are not as well-informed as they should be on an issue, or perhaps because they are concerned that their opinion %%rill be rejected by the rest of the group, or may be unpopular with a mider audience. Ironically, when called upon, these same individuals often end up making key contributions to the overall discussion. In my experience as a member of the city of Kirkland's Planning Commission for the past eight years, including a year as the chair, I know that we make our best decisions when all our members have taken the opportunity to weigh in on whatever issue is before its. When, on the other hand, we have just one or two members who dominate the discussion, or where, for whatever reasons, some members are reluctant to offer their own point of view, then we become less effective. Particularly in our role as an advisory body to the city council, it is always more helpful to have a thorough discussion of the issues that will, in turn, provide a stronger record of our deliberations for the benefit of the city council as they go on to make their final policy decisions. To be effective, councils and boards should conduct their meetings in ways that promote the fullest discussion of the issues with the broadest possible participation by all of the council or board members. One of the simplest ways to ensure that this takes place is to make use of the round robin discussion format. I'm not suggesting that this approach is necessary for every single discussion. It is intended simply as a tool. Experienced mayors and board chairs know when their council or board will benefit most from a more structured discussion format. Share this: Twitter Facebook Email Like this: *Like Be the first to like this. About Syron Katsuyama A13, ton has aver 30 YtWr of [ xpl'1•IenCV in iocal goverlilmrnt policx and administration research including ,itch areas a fornis of o ernment. strategic planning, performance meastsrcutent. alai gene ,tt lovtl gac ert�snent tnanat entent. In his own comnttsmtti Kirkland, Byron is a member of the city' planning commission, r all 1 <i.: in Rrr n Kat.,n.:umm This entry was posted in Best Practices. Governance Policy Bookinark the permalink 2 Responses to A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making Kristiana Johnson says: Ncwr;l nb@IIF) Y0I2 a1 3 45 {,m Byron, Thank you for this tiniely post. We at the City of Edmonds are working to re%rieiv our City rules and procedures for our 2013 Council Retreat. I really appreciate your comments about the round robin approach in Roberts Rules of order. t have been tasked %%ith finding a modern and brief set of RRoO. Can you let me knoN, which publication you use? Kristiana .Johnson Peply Byron Katsuyama sa zls: November 26, 2012 at 11.58 am Kristiana. Fa€low http://insight.mrse.org/20l2/l l /O5/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1/24/2013 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 3 of 3 I asked Ann Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, Jurassic Parliament, who is one of our Council/Commission Advisors, and an expert on Robert's Rules, what she recommends and she proN ided the following response and attachments: We recommend that everybody use Robert. The best strategy is to have the presider and clerk bur the "big book," Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised jith edition, and also provide every member with a copy of the "little book," Robert's Rules of Order Newly Re\ised In Brief, znd edition. This latter volume costs $7 and can be read in an evening. It covers most situations. However, it cannot be adopted as an authority in itself. It is a signpost to the big book. By purchasing both, a city council is sure to have at hand what is needed for any situation. Attached are three articles that you are welcome to share with Kristiana (or anybody else) on this topic: ■ Which "Robert's Rules" Should l Bu[? ■ Which Parliamentan Authority Should NVe Choose? ■ Should Our Council Adopt Robert's Rules of Order? Reply MRSC Insight 117em, ldog a1 itinrdYrass cwn. FoliOW http://insight.mrsc.org/2012/l l /O5/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1 /24/2013 DECISION TREE Rules of Procedures for Conduct of Council Meetings Should the City Council continue using: Resolution 292 YES Action: • Add Resolution 292 to Council web page as a reference for City Council procedures. Adoptin Rules of Procedure, 1974 NO Should the City Council adopt procedures based on Robert's Rules of Order? • Add Resolution 292 to the new i i Council Reference Manual. Yes No Action: • Work Session on Procedures • MRSC — Robert's Rules revised summary. MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Councilmember Joan Bloom Councilmember Strom Peterson The meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. Edmonds City Code Updates Al Compaan, Chief of Police Jim Lawless, Assistant Chief of Police Debbie Dawson, Animal Control Officer Carrie Hite, HR Reporting Director Councilmember Bloom requested clarification on Item D. Even though this is the current language, she wanted to clarify the current practice. She would like to amend this to say "Council President approves travel and training for Councilmembers and Boards and Commissions." Councilmember Peterson agreed. This will be amended, and forwarded to City Council for approval on the consent agenda. 2. Robert's Rules Jeff recalled that council agreed to adopt Roberts Rules in its entirety, and use a shortened version. He also suggested that we may want to get training through Jurassic Parliament or perhaps MRSC. There are also self study options that could be purchased for Council library. We agreed to schedule training to be put on agenda for a work session. Suggest someone from MRSC be asked to present. 3. Amendment to Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 — Marijuana The Committee discussed a proposed ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 relating to controlled substances, Paraphernalia, poisons and toxic fumes. The Committee forwarded the ordinance to City Council to place on the Consent Agenda with an approval recommendation. 4. Animals Roaming at Large With Al Compaan and animal control officer, Debbie Dawson, discussed adding "with the exclusion of licensed, spayed and neutered cats" to the animals roaming at large ordinance. Agreed that Debbie Dawson will bring information related to licensing of cats to next Public Safety/Personnel Committee meeting. 5. Discussion Regarding Language to Include on Agendas Related to Public Comment Agreed to adopt Frank Yamamoto's suggested language into the Council Meeting Procedures on the city website 6. Public Comment Bruce Witenberg: Re: questions at end of committee meeting- if not allowing, articulate what has been the problem in the past. Re: Adoption of Roberts' rules. Pointed out that there is a way to re -consider a vote. Can be brought back by someone on the opposing side of the issue. Don't know about time frame. Suggests training be held in council chambers so public can become educated about new rules as well. Roger Hertrich: Mr. Hertrich agreed with every one of Mr. Witenberg points. Re: roaming at large, suggested starting with a simple change such as licensing of cats. Evaluate the results. Re: Roberts' rules- Don't feel adoption of full rules is necessary. Like casual aspect of meeting, don't get too sticky about procedure. Re: Boards and commissions- choice of Mayor, sometimes in conflict with Council. Suggests applications be available to all (Council and Mayor) prior to final selection. Council members Peterson and Bloom explained to Mr. Wittenberg that it was not our intention to eliminate the option of citizens asking questions at a committee meeting. The intent was that the council members at the meeting would ask staff to answer the question(s), if the council member felt it was appropriate to do so. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Public Safety and Personnel Committee February 12, 2013 Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING RESOLUTION 292, WHICH ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS; ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 292 in 1974, which adopted rules of procedure for conduct of council meetings; and WHEREAS, Resolution 292 did not adopt Robert's Rules of Order; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended that the city council use Robert's Rules of Order, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. REPEALER. Resolution 292 is hereby repealed. Section 2. ADOPTION OF ROBERT'S RULES. The city council hereby adopts Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11t" Edition, as its official rules for conducting council meetings. The city council intends that the city official serving as parliamentarian should consult this version of Robert's Rules when asked to provide guidance on a procedural question. City council members wishing to use a shorter version of Robert's Rules for their own convenience should use Robert's Rules of Order In Brief, but the council does not recognize this volume as an authority nor as the city council's official rules. RESOLVED this day of April, 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SANDRA CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 4851-5533-3898, v. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 292 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS. WHEREAS, it has been determined by the City Council that more formal rules of procedure are necessary for the efficient and orderly conduct of public meetings, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, that the rules of procedure attached hereto; identified as Exhibit A and incorporated in full by this reference are hereby adopted as the rules of procedure for all meetings of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington. RESOLVED this 5th day of Februar , 1974. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST JL"C/J CIT CLERK PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: February 5, 1974 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: February 1, 1974 1 A. GENERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE. 1. 'Obtainingfloor. Before a member can make a motion or address the body upon any question, it is necessary that he obtain the floor by being recognized by the chairman. If'two or more members shall request the floor -at the same time the chairman shall recog- nize the first member requesting recognition. 2. Second. When a member obtains the floor and Makes a motion, that is in order, the chair should immediaLely inquire if the motion is seconded; if sec- untied the maker of the motion should then be regarded as having the refusal of the floor in preference to all oth-_,r members. 3, 1404-lification of motion. Before any subject is open to debate it is necessary, first, that a :notion be made by a member who has .the floor; second, that it be seconded; and third, that it be stated by the chairman. This does rot prevent suggestions of alterations, be- fore the question is statE:d by the chairman. The chair- man may consult: the members before stating the question tO clarify the motior:. The member who offers the motion, until it has been stated by.the chairman, can modify his motion, or withdraw it entirely; after it is stated he can do neither, without the consent of the body (major-. ity) . For example, the mover may starer, - "With the con - EXHIBIT A 2 sent of the body I will modify my motion to state as follows, * * *" If no one objects it shall be deemed that he has the consent of the body to modify his motion. When the mover modifies his motion, the one who seconds,it can withdraw his second. 4. Statinq the question. After a question has been stated by the chairman, it is in the possession of the body For debate; the mover cannot withdraw or modify it except by obtaining leave from the body as just described, or by moving an amendment. 5. Wi thdrawa 1 or. _ substitution of motion.- When a question is before the body and the mover wishes' to withdraw or modify it, or substitute a different one in its place, with consent of the body, the chairman shall grant perm tision; if any objection is made, it will be necessary to obtain leave to withdraw by a motion for that purpose. This motion cannot be debated cr amended. When a motion is withdrawn, the effect is the same as if it had never been made. 6. A`: stention f r-cin votincT . Any member may abstain from voting on any question, provided, at the time of declaring his abstention he shall 'state the reason. 7. Standin to question procedures. These rules shall govern the parliamentary procedures of the members _2_ 3 and by the members only. Procedures may be questioned only by members of the body, and then only in accordance with these rules. The decision of the chair will be final and conclusive as to all, subject. only to a motion by a member of the body, duly and timely made, in which case the ruling of the body shall be final and conclusive. Nothing in these rules will be construed to prevent the chairman or a member from requesting aid in the inter- pretation of these rules or other matters from the City staff or cfficials. 8. Precedence.. Motions having precedence are those that may be made while another motion is pending. -9. ToTield. Motions yield when they are pending and another matter can be considered while the yielding motion still pends. 10. AELplied. %here a motion can have no subordinate motion applied to it, the fact is stated. For example, the motion to continue may not be applied to the motion to 13y on the table. 11. Debate. Debate shall not take place until the chair has stated the question. Debate shall be limited to the immediately pending question, except that the main question is also open when the following motions are pending; postpone indefin.itely,.or reconsider a debatable question. -3- 0 12. Putting the c esL,on. When the debate appears to have closed the chair will ask, "Are you ready for the question?" If no one asks for the floor he shall put the question to vote, making it clear what the question is. 13. Majority_. A majority of those present shall constitute a majority of the body assuming a quorum is present. The chairman has the tie breaking vote, B. SPECIFIC RULES OF PROCEDURE. The following motions are permissible in considering any matter on the agenda, and unless otherwise specified shall rank in precedence and application as set forth numerically below. 1. UNDEEATABLE MOTIONS. a. (question of order and anneal. A question of order takes precedence of the question giving rise to it, may be put when another member has the floor, needs no second, and must be decided by the chairman without debate. If a member objects he may appeal, which if seconded, will immediately be put to the body. An appeal is waived if riot made immediately. On appeal the decision of the chair is sustained on a tie vote. b. SusDens.ion of rules. This motion may not be amended, nor another motion be applied to it, -4 -- 5 nor a vote on it reconsidered. Rules of the body may not be suspended except for a definite and specific purpose and by a vote of one more than a majority present. Nothing else may be done under the suspension. It may not be renewed at the same meeting if once defeated. It shall be in order to change the order of the agenda without suspending the rules. No rule can be suspended when the negative vote is as lafge as the minority protected by that rule. c. To lav_on the table. This motion may not be used for purposes of continuance of a matter which has been specially called for pub- lic hearing, which is done by a motion to con- tinue. It may not be amended nor an affirmative vote on it be reconsidered. If carried the subject tabled may not be considered again until the body votes to take it from the table, which motion is also undebatable. The object of the motion is to postpone the subject in such a manner 't:;at it can be taken up at any time, either at the same or some future meeting. It may be used to supress a question for that meeting, but not for a matter for which a public meeting has been specially set. The -5- on effect of the motion is to place on the table everything that adheres to the subject, so'that if an amendment be ordered to -lie on the table, the subject which it is proposed to amend is also tabled. Hawever, it may be limited to the par- ticular pending matter and if so adopted the remaining matters shall still be before the body. After demand for the previous question up to the time of taking final action under it, it is in order to move that the main question be laid on the table. Passage requires the vote of one more than a majority of the members present. d. The previous question. This motion is not amendable and applies to any debatable question, but is not debatable itself. It re- quires the vote of one more than a majority of the members present for its adoption. When called, and seconded, the chair shall immediately put the question. If the motion fails to carry by a majority plus one of the members present, the debate will continue as if the motion had not been made. If adopted the chair shall immed- iately bring the body to vote upon the pending question. If applied to an amendment to a pending 7 P question it brings to a vote not only the motion to amend but also the question to be amended. However, the motion for the previous question may be limited.to the pending amendment, and, if adopted, debate will be closed only to the motion to amend. It shall be proper for a member to submit a motion and move the previous question thereon and thus cut off debate on the motion. In this case the chair shall first put the motion for previous question to vote. 2. DEBATABLE MOTIONS. a. Continue to a certain day. This motion yields to all undebatable motions, and take precedence of all other debatable motions, except that it may be amended by altering the time, and the previous question can be applied to it with- out affecting any other motions pending. b. To commit or refer. This motion is to commit or refer a matter to a committee.- It can he amended by altering the committee, or giving the committee instructions. The debate on the motion opens the.debate on the main question it is proposed to commit. c. To amend. This motion takes precedence N over nothing but the question to which it is proposed to amend and yields to all questions except to postpone indefinitely. It can be applied to all but undebatable questions, an amendment of an amendment, to postpone indef- initely or to reconsider. It can be amended itself, but an amendment of an amendment cannot be amended. An amendment may be inconsistent with the one already adopted, or may be directly in conflict with the spirit of the original motion, but it must have a direct bearing upon the"subject of that motion. A motion to amend by inserting new words once passed may not be the subject matter of a new amendment to change the same words. The proper motion is the motion to reconsider the vote by which the words were inserted. A motion to amend may be made to "divide the question" into two or more questions as the mover specifies, so as to get a separate vote on any particular point or points. d. To nostoone indefinitely. This motion takes precedence of nothing except the question to which it is applied and yields to all motions except to emend. It cannot be amended, and opens 9 to debate the entire question which it is proposed to postpone. Its effect is to entirely remove the question from the body for that session. The previous question, if ordered when this motion is pending, applies only to it without :-effecting the main question. It cannot be applied to a matter that has been specially set for public hearing,. A negative vote on it cannct be reconsidered. e. Princit}al cLue_sti-on. The main or principal question is a motion to bring before the body for its consider_aticn any partical)r subject. No principal motion can be mare when, any other motion is before the body. It takes precedence over nothing and yields to all. C. MISCET. fAN'FCt:1S MOTIONS. 1. To rescind. This motion cannot he made for a matter that has been voted upon for which a matter has been specially called for public hearing. However, for other. matters tr, whim it is appropriately addressed,, as wnere it is too late to reconsider the vote, :,.e motion is the course to pursue to rescind an objectionable policy, order or motion; it is debatable. 2. Tc reconsider. This motion is not in order after the body :.as votes: upon the principal question which is H= 10 the subject matter of a specially called public hearing unless made immediately after thereon and before any mem- ber of the public has left the public hearing. It is otherwise in order at and• time, even when another member has the floor, but not after that session has adjourned. It must be made by a member who voted with the pre- vailing side. It can be applied to the vote of every other question, except as Noted above, and except to 5u_ ljt:nd t:h% rules and an affirmative vote: to lay on the table or to take from the table. The motion may not be amended. Whether or not it is- debit-,ule depends upon whether the question to be recon- sidere:1 is debatable or undebatable. It may be laid on the table:, in which case, the reconsideration, like any other question, can be tziken from the table. 3. Roll calt. Any member may demand a roll call vote any time before or after any question is put. The demand needs no second and the chairman must ask for a roll call_ vote on demand. It is not debatable and may be applitA tc. any question. It is waived if after the vote it is not ir•„^.iediately made and prior to the next matter bei nq considered. 10. 11 c (V 04 0 c 0 ..A 41 aj U)-P o m z .� .O .� 14 m 0 Z 44 UNDEBATABLE a. Question of Order - Appeal b. Suspension of Rules C. Lay on Table d . Previous Question DEBATALUE a. ContinLIO to Certain Day b. Comnit or Refer c. Amend d. Postpone Indefinitely e. Principle Question MISCELLANEOUS a. Rescind b. Reconsider C. Roll Call 1 A.V. N.V. c 0 0) ro 4j ro � m >t :. •-4 Un r-4 M +J M Q O -14 Q1 m, U vai 12 SUGGESTED FORMS 1. UNDEBATABLE MOTIONS a. Question of order. Member: "I raise a point of order." Chair: "State your point of order." Member: States his point of order Chair: Ruling by the chairman, who may dive reasons. Member: "I appeal from the decision of the chair." Chair: (If seconded) "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the -body?" b. Susnei►sion of rules ari�ority` Aus one) Member: "I move to suspend the rules requiring..." c. To lay on table (majority plus one) Member: "I move to lay the question (stating it) on the table." Member: "I move to take the question (stating it) from the table." d. Previous question (majority plus ene) Member: "I call (demand or move) for the previous question." Chair: (If seconded)`, "Shall the main question be now put?" Member: "I call for the previous question on the amendment." 13 Chair: (If seconded) "Shall the question be now put on the amendment?" 2. DEBATABLE MOTIONS a. Continue to a certain d��majori_}�y) Member: "I move to continue the question of (stating it) to the next regular for recessed] meeting of (date) . NOTE: (1) Zoning matters must be decided and re- ported by the planning commission within 90 days of the application. (2) Plats and subdivisions must be approved, disapproved or returned to applicant for mod- ification or correction within 60 days from elate of filing, unless applicant files written consent for longer period in which to act. b. To commit or refer (majority) Member: "I move to refer the subject to a committee." C. To amend (majority) Member: "I move to amend the motion to 'add', or 'insert', to 'strike', to 'strike out and insert ', to 'divide the question' (into two or more questions), etc." d. To postpone indefinitely tma 'orit�) Member: "I move to postpone the question indefinit-ley." -2- 14 e. Principal question - (majority, unless otherwise indicated) Member: "I move that . [REZONE] "...proposed Ordinance No. 1234 be passed." [REZONE DENIED] "...Planning Commission Resolution No. 123 be affirmed and.the requested rezone denied." [AMENDMENT TO "...proposed Ordinance No. 1234 COMPREHENSIVE be passed." PLAN] [DENIAL OF "...Planning Commission AMENDMENT TO Resolution No. 123 be affirmed COMPREHENSIVE and the --requested amendment to PLAN] the comprehensive plan be denied." [LID -RESOLUTION "...proposed Resolution of OF INTENTION] Intention No. 123 be passed establishing the public hearing on the day of 196 NOTE : If health issue, must be passed unanimously. [LID -ORDINANCE "...that proposed Ordinance No. FORMING LID] 1234 be passed." NOTE: If health issue, must be passed unanimously. [STREET "...that the public hearing on the VACATION -SET proposed street vacation be fixed HEARING DATE] on the day of J 196 and that proposed Resolution No. 123 be passed." NOTE: Date must be not less than 20 nor more than 60 days from the date of passage of Resolution. [STREET °'...proposed Ordinance No. 1234 VACATION- be passed." APPROVAL] [STREET "...the proposed street vacation be VACATION- denied." DISAPPROVAL] 15 [ANNEXATION- "...a public meeting be set with the RECEIPT OF iniating parties to determine whether INTENTION TO the city will accept the proposed ANNEX BY 10%] annexation and whether it shall - require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed for the day of 196_ . " NOTE:Must not be more than 60 days after the filing of the request." [ANNEXATION- "...a public hearing be set for RECEIPT OF the day of 196_ PETITION FOR for the hearing on the proposed ANNEXATION-75%] annexation." (ANNEXATION- "...that` proposed Ordinance No. FINAL APPROVAL] 1234 be passed." [ANNEXATION- "...that the proposed annexation FINAL DENIAL] be denied." 3. MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS. a. To rescind (majority) Member: "I move to rescind that motion, policy, etc." b. To reconsider (majority) Member: "Having voted on the prevailing side, I move that we reconsider the vote on the motion to (stating it) and have such__ motion entered on the record." c. Roll call (an member) Member: "I demand a roll call vote." No second needed. Chairman: "The secretary will please call the roll." 16 AM-5665 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Rob English Department: Engineering Review Committee: Type: Action "information 110 Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Committee Action: Subject Title Public Hearing on an amendment to the Capital Improvement Program, Capital Facilities Plan and Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program to add the State Route-99 Gateway/Revitalization project. Recommendation Council approve the addition of this project to the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, Capital Improvement Program and Capital Facilities Plan. The inclusion of this project to each plan will be made during the normal course of Plan updates. The Transportation Improvement Program will be updated in June and the Capital Improvement Program and Capital Facilities Plan will be updated in October/November. Previous Council Action None. Narrative With the tremendously successful transformation of State Route (SR) 99 within the Shoreline City limits the opportunity and precedent exists to extend similar safety, capacity, and aesthetic improvements to that portion of SR 99 within the City limits of Edmonds. While meeting these objectives it will also be possible to create a recognizable "Gateway" that identifies this portion of SR 99 as Edmonds from both the North and South. The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalks where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for safety, access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, as well as landscaping and other softscape treatments to warm-up this corridor and create a sense of place. The project will require multiple phases. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 04/11/2013 04:15 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 04/11/2013 04:18 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 04:43 PM Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 05:01 PM Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 05:02 PM Started On: 04/10/2013 04:59 PM AM-5593 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: 15 Minutes Stephen Clifton Community Services Action Information Committee Action: J Subject Title Authorization to conduct a real estate appraisal and appropriation of funds - City Owned Admiralty Acres Lot #12 (Snohomish County Tax Parcel ID No. 00370800101200). Recommendation In order to conduct an appraisal of subject property, the City Council will need to identify a funding source, appropriate funds and authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with an appraisor. Once completed, the appraisal will be presented to the City Council for its review. Previous Council Action Narrative On July 7, 2006, the City (Seller) and The McNaughton Group, LLC (Buyer) entered into a purchase and sale agreement to sell/purchase a .66 acre parcel of land known as Admiralty Acres Lot #12 (Snohomish County Tax Parcel ID No. 00370800101200). At the time, Admiralty Acres Lot #12 was included within a proposed 27-lot Planned Residential Development (PRD)/Plat known as Angler's Crossing, which later received preliminary approval from the City on January 22, 2007. Pursuant to the recently updated RCW 58.17.140(3)(b), preliminary approval is valid for nine years or until January 22, 2016. After receiving preliminary approval, the Buyer failed to close on the purchase and sale agreement. The purchase and sale agreement has now expired. City staff have been contacted by a few people interested in finishing the PRD/Plat and/or interested in purchasing the property out right. If the PRD/Plat were to move forward as approved, the developer would need to purchase City -owned Admiralty Acres Lot #12 because some of the lots depicted on the PRD/Plat map make use of the Admiralty Acres Lot #12 property. To provide some background on this matter, attached is the following: 1. Map depicting Admiralty Acres Lot #12 and its location relative to Angler's Crossing PRD/Plat 2. Original purchase and sale agreement (which has subsequently expired) 3. Past Appraisal of Admiralty Acres Lot # 12 4. Hearing examiner decision on the PRD/Plat 5. Staff Report (with attachments) on the Angler's Crossing Plat/PRD 6. Contract Rezone for the site (which also included the City owned property). As part of preparing this parcel of land for a possible sale, I requested two companies prepare estimates of how much it would cost to conduct an appraisal(s) for the City -owned Admiralty Acres Lot #12. Because the property is not a stand-alone property, i.e., the lot is part of the Angler's Crossing PRD/Plat, an appraisal would consist of two parts. The first part/appraisal would be performed as if the lot were free and clear of any planning action(s), i.e., as a "stand-alone" parcel without entitlements; this requires the appraiser to make a hypothetical condition that Admiralty Acres Lot #12 is not obligated to the plat. The second appraisal would involve such actions as investigation of similar acreage sales as well as a subdivision analysis, which considers finished lot prices, absorption, development costs and other factors, highest and best use, vacant and as platted, topography issues, value of improvements on site, etc. Attached you will also find three cost estimates for performing an appraisal; these include: • Macauley & Associates, Ltd. (Located in Everett, Washington) - $4,450 (turnaround time is four to five weeks from authorization • Northwest Valuation Service (located in Mill Creek, Washington) - $5,750 (turnaround time is four weeks from authorization) • Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc. (located in Seattle, Washington) - $4,500 (turnaround time is four weeks from authorization) The City's Parks and Recreation Department has had success using Macauley & Associates in the past and Lamb Hansen Lamb conducted an appraisal on the property in 2006. In order to conduct an appraisal, the City Council will need to identify a funding source and appropriate funds. Once completed, the appraisal will be presented to the City Council for their review. NOTE: Council member Petso has raised the issue of whether height variances tied to certain lots of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) are still valid. Upon review of this issue, City staff and City Attorney have determined that the height variances do not have the same longevity as the plat/PRD itself. ECDC 20.85.020.0 states that "[t]he approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application.". Because the variances were not acted on (by obtaining a building permit) and no request for an extension was filed, they have expired. If a new application for a variance were to be submitted, it is questionable whether city staff would recommend approval to the Hearing Examiner due to the height limitation condition in the contract rezone that governs the property. Attachments Contract Rezone - 1997 1. Map depicting Admiralty Acres Lot #12 and its location relative to Angler's Crossing PRD/Plat Angler's Crossing - Staff Report Angler's Crossing - Hearing Examiner Decision Angler's Crossing Site Plan Purchase and Sale Agreement - Expired Appraisal - 2005 Three Appraisal Cost Estimates Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 09:43 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 11:50 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 01:41 PM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 03/13/2013 04:23 PM Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Go CITY L CITY OF EDMONDS 121 M AVENUE NO: EDMONDS, WA 98026 0006.150.04B WSS/gjz 07/07/98 3217 9IU32S0578 03/25/99 16:35 P-0010 Recorded Snohomish County AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION .ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PARK REZONE, NO. R-97-28, FROM RS-12 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12-,000 SQUARE FEET) TO RS-8 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 8,000 SQUARE FEET); AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning Board at a public hearing, considered the following amendments to the Official Zoning Map and made their findings and recommendations which were forwarded to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council after a public hearing reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Board and determined that the proposed amendment and agreement.should be approved and hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions of its Planning Board amended to acknowledge the withdrawal of property located at 18305 -. 80th Ave. W., Edmonds, Washington, owned by Mr. and Mrs. James L. Thompson, huchnnd and urifP NnW ibit THEREFORE, ExhIS File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS f, • , tee. PORTIONS OF ,IS DOCUMENT ARE POOR QUALITY FOR SCANNING. Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds, as adopted by Section 17.00.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of certain property hereinafter described from RS-12 (single family residential 12,000 sq. ft.) to RS-8 (single-family residential 8,000 sq. ft.), subject to the Concomitant Zoning Agreement, Exhibit A executed and recorded as provided herein. The legal description of the property rezoned is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 2. The Planning Director is hereby instructed to effectuate the necessary amendments to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds pursuant to this ordinance. Section I The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest to that certain document entitled "Agreement and Covenants, " attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The City Clerk is further directed to record said Concomitant Zoning Agreement in the land records of Snohomish County as a covenant running with the land. The cost of said recordation shall be paid by the owners. Section 4. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after its publication, or publication of a summary thereof consisting of its title, in the City's official newspaper. 1"910 2 � •i ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE qFT10 CATTOIjNEY: FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07/17/98 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07/21 /98 PUBLISHED: 07/26 /98 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/31 /98 ORDINANCE NO. 3217 1"910 3 AGREEMENT AND COVENANT CONSTITUTING A CONTRACT REZONE This agreement contain the covenants entered into between Dr. and Mrs. Han Z. Park, Mr. and Mrs. Russell C. Kim, and City of Edmonds, Washington A Municipal Corporation, hereafter referred as "The Owners" and City of Edmonds, A Municipal Corporation, hereafter referred to as "The City", WITNESSETH Whereas, The Owners proposes the development of approximately 5.8 acres of real property in Edmonds, generally located at 7704 Olympic View Dr., 18408 79th Pl. W., and a vacant parcel between 18305 and 18325 80`s Ave. W. in the City of Edmonds, all being more specially described by Exhibit A attached hereto. Whereas, The Owners have applied for a change in zoning of the subject property from its current Single Family Residential 12,000 sq. ft. ( RS-12 ) classification to Single Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft. ( RS-8 ); and Whereas The City has caused the application in its entirety, including, but not limited to the environmental check list, to be reviewed by its Planning and Engineering Department and by its Planning Board, and has fully considered recommendation made after such review; and Whereas, on April 21, 1998, the City Council of Edmonds found that the rezone request specified above and modified pursuant to the conditions set forth in this agreement does not adversely affect the public health, safety, general welfare and also not sufficiently change the character of the surround areas; and Whereas, The Owners voluntarily tender this agreement and are willing and able.to implement the terms of this agreement in the course of development; and Whereas, The Owners and The City are willing to enter into an Agreement for a Contract Rezone; and Now, Therefore, It is hereby agreed as follows: 1. In Consideration of the City reclassifying the subject property from RS-12 to RS-8, and for so long as the property remains so classified, The Owners covenant as follows: 1.1 To limit the use of such property to Single Family Residential uses as defined under the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as the same exists or is hereafter amended; and that development of the subject property shall be consistent with an approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) application. 1.2 The building pads shall occupy a maximum of 21 % of the net buildable area. Net buildable area means the total area of property minus right of way area in accordance with Edmonds City Development Code ( ECDC ). 13 A landscaping plan shall be implemented for both entrances. The landscaping shall be maintained by a Homeowner's Association to be formed. 1.4 The Owners shall pay for the widening of preexisting 20 feet wide 184th Street SW to width of 40 feet. The street shall connect 80th Ave. W. to Olympic View Dr. The easterly half of 1841h Street, which is currently closed, shall be relocated to fit a newly created contour and grading as depicted and in accordance with Findings of ST 96-77 and ST 96-78. The finished street shall be dedicated to The City upon its completion. 1.5 A private cul-de-sac as depicted in ST 96-77 and ST 96-78 shall be constructed and it's north end shall be connected to a revised 184`h Street SW. 1.6 All residential structures shall be designed and constructed in a style and theme consistent with the approved PRD. 1.7 The maximum height of any permitted structure shall be 25 feet measured from average grade in accordance with ECDC. 1.8 Sidewalks, gutters, street lights and signs required by ECDC and the approval process shall be supplied and constructed by The Owners. 2. Expect as provided in paragraph 1.1, no amendment to this agreement may be made by The Owners, or their heirs, successors or their assigns to amend the underlying zoning of RS 8 for a period of two years from date of this agreement. Thereafter, either The Owners or their heirs, successors or their assigns may, upon application filed in the same manner as rezone application, apply to amend or terminate the provisions of this agreement or to change the zoning on said property. Said application shall be heard in accordance with application requirements for any other rezone of property in the City of Edmonds. 3. The City shall be under no obligation to issue The Owners or their heirs, successors or their assigns a building permit unless The Owners fully comply with the terms of this agreement and the applicable ordinance in effect at the time of approval of this rezone. 4. This agreement and each part of it shall be considered as covenants running with the land covered hereby above and shall be binding upon The Owners, their heirs, successors and assigns. It shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor in the Grantor/Grantee index with The Owners being listed as Grantor and The City as Grantee. Such recordation and payment of said costs shall be a condition precedent to the exercise of development by The Owner. In the event of transfer of ownership, the rights and obligations of this Agreement shall be assumed by the new Owner. 5. The term of this agreement may be specifically enforced. If either party shall bring suit to enforce any of the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled reimbursement for all cost of said litigation together with a sum for reasonable attorney fees. FHB-15-99 0S:+ae Am Pl.Z.PARK 20 74013;4 F.A4 A, This ngretmcni and each part of it shall be ctnnsldcretl as cavenents running with the land covcrcd hereby atHwe still 1hall be minding upon The Owners, thtir heirs, sumi.sors and na.igna. tt shalt he recorded with the. Snohomish County Auditor In the (minter/Grantee index with The Owners being listed 39 Grantor and Thv City as Grantee. Such recordation and payment of said costs shall he a romlition precedent to the excrcime of development try Tbc Owner. In the event of transfer of ownetvhlp, the rights and obligations of this Agreement mhall be assumed by the new On tier. S. The term of this agrcsment may he spetifle.alt,• enforced. If either petty shall hying quit to enforce utty Of the prov1sloom of this agre,ement, the prev'atline party shall be entitled reintbursetnctit for all cmt of said litleation together with a sum for reasonable attorney fees. IN WI'!+JFSS 11'1{€ RF.OF, the arties have expressed this agrvement This• _dal' or , 199R. GINA K. PARK Milt. RIISSF:1,L C', NMi � MRS. CHRIi7 RIA P. 10m Tar rin' of FnMONDS, ax )v% Her MAYOR RARUM A S. FAHEY �5 7s ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: City Clerk, SANDRA S. CHASE SFTFIE S TO FORM: T TTORNEY: OTT SNYD;R STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss• COUNTY OF womi �? ) On this � day of 00111. z , 1998, before me a Notary Public, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Dr. HAN Z. PARK AND MRS. REGINA K. PARK, husband and wife, appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that they signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal affixed the day and year first above written. Dated A-0,� /-,,, A'V STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OF D ss. ( print or type name ) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Stat of Washington, residing at 71, n--+ w d, It -AA, My Commission expires:fd Q„L On THIS 6 day of - , 1998, before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared MR. RUSSELL C. KIM AND MKS. CHRISTINA P. KIM, husband and wife, appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that they signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal affixed the day and year first above written. 4 12.5h AZ X11 print or type name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the ......... State of OkIphorna, residing, at Kky (I t 1: y My Commission expires tq 2-7 ig _61(4i'i Or, STATE OF WASH NGTON COUNTY OFnMy On this day of (j\a>_-rC)ey 199Y, before me a Notary Public in and for the City of Edmonds, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared FC'.�e\/ MAYOR of the CITY OF EDMONDS, the municipal cooperation that executed the foregoing instrument, acknowledged the instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of that corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal affixed the day and -year above written. 0 print or type name NOTARY 9P, NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the LJG State of Washington residing at MY C.- .011expires 47- SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARK 8310 0 18013 18007 d ro ro 8 oi� o Aso 00 18017 18009 ^ 18014 18012 18106 ^ 18104 O N 0 rn o oNo °D e� 18116 18114 8201 S g024 o m 5 18118 18120 18119 0 0 rn 1 18220 18228 oNo w'� 8110 8 8111 1820 3 18222 18232 8203 8112 m 8115 18218 18236 $ o s`'o 0 - 8117 18226 18300 18302 n 18312 1° 8332 18306 18324 N M 18303 in 8041 1832 N m m �2 8133 8111 8001 o SEAVIEW N PARK � o m N 18502 4 18505 18504 in O W O M N � 4 18515 18514 6 18527 8209 oro '2 7914 r� 0 7804 M ^ 0 0 ro 18117 7919 1 7913- m o 0 n c N N N N N 18603 18604 18603 F1.. 1860 18604 eo eo eo eo eo 18615 18612 1861 18616 _ 18611 8614 N N N N N N 18625 18622 18627 0 o ro o 1862 18621 8622 18627 18630 1863118632 18629 18630 m m o N 18701 18704 N o N N o 1870 18706 1870318702 18703 18714 7925 18714 1871518714 18715 18718 m m 8029 18728 m m o O m m N OOi m A A A m v o 8128 18807 8016 B6, 18818 18813 '18816 18823 18824 18823 18824 18831 18832 18829 18832 18909 18910 18919 18908 7619 ^ H 17620 17629 ^ n 7231 M 17707 1422 0o v N �. 7219 17715 7420 ^ ^ q`Y� n 7305 7418 17727 7310 721 '525 751 7505 7435 427 7415 � 7226 17 m 17 '522 7514 7502 7412 7432 742 �� d•� p ^www m pw O �1 o ^ N 17 ^ 7423 A n �.� n 13g5 7330 119p0 17009 7320 17916 17915 7325 ^ ^ 17914 18000 18009 M M N O M N � O 1696,' n n n n n n ^ A 18011 1801; N o N p M N O 18021 18028 18031 >S ^ ^ n n ^ 18101 ?y 18104 18111 7530 18103 � o 108 18115 N m o a o a 1125 1821 18205 18201 18210 ryo1 � 7324 18216 1 18211 ^ p 7B?7 1821 18223 18219 ) �s's pig ?? 7421 77 N11 S M ^ m ?S 18229 �s `0 °D v 7418 18301 Aso sy �' 18305 18320 s`'c S 183 18311 18317 n 40 83? 7605 7532 ^ 61 6 M 18323 ST OFFICE CE 7607 78g04 18325 7601 18401 8403 7533 7530 7520 N g 11841 �8 8411 E SOWS - - - ,10 p?7 18502 KET 7519 7517 ^wa 78q�� 18417 w 18423 18510 � 1 g431 ^wary � • p"� p29 18530 7526 7526 7512 18596 ; �32j 18604 1860 ' 1861 18614 18627 18624 18633 18707 18710 ' I 18719 18720 1873 18730 7� 18836 ^y w ^ a ro w 18821 18824 1SS29 18832 1g9p3 c 11 1%g09 OF ED&off Angler's Crossing Inc t R9� 18717 1Bg0i 7230 POWER STATION LYNNDALE PARK 18927 7206 II Scale 1 inch = 500 feet CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron onnell, ing Examiner From: u Ste e Bullock Project Planner Date: JANUARY 11, 2007 File: P-2005-136, PRD-2005-137 & V's-2005-141 - 149 A 27 lot Formal Plat, Planned Residential Development (PRD) and height variance requests for nine lots Hearing Date, Time, and Place: January 18, 2007, At 3:00 AM, Council Chambers Public Safety Building 250 5th Avenue North Applicant: The McNaughton Group, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2 A. Application.......................................................................................................................................2 B. Recommendation.............................................................................................................................. 3 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 5 A. Site Description.................................................................................................................................5 B. Compliance with the Contract Rezone, R-97-28............................................................................... 6 C. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................ 7 D. Compliance with 20.15A, Environmental Review............................................................................9 E. Compliance with 23.40-90, Critical Areas Review: .......................................................................... 9 F. Compliance with 20.35, PRD's....................................................................................................... 10 G. Compliance with 20.75 Subdivisions.............................................................................................. 12 H. Compliance with 20.85 Variances.................................................................................................. 13 III. RECONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................................15 A. Request for Reconsideration........................................................................................................... 15 B. Appeals........................................................................................................................................... 15 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals................................................................................ 15 IV. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR................................................................................15 V. APPENDICES...................................................................................................................15 VI. PARTIES OF RECORD....................................................................................................15 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007/ Staff Report McNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 2 of 15 I. INTRODUCTION In 1998 a contract rezone was approved on the subject property. Conceptually, that contract approved a change in zoning from RS-12 to RS-8 with the following major conditions: a connection would be made from Olympic View Dr. (OVD) to 801h Ave. W. to comply with the City's Official Street Map enhancing emergency vehicle response times to the Seaview neighborhood, the property would be developed by means of a PRD, the lot coverage for the site would be limited to 21 % in an attempt to make sure that development on the site would not be incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The proposed application is in response to this contract rezone. It is submitted as a Plat and PRD and the following report reviews the application's compliance with the Plat and PRD approval criteria. One of the most significant elements of this site and also the contract rezone relates to the topography of the site. Between OVD and 80th Ave, W there is an elevation change of approximately 50 feet. This is the area where the contract rezone requires that a road connection be made. In another part of the site, the elevation difference reaches about 75 feet. This elevation change is the difference between the most developable portion of the site and its main access to OVD. Trying to resolve the many issues associated with this application has been a major endeavor for both the applicant, the neighborhood and city staff. These concerns ranged from accommodating the density that the City Council authorized when the rezone was approved to retaining the established character of the neighborhood which many see includes the existing large mature vegetation on the site. Some other issues included providing the emergency vehicle access that was required by the contract and the City's Street Map while at the same time trying to be sensitive to the neighborhood's desire to not entirely disrupt and change the established vehicle routes in their neighborhood. The applicant's solution to these problems, after much discussion with both City staff and the neighborhood, is to propose a 27 lot subdivision and PRD that has two cul-de-sacs. The first one will meet Olympic View Dr. on the sites east property line and provide access to 21 homes on the southern plateau of the property. The second cul-de-sac will come off of the western property line at the intersection of 80`h Ave. W. and 1841h St. SW. and provide access to 6 homes. An emergency vehicle road will connect the two roads at the center of the site. In building the roads as required by the contract rezone on a site that has as much change in topography as this site does, a large amount of grading will be required. In some cases, homes will be located either on steeply sloping lots or lots where a substantial amount of grading was required. The applicant has come to the conclusion that on 9 of their proposed 27 lots height variances are needed because of the sloping nature of the lot or because of the fill that was required to build the road and have a reasonable relationship between the road and the lot. The following is the Planning Department's review and analysis of the proposed subdivision, Planned Residential Development and height variance requests. A. Application 1. Applicant: The McNaughton Group, Inc. 2. Site Location: 7704 Olympic View Drive (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: To divide a lot with approximately 244,000 sq. ft. into 27 lots in a Single -Family Residential zone, RS-8, and nine height variances ranging from 1.5' to 6' (see Attachments 1-11). 4. Review Process: A consolidated Formal Plat, PRD application and requested Variances shall be processed as follows: The Architectural Design Board reviews the project and makes recommendations to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner then conducts a public hearing and makes a final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20, RS- Single Family Residential. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20,40, Rezones (Contract). 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report McNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 3 of 15 c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, Public Works Requirements. d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15A, Environmental Review (SEPA). e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 23.40-90, Critical Areas. f. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.35, Planned Residential Development's (PRD's). g. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, Subdivisions. h. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85, Variances. i. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100, Hearing Examiner, Planning Advisory Board and City Council Review. B. Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Attachments and Exhibits submitted with the application and during the comment period, the following is the recommendation of the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The Subdivision and PRD, P-2005-137 and PRD-2005-136 should be APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The applicant shall comply with the Environmental Determination (see Attachment 16). 3. Prior to Final Plat/PRD approval and recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) Civil plans must be approved prior to construction and recording. In completing the civil plans you must address the following: (1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to Recording" on Attachment 18. (2) During the construction of the required plat improvements temporary fencing must be installed between the construction areas and the protected open space areas. The Planning Division must approve these protection measures prior to any clearing or grading. (3) All PRD improvements including perimeter landscaping, entry landscaping, protected critical areas, fencing and signage should be included in the civil plans. They will also need to be installed or bonded for prior to requesting final plat and PRD approval. (4) Permanent split rail fencing should encompass the entire protected area of tract 997 and 999. b) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents shall have the following information included: (1) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under this PRD/Formal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicated setback areas without a variance being approved." (2) Place the following statement on the face of the plat: "Net buildable area for the entire site shall not exceed 21%. (3) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "All construction on the site, both plat improvements and home construction must comply with the LUI geotechnical report dated 9/12/2005, Further, building permit 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report McNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 4 of 15 applications for all homes within 25 feet of an adjacent Landslide Hazard area must submit a project specific geotechnical and/or structural report which confirms compliance with the general parameters of the LUI report dated 9/12/2005. (4) Add a statement on the face of the plat that protects Tract 997 and those portions of Tract 999 that slope up to the north as a Critical Areas Landslide Hazard area. No work is allowed in these areas without a City approved plan. These areas must be protected during construction of plat improvements and homes with temporary or permanent fencing. (5) Add to the face of the Plat "Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final approval for the subdivision located in File P-2005-136 & PRD-2005-137." (6) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff approval blocks. (7) Install fire hydrants and fire suppression to the specifications required by the Engineering Division and the Fire Department. (8) Submit a one-year performance security bond in accordance with the requirements of ECDC section 20.75.130.13 for any required improvements including landscaping which have not been completed. (9) Submit to the Planning Division a title report which verifies ownership of the subject property on the date that the property owners(s) sign the subdivision documents. (Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have been approved.) 4. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following: a) Provide the City Planning Division with three copies of the recorded plat, with the recording number written on them. b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building Permit" on Attachment 18. Prior to any construction for the plat improvements or issuance of individual building permits for each lot complete the following: a) Prior to the start of any construction on the site, fencing must be installed along the edge of the landslide hazard areas to protect the Critical Area throughout the plat and home construction process. b) Consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the home. c) Building plans must be consistent in type and style with those submitted with the PRD. Ramblers with daylight basements on down sloping properties. Tuck -under garage plans for those sites with up sloping properties. d) Building permits for each lot must demonstrate that the garages are setback 18 feet from the back of the sidewalk (or curb if there is no sidewalk). Height Variance, V-2005-141 (lot 1): Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report we recommend APPROVAL of the 2.5' height variance request for Lot 1. Height Variance, V-2005-142 (lot 2): Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report we recommend APPROVAL of the 3.5' height variance request for Lot 2. 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report 'vlcNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 5 of 15 Height Variance, V-2005-143 (lot 3): Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report we recommend APPROVAL of the 2.7' height variance request for Lot 3. Height Variance, V-2005-144 (lot 4): Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report we recommend APPROVAL of the 6' height variance request for Lot 41. Height Variance, V-2005-145 (lot 5): Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report we recommend APPROVAL of the 5.7' height variance request for Lot 5. Height Variance, V-2005-146 (lot 7): Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report we recommend APPROVAL of the 3' height variance request for Lot 7. Height Variance, V-2005-147 (lot 10): Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report we recommend APPROVAL of the 1.5' height variance request for Lot 10. Height Variance, V-2005-148 (lot 11): Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report we recommend APPROVAL of the 3.2' height variance request for Lot 11. Height Variance, V-2005-149 (lot 12): Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report we recommend APPROVAL of the 2.2' height variance request for Lot 12. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning: A. Size: The subject property is irregularly shaped with frontage along Olympic View Drive and 80`h Ave. W. It covers 244,193 sq. ft. and is large enough to accommodate the proposed 27 lot plat (see Attachments 1 and 2). B. Land Use: The site is underdeveloped with three small houses on a property that is zoned to allow lots with a minimum size of 8,000 sq, ft. C. Zonin : The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential, RS-8, however it is subject to a contract (see Attachment 1). D. Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is encumbered by significant topography. Slopes on portions of the property exceed 40% and the elevation change from the highest point on the site to the lowest point is approximately 75 feet. Mature native vegetation covers a majority of the site. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: A. Surrounding Development and Zoning: The subject property is surrounded on the north, south and west by residentially zoned and developed properties (they are RS-12, RS-8 and RS- 10 respectively). Directly to the east is a US Post Office on property that is zoned Neighborhood Business. 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report McNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 6 of 15 B. Consistency with nei2hborin2 development: A single family residential neighborhood is proposed where the individual lots range in size from 4,600 sq. ft. to 7,100 sq. ft. Although neighboring lot sizes range in size from 8,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. the proposed dedicated open space of almost 56,000 sq. ft., much of it located around the perimeter of the site, will assist in making sure the proposed residential neighborhood is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The steepest portions of the site with the most valuable native vegetation, the large evergreen trees, are for the most part protected by the open space tracts. B. Compliance with the Contract Rezone, R-97-28 The property and the proposed PRD application are subject to a Contract Rezone approved as R-97-28. In approving the contract rezone, the City Council and the applicant at the time signed a concomitant agreement. This was recorded along with the ordinance approving the rezone which documents the conditions of the contract (see Attachment 13). These are summarized as follows: 1. Uses on the property are limited to Single Family Residential. 2. Lot coverage for the entire site shall not exceed 21%. 3. There shall be a landscape plan for each entrance that is maintained by a Homeowners association. 4. The owners shall pay for the improvements of the roadway and provide a connection from 80`h Ave. W to Olympic View Dr. 5. A cul-de-sac shall be connected to 184`h St. SW. 6. All residential structures shall be designed and constructed consistent with a style/theme approved through a PRD. 7. The contract and the PRD do not authorize any structure over 25' in height. (Any need for additional height would have to be reviewed and approved through the variance process.) 8. Sidewalks, gutters, streetlights and signs will be required as described in the code. The applicant has submitted their declarations for how they believe they comply with these conditions (see Attachments 4 & 5), Staff generally agrees with their statements. The following is staff s analysis of these criteria. l . All the proposed uses on the property are single family residential homes or permitted associated secondary uses. 2. The applicant has indicated their intent to comply with the 21% lot coverage limitation. City staff will continue to monitor and ensure compliance with this requirement through the building permit process. At this point, it is most appropriate to indicate the 21% limitation as a statement on the plat. 3. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that provides entrance plantings at both the east and west entrances of the site. The ADB has also reviewed this and recommended conditions related to this. 4. The applicant has proposed a 44' right-of-way on the western cul-de-sac and a 50' right-of-way for the eastern cul-de-sac. There will be a connecting emergency access road between the two cul-de-sacs. This appears to comply with the contract condition. 5. As indicated above, the cul-de-sacs will be connected and allow for emergency access from 1841h St. SW to Olympic View Drive. 6. The current application is a PRD in which the result will be compliance with this requirement. 7. The applicant has submitted separate height variance requests for the lots they believe they need additional height. They are applying for them in conjunction with their PRD. Not in an attempt to have the PRD approve the requests, but rather, so that everyone understands from the 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report VlcNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 7 of 15 beginning what the total project is going to be. Additional height will only be authorized for those variances that are approved. 8. The Engineering Division has indicated what the required improvements for the site will be. See Attachment 18. C. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography which appear to apply to this project. Residential Development B. Goal. 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, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: B.5.c Sable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. C. Goal. 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.1 Planned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. C.1.a Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report McNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 8 of 15 C.1. Grading and Filling. C.1.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. C.1.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. C.1.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. C.1.d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. C.2. Building Construction, C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. C.2.a. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. C.2.a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff at predevelopment levels. C.3. Erosion Control. C.3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during construction. C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, pages 16-23 review the land capacity of the City and address the City's strategy for meeting the population and employment targets set for us by the County and the State. The preferred strategy is called "Design Infill". Due to the overwhelming feedback to the City from its citizens which stated generally "Preserve the single family character of Edmonds. Don't rezone areas to higher densities." the City adopted this strategy. At its core, Designed Infill encourages infill development under the existing densities with design controls to ensure that new development will fit into existing neighborhoods. PRD's are an identified tool to allow this to be implemented. This project, a PRD, allows a property to be developed to its full potential while at the same time protecting natural features and taking significant steps to ensure its compatibility with the neighborhood. 2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: Typical elevations of proposed residences, as shown in Attachment 14 illustrate high quality homes that should fit into the neighborhood. The orientation of the homes and yards should also protect the privacy of adjacent properties. Also, the use of the PRD has allowed the applicant to set aside the environmentally sensitive portions of the site and protect them while still achieving the density they are allowed based on the size of the lot and the underlying zoning. Compliance with the Soils and Topography goals and policies: The application appears to meet the goals of the soils and topography section of the Comprehensive Plan. 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report vlcNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 9 of 15 D. Compliance with 20.15A, Environmental Review Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued by the City's SEPA Responsible Official on November 16`h, 2006. When the applicant submitted revised plans for the subdivision which changed the circulation pattern of the project and significantly reduced the amount of grading required they also submitted a new checklist to indicate how the project had changed. The City in response adopted the initial SEPA determination because the impacts of the new proposal were equal or less than that anticipated under the original determination. The Determination is included as Attachment 16. No appeal of the Environmental Determination was filed. The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. E. Compliance with 23.40-90, Critical Areas Review: Critical Areas Review number: CA-1994-197 2. Results of Critical Areas Review: A "Study Required" Determination was issued to establish the degree and extent of steep slopes on the property and precisely locate them as well as to determine the presence and classification of wetlands on the property. The applicant completed the study requirement by submitting both a wetland study, a geotechnical report and a surveyed topography map which identifies the steep slopes on the property. The proposed development plan leaves the north slope of the ravine that runs east and west across the property in primarily its natural state. On the east side of the property, adjacent to OVD, the top of the steep slope will be removed to a point where there will be no slope where the new road enters the subdivision off of OVD. The reduction of both the height of the slope and the weight of soil at the top of the slope will reduce the potential for slides in the future. In response to the City's Critical Areas codes the applicant has submitted several geotechnical reports to document the soil and slope conditions on and adjacent to the property. The City's Landslide Hazard section of the Critical Areas Ordinance is not set up to outright prohibit development on steep or landslide prone slopes. Rather, it is designed to require an applicant to include the correct professionals in designing a project to ensure that any construction is done in a safe and responsible manner. In this case, the geotechnical consultant has determined that the existing soils are appropriate for development and in many cases the risk will be reduced from the current condition in that the height and weight of a slope will be reduced thereby significantly lowering the landslide potential (particularly for the slope on the southeast side of the property). The slope on the northern portion of the site is steep, but development is not proposed to encroach into that slope. Regarding the wetland on the site; trying to rectify the requirements of building a road between OVD and 801h Ave. W. and preservation of wetland has proven to be difficult. The applicant and City staff have considered a number of options related to the connecting road required by the contract rezone. In all of those options, the location of the existing wetland and the grading required to build the road are mutually exclusive. The current proposal eliminates the wetland with the both the excavation and filling that is proposed in that area of the site. The wetland report submitted by the applicant confirms the presence of a category 4 wetland approximately 400 sq. ft. in area. A category 4 wetland has the lowest level of value and functions as described by the Critical Areas codes. The City had a peer review of this report prepared which ultimately confirmed the findings of originally submitted report. ECDC section 23.50.040.1 gives the Development Services Director the authority to exempt certain category 3 and 4 wetlands from the Critical Areas codes. Two of the four criteria that must be met for a wetland to be exempt are not in dispute. The wetland is a category 4 wetland that is under 500 sq. ft. The remaining two criteria address the value of the wetland to wildlife and the overall development's habitat benefits. There are differing opinions on this matter, however, the amount of open space and significant native vegetation that is being preserved with the proposed development, in the City's opinion justifies the proposed filling. Therefore, the City recommends approval of this element of the proposal. 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report 'vlcNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 10 of 15 Conditions Required for Critical Areas Compliance: The following things should be done to ensure compliance with ECDC chapters 23.40-90 Critical Areas: A. A statement should be placed on the face of the plat to ensure that the Landslide Hazard Area will remain as an undeveloped area. B. Fencing and signage should be placed around the Critical Areas tracts to prohibit dumping and other activities that are prohibited in the Critical Areas, Split rail fencing is appropriate. C. Civil plans and construction of the plat improvements and all single family building permits must comply with the conditions of the LUI geotechnical report dated 9/12/05 including times of construction. D. Building Permit applications for all homes proposed within 25 feet of the adjacent landslide hazard area to the north and the east must submit a project specific geotechnical and/or structural report which confirms compliance with general parameters of the LUI report dated 9/12/05. F. Compliance with 20.35, PRD's 1. Architectural Design Board review of the PRD A. The ADB reviewed the proposed project on September 6, 2006, and recommended approval of the project (see Attachment 14 & 15). BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER KENDALL, THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF PRD-2005-137 WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: • CONSISTENT USE OF MATERIALS OR BUILDING FORMS MUST BE USED ON ALL SIDES OF THE HOMES; • BUILDING PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS MUST STILL BE RESOLVED WITH THE SITE PLAN; • REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE MUST STILL BE DEMONSTRATED; • A SIDEWALK WILL BE REQUIRED ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF THE ACCESS ROAD; • A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED FOR BOTH ENTRANCES. BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED POLICIES ANDTHE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.060, PRD — SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Items 3-5 have been resolved with additional material the applicant has provided the City since the Architectural Design Board reviewed the project. Items 1 and 2 should be included as a condition on the plat that informs potential builders of their obligation to work with staff on their final home designs to ensure compliance with these issues. 2. Modification of Standards, ECDC 20.35.030 A. The proposed PRD / Plat application proposes to modify the following development standards, interior building setbacks, lot sizes and lot width (see Attachment 1). 1.) Density for a PRD is determined as follows: Gross Lot Area/Min Lot size of underlying zoning and round down to the nearest whole number. In this case 244,193/8,000=30.5. This conceivably would allow the applicant to propose an 30 lot PRD. They are proposing a 27 lot PRD and Plat. 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report 'vlcNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 11 of 15 2.) The proposed setbacks match or are greater than the required setbacks for the underlying zone around the perimeter of the site. The interior setbacks, those setbacks between the proposed buildings and their proposed street, will be as shown on the submitted map. 3.) Lot width is proposed specifically for each lot dependant upon the size of the house proposed for that lot. While the underlying zoning requires 80 feet in width for each lot, the variable lot width is entirely appropriate for a PRD. B. Conclusion: All of the proposed modifications are permissible if the modification approval criteria are met. Modification Approval Criteria, ECDC 20.35.040 A. The PRD's compatibility with surrounding properties related to (see Attachment 3): 1.) Providing more landscaping and greater buffering: A landscape plan is submitted with the proposal which is more than is required with a standard subdivision. Additional buffering and landscaping is provided along the north, south, east and west property lines. Street trees have been introduced into the design of the development. 2.) Efficient and safe circulation: Having a through connection between the two cul-de- sac roads which connects Olympic View Dr. with 80`h Ave. W. enhances the City's Public Safety units in accessing the Seaview neighborhood. At the same time, having two cul-de- sacs allows the existing traffic patterns to continue without radically alternating traffic in the neighborhood. 3.) Architectural Design: The Architectural Design Board reviewed the proposed homes for compliance with the PRD single family design criteria. As indicated in their recommendation, they find the proposed buildings to meet these criteria. 4.) Exterior setbacks: All standard exterior setbacks have been maintained with enhanced landscaping. 5.) Reduced visual impact: With a standard 8,000 sq. ft. lot, a building with a footprint of over 4,000 sq. ft. could be approved. Due to the size of the proposed lots and the height limitations, the proposed houses would have significantly less bulk than is allowable under RS-8 standards. 6.) Preservation of Natural Features: The Landslide Hazard Areas to the north and east along with the significant mature vegetation in those areas are being preserved and protected. 7.) Reduction of impervious surfaces: Minimization of the road area and building footprints has resulted in a reduction of impervious area. B. Conclusion: Staff believes that all of the modification approval criteria have been met. Decision Criteria, ECDC 20.35.050 A. A PRD must demonstrate that it meets the following five Decision Criteria to be approved: 1.) Design Criteria: This criteria is met by complying with the Single Family Design Criteria and providing at least 2 more results from the list of 6. See attachment 2 for the applicant's declaration on these items. The ADB has reviewed the proposal and have recommended the project for approval. 2.) Public Facilities: This Plat / PRD is served by all public facilities in the area. 3.) Perimeter Design: Native growth areas will screen and buffer the project to the north and the east. An enhanced landscape area with fence will assist in providing separation from the developments to the west and the south. 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report McNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 12 of 15 4.) Open Space and Recreation: For a 244,193 sq, ft. PRD with more than 5 lots, at least 24,419 sq, ft, needs to be developed as usable open space. The plans indicate 26,620 sq. ft. are provided. The current proposal includes a recreation area at the eastern entrance of the plat as well as in the center of the site. A more native/natural area with a path and benches meanders through the natural open space area along the northwest portion of the site, This area will provide some passive open space. All of the open spaces will be connected to each other and the individual lots though the sidewalk along the street, 29,329 more sq, ft, of the site will be set aside and protected as a Critical Areas / Open Space Tracts. The retention of the existing native vegetation in this area as well as it's shear size will continue to preserve the wooded character of this area. 5.) Street and Sidewalks: The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and indicated any requirements that will be made of the applicant as part of Attachment 18. B. Conclusion: The proposed PRD meets the decision criteria, Conditions recommended by the Engineering Department should be included in any approval. G. Compliance with 20.75 Subdivisions Subdivision Review Criteria A. Environmental Resources 1.) The Critical Areas ordinance will ensure that Environmental Resources are being protected in the City of Edmonds. B. Lot and Street Layout 1.) This criteria requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots would ultimately be buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section each of the lots appear to be buildable. 2.) Lot sizes and dimensions: This criteria doesn't apply to individual lots in a PRD. 3.) Setbacks: Setbacks from perimeter lot lines are proposed as follows: Street setback from OVD and 801h Ave. W: 25' (minimum 25' is required). Side setbacks from all remaining property lines: 15' (minimum 15' is required). All remaining perimeter setbacks are larger than required due to the location of ravine areas, open spaces and road and landscape areas. Interior setbacks are typically as follows: All Rear setbacks adjacent to Critical Areas or Open Space tracts: 10' for buildings and 5' for decks and other accessory structures, All Side setbacks between buildings: 5' All Street setbacks from new street: 10, All of the proposed setbacks are acceptable through the PRD process, However, because people tend to park cars in front of their garages a condition requiring garages to be setback 18 feet from the back of the sidewalk would seem justified, Furthermore, because we want to vest the plat with the proposed setbacks, it would be appropriate to place a condition on the subdivision that would require a statement to be placed on the face of the plat which reads: "The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under this PRD/Formal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicated setback areas without a variance being approved." 4.) Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report McNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 13 of 15 (a) This is limited by the contract rezone to 21 % of the net buildable area of the site. City staff will monitor and track this condition through the issuance of building permits on the lots. C. Dedications 1.) See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 18). D. Improvements. 1.) See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 18). E. Flood Plain Management 1.) This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan A. Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. See section II.13 for details. Compliance with the Zoning Code A. Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, see section II.F.I .b for details. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions A. This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. H. Compliance with 20.85 Variances I . Variance Review Criteria ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by - case basis if the application demonstrates compliance with stated criteria. A. Facts: 1.) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. 2.) The applicant has addressed each of these criteria in Attachment 6. A site plan with proposed grades and building footprints has also been submitted which demonstrates the relationship between the road and the proposed building footprint. In concept their desire is to be able to have a house on each of their lots that appears to be 25 feet above finished grade. 3.) The PRD approval authorizes the use of three different types of home designs with variations on each type for the development. Specific plans are not required to be used on specific lots. 4.) Staff worked together with the applicant to ensure that the proposed road grade was designed in a manner to minimize the amount of grading required and to reflect as close as possible the existing topography while at the same time complying with Engineering Department requirements for road slopes. 5.) In an effort to make sure their variance request was the minimum necessary, the applicant has carefully evaluated the slopes on each of their lots and even moved the footprints 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report McNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 14 of 15 closer to the street in some cases to reduce their request to the minimum necessary in their opinion. B. Staff analysis: 1.) Special Circumstances The Angler's Crossing PRD site was developed in response to it's varied topography, the approved contract rezone and in collaboration with the neighborhood. Because of the amount of grading associated with it, the road design and construction is the most significant aspect of the project. There are very few options for the location of the road and they all result in adjacent lots that have significant slopes or fill associated with them. These multiple factors qualify as a special circumstance for each of the requests. 2.) Special Privilege The variance will allow for the construction of a residences that are consistent with the house designs approved through the PRD process. These approved designs are consistent with the Single Family Design Criteria found in ECDC 20.35 which ensure that homes consistent with the aesthetic values of this community and neighborhood are built. No additional views or other benefits are being permitted by the approval of this height variance. 3.) Zoning Code The zoning code allows for single-family residential development. The proposed residences is consistent with single-family development. In addition, the variance will allow a house that is consistent with the design of the houses reviewed and approved through the Angler's Crossing PRD process. 4.) Comprehensive Plan See section II.B of this report for how the proposed variance complies with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 5.) Not Detrimental No views will be blocked or privacy invaded from the proposed development onto existing development by the approval of the proposed height variance. The proposed variance is not detrimental or injurious to any adjacent property owners. 6.) Minimum Required The applicant has submitted a site plan with existing and proposed contour lines. They have also submitted height calculation analysis for each of the lots that they are requesting height variances for. They have tailored each request to the physical characteristics of that individual lot thereby making their request the minimum necessary for each lot. Their proposal is as follows: • Lot 1 2.5 • Lot 2 3.5 • Lot 3 2.7 • Lot 4 6.0 • Lot 5 5.7 • Lot 7 3.0 • Lot 10 1.5 • Lot 11 3.2 • Lot 12 2.2 Conclusions: 7.) Staff believes that the variance criteria for all nine height variance request's are met and should be approved as submitted. 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report ylcNaughton Group Inc. 27 lot Plat/PRD File No. PRD-2005-137 & P-2005-136 Page 15 of 15 III. RECONSIDERATIONS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation -or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. 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. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a 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 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 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. IV. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the staff request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. V. APPENDICES Attachments: All of the attachments are provided in a separate Attachment packet. See Exhibit 2. VI. PARTIES OF RECORD See attached parties of record list 05136sr.doc / January 11, 2007 / Staff Report Attachment Packet for Files •Vs-2005-141-149 Attachments: 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Site and Improvement Plans and Landscape Plan 3. Applicant's PRD Declarations 4. Applicant's Contract Rezone Declarations 1 5. Applicant's Contract Rezone Declarations 2 6. Applicant's Variance Declarations 7. Applicant's Open Space Declarations 8. Traffic Report 9. Geotechnical Report by LUI dated 9/12/2005 10. Geotechnical follow-up Report by LUI dated 10/9/2006 11. Wetland report dated 11/2/2005 12. Wetland peer review by Landau 13. Contract Rezone ordinance 14. ADB Staff report dated 8/31/2006 (includes building elevations) 15. ADB minutes from 9/6/2006 meeting 16. Initial SEPA Determination and Environmental Checklist 17. Revised Environmental Checklist Adoption notice 18. Engineering Requirements 19. Letter by Lynne Greenup 20. Letter by Marguerite Huycke 21. Letter by Captain Huycke 22. Letter by Dean Saksena, Sno Co. PUD 23. E-mail by David Couch 24. Letter by Warren Henderson 25. 26. 27. Attachment 1 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 PRELIMINARY PLAT & PRO OF ANGLERS CROSSING A PORTION OF THE NE 114, NE 114, SECTION 18, TWP. 27 N., R. 5 E.WM. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WAS14INGTON r i it i ---- Z 0 ' 1'�_ • om yLGlNrr� P GRAPHIC SCALE , A1UM (F�A� D�SGRIPTIgN pE✓ELOPM�Ni (?q.TA qP NS;pC _4LJA CCN PRq �ECt IN�ORM4 t10N �vaucwr �ovra vUletl@�/CO.vIRC�t vrR50.v: NpN6R: .. r . 'Aq ff OwFUI. ILq ��G jErPAC_&f RECE— ED JAN 1 1 2007 PLANNNG DDEPT. e qU4 TIA IN rn 0 w J. CU11IS 11 ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP4rJ�f FESS1014AL LM41) SURVEYORS ANGLERS CROSSING P.O.BOK 1512 —E STEVP45, WA. 98258 (425) 397-8�24 FOR THE MCNAUGHTON GROUP, LLC. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE ANGLER'S CROSSING PRD Edmonds, Washington The McNaughton Group, LLC December Zoos RA�t,m.o•.r _�>,��.� 00 v�wa/Ae-von• ra r. n-w.r_aw>a+r+ f�4ev+rW .... Mm x wnac d Y.c � w Ap LW%aMerr+ tea^"°-L by wyw7— C ,M' IVw'b Tai�%Uww egww Glw Ywt' _ by wew%A+, Iw me. // ��.Wy ltap¢ rt'wa Nec.em�nuv �Y_Gaaw✓S✓wren• �Hy� .w/rm `a[4�i..a ✓Saw Y ✓ /+t re�M'u w�, ' fec S.we,w`le, oDt am sewy�ert Lt l,/. -Y uc AlWtaA_rw�iMDo m+rw ,w.N-F'.c .enp Aewii W pa,A• e. Swb roe' aete Tar, wW'/,r1e Aswe ra TAe�% t-qw Ss r� ,r6 � XlOeG . wow w ww ,tart ,4 w� � ree ✓ ,..e.a, ®M am r ry wly EMS MC PECETAWN -- [RUG ]wLw, Alt w HW/ ,aawrm will b u.w.p, d+h w• w wprc rvl-' - sR a ' Ay bls w tw•. ltu,y r a•M r rw.ra �rl Lei. �S�o+nu�n�Mgvf( �T eyr Ir ws:�bmrm 1CQIYG' <44'16wR1 w CW' 'QNLp g o '�` p: JAN 1 1 2007 PLANtiNI '3' 1)�PT. ;� ii�a� Active Open Space Calculations RG9 U—bla Open Sporn a, PwS,wwy %I/PRD SAt Pb 24,619 A W 36 AL PwposvE uvGaew Dpa� spate: Trael 7 ux IluoGe peen mpe< Imlures 999 65M sl U— pby A —9 W orca o c wul 999 11,9w sl S06.1 mm ft Irt6q b.n wE W W 999 7,345 sl Pw —.et wH— Wa l6,Gugn . 996 675t 4 S—. gpibutq arm U 6apc6es -, polo 26,=M 01.62A TIWU-bWDp SpamP ld SECTION 18. TOWNSHIP 27 N, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M. SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 27 N, RANGEA .M. PN ELLV - 31a;62 I _t Low POIN3 EtLv = n]se ryx Po�NT E,cv = 32D.n LOw PoINT ST oa31A2 Nt GTA = -lm,oD•K m � s a qn STA asp - TA �. it a]]500'99 PN ELEV } 4]I M EIEV = 32a20 i��w / e ry �� 3 0.4 7.92 .17 - 330 � ,„ill 330 310 1'. A J � �j V t\�AAT ai°ADD CENT —NE 31D 31.. a q e / ] E%6DNL GRADE CCNiERIINE- \ ..... x > 31. 1R�P09ED GRADE- ENIERUNE ry I Y ROPD C—RUNEi - n n n w o 0 Pv SiA loa 369 6 'a'r'r t0.00 IIa00 ,2M0 13a00 -- y� % E PROFILE AOAO.•q•.. }� _ _. }30 IeD. - .. -. g - � n � ' PROPOse RAGE At ROAo cENfERL NE ro � 'm 7 y. - I D0.00 VC I320 a 1 o 6 VI PofNi i0a9w �� I o o> 290.56 m Y i i o •. 2.. _ •EASY niwr• u m: UJ � M —oo. a.Aoo efi.00 (n LLI J p ♦ Pf2OFILE ROAD 'B• (n LL _ P _ :, .. lDp ...... . ... r 30o �a Y O cc E%10fWL CRA➢E U ROAD CENTERLME L LUin o 4 ry Z cc 5 0 5 o a ZOaOD St 400 _ _.. ,-ms. R:\P.o, cfa\IAa - (u= a �ro�P]\ODs-05 (A,piar, �,os^91\�»9\9naot=\PPIo:\AC-o.Dl..i»e FIRE ACCESS - - varlicvl 5c01e 1-•50' 50 0 50 case It t 00 IeeI Cn» G � m g — , ,!fiESfi KKf_42n�Y1 o,-. BVCS: ♦ 250 � � B $ i Eve31 � s: lo.e)5o Pao u ME, 310.94 un r i 25.0 6 n, o - m z u Sim, I fi y m��uo 3]54 12 mo u i i S m mL4 B10E: 310.05 9�4 ' pp� 6� _ r .N m� sla.o g m m BYCF: 101. �, o 0 t19 311.9 6: 11,13 eT.. FYCE, 19&fi6 ` r zl a3.Jz m -i —2mB u 8 Z .. o o N 'd Y D 8 267.21 bvcs; 3oroz,bJ �� BKE: 169.31 x� }n.e u t)J.9 993 tl _ }e .61 2610 }9es j T 394 tl suee ' 3Z4.A pis 0 ANGLER'S CROSSING cn°nr O Bnr too `O A f 1b0' Oren Br PEV1810Ne - N ,a.<, wA 9eeee — — , m�3 Site DevE3lopmant,49soelates, LLC na w x O ROADWAY PROFILES " 'FqE AMr Puv°� e 4 ...,—�a— m,, t, ,,,-09 r,oMl 1� Ill��eoOe tbARTF'1�. uS�R SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 27 N, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. E i NOT P E%I NO REIAO11 EA5NN0 s?WATER WIN SEWER LWE INSTALL WNNOLE O+ER WO SEWER 1] 2a Wrt�1A rca t !N"ti S diS �i"• {tr," al 'E> t�' � _yCf \ / �• RELOGTEDN N` � ^� ( ,(Y.c�'1 v r r.,�, A WATER um _ 5 REUDVE/A&W N Ews NC STEEL WATER pAaT m Y a I ARANOON E% 12' PPE TO NE AND INS NEW W LINE TO EAST TO INTENEEPT -NLINE ROW. i f w > 1 I TONNEOT ' � 0 Fll WATER a 1? L\ ! VHF w U w I F JAN 1 1 2007 o J IL �LANNI G O;cp 1. o Z o Q U 50 0 50 iD0 C3. = 50 Scale F— R-\P:ora=�a\�aa (u:rvauantw S.ouR)\4Oa-05 [A.ale:z [.o+.�=al\e.a\Snoala\Polar\Ac-u1O �.ewa 5�1 the c au hton Group,. LAN P.O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: 425.778.41 1 1 Fax: 425.778.0409 July 21, 2006 Mr. Stephen Bullock, AICP City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Planning Division 121 51' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Re -submittal of Angler's Crossing PRD Dear Steve, We are pleased to re -submit development plans and the Preliminary Drainage Report for this 27 lot residential project for your review and recommendation for approval. This project now incorporates the review comments we received from the City for ROW and street design standards, utility design and other comments. We have also prepared new home plans which have a smaller footprint, meeting the City's requirements for a maximum 21 % building lot coverage. The site plan, home plans and revised grading plan will keep the homes within the 25' height requirement, and we will no longer be requesting height or setback variances for this development. In our conversations, you indicated that we are not required to re -submit the Land Use Application sheet, the SEPA checklist and the accompanying reports previously prepared by our traffic, biology/critical areas and geotechnical consultants. Please see Appendix A, attached, for updated information on the existing Land Use Application and SEPA checklist. We will be resubmitting the colored site plan and rendered architectural plans/elevations/materials at a later date, prior to the Architectural Review Board hearing. The parks and open spaces will be developed and maintained by the developer until a HOA is established. We will submit a draft of the proposed conditions and covenants at a later date. The following narrative summarizes how this revised proposal complies with the City's PRD goals and policies. PRD Narrative: The City sets out specific goals and criteria for PRD projects in chapter 20.35 of the Edmonds Community Development guide. Angler's Crossing meets the purposes of this code by providing an infill housing community with an alternative site plan that will protect critical open spaces and steep slopes, provide useable and passive open space and provide higher quality single family housing on slightly smaller lots. It is consistent with the City's goals and Comprehensive Plan to provide some growth and density compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This proposal will meet the enhanced design standards contained in the PRD Ordinance for landscaping, t_ M-001a File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 open space, on -site circulation, architectural design and materials and lower percentages of impervious surfaces. The visual impact of this project will be minimized through the use of existing vegetated buffers, buffer enhancement and new landscaping. In addition, the code requires that projects meet the Decision Criteria for PRD, specifically, that projects must meet the City's Urban Design/ Building Design Guidelines set forth in the PRD chapter, plus meet an additional 2 of the 4 other site design criteria. In this re -submittal, we believe Angler's Crossing meets all 5 of the Decision Criteria, as described below, and thus should receive a recommendation of approval from the Department, ARB and City Council. 1) Urban Design/architectural Design Criteria: Angler's Crossing proposes to use a variety of home plans to meet the unique site conditions, the market, and provide a lively street scene. These homes meet the City's criteria for home elevations which front the street, minimize the garage doors and have pathways and prominent front porches and other entry expressions. The homes will be constructed of high quality building materials and accent finishes, as shown on the preliminary plans and elevations submitted with this proposal. We plan to present additional detail at the ARB meeting and will work to incorporate their suggestions. 2) Improve circulation patterns: Angler's Crossing will provide the neighborhood west of 80t`' St. with a through street connection to Olympic View Drive. This connection is strongly supported by the City in its Comprehensive Plans and will provide an important access option for residents and emergency vehicles. 3) Minimize use of impervious surfaces: As a condition of the previous contract Rezone, this project must not exceed 21 % lot coverage for residential buildings and decks. This percentage is substantially below the standard lot coverage requirement of 35% allowed for single family homes. In addition, we are proposing street sections and sidewalks which meet the minimum allowed design section. Overall impervious surfaces are approximately 39% of the gross site area, a low percentage when factoring in the housing density and amount of public road we are required to build. 4) Increased amount of useable open space or recreation facilities above the minimum. The minimum required Useable Open Space for a PRD is 10% of the gross site area, or 23,830 sf. The proposal provides a total of 42,877 sf of useable open space in Tracts 997 — 999, nearly 80% above the minimum required. Open Space features proposed include a small tot lot, a social area with benches and trellises, a lawn play area over a covered storm vault, and trail segments with overlooks to the wooded ravine on the north side of the site. 5) Preserve, enhance or rehabilitate significant natural features: This project has been re- designed to protect significant amounts of the native woods in the slopes behind lots 1 — 7 and lots 20 — 27. In addition, we propose to enhance key areas by planting native trees, primarily coniferous species like Douglas firs and Western red cedars, and some native shrubs. These enhancement plantings will provide additional perimeter buffering as well as to increase species diversity, enhance wildlife habitat and help stabilize the slopes. Respectfully submitted, Susan Eastman, ASLA The McNaughton Group, LLC Appendix A: Updated information for Land Use Application and SEPA Checklist Re -submittal of Angler's Crossing PRD July 21, 2006 Edmonds, WA e Updated information for the Land Use Application: Description of the Project: Project proposes 27 single family (detached) lots on a site totaling approximately 5.6 acres, that had previously been rezoned to PRD / RS-8. Project includes 4 open space tracts with active and passive open space provided for the residents, and a public roadway system. The project will be accessed off both Olympic View Drive and 80"' Ave. W, and includes frontage improvements on these roads, plus a public road connection between these streets, built to City of Edmonds Standards. The project will include all utilities and other improvements necessary to accommodate the new lots and homes. Contact Person: Cher Anderson/ The McNaughton Group Phone: (425) 778-4111 Address: PO Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Email: cher(a.tmacg.com Fax: (425) 778-0409 Updated Information for the SEPA Checklist: A. Background, 11. Brief Description of the Project: Project proposes 27 single family (detached) lots on a site totaling approximately 5.6 acres, that had previously been rezoned to PRD / RS-8. Project includes 4 open space tracts with active and passive open space provided for the residents, and a public roadway system. Project will be accessed off both Olympic View Drive and 80th Ave. W, and includes frontage improvements on these roads, plus a public road connection between these streets, built to City of Edmonds Standards. The proposal will set aside approximately 53,980 sf of open space, about 22% of the gross site area. The project will include all utilities and other improvements necessary to accommodate the new lots and homes. B. 1. Earth e: Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed: Streets, active parks, building pads and yards would be cleared of the existing vegetation, graded and compacted as necessary to achieve proper grade transition, drainage and structural stability. Approximately 89,800 CY of material will be moved, and the net cut material which will be exported is approximately 68,920 CY. B. 1. Earth q: About what % of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project completion? After construction of road improvements, homes, drives and sidewalks, about 39 % of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. Please refer to the updated Preliminary Drainage Report by SDA Associates for detailed information. B. 14. Transportation a: identify public streets . . . : the proposed subdivision will take access from both Olympic view Drive and 80fh Ave W via a public street system to be constructed by the applicant. Both 184'h St SW and the side street with cul-de-sac will be 28' wide and built to City of Edmonds standards. 6 z O 3 3 r ection 3 20' ion cut at angle t and home. by builder, Approx. house lot plantings by builder, by resident lot plantings 240 by resident Al ex Fe Pr Site section 1 scale: 1" = 20' Site section 2 scale: 1" = 20' SECTIONSSITE ANGLER'S CROSSING PRD Edmonds, Washington The McNaughton Group, LLC December 2006 MCNaughtgn Group_ 34G - Hidden Glen Plat - Lot 12 3io- Approx. location ex. 300 - house & yard �§S Ex. Fence Protential rockery wKi 260 Site section 4 scale: 1" = 20' Site section 5 scale:1" = 20' Hidde Lot 1', Apprc house Ne no Tal Site section 6 Poi scale: 1" = 20' Y of tall shrubs lot plantings by resident ANGLER'S CROSSING PRD Edmonds, Washington The McNaughton Group, LLC December2006 -,7nMcNaugh!Aq,(; oyp_ ON 0r N2MON195 MAINETVING MQLlRMN1'5 FOt t'W5 ANn PFV 5 Name: ANGLERS CROSSING File No.: P-05-136/PRD-05-137 Reviewed by: A. L. CHRISMAN 18 Jan 07 Vicinity: 7704 Olympic View Dr. Engineering Program Manager date Peci d prior to I cct d w/ bldq Bond posted Complete recordincl Permit I, lZlcjht5-0f-Waq for PUHIC streets: All streets within the proposed plat shall be paved, classified as X public streets and dedicated to the City of Edmonds except the emergency access road. ---- ------------------- ----- -- — - ------------ -------- The emergency access road shall be owned and maintained by the X homeowners within the plat (homeowners association). Use of the access road shall be restricted to pedestrian traffic and emergency _ vehicles only. _ The proposed plat streets shall be designated as X East/West street- 180' PL SW with access from 80`h Ave W North/South street- 78'h PI W with access from Olympic View Dr. The right of way widths shall be as follows: X 184`h PL SW- minimum of 45.00 feet. 78'h PI W - minimum of 50.00 feet. ----------- -------- --- The cul-de-sac on 78'h PL W shall have a minimum radius of 45.00 --------------- X -------- ----- ------------ feet The cul-de-sac on 184`h PL W shall have a minimum radius of X 45.00 feet. 2. �a5emenb (Cltq utilities, wale access, other utilities): Provide all public and private easements as reclu_ired. X__ _ Abandon applicable existing public easements and replace with new X if required. Emergency Access road -connecting 184`h PL SW to 78'h PL W - X Provide a minimum 30.00 foot wide utility and pedestrian easement to the City of Edmonds. 3. Street im ovemc95, ( ACP with curb and ter) 184`h PL SW: Proposed street shall be 3 L50 feet wide from face of X curb to face of curb.. 78`h PI W: Proposed street shall be 31.50 feet wide from face of X _ curb to face of curb. Emergency access road: Proposed access road shall be paved X 20.0 feet wide plus 18" asphalt thickened edges. Provide on -street parking on one side of 184`h PL SW and on one X side of 78'h PL W. Construct 18" concrete curb along property frontage on Olympic X View Dr. Curb face shall be a minimum of 12.0' from the painted centerline. V:\dvrw\pl\05-136 anglers crossing plt-revised 1-18-07.doc File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 teg`d prior tgea'd w/:bldq : 6ond pasted Complete record! t'erm�t 3, 5Veet ►m ro ment5 (ACP with curb and ter) : coritlnued Construct 18" concrete curb on the west side of 801Ave. W. equal X to the length of the property frontage. Curb face shall be t2.0' from the painted centerline. Construct 18" concrete curb and gutter along both sides of 180 PL X SW and both sides of 78`h PL W except for the cul-de-sac. The Cul-de-sac shall have 18" rolled curbing peer City Standards._______ Entrance radius improvements to 184h PL SW shall meet X Seometrics and 25mph speed ostin on 80`h_Ave W. .__ Entrance radius improvements to 781PL W shall meet geometrics X and 25m l s�osting on Olympic View Dr. —--------------------- ----------- ---------- -------- -------- The first 20' of the approach landing on 184`h PL SW at the X intersection with 80`h Ave W shall not exceed The first 20' of the approach landing on 781h PL W at the X intersection with Olympic View Dr shall not exceed _6_%_ Opticom operated type (Yates, approved by the Fire Department, X _ shall be installed at both ends of the emegency access road__ ---- Maintain a minimum of two foot (T) clear zone (shy distance) from X all obstructions. Install thermoplastic crosswalks and stop bars at: the intersection X of 80`h Ave W. and 184`h PL SW; and at 78`h PL W. and Olympic View Dr. Lots 1-6 shall access from 1841h PL SW X Lots 7-27 shall access from 781h PL W X Lots 4, 5 and 6 shall share a common driveway. The driveway X X shall be paved a minimum of 16.0 feet wide and the slope shall not 14%.-- _exceed Lots 14, 15 and 16 shall share a common driveway. The X X driveway shall be paved a minimum of 16.0 feet wide and the slope shall not exceed 14%.— Lots 18, 19, and 20 shall share a common driveway. The X X driveway shall be paved a minimum of 16.0 feet wide and the slope shall not exceed 14%. Maximum travel lane cross slope shall be 2%. X — _ _ _ Street grade for both 184` PL SSW and 78`h PI W shall not exceed _ X — — 12%. 4. 5b-eet turnaround: 78th PL W: A cul-de-sac is required and shall be paved to a X minimum radius of 35.00 feet (excluding curb/gutter). 184 PL SW:'/2 cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the end of the X street. 5, 5idewJk5 or Akwa 5: CITY STANDARDS andl PER Construct five-foot wide sidewalk on north side of_184` PL SW. X Construct five foot wide sidewalk on both sides of 78"' PL W _ X_ Construct a five foot wide sidewalk on Olympic View Drive along X the entire property frontage. V:\dvrw\pl\05-t36 anglers crossing plt-revised .1-18-07.doc 1?eg=cl prrar �a �eg'd wlblda 13onc� posfect Cvm[�lele 4 4 5, 5idewalk5 and/or walkwag5; CONTINUED Construct concrete curb ramps as required X Construct five-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of 80" Ave W. X equal to the length of the property frontage. 6. Street lights: Install street lighting within the plat, at each intersection, and at the X end of the cul-de-sac. Spacing shall be determined by a licensed Professional Engineer experienced in the trade. Street lights shalt be PUD's 100W/120V Cobra heads mounted on X PUD's standard 30' fiberglass poles, and shall be installed per their standards. �. VlanWArk: N/A X 8. Waters stem imprcycme65 C el&5, fire h drant5, pump, etc) Install 8" ductile iron pipe water main within the plat. Water main X shall be placed within City right-of-way and shall connect to the system on 801h Ave W and to the main Olympic View Dr. This system shall not be connected to the 24" distribution main. --- ---- ---------------------------- - Install 6" fire hydrants includin4" Storz adaQter. _--- ---------------- X __ ------------ ___ __ _ _ ----- Provide water service to each lot Connect to public water system _ ------ — - X X — — — The existing 24" water main distribution line across the project site X shall be rerouted by installing a new 24" water main distribution line from 80"' Ave W to Olympic View drive. The location of the rerouted 24" main shall be within the City right-of-way of t84'h PL SW and 781h PL W. 9, 5anitaq sewers stem Im ovement5 C pipchnq5, pump5, etcl Reroute existing sewer main on site by installing a new 8" sewer X main within the right-of-way of the 1841h PL SW and 78`h PL W and connect to the system on 80`h Ave W. and on Olympic View Dr. Any services connected to the existing line shall be connected to the new sewer main. Remove old manholes, plug and abandon the existing sewer main. Provide new service laterals for each lot. Laterals shall be stubbed X X to a point 10' behind the property line Connect to public sewer system _ _ _—X 10. Storm sewer 5 stem Im ovement5 ( I elines, m 5, t9a, etc): ZS " ` �tF Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots and stub to a point X 10' behind the property line Provide water quality enhancements_ X _ - _-_ V:\dvrw\pl\05-136 anglers crossing plt-revised 1-18-07.doc req d prior to recording Fx.q' d .w/ 61dq `; peryritt Bond posted Complete 10. Storm sewers stem Im ovemertb: continued Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate capacity for proposed single family dwellings and all street improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30. Infiltration will not be permitted and the detention system shall be private and _ located on private property. X The existing 24" storm drainage system across the project site between 80`h Ave W and Olympic View Dr. shall be abandoned. A new 24" storm conveyance system shall be constructed within the City right-of-way of 184"' PL SW right-of-way and 78`h PL W and shall connect 801h Ave W to the system on Olympic View Dr. The __tat drainage system shall not connect to the 24" system X Downstream outfall improvements at Perrinville Creek will be X Connect to public storm system X X 11. On -site drainage ( per Ord, 501-5) Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention system. X X 12. Underciround wirgCper Ord, I381) Required for all new services X X 13. excavation and gradinq (per 16C, appendix J (2M? edition)): Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. X X 14. 51 n e (per CI ewer) All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Standards. No silk screened signs will be permitted. X Provide high intensity stop signs. Stop signs shall be installed at the following locations: 184' PL SW and 80`h Ave W 78'h PL W. at Olympic View Drive X Provide "No parking anytime" signs along the opposite side of the street of on street parking. X Provide "25 MPH speed limit signs on 184`h PL_W_ and 78`h PL W _ X _ _ Provide Street Signs at "184"' PL SW/80`h Ave W" and 781h PL W/Olympic View Dr. X Provide "Street Ends" at the entrance to 184`h PL SW and 78`h PL W X 15. 5urve monumentation C er Ord, 5ection 12.10,120) : *, _ , Provide concrete monument and case at all intersections and cul- de -sac and within the plat as required X I& As -built drawl s (per CI sneer): Required for all utility construction. X X 11, Other re uire=95: a. Plat showing lots, easements, le ag Is, survey information X V:\dvrw\pl\05-136 anglers crossing pit -revised tA8-07.doc teq' d prior to �ecl'd w/ blc#q ,;Bond posted Complete;:; 17, Other requirements; continued b. Leal documents for each lot c. Field stake lot corners Professional Surveyor) - _ ----- - _ X - ---- -- -- - - - - - _ d._Maintenance _agreements --- --- - -_ -- -- ----------- --_ e. _Utility Development Plan -- --------- X ---- _` _-_ __ _ f. Provide Geo-Technical resort. _-- - -_ _ _- X - -- _- - - g. Provide engineering calculations for any concrete retaining block walls, etc. that maybe used for lat development only.__- X _walls, _ h. Clustered mailboxes required. Postmaster to determine_ location_ X- i. Lot driveway slopes must be identified on the development plans as not exceed 14%. X - Traffic Stud------------ --- - --------------- -- X--- --- -- k. Emergency access gates shall be maintained by the Homeowners within the plat via the Homeowners Association. If not properly maintained, the gates shall remain open until the gates are back in ro er o eration. X 1. Paint 8" wide yellow stripe along flow lines on Emergency access road and paint " Fire Lane" at 25' alternating intervals. The letters shall be 12" high with a 2" wide strock. X -------------------------------- 18, � meerlr� fees; ------ ----------...--- ------------- ----------- a) Storm System Development charge (street only)( $ TBD) - - - b) Storm S sy ternDevelopment charge (sfr) - $428/lot _ X ------- X - - - c) Sewer LID fees to be Lwd in full d) Sewer Connection fee (new lots only) $730/10t X X__ _ e) Water meter fee (based on 3/a") $550/meter_ _ _ _ _ X _ _ _ f) Water Connection fee (new lots only) $908/lot X Traffic Impact Fee $840.72/lot $22,699.44 _ X _ _ _ h) Plan Review fee__ $1310 _ X _ _ _ _ i) Plat inspection fee (2.2% of improvement costs) $ TBD X To be determined (TBD) WA4&ww" 18 Jan 07 ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded. Authorized for recording by: Date: V_\dvrw\pl\05-136 anglers crossing plt-revised 1-I8-07.doc rnc. 1890 CITY OF EDONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering January 17, 2007 Andy Reeves The McNaughton Group P.O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA. 98020 RE: Angler's Crossing- Utility placement within the plat right-of-way and Electronic gates (P-05-136/PRD-05-137) Dear Andy: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR We have looked at your proposed re -configuration of the plat streets and location of the utilities. As previously discussed, we want all the utilities, including the 24"water main and 24" storm line, within said proposed rights -of -way with the proper clearances (including thrust blocks). If you would like to swing by, I can show you what we have come up with as far as utility location for the utilities that have to be rerouted. In our last meeting, Kevin indicated they were looking at electronically controlled bollards for the emergency access road. However, since they are not easily nor rapidly defeatable, the Fire Department wants to see opticom operated type gates installed across the access road. When the Homeowner's Association documents are written up, it must include language that states the maintenance of the gates shall be the sole responsibility of the homeowner's association and should the gates fail to be maintained or operate correctly, the gates shall remain open until the gates are returned to proper operating condition. Sincerely, L le Chrisman Engineering Program Manager Cc: Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Noel Miller, Public Works Director S:\ENGR\PRIVATE DEVELOMENT PROJECTS\REVIEW\SUBDIVISION-LU & REQ'S\P1ats\05-1 gates.doc Exhibit s Incorporated August 11, 1890 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 December 28, 2006 To: Duane Bowman Director of Development Services RECEIVED City of Edmonds Re: "Seaview Hill" DEC 2 9 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Dear Mr. Bowman, Thank you for your letter today and for taking time at your office to explain the city's position relative to the hill on 80t` Ave W. We all are in agreement that the principal problem with the hill is long standing and is a pre-existing condition. However, our view, which focuses on the "big picture" is that there definitely will be a "cause and effect" relationship that will be borne out once this subdivision is established. Even as few as 60 new car trips daily will increase the potential for more accidents associated with the "hill". An even greater concern could well develop with just the increase in pedestrian traffic alone, which primarily will be school age children. Without further be -laboring the issue, I think that it is important to re-emphasize that any increase in potential for accidents here on 80t' does not fair well with the local residents and we have always been hopeful that the City holds the same view. Even the city codes and the GMA, make it clear that a subdivision should not affect the health, safety (traffic) and welfare of the local residents. That statement in itself supports our request to have the hill re -graded and be done,in concert with the development of the subdivision. At your suggestion I do plan on making a presentation to the city council. Also, per our discussion today, I have written to David Gebert so that he is aware of our concerns and our request to have the hill re -graded. Again, thank you for you letter and I look forward to learning what the engineering departments study of the hill bears out. Sincerely, Charles D. Farmen 18326 80' Ave W. Edmonds, WA 98026 425.774.8210 Cc: Dave Gebert, City Engineer File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 r P. 07 C-90 Sslit/r /vc-L G� ,k oo by z V AH/ Exhibit File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 Norman & Sally Barringer 18405 — 79`h Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 (425)775-3285 sallybar ,msn.com January 16, 2007 City of Edmonds PlanninK Department 121 — 5` Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Steve Bullock, Project Planner Cc: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner Subject: P-2005-136, PRD-2005-137 & V's-2005-141 — 149 Reference: Barringer letters dated January 11, 2007, February 26, 2006, December 12, 2001, January 26, 1998, O'Neill letter January 24, 1998 Dear Mr. Bullock. I am writing to express my concern about the steep bank next to the proposed roadway 180. The bank was damaged in the past by the previous owner of the subject property wherein a machinery cut into the toe of the bank, even cutting the roots of our large trees causing erosion. I have expressed our concern at every application for development of the above property that a rockery or retaining wall would be necessary to prevent further erosion if a roadway is allowed to be constructed. I was told in 1998 by Steve in Planning, Gordy in Engineering and Jim Walker in Engineering that they thought the city would require stabilizing the bank, but these issues of topography and banks come up later in the process. Since I have not received any information or a reply to my request that a retaining wall be part of the development of a roadway, I am requesting your reply that the developer will include stabilizing this steep slope at his cost as part of approval of this PRD. I cannot tell from the drawings if a retaining wall is proposed. Enclosed are pictures and a CD with more pictures of the bank on 184`h abutting O'Neill's property and my property.Please advise me before the hearing on January 18, 2007. Sincerely, Sally Barringer Enclosures File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 Dear Steve Bullock, I am writing to express my families concern about the proposed development in Perrinville Woods. I won't be able to attend the meeting today as I am in Florida helping out my parents. Our concerns are as follows, - Stability of the steep slope and existing properties, especially during grading. - Traffic safety on the blind hill on 80th. - Light pollution from street and/or house lights. - Impact on environment and animals. Density is inconsistent with all surrounding neighborhoods. - Open space and buffers should be provided. In closing, we are not against development, we just think that it should be done responsibly and with great consideration for the environment and the citizens involved. We feel that this particular property is too steep to be developed safely at all, but since you have favored the developers on this matter, we ask that you please take our concerns into serious consideration. Thank you for you time, The Severt/Roy family - Linda, John, Curtis, Adam 7801 185th PI. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Exhibit 9 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 JAN 18 Z007 PLANNING DES (.. January 18, 2007 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner 121-5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Angler's Crossing (File No. P-2005-136, PRD-2005-137 & V's-2005-141-149) Hearing Examiner Hearing on January 18, 2007 Dear City of Edmonds: We are the owners and residents of Woodscreek Place (Tracts 999 & 100), a PRD located at 18212, 18214, 18216 and 18218 — 76th Avenue West in Edmonds. Our properties are located across the street from the proposed Angler's Crossing PRD, east of Olympic View Drive. Tract 999 of Woodscreek Place is an Open Space Area / Native Growth Protection Tract that each of us owners has an equal one-fourth interest in. It is approximately 1.4 acres in size. When our properties were developed in 1992, the City of Edmonds required an extensive wetland determination and mitigation plan for Tract 999. Much time, effort and money was spent to protect, preserve and enhance our wetlands. Our property is also through which Perrinville Creek flows. Posted signs attest that Perrinville Creek is a salmon -bearing stream. We have seen resident trout in this stream. The major concern we have with the Angler's Crossing PRD is the proposed drainage plan that utilizes our property for their storm water outfall. Drainage will increase from one single-family home on approximately six acres of land that allows much on -site natural drainage, to drainage for 27 homes that are spread rather uniformly on small lots across the property with much asphalt. This runoff will collect in a newly constructed detention vault. Both this system and a conveyance system from 80"' Avenue West will outlet east into a pipe under Olympic View Drive and directly into Perrinville Creek and the wetlands on our property. These are the concerns we have with this proposed drainage plan: - As noted by the Developer's consultant, there is existing erosion on the slope downstream of the outlet to this pipe that currently runs under Olympic View Drive and onto our property. Current water flows are already too high. When the drainage from the detention vault is combined with the 80th Avenue conveyance system and released into this pipe, this increase in velocity will only cause further erosion and harm downstream properties. Exhibit r File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 -Approximately five years ago the City of Edmonds attempted to fix the erosion at the outlet by laying newspapers under the pipe and installing an orange fence where the bank drops off from the sidewalk (which still appears to be a safety issue). Nothing has been done since. If the current system is not being adequately maintained, how will we be assured the new system will be taken care of? -The proposed drainage report states that the existing pipe that crosses Olympic View Drive is 60 inches in diameter, which in fact it is only 24 inches. The proposal is to reconstruct this with a 60 inch pipe and place a new catch basin east of Olympic View Drive below the outfall to act as a drop structure. A new 60 inch section of pipe will then be placed below the invert of the existing pipe. A 60 inch pipe would be five feet in diameter and big enough to walk through. We hope this is an error. And who will maintain the new catch basin when it is covered in blackberry bushes in the wetland area? -Will this work all be done within the public right-of-way? Permission has not been requested nor granted to install this drainage system on our property, nor is there an Easement allowing this work. -Perrinville Creek is already undermining its banks. Who is liable for downstream flooding and property damage? -We are concerned with the cleanliness of the water that will discharge into Perrinville Creek and our wetlands. Even with an oil -water separator, water soluble fertilizers and chemicals from 27 homes will not be controlled. This will harm the fish and cause other environmental damage„ We suggest an environmental study be performed to see what impact this project and drainage system would have on Perrinville Creek and downstream properties. Another concern we have with the Angler's Crossing PRD is that the sewer for this project is to connect to the sewer main on 76`h Avenue, which runs in front of our houses. In late December of 1996, Edmonds had a snow storm that collapsed the City of Edmonds boat marina. Rain and snow melt from that storm caused raw sewage to pour from the man hole covers on 76"' Avenue and into our houses. What will an additional 27 homes do to this system? Will it increase the chance of this occurring again? We also object to granting any height variances for this project. These houses will be uphill from us and already will look down into our homes. Height variances are a sensitive issue in Edmonds, and no exception should be granted in this case. There are many other issues of this proposal that concern us, but these are our primary ones. We would appreciate your consideration before approving this proposed project. Sincerely, Philip and Maryjane Hillstrom 18212-Vh Avenue W, Edmonds WA Rene and Diana VanLoveren 18214-76`h Avenue W, Edmonds WA Kurt and Linda Larson 18216-76`h Avenue W, Edmonds WA Mahmoud and Lynn Jahed 18218-76`h Avenue W, Edmonds WA the t r IANE� OEVEI.OPMENT December 22, 2006 Stephen F. Bullock, AICP Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Angler's Crossing Dear Steve: Pq n DEC 7 zoos PtAli' I am General Counsel for The McNaughton Group ("TMG"). TMG is the contract purchaser from the Parks of the property (the "Park Property") proposed as the preliminary plat/PRD known as "Angler's Crossing." TMG's proposed development is made pursuant to the "Agreement and Covenant Constituting a Contract Rezone" dated November 6, 1998 (the "Rezone Agreement") executed by and between the City and the Parks. By the Rezone Agreement the City rezoned the Park Property to R-8 zoning subject to numerous conditions. One of those rezone conditions relates to a road connection across the Park Property to provide a connection from 801h Avenue W to Olympic View Drive. More specifically, Section 1.4 of the Rezone Agreement provides as follows with regard to that road connection: The Owners shall pay for the widening of preexisting 20 feet wide 184th Street SW to width of 40 feet. The street shall connect 80th Ave. W. to Olympic View Drive. The easterly half of 184th Street, which is currently closed, shall be relocated to fit a newly created contour and grading as depicted and in accordance with Findings of ST-96-77 and ST 96-78. The finished street shall be dedicated to the City upon its completion. (Emphasis added.) As you know, the original preliminary plat/PRD lay -out proposed to a full roadway profile for 184th Street SW connecting 80th Avenue W and Olympic View Drive. However, that lay -out received substantial public opposition from neighbors and citizens, including those calling themselves "Save Perrinville Woods" ("SPW"). One of the main concerns they have expressed is potential for increased traffic resulting from the road connection proposed between 80th Avenue W and Olympic View Drive. We have been working diligently with citizens and SPW to address their concerns. We have had very Mr. Stephen F. Bullock, AICP December 22, 2006 — ° Page 1 of 2 Exh File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 productive discussions of late with the neighbors and representatives of SPW. As a result of those discussions we are now proposing a revised plat lay -out for Angler's Crossing that would provide a cul-de-sac of 184th Street SW extending east from 80th Avenue W and another cul-de-sac of 184th Street SW extending west from Olympic View Drive. Those two cul-de-sac extensions of 184th Street SW would then be connected by a separate tract that would include dedicated easement rights exclusively for emergency access, utilities and pedestrian access. It is TMG's belief that the revised lay -out meets both the letter and spirit of the Rezone Agreement. It meets the letter of the Rezone Agreement because nothing in Section 1.4 of the Rezone Agreement requires a thru connection for vehicular traffic. Rather, the Rezone Agreement merely requires that the new street "connect" 80th Avenue W to Olympic View Drive. Such a connection will be provided for emergency vehicles as well as pedestrian traffic (as we are proposing a trail through the tract connecting the two cul- de-sac extensions of 1841h Street SW) satisfying the requirement to connect 80th Avenue W and Olympic View Drive. The current proposal meets the intent of the Rezone Agreement in that a connection between 801h Avenue W and Olympic View Drive would be provided in a manner that will minimize site grading activities required for the development and minimize traffic impacts, both of which are a substantial concern to neighbors. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me or Craig Krueger if you have any questions or require any additional information. Very truly yours, 1 � , 1t,E__, Brian L. Holtzclaw General Counsel The McNaughton Group LLC P.O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 425- 778-4111 ex. 108 fax 425-778-0409 cell 425-478-7453 brian c( tmac%com cc: Craig Krueger, TMG Mr. Stephen F. Bullock, AICP December 22, 2006 — Page 2 of 2 Groupthe c augh 1 V II � r.LoPMrrar M E-MAIL January 10, 2007 Stephen F. Bullock, AICP Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 — 5'" Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Angler's Crossing Dear Steve: The McNaughton Group ('TMG") is the applicant for the above -referenced project, which is scheduled for hearing before the City's Hearing Examiner on January 18, 2007. TMG's application was made pursuant to the "Agreement and Covenant Constituting a Contract Rezone" dated November 6, 1998 (the "Rezone Agreement"), which implemented Ordinance No. 3217 passed by the City Council July 21, 1998 conditionally rezoning the subject property. The conditions of the rezone (from RS-12 to RS-8 zoning) are set forth in Section 1 of the Rezone Agreement. This letter quotes each of the conditions of the Rezone Agreement, and TMG's arguments as to how those conditions are satisfied by the current proposal. "I. I To limit the use of such property to Single Family Residential uses as defined under the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as the same exists or is hereafter amended, and that development of the subject property shall be consistent with an approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) application." TMG has proposed 27 single-family residential lots consistent with the City's current planned residential development ("PRD") provisions in the Edmonds Community Development Code ("ECDC"). (The PRD code actually would allow development of 30 lots.) TMG's proposed lay -out satisfies all of the PRD requirements in the ECDC. " 1.2 The building pads shall occupy a maximum of 29 % of the net buildable area. Net buildable area means the total area of property minus right of way area in accordance with Edmonds City Development Code (ECDC)." The net buildable area is calculated as the gross site area minus that portion of the property in right-of-way. Applying the 21% limitation in Rezone Condition 1.2 results in a Mr. Stephen F. Bullock, AICP January 10, 2007 — Page 1 of 3 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 total net buildable area of 42,417.9 square feet': that translates to an average building envelope of 1,571 square feet for each of the 27 proposed lots. The proposed lay -out for Angler's Crossing now shows potential building pads assuming the average square footage limitation necessary to meet the 21 % building pad limitation. The final net buildable area for each lot will be determined at the time building permit applications are submitted to the City for review and approval. The City has expressed willingness to either apply a maximum net buildable area per lot (e.g. 1,571 square feet for each of the 27 lots) or to keep a "running total" of net buildable area utilized as each building permit application is submitted. Providing these options will provide needed flexibility to the home builder which ultimately purchases the finished lots. "1.3 A landscaping plan shall be implemented for both entrances. The landscaping shall be maintained by a Homeowner's Association to be formed. " TMG submitted a proposed landscaping plan as part of the Angler's Crossing proposal reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Board ("ARB"). The ARB recommended approval subject to providing additional detail regarding the entry landscaping. TMG has since submitted to the City an updated landscaping plan that incorporates the ARB's comments and recommendations, and details the proposed landscaping for the current plat lay -out, which has been modified since it was reviewed by the ARB. The current landscaping plan details the proposed landscaping for the entire project, including the two entrances off of Olympic View Drive and 80'h Avenue West. CC&Rs will be recorded at the time of final plat recording confirming the obligations of the lot owners to maintain commonly owned landscaping, including the entry landscaping. "1.4 The Owners shall pay for the widening of preexisting 20 feet wide 1841h Street SW to width of 40 feet. The street shall connect 80rh Avenue W. to Olympia View Drive. The easterly half of 1841h Street, which is currently closed, shall be relocated to fit a newly created contour and grading as depicted and in accordance with Findings of ST 96-77 and ST 06-78. The finished street shall be dedicated to The City upon its completion." TMG addressed this rezone condition by letter to you dated December 22, 2006. "1.5 A private cul-de-sac as depicted in ST 96-77 and ST 06-78 shall be constructed and its north end shall be connected to a revised 184th Street SW." It is TMG's understanding that at the time the Council approved Ordinance No. 3217, and the Rezone Agreement, in 1998 it was City policy for thru streets to be dedicated public rights -of -way whereas the City desired cul-de-sacs off of such thru-streets to be retained in private ownership. However, the City has subsequently changed its policy and now prefers that all such roads be dedicated public rights -of -way. TMG's current lay -out for Angler's Crossing is consistent with current City policy as all plat roads (other than shared driveways and access tracts) are proposed as dedicated public rights-of- 1 The gross site area is 244,193 square feet, which includes 42,203 square feet of right-of-way. That results in a net buildable area of 201,990 square feet. 21 % of the total net buildable area equals 42,417.9 square feet. Mr. Stephen F. Bullock, AICP January10, 2007 — Page 2 of 3 way. TMG believes Rezone Condition 1.5 of the Rezone Agreement should be interpreted in light of the City's current policy as that is the best reflection of what the City deems to further the public health, safety and general welfare. "1.6 All residential structures shall be designed and constructed in a style and theme consistent with the approved PRD." TMG's proposed building plans and elevations for Angler's Crossing were reviewed and recommended for approval by the City's ARB in September 2006. Those same plans will be utilized for the current plat/PRD lay -out. "1.7 The maximum height of any permitted structure shall be 25 feet measured from average grade in accordance with ECDC." TMG has requested modest variances for height calculations under the ECDC on 9 of the 27 proposed lots. The requested variances range from 1.5' to 6' (7 of the request variances are for less than 3.5'). The need for variances is necessitated given the unique topography of this site. The ECDC measures building heights from average existing grade. However, grading and some fill will be required for Angler's Crossing given the topography of the site, and in order to achieve road profiles and alignments acceptable to the City. Without height variances on 9 lots, the existing topography would result in an inconsistent streetscape with houses that are out of character with existing homes in the immediate vicinity of the project. TMG will present evidence to the Hearing Examiner demonstrating how the modest height variances for 9 lots will not adversely impact surrounding properties, and will allow homes to be constructed that are consistent and compatible with existing houses in the surrounding area. "1.8 Sidewalks, gutters, street lights and signed required by the ECDC and the approval process shall be supplied and constructed by The Owners." TMG will construct standard frontage improvements required by the City, including sidewalks, storm drainage improvements, and street lighting and signage, consistent with City requirements and road standards consistent with Rezone Condition 1.8. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Brian L. Holtzclaw General Counsel The McNaughton Group LLC P.O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 425- 778-4111 ex. 108 fax 425-778-0409 brian@tmacg.com cc: Craig Krueger, TMG Mr. Stephen F. Bullock, AICP January 10, 2007 — Page 3 of 3 5�:] the cNau t ND nDEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone:425.778.4111 December 27, 2006 Fax:425.778.0409 Mr. Steve Bullock, AICP Senior Planner Development Services Department City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA. 98020 Re: Building Height Variances, Anglers Crossing Dear Steve: We are hereby requesting building height variances for a portion of the lots within the proposed Anglers Crossing preliminary plat. The building height variances are requested above the "standard" base elevation calculation to allow construction of two story homes associated with the lots. Please refer to the proposed grading plans and landscape plans that have been submitted for building details. Lot No. Variance needed for additional building height 1 2.5 feet 2 3.5 feet 3 2.7 feet 4 6.0 feet 5 5.7 feet 6 no variance 7 3.0 feet 8 no variance 9 no variance 10 1.5 feet 1-1 3.2 feet 12 2.2 feet 13 no variance 14 no variance 15 no variance 16 no variance 17 no variance 18 no variance 19 no variance 20 no variance 21 no variance 22 no variance 23 no variance 24 no variance 25 no variance 26 no variance 27 no variance Special circumstances: The requested height variances are needed due to the steep topography on the site and the grading plan Exhibit (V File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 being driven by a reasonable road profile for the two cul-de-sac streets. The street profile for the extension of 184th Street from Olympic View Drive also sets the profile and alignment of the southerly cul-de-sac. Ground elevations of the homes are reasonably tied to the street elevations and final site grading contours. The homes themselves have been placed on the lots to create an attractive streetscape and to allow driveway aprons for guest parking. Special Privilege: Other properties in the City with similar topography and adjacent development can request height variances to exceed the standard 25 foot height from existing grades. In this case, with the topography generally sloping to the east, the proposed homes will not block views from the surroundi8ng homes. Comprehensive Plan: The requested height variances will not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. zoning Ordinance: The requested height variances are consistent with the purpose and intent of the PRD/RS-8 zoning of the property. The variances will allow the construction of traditional two story homes with appropriate roof pitches. Not detrimental: The requested height variances will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. Surrounding properties are generally higher than the subject site and are not anticipated to be adversely impacted by the requested variance in establishing building elevations. Minimum Variance: The requested height variances are the minimum necessary to allow the builder to construct the homes, which will be generally compatible with the surrounding homes. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions regarding this request. Thank you. Sincerely, te e Chief Planning Officer Message rage i or z Bullock, Steve From: Sue Jensen [suej@tmacg.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:28 PM To: Bullock, Steve Cc: Craig Krueger Subject: RE: Angler's Crossing Open Space Diagram Steve, In answer to your questions: 1) I've typically offset the centerline of the trail 7.5% so the average width is 15' of 'useable open space.' The trail itself would be about 3.5 - 4' wide. A couple areas with the overlooks/benches and native planting restoration/enhancement are wider. 2) Yes, I did include the 20' emergency road in the calculations, and here's why: a) this paved area will function as a pedestrian link between the upper and lower parts of this community to the Community Park and trail. B) It will also serve as a pedestrian connection for the greater community between 80th and Olympic View Drive. C) The alignment is gently curved and both sides of the paved area will be landscaped and have pedestrian features. It is more like a combined path/service road within a park than a true vehicular road. The bollards (retractable) proposed on each side will prevent any regular vehicular use. Finally, even if we weren't required to have the emergency vehicle connection would undoubtedly be a 6 — 8' wide paved path here to make the pedestrian connection, for the reasons outlined above, and this path would included in any open space calculations. I believe that if you required us to deduct, say 14' width of the emergency access road (about 1650 so from our provided open space calculations we would still be over the minimum requirement. Susan Eastman Jensen, ASLA The McNaughton Group mailto:c@tmaeg.com From: Bullock, Steve [mailto:Bullock@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:06 PM To: Sue Jensen Subject: RE: Angler's Crossing Open Space Diagram Thank you Sue. A few questions for you on it. How wide is the area you are including with the trail portion of your usable open space? It looks like you've included the emergency road in the usable open space area. Is this true? Right now I'm just trying to make sure that I understand the drawing correctly. Steve -----Original Message ----- From: Sue Jensen [mailto:suej@tmacg.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:47 PM To: Bullock, Steve Cc: Craig Krueger Subject: Angler's Crossing Open Space Diagram Hi Steve, Craig indicated you wanted a diagram explaining what areas were included in the active open space calculations. There is a dashed line on the plans submitted, but because it overlays the property and tract lines and the scale is small, it's hard to read. I've prepared an enlargement plan with hatched areas and the calculations which should read better. I'm sending this as a 11 x17 pdf. If you need more clarity just 1 /9/2007 Message rage L of 2 ask and I will bring you a copy marked with orange highlighter. Regards, Sue Susan Eastman Jensen, ASLA Landscape Architecture -Site Design The McNaughton Group PO Box 100 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Phone: 425-778-4111 ext. 117 E-mail: sue g tmae .co 1 /9/2007 MOON T IN& FH C C O N S U L V & K 7 6 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2802 WETMORE AVE. • SUITE 220 • EVERETT, WA 98201 • PH: (425) 339-8266 • FAX: (425) 258-2922 December 15, 2006 Mr. Don Sims, P.E. �p 9 1006 City of Edmonds Z,44VI4� 121 51h Avenue N 016p% Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Anglers Crossing (24 New SFD); Olympic View Dr and 80th Avenue W Updated Traffic Impact Analysis, GTC #05-246 Dear Mr. Sims: Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been retained by Andrew Reaves of The McNaughton Group, LLC to provide an updated traffic study for the proposed Anglers Crossing residential development. With this updated report the through street connection between 80"' Avenue W to Olympic View Dr has been deleted from the proposal. This letter is intended to supply the City of Edmonds with the necessary traffic generation and mitigation information per the City's guidelines for developments with fewer than 25 new PM peak -hour trips. The impacts of the proposed development on the site access point have also been discussed in this study. This study has been organized in the same manner as the SEPA Traffic Impact Requirements for the City of Edmonds. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Anglers Crossing residential development is planned to be constructed on the east side of 80"' Avenue W opposite 184"' Street SW. A site vicinity map has been included in Figure 1. The development is proposed to consist of a total of 27 single-family residences. There are three (3) existing single-family residences on the site which will be removed and credited towards the developments trips. Six of the houses (5 additional to today) would gain access to 80`' Avenue W (aka west side development) and the remaining 21 houses (19 additional to today) would gain access off of Olympic View Drive (aka east side development). The development is proposed to be constructed by the year 2007, with occupancy occurring in 2008. The horizon year for this project would be the year 2012. Exhibit 8 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 COUNTS/SURVEYS • SITE IMPACTS • LOS ANALYSIS • EIS • HEARINGS o S Mr. Don Sims December 15, 2006 Page 3 The study intersections will continue to operate at LOS B or better with a slight increase in delay in the Baseline condition. The intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS. The baseline level of service is summarized in Table 3. The turning movements used to determine the baseline level of service have been included in Figure 3. Future with Development Sight Distance Sight distance analysis was performed at the proposed site access point according to current AASHTO standards. The entering sight distance (ESD) was measured from 10 feet back of the pavement from an eye height of 3.5 feet to and eye height of 3.5 feet. The stopping sight distance (SSD) was measured from an eye height of 3.5 feet to an object height of 2 feet. The speed limit along 80t" Avenue W and Olympic View Dr in the development vicinity is 25 mph. Based on current AASHTO guidelines for 25 mph, the required entering sight distance is 280 feet and the required stopping sight distance is 155 feet. However, on 80th Avenue W in the vicinity of 184"' St SW there is an estimated 6% downgrade in the southbound direction. The AASHTO modifier for a 6% downgrade is 1.1 times the sight distance requirements. In this case to account for the 6% downgrade there would need to be at least 171 feet SSD. There is no on street parking along either 801h Avenue W or Olympic View Dr in the vicinity of the two site access points. • At Olympic View Dr/184th Street SW there is 280 feet of entering and stopping sight distance both to the north and south of the proposed connection, therefore sight distance requirements are met at this intersection. • At 80"' Avenue W/184th Street SW there is over 280 feet of entering and stopping sight distance to the south of the proposed connection. To the north there is over 200 feet of SSD, and with the crest to the north ESD is restricted to approximately 300 feet. Therefore based on the posted speed (no adjustment to ESD for the downgrade is recommended by AASHTO for this case of ESD) the sight distance requirements are met. Access Safety/Conflict Criteria The proposed site access onto 80th Avenue W will have approximately a 5-foot offset to the north of 180' Street SW. By being offset to the north the left turns into the access and onto 184"' Street SW do not overlap and therefore do not conflict with each other. It is GTC's assessment that with the low volumes utilizing this access, the alignment of the off -set ((less than a lane width to the right (north)) that the access being offset as shown in the site plan would not cause a potential increase in accidents. GTC would however recommend that the illumination warrants for the intersection be checked and the n aI BSOO N �� SULT NTS Mr. Don Sims December 15, 2006 Page 5 intersection of Olympic View Dr at 184th St SW will also operate at LOS B. The future with level of service is summarized in Table 3. The future with development turning movements has been included in Figure 5. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Traffic mitigation payments to the City of Edmonds are based on Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 Impact Fee Rates. The three existing single-family houses were credited towards the developments mitigation payment using the same mitigation fee methodology. The total required mitigation for the development would be $20,177.28. The mitigation calculations have been summarized in Table 5. GTC would recommend that the illumination warrants for the intersection of 801h Avenue W at 184th Street SW be checked and the illumination be provided to sufficient standards. GTC also recommends increased signing which would include: • Westbound (east leg) stop sign for the development access to 80th Avenue W • Eastbound (west leg) stop sign for the development access to Olympic View Dr • Placing a Dead End sign on the south side of the development access (east leg) to 80th Avenue W • Increase the stop sign size on 1841h Street SW for the eastbound approach (west leg) of the intersection of 80th Avenue W at 184th Street SW • Place an advanced warning stop sign for eastbound traffic to the west of the stop sign on the eastbound approach (west leg) of 184t1' Street SW at the intersection of 80th Avenue W at 184th Street SW We trust that this letter and attachments adequately address the traffic impacts of the updated residential development. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact us at (425) 339-8266. Thanks. Sincerely, GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. Matthew J. Palmer, P.E. Traffic Engineer Attachments CC: Andrew Reaves, The McNaughton Group, LLC FIRES 8-13- 2exl;, -. IBSON !DNS LT�NTS ANGLERS CROSSING (24 NEW SFD) CONSULTANTS LEGEND 305 PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING PM PEAK ffillfflom •' • GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS LEGEND ANGLERS CROSSING AWDT (24 NEW SFD) PM PEAK 25 CITY OF EDMONDS NEW DAILYTRAFFIC FIGURE 4A NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS DEVELOPMENT TRIP TRIP DISTRIBUTION % DISTRIBUTION FOR 5 UNITS (PM PEAK & DAILY) GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS LEGEND ANGLERS CROSSING AWDT (24 NEW SFD) PM ® PEAK 25 CITY OF EDMONDS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY NEWMLYTRAFFIC FIGURE 4C NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS DEVELOPMENT TRIP TRIP DISTRIBUTION % DISTRIBUTION FOR 24 UNITS (PM PEAK & DAILY) Anglers Crossing GTC #05-246 TABLE 1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA Level of Service I Expected Delay Control Delay (Seconds per Vehicle) Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A Little/No Delay <10 <_10 B Short Delays >10 and <15 >10 and <20 C Average Delays >15 and <_25 >20 and <_35 D Long Delays >25 and <35 >35 and <55 E Very Long Delays >35 and <_50 >55 and <_80 F * >50 >80 * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000. I LOS A: free -flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection). LOS B: generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: during short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOS E: intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. s �S LT NTS Anglers Crossing GTC #05-246 TABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE Weekday PM Peak Hour EXISTING FUTURE 2012 CONDITIONS' CONDITIONS Without Project With Project Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 1. 80th Ave W @ A 9.2 see A 9.3 see A 9.7 see 184th St SW 2. Olympic View Dr @ B 10.4 see B 10.9 see B 10.9 see I 80th St SW 3. Olympic View Dr @ ............. B 12.0 sec-1 Includes a 2.0 percent annual growth factor to account for other planned/programmed development in the area. Anglers Crossing GTC #05-246 TABLE 5 MITIGATION SUMMARY ITE Code ITE Land Use Category Trip Rate Trip Length Factor Net New Trips Impact Fee per Unit Unit Total 210 Single -Family House 1.01 1.09 1.10 $ 840.72 27 $22,699.44 210 Single -Family House 1.01 1.09 1.10 $ 840.72 -3 -$2,522.16 Total $20,177.28 R o OOH FFIC Coo a11�5MU&H7IZ3 /Anglers crossing GTC #05-246 Net New Trip Distribution % & Associated Trip Assignments PM Version New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips % In Out I Total 100% 230 151 9 24 1 % 2.30 0.15 0.09 0.24 2% 4.59 0.30 0.18 0.48 3% 6.89 0.45 0.27 0.72 4% 9.19 0.60 0.36 0.96 5% 11.48 0.75 0.45 1.20 6% 13.781 0.90 0.54 1.44 7% 16.081 1.05 0.63 1.68 8% 18.371 1.20 0.72 1.92 9% 20.67 1.35 0.81 2.16 10% 22.97 1.50 0.90 2.40 11 % 25.26 1.65 0.99 2.64 12% 27.56 1.80 1.08 2.88 13% 29.86 1.95 1.17 3.12 14% 32.161 2.10 1.26 3.36 15% 34.451 2.25 1.35 3.60 16% 36.751 2.40 1.44 3.84 17% 39.051 2.55 1.53 4.08 18% 41.341 2.70 1.62 4.32 19% 43.64 2.85 1.71 4.56 20% 45.94 3.00 1.80 4.80 21 % 48.23 3.15 1.89 5.04 22% 50.53 3.30 1.98 5.28 23% 52.83 3.45 2.07 5.52 24% 55.121 3.60 2.16 5.76 25% 57.421 3.75 2.25 6.00 26% 59.721 3.90 2.34 6.24 27% 62.011 4.05 2.43 6.48 28% 64.311 4.20 2.52 6.72 29% 66.61 4.35 2.61 6.96 30% 68.90 4.50 2.70 7.20 31 % 71.20 4.65 2.79 7.44 32% 73.50 4.80 2.88 7.68 33% 75.79 4.95 2.97 7.92 34% 78.091 5.10 3.06 8.16 35% 80.391 5.25 3.15 8.40 36% 82.681 5.40 3.24 8.64 37% 84.981 5.55 3.33 8.88 38% 87.281 5.70 3.42 9.12 39% 89.58 5.85 3.51 9.36 40% 91.87 6.00 3.60 9.60 41 % 94.17 6.15 3.69 9.84 42% 96.47 6.30 3.78 10.08 43% 98.76 6.45 3.87 10.32 44% 101.06 6.60 3.96 10.56 45% 103.36 6.75 4.05 10.80 46% 105.65 6.90 4.14 11.04 47% 107.95 7.05 4.23 11.28 48% 110.25 7.20 4.32 11.52 49 0 112.54 7.35 4.41 11.76 50°/ 114,841 7.50 4.50 12.00 New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In Out 11 Total 1004 2301 151 9 24 51 % 117.14 7.65 4.59 12.24 52% 119.43 7.80 4.68 12.48 53% 121.73 7.95 4.77 12.72 54% 124.03 8.10 4.86 12.96 55% 126.32 8.25 4.95 13.20 56% 128.62 8.401 5.04 13.44 57% 130.92 8.55 5.13 13.68 58% 133.21 8.70 5.22 13.92 59% 135.51 8.85 5.31 14.16 60% 137.81 9.00 5.40 14.40 61 % 140.10 9.15 5.49 14.64 62% 142.40 9.301 5.58 14.88 63% 144.70 9.45 5.67 15.12 64% 147.00 9.60 5.76 15.36 65% 149.29 9.75 5.85 15.60 66% 151.59 9.90 5.94 15.84 67% 153.89 10.05 6.03 16.08 68% 156.181 10.20 6.12 16.32 69% 158.48 10.35 6.21 16.56 70% 160.78 10.50 6.30 16.80 71 % 163.07 10.65 6.39 17.04 72% 165.37 10.80 6.48 17.28 73% 167.67 10.951 6.57 17.52 74% 169.96 11.101 6.66 17.76 75% 172.26 11.25 6.75 18.00 76% 174.56 11.40 6.84 18.24 77% 176.85 11.55 6.93 18.48 78% 179.15 11.70 7.02 18.72 79% 181.451 11.85 7.11 18.96 80% 183.74 12.00 7.20 19.20 81 % 186.04 12.15 7.29 19.44 82% 188.34 12.30 7.38 19.68 83% 190.63 12.45 7.47 19.92 84%1 192.93 12.601 7.56 20.16 85% 195.23 12.75 7.65 20.40 86% 197.52 12.90 7.74 20.64 87% 199.82 13.05 7.83 20.88 88% 202.12 13.20 7.92 21.12 89% 204.42 13.35 8.01 21.36 90°/ 206.71 13.501 8.10 21.60 91 % 209.01 13.65 8.19 21.84 92% 211.31 13.80 8.28 22.08 93% 213.60 13.95 8.37 22.32 94% 215.90 14.10 8.46 22.56 95% 218.20 14.25 8.55 22.80 96% 220.49 14.401 8.64 23.04 97% 222.79 14.55 8.73 23.28 98% 225.09 14.70 8.82 23.52 99% 227.38 14.85 8.911�54.00 3.76 100°/ 229.68 15.00 9.00 Hngiers Urossmy GTC #05-246 19 New Units Net New Trip Distribution % & Associated Trip Assignments PM Version % New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In I Out 11 Total 100% 182 121 711 19 1 % r1.82 0.12 0.07 0.19 2% 3.64 0.24 0.14 0.38 3% 5.46 0.36 0.21 0.57 4% 7.28 0.48 0.28 0.76 5% 9.10 0.60 0.35 0.95 6% 10.921 0.72 0.42 1.14 7% 12.741 0.84 0.49 1.33 8% 14.561 0.96 0.56 1.52 9% 16.38 1.08 0.63 1.71 10% 18.20 1.20 0.70 1.90 11 % 20.02 1.32 0.77 2.09 12% 21.84 1.44 0.84 2.28 13% 23.66 1.56 0.91 2.47 14% 25.481 1.68 0.98 2.66 15% 27.30 1.80 1.05 2.85 16% 29.12 1.92 1.12 3.04 17% 30.94 2.04 1.19 3.23 18% 32.76 2.16 1.26 3.42 19% 34.58 2.28 1.33 3.61 20% 36.40 2.40 1.40 3.80 21 % 38.22 2.52 1.47 3.99 22% 40.04 2.64 1.54 4.18 23% 41.86 2.76 1.61 4.37 240/. 43.68 2.88 1.68 4.56 25°/ 45.50 3.00 1.75 4.75 26% 47.32 3.12 1.82 4.94 27% 49.14 3.24 1.89 5.13 28% 50.96 3.36 1.96 5.32 29% 52.78 3.48 2.03 5.51 30% 54.60 3.60 2.10 5.70 31 % 56.42 3.72 2.17 5.89 32% 58.24 3.84 2.24 6.08 33% 60.06 3.96 2.31 6.27 34% 61.88 4.08 2.38 6.46 35% 63.70 4.20 2.45 6.65 36% 65.52 4.32 2.52 6.84 37% 67.34 4.44 2.59 7.03 38% 69.16 4.56 2.66 7.22 39% 70.98 4.68 2.73 7.41 40% 72.80 4.80 2.80 7.60 41 % 74.62 4.92 2.87 7.79 42% 76.44 5.04 2.94 7.98 43% 78.26 5.16 3.01 8.17 44% 80.08 5.28 3.08 8.36 45% 81.90 5.40 3.15 8.55 46% 83.72 5.52 3.22 8.74 47% 85.54 5.64 3.29 8.93 48% 87.36 5.76 3.36 9.12 49% 89.18 5.88 3.43 9.31 50°/ 91.001 6.00 3.50 9.50 New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total 100%1 1821 121 711 19 51 % 92.82 6.121 3.57 9.69 52% 94.64 6.24 3.64 9.88 53% 96.46 6.36 3.71 10.07 54% 98.28 6.48 3.78 10.26 55% 100.10 6.60 3.85 10.45 56% 101.92 6.72 3.92 10.64 57% 103.74 6.841 3.99 10.83 58% 105.56 6.96 4.06 11.02 59% 107.38 7.08 4.13 11.21 60% 109.20 7.20 4.20 11.40 61%1 111.02 7.32 4.27 11.59 62% 112.84 7.44 4.34 11.78 63% 114.66 7.56 4.41 11.97 64% 116.48 7.68 4.48 12.16 65% 118.30 7.80 4.55 12.35 66% 120.12 7.92 4.62 12.54 67% 121.94 8.04 4.69 12.73 68% 123.76 8.16 4.76 12.92 69% 125.58 8.28 4.83 13.11 70% 127.40 8.40 4.90 13.30 71 % 129.22 8.52 4.97 13.49 72% 131.04 8.64 5.04 13.68 73% 132.86 8.761 5.11 13.87 74% 134.68 8.88 5.18 14.06 75% 136.50 9.00 5.25 14.25 76% 138.32 9.12 5.32 14.44 77% 140.14 9.24 5.39 14.63 78% 141.96 9.36 5.46 14.82 79% 143.78 9.481 5.53 15.01 80% 145.60 9.60 5.60 15.20 81 % 147.42 9.72 5.67 15.39 82% 149.24 9.84 5.74 15.58 83% 151.06 9.96 5.81 15.77 84% 152.88 10.08 5.88 15.96 85% 154.70 10.201 5.95 16.15 86% 156.52 10.32 6.02 16.34 87% 158.34 10.44 6.09 16.53 88% 160.16 10.56 6.16 16.72 89% 161.98 10.68 6.23 16.91 90% 163.80 10.80 6.30 17.10 91 % 165.62 10,921 6.37 17.29 92% 167.44 11.04 6.44 17.48 93% 169.26 11.16 6.51 17.67 94% 171.08 11.28 6.58 17.86 95% 172.90 11.40 6.65 18.05 96% 174.72 11.52 6.72 18.24 97% 176.541 11.641 6.79 18.43 98% 178.36 11.76 6.86 18.62 99% 180.18 11.88 6.93 18.81 100°/ 182.00 12.00 7.00 19.00 m Anglers Crossing GTC #05-246 Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM (a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak Hour NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS TOTAL PASS -BY DIVERTED NEW PASS -BY DIVERTED NEW Gross Trips Internal Crossover LINK LINK ITE % of Trips p % of % of Trip % % In+Out In+Out In+Out In+Out In+Out LAND USES VARIABLE LU Gross In+Out Ext. Ext. In Out In Out In Out Rate IN OUT (Total) (Total) (Total) (Total) (Total) code Trips (Total) Trips Trips Single -Family 27 units 210 0.75 25% 75% 20 0% 0 20 0% 0 0% 0 20 0 0 0 0 5 15 Single -Family -3 units 210 0.75 25% 75% -2 0% 0 -2 0% 0 0% 0 -2 0 0 0 0 1 1 Totals 18 0 18 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 4 14 1 80th AVe W @ 184th St SW Page 1 of 3 SynchroID: 1 Existing Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Year: 10/6105 45 Data Source: ATD 88 PHF 0.86 43 0 b 32 b Future without Project Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Year: 2012 52 Growth Rate = 2.0% Years of Growth = 7 102 Total Growth = 1.1487 13 50 0 b 37 b Total Project Trips Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Future with Project Average Weekday PM Peak Hour 104 140 52 1b 371b --7 71 133 62 13 1 58 1 0 cz a b 80th Ave W 184th St SW F 197 Access 80th Ave W a Q 41 32 1 51 0 r 90 173 1 83 82 154 72 15 1 67 1 0 t2 b b 80th Ave W 184th St SW 228 Access 80th Ave W a Q 0 37 1- 59 10 104 200 96 r 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 b b 80th Ave W 184th St SW Access 80th Ave W 0 1 0 1 3 1 4 1 3 82 156 74 15 1 67 1 0 t2 a b 80th Ave W 184th St SW F235 Access 80th Ave W a 4 37 1 59 1 3 105 204 1 99 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 T 0 North I 0 a 0 a 0 0 �? 0 T 0 North I 0 R 1 ca 0 2 1 T 6 North I 4 Q 1 a 0 2 � 1 T 6 North I 4 I 3 ON D @ Future Access Page 3 of 3 SynchroID: 3 Existing 324 564 240 Average Weekday 0 1 324 1 0 PM Peak Hour a b Year: 10/6/05 Data Source: ATD PHF 0.92 0 0 Future Access o � 0 o b Olympic View Dr 564 --- 0 b Olympic View Dr a Q z� 0 1 240 1 0 324 564 240 a 0 a 0 0 t2 0 T 0 North I 0 Future without Project 372 1 648 276 Average Weekday 0 1 372 1 0 PM Peak Hour b Olympic View Dr a 0 Year: 2012 0 a 0 Growth Rate = 2.0% t2 EOO Years of Growth = 7 0 Future Access 648 --- 0 Total Growth = 1.1487 0 0 o b 0 0 b Olympic View Dr a 4 a F 0 1 276 1 0 372 648 276 F- Total Project Trips I 3 6 3 Average Weekday II 2 1 1 1 0 PM Peak Hour t2 b b Olympic View Dr Q 0 12 a EOO 0 t2 21 Future Access 22 --- 0 s o b 0 6 b Olympic View Dr 10 0 0 7 17 1 10 Future with Project I 375 654 279 Average Weekday JI 2 1 373 1 0 PM Peak Hour 0 b Olympic View Dr 12 21 Future Access 670 - 3 9 0 � 6 b Olympic View Dr a Q 10 276 0 379 665 1 286 T North I T North I a 0 a 0 0 r2 0 T 0 North I 0 M H:\2005\05-246\Update 12G- j6\Synchro\Existing.sy7 2: 180th St SW & Olympic View Dr Anglers Crossing (05-246) ~'* "' I * Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 T+ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 2 55 66 174 269 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 60 72 189 292 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 626 293 295 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 626 293 295 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 92 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 423 746 1267 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 62 261 295 Volume Left 2 72 0 Volume Right 60 0 2 cSH 726 1267 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.06 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 4 0 Control Delay (s) 10.4 2.6 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.4 2.6 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 GTC (MJP) Existing Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. N H:\2005\05-246\Update 120, -6\Synchro\Base1ine.sy7 2: 180th St SW & Olympic View Dr Anglers Crossing (05-246) -,* --* *\ t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y *T T Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 2 63 76 200 309 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 68 83 217 336 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 720 337 338 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 720 337 338 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 90 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 368 705 1221 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SIB 1 Volume Total 71 300 338 Volume Left 2 83 0 Volume Right 68 0 2 cSH 686 1221 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.07 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 5 0 Control Delay (s) 10.9 2.7 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.9 2.7 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 GTC (MJP) Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Baseline 2012 H:\2005\05-246\Update 120,-,6\Synchro\FutureW.sy7 2: 180th St SW & Olympic View Dr Anglers Crossing (05-246) -,* 4\ * I Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y +T T Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 2 65 76 202 311 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 71 83 220 338 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 724 339 340 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 724 339 340 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 90 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 366 703 1219 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 73 302 340 Volume Left 2 83 0 Volume Right 71 0 2 cS H 684 1219 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.07 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 5 0 Control Delay (s) 10.9 2.7 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.9 2.7 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 GTC (MJP) Future With 2012 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. E Peak Hour Summary o Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 80th Ave W & 184th St SW 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Thursday, October 06, 2005 Q 00 71 62 13 58 {c y 984th St SW 45 A' 3F S 11 X 43 32 N R T 32 51 90 83S N Q w O O Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.77 0.0% 43 WB 0.00 0.0% 0 NB 0.80 1.2% 83 SB 0.77 0.0% 71 Intersection 0.86 0.5% 197 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM w Peak Hour Summary Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 Olympic View Dr & 180th St SW 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Thursday, October 06, 2005 L 3 a� U 271 176 O 2 269 � y 180th St SW 6s ,v �r r_ 57 55 �► R T 66 174 0 324 240 3 a j U O Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.79 5.3% 57 WB 0.00 0.0% 0 NB 0.97 0.4% 240 SB 0.86 2.6% 271 Intersection 0.92 1.9% 568 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Metric US Customary Approach Design speed km/h) Approach Design speed mph grade grade (%) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110 120 130 (%) 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 -6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1A 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 -6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 -5 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 -5 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 -4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 -4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 -3 to + 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -3 to + 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 +4 1.01.01.01.00.90.90.90.90.90.90.9 0.9 +4 1.01.01.01.01.00.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.9 +5 1.01.01.00.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.9 0.9 +5 1.01.01.00.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.9 +6 1.01.00.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.9 0.9 +6 1.01.00.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.90.9 Note: Based on ratio of stopping sight distance on specified approach grade to stopping sight distance on level terrain. Exhibit 9-53. Adjustment Factors for Sight Distance Based on Approach Grade GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON L&A Job No. 5A108 Date: September 12, 2005 Prepared for: The McNaughton Group P. O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared By: Liu & Associates, Inc. 19213 Kenlake Place NE Kenmore, Washington 98028 Exhibit Files KIn p_n9_1Ia R. pan_nr,_1-z7 LIU • ASSOCIATES, Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology Earth Science September 12, 2005 Mr. Andy Reaves The McNaughton Group P. O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Reaves: Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Park Property 183xx Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington L&A Job No. 5A108 INTRODUCTION We have completed a geotechnical engineering study for the subject plat site, located the above address in Edmonds, Washington. The general location of the subject site is shown on Plate l — Vicinity Map. We understand that the proposed development for the site is to plat it into 26 single-family residential building lots with supporting infrastructure. The purpose of this study is to characterize the subsurface conditions of the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for grading, slope stabilization, erosion mitigation, surface and ground water drainage control, foundation design and construction, etc., for the proposed development of the site. Presented in this report are our findings and recommendations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION For our use in this study, you provided us with a plat plan of the proposed development of the site. According to this plan, the project will include 26 single-family residential building lots, roadways, stormwater detention and drainage facilities, and underground utilities. We understand that grading for roadways and building lots of the proposed development will require 19213 Kenlake Place NE • Kenmore, Washington 98028 Phone (425) 483-9134 • Fax (425) 486-2746 September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 2 cutting down the high ground over the southern pan -handle area and filling up the central and northeastern gully areas. The depth of cut and fill may be up to 10 to 15 feet. A stormwater detention vault will be constructed in the northeast corner area of the site. SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of services for this study comprises specifically the following: 1 Review the geologic and soil conditions at the site based on a published geologic map. 2. Explore the site for subsurface conditions with backhoe test pits to a firm bearing soil stratum or to the maximum depth (about 12 feet) capable of by the backhoe used in excavating the test pits, whichever occurs first. 3. Perform necessary geotechnical analyses, and provide geotechnical recommendations for site grading, slope stabilization, erosion mitigation, surface and ground water drainage control, and foundation design and construction, based on subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits and results of our geotechnical analyses. 4. Prepare a written report to present our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is an irregularly -shaped tract of land, bounded by Olympic View Drive to the east and 80"' Avenue West to the west, and is adjoined by residential developments to the north and south. It is situated on the eastern fringe of a broad, northerly trending plateau surrounded by steep slopes to its north and east. Traversing the middle of the southern panhandle of the site is a narrow, gentle to nearly -level, ridge top trending down steeply northeasterly. This ridge top is Ranked by an easterly -descending steep slope to its east and a northerly trending steep gully to its west. Occupying about the southern half of the western panhandle of the site is a gentle high September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 3 bench bordered by a steep, northeasterly -trending, steep gully to its north. The ridge top and high bench areas are very -gently sloped to almost level, the gully banks are up to 83% grade and the eastern steep slope is up to 134% grade. The site is currently occupied by three single-family residences over its northern half. We understand that these residences will be demolished for the proposed development of the site. The areas immediately surrounding the existing residences are cleared and landscaped. The remaining area of the site is heavily wooded with dense underbrush. GEOLOGIC SETTING The Geologic Map of the Eastern Half and Part of the Western Half Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard, published by U. S. Geological Survey in 1983, was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions of the lot. According to this publication, the surficial soil units at and in the vicinity of the lot are mapped as Vashon Till (Qvt) underlain by Advance Outwash (Qva). The geology of the Puget Sound Lowland has been modified by the advance and retreat of several glaciers in the past and subsequent deposits and erosion. The latest glacier advanced to the Puget Sound Lowland is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, which has occurred during the later stages of the Pleistocene Epoch and retreated from the region some 14,500 years ago. The Vashon till soil unit is deposited directly by glacial ice during the most recent glacial period as it advanced over an eroded, irregular surface of older formations and sediments. It is a very dense mixture of unsorted clay, silt, sand, gravel, and scattered cobbles and boulders, often referred to as "hard pan". The Vashon till over the top two to four feet is normally weathered to a September 12, 2005 Part: Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 4 medium -dense state, and is moderately permeable and compressible. The underlying fresh till is very dense and is practically impervious to stormwater infiltration. The fresh till has the strength of low-grade concrete and can stand in a steep natural or cut slope for a long period. If remains undisturbed and well -drained, the fresh till can provide excellent foundation support with little settlement expected. The advance outwash soil unit underlying the Vashon till is composed of stratified sand and gravel with minor amounts of silt and clay, deposited by the meltwater of advancing glacial ice. Due to its generally granular composition, the advance outwash is of moderate permeability and generally drains well. The advance outwash is glacially overridden and is generally dense to very dense in its natural, undisturbed state, except the top 3 to 5 feet where exposed on slopes which may be eroded and weathered to a loose to medium -dense state. The advance outwash deposits can stand in steep cuts or natural slopes for extended period of time when undisturbed. Where exposed on slopes of poor vegetation cover and subjected to storm runoff, the advance outwash deposits can be gradually eroded and may slough to a flatter inclination. The advance outwash deposits in their native, undisturbed state can provide very good foundation support with little settlement expected for light to moderate residential structures. SOIL CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions of the site were explored with eight test pits spread throughout the site. The test pits were excavated on August 8, 2005, with a track -mounted backhoe to depths from 6.5 to 11.2 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Plate 2 - Site and Exploration Location Plan. The test pits were located with either a tape measure or by visual reference to existing topographic features in the field and on the topographic survey map, and their locations should be considered only accurate to the measuring method used. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 5 A geoteehnical engineer from our office was present during subsurface exploration, who examined the soil and geologic conditions encountered and completed logs of test pits. Soil samples obtained from each soil unit in the test pits were visually classified in general accordance with United Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented on Plate 3. Detailed descriptions of soils encountered during site exploration are presented in test pit logs on Plates 4 through 7. The site is generally mantled by a layer of loose, organic topsoil, which is underlain by a layer of light -brown to light -gray weathered soils of loose to medium -dense, silty to clean, fine to medium sand, except that the topsoil in the northeastern area of the site appeared to have been stripped, exposing the weathered soils. The topsoil generally varies from 1.0 to 2.8 feet thick, while the weathered soil layer from about 2.0 to 5.0 feet thick. The layer of weathered soils is mostly underlain by a light -gray to light -brown advance outwash deposit of medium -dense to dense, mostly clean and occasionally slightly silty, fine to medium sand, with a trace to some gravel, to the depth explored. Occasionally over the high ground areas a layer of light -brown to light -gray glacial drift of dense to very -dense, weakly -cemented, gravelly, silty, fine to medium sand was found, as encountered by Test Pits 5 and 7, sandwiched between the layer of weathered soils and the advance outwash deposit. This glacial drift deposit, about 3.0 feet thick, is till -like but not as packed as glacial till. GROUNDWATER CONDITION Groundwater was encountered by only one (Test Pit 3) of the eight test pits excavated on the site. Test Pits 3, excavated near the northeast corner of the site, encountered a static groundwater table at 6.0 feet below the existing ground surface. This groundwater appeared to be groundwater perched over an impervious silty and clay deposit underlying the advance outwash deposit. The September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 6 groundwater table would rise and fall seasonally within the advance outwash deposit, depending on precipitation, surface runoff, ground vegetation cover, site utilization, and other factors. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on the soil conditions encountered from our subsurface explorations, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development from the geotechnical engineering viewpoint, provided that the recommendations in this report are fully implemented and observed during and following construction of the proposed development of the site. Due to the sensitive nature of the steep slopes within the site, we recommend that the grading and foundation construction work proceed and be completed during the dryer period from April 1 through October 31 of the year. Erosion protection measures should be in place and the site should be stabilized outside of this diy grading period. The topsoil and unsuitable loose weathered soils in the root zone should be completely stripped within the roadways, the building pads and in areas where the subgrade soils are to support structural or traffic load. The underlying fresh glacial drift and advance outwash soils are dense to very -dense, and are capable of providing adequate foundation support to the proposed roadways and buildings. Conventional footing foundations placed on or into the underlying dense to very -dense glacial drift soils or the dense advance outwash soils, or on structural fill constructed over these competent basal soils may be used for supporting the houses to be constructed on the site. Structural fill, if required for site grading, should be placed on proof -rolled, unyielding; undisturbed, dense to very -dense glacial drift and advance outwash soils following the stripping of the surficial unsuitable soils. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 7 The on -site topsoil and weathered till soils contain a high percentage of fines, and are sensitive to moisture. They can also be saturated quickly and disturbed easily during extended periods of heavy rainstorms. Curtain drains or ditches may be installed along the upslope boundaries of the site, as required, to intercept and drain surface runoff and near -surface perched groundwater flow away from construction areas and to minimize soil erosion and to facilitate grading and construction work. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Landslide Hazard The dense to very -dense glacial drift and the dense advance outwash soils underlying the site at shallow depths are of moderately high to high shear strength and have good to excellent resistance against slope failures. These competent soils should make it unlikely for deep-seated landslides to occur on the site. Erosion Hazard The surficial topsoil and loose weathered soils are of low resistance against erosion. These weak surficial soils exposed on the steeper portions of the site void of vegetation cover can be eroded easily if overly saturated. Soil erosion can result in slope failures. To mitigate such potential, the vegetation cover outside of construction limits should not be disturbed and unpaved finished ground within the site should be landscaped and re -vegetated as soon as possible. Concentrated stormwater should not be discharged onto the ground anywhere within the site. Stormwater over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and roadways, should be captured by underground drain line systems or catch basins and tightlined to discharge into a storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility. Yard waste and spoil soils should not be disposed of onto the steep slopes within the site. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 8 Seismic Hazard and Design Considerations The Puget Sound region is in an active seismic zone. The site is underlain at shallow depth by dense to very -dense glacial drift and dense advance outwash soils of moderately high to high shear strength. Most of the site is lack of groundwater at shallow depth. The combination of the above make it rather unlikely for seismic hazards, such as liquefaction or soil lateral spreading, to occur on the site during strong earthquakes. Therefore, the seismic hazard should be minimal for the site. The residential buildings to be constructed on the site, however, should be designed to withstand seismic forces induced by strong earthquakes. Based on the soil conditions encountered by the test pits, it is our opinion that Seismic Use Group I and Site Class D should be used in the seismic design of the proposed residences in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code (IBC). SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL GRADING The existing structures on the site to be demolished should also have their foundations completely removed. The vegetation within construction limits should be cleared and their roots thoroughly grubbed. Topsoil and loose weathered soils should be stripped within the roadways, building pads and in areas where structural fill is to be placed. The exposed soils after the above stripping and removal should be compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory roller compactor and proof -rolled with a fully loaded dump truck or water truck. During construction, storm runoff should be intercepted with ditches or curtain drains, as required, and conveyed into temporary storage and settling ponds to minimize soil erosion and to facilitate site grading work. The on -site surficial soils contain a high percentage of fines and are sensitive to moisture. A layer of clean quarry spalls placed over excavated areas and areas of frequent traffic may be required to protect the subgrade soils from disturbance by construction traffic. Silt fences should be erected along the downslope boundaries of the site to prevent sediments being transported September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 9 onto adjoining properties or the streets by storm runoff. The bottom of filter fabric of the silt fence should be anchored in a trench filled with gravel. EXCAVATION AND FILL SLOPES Under no circumstance should excavation slopes be steeper than the limits specified by local, state and federal safety regulations if workers have to perform construction work in excavated areas. Unsupported temporary cuts greater than 4 feet in height should be no steeper than IH:1 V in the surficial topsoil and weathered soils and, and no steeper than 1 /2H:1 V in the light -brown to light -gray very -dense glacial drift soils or the light -gray to gray dense advance outwash soils. Permanent cut banks should be no steeper than 2H:1 V in the weathered soils and no steeper than 1-1 /2H:1 V in the underlying dense to very -dense glacial drift or the dense advance outwash soils. The soil units and the stability of cut banks should be verified by a geotechnical engineer during excavation. Permanent fill embankments required to support structural or traffic load should be constructed with compacted structural fill placed over undisturbed, proof -rolled, firm, native till or outwash soils after the surficial unsuitable soils are completely stripped. Permanent fill to be placed over slopes steeper than 20 percent grade should be retained structurally. The exposed ground exceeding 20 percent grade should be benched with vertical steps not exceeding 4 feet tall prior to placing structural fill. The slope of permanent fill embankments should be no steeper than 2H:IV. Upon completion, the sloping face of permanent fill embankments should be thoroughly compacted to a non -yielding state with a hoe -pack. The above recommended cut and fill slopes are under the assumption that groundwater seepage is not to be encountered during construction. If groundwater seepage is encountered, the construction should be immediately halted and the slope stability re-evaluated. The slopes may September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 10 have to be flattened and other measures taken to stabilize the slopes. Surface runoff should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of cut or fill slopes. Permanent cut slopes or fill embankments should be vegetated as soon as possible for long-term stability, and should be covered with plastic sheets, as required, to provide erosion protection from stormwater until the vegetation is fully established. STRUCTURAL FILL Structural fill is the fill that supports structural or traffic load. Structural fill should consist of clean soils with particles not larger than four inches and should be free of organic and other deleterious substances. Structural fill should have a moisture content within one percent of its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. The optimum moisture content is the water content in the soil that enable the soil to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. The on -site clean advance outwash deposit of gravelly fine to coarse sand is suitable for use as structural, while the clean silty sand soils may be used for structural fill only under fair weather conditions when their moisture content can be controlled to near optimum moisture content at the time of placement. Imported material to be used as structural fill, should be clean, free -draining, granular soils containing no more than 5 percent by weight finer than the No. 200 sieve based on the fraction of the material passing No. 4 sieve, and should have individual particles not larger than four inches. The ground over which structural fill is to be placed should be prepared in accordance with recommendations in the SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL GRADING and EXCAVATION AND FILL SLOPES sections of this report. Structural fill should be placed in lifts no more than 10 inches thick in its loose state, with each lift compacted to a minimum percentage of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor Method) as follows: September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 11 Application Within building pads of the building lots Roadway/driveway subgrade Retaining wall backfill Utility trench backfill STORMWATER DETENTION VAULT % of Maximum Dry Density 95% 95% for top 3 feet and 90% below 90% 95% for top 4 feet and 90% below A concrete, below -grade vault is to be constructed in a low-lying area at the northeast corner of the site to store on -site stormwater. Test Pit 3, closest to the vault site, encountered a dense advance outwash deposit of fine to coarse sand at about 2 feet and a groundwater table at about 6 feet below existing grade. Dewatering will be required if the vault is to be buried more than 5 to 6 feet deep. Dewatering wells around the perimeter of the vault should be installed to draw down groundwater table for the construction of the vault. Due to potential high groundwater in the area of the detention vault, concrete construction joints between footing foundations and wall stems should be sealed with water -stops to prevent groundwater from seeping into the vault through the joints. Footing foundations of the vault will be seated into the light -gray, dense advance outwash soils, and an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 psf may be used for the design of the vault footing foundations. A layer of 2-inch-minus crushed rock should be placed over the footing bearing soils, as required, to provide a dry working surface and to protect the soils from disturbance by construction traffic. A drain line consisting of perforated, rigid PVC, drain pipe or slotted, corrugated ADS, drain pipe, at least 6 inches in diameter, should be installed at a few inches below bottom of the perimeter footings of the vault walls to intercept and drain away groundwater which may flow towards the vault. The drain line should be sloped at one-half percent minimum to generate flow by gravity, and water collected in the drain line should be tightlined to discharge into a storm September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 12 sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility. The drain line should be completely embedded in washed gravel wrapped in a layer of non -woven filter fabric, such as 140N by Mirafi Inc. or approved equal. A vertical drainage blanket at least 12 inches thick, consisting of compacted pea gravel or washed gravel, should be placed against the perimeter vault walls. Alternatively, a vertical drain mat, such as Miradrain 6000 by Mirafi Inc. or equivalent, may be placed against the perimeter vault walls as the vertical drainage blanket. The vertical drainage blanket or drain mat should be hydraulically connected to the drain line at the base of the perimeter walls. Sufficient number of cleanouts at strategic locations should be installed for periodical cleaning of the vault wall drain line to prevent clogging. The perimeter walls of the detention vault will also serve as retaining walls to support cut banks and backfill. The perimeter walls of the vault capped with a lid would be restrained at their top from horizontal movement and should be designed for at -rest lateral soil pressure. For the condition that groundwater behind the perimeter vault walls can be fully drained by the drain line provided at the base of the walls, we recommend an at -rest soil pressure of 50 pcf equivalent fluid density (EFD) be used for the design of vault perimeter walls. To counter the at -rest, a passive lateral soil pressure of 400 pcf EFD may be used, except that the passive pressure within the top 12 inches of the finish subgrade should be ignored. The at -rest soil pressure may also be resisted by the friction force between the footings and the subgrade soils based on a coefficient of friction of 0.60. If the site grade is such that it is not feasible to completely drain groundwater behind the vault walls with a gravity drain line system, the hydrostatic pressure on the perimeter vault walls should also be taken into consideration for the design of the vault perimeter walls. For the condition that a perimeter drain line has to be placed higher than the footing level, the perimeter vault walls should be designed for a lateral soils pressure of 50 pcf EFD above the drain line September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 13 level and a combined lateral soil and hydrostatic pressure of 80 pcf EFD below the drain line level. The above lateral pressures on the walls may be countered by a passive soil pressure of 400 pcf EFD above the drain line and 225 pcf EFD. The detention vault should also be designed for seismic loading based on a 100-year seismic event. For seismic design of the detention vault walls, a pseudo static soil pressure diagram of inverted triangle from the ground level to the bottom of the foundations should be used. Based on the soil condition encountered by Test pit 3, we recommend the pressure at the top of the triangle be 7H psf for a 100-year seismic event, where H is the height from ground surface to bottom of vault walls in feet. A one-third increase in the above recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be used when considering the seismic loading condition. The above design parameters are unfactored ultimate values. Proper factors of safety should be applied for the design of the vault walls against sliding and overturning failures. GROUNDWATER PICKUP INTO DETENTION VAULT Groundwater is not encountered in any test pits, except Test Pit 3 located in the low-lying, northeast corner area of the site. If water -stops are used in concrete construction joints of the detention vault, groundwater pickup by the vault may not be considered in the design of the vault capacity. The site is mostly underlain by sand -dominated advance outwash soils of moderately high permeability which would allow stormwater to seep into the ground easily. It is unlikely that there will be groundwater intercepted by and flowing in the footing drains of the houses to be constructed on the site. Therefore, it is our opinion that pickup of water from house footing drains by the detention vault needs not to be considered for the design of the capacity of the vault. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 14 BUILDING SETBACK The purpose of building setback from the top or toe or an overly steep portion of a slope is to establish a safe buffer such that if a slope failure should occur the stability of the structure can be maintained and damages to the structure minimized. To maintain stability of the houses to be construction on the site, we recommend that it be set back at least 20 feet from the crest of slopes of 40% or steeper grade. The horizontal distance from the edge of footing foundations to the face of the steep slope should be at least 25 feet. Also, the footing foundations should be embedded at least one foot into the dense to very -dense glacial drift or dense advance outwash soils. The footprint bearing soils should be verified by a geotechnical engineer after the excavation of the building footprints are completed. BUILDING FOUNDATIONS Conventional footing foundations may be used for supporting the buildings to be constructed on the site. The footing foundations should be placed on or into undisturbed, dense to very -dense glacial drift soils or dense advance outwash soils, or on compacted structural fill constructed over these competent basal soils. Water should not be allowed to accumulate in excavated footing trenches. Disturbed soils in footing trenches should be completely removed or thoroughly re - compacted prior to pouring concrete for the footings. If the above recommendations are followed, our recommended design criteria for footing foundations are as follows: Allowable soil bearing pressure, including dead and live loads, should be no greater than 3,000 psf for footings constructed on or into the dense to very -dense glacial drift soils or dense advance outwash soils, and no more than 2,500 psf on structural fill constructed over these competent basal soils. The footing bearing soils should be verified on -site by a September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 15 geotechnical engineer after the footing trenches have been excavated and before the footings are poured. • The minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footings below adjacent final exterior grade Should be no less than 18 inches. The minimum depth to bottom of the interior footings below top of floor slab should be no less than 12 inches. The minimum width should be no less than 16 inches for continuous footings, and no less than 24 inches for individual footings. A one-third increase in the above recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term, transitory, wind or seismic loads. For footing foundations designed and constructed per recommendations above, we estimate that the maximum total post - construction settlement of the buildings should be 3/4 inch or less and the differential settlement across building width should be 1/2 inch or less. Lateral loads on buildings can be resisted by the friction force between the foundations and the subgrade soils or the passive earth pressure acting on the below -grade portion of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against undisturbed soils or backfilled with a clean, free -draining, compacted structural fill. We recommend that an equivalent fluid density (EFD) of 350 pef (pounds per cubic foot) for the passive earth pressure be used for lateral resistance. The above passive pressure assumes that the backfill is level or inclines upward behind the foundations for a horizontal distance at least twice the depth of the foundations below final grade. A coefficient of friction of 0.60 between the foundations and the subgrade soils may be used. These are unfactored values, and a proper factor of safety should be used in calculating the resisting forces against lateral loads on the buildings. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A 108 Page 16 SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS Slab -on -grade floors, if used, should be placed on firm subgrade prepared as outlined in the SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK and the STRUCTURAL FILL sections of this report. Where moisture control is critical, the slab -on -grade floors should be placed on a capillary break which is in turn placed on the compacted subgrade. The capillary break_ should consist of a minimum four -inch -thick layer of free -draining gravel or crushed rock containing no more than 5% by weight passing the No. 4 sieve. We recommend that a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, be placed over the capillary break to keep moisture from migrating upwards. ROADWAY PAVEMENT Performance of roadway pavement is critically related to the conditions of the underlying subgrade. We recommend that the subgrade soils within the roadways be treated and prepared as described in the SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK section of this report. Prior to placing base material, the subgrade soils should be compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory roller compactor and proof -rolled with a piece of heavy construction equipment, such as a fully -loaded dump truck. Any areas with excessive weaving or deflection should be over -excavated and re -compacted or replaced with a structural fill or crushed rock placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in the STRUCTURAL FILL section of this report. We recommend that an 6-inch-thick minimum, compacted, crushed rock base (CRB), consisting of 7/8-inch-minus crushed rock, be used for the roadways. Such crushed rock base may replaced with a 2-to-3-inch layer of leveling course of 7/8-inch-minus crushed rock_ if the roadway is based on cuts into undisturbed, native, dense to very -dense glacial drift soils or dense advance outwash soils. The crushed rock or subgrade base should be topped with 3-inch asphalt treated base (ATB) topped by 2-inch-thick Class B asphalt concrete (AC). September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 17 SITE DRAINAGE Infiltration Trenches The site is mostly underlain by sand -dominated advance outwash deposit of moderately high permeability. Infiltration trenches may, therefore, be used for on -site stonriwater disposal except in the low-lying northeast corner of the site where high winter groundwater table may prohibit the use of infiltration trenches. Infiltration trenches, if used, should be set back at least 15 feet from the crests of steep slopes of 40% grade or steeper. We estimate that the permeability of the advance outwash deposit underlying the site would be at least 30 iph (inches per hour). The actual in -situ infiltration rate of infiltration trenches may be affected by sediment of fine-grained soils, deep plant roots, etc. To account for the influence by these factors, we recommend a design infiltration rate of 7.5 iph be used, which should have a factor of at least 4, for the design of infiltration trenches. Our recommendations for the construction of the infiltration trenches are shown on Plate 8. The bottom of the infiltration trenches should be excavated at least 6 inches into the clean, free - draining advance outwash deposit. In areas where a layer of glacial drift exists, the trenches should be excavated through this glacial drift layer and into the underlying advance outwash deposit. The soils at the bottom of trenches should be verified by a geotechnical engineer during trench excavation. If fine-grained soils are encountered at the bottom of the trenches, they should be over -excavated, thoroughly removed and replaced with free -draining sand, pea gravel or washed gravel. The sides of the trenches should be lined with a layer of non -woven filter fabric. The trenches should be backfilled with clean, free -draining, pea gravel or 1-inch-minus washed gravel to within about 12 inches of finished grade. Perforated PVC pipes of 6-inch diameter minimum, through which storrnwater is to be dispersed into the ground, should be placed level in the trenches and completely embedded in the gravel fill. The perforated PVC pipes should have at least 18 inches of gravel/soil cover to prevent freezing of water in the pipes. The top of the gravel fill should also be covered by the non -woven filter fabric liner. The top 12 inches of the September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 18 trenches may then be backfilled with on -site clean soils to the finish grade. Sufficient numbers of cleanouts at strategic locations should be installed to provide maintenance and periodical cleaning of the perforated PVC pipes to prevent clogging. Site and Roadway Grading The on -site fine-grained surficial soils are of moderately low permeability. The surficial soil can be saturated quickly and heavy runoff and near -surface groundwater may be encountered during periods of heavy rain. To minimize potential difficulties for site grading work due to storm runoff and groundwater seepage during construction, one or more lines of ditches or curtain drains may be installed, as required, to intercept storm runoff and near -surface groundwater flow. Water thus collected should be direct into a temporary storage and settling pond before being released into a suitable stormwater disposal facility. Excavation of Building Footprints and Detention Vault Excavation of building footprints or detention vault, if encountering groundwater, should have the bottom of excavation sloped and ditches excavated along the bases of cut banks to direct groundwater seepage to flow into a sump pit from which water can be pumped out of the pit into a temporary storage and settling pond. A layer of 2-inch crushed rocks should be placed over firm subgrade soils under footings, as required, to protect the soils from disturbance by construction equipment and foot traffic. This crushed rock base should be built to a few inches above groundwater level, but not less than 6 inches thick. The crush rock base should be compacted in 12-inch lifts to a non -yielding state with a vibratory mechanical compactor. Runoff over Impervious Surfaces Storm runoff over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and roadway pavement, should be collected by underground drain line systems connected to downspouts and by catch basins. Stormwater September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 19 thus collected should be tightlined to discharge into a storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility Building Footing Drains A subdrain should be installed around the perimeter footings of each building to be constructed on the building lots to minimize accumulation of groundwater under the buildings. The subdrains should consist of a 4-inch-minimum-diameter, perforated, rigid, drain pipe, laid a few inches below the bottom of perimeter footings. The trenches and the drain lines should have a sufficient gradient to generate flow by gravity. The drain lines should be embedded in washed gravel completely wrapped in non -woven filter fabric to within about 12 inches of finish grade. The remaining trench may be backfilled with on -site impervious soils. Water collected by the perimeter footing subdrains should be tightlined, separately from the roof and surface stormwater drain systems, to discharge into a storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility. Sufficient number of cleanouts at strategic locations should be provided for the underground drain line systems. The underground drain line systems should be maintained periodically to prevent clogging. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the specific application to the subject project for the exclusive use by the McNaughton Group, and their associates, consultants and representatives. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the prospective contractors for their estimating and bidding purposes. The conclusions and interpretations in this report, however, should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The scope of this study does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 20 contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in this report for design considerations. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on soil conditions encountered in the test pits, our engineering analyses, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction may vary from those encountered in the test pits. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction starts. If variations occur then, we should be retained to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report, and to verify or modify them in writing prior to further construction. CLOSURE We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. Please feel free to call us if you have any questions regarding this report or need further consultation. EXPIRES 7 / 7 / Eight plates attached Yours very truly, LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. J. S. (Julian) Liu, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer / ( ULRFOLA "`TP 7l PL Su I ' s `r T ' T, ST P N SW ^ !� SEP z 172ND ` ST RR ��'��/Q�pll ti ° ,^� '< 3 �4,V`gR l73 GS PL 113RD D Sr SN - o ST SW �'�� 9d �- 174TH ST S ^ 175TH ST W P1 Z ' 176TH _ S7 — ` SNOHOMISH FSNO/lOMISHy1 ` o o� �� y pj N rL71 ' " (ilk a�777yyyr5§�� {1Oo '1tCQUNh l ^ 1�9TH P`L CO_i UNTY PARK ��"5.'PARI . Fl � r� 17DrH n PL sw 177T ,TgTH sr 1 Fy Vacs. Sp t T }' 1 2 $W Y; r.. r . 2 �tl,k�'r; 7yn '•'7ri1`e „ � \moo V 1 GWiI�180TII. ST F10 {' BOTH Pt SW i 11DI w Si ,BISi PL w +""" - OVERLOOK 1PK PROJECT PL 782x0 �182ND IOzxD SITE d = _ s4 ST w 3{� g,P n 2< R fi :♦'jl: s 1� 8Elx P w 184TH."—.57—SW_ _ ry _ ' a o >_IBSTH s 185TH '< SP�bl pll �O\� rn < Q- � f� 105nf _ =185Tti P SW �P v� HUTT TLw PL SW a J~ PK'�; 186TH PL S 187TH 186TH ST ¢ SW > x i; ie3ie I PL SW 187THi ST SW i ¢ m a =S "ice p 87 P ST w 3 3 188TH m a1 U ST SW + 3 L w 3 - k ,s;•Ix7.,,L-YIVi 92N0 .oc'O 189TH 3 s C tl S SW 54 PL 189TH a .f < I<° 189TH WAVER T AKE PL 19 H ST SW ml a 190TH ST SW PL SW 6 V a ( OHO CHERR ST ♦c S� t N 191ST- o S1ERR1..; SIERRA 9 l _PL S�' 191ST -ST S,PKs� I o`$ z �960U o SW m Nu "7 191ST S) SW 91 ST SS 1 3 192ND I ST SW o, ' 92ND S -- ,-�— x FR a w — �FJtYja t4f m — x =1p ~^ 7 sr fir" °t 192NO PL SW Q 19 / ARTN SFl FOREST I m Q r-- �F9 v.', o� a oR, <N YH O� G DEL 197R0 x •_ I o 193RD PL Q - �R/ ~ C�10 DR m ` T9 t Pt Su < a a, v Sw Cq'00 PU = wNOG Pam\ EXCELSIOR 94A_"-1 I 891>•T 194111 �P9 iN 194TI{ $T i SW vo 14 C'FT m LN F lF PL a PL W PL S4 D ST 54 3J 3 I 194TH v �I ( PL SN 195TH <ST �—_ 196TH 196TH ST I ysw PUGET P UG E D R 1.. ST SW - ; shoo / A2CJ MELODY LN WY 2 d Q r �� 197TH 196TH PL $w ' z 73 g �fAPLEIl00 z 3 z o HIND V EWLAND = WY ILL' ��RA, =i 19Dt__N �N J HEINZ BROOKMERE -7 LN_ , r:x%;';�, co m, O / ST SW l a a "'J^-` a 1I98TH Z ,,� Z OR BROOKMERE ST '¢ z 19 PH a PLFd'/.6 3�o PL SW N � ST sw: ITT~^ ' 198TN ST St z Z ST 9W < -� o n' % 3 ap o 19 TH ST SW J £y �SPE ST vIEIR R - -- 3 s �" < I a 00TH--T—SW- 20- °$-SW ;ILTNER LIIVISTA 800 TfOURTAiN VISTA WY H'1/ 200TH o ST SW 8300 3 , 201ST ST su pL tR 201ST �T SW a F- SH 191 re, o LJ N 2ND F s 93 D a PL 3 PL a = SW z =0 SQ,,: 197TH ST r �_ AT LN �o I-" WY ALOHA 'CAROL ¢ Aaur'PL .. 1 SIERRA CASCADE 20Isr I� o J F- a o "-- a L m w � m m - -..; zolsr $T 202ND PL SW tf f® :AROL wv Qp GLEN ST 6 zD2xo P I s4o,;s� ¢ S02SW ¢202NPLi4<202NDPL ±3 SWGLEN m203RD sr[—IT --i ¢ _. - ` o _ E� SIERRA ST , - J 'C'l 203RD 207R0 sr sv 2D.'M PL S4 • ST SW a 24 )ALEY a $T "U-• n > ST o �_ 05 1 ti g I o o O0 2_ I zwrn sr su ST sw a 19 o zo4rir n r a PL sv s 19 s 204TH < zo4TH� PE Su ¢ ST SW rz t R ' k EDO - oo :IVIC o CTRr::<SPRAGUE _ AYFT HUMAIIN = EOkgHDs HILL PK! = ni P 3 ,PINES zosrH3 S r ] ST Su zosix a^ PL w {, y 1= "'_ O-, rn ST BRIDGE; ¢ zo6n{ m s PK 4 ° ^ MID fALLERE1i1 SELL ST a --,.. ...... ELL NiL S 207T8 ST SW = t--'-' '" > 5T svf �.PF�L; ST DR x2 7TH PL SN �1 1-NwIAIN 8 ST PL Sw �1 Hf ,s r I PLw _ /X '}rlf¢"{If 1fr=r.ia 3 .::: Y w g r •iPARY STJ:.L�11 ,`$$, 08COW CYR._^$.__ I PL }ptii6i917}VJi� VJ'T.� ,.- 209TH VICINITY MAP LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology Earth Science EDMONDS WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 DATE 9/6/2005 1 PLATE 1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- MORE THAN 50% OF GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH GM SILTY GRAVEL GRAINED COARSE FRACTION SOILS RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND MORE THAN 50% MORE THAN 50% OF SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND SAND WITH SM SILTY SAND RETAINED ON THE COARSE FRACTION NO, 200 SIEVE PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE FINES SC CLAYEY SAND FINE- SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT SOILS LESS THAN 50% ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY MORE THAN 50% SILTY AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY PASSING ON THE LIQUID LIMIT NO. 200 SIEVE 50% OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. FIELD CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON VISUAL EXAMINATION DRY - ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO OF SOIL IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2488-83. THE TOUCH 2. SOIL CLASSIFICATION USING LABORATORY TESTS IS BASED SLIGHTLY MOIST - TRACE MOISTURE, NOT DUSTY ON ASTM D2487-83. MOIST - DAMP, BUT NO VISIBLE WATER 3. DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY ARE VERY MOIST - VERY DAMP, MOISTURE FELT TO THE TOUCH BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF BLOW -COUNT DATA, VISUAL WET - VISIBLE FREE WATER OR SATURATED, APPEARANCE OF SOILS, AND/OR TEST DATA. USUALLY SOIL IS OBTAINED FROM BELOW WATER TABLE LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology Earth Science PLATE 3 ('EST PIT NO. 1 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El. 272.5' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test SID Young maples, shrubs and brush on surface 1 Light -gray, loose, fine to medium SAND, with roots to 0.5-inch- diameter, slightly moist 2 3 4 5 SP Light -gray, medium -dense, fine to medium SAND, slightly moist 6 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 7 8 Test pit terminated @ 7.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 10 Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 8/8/2005 1) Ground El. 301.5' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test SP Light -gray, loose, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, with roots to 1 0.5-inch-diameter, slightly moist 2 Light -gray, dense, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, slightly moist Sl 3 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Test pit terminated @ 8.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 10 Geotechnical Engineering - Engineering Geology Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 1 DATE 9/5/2005 1 PLATE 4 TEST PIT NO. 3 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El. 267.0' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test SP Light -gray, loose, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, with fine 1 roots, slightly moist 2 Light -gray, dense, fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel, moist SW 3 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Test pit terminated @ 9.0 ft, groundwater table 6.0 ft. 10 Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 8/8/2005 II Ground El. 330.5' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Berry bushes on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, with fine roots, slightly moist (TOPSOIL) SM 2 Light -brown, medium -dense, silty, fine to medium SAND, trace to some gravel, moist 3 4 Gray, dense to very -dense, gravelly, silty, fine to medium SAND, SM 5 moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 6 7 8 9 10 SM/SW Gray, dense, slightly silty, fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel, moist 11 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) Test it terminated 11.2 ft groundwater not encountered. 12 Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology • Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 1 DATE 9/5/2005 PLATE 5 TEST PIT NO. 5 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El. 328.0' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Brush on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, with roots to 0.5-inch- diameter, slightly moist (TOPSOIL) 2 SM Light -brown to light -gray, dense to very -dense, gravelly, silty, fine 3 SAND, weakly -cement and till -like, slightly moist (GLACIAL DRIFT) 4 5 SM/SP Light -brown, dense, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, 6 slightly moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 7 8 9 Test pit terminated @ 7.5 ft, groundwater not encountered. 10 TEST PIT NO. 6 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El, 309.0' Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Brush and young cottonwood on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, with roots to 0.5-inch- diameter, slightly moist (TOPSOIL) 2 SM Light -gray, dense, silty fine SAND, trace to some gravel, slightly moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 3 SM/SP Brown, dense, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel and occasional cobble, moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 4 5 6 7 8 Test pit terminated @ 6.5 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 10 Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology - Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 1 DATE 9/5/2005 1 PLATE 6 PEST PIT NO. 7 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El. 325.5' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Berry bushes on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, slightly silty, fine SAND, with abundant fine roots slightly moist (TOPSOIL) Light -brown, dense, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, weakly - 2 SP cemented and till -like, slightly moist (GLACIAL DRIFT) 3 4 SW Brown, dense, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist 5 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 6 7 8 Test pit terminated @ 7.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 10 Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 8/8/2005 oo Ground El. 320.0' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Berry bushes on surface 1 Gray, loose, organic, fine to medium SAND, with abundant roots to 0.5-inch-diameter, slightly moist (TOPSOIL) 2 3 SP Light -brown, medium -dense to dense, fine to medium SAND, trace 4 to some gravel, slightly moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 5 6 7 8 Test pit terminated @ 7.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 10 Geotechnical Engineering - Engineering Geology • Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 I DATE 9/5/2005 1 PLATE 7 V)QL -- y J 4 ~ G I�1 � 1 1 "ll► LIU & ASSOCIATES, ES, INC. I z TYPICAL CROSS SECTION Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology • Earth Science INFILTRATION TRENCH JOB NO. r2AO SS 1 DATE cl I i lo S I PLATE LW & ASSOCIATES, INC. O C T 10 2006 Engineering Geology -y �- PLANNMOEP — October 9, 2006 Mr. Andy heaves The McNaughton Group P, O. Box 100 pdmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Reaves: Subject: Oeotechnical Evaluation of New Crrading Pl,-W Angler's Crossing (formerly Park Property) l 83xx Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington 1,&A Job No. 5A.108 INTRODUCTION We completed a geolechnical engineering study for the subject plat site, with our findings of the subsurface conditions of the site and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development presented in our 9/12/2005 geotechnical report. We understand that, since tile. completion of that report, the grading plan for the subject development has been revised to require cutting the upland area of the site as much as 50 feet and killing up the low-lying arem of the site. The concern regarding the new grading plan is whether the subsurface conditions presented in our 9/12/2005 geotechnical report are adequate for and whether our geoieehnical wcommendations ate still applicable to the proposed development pertaining to the new grading; plait.. Presented in this letter report are our opinion and conclusions in this regard. GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL CONDITIONS As stated in out 9/12/2005 geotechnical report, the surficial soil units at and in the vicinity of the site are mapped as Vashon Till (Qvt) underlain by Advance Outwash (Qva) in accordance with the Qeolo�ic Map of the P;ttstern Half _ar�d Yazt of the Western Half�ttadraugles, Washi�n�toD. 19213 Kenlake Place NC • Kenmore, Washingto ► Gonno Phone (425) 483-9134 fax (425) 486-27, Exhibit 10 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 October 9, 2006 Mr. Andy Reaves/The 1vlcNaughton Group I,&A. Job No, 5AT08 Page 2 The mechanical and physical characteristics of each of the soil units are quite well defined due to their geological formation process, and the test pits excavated on the site were used to verify the soil units shown oil the geologic map. The subsurface conditions of the site were explored with eight backhoe test pits excavated to depths .from 6.5 to 1 L2 feet. These test pits were spread throughout the site at various locations with byound elevations varying fx'om the upland area (Test fits 4, 5, 7 and 8), to the midsldfr, area ('Pest fats 2 and 6), to the low-lying northeastern area. (Test Pits i and 3). All test pits had encountered an advance outwash deposit of media. -dense to dense, fine to medium sand with an occasional trace of gravel. Although there were no deep explorations conducted on the site to continuously penetrate through the depth of proposed cut of the new grading plan, the soil data obtained from the test pits show that the advance outwash deposit fortning the hillside of the site indeed extends from the upland area downward to at least El. 258.0 feet, which is the bottoni of Test Pit 3 located in the low-lying northeastern area of the site. "These soil data also have confirmed the advance outwash soil twit at and in the vicinity of the site shown on the published geologic map referenced in our 9/12/2005 geotechnical report. CONCLUSIONS It is our opinion that the test pits excavated on the site, aided by the referenced geologic nrap, did adequately delineate the subsurface conditions and the soil profile of the site. The proposed grading of the site in accordance with the new grading plait, if does not go below El. 258.0 feet, will be within the advance outwash deposit. In this case, our geotechnical recommendations for grading of the site, as presented in our 9/12/2005 geotechnical report, are still valid for the new grading plait. October 9, 2006 Mt. Andy'Reaves/Tbe McNarrghton Group L&!1. Job No. 5A108 age 3 Please call if you have any questions. Yours very truly, LI ,A.SSOCI.A`"r , INC. J, S. (Julian) Liu, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geoteclmical Engineer 711 1 - _ li e i m Prepared For: McNaughton Group, LLC Edmonds, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington November 2, 2005 Exhibit 11 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 Angler's Edmonds, Washingtol Prepared for. McNaughton Group, LLC 144 Railroad Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road N.E. Woodinville, WA 98077 November 2, 2005 Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report SITE NAME: Angler's Crossing SITE LOCATION: The approximately 5.47-acre site is located south of Olympic View Drive, just west of the Olympic View Drive and 76`h Avenue West intersection in the City of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located in the NE'/4 of Section 18, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, W.M. CLIENT: McNaughton Group, LLC APPLICANT CONTACT Mr. Don Miller, GWC Consulting. PROJECT STAFF: Siii 5hiels, Principal; I eresa Opolka, Ecologist FIELD SURVEY: Fieldwork conducted on 15 September 2005 by Teresa Opolka. DETERMINATION: One wetland, Wetland A (426 square feet (sf)), was identified on the subject property. This wetland is a palustrine, seasonally flooded forested wetland. It appears that this wetland may have been created as a result of excavating on the property at some point in the past. According to Edmonds Code, Wetland A would be classified as a Category IV wetland. With the Director's approval, Category IV wetlands under 500 sf may be exempt assuming several criteria are met. HYDROLOGY: During our site visits, wetland hydrology was not present in Wetland A, although evidence of ponding was present. Our site visit occurred at the end of summer and it is assumed that this wetland exhibits wetland hydrology during the rainy months of the year. Wetland A is supported by direct precipitation. SOILS: The Snohomish County soil survey has mapped the subject property as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes and Alderwood-urban land complex, 2-8% slopes. These soils are not listed as hydric soils on either the state or county hydric soil lists, although they may have inclusions of hydric soils. Soil on the property generally matched the Alderwood soil description. VEGETATION: Vegetation in Wetland A includes red alder, salmonberry, giant horsetail, and Dewey's sedge. The majority of vegetation was rooted near the edges of the wetland. The interior of the wetland was largely unvegetated due to the compacted soils and ponding during the rainy season. PROPOSED PROJECT: McNaughton Group proposes to develop a residential subdivision consisting of 27 lots with associated infrastructure including utilities, internal roads, and stormwater management facilities. The project will impact 426 sf of wetland. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page i Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report i. Executive Summary ii. Table of Contents iii. List of Figures iii. List of Tables iii. List of Appendices 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................... 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Background Data i e....................viewed............................................................. - -------------------------------•------. 3.2 Field Investigation,_,._. Paqe 1, 1 .....................................1 --------------------------------------2-- ........................................ 4.0 RESULTS 3 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information ................................ 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions _.- 3 4.3 Wildlife 4 5.0 FUNCTIONAL VALUE ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 5.1 Wetland A — Existing Functions and Values 5 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT .................. 6 6.1 Project Description ---------------------------------------------•------•-------------........---------•--......-•---------•--- 6 6.2 Sensitive Area Impacts ...................................................................................................... 7.0 SUMMARY 7 8.0 REFERENCES ............. 8 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page ii Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3. NRCS Soils Map Figure 4. Existing Conditions Map Figure 5. Proposed Site Plan and Impacts Table 1. Summary of the Potential and Opportunity of Wetland A to Perform Wetland Functions. APPENDIX A: Resume APPENDIX B: Wetland Data Sheets APPENDIX C: Priority Habitats and Species Database APPENDIX D: City of Edmonds Wetland Field Dataform 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page iii Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a critical areas study conducted on four parcels collectively called "Angler's Crossing", located in the City of Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The site is the location of a proposed residential housing development. The purpose of this report is to identify and describe sensitive areas on and within 200 feet of the property, including wetlands and streams, and to report possible impacts to these areas from the proposed development. This report has been prepared according to Sections 23.40.090 and 23.50.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Information presented in this report will be utilized by the Edmonds Planning Department to assist in their evaluation of impacts from the proposed project on critical areas. This report is a component of a PRD and Preliminary Plat Submittal. Teresa Opolka of Talasaea Consultants prepared this report and the wetland delineation. As required by ECDC 23.40.090 D (3), a resume is attached detailing the author's qualifications (Appendix A). The objective of this report is to: 1) describe the wetlands identified and delineated on the site, 2) describe wetland functions and values, and 3) identify proposed impacts to sensitive areas and regulatory requirements for these impacts. 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE The 5.47-acre area proposed for development includes Parcels 00370800101100, 00370800101000, 03434600010601, and 00370800100900. These parcels, hereinafter referred to as the "project area," are located south of Olympic View Drive, just west of the Olympic View Drive and 76`h Avenue West intersection (Figure 1). The project area is located in the NE'/4 Section 18, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, W.M. The project site is partially developed and presently contains three houses, two of which are not occupied. Ornamental plantings are present in the vicinity of these houses; the remainder of the project site is forested. Vegetation included species found predominantly in upland areas such as sword fern, big leaf maple, and Douglas fir. Topography on the project site is irregular. In general, the land slopes down to the east, although there are also several ravines or closed depressions present. A small wetland was identified and delineated in one of the depressions on the property. Wetlands or streams were not believed to be present off -site of the subject property within 200 feet of the property lines. This area was studied to the extend possible through the review of background materials and from visual assessments from the property boundaries. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The wetland analysis of the site involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the site (and its immediate surroundings) using published information about local environmental conditions. This information included: wetland and soil maps from resource agencies and relevant studies completed or ongoing in the vicinity of the project site. The second part involved a field survey in which direct observations and measurements of soils, hydrology, and vegetation were made to determine whether wetlands were present, the type of wetlands present, and the extent of their boundaries (see section 3.2 Field Investigation below). 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 1 tu SITE —�-----I84TH i 1 l- i fl,nTH _ i I iFROJECT SITE 04 O&TH r� T �+ r FIGURE # 1 ASAL° A ° 1 A.10. CONSULTANTS, INC. VIGINITY MAP Resource & Environmental Planning ANGLER'S GROSSI N6 15020 ©ear Creek Road Northeast EDMOND5, WASHINGTON Woodinville, Washington 96077 Bus (425)661-7550 — Fax (425)661-7549 - Im DESIGN DRAWN 0 PROJECT o TO KG GL 1002 SCALE z NTS DATE 10/26/05 I q REVISED Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information was reviewed prior to field investigations and included the following: • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map, Edmonds East Quadrangle (USFWS, 1987), • The City of Edmonds Draft Critical Areas Map (2004), • Snohomish County Area Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983), • United States Hydric Soils List (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991), • Washington State Hydric Soils List (Iowa State University, 1995), and • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database (WDFW, 2005). 3.2 Field Investigation A site reconnaissance was conducted to gain an overall impression of the existing environment and any previously identified wetlands or streams. Observations were made of the general plant communities, wildlife habitats, and the locations of obvious and probable wetland areas. Once likely or potential wetland areas were located, the routine on -site determination method was used to delineate the wetlands using the procedures outlined in: 1) the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and 2) the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (1997). The wetland delineation was conducted on 15 September 2005. Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed 1988, 1993). Wetland classes were determined on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's system of wetland classification (Cowardin, et. al., 1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the following characteristics were present: • organic soils or soils with a histic epipedon (i.e., organic surface layer), • matrix chroma just below the A -horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is less) of 1 or less in unmottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or • gleying immediately below the A -horizon. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily_ limited to: drainage _ patterns, of lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and flood predictions, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. An evaluation of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology was made along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information and marked with flagging and surveyed. Appendix B contains data forms prepared by Talasaea for representative locations in both the upland and wetland. These data forms document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 2 Angler's Crossina Critical Area Reoort 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information National Wetland Inventory and City of Edmonds Map The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), does not identify any wetlands or streams in the vicinity of the site (Figure 2). The City of Edmonds map also did not identify any wetlands or streams in the vicinity of the site. Because resource maps are generally compiled through aerial photography analysis, it is not uncommon that small wetland or streams are missed. For this reason, an on -site evaluation is necessary. Natural Resources Conservation Service The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the majority of the property as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes and Alderwood-urban land complex, 2-8% slopes (Figure 3). Alderwood is not on either the State or County hydric soil lists. The wetland area contained hydric soils, although soil on the remainder of the property generally matched the Alderwood soil description. Priority Species and Habitats Database The WDFW PHS database map does not indicate that any priority habitats or species are located on or in the immediate vicinity of the project area. The map does depict a stream that contains priority resident fish species off site to the northwest of the site, on the north side of Olympic View Drive. This feature is not immediately adjacent to the project area, and the project is not anticipated to impact the stream. A bald eagle nest has been identified approximately 1-mile to the west. Bald eagle management plans are not required for project sites in excess of mile from a nest. Results from the PHS database search are included in Appendix C. 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions One wetland was identified on the project area. Although there are several ravines or swales near or on the property, with the exception of the identified wetland, no other wetlands or streams were identified (Figure 4). The identified wetland is described in the following section. Wetland A Wetland A (approximately 426 sf) is a small isolated wetland located in a depression. This wetland is a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded wetland that is hydrologically supported - by direct precipitation. -Wetland A was likely created as a result of disturbance♦- The topsoil in Wetland A has largely been removed, resulting in a dense, compacted, poorly drained surface horizon that results in a perched water table during the wetter months of the year. The surface horizon in Wetland A was a very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) sandy loam with mottles present at a depth below 3 inches. The soil was not saturated during our site visit, although signs of ponding were evident in the wetland. Vegetation in Wetland A includes red alder (Alnus rubra), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), and Dewey's sedge (Carex deweyana). The majority of vegetation was rooted near the edges of the wetland. The interior of the wetland was largely unvegetated due to the compacted soils and ponding during the rainy season. Three test plots were evaluated to aid in determining the location of the boundary. Wetland data 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 3 Angler's Crossina Critical Area Report sheets from these test plots are attached. Wetland A had previously been delineated slightly larger by another consultant. Test plots 2 and 3 were placed in areas that were previously delineated as wetland. Test plot 2 appears to have minimal ponding during the wet season, as water marks were observed. However, the depth of ponding appears to be minimal. Vegetation growing in the vicinity of Test Plot 2 included predominantly upland species, indicating that the area does not stay wet for a duration sufficient to support wetland vegetation. Test Plot 3 is located in a depression, although none of the three wetland criteria were met. Soil was observed to be a sandy loam with a matrix chroma of 2, without mottles. The top 18 inches of soil was observed to be dry and no evidence of ponding was evident. Vegetation at this test plot qualified as predominantly upland, as more than 50% of dominant vegetation was not hydrophytic. Because all criteria for wetland determination were not met, the area surrounding Test Plots 2 and 3 was determined to be upland. Wetland Rating and Classification Wetland A was rated utilizing the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2004). This wetland scored 23 points, resulting in a Category IV wetland classification (ECDC 23.50.010). A wetland must have a score of less than 30 points to be a Category IV wetland. Attached is the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form, which details how the wetland was rated (Appendix D). 4.3 Wildlife The site contains moderate value wildlife habitat. Wildlife usage is restricted due to the existing development on the properties and the increasingly urban character of the surrounding properties. The presence of forested habitat on the property does provide some habitat value, primarily for songbirds. Wildlife species observed during our site visits included: American robin, American crow, black -capped chickadee, and a Steller's jay. Other wildlife species may utilize the site but were not observed due to their seasonal presence, secretive behavior, and our limited time on the property. No evidence of Federally listed threatened or endangered species was observed on or in the vicinity of the subject property. A bald eagle nest located approximately 1-mile from the site is the closest known location of a federally -listed species. Priority resident fish species are present off -site to the northwest, on the other side of Olympic View Drive. 5.0 FUNCTIONAL VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetlands and their associated buffers may provide many valuable ecological and social unctions, including: water quality functions, hydrologic funcfions,-and habitat functions. - The functions and values of the wetland were analyzed utilizing the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (DOE, 2004), which was also utilized to determine the rating of the wetland. The functions assessed evaluate both the potential and the opportunity for the particular function. For example, a wetland may have the potential for supporting wildlife habitat if it has diverse vegetation structure; however, if the wetland is isolated and not connected to any corridors (e.g., surrounded by development), it will have a significantly decreased opportunity to perform that function. The summary of points scored is presented in Table 1. The Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington was used to determine the rating and functional values of Wetland A, the rating forms are provided in Appendix D. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 4 Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report 5.1 Wetland A - Existing Functions and Values Table 1. Summary of the Potential and Opportunity of Wetland A to Perform Wetland Functions. Wetland A Functions Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Potential 7 /16 = 43% 2/16 = 12.5% 4/18 = 22% Opportunity Yes No Low 3 pts Total Score 1 23 points Wetland Category. IV Points scored by wetland 2Total points possible 3If a wetland has opportunity to perform water quality and or hydrologic function, the "potential" score obtained is doubled "'Based on the total points obtained. Wetlands that receive a score of between 30 and 50 points are Category III wetlands Water Quality Functions The potential for a wetland to improve water quality is measured through evaluating several indicators including the wetlands' hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type, soil composition, percent vegetation cover, and extent of ponding. Following is an evaluation of these indicators within Wetland A. Wetland A is a depressional wetland with a partially constricted outlet. This type of wetland may have a relatively high potential for improving water quality, since the longer the water has to spend in the wetland, the greater the potential for contaminants to be removed. However, this wetland scored in the low to moderate range for this function. The potential of the wetland to provide this function was limited due to its soil type and vegetation cover. The soil in Wetland A was observed to be sandy loam, which is a soil with relatively low organic and clay content. This type of soil does not have a high ability to remove impurities in the water. Soils with either a high organic or clay content are better able than most soils to adsorb toxic compounds. As described previously, Wetland A has limited vegetation cover due to disturbed compacted soils that are ponded for part of the year. Wetlands that are heavily vegetated provide a large amount of surface area that can result in the trapping of sediment and pollutants. Because the wetland lacks dense vegetation, this suppressed the wetland's score. The water quality potential score for this wetland was boosted slightly because most of the wetland is ponded during the rainy season. Due to the presence of residential areas nearby, it was determined that Wetland A does have the opportunity to improve water quality. Hydrologic -Functions - - - --- - -- -- - - The potential for a wetland to reduce downstream flooding and stream degradation is determined by several physical characteristics. These characteristics include whether the wetland has an outlet or if it is a closed depression, the depth of water above the outlet that is stored in the wetland, and the size of the contributing basin in relation to the size of the wetland. As previously described, Wetland A is in a depression with a partially constricted outlet. This type of wetland has a moderate potential for reducing downstream flooding, as water is detained and primarily released through either evaporation or infiltration. The wetland scored low for water storage, as it does not appear that the wetland stores a significant amount of water due both to its small size and shallow ponding. The wetland also has a 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 5 Analer's Crossing Critical Area Report very large contributing basin. The small size of the wetland is neglible in relation to this large area. Due to the small size of the wetland and the lack of any nearby streams, it was determined to not have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion. Habitat Functions The potential of a wetland to provide habitat for a variety of species of wildlife is largely dependant on the structural and biological diversity of the vegetation growing in the wetland, as well as the presence of habitat features, such as snags and open water. Wetland A was found to have low potential for providing wildlife habitat. The potential of this wetland was limited by the presence of one cover type (forested), limited vegetation species diversity, and a limited number of hydrologic regimes. Opportunity for a wetland to be utilized as wildlife habitat is measured through the size of the buffer, presence of a wildlife corridor, and proximity of adjacent wetlands. The opportunity for Wetland A to provide wildlife habitat was determined to be low due to development surrounding the subject property. The surrounding development also separates Wetland A from other off -site wetlands. 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Project Description McNaughton Group proposes to develop a residential subdivision consisting of 27 lots with associated infrastructure including utilities, internal roads, and stormwater management facilities (Figure 5). Stormwater from paved surfaces will be collected, detained, and treated according to City requirements. See engineering plans for additional details on stormwater management. . 6.2 Sensitive Area Impacts The proposed project will fill Wetland A (426 sf) during construction of the project. These impacts were unavoidable and represent the only practicable alternative, as determined by applying the following criteria: 1) technical feasibility, 2) cost, 3) environmental impacts, and 4) ability of the project to perform its intended purpose. Due to the irregular topography of the site, a substantial amount of grading will be required to make the project area suitable for development. This will include removing some of the higher areas on the property and filling some of the lower areas. In order to provide access from the eastern to the western portion of the property, a road must be constructed across a relatively steep hillside. If Wetland A were to remain, the grading required for the road would result in the wetland being surrounded by steep slopes on all sides. Essentially, the wetland would be at the -- - --bottom of a -hole; surrounded -by development.- Grading around this area is not feasible— - -- Due to the small size and low -value conditions of the wetland, filling of this wetland will not result in significant loss of wetland functions and values. According to 23.50.040(I), isolated Category 3 or 4 wetlands less than 500 sf may be granted exemption by the director if the following Conditions 1 through 4 are met. The condition is stated following our explanation in italics. Category IV wetlands have the lowest functions and values. The value of this wetland was limited due to its low water quality, hydrologic and wildlife functions. The director may exempt Category III and IV wetlands less than 500, assuming several conditions 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 6 AS I 'Lci ��' 1 ,,, � ' ,,•r ram",-- .r-' � * .` � r ' ] { � f ,`� # �f Vf (NO WETLANDD5 SHOWN ON SITE) � 7- r �� fir. I'"""z££-;1.•.—. �......�1 1r, \� ��_.r: '$1kIi' lL e 1a rR iRj }ti• 1€i Park rl SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF -THE- INTERIOR, FISH- AND WILDLIFE SERVIGE, - - -- NORTH r NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP, EDMONDS EAST QUAD, Ig88, a r F16URE #2 DESIGN DRAWN PROJECT = TALASAEA SC KOGL 1002 SCALE z CONSULTANTS, INC. NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP NTS Resource & Environmental Planning ANOLER'S GRO55IN6 DATE a 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast EDMOND5, HA51-1I1\16TON 10/26/05 Woodinville, Washington 00077 Bus (425)661-7550 — Fax (425)661-75#0 REVISED Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC. (j) O -n 4 m > > m 70 m _0 T 70 m > c) c) z --I cj Z M �All ol, C) Q) 70 z z 70 v F— C) > M C- 70 m m > rn > �j Z Oc 70 70 m C) 7 m T _0 m 70 0\0 m 70 rn ZA DRAWING\ 100 - all-li\1 002—IVL—PLAN.dwg 56ALE: 1"=2000' zz i — 1 la) I WE 9 I_________________...___------_1.__-_________� � �1 4 ENLARG ENT - �� o -I 15 SHEET). 11 I �I a 14 . 1 1 ,• / 1• ssn• 1- - NETLAND A 1 r - -I- - i 1 , NORTH A� CATEGORY h/ V 426 SF S � _ I •TP 2 ss cnv nr eve^:,cs m X 1- R-I r= t; s I @�a *sue 1 ' r 1 ` 1 •TP 1. 'I _"ass � � , ; 1 � i 1 GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH NC7E5 ( IN FEET ) I. SURVEY PROVIDED BY J. GURTIS 8 ASSOCIATES, INC., P.O. BOX 1512, LAKE O 50 100 200 STEVENS, WA g6255, (425) 39-7-8424. SCALE :I"=100' 2. SOURCE DRAWING WA5 MODIFIED BY TALASAEA GONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 3.""'THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE WETLAND REPORT PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS IN OGTOBER, 2005. GRAFHIG SCALE NORTH FLAN LF—OF— E7 E ( IN FEET) -------PROPERTY LINE o EXISTING WETLAND O 0 20 40 -EXISTING CONTOUR SCALE: 1"=20' AA-R WETLAND FLAG LOCATION •TP-u SOIL TEST PLOT LOCATION FIGURE ss4 DESIGN I DRAWN PROJECT TALASAEA KG L TO loot scAI.E z CONSULTANTS, INC. EXISTING 6ONDITION5 MAP AS NOTED Rreource & Environmental Planning ANGLER'S GROSSING DATE s 15020 Bear Creek Raba N11th—t EDMONDS, HA5HIN6TON ooI /2/O! Wdlu�illc. Washinstoo 98077 Bus (4_5I881-7550 - Fnz (4.15)881-7549 REVISED © Copyright - Talaaaea Consultants. INC. T- A 2 > -f�LAT OF HIDD,E� Cat EN- LLJ < X- 12 N07F-5 CERAPHIC, SG -ALE NORTH ( IN FEET) I. SURVEY PROVIDED BY J. GURT15 6 kmolli (T A55OGIATE5, ING., P.O. BOX 1512, LAKE 1 41mmul 1 STEVENS, WA q5258,(425) 3q7-5424. 0 50 100 200 2. SOURCE DRAWING HAS MODIFIED BY 5r.ALE: I 100' TALA5AEA GONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 3. THIS PLAN 15 AN ATTACHMENT TO THE HETLAND REPORT PREPARED BY TALA5AEA r-ON5ULTANTS IN OGTOBER, 2005. FLAN LESEND PROPERTY LINE EXIST] NO HETLAND EX15TINO CONTOUR PROPOSED GONTOUR NFAC,7 Lr-Or-Nr:) TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Eair.=mW Planning 15020 Be. Creek Road Northeast 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 - Fax (42SM61-7549 WETLAND FILL FIGURE #5 PROP05EP SITE PLAN AND IMPACTS ANGLER'S cR055IN6 EDHON05, WA5HiNr--TON 426 5= DESIGN DRAWN PRC KG I TO 10( SCALE I " = 100' DATE IV2/05 REVISED Copyright - Talas— Consultants, 11 Angler's Crossina Critical Area Report are met, according to ECDC 23.50.040. These conditions are shown in the underlined text below; how these conditions are met is described in italics. Condition 1: The wetland is under 500 sf in area. As described above, the wetland has been delineated and determined to be 426 sf. Documentation supporting our delineation is attached. Condition 2: The wetland is a low quality Category 3 or 4 wetland. As determined by the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, the wetland was determined to be a Category IV wetland with relatively low functions. Documentation for this rating system is attached in Appendix D. Condition 3: The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife. As determined through utilizing the rating system, the wetland scored very low for habitat functions. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value due to its small size, low biological and structural diversity, few habitat features, and limited connectivity to other wetlands. Condition 4: Filling of the wetland can maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing site conditions. The wetland area does not make a significant contribution to habitat value on the property. Its small size composes only 0.17% of the property. As described in previous sections, the wetland has very low habitat functions. In comparison to the remainder of the site, other areas of the property likely have greater habitat value than the wetland due to greater structural and biological diversity. For this reason, filling of this wetland can maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing conditions. 7.0 SUMMARY A critical areas study was conducted on four parcels within the City of Edmonds to assess project impacts to sensitive areas from a proposed residential housing development. One small wetland of relatively low functional value was identified and delineated on the property. Due to its small size and limited functions, this wetland should be exempt and not subject to regulation by the City. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 7 Angler's Crossina Critical Area Report 8.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Edmonds, City of. May 17, 2005. Edmonds City Code. Chapter 25. Code Publishing. Environmental Laboratory. 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. December 5. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsel/ Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1998. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Update. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. June, 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Edmonds Area Soil Survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Edmonds East Quadrangle. Washington State -Department of Ecology.- 1997. Washington -State Wetland -Identification - and Delineation Manual. March. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. October 24, 2005. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 8 Angler's Crossing Critical Area ReDOrt U j_ 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Appendix A Teresa Opolka City of Edmonds, Washington Qualifying Documentation EDUCATION • BS degree in Biology from Seattle University (1998) TRAINING IN WETLANDS ISSUES • Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System in Western Washington, Department of Ecology (May 2005) • 2005 Regional Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration (April 2005) o Included attendance of Urban Stream Restoration field trip • 2004 International Conference, Society of Wetland Scientists (July 2004) o Included attendance of Designing Habitat for Amphibians in Wetland Projects • Introduction to Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes, Everett Community College (Fall 2003) • Ordinary High Water Mark Determination Training, Coastal Training Program (May 2003) • Pacific Northwest Chapter Conference, Society of Wetland Scientists (May 2002) o Included attendance of Central Oregon Hydric Soils Workshop • Arrny Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Training Course, Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. (January 2002) RELATED WORK EXPERIENCE Organization: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (15020 Bear Creek Road NE, Woodinville, WA 98077) Job Title: Wetland Ecologist Dates: September 2000 to present Total Time: 5+ years Supervisor: William E. Shiels (phone# 425-861-7550) Percentage of time conducting non -wetland work: 5%. Percentage of time conducting wetland work: 95%. Work conducted over the past five years includes wetland and stream delineations, ordinary high water mark determinations, sensitive areas studies, biological evaluations, regulatory analysis/permitting, functional value assessments, wildlife assessments, wetland and stream mitigation monitoring, groundwater monitoring and analysis. Three years of wetland delineation experience utilizing the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual. I have delineated approximately eighty wetlands, most of which were located on sites greater than five acres in size. I have prepared approximately forty-five sensitive areas reports, and contributed to approximately twenty mitigation plans. The preparation of mitigation plans was done in association with and under supervision of senior staff. RECENT REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Significantly contributed to the projects listed below as wetland ecologist in conducting baseline field studies and writing technical evaluations regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and agency permitting. All of these projects involved sensitive _species -and/or. critical_ habitats,-including_wetlands _and...streams, _ under_ regulatory----- - - - — protection. Projects also involved wildlife surveys, wetland delineation, vegetation, and soil identification, and semi -quantitative assessments to characterize subject areas. Proposed Commercial Retail Development, Center Investments — Everett, WA Prepared a Sensitive Areas Report for a proposed large retail development in Everett, WA. Project involved wetland fill, stream crossing, stream relocation, and day lighting over 500 feet of piped stream. Site is located adjacent to, and on top of Swamp Creek, which contains Federally -listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon; therefore, a Biological Evaluation was also prepared to address project impacts on listed species. Prepared a Functional Value Assessment to address adequacy of proposed mitigation to compensate for project impacts. Snohomish Basin Mitigation Bank, Habitat Bank, LLC — Snohomish County, Washington Assisted with preparing a Biological Evaluation and other technical documents for the first private Wetland Mitigation Bank in the State of Washington at a 225-acre site along the Snoqualmie River in Snohomish County. The goal of the project was to restore the site to its historical wetland conditions and to provide ecological uplifts to water quality, hydrology and wildlife habitat. Construction began fall 2003. Proposed Residential Development, Stensrud, LLC— Snohomish County, WA Delineated wetlands on a 5.7-acre property located in unincorporated Snohomish County. This site was disturbed through illegal grading and timber harvesting, which altered soil structure, deposited wood chips from logging activities, and altered the vegetation community. Wetland boundaries were reviewed and approved by both Snohomish County and the Army Corps of Engineers. Assisted with preparation of Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan. Proposed project involved wetland fill; therefore, a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) was also prepared to assist in obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to authorize wetland fill. Shannon Point Marine Center, Western Washington University—Anacortes, Washington Delineated wetlands and the ordinary high water mark of the marine shoreline at the Shannon Point Marine Center. Prepared existing conditions report documenting sensitive features, regulatory constraints, and buffers in the vicinity of the proposed expansion of the marine center. Proposed Mixed Use Development, G & M Investments — Lake Stevens, WA Delineated wetlands on a 21.7-acre property located in the City of Lake Stevens. This highly disturbed site has been used for farming for much of the last century. Prior land use altered vegetation, soils, and drainage patterns, which contributed to a difficult wetland identification and delineation. Wetlands were delineated following an extensive groundwater analysis, which revealed that the majority of the property had been legally drained. Wetland boundaries were reviewed and approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. Proposed project involves wetland fill; therefore, a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) and Sensitive Areas Report was prepared to assist in obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to authorize wetland fill. Melody Ridge ... On the Boardwalk, DCA, LLC— Bothell, WA Delineated wetlands and prepared a Biological Evaluation and Wetland Study Report for a proposed multi- family residential development on an 8.34-acre parcel that involves filling a wetland and crossing a stream. A salmon -bearing stream is located on -site that drains into the Sammamish River, which contains Coho salmon, proposed for federal listing. The Biological Evaluation examined the impact of construction on Coho and critical habitat that occurs within the action area of the project. Mill Creek Town Center Phase II, Wakefield Pacific — Mill Creek, WA Delineated wetlands and prepared a Wetland Mitigation Report for the Mill Creek Town Center, Phase It, which contains retail space, internal roads, and associated parking and stormwater facilities. The mitigation report addressed construction impacts and mitigation for these impacts on adjacent wetlands and buffers. The project is located within the North Creek flood plain, near where Mill Creek joins North Creek. Proposed Residential Development, Tl:e Justeit-Canipatty Granite Falls, WA " The 180-acre subject property contains two lakes, extensive wetlands and stream systems, as well as habitat for threatened and endangered species. Streams and wetlands were delineated to assist with site planning for a proposed residential development., Delineations were reviewed and approved by both Snohomish County and the Army Corps of Engineers. Proposed project involved wetland fill and stream crossings; therefore, a JARPA application and Sensitive Areas Report was prepared. WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION MONITORING Responsibilities include the long-term monitoring of constructed wetland and stream mitigation projects. Projects involve monitoring of created and enhanced wetlands, enhanced wetland buffers, and enhanced/restored stream corridors per agency requirements. Monitoring requirements include vegetation sampling in established plots, analysis of vegetation survival and areal coverage, observations of site stability, qualitative observations of water quality, wildlife surveys, and photo documentation. Requires coordination and advising of landscape maintenance contractors to ensure that projects remain in compliance with agency requirements. Also includes preparation of annual or biannual reports documenting findings. Ms. Opolka has been involved with monitoring over 40 projects in 18 jurisdictions within Washington State. Some of the projects that represent this experience are listed below. • College Place Wal-Mart — Project involved relocating Stone Creek, which historically was channelized and used as a drainage feature in a farmed field. Monitoring involved evaluating the stability of approximately 1000 feet of relocated stream corridor, and monitoring vegetation in the adjacent stream buffers. • Willows Creek Corporate Campus, Redmond, WA — Monitored 2.61 acres of a combination of created and enhanced wetland, as well as associated buffers. Project approved by the City and Department of Ecology in 2002. • Puyallup Downs, Puyallup, WA — Monitored 1.99 acres of a combination of wetland creation and enhancement, as well as associated buffers. Project expected to be approved in fall 2005. • Van Doren's Landing, Kent, WA — Monitored I -acre of wetland creation and restoration of associated buffers. The City and Corps of Engineers approved project in 2002. • Jefferson at Mill Creek, Mill Creek, WA — Monitored 7.94 acres of a combination of wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer enhancement. Project expected to be approved by City in fall 2005. HYDROLOGIC ASSESSMENTS Hydrologic assessments utilizing groundwater monitoring wells were performed prior to site development on several projects to determine wetland/upland boundary. Groundwater monitoring was utilized when site conditions were disturbed as a result of modifications to the hydrology, soil, or vegetation. Some of the projects that represent this experience are listed below. • McClelland Property —Issaquah, WA • Meredith Property — Auburn, WA • Chehalis Wal-Mart — Chehalis, WA • Bella Mira Condominiums —Issaquah, WA • Overson Property —Auburn, WA • Grade Road Development — Lake Stevens, WA Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Appendix B Project/Site: Olympic View Date: 15 September 2005 Applicant/Owner: McNaughton Group County: Snohomish Investigators: T.O olka State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: wetland, PFO Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#1 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Rubus s ectabilis S FAC+ Alnus rubra T FAC E uisetum telmateia H FACW Carex dewe ana H FACU Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: >50% of dominant veg. is fac or wetter Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: r[E] Physiological/reproductive adaptations ElPlant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations Technical literature ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Depth to free water none @ 18" Depth to saturated soil soil most at 18" Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ® Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): soil survey Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other Criterion Met? Yes A Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators SOILS Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic durochrepts ma ed pe? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) concretions, structure, etc 0-3" 10YR 3/2 none n/a sandy loam 3-5" 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/3 distinct, common, medium compacted s. loam 5-18" 1.0YR312 0YR4/p istinct,_common,_medium com acte".Aoam-- Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ® Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: positive indicators present WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Is this sampling point within a Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes All three criteria met wetland? Hydric soils present? Yes Project/Site: Olympic View Date: 15 September 2005 Applicant/Owner: McNaughton Group County: Snohomish Investigators: T.O olka State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: upland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#2 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Sorbus sitchensis T NI Alnus rubra T FAC Rubus discolor S FACU Rubus ursinus H FACU Percent of dominantspecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: 150% of dominant veg. is FAC or wetter Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Technical literature ® Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Depth to free water none Depth to saturated soil none @ 18" Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ® Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): soil survey Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other I Criterion Met? Yes J) Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators present SOILS Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic durochre is ma ed t e? No Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) concretions, structure, etc 0-5" 10YR 3/2 none n/a sandy loam 5-18" 2.5Y 4/2 10YR 3/4 distinct, common, medium compacted s. loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: ositive indicators present WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: Is this sampling point within a No Wetland hydrology present? Yes Only two criteria met wetland? Hydric soils present? Yes Project/Site: Olympic View Date: 15 September 2005 Applicant/Owner: McNaughton Group County: Snohomish Investigators: T.Opolka I State: Washinqton Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: upland forest Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#3 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Pol stichum munitum H FACU Rubus s ectabilis S FAC+ Rubus ursinus S FACU Dryopteris expansa H FACW Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% Criterion Met? No I Rationale/Remarks: <50% of dominant veg. is FAC or wetter Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Technical literature ® Personal knowledge of regional plant communities 1 ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Depth to free water none Depth to saturated soil none @ 18" Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits F] Drainage patterns in wetland Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): soil survey Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other 1 Criterion Met? No a Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators not present SOILS Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic durochrepts map ed t e? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) concretions, structure, etc 0-18" 10YR 2/2 none n/a sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: positive indicators not present WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: Is this sampling point within a No Wetland hydrology present? No All three criteria not met wetland? Hydric soils present? No Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-(Nov05).doc Appendix C 57AT£ O - � � f State of Washington`;' DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N • Olympia, WA 98501-1091 • (360) 902-2200, TDD.j360)y902,.2207= r Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building • 1111 Washington Street SE • Olympia, WA Date: OCT 2 5 2005 Dear Habitats and Species Requester. Enclosed are the habitats and species products you requested from the Washington Department of Fich ands Wilrilife R/VDFW1. This package may also contutn doctam-ntativn t:, i is^ip `y^vu understand and use these products. These products only include information that WDFW maintains in a computer database. They are not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife, nor are they designed to provide you with guidance on interpreting this information and determining how to proceed in consideration of fish and wildlife. These products only document the location of important fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is important to note that habitats orspecies may occur on the ground in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site -specific surreys are frequently necessary to rule out the presence of priority habitats or species. Your project may require further field inspection or you may need to contact our field biologists or others in WDFW to assist you in interpreting and applying this information. Generally, for assistance on a specific project, you should contact the WDFW Habitat Program Manager for your county and ask for the area habitat biologist for your project area. Refer to the enclosed directory for those contacts. Please note that sections potentially impacted by spotted owl management concerns are displayed on the 1:24,000 scale standard map products. If specific details on spotted owl site centers are required they must be requested separately. These products are designed for users external to the forest practice permit process and as such, does not reflect all the information pertinent to forest practice review. The Forest Practice Rules adopted August 22, 1997 by the Forest Practice Board and administered by the Washington Department of Natural Resources require forest practice applications to be - - screened-against-marbled-murrelet-detection areas and-detec-tlon sections. ---Marbled murrelet - - detection locations are included in the standard priority habitats and species products, but the detection areas and detection sections are not included. If your project is affected by Forest Practice Regulations, you should specially request murrelet detection areas. WDFW updates this information as additional data become available. Because fish and wildlife species are mobile and because habitats and species information changes, project reviews for fish and wildlife should not rest solely on mapped information. Instead, theyshould also consider new information gathered from current field investigations. Remember, habitats and species information can only show that a species or habitat type is present, they cannot show that a species or habitat type is not present. These products should not be used for future projects. Please obtain updates rather than use outdated information. WASi%h1,GTON DEPARTMENTOF FISH AND REGIONAL CONTACTS For assistance with Priority Habitats and Species information, contact the appropriate regional office, listed below. County... Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant Okanogan Benton, Franklin, Kittitas, Yakima Island, King, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Lewis, Skamania, Wahiakum Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, Thurston Contact... Region 1 Office 2315 North Discovery Place Spokane Valley, WA 99216-1566 Phone: (509) 892-1001 Region 2 Office 1550 Alder Street NW Ephrata, WA 98823-9699 Phone: (509) 754-4624 Region 3 Office 1701 South 24`h Avenue Yakima, WA 98902-5720 Phone: (509) 575-2740 Region 4 Office 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 Phone: (206) 775-1311 Region 5 Office 2108 Grand Boulevard Vancouver, WA 98661 P-hone--(360)-696-6211---- -- -- - - - - - - Region 6 Office 48 Deveonshire Road Montesano, WA 98563-9618 Phone: (360) 249-4628 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT THE VICINITY OF T27R04E SECTION 18 Report Date: October 24, 2005 Information About Priority Habitats and Species Polygons Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) polygons are labeled with a unique number and "+" symbol, roughly in the center of the polygon on the map. This PHS Poly number refers to a list of form numbers and species and habitat codes contained in the PHS Polygon Cross Reference Report (listed below)_ The form numbers refer to the attached PHS Polygon Report. This report details each species or habitat depicted as a polygon on the map. For a complete description of the codes used in this report please refer to the Fish and Wildlife Map Products document. This document may be viewed on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon - Summary Habitat and Species List: This report and the accompanying maps may contain some species or habitats that are not considered priority by the agency. YES under the "PHS" column in the table below indicates that the species is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. NO under the "PHS" column indicates the species/habitat is not considered an agency priority. State PHS Status PHS Code Common Name Species Use Species Use Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES SM PHVI HARBOR SEAL HO HAULOUT YES RIPAR RIPARIAN :l ONES YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE YES WET WETLANDS YES ZACA CALIFORNIA SEA LION HO HAULOUT Priority Habitats and Species Polygon Cross Reference Report: Form number 900000 indicates presence of PHS is unknown or the area was not mapped. Form numbers 909998, 909997, or 909996 indicate compilation errors. PHS Poly# Form# 2 900000 3 902694 4 902705 5 902705-902706 6 902705 7 902694 8 902694 9 902694 10 902702 11 902541-902701 12 902541-902701 13 902541-902701-902702 14 902702 15 902694 16 902677 17 902694 18 902694 19 902694 20 902676 21 904461-904465 22 902694 23 902694 24 902694 25 902675 26 902676 27 902675 PHS Code*Species Use UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*-RIPAR*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- RIPAR*- UNOS*-UNOS*- UNOS*-UNOS*- UNOS*-UNOS*-RIPAR*- RIPAR*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- ZACA*HO-PHVI*HO- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- WET*- UNOS*- WET*- Information About Wildlife Heritage Point Report ---- - ._..------------ ----------------------- Wildlife Heritage points on the map can be referenced to this report by noting the quadpt number where the point occurs on the map, and then looking up the information listed below. This report is sorted by the quadpt number and provides details on each species depicted on the map. For a complete description of the codes used in this report, please refer to the Fish and Wildlife Map Products document. This document may be viewed on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm. Wildlife Heritage Point - Summary Species List: This report and the accompanying maps may contain some species or habitats that are not considered priority by the agency. YES under the "PHS" column in the table below indicates that the species is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. NO under the "PHS" column indicates the species/habitat is not considered an agency priority. State Species PHS Status Code Common Name Species Use Species Use Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES ST HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE Wildlife Heritage Point Report: Quadpt#: 4712273017 Species Code: HALE Species Use: B Common Name: BALD EAGLE Year: 2002 Class: SA Accuracy: C Scientific Name: HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS State Status: ST Federal 1*atus: FT Priority: YES WDFW Region: 4 Verified: V Township - Range - Sectio 127N R03E S13 SEOFNE Occurrence) 517 Sequence#: 2 General Description: BALD GLE NEST IN TALL, SPIKE -TOPPED DOUGLAS- _t. SPIKE EXTENDS HIGH ABOVE MAIN FOREST CANOPY, NEST JUST AT TOP OF LIVE CANOPY. CAN BE SEEN FROM DRIVEWAY 1R610 92ND, LOOKING NW. Codes Used In Wildlife Heritage Point Report -------------------------------------------- Quadpt# : A sequential number for a point based on a US Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle. Species Code Alphanumeric code which identifies the species. List of codes are available in the documentation. Species Use Criteria that identifies how the area is used by the indicated species. List of codes are available in the documentation. Common Name : Common name of the species. Year : Year of the observation. Class : Code that separates animals into general groups. AA = Artifical animal (e.g., nest platforms not used yet). EA = Exotic animal. GA = Game animal. NA = No animal found after target specific survey completed. SA - 1 ,1 1 cd nd ) u �. g., _ cpCC4 ST = Split territory. ZA = Zapped animal. Site no longer supports original occurrence. Accuracy : Mapping accuracy of the site as determined by the individual doing the mapping. C = Accurate to within 1/4 mile radius and confirmed by a reliable source. G = Location known only to a general locality. N = Accurate to within one mile radius. U = Accurate to within 1/4 mile radius and unconfirmed by a reliable source. Scientific Name : Scientific name of the species. State Status : State listing status of species. SE = State endangered. SC = State candidate. ST = State threatened. SM = State monitor. SS = State sensitive. Federal Status : Federal listing status of species. FE = Federal endangered. FC = Federal candidate. FT = Federal threatened. FCo = Federal concern. Priority : Species and habitats that are considered to be priorities for conservation and management by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). For a copy of the most current Priority Habitats and Species List contact WDFW PHS Section at (360)902-2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage_htm. YES = Indicates that the species is considered a WDFW priority and is on the Priority Habitat and Species List and/or Species of Concern List. NO = Indicates that the species is not a WDFW priority. WDFW Region : This contains the WDFW administrative region number 1 through 6. Verified : Verification code for an observation. V = Verified by a reliable source, generally WDFW or other agency biologist. U = Not verified by a reliable source, or identification of species is uncertain. 1 = Confirmed grizzly bear or wolf observation. 2 = Probable grizzly bear or wolf observation. Township - Range - Section : The legal description of the species occurrence. Occurrence# : An ascension catalog number that combined with sequence number identifies a unique record within a species. Sequence# : Occurrences with multiple locations of a species. General Description : Description of location of a species. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon Report Form#: 902541 PHS Code: LINOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARK LANDS General Description: VARIOUS PARKLAND PARCELS IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY. Source: SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARK LANDS GUIDE Source Date: 81 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: BOUNDARIES ESTIMATED ON GSMAP FROM COMPARISON WITH SNOH. CO. PARKS MAP. Form#: 902675 PHS Code; WET Species Use: Common Name: WETLANDS Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: LAKE WASHINGTON WETLANDS. General Description: A VARIETY OF WETLAND TYPES ASSOCIATED EITHER DIRECTLY WITH THE LAKE, OR WITH THE SMALLER TRIBUTARY ING AND/OR INDUSTRIAL_ STREAMS. MOST OF SOME OF THESE THIS AREA 1S HEAVILY DEVELOPED AS URBP-N HOUS HAVE AN OPEN WATER COMPONENT. Source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS MAPS. Source Date: 12 90 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: USGS BASED MAP SYSTEM WITH NWI INFORMATION INCLUDED. Source: OPPERMAN, TONY; SCHNEIDER, PHIL; AND MULLER, TED; PERSONAL OBSERVATION Source Date: 91 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: SITE VISITS IN THE COURSE OF SEPA REVIEW. Form#: 902676 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: EDMONDS CITY PARKS General Description: PARK AREAS IN EDMONDS. PROVIDE REFUGIA HABITAT AND BREEDING HABITAT FOR LOWLAND TREE NESTING BIRD SPECIES. Source: GSMAP, 1981 TO DEFINE BOUNDARIES. STREET ATLAS, 1987 TO CONFIRM. Source Date: 87 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: AREAS ARE ALSO SHOWN IN CITY'S OPEN SPACE AREAS PLAN. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon Report Form#: 902677 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: LYNNWOOD CITY PARKS General Description: PARK AREAS IN LYNNWOOD_ PROVIDE REFUGIA AND BREEDING HABITAT FOR LOWLAND TREE DW ELLING SPECIES. Source: GOLDSMITH, MARK WDFW Source Date: 07 01 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL PHOTOS. Source: GSMAP, 1981 TO DEFINE BOUNDARIES. STREET ATLAS, 1987 TO CONFIRM. Source Date: 87 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: AREAS ARE ALSO SHOWN IN CITY'S PARK PLAN. Form#: 902694 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: SW SNOH. CO. OPEN SPACE. PUGET SOUND TO I General Description: VARIOUS OPEN SPACE AREAS PROVIDING A VARIETY OF HABITATS, MOSTLY FORESTED. FROM EVERETT SOUTH TO KING CO. AND FROM I-5 TO PUGET SOUND. MAY INCLUDE SMALL WETLAND S OR RIPARIAN AREAS. Source: GOLDSMITH, MARK WDFW Source Date: 07 01 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL PHOTOS. Source: USGS MAPS AND DNR ORTHOPHOTOS Source Date: 83 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: MAPS USED TO OUTLINE BOUNDARIES, PHOTOS USED TO ESTIMATE COVER TYPE PERCENTAGES. Form#: 902701 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: SNOB. CO. PARK General Description: UNDEVELOPED, OLD SECOND GROWTH, MIXED FOREST PARK. EXCELLENT SMALL MAMMAL AND SO NGBIRD HABITAT. Source: SNOH. CO. STREAM AND WETLAND ATLAS. Source Date: 07 84 Source Code: ORTHO Synopsis: DRIVEBY OBSERVATIONS BY T. OPPERMANN AND OTHER WDW STAFF. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon ",port perm#: 9027n2 PHS Code: RRIPAE Species Use: Common Name: RIPAR.IA11 ZONES Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: PERRINVILLE CREEK CORRIDOR General Description: IMPORTANT FORESTED CORRIDOR ALONG PERRINVILLE CREEK. UPPER REACHES SUPPORT RESID ENT CUTTHROAT TROUT. LOWER AREA SUPPORTS/PROVIDES SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT F OR ANADROMOUS SPECIES. ALSO GOOD SONGBIRD AND SMALL MAMMAL HABITAT. Source: OPPERMANN, TONY; SCHNEIDER, PHIL; WDW PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. Source Date: 110890 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: STREAM SURVEYED BECAUSE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. WANTS TO BUILD A STORMWATER DE TENTION FACILITY IN THE CREEK. Form#: 902705 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: MEADOWDALE PARK General Description: UNDEVELOPED, OLD i �GDI :D HABITAT. SECOND GROWTH, MIXED FOREST PARK. EXCELLENT SMALL MAMMAL AND SO Source: GOLDSMITH, MARK WDFW Source Date: 07 01 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL PHOTOS. Source: SNOH. CO. STREAM AND WETLAND SURVEY MAP ATLAS. Source Date: 07 84 Source Code: ORTHO Synopsis: DRIVE BY OBSERVATIONS BY T. OPPERMANN ON SEPA REVIEWS AND SURVEY OF LUNDS GULCH CREEK BY PHIL SCHNEIDER ON SURVEY FOR HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPLICATION. Form#: 902706 PHS Code: RIPAR Species Use: Common Name: RIPARIAN ZONES Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: LUNDS GULCH CREEK CORRIDOR General Description: IMPORTANT FORESTED CORRIDOR ALONG LUNDS GULCH CREEK. CREEEK SUPPORTS COHO SALMON AND CUTTHROAT TROUT UP TO 163 RD ST SW. Source: SCHNEIDER, PHIL; WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATION Source Date: 02 91 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: STREAM SURVEYED FOR PROPOSED INSTREAM DETENTION POND. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon neport Form#: 904461 PHS Code: ZACA Species Use: HO Common Name: CALIFORNIA SEA LION Season:WS F Definition: 0 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: ZALOPHUS CALIFORNIANUS State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: General Description: CALIFORNIA SEA LION Source: STEVE, JEFFRIES, WDW Source Date: 91 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL SURVEYS Form#: 904465 PHS Code: PHVI Species Use: HO Common Name: HARBOR SEAL Season:WSUF Definition: 0 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: PHOCA VITULINA State Status: SM Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: General Description: HARBOR SEAL HAUL OUT SITE -YEAR AROUND Source: STEVE JEFFRIES, WDW Source Date: 91 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL SURVEYS Codes Used In Priority Habitat and Species Polygon Report ------ ----------------- Form# : Unique number that links the information in the reports to features on the map. PHS Code : This contains a code that identifies the fish and wildlife species found in the area or the habitat that occurs there. List of codes are available in the documentation. Species Use : Criteria that identifies how the area is used by the indicated species. List of codes are available in the documentation. This field is not used if a habitat is described. Common Name : Common name of the species or habitat. Season : Season of species use. Use is indicated by the presence of a non -blank character in one or more oos- tions or sub -strings of the field position. Position l: W = Winter use. Position 2: S = Spring use. Position 3: U = Summer use. Position 4: F = Fall use. Position 5: S = Severe winter use. Definition : Identifies the definitions or criteria used to classify the area as a priority. List of codes are available in the documentation. Accuracy : Mapping accuracy of the line delineation as determined by the mapper. 1 = Accurate within a 1/4 mile. 3 = Location known to within one mile. 2 = Accurate within a 1/2 mile. 4 = Location known to general locality only. Scientific Name : Scientific name of the species. State Status : State listing status of species. SE = State endangered. SC = State candidate. ST = State threatened. SM = State monitor. SS = State sensitive. --- Federal -Status .-Federal- listing -status- of -species: - - ----- -- - FE = Federal endangered. FC = Federal candidate. FT = Federal threatened. FCo = Federal concern. Priority : Species and habitats that are considered to be priorities for conservation and management by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). For a copy of the most current Priority Habitats and Species List contact WDFW PHS Section at (360)902-2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm. YES = Indicates that the species is considered a WDFW priority and is on the Priority Habitat and Species List and/or Species of Concern List. NO = Indicates that the species is not a WDFW priority. Site Name : Name assigned to the area based generally on a local place name. General Description : Description about the area, including how it is used and why it is important. Source : Identifies and describes the source responsible for the information described on the form or drawn on the map. Single or multiple sources may be cited. Source Date Date of source of information. Source Code Code identifying the source of information. Synopsis : Brief narrative describing content of source of information. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PRIORITY FISH REPORT F7 THE WASHINGTON LAKES AND RIVERS INFORM 7N SYSTEM (WLRIS) DATABASE FOR TOWNSHIP T27R04E, SECTION 18 Report Date: October 24, 2005 Information About The Fish Presence Report The fish information in this report only includes information that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife- (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. This information only documents the location of important fish resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory of the fish species in the state. Fish are identified as priority by WDFW if they meet one of three criterion as listed in the Priority Habitats and Species List. The list is available by contacting WDFW Priority Habitats and Species- section at (360)902- 2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm. To insure appropriate use of this information users are encouraged to consult with WDFW biologists. Streams with presence of priority anadromous and resident fish species from the WLRIS database are highlighted on the accompanying map. Due to the complexity of displaying linear features individual species that utilize each river reach are not distinguishable. If more species specific information is needed, users should request individual species maps, digital data, or contact the WLRIS database manager. State status information is not available in the WLRIS database for these species. Please see WDFW Species of Concern List for current status. For a copy of this list, contact WDFW Endangered Species Section at (360)902- 2515, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm. Dries i ty Anadromcus Fish Dr=r c: Code Common Name Stream Name Stream LLID Record Date ---- --- COHO -------- --- - Coho Salmon ------------------ ---------- Lunds Gulch 1223339478599 --- 03-11-13 COHO Coho Salmon Lunds Gulch 1223339478599 05-06-27 COHO Coho Salmon Shell Creek 1223730478218 05-06-27 COHO Coho Salmon Shelleberger Creek 1223911478066 05-06-27 COHO Coho Salmon Stream name(s) not in database 1223453478424 05-06-27 Priority Resident Fish Presence: Code Common Name Stream Name Stream LLID Record Date ---- CCT ------- Resident Cutthroat --- - ----- s) not in database Stream name(s) 1223453478424 04-12-07 CCT Resident Cutthroat Lunds Gulch 1223339478599 04-12-07 CCT Resident Cutthroat Shell Creek 1223730478218 04-12-07 CCT Resident Cutthroat Shelleberger Creek 1223911478066 04-12-07 Codes Used In The Fish Presence Report -------------------------------------- Code : WDFW alphanumeric code that identifies the fish species. Common Name Common name of the fish species. Stream Name Stream name based on the US Geological Survey, Geographic Names Information System database. Stream LLID Unique stream identifier (ID) generated from the node latitude and longitude located at a stream's mouth. This ID is to be construed only as an ID, and not necessarily as a reference to a stream's location. Record Date Date the information was entered into the database. t: 7 10 to a 14{{{ - 9712273017 aPt t• �1 i 1 k21, p T / 17 E -w 4 20 J. - -/ I \ rtY2 0 - } 1 ' $IC+24 � q I 1 FT; . 1 2° A ` - lyt wasnington uepartment ut run and wildute HABITATS AND SPECIES MAP IN THE VICINITY OF T27R04E SECTION 18 gap Scale - I : 24,000 Coordinate System - Slate Plane South Zone 5626 (NAD27) Production Date - October 24, 2005 gap Designed by WDFW Information Technology Services CIS PLEASE NOTE This nap and the accomppanying reports ne eat for general dill ribulion. Washington Slate Law (iCW /y.17.J10) exempts Sensltire FisA and Wildlife infomaiian from public inspection and copying. Washl ng ton Depa ument of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) considers sensitive species and habitat IOUtIanF displayyed on This map and ,,compaiy ing re- ports to be conl ideni ial. WDFW is the exclus ire oener of the Sensitive FisM1 and Wi Wile Information and locations shall En all respects be irea led as proprietary inlormat ion in accordance Wi 1M1 ail procedures I. necessary to protect WDFW's proprietary sights therein. This mop may contain sp a species pnd habitats Ina, ere not consiaered pr i,,i ly. A ccompenyingmihiz maD ore reports Inol vrovi az information in displAy <d rildl le pants nd toolyg-- lne se reports do not inclade nformation ia, displayed spotted arts pnd ma, b, ea me,re,el Accarreac<s. Some legend classes Ana symbols may nal be present vilni,l the mapped or — DISCLAIMER This mop and the ac c vmaanyyi nq "I"or is m y 'n lode inlormelivn foal the WA";'Von Deportment 1 Fi zn and W,Idlile (WDFWl m interims nlrol pmput er Oa lobos e. It i opt a attempt to pro -den you riih 0. apffi i,l cgen<y re Ponde As lA the impacts of Your prpje<1 on fish Ana •i ldli l<. This �nlormv 1, I only documents Ine local' on al fish and •ildl- and is Iv the belt i o r 4nori edge II not l, complete entory t i important to note Ihot f,sh pnd oil d,ile r may a not c entiYY tno.n to WDFW biologists, r n er oast tar rhich<camp� <M1z�sive s veps hero npl been conducted. Site specific s veys a I requenily necessary to rule out Ine Dr ¢sent¢ ai Priority rezaur cz s. Locgiioes al m aped *;Idlife end npbi tat aeplures are gener oily ,ri Lhin p quarter mite of the Iocal ions — toyed en this map. Loc al, erns al /ism and uildlile re aarces ore spbj ecl Io va ialion tau d by dislorb a n c e, cha nges in seas n and Teat,¢ r, ood other Foeloes. WDFW does n 1 re em- end us qq onopsA-.,A IN- si, months old aed i,i(—olim sh-ld —I be used Iprnlu lure prof ec,s. To i oDprapr late u AI This infvrmplipn, users Are encouraged I. c orsuilr+i lh WDFW bi of ages ls. WAIN DATA SOURCES Pr tart lY Habitats o d $peel es pal ygaon, Habilal point, Nlictilpl Cvunly Oak, IN,kilt le Her;l�ge, $polled Orl s. YY rbled Yur reset, Sept/Sep lion xoniauls 1:i4, o00 ztr"aims and fish Presence da to Wp. Oepl, of Fish pnd Wi,dM , Wello�ds data: US Fish and Wildl;le Service, `,:banal Wetlands Inventory. Seabird Colony data: US National Oceanic and Almospner is Administralian. xelp Bzd, Oat it And, Eelgr as s, Turl Algae and Ta.n5hi0/Section dplA: Wo. f D,pl. oIIII—1 Respuces. Col —b^o R^rer Tidal,M%seh dal- Oregon Slate S<ruice Center to, Geographic MAP LEGEND Priority Habitats/Species: Other HabitatsTSpecies: ® Primly Habitats old Species Other while Heritage Poops (PHS) Polygon Borders Q Priority widSfe Heritage Pants Q Privily "lot PGinls Spotted Oil Management Circles ED Marbled lArretel Ponds Tstcushed Territory (0:0pamy Sites) Spatted Oil Mangernenl Circles Spotted Oil Site Centers Insufficient Data To [swish * (Officid Status 1-3) Territory * Spotted Oil Site Centers (Oflkid Status 4) Other Symbols: Priority aladro mans fish Presece Rivers and Streams at 124,000 Scale Resolution ••••• Priority Resldenl Fish Presence TaillsRp L'rces Nationd Wedards Inventory ---- Section Lines hvr•r�. r,.,;I fISN..a WILDLIFE AREA LOCATION 0 OS 1 Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report City of Edmonds Wetland Field Dataform (also used for functional value assessment) 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Appendix D 1 City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form Name of wetland (if known) Location: SEC 1$ TWNSHP -�`i RNGE 4 (attach map of wetland to form) Person(s) Rating Wetland: Affiliation: cm—� Y� Project Name/Description: Date of Site Visit: -- Category Based on Combined Total Score for Functions Assessments I II III IV Total Score for Water Quality Functions Assessment 9 Total Score for Hydrologic Functions Assessment .Total Score for Habitat Functions Assessment + Combined Total Score for Functions Assessment ot5 Determine wetland hydrogeomorphic class based upon criteria provided on page 2. Complete water quality, hydrologic and habitat functions assessment as directed for the class of wetland being rated and enter scores as indicated above. Final wetland category is based upon a total (combined) score for functions assessment per the score criteria proviaea above _ --------- - -- -- -- or Category I or II Based on Criteria in ECDC 20.50.010(B) I II Specific Criteria wetland field data form. doc%r v.2004.12.20 a= Page 1 Wetland Hydrogeomorphic Class Determine the hydrogeomorphic class of the wetland being rated based upon the criteria provided below. Water quality and hydrologic functions assessments are based upon the specific hydrogeomorphic class of a wetland. 1. Are the water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during ds)? NO go to 2 YES — Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts Der thousand)? YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe INO — Estuarine Wetland Estuarine wetlands meet Criteria for Category I or II wetlands regardless of total score for functions assessment per ECDC 23.50.0100. 2. Is the topography within the wetland flat and precipitation the only source (>90%) of water to it OR the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the rface, at some time of the year.? NO —go to 3 Depressional 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO go to 4 YES — Lake Fringe 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a Swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? no go to 5 YES — Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank stream flooding? (The flooding should occur at lust once ever,,, hvo o~ the v �rtV years, Vll 111G - -- - ---- -- —average and the wetlanfican contain depressions that are filled with water when the river t flooding.) NO go to 6 YES — Riverine Hydrogeomorphic class of wetland based on above: Depressional Riverine/Freshwater Tidal Fringe Lake Fringe Slope Class I or II Wetland Based Upon Other Criteria wetland field data form. doelrev.2004.12.20 Page 2 Water Quality Functions Assessment Complete section I below for the hydrogeomorphic class of the wetland to be rated only by circling points under each question. If the answer to section 2 is YES, then multiply the combined number of points from section 1 by 2 and enter this value as the total score for water quality functions assessment on page 1. 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? Depressional Wetlands D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet Points = 3 P_a ��q� /_,)) Wott nd has an Intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet Points = 2 ` ' .. Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet Points =1 dl)�- +C) 51� Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet, or outlet is a ditch Points =1 OfLl—w '� D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic (hydre3'gn sulfide or rotten eggs). YES Points = 4 NO Point = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persist vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest class): Wetland has persistent vegetation > = 95% of area Points = 5 Wetland has persistent vegetation > = 1/2 of area Points = 3 Wetland has persistent vegetation > = 1/10 of area Points 1. Wetland has persistent vegetation <1/10 of area Points = 0 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is >'/2 total area of wetland Points 4 Area seasonally ponded is >'/4 total area of wetland Points = Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland Points = 0 Score section 1 for Depressional Wetlands Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland Points = 8 rlar.raSSio .o nn -r � ✓v�I VJJIVII.� vvs vl � tIL al V4 Vl YY VI.IGttILL VlLL L3—^e --- --- Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland Points = 2 No depressions present Points = 0 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Forest or shrub > 2/3 the area of the wetland Points = 8 Forest or shrub > 1/3 area of the wetland Points = 6 Emergent plants > 2/3 area of wetland Points = 6 Emergent plants > 1/3 area of wetland Points = 3 Forest, shrub, and emergent < 1/3 area of wetland Points = 0 Score section 1 for Riverine and Freshwater Tidal fringe Wetlands wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 3 Lake Fringe Wetlands L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore Vegetation is more than 33ft (I Om) wide Points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft Points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft Points =1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide Points = 0 L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. In this case the herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form (called emergent class) or an understory in a shrub or orest communi . Herbaceous plants cover >90% of the vegetated area Points = 6 Herbaceous plants cover >2/3 of the vegetated area Points = 4 Herbaceous plants cover >1/3 of the vegetated area Points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 2/3 vegetated area Points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area Points =1 Aquatic bed cover > 2/3 of the vegetated area Points = 0 Score section 1 for Lake Fringe Wetlands Slope Wetlands S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of wetland: Slope isl% or less Points = 3 Slope is 1% - 2% Points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% Points =1 Slope is greater than 5% Points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). YES Points=3 NO Points=0 S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface. Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area Points = 6 Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area Points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > % of area Points = 2 Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area Points =1 vocs not utVcti arty of ttie criteria above for v-C8CWion-P0ints-= --- -- S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that bestfits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface. Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area Points = 6 Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area Points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/z of area Points = 2 Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area Points =1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation Points = 0 Score section 1 for Slope Wetlands wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 4 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Indicate which of the following conditions proJv�'de the sources ofpollutants. O Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland. A stream/culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas or roads. _ Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland. tJp The stream linked to a riverine wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the - - ---river,water above standards for water quality. - 1-10 A lake fringe wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards or supports gasoline or diesel power boats. Other n I -'C If answer to section 2 is YES multiply score from section 1 by 2 for total score water quality functions assessment. Otherwise enter score from section 1 as total. Total Score Water Quality Functions Assessment IL wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 5 Hydrologic Functions Assessment Complete section I below for the hydrogeomorphic class of the wetland to be rated only by circling points under each question. If the answer to section 2 is YES, then multiply the combined number of points from section I by 2 and enter this value as the total score for hydrologic functions assessment on page 1. 1. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? Depressional Wetlands D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Wetland has no surface water outlet Points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet Points Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet Points = 0 l/ Wetland is flat and drains by surface flow or a ditch Points = 0 D 1.2 Depth of storage/ponding during wet periods: Marks of ponding are at least 3 ft above the surface Points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" Points = 5 Marks are at least 2 ft from surface Points = 5 Marks are at least 6 in. ft from surface Points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water Points =1 No marks of ponding above 6 in., or wetland has only saturated soils Points D 3.3 Contribution of wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland Points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland Points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland Points # 0� Score section 1 for Depressional Wetlands l041 Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands R 1.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (width of wetland)/(width of stream). If the ratio is more than/L20 Points = 9 if tiiv rally iJ Vl/t-YYl+It VLV _ GV VLntJ =V If the ratio is 5- <10 Points = 4 If the ratio is 1- <5 Points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 Points =1 R 1.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR Emergent plants > 2/3 area Points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR Emergent plants > 1/3 area Points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria Points = 0 Score section 1 for Riverine and Freshwater Tidal fringe Wetlands wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 6 l Lake Fringe Wetlands L 1.1 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): Choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland. >'/a of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 tt (l Om) wide Points = 6 > % of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide Points = 4 >'/a of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 ft (10m) wide Points = 4 Fringe vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide Points = 2 Fringe vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide Points = 0 -- Score section 1 for Lake Fringe Wetlands Slope Wetlands S 1.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland Points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area Points =1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid Points = 0 S 1.2 Characteristics of slope wetlands that hold back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES Points = 2 NO Points = 0 Score section 1 for Slope Wetlands 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the wetland provides flood storage or reduction in water velocity to protect downstream or shoreline property and aquatic resources from flooding and/or erosion. Note which of the following conditions apply. `wetland is in a headwater o� a�tream-that-bas-t�looding-pr-oblems — -- - -- -- - - a.?O Wetland drains to a stream that has flooding problems. 1l6 Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a stream that has flooding problems. 1—'O Structures, facilities or natural resources exist downstream or along the shoreline (for lake frin e wetlands) that can be damaged by flooding. Other 51 X 0'"L- 4u Ai2 Sh-� a"-\OL +�v�w�-al v�cr♦- cc� use sc� ale, Gdnt�n�u't,,g �U -�Aw"J) If answer to section 2 is YES multiply score from section 1 by 2 for total score tM hydrologic functions assessment. Otherwise enter score from section 1 as total. Total Score Hydrologic Functions Assessment wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004,12.20 Page 7 H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. �_IoLarge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland 00 Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream for at least 33 ft (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present K)VAt least'/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structures for egg- IZA' g by amphibians) �1 v Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants Point = Score section 1 for all hydrogeomorphic wetland classes _q_ H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H2.1 Existing Buffers: Choose the description that best represents the condition of the natural buffer existing l al <1 TL L_-< i 'A i t v ai'vuiiu tote vi%e_uuii . Vie highest scoria �Pu -rion 1/tU[ a ueJ' �LJ_lY{�_k1��11ana-ISID_De -_ ---_- --- us d in the rating. 0 O 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 f� 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open me > 50% circumference. Points = 4 H1�tSeS, (Zds C.) 1ouf-�e D� 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open t^w�ater >95% circumference. Points = 4 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference. Points = 3 rMY2 wads �12"�- wetland field data form.doc/rev.2009.12.20 Page 9 iJ 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, roc areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 L4 ��, Wbvl 1 -7D o f W L— If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 in (80ft) o Hand > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circum ce. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) or heavily grazed for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland).Points = 0. --- ---- I-L2-Z-C�rrid�rs anfiCnn_nections: -- .--- Choose the description that best represents connections from the wetland to other natural areas and wildlife habitat. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. The wetland is part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in -size. Points=4. The wetland is part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either r riparian or upland) that is at least SOft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, �l and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size. OR a Lake fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above. Points=2. The wetland is: within 5 mi of a brackish or saltwater estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within f a lake greater than 20 acres? Point —1. - If none of the above conditions are met. Points=0 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW: Which of the following priority habitats are within 33Oft (100m) of the wetland? U Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each - - -- --other- 0 Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Mature forests: Stand_ s with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally t-�oo less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 10 natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that, of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5% during the period © of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may aonents of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats Points=4 If wetland has 2 priority habitats Points=3 If wetland has 1 prio ' habitat Point=l No habitats Poi s=0 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits. There are at least 3 other wetlands within % mile, and the connections between them �© are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. Points = 5 q The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake - fringe wetlands within '/z mile Points = 5 y There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/z mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed Points = 3 1 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake - ]A fringe wetland within %Z mile Points = 3 ,, nn There is at least 1 wetland within %Z mile. Points = 2 — I-Ac do e rved oy- v�d There are no wetlands within '/z mile. Points = 0 COTAwr "ap Score section 2 for all hydrogeomorphlc wetland classes �J Add score for section 1 and section 2 for total score habitat functions assessment. Total Score Habitat F na ctions Assessment wetland field data form.doe/rev.2004.12.20 Page 11 January 9, 2006 City of Edmonds Planning Division 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Steve Bullock RE: ANGLER'S CROSSING WETLAND PEER REVIEW Dear Mr. Bullock: LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES JA N 1 1 2006 Landau Associates conducted a reconnaissance of the Angler's Crossing wetland on January 5, 2006. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to observe and compare current site conditions to two previous wetland delineations that were conducted on the property. The previous reports were prepared for this site by Pentec (1997) and Talasaea (2005) and show discrepancies in the size of the onsite wetland. The 1997 reconnaissance claims the wetland is composed of approximately 1,700 square feet, whereas the 2005 delineation shows the wetland is approximately 400 square feet. At the time of our field visit, the flags from the 2005 delineation were still on the site. Based on our January 5, 2006 field observations, it appears that the 2005 delineation is approximately correct. We agree with the dominant plant species and soil colors documented in the 2005 delineation report. We also agree that precipitation contributes to the hydrology of the wetland; however, shallow groundwater from the surrounding hillsides is likely the main source of wetland hydrology. While we generally agree with the boundaries of the 2005 delineation, a portion of the depression southeast of the wetland (Near TP-2 in the 2005 delineation report) was inundated. However, we cannot definitively conclude that the wetland is larger than the 2005 delineation report because there has been an abundance of recent precipitation (more than 2 weeks of moderate to heavy rain) and January is not considered the growing season in western Washington. During the growing season (starting in March), the area may or may not exhibit wetland hydrology for 2 consecutive weeks. In addition to conducting a field review of the wetland delineation, you also requested that we review the four conditions for exemption of wetland fill under the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.50.040 described in the 2005 delineation report. We agree with conditions 1 and 2: the wetland is less than 500 square feet in area and is a Category 3 or 4 wetland. However, for condition 3, we disagree that the wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife. While the wetland ENVIRONMENTAL ( GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 fax (425) 778-6409 SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND does score fairly low in habitat value on the Washington Wetland Rating System, the habitat that it does provide is significant in that there is no other wetland habitat nearby. Even small areas of wetland habitat are important within an upland forest, providing seasonal water for birds and small mammals, and potential habitat for amphibians. We also disagree with the assessment of condition 4. Filling the wetland will not maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing site conditions. In fact, filling the wetland will eliminate the only existing wetland on this property and, thus, will eliminate the habitat functions it provides. The wetland likely does not meet the exemption conditions and therefore does not qualify for exemption of filling under the ECDC. If you have any questions regarding (his letter, please feel free to contact me at (253) 926-2493. Landau Associates appreciates the opportunity to provide wetland services to the City of Edmonds. We look forward to working with you on future projects. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Jennifer W. Olson Project Environmental Scientist JWO/jdr REFERENCES Pentec. 1997. Letter Report. From Ms. Lizzie Zemke, Project Botanist/Wetland Scientist, Pentec Environmental Inc. to Mr. Ian Z. Park c/o Mr. Charles Maki. February 11. Talasaea. 2005. Report: Critical Area Report, Angler's Crossing, Edmonds, Washington. Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Prepared for the McNaughton Group, LLC. November 2. 1/10/06 \\Edmdata\projects\074\132\FileRm\C\Mglers Crossing wetland_Itr.doc LANDAU AssocIATES 2 Go CITY L CITY OF EDMONDS 121 M AVENUE NO: EDMONDS, WA 98026 0006.150.04B WSS/gjz 07/07/98 3217 9IU32S0578 03/25/99 16:35 P-0010 Recorded Snohomish County AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION .ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PARK REZONE, NO. R-97-28, FROM RS-12 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12-,000 SQUARE FEET) TO RS-8 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 8,000 SQUARE FEET); AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning Board at a public hearing, considered the following amendments to the Official Zoning Map and made their findings and recommendations which were forwarded to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council after a public hearing reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Board and determined that the proposed amendment and agreement.should be approved and hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions of its Planning Board amended to acknowledge the withdrawal of property located at 18305 -. 80th Ave. W., Edmonds, Washington, owned by Mr. and Mrs. James L. Thompson, huchnnd and urifP NnW ibit THEREFORE, ExhIS File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS f, • , tee. PORTIONS OF ,IS DOCUMENT ARE POOR QUALITY FOR SCANNING. Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds, as adopted by Section 17.00.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of certain property hereinafter described from RS-12 (single family residential 12,000 sq. ft.) to RS-8 (single-family residential 8,000 sq. ft.), subject to the Concomitant Zoning Agreement, Exhibit A executed and recorded as provided herein. The legal description of the property rezoned is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 2. The Planning Director is hereby instructed to effectuate the necessary amendments to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds pursuant to this ordinance. Section I The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest to that certain document entitled "Agreement and Covenants, " attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The City Clerk is further directed to record said Concomitant Zoning Agreement in the land records of Snohomish County as a covenant running with the land. The cost of said recordation shall be paid by the owners. Section 4. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after its publication, or publication of a summary thereof consisting of its title, in the City's official newspaper. 1"910 2 � •i ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE qFT10 CATTOIjNEY: FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07/17/98 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07/21 /98 PUBLISHED: 07/26 /98 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/31 /98 ORDINANCE NO. 3217 1"910 3 AGREEMENT AND COVENANT CONSTITUTING A CONTRACT REZONE This agreement contain the covenants entered into between Dr. and Mrs. Han Z. Park, Mr. and Mrs. Russell C. Kim, and City of Edmonds, Washington A Municipal Corporation, hereafter referred as "The Owners" and City of Edmonds, A Municipal Corporation, hereafter referred to as "The City", WITNESSETH Whereas, The Owners proposes the development of approximately 5.8 acres of real property in Edmonds, generally located at 7704 Olympic View Dr., 18408 79th Pl. W., and a vacant parcel between 18305 and 18325 80`s Ave. W. in the City of Edmonds, all being more specially described by Exhibit A attached hereto. Whereas, The Owners have applied for a change in zoning of the subject property from its current Single Family Residential 12,000 sq. ft. ( RS-12 ) classification to Single Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft. ( RS-8 ); and Whereas The City has caused the application in its entirety, including, but not limited to the environmental check list, to be reviewed by its Planning and Engineering Department and by its Planning Board, and has fully considered recommendation made after such review; and Whereas, on April 21, 1998, the City Council of Edmonds found that the rezone request specified above and modified pursuant to the conditions set forth in this agreement does not adversely affect the public health, safety, general welfare and also not sufficiently change the character of the surround areas; and Whereas, The Owners voluntarily tender this agreement and are willing and able.to implement the terms of this agreement in the course of development; and Whereas, The Owners and The City are willing to enter into an Agreement for a Contract Rezone; and Now, Therefore, It is hereby agreed as follows: 1. In Consideration of the City reclassifying the subject property from RS-12 to RS-8, and for so long as the property remains so classified, The Owners covenant as follows: 1.1 To limit the use of such property to Single Family Residential uses as defined under the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as the same exists or is hereafter amended; and that development of the subject property shall be consistent with an approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) application. 1.2 The building pads shall occupy a maximum of 21 % of the net buildable area. Net buildable area means the total area of property minus right of way area in accordance with Edmonds City Development Code ( ECDC ). 13 A landscaping plan shall be implemented for both entrances. The landscaping shall be maintained by a Homeowner's Association to be formed. 1.4 The Owners shall pay for the widening of preexisting 20 feet wide 184th Street SW to width of 40 feet. The street shall connect 80th Ave. W. to Olympic View Dr. The easterly half of 1841h Street, which is currently closed, shall be relocated to fit a newly created contour and grading as depicted and in accordance with Findings of ST 96-77 and ST 96-78. The finished street shall be dedicated to The City upon its completion. 1.5 A private cul-de-sac as depicted in ST 96-77 and ST 96-78 shall be constructed and it's north end shall be connected to a revised 184`h Street SW. 1.6 All residential structures shall be designed and constructed in a style and theme consistent with the approved PRD. 1.7 The maximum height of any permitted structure shall be 25 feet measured from average grade in accordance with ECDC. 1.8 Sidewalks, gutters, street lights and signs required by ECDC and the approval process shall be supplied and constructed by The Owners. 2. Expect as provided in paragraph 1.1, no amendment to this agreement may be made by The Owners, or their heirs, successors or their assigns to amend the underlying zoning of RS 8 for a period of two years from date of this agreement. Thereafter, either The Owners or their heirs, successors or their assigns may, upon application filed in the same manner as rezone application, apply to amend or terminate the provisions of this agreement or to change the zoning on said property. Said application shall be heard in accordance with application requirements for any other rezone of property in the City of Edmonds. 3. The City shall be under no obligation to issue The Owners or their heirs, successors or their assigns a building permit unless The Owners fully comply with the terms of this agreement and the applicable ordinance in effect at the time of approval of this rezone. 4. This agreement and each part of it shall be considered as covenants running with the land covered hereby above and shall be binding upon The Owners, their heirs, successors and assigns. It shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor in the Grantor/Grantee index with The Owners being listed as Grantor and The City as Grantee. Such recordation and payment of said costs shall be a condition precedent to the exercise of development by The Owner. In the event of transfer of ownership, the rights and obligations of this Agreement shall be assumed by the new Owner. 5. The term of this agreement may be specifically enforced. If either party shall bring suit to enforce any of the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled reimbursement for all cost of said litigation together with a sum for reasonable attorney fees. FHB-15-99 0S:+ae Am Pl.Z.PARK 20 74013;4 F.A4 A, This ngretmcni and each part of it shall be ctnnsldcretl as cavenents running with the land covcrcd hereby atHwe still 1hall be minding upon The Owners, thtir heirs, sumi.sors and na.igna. tt shalt he recorded with the. Snohomish County Auditor In the (minter/Grantee index with The Owners being listed 39 Grantor and Thv City as Grantee. Such recordation and payment of said costs shall he a romlition precedent to the excrcime of development try Tbc Owner. In the event of transfer of ownetvhlp, the rights and obligations of this Agreement mhall be assumed by the new On tier. S. The term of this agrcsment may he spetifle.alt,• enforced. If either petty shall hying quit to enforce utty Of the prov1sloom of this agre,ement, the prev'atline party shall be entitled reintbursetnctit for all cmt of said litleation together with a sum for reasonable attorney fees. IN WI'!+JFSS 11'1{€ RF.OF, the arties have expressed this agrvement This• _dal' or , 199R. GINA K. PARK Milt. RIISSF:1,L C', NMi � MRS. CHRIi7 RIA P. 10m Tar rin' of FnMONDS, ax )v% Her MAYOR RARUM A S. FAHEY �5 7s ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: City Clerk, SANDRA S. CHASE SFTFIE S TO FORM: T TTORNEY: OTT SNYD;R STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss• COUNTY OF womi �? ) On this � day of 00111. z , 1998, before me a Notary Public, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Dr. HAN Z. PARK AND MRS. REGINA K. PARK, husband and wife, appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that they signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal affixed the day and year first above written. Dated A-0,� /-,,, A'V STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OF D ss. ( print or type name ) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Stat of Washington, residing at 71, n--+ w d, It -AA, My Commission expires:fd Q„L On THIS 6 day of - , 1998, before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared MR. RUSSELL C. KIM AND MKS. CHRISTINA P. KIM, husband and wife, appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that they signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal affixed the day and year first above written. 4 12.5h AZ X11 print or type name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the ......... State of OkIphorna, residing, at Kky (I t 1: y My Commission expires tq 2-7 ig _61(4i'i Or, STATE OF WASH NGTON COUNTY OFnMy On this day of (j\a>_-rC)ey 199Y, before me a Notary Public in and for the City of Edmonds, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared FC'.�e\/ MAYOR of the CITY OF EDMONDS, the municipal cooperation that executed the foregoing instrument, acknowledged the instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of that corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal affixed the day and -year above written. 0 print or type name NOTARY 9P, NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the LJG State of Washington residing at MY C.- .011expires 47- LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: Park property. EXHIBIT "All PARCEL A: Tax Account No. 3708-001-009-0008 Lot 9, Block 1, Plat of Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats on page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of Snohornish, State of Washington. PARCEL 8: Tax Account No. 3708-001-010-0005 Lot 10, Block 1, Plat of Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of Snohomish. State of Washington. PARCEL C: Tax Account No. 4346-000-106-0107 All that portion of Tract 106, Edmonds, Sea View Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats on page 76, records of Snohomish County, lying Southwesterly of Beverly Park —Edmonds Road; EXCEPT the East 212 feet thereof as measured along south line of said Tract 106 and EXCEPT any portion lying within Beverly Park —Edmonds Road. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Kim Property PARCEL A Tax Account No. 3708-001-011-0004 Lot 11, Block 1, Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 48, records of Snohomish County, EXCEPT the east 120 feet thereof. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. PARCEL 8 Tax Account No. 3708-001-011-0004(some as A) The East 120 of Lot 11, Block 1, Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of. Snohomish, State of Washington. City-cf,Edmonds property. Tax Account No. 3708-001-0120003 Lot 12. Block 1, Plat of Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. f ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT September 6, 2006 Meeting PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: The Architectural Design Board From: Steve Bullock, AICP Senior Planner Date: AUGUST 31, 2006 PRD-05-137 Application by the McNaughton Group for a twenty-seven lot Planned Residential Development (PRD). A. Property Owner/Applicant Architect/Representative Han Park The McNaughton Group, LLC 7704 Olympic View Dr. PO Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020 B. Site Location: 183xx Olympic View Dr. C. Introduction: The applicant is proposing to develop a 27 lot PRD. In the mid 90's the property owner approached the City with a contract rezone request to rezone his property to RS-8 with some stipulations. Some of those stipulations included a requirement that the property be developed through a PRD and that a through road be constructed between 80"' and Olympic View Drive. D. Background: 1. Zoning: The property is zoned Residential Single Family — 8,000 square feet minimum lot size (RS-8). At approximately 244,000 sq. ft. this property could potentially be developed as an 30 lot PRD. The applicant is proposing a 27 lot PRD. 2. Environmental Review: Due to the number of lots that will be created, the proposed project is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). City staff is still in the process of issuing our Threshold Determination. Issues: The applicant has attempted to address all of the required site development standards and requirements with their proposal. Their packet of information also describes the design of the buildings, site, and landscaping. The Architectural Design Board must determine whether the proposal is consistent the design review criteria found in ECDC 20.35.060, Single Family Design Criteria (see Attachment 2). Page 1 of 4 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 ADB Staff Report Anglers Crossing PRD PRD-2005-137 E. Code Compliance: Zoning Code: a. Single Family zone district The proposed layout appears to generally comply with the requirements of the RS-8 zone as permitted through the PRD provisions. However, the PRD code requires 10% of the site be reserved as "Usable Open Space". Critical Areas and their buffers may not be included in this area. Currently the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with this requirement and they will need to before the Hearing Examiner may approve the project. Critical Areas The site is encumbered by a steep slopes and a wetland. Studies have been completed that confirm the classes and exact locations of all the critical areas. However, due to the extensive amount of grading that will be required to build the road and provide access from the road to each lot, the applicant is requesting approval to eliminate the wetland. This is an issue that the Hearing Examiner will ultimately decide. Otherwise, the submitted geotechnical report and the proposed layout document that the proposed project can be constructed safely. F. Staff Analysis: The following analysis was completed by reviewing section 20.35.060 of the PRD chapter entitled, Single Family Design Criteria (see Attachment 2 of this packet). 2. Building Design: c. Single Family Characteristics Connection between the Street and the House: Individual site plans have not be submitted at this time. Assuming the application is ultimately approved, City staff would review each individual building permit application for compliance with this criteria. Human Scale (de-emphasize the garage): It appears that each of the elevations that face the street have included elements that emphasize the'human scale of the homes. These include, windows, doors, shutters, dormers, trim and other architectural elements. d. Entries and Porches Porches: Each of the elevations submitted include porches. Entries oriented to the Street: The proposed elevations appear to address this criteria in a satisfactory manner. e. Materials: All of the proposed elevations indicate a nice mix and use of materials. Another thing staff will have to monitor during the building permit process is how each individual plan shows a consistent use of building forms and materials on all four sides of the building. This is not to say that every material must be used on all sides of the building, but rather that no side would be left completely unadorned. A condition of approval restating this requirement would be appropriate. f. Garages: based on the elevations submitted most of the proposed homes appear to have garages that are right at the limit of 50% of the width of the houses. However, a number of architectural details and techniques have been used to minimize the prominence of those garages. Staff will have to continue to monitor through the building permit process to ensure compliance with this requirement. Page 2 of 4 F. ADB Staff Report Anglers Crossing PRD PRD-2005-137 Site Design a. Significant Features: One of the steepest portions of the site that also happens to have a large number of mature evergrees is proposed to be entirely left alone with the exception of a path or viewing area encroaching the slope. b. Vehicular Access Driveway widths: No driveway curb cuts are allowed over 20'. It appears that all the lots comply with this requirement. Staff will confirm compliance at the building permit stage of the project for this lot. 2. Shared Driveways: No shared driveways are proposed at this point. However, staff will continue to work with the applicant on this issue through the preparation of the plat construction plans. c. Garage Locations: The proposed house and site plans appear to comply with this criteria. d. Landscaping & Buffering: The perimeter of this site will be buffered by the existing steep slopes to the north, south and east along with the vegetation there. The contract rezone requires that some entrance landscaping be provided at both ends of the new through road. Currently the east end of the road indicates some entrance landscaping, but the west end does not (see attachment 6). e. Building Entrances: As mentioned in section l.b above, the proposed plans appear to meet this criteria. f. Open Space: The proposal includes an open space recreational area in the northeast and west corners of the site. PRD's must provide at least 10% of their total area as usable open space. The applicant must still demonstrate compliance with this requirement. g. Street Design Residential Street design characteristics: The applicant is currently indicating sidewalks on both sides of their streets along with street trees. Summary: As proposed the project is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the Single Family Design Guidelines of the PRD chapter. With the exception of specific items identified in the report, the proposal is consistent with the bulk standards and use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to the level of detail submitted with this application. Further detail will be required with any building permit application to ensure that the proposed buildings and site improvements meet the height and setback requirements. 3. The proposal appears to be consistent with the requirements of the. criteria of ECDC sections 20.35.060 with the following exceptions: a. Consistent use of materials or building forms should be used on all sides of the homes. b. Building plans for individual lots must still be resolved with the site plan. c. Required usable open space must still be demonstrated. d. Sidewalk will be required on at least one side of the access road. Page 3 of 4 ADB Staff Report Anglers Crossing PRD PRD-2005-137 G. Recommendation: Staff recommends the ADB make the following motion: The board recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the proposed PRD-2005-137 with the following conditions: • Consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the homes. • Building plans for individual lots must still be resolved with the site plan. • Required usable open space must still be demonstrated. • Sidewalk will be required on at least one side of the access road. • A landscape plan shall be implemented for both entrances. Because with these conditions: 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted city policies. 2. The proposal satisfies the criteria and purposes ECDC section 20.35.060, PRD — Single Family Design Criteria. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site & Landscape Plan 3. Typical Elevations 4. Site Sections 5. PRD Chapter, ECDC 20.35.060 6. Excerpt from approved Contract Rezone regarding conditions of approval Page 4 of 4 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE + OPEN SPACE PLAN ANGLER'S CROSSING PRD u/ Edmonds, Washingion The McNaughton Group, LLC September 2006 �,�•� � ,tt>�N.� �.arr to r+V' testa rw( w SM M%rraMYrM M1�a rlOarif/Mr+IM a Mwi lwt lnW -K• Iw auen/rr WY mn a our I'af r.rla iNL•Y Jaef%M , Nan pwr%SrnMrq :a+rL ar wsY nR Je/v .ul rfs I-r/r-d dx ar N.wr lawn �, Mrwa .ar�ar/•vur Wr ��aq�Y .u�uNx•er rM•a M!!•minWYrnMFa _Ni�l•IIIL 'aw+NT nao�wWn r. Nv+aarr 'rya.%! y+. a �r� m�,w_� p�M. wrwow•: t+. .MYrnha tYa. yee ar m. J nVw k r w•/ Ow4 M4 aN T srerY%fax JYuaq Im • Yn IE - N•WiN. (ut Jr yH , 4sr aac � f xe 4wJ Ymr tre Ca% �Y rlr Y•mr aw are r Y xe axy r..n x La f Wr1Yarjrka rmy Nv,.om Ne LrY1 Tr•nr%-. W.pari N•_... Yaw 4IWn AYreli/ Y.Nur orfv wn +4>'x nPwsr/0 •v pv� INxr%le nwe Mrvra/Mr,Y 1utl Nre.rata yY/M0.a�rm w •iw /c.v.a nu+eem�ry 1 4ea aV�YA3r Mgt✓ �...W Yew w...� r.c .•.c.� ra wnc .o..rNr¢eu .IIIIIL few arlrNr✓Y/Nr.'Irr Mr Y(rvNq Meal Nxne /fwgiw � N,.. nY NrN•%aY. Nw aoa. ur,Y wr• a aYa.«am �arw rrN..: r.aa./na-xea rwr cw 7wrr a.aY rueer.e%Y.ar rw a.aa. aeYNgan w,..%r..rNnt w.an..e rK r .,�, s•.�. •.a.N Nx. x.�+e-rw%rrm•.r xaY :rt r.•... a,�w. .a, ,r..nwn..w,rewr aYa:✓ sr s...ro, sw Y.v:w au,aaYaYa w � rA•.bw .crYw.a.•N s.w r.. Nmr</KN-Jr'.c rar%1 Iwrrrawva✓MWGv w/M19•a- hu M' aW lYt u0r•/YY Yw'Y ew Lwr% 0-Na saw fXSMC lEGf7AMJN • y PSYr',muKta Ewe nsy rn r+naVt nova as N Ner Yaa rwoYrt N Nr N aJ0'.•r aw tWa> n'a.�swa r,c+. e. Nina 4nw rr ay:x ( M/ ro xtnt a. pe�nw te. J .�fi;• awc avran rrc ro rnw.r Lr Snp PwWGa NpMNINwYsv A,��. p G6lM ILLIM[pl t IKLQIPT' 14 /YYLV MwN at'n aer Mt anet pw.wan Rrwtee rwjo4 M1 rrl ryWry t WbYat Nw /nU+.n ro arnir a Attachment 2 File No. PRD-2005-137 -NMINom a % wileltymirA ELEVATIUN ff'hfffw Affachmie File No. PRD-A' dNGI-FRS CROSSING -PLAN - � /�I'i� `.� .. a ■n`mens i. (��`\ / c�i� 1 +'�y' �� _�\ ,i III "eLaunrw.. �� o�i�n► I � �►�INI �!lYY �l�l`��il►�IN�J/� _ i Jill, - -I IIIIN i !I!\ � it Jify r 4, / 'WlrrlrWrrltlOrO' ►r✓li— —iltl � , ✓�lii��+}If ice: _ ! 0 �' � �- — 41 IT �rill 1 211�I—�--!Illii +trill' .i'-�+..�-+IIY�%✓�dl0imi"�I� F„e k�: �'`� i I I� r.•L .:4.�. �.. iL&��%? s �.�.....r.wb�ll_ �,.�!I®�w��'a'��. . ..r ir.�.:.T. I i j Site Vicinity Map & Section Cut Lines �m ;r Pon Office Seaview Pa � t � � f PBvv— i � 1 ,00 ,C �C.:tj �I��vv'�11�2gf .7► Site section 1 scale: V = 40' 10+00 P� PL 49+00 50+00 51+00 11+00 12+00 ANGLER'S CROSSING PRD g Edmonds, Washington The McNaughton Group, LLC Attachment File No. PRD-2005-137 Site Vi inity Map & Sectio" ,.Gut Lines a i r Office :w Park l P� i-- -_ /—Max. Bldg. Ht at �` _ -. z4._:,.. oe�•..e�a, - -".=- _ —1___ 25' above ex. grade _ 4 a ---" _ .-Iandsca \pprox. location Ix. house & landscape 32o DATUM ELEV_ / Site section 3 scale: t" = 40' i ►� I P� 101+00 litsx-air Approx.i��ti:�as,� ex ho-qk t �w�■irrr� � 3101, „=ar:�tl�mwt�rtt►rira�l�rrn;txr. to I;sai� �r OWN,r r:: 290 2801 270 81+00 Site section 4 scale: 9" = 40' 82+00 83+00 SITE ANGLER'S CROSSING PRD Edmonds, Washington The McNaughton Group, LLC G x September2006 theMcNaughtonGroup_ Boardmember Schaefer confirmed for Mr. Bullock that the asphalt strip he is referring to is located on 5th Avenue. Boardmember Michel assumed that a whole new sidewalk would be required, with street trees. Mr. Bullock concurred. Pro Tern Chairman Utt liked the corner tower at the entrance on Dayton and 5th Avenue and the fact that there is an alcove off of the sidewalk where a bike rack and a bench have been included. He noted a little bench tucked over in the landscape area next to the handicap stall. He agreed with adding a couple of tables and some umbrellas. Boardmember Schaefer referred to the staff recommendation on page four and noted that if curb cuts are not being addressed by the board, perhaps staff recommendation number two should be modified or eliminated. Boardmember Michel suggested that if the curb cut is eliminated, it should be replaced with adding another bench. BOARDMEMBER MICHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ADB-06-99 TO THE HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THOSE CODES AND APPROVALS (I.E. ADB APPROVAL); 2. IF THE CURB CUT IS CLOSED, IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH PLANTINGS; 3. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL INDICATE STREET TREES TO BE INSTALLED AT 3 INCH CALIPER WITH FOUR -FOOT BY FOUR -FOOT ADA ACCESSIBLE TREE GRATES; 4. THE APPLICANT IS TO PROVIDE A FINAL PLANTING PLAN WITH THEIR BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH WILL BE APPROVED BY STAFF; 5. AN AWNING SHALL BE ADDED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, ALONG 5T' AVENUE SOUTH, TO PROVIDE WEATHER PROTECTION FOR PEDESTRIANS, EXTENDING A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET OVER THE SIDEWALK; BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, THE STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.10, ADB CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Boardmember Michel recused himself from hearing PRD-05-137 because he had had contract on the property as a purchaser and as a close friend of the applicant, along with the applicant's brother. He noted he would be absent from the October ADB meeting. Pro Tern Chairman Utt called for a five-minute recess. a. FILE NO. PRD-05-137: An application for a 27-lot Planned Residential Development, more commonly referred to as Anglers Crossing. The property is located at 183xx Olympic View Drive and is zoned Single Family Residential (RS-8). Craig Kruger, McNaughton Group, 144 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds; and Susan Jensen, 144 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA, were present. Steve Bullock reiterated his earlier statement that this is a consolidated type of permit where the design board reviews a proposed Planned Residential Development (PRD), sends the recommendations about the design of the PRD on to the Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 16 Exhibitl&f Minutes File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 hearing examiner, and the hearing examiner will review the proposed application for compliance with all of the PRD criteria and take into account those criteria and the recommendations of the ADB on the criteria related to the design aspects of the project. He noted section 20.35.060 in the PRD chapter talks about single-family design criteria that the board will use to review the home designs. The staff packet provides elevation views of what the homes might look like and contains staffs review of the single-family design criteria. He stated the house designs appear to meet the criteria called for in 20,35.060, although, some things will need to be checked as individual homes are built on the lot; for example, using consistent shapes, forms and materials around the entire building. Mr. Bullock explained that one element related to the contract rezone that applies to the design of the PRD is that there is a condition of the contract rezone that requires an entry landscape treatment to be done at both the east and west ends of the road that will go between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. At this point, he stated, the landscape plan shows some kind of treatment at the east entry and he thought they had something more to show regarding the west entrance, but even if they do not, he thought staff could deal with that through a condition, if needed. He noted that the staff report addresses the design aspects of the project that the board has the responsibility to give recommendations to the hearing examiner on, and any other elements of the PRD chapter and criteria are up to the hearing examiner to deal with at a later public hearing. Boardmember Schaefer observed that because the conditions in the PRD deal with critical areas, he did not see any drawings delineating the boundaries of critical areas existing on the site and it was hard to make a determination as to what open space are being provided outside of the critical areas. Mr. Bullock explained that it is criteria of the PRD that will be decided by the hearing examiner. He explained that for the critical areas located on the site, there are a number of steep slope areas and there is one small 800 square foot wetland. The things that qualify as steep slope hazard areas by the critical areas ordinance are the slope that runs along the north portion of the property and there is a ridge and a bank that is running along the east boundary of Olympic View. The applicant is not allowed to use a critical area for their usable open space requirement. Usable open space has to be usable and if there is a 40 percent slope, that is not going to be very usable. He allowed that if they created a trail through it, they could count the area of their trail towards their usable open space requirement, but the final calculation of the usable open space is something that will need to be demonstrated prior to going to the hearing examiner. Mr. Bullock confirmed for Board member Schaefer that trails are still counted if they transect the critical area. Boardmember Schaefer inquired about the effect to the critical area that is displaced by a trail and accounting for the area lost with the wetland. Mr. Bullock explained that the wetland is a Class 4 wetland, which is the lowest class of wetlands and is something that the code provides for to allow the applicant to request filling it, and some criteria has to be met to ultimately have the hearing examiner approve that filling. He noted that the applicant has made the request and has submitted the justification for why they think it should be allowed to be filled. That has not been approved. A steep slope critical area is different from a critical areas wetland or stream or habitat critical area. Wetland, stream and habitat critical areas are by State law supposed to be protected and preserved and even allowed for enhancement. At the same time, State law also calls steep slope hazard areas, or geologically hazardous areas, critical areas, too, but setting those aside or identifying them separately is to assure that development happening in steep slope hazard areas is done in a safe manner and is not going to damage the proposed development or any surrounding development. There is no requirement that says there needs to be x number of square feet of steep slope hazard area. There is a requirement that says there needs to be 10 percent of the site set aside as usable open space and the area of the path will be allowed to be counted towards that 10 percent usable open space, but not the entire steep slope area. The PRD ordinance encourages using the flexibility built into that development tool to allow significant areas to be preserved and protected. Craig Kruger appreciated staffs recommendations for approval with conditions. He presented aerial photos showing the site and pointed out the Perrinville commercial area, the post office, Olympic View Drive, surrounding streets, 80th Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 17 September 6, 2006 Approved Minutes Avenue West along the west side, and the east -west 184th Street Southwest. He showed views that depicted the proposed landscaping over the site plan and what the uses are in the surrounding streets. He provided views to show the separation of the existing homes from the boundary of Angler's Crossing and an idea of the vegetation that exists on the adjacent properties surrounding Angler's Crossing. He displayed ground level photos to show the site from the intersection of 80`h Avenue and 184th Street facing towards the east. Other photos showed the proximity of the existing homes and neighborhoods adjacent to the property, principally to the southwest, to show the scale of the homes and the types of homes. Mr. Kruger felt that the site plan was fairly straightforward, given its configuration, the site constraints, the site topography and the constraint that was pant of the original contract rezone to provide a road from the intersection of 80th Avenue and 184th Street down through that connected with Olympic View Drive. A cul-de-sac is proposed for the southern part of the property because there were no other roads to connect to and because of the topography. The other constraint that arose with the contract rezone was the limitation to a total of 21 percent building coverage for the net area. With the road system in place, the building footprints on average will be 1,500 square feet per home. The site plan is for 27 single-family lots. The staff report indicates under the PRD code that with the density it could go up to 30 lots. The lot width will be a minimum of 50 feet for each of the lots. The site plan also includes several open space tracts. The critical area next to Olympic View Drive is a tract that is along the east side of the property. There is a small passive park at the east entry. There is a park area over the storm detention vault that will be underground at the east entry, and there is a trail connection from the vault area. There is an open space area in the northwest corner, which is for preservation of that natural area and the existing slope. There is a small tot lot also at the east entry. They looked at the small open space areas that have either a tot lot or a passage area, in combination with the area over the storm detention vault, which will be a flat, open, active area, and the trail system is limited to those trails, which adds up to 11.9 percent of the site as usable open space, and exceeds the 10 percent requirement for the PRD scope. Mr. Kruger described the site sections representing the existing grade and showed the topography through the site sections and then showed the proposed grade and where the cut will take place. In making the road connection from Olympic View Drive up to 80th and 1840', he explained, it required a maximum road grade of 12 percent per the city code. They have made the road alignment and profiled the road to not exceed that maximum. From there they needed to extend the cul-de-sac, not exceeding the 12 percent maximum grade, and that created a regrading of the site to bring the roads to the city's standards. The cross -sections showed the existing grade, the proposed grade, and the building line that would be the maximum 25-foot height requirement per the city code. They tried to show the way that the homes have been designed to fit within or below the 25-foot height limitation. On site section one, Mr. Kruger continued, running in the north -south direction in the northwest portion of the property, they worked with the topography and stair -stepped the foundation down of the home that is to the north side of the road, such that the grade of the lot conforms to the grade at the bottom of the existing slope up in the northwest portion of the property. Instead of filling the ravine area, they worked with the topography through house design and stair -stepping down the foundation from the front to the back to maintain the open space area. Section two is in an east -west direction, through the middle of the site, and shows the cut that will take place. In some cases, they are looking at 2- story homes, and in some cases they are looking at 3-story homes that conform to the city's building height limitation of 25 feet over existing grade. Mr. Kruger introduced Sue Jensen, the landscape architect, who would address open space areas and the landscaping. Ms. Jensen complimented Mr. Kruger on his presentation. She reported that sidewalks will be put on both sides of the road and there will be street trees, one tree per house minimum, and more may be added. The trees will be medium size trees that are moderately drought -tolerant, including maples and smaller ash trees. Entering the site and coming down Olympic View Drive, she described the prominent corner that will be a potential entry signage location with nice entry planting. The sign is not proposed at this point. Sweeping curves will be incorporated near the ground cover, with accent plantings, colorful bulbs and perennials, and a series of shrubs and grasses and trees on the corner. Leading into Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 18 September 6, 2006 Approved Minutes the site, there will be street trees, the lawn edge, nice plantings, leading into one of the open spaces, which is on a bank, with great views and a promontory kind of feeling. Walking up the pathway, they envision a cluster of nicely -detailed wood trellises, or a small structure with some benches, that will be more of an adult gathering place or a quiet spot. Across the street, over the storm vault, they propose putting a lot of soil over the top and it will be suitable for an informal play area. She described a pathway and a couple of benches, leading into a soft surface trail. Utility work will have to be installed and the applicant will come back and do some repairs to the landscape, using mostly native species on the back edge and a few ornamentals closer to the front. She pointed out a couple of different viewpoints and more benches. Enhancement is proposed for the native vegetation around the edge of the trail. At the other end of the site, she described a preliminary concept of wrapping the corner, probably with a strip of lawn and using native trees in the background, with additional shrubs and accent plantings to provide color, and it may have a sign in the future. Ms. Jensen described a low fence that is proposed along the roadway to prevent kids from running out into the street. There will be benches, picnic tables, a small lawn, and a nice orientation. As part of the PRD proposal, perimeter buffers are required around the site of 15 feet, with a stipulated distance between trees. She thought they had 15 to 20 feet on average, using a combination of native and deciduous trees, as well as some shrubs, and those will line a good portion of the site. In other areas, there is existing vegetation and trees and under -story that can be used as part of the buffer and the plan is to supplement that with additional conifers sprinkled in to help stabilize the bank and provide additional buffering. She pointed out the green/gray area from the middle of the site that represented the lot areas that will be landscaped in the future by the homebuilder or owner. Mr. Kruger explained that the McNaughton Group is the developer of neighborhoods and not a homebuilder. He noted that Jeff McNaughton of McNaughton & Associates has developed some plans and elevations for homes that would fit within the neighborhood, a footprint of the home and a variety of heights and massing of the structure that will work with the city's building height limitation and grading of the site. There is a mix of one-story homes, 2-story homes, and 3-story homes on the site. He described the configuration of the homes off the sloping streets. He thought Jeff had done a good job with the mix of materials proposed for the homes, the potential roof shapes and massing, the front entries and front porches and the way the visual impact of the garage door is minimized. He pointed out the material board that Mr. McNaughton had put together to show potential color combinations on the elevations and thought the colors would be a good mix for a nice variety. He asked to submit a letter to the board in response to staff's report. Mr. Bullock noted that the board had been provided copies of the letter. Mr. Kruger explained that the letter tries to cover the 10 percent usable open space. He noted that Sue Jensen has addressed additional landscaping at the west entrance to the neighborhood and also that sidewalks are being provided on both sides of the internal roadway, except at the very southwest entry where there is constraint from the road. Pro Tern Chairman Utt appreciated the presentation and seeing the sections through the site and also appreciated the attempt to point out the adjacent existing homes along the edge and what is happening to them. He asked Mr. Bullock about the staff recommendation that consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the homes and the intent in that regard, referring to Madrona Cove, Steve Bullock explained that what happened on Madrona Cove is similar to what will probably happen on this site. The company that develops the PRD will end up selling it to another builder to build the homes on it, and they will sit down with the city and go over the exact requirements. He tells people that he not looking for them to do the exact same treatment on the main front facade all the way around, but at the same time he wants them to make sure that they take the same kind of care and consideration for using a consistent trim package around the entire building. Boardmember Schaefer noticed that there were a couple of different survey layouts on the site, which differ between 05 and 06, and questioned why 06 has steeper areas. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 19 September 6, 2006 Approved Minutes Mr. Kruger stated that they could look at that but noticed that it seemed like there were more trees shown on one plan than on the other one and, typically, when the surveyors are locating those trees, they will also choose the grade at the base of the tree. It may have been a first survey where they went and surveyed the ground and then came back later and added more detail on the trees, which might have led to a difference when it was computed. Ms. Jensen thought that the surveyor had been asked to provide a sheet to show the trees more clearly. Boardmember Schaefer inquired about significant trees on the site. Mr. Bullock explained that the city does not have a significant tree ordinance, but it does consider the steep slope and the large evergreen trees that are on the north bank to be a big issue and a major character mark for this neighborhood, which the applicant proposes to retain. Boardmember Schaefer noted that the layout of the site in the way it sits on the land will be pretty shady. He wondered how that will affect the plant selection. Ms. Jensen explained that the intent is to open up a good portion of the site to create the paths, so initially there will be more sunlight in the center of the site, but she imagined over time that would fill in, too, and it will become more like the neighborhoods around it. She pointed out that a variety of plants are proposed for the deep shade, as well as some for the sunny spots. Pro Tern Chairman Utt noticed on the plant palette the use of native plants that are not indigenous to the area. Ms. Jensen thought that half of them were and pointed out that some of them do not do well in bright, brand-new sites. Boardmember Schaefer recalled a comment that landscaping on the building pads would be the responsibility of the builder or homeowner. Mr. Kruger explained that in other neighborhoods they have hydroseeded and seeded the pads to avoid erosion in the interim before the foundation is excavated and installed. Boardmember Schaefer confirmed that there are computations for the building pad area to show the compliance with the 21 percent cap. Mr. Bullock explained that staff will know ahead of time what the 21 percent is. He had told the applicant that he was happy to take that number and divide it by 27 and saying each lot has 1,500 square feet. He also offered to keep a running total of it. BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER KENDALL, THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF PRD-2005-137 WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: • CONSISTENT USE OF MATERIALS OR BUILDING FORMS MUST BE USED ON ALL SIDES OF THE HOMES; • BUILDING PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS MUST STILL BE RESOLVED WITH THE SITE PLAN; • REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE MUST STILL BE DEMONSTRATED; • A SIDEWALK WILL BE REQUIRED ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF THE ACCESS ROAD; • A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED FOR BOTH ENTRANCES. BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED POLICIES ANDTHE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.060, PRD — SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 10. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS: Pro Tern Chairman Utt reported from his meeting with the Mayor that there was a concern about a belittling comment that was made during the initial application for the elementary school playground project. Mr. Utt stated that he had Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 20 September 6, 2006 Approved Minutes L OF EOM y OyG Fs� 1 aqo 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Development of a 5.5 acre property consistent with a contract rezone that was approved for the property in 1997, R-97-28. The ultimate development of the property will include up to 28 single family lots/homes, an east -west through road connecting 801h Ave. W with Olympic View Drive, an additional cul-de-sac road and park/open space area(s). To accommodate these improvements, the applicant is proposing to grade approximately 90,000 cu yd of soil and eliminate a small isolated class 4 wetland. (File No.: P-2005-136 and PRD-2005-137) Proponent: The McNaughton Group Location of proposal, including street address if any: 7704 Olympic View Drive Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the project will not have a probable and significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by November 30, 2006 Project Planner: Steve Bullock Responsible Official: Robert Chave Position/Title: Manager - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 J Date: %t' 1. b Signature: / r XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than December 14, 2006. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on November 16, 2006, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page I of 2 05136 11 ED-DOC 11/16/06. SEPA File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX COMCAST Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 410 Valley Ave NW #12 Puyallup, WA 98371-3317 XX Department of Fish & Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 15700 Dayton Ave. N. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX DNR SEPA Center P.O. Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 XX Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 XX XX XX Snohomish County Planning & Development Services 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 Snohomish County Public Works Attn.: Environmental Coordinator 2930 Wetmore, #101 Everett, WA 98201 XX City of Lynnwood Attn.: Senior Planner P.O. Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046 XX Lorinda Anderson Intergancey Comm. Outdoor Recreation PO Box 40917 Olympia, WA 98504-0917 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn.: Planning and Property Manager 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX Community Transit Attn.: Brent Russell 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 XX Anne Sharar Department of Natural Resource P.O. Box 47001 Olympia, WA 98504-7001 XX Alderwood Water District 3626 156th Street Southwest Lynnwood, WA 98037 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 90868, M/S XRD-1 W Bellevue, WA 98009 XX Dean Saksena, Senior Manager Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Craig Krueger, The McNaughton Group Edmonds, WA 98020 MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. A landscape screen must be planted along all proposed lots where a property line is shared with another single family lot that is adjacent to the proposed PRD. This is along the south and southwest property lines and will be reviewed for approval by the Planning Division along with the civil improvement plans. The landscape screen is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses and it will be comprised of: a. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center; and b. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. Attachments pc: File No. SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 05136_11_ED.DOC 1 1 /I6/06 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. NOTE: Projects generating new traffic will be required to submit a Traffic Study prepared by a licensed Professional Civil Engineer. Specific requirements for the Traffic Study may vary depending upon the project, and will be provided by the City Engineer upon request. Please contact the Engineering Division at 425-771-3202 for specific study requirements. City review of the Traffic Study may require assessment of the "Development Project Peer Review" fee of $45 plus the cost of the review. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. 11-8-2005 BY GWC LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proposed Project, if applicable: ANGLER'S CROSSING / 2. Name of applicant: The McNaughton Group, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: The McNaughton Group, LLC, PO Box 100, Edmonds, WA 98020. Phone: (425) 778-4111 Contact: Andy Reaves at The McNaughton Group and/or Don Miller at G.W.C. Land Development Consulting, 8888 45th Place West, Mukilteo, WA. 98275. Phone: (425) 265-1558 or toll free 866-GWC LAND. Fax: (425) 290-6250 J 4. Date Checklist prepared: October 27, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Subject to obtaining the necessary approvals, land development activities are proposed to begin in early 2006 with home construction proposed for mid to late 2006. Project build -out is anticipated within 3 years. No phasing is proposed at this time. J 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Perhaps. The applicant is currently negotiating a purchase option on an adjoining parcel to the north (parcel 13). If successful, the southeast portion of said parcel will receive fill to 'smooth' the grading for the main Angler's Crossing park/open space. If not obtained all site grading will be confined within the Angler's Crossing boundaries. j 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. For information specifically related to this proposal, please refer to attached drainage plans and report by SDA, critical area study by Talasaea Assoc, geologic study by Liu & Associates and traffic analysis by Gibson Traffic Consultants. J 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We are aware of no pending proposals by others that would affect this property. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Among others, the following approvals and permits may be required: ADB review of buildings and landscape plan; rezone amendment; PRD approval; preliminary plat approval; SEPA determination; demolition permits; road and drainage plan approval; water and sewer plan approval by City and DOE; street vacation; grading permit; NPDES permit by DOE; final plat approval; right-of-way permits; forest practices permit by DNR; Director's wetland exemption; building height and front yard setback variances; and residential building permits. J 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal is for the creation of a residential subdivision of 27 detached single family homes on a 5.47 acre site that has been previously rezoned to PRD / RS-8. The subdivision will be comprised of 27 single family (detached) lots, 4 open space tracts and a public roadway system. The proposal will set aside approximately 54,700 square feet, or about 23% of the site as permanent open space. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposal is located between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive at 184th St SW. Please refer to the attached preliminary plat map and legal description for further details. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT FOR EVALUATION AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other J b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 45%. f c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. For details of soil types and conditions, please refer to the attached plans and reports by SDA and Liu & Assoc. J d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. 1 e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.c®trr� ®F TAG Streets, parks, building pads and yards would be cleared of the existing �, L-CT16L L-�:' f vegetation, graded and compacted as necessary to achieve proper grade y5�,-��n� ve-6" transition, drainage and structural stability. A balance between cut andcPQ 3 fill would be sought, thereby minimizing the need to import or export 4eaTO -V"G W cat4FL(CT- significant amounts of soil, however some excess material may have to \,O/ ADO?719"P c,i-r`{ be exported. Approximately 55,000 cubic yards of earth will be moved.-FoL'tuL-z, Ljµ1C,,p If needed, imported and/or exported fills will be from/to permitted gw� p .,Z11141Ft T070 „tzi w l( �- t'1,aTL\t�.z V �G,� t"JartoN f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. `j� r40'T' During construction, the potential for increased erosion would be _P COti`# Tug efrys present. Following construction, erosion potential would decrease G,7-ob,or+ coi+7Vot_ t-1635-'Re3 when drainage is controlled and cleared areas are revegetated.C-oHs?t_`-`a`(7°t4• fg. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Upon completion approximately 40% of the developed portions of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. Please refer to attached drainage report by SDA for more accurate post -development drainage description. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary measures to control erosion could include sedimentation ponds, filter fences and diversion swales; permanent measures could include landscaping, piping and armoring of outfall areas. The storm water facilities will be designed in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology and City of Edmonds Design Standards. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared and submitted for approval which will specify the methods of storm water control, temporary and permanent water quality treatment methods, and any monitoring which might be required during construction. In addition to standard Best Management Practices used in the course of plat development, this project may also use electrical processes and/or chemical additives to flocculate sediment from stormwater in the event that City and State Water Quality Standards are not met using BMPs. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction activities there would be increased exhaust and dust particle emissions to the ambient air. The paving of streets and driveways may cause objectionable odors. After construction, the principal source of pollution would be exhaust from vehicular traffic. The increase in automobiles associated with the development would contribute CO, NO and SO2 emissions to the ambient air. Certified wood stoves and fireplaces installed in homes would contribute smoke to the ambient air. J b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Vehicular emissions from traffic on nearby roadways would be the primary off -site source of air pollution that could affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Should construction activities be undertaken during the dry season, periodic watering, if deemed necessary, could be used to control dust. Wood stoves are required to meet certain emission standards as established by the State. Automobile emissions are regulated by the Washington State Department of Licensing. 3. Water J a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. The site contains one 426 square foot wetland located on lots 9-10. This wetland is subject to the Director's wetland exemption. Please refer to the attached materials and report by Talasaea Assoc. for further details. This small isolated wetland has no surface outfall. J2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Site development activities will occur within 200 feet of the described wetland which will be filled. Please refer to the attached plans and reports for details. J3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Site clearing and initial grading would place approximately 30 cubic yards of fill that will be obtained on site. Please refer to the attached plans and reports for location and further details. J4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Post development storm water runoff containing some pollutants (primarily oil and debris washed from driveways), along with water soluble yard care products, may be collected by the storm drainage system. b. Ground: A AC, ss o vt� Ta TI�c EasT I Asr- 6)(AC-T- L-40CAnor-J Ncxa�- t r IS trt E1-i A rr-0-14v Zoc,:,, oM THE ITAsr ri gjO�.•C-kAvaR'i of *14jS'F=VP 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any alteration to the direction or rate of flow of ground water due to grading operations should be localized on -site. Release of ground water onto adjoining properties should not vary from the present condition. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any ( for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemical... agricultural: etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The project would be on sewers, therefore there would be no major sources of waste material which could be discharged to the ground. The removal of existing drainfields, if any, will eliminate the onsite discharge of domestic sewage. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff ( including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so describe. Through the construction of streets, residences and driveways, the existing runoff pattern would be locally modified. Streets, building roofs and driveways would generate runoff from the proposal. Runoff after detentionlretention, if any, will flow easterly to Olympic View Drive. Please refer to response d. below for further details. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Refer to Surface Water response (#6) and Ground Water response (#2). d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any; The applicant proposes infiltration for the stormwater mitigation measure for the Angler's Crossing Subdivision. The proposed system will infiltrate stormwater from the developed site in an array of infiltration trenches; five in total. These trenches will be located under the sidewalk with a width of six feet. Each trench will have a perforated pipe that runs longitudinal throughout the trench length. There will be a type two catch basin at each end of the trench as well as in the middle for maintenance. The length, width, and interior pipe diameter varies per location. Prior to discharge to these trenches the stormwater from the site will be pretreated in a type two catch basin with an oil -water separator. The tested infiltration rate on the site is 30 inches per hour (iph). For design purposes we have applied a factor of safety of 4 to this rate to get our design infiltration rate of 7.5iph. Each infiltration trench was designed with an emergency overflow system. This system will allow stormwater to exit the trench in the event the trench gets backed up or clogged. The �.i� ct,�T`i�s 1✓N�tNE1�c It46, -pEyya ft�-}-ttTNT t S -fttc.A. of. �r+fJ,_T"T10rA tt-t- -rule overflow system will discharge to an offsite conveya!n discharging to either the ditch along 801h Ave W or(Olympic View Drive. City approved temporary erosion control measures will be installed during construction. Temporary measures to control erosion could include sedimentation ponds, filter fences and diversion swales; permanent measures could include landscaping, piping and armoring of outfall areas. In addition to standard Best Management Practices used in the course of plat development, this project may also use charged electrical plates and/or chemical additives to flocculate sediment from stormwater in the event that City and State Water Quality Standards are not met using BMPs. Please refer to the attached plans and reports by SDA for further details. 4 Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree; d a aspen, other X evergreen tree fir ed pine, other X shrubs X grass X pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants; cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants; water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most existing vegetation will be removed as necessary for street and utility construction, private park / open space improvements, residential landscaping and the creation of yards and building pads for the proposed homes. c. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any; Development would remove most existing vegetation. Cleared and graded areas would be revegetated with species common to Puget Sound urban areas. Please refer to the attached landscape plan by The McNaughton Group for proposed developer -installed landscaping and park improvements. 5. Animals ,// a. Circle any birds and animals which has been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds; hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals; deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small mammals Fish; bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other J b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. }AAMY LAL(nE t447V� ).jQ .zn + r_A r3 r� e Tx �--_rUACZr.:1 oV T}a � F 27AT 50 -e V s J c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our understanding. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any; ��'"``s'� of: TI-lc Landscaping of the finished lots will create some habitat. The " of i s rt oT� establishment of permanent open space tracts will provide additional .Ftt�t�v. opportunities for wildlife habitat. eTvdNq, 4IA3rcn Coin iSE Q•®v1Y1L5L 6. Energy and Natural Resources ItAt -ate . a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas would be the primary sources of energy for the proposal and would be used for heating, lighting and other miscellaneous household purposes. Wood burning and passive solar gain would be secondary sources of heat. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. ✓ c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any; The inclusion of energy conservation measures would be per the applicable codes and the choice of individual residents. 7. Environmental Health ✓ a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. Not to our knowledge. ,✓ 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services would be required by the proposed project. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any; None required or proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)? Noise from traffic on surrounding roadways could have an impact on the project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example; traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise levels would be intermittently high throughout construction, but should be limited to normal waking hours. After construction, residential activity and traffic noise created by daily vehicular trips would increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any; Standard construction materials would be used in the construction of residences that will provide noise attenuation. Use of approved construction equipment muffling devices and limitation of construction to normal waking hours would minimize construction -related noise impacts. Construction, residential and vehicle noise levels and permissible hours are regulated by the State and the City of Edmonds. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Surrounding properties are generally developed as single family residential on lots of various sizes. A US Postal Service center is located to the east, Seaview Park is located to the southwest. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The site currently contains several structures. One occupied home, one vacant home, one uninhabitable home and associated outbuildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All existing structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-8 with companion PRD rezone. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family Resource g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Upon completion, approximately 84 people would reside in the development (3.1 per residence x 27 homes = 83.7). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. ✓ k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None proposed. ✓ I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any; Compliance with existing regulatory codes and standards. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 27 middle/high income residences will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate �j 3 whether high, middle, or low-income housing. C None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any; Compliance with regulatory codes and standards would reduce the housing impacts, if any, of the proposed development. Provision of additional housing units is a beneficial impact. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height of any structure would be per the residential building code as modified by the requested building height variances. Exterior materials are expected to be masonry, wood or manufactured siding and roofing. ✓ b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any; -pet 6%a The observance of building setbacks, as modified, and the retention of -XJ¢p T Cam} �pL� Ar tc� approximately 54,700 square feet of the site as permanent open t--)/ 61t4C uC- space/detention and the planting of ornamental and native plant p� 31St6L `'r-tTQw- landscaping would reduce aesthetic impacts of the project. '`" yE �� '� dr�1 cMtc.�.u.� ®F TP Strom, -tKc cu ¢%Z-14 -t-- PttoVkO!r.A L. -ro 11. Light and Glare GQ.►-17r *-- aZkWv "t%t o" TWt srne %a - cVeATr, A Oig, ?or. /af 4. AG✓E= o' NO- V/a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The proposal would produce light from automobile headlights and home lighting, primarily at night. ✓ b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not to our knowledge. Night lighting would actually promote project safety. 10 c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Surrounding residences and traffic. ✓ d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any; None proposed. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? City of Edmonds Seaview Park is located immediately to the southwest of the site. Southwest County Park is located approximately'/4 mile to the north and the City of Edmonds Sierra Park is located approximately '/4 mile to the south. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. / c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including V recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any; In addition to constructing the proposed private parks, any applicable impact fees for the 25 new homes will be paid to the City of Edmonds. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places of objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any; Construction would be temporarily halted should evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance be discovered. Applicable agencies would be contacted. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposed subdivision will take access from both Olympic View Drive and 80th Ave W via a public street system to be constructed by the applicant. This interconnecting through street, 1841h St. SW, will be 24' wide with no parking allowed on either side. A cul-de-sac will branch off this through street to serve the southerly lots. This street will be 28' wide with parking allowed on one side only. �—� ®cam sr-r— p.� v�rc��-atpe�s tti�.sr 11 No lots will take direct access from Olympic View Drive or 80th Ave W. Frontage improvements will be made to both Olympic View Drive and 80th Ave W to the applicable urban street standards. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Unknown. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Parking would be accommodated in driveways and garages. Assuming homes with two car garages, a total of 54 enclosed off-street parking spaces will be created. Additional guest parking would be accommodated in individual driveways and on one side of the cul-de- sac street. No parking would be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Plat development will require the construction of approximately 1,050 lineal feet of new public roadway plus appropriate paving and frontage improvements to 80th,Ave W and Olympic View Drive. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project should not generate any extraordinary use of water, rail or air transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Factoring in the two habitable existing residences, the proposal would generate approximately 239 'new' ADT (9.57 ADT/DU x 25 `new' DU 239.25). The peak traffic volumes would occur during the afternoon/evening commute period. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any; Payment of applicable City of Edmonds fees for the 25 new residences. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example; fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposal would place additional demands on public services proportional to single family detached housing; however, facilities are generally in place to handle these additional demands. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Residents would become part of the tax base/user group that supports these services. As provided for in City Codes, applicable mitigation fees will be paid for impacts, if any, to roads, schools and parks. 12 16. Utilities V/ a. Circle utilities currently available at the site; electricity, natural has, water, sewer, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. V/ b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See preliminary plat exhibits for plans and list of utilities and purveyors. Sanitary sewers and water lines will be extended from the existing City of Edmonds systems. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: � Date Submitted: // _ Y- — O 13 m 150 0 150 300 -150 sommoffiffiffimm a °� Lnn�o Al + N CITY OF EDMONDS rSI I goo 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-965 Adoption Notice ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Adoption of (check appropriate box) ❑ DNS ❑ EIS ❑ Other MDNS Description of current proposal: A modification of a 27 lot Plat and PRD. The proposed road and lot layout changes resulting in grading being reduced from approx 90k cubic yards to approx 30k cubic yards. Also vehicle trips will be less concentrated and more closely related to the current condition. Proponent: The McNaughton Group Location of proposal, including street address if any: 7704 Olympic View Drive Title of document being adopted: MDNS for Anglers Crossing Agency that prepared document being adopted: The City of Edmonds Date adopted document was prepared: November 16, 2006 Description of document (or portion) being adopted: MDNS If the documet being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: NA The document is available to be read at (place/time): City of Edmonds Planning Office We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. Name of agency adopting document: Citv of Edmonds Contact person, if other than responsible official: Steve Bullock Phone: Responsible official: Rob Chave Position/Title: Planning Manager Phone: 425.771.0220 Exhibitil File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 \VAC (4/15/98) C:\FILESUteports\SubdivisionsT-05 ANGLER'S CROSSING insert page 1 of city checklist Revised December 18, 2006 Note: Revisions to this SEPA are shown through strikeouts and additions by using Bold Italic text, ANGLER'S CROSSING insert page 1 of city checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proposed Project, if applicable: ANGLER'S CROSSING 2. Name of applicant: The McNaughton Group, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: The McNaughton Group, LLC, PO Box 100, Edmonds, WA 98020. Phone: (425) 778-4111 Contact: Andy Reaves at The McNaughton Group 4. Date Checklist prepared: Revised December 18, 2006. 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Subject to obtaining the necessary approvals, land development activities are proposed to begin in early 2007 with home construction proposed for mid to late 2007. Project build -out is anticipated within 3 years. No phasing is proposed at this time. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. For information specifically related to this proposal, please refer to attached drainage plans and report by SDA, critical area study by Talasaea Assoc, geologic study by Liu & Associates and traffic analysis by Gibson Traffic Consultants. Updated studies have been prepared related to the revisions in this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We are aware of no pending proposals by others that would affect this property. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Among others, the following approvals and permits may be required: ADB review of buildings and landscape plan; rezone amendment; PRD approval; preliminary plat approval; SEPA determination; demolition permits; road and drainage plan approval; water and sewer plan approval by City and DOE; street vacation; grading permit; NPDES permit by DOE; final plat approval; right-of-way permits; forest practices permit by DNR; Director's wetland exemption; building height variances; and residential building permits. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal is for the creation of a residential subdivision of 27 detached single family homes on a 5. 6 acre site that has been previously rezoned to PRD / RS-8. The subdivision will be comprised of 27 single family (detached) lots, 5 open space tracts and a public roadway system. The proposal will set aside approximately 55,950 square feet, or about 22.9% of the site as permanent open space. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposal is located between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive at 184th St SW in Edmonds. Please refer to the attached preliminary plat map and legal description for further details. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 45%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. For details of soil types and conditions, please refer to the attached plans and reports by SDA and Liu & Assoc. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. FOR EVALUATION AGENCY USE ONLY e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Streets, building pads & yards, and some active parks would be cleared of the existing vegetation, graded and compacted as necessary to achieve proper grade transition, drainage and structural stability. A balance between cut and fill would be sought, thereby minimizing the need to import or export significant amounts of soil, however some excess material may have to be exported. Approximately 25, 000 cubic yards of earth will be moved. If needed, imported and/or exported fills will be from/to permitted sites. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. During construction, the potential for increased erosion would be present. Following construction, erosion potential would decrease when drainage is controlled and cleared areas are revegetated. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Upon completion approximately 96, 445 sf , or 39. 5% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. Please refer to attached drainage report by SDA for more accurate post -development drainage description. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary measures to control erosion could include sedimentation ponds, filter fences and diversion swales; permanent measures could include landscaping, piping and armoring of outfall areas. The storm water facilities will be designed in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology and City of Edmonds Design Standards. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared and submitted for approval which will specify the methods of storm water control, temporary and permanent water quality treatment methods, and any monitoring which might be required during construction. In addition to standard Best Management Practices used in the course of plat development, this project may also use electrical processes and/or chemical additives to flocculate sediment from stormwater in the event that City and State Water Quality Standards are not met using BMPs. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction activities there would be increased exhaust and dust particle emissions to the ambient air. The paving of streets and driveways may cause objectionable odors. After construction, the principal source of pollution would be exhaust from vehicular traffic. The increase in automobiles associated with the development would contribute CO, NO and S02 emissions to the ambient air. Certified wood stoves and fireplaces installed in homes would contribute smoke to the ambient air. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Vehicular emissions from traffic on nearby roadways would be the primary off -site source of air pollution that could affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Should construction activities be undertaken during the dry season, periodic watering, if deemed necessary, could be used to control dust. Wood stoves are required to meet certain emission standards as established by the State. Automobile emissions are regulated by the Washington State Department of Licensing. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. The site contains one 426 square foot wetland located on lots 9-10. This wetland is subject to the Director's wetland exemption. Please refer to the attached materials and report by Talasaea Assoc. for further details. This small isolated wetland has no surface outfall. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Site development activities will occur within 200 feet of the described wetland which will be filled. Please refer to the attached plans and reports for details. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Site clearing and initial grading would place approximately 30 cubic yards of fill that will be obtained on site. Please refer to the attached plans and reports for location and further details. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Post development storm water runoff containing some pollutants (primarily oil and debris washed from driveways), along with water soluble yard care products, may be collected by the storm drainage system. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any alteration to the direction or rate of flow of ground water due to grading operations should be localized on -site. Release of ground water onto adjoining properties should not vary from the present condition. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any ( for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemical... agricultural: etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The project would be on sewers, therefore there would be no major sources of waste material which could be discharged to the ground. The removal of existing drainfields, if any, will eliminate the onsite discharge of domestic sewage. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff ( including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so describe. Through the construction of streets, residences and driveways, the existing runoff pattern would be locally modified. Streets, building roofs and driveways would generate runoff from the proposal. Runoff after detention/retention, if any, will flow easterly to Olympic View Drive. Please refer to response d. below for further details. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Refer to Surface Water response (#6) and Ground Water response (#2). d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any; The proposed stormwater will be collected from the site and piped to a Biofiltration Swale for water quality treatment, then flow into an underground vault for detention and water quality control prior to leaving the site. The vault will be below grade and serve as active open space at ground level. City approved temporary erosion control measures will be installed during construction. Temporary measures to control erosion could include sedimentation ponds, filter fences and diversion swales; permanent measures could include landscaping, piping and armoring of outfail areas. In addition to standard Best Management Practices used in the course of plat development, this project may also use charged electrical plates and/or chemical additives to flocculate sediment from stormwater in the event that City and State Water Quality Standards are not met using BMPs. 4 Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: C deciduous tree; alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree; fir, cedar. pine, other I X shrubs X grass X pasture _ crop or grain X wet soil plants; cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants; water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most existing vegetation within the proposed lots and ROW areas will be removed as necessary for street and utility construction, private park / open space improvements, residential landscaping and the creation of yards and building pads for the proposed homes. c. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any; Development would remove most existing vegetation. Cleared and graded areas would be revegetated with native and ornamental species common to Puget Sound urban areas. Please refer to the attached landscape plan by The McNaughton Group for proposed developer - installed landscaping and park improvements for the ROW and open space. Plantings around the homes would be installed by the builder and/or the homeowner. a. Circle any birds and animals which has been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds; hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals; deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small mammals Fish; bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our understanding. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any; Landscaping of the open space tracts and finished lots will create some habitat through use of native and other species attractive to wildlife. The establishment of permanent open space tracts will provide additional opportunities for wildlife habitat. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas would be the primary sources of energy for the proposal and would be used for heating, lighting and other miscellaneous household purposes. Wood burning and passive solar gain would be secondary sources of heat. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any; The inclusion of energy conservation measures would be per the applicable codes and the choice of individual residents. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. Not to our knowledge. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services would be required by the proposed project. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any; None required or proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)? Noise from traffic on surrounding roadways could have an impact on the project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example; traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise levels would be intermittently high throughout construction, but should be limited to normal waking hours. After construction, residential activity and traffic noise created by daily vehicular trips would increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any; Standard construction materials would be used in the construction of residences that will provide noise attenuation. Use of approved construction equipment muffling devices and limitation of construction to normal waking hours would minimize construction -related noise impacts. Construction, residential and vehicle noise levels and permissible hours are regulated by the State and the City of Edmonds. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Surrounding properties are generally developed as single family residential on lots of various sizes. A US Postal Service center is located to the east, Seaview Park is located to the southwest. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The site currently contains several structures. One occupied home, one vacant home, one uninhabitable home and associated outbuildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All existing structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-8 with companion PRD rezone. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family Resource g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Upon completion, approximately 84 people would reside in the development (3.1 per residence x 27 homes = 83.7). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any; Compliance with existing regulatory codes and standards. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 27 middle/high income residences will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Three, moderate income. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any; Compliance with regulatory codes and standards would reduce the housing impacts, if any, of the proposed development. Provision of additional housing units is a beneficial impact. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height of any structure would be per the residential building code as modified by the requested building height variances. Exterior materials are expected to be masonry, wood or manufactured siding and roofing. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any; The observance of building setbacks, as modified, and the retention of approximately 55,950 square feet of the site as permanent open space/detention and the planting of ornamental and native plant landscaping would reduce aesthetic impacts of the project. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The proposal would produce light from automobile headlights and home lighting, primarily at night. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not to our knowledge. Night lighting would actually promote project safety. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Surrounding residences and traffic. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any; None proposed. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? City of Edmonds Seaview Park is located immediately to the southwest of the site. Southwest County Park is located approximately'/4 mile to the north and the City of Edmonds Sierra Park is located approximately 1/4 mile to the south. 10 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any; In addition to constructing the proposed private parks, any applicable impact fees for the 24 new homes will be paid to the City of Edmonds. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places of objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any; Construction would be temporarily halted should evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance be discovered. Applicable agencies would be contacted. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposed subdivision will take access from both Olympic View Drive and 80th Ave W. A public street with cut de sac will be constructed off Olympic View Drive to serve 21 homes. A second street off Both Avenue West will serve 6 homes. Both streets will be constructed by the applicant, be 28' wide with parking allowed on one side only. A 20' wide paved connector between these streets will be built to provide emergency access for fire and other public services, as well as a pedestrian connection. Fixed and retractable bollards with electronic controls on each end can be activated by emergency vehicles but will restrict general vehicle through access. No lots will take direct access from Olympic View Drive or 80th Ave W. Frontage improvements will be made to both Olympic View Drive and 80th Ave W to the applicable urban street standards. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Unknown. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Parking would be accommodated in driveways and garages. Assuming homes with two car garages, a total of 54 enclosed off-street parking spaces will be created. Additional guest parking would be accommodated in individual driveways and on one side of the cul-de- sac street. No parking would be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Plat development will require the construction of approximately 831 lineal feet of new public roadway plus appropriate paving and frontage improvements to 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project should not generate any extraordinary use of water, rail or air transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Refer to the updated Traffic Study provided at resubmittal. The peak traffic volumes would occur during the afternoon/evening commute period. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any; Payment of applicable City of Edmonds fees for the 24 new residences. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example; fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposal would place additional demands on public services proportional to single family detached housing; however, facilities are generally in place to handle these additional demands. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Residents would become part of the tax base/user group that supports these services. As provided for in City Codes, applicable mitigation fees will be paid for impacts, if any, to roads, schools and parks. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site; electricity, natural gas, water, sewer, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See preliminary plat exhibits for plans and list of utilities and purveyors. Sanitary sewers and water lines will be extended from the existing City of Edmonds systems. 12 C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: , 1 Date Re --Submitted. t3 CITY OF F19MON125 MAINS ONG FWUIFMNT5 FOP PLAT5 ANn PPP 5 Name: ANGLERS CROSSING File No.: P-05-136/PRD-05-137 Reviewed by: A. L. CHRISMAN Vicinity: 7704 Olympic View Dr. Engineering Program Manager date Feci' d prior to FCC[' d w/ blc q Pond posted Complete recording Permit I, Iiqhf6-of-waq for pu6lic streets; All streets within the proposed plat shall be paved, classified as X public streets and dedicated to the City of Edmonds except the emergency access road. — The emergency access road shall be owned and maintained by the X homeowners within the plat (homeowners association). Use of the access road shall be restricted to pedestrian traffic and emergency -- vehiclesThe — proposed plat streets shall be designated as: X East/West street- 184`h PL SW with access from 80`h Ave W North/South street- 78`h Pl W with access from Olympic View Dr. The right of way widths shall be as follows: X 184`h PL SW- minimum of 45.00 feet. 78th PI W - minimum of 50.00 feet. The cul-de-sac on 78`h PL W shall have a minimum radius of 45.00 X feet The'/z cul-de-sac on 184`h PL W shall have a minimum radius of X 45.00 feet. 2. �a5emc45 (Cltq Allltle5, privaLo access, other utilities): Provide all public and private easements as required. X Abandon applicable existing public easements and replace with new X if Emergency Access road -connecting 184`h PL SW to 78"' PL W — X Provide a minimum 30.00 foot wide utility and pedestrian easement — to the City of Edmonds_ - ------------ ---------- -- -- -- --.. 3, Street im rovement5 (ACP with curb and gutter); : t 777777 184`h PL SW: Proposed street shall be 31.50 feet wide from face of X curb to face of curb. 786Pl W: Proposed street shall be 31.50 feet wide from face of X curb to face of curb. Emergency access road: Proposed access road shall be paved — 20.0 feet wide plus 18" asphalt thickened edges. — — Provide on -street parking on one side of 180 PL SW and on one X side of 78`h PL W. Construct 18" concrete curb along property frontage on Olympic X View Dr. Curb face shall be a minimum of 12.0' from the painted centerline. V:\dvnv\pl\05-136 anglers crossing plt-revised t-I 1-07.doe File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 Pea d prior to �eq' d w/ bldq Pond posted ` Comp)eke recordim permit 5, Street improvements C ACF with curb and utter) ; continued Construct 18" concrete curb on the west side of 80`h Ave. W. equal X to the length of the property frontage. Curb face shall be 12.0' from the painted centerline. Construct 18" concrete curb and gutter along both sides of 184`h PL X SW and both sides of 781h PL W except for the cul-de-sac. The Cul-de-sac shall have 18" rolled curbi!T per City Standards. - Entrance radius improvements to 184`h PL SW shall meet X —_Reometrics and 25mEh spe d posting_on 80`h Ave W. Entrance radius improvements to 781h PL W shall meet geometries X and 25mph speSq_Rosting on Olympic View Dr. _..._.__...---...._...-------- ------------ ------------------ The first 20' of the approach landing on 1841h PL SW at the X intersection with 80`h Ave W shall not exceed 6%. The first 20' of the approach landing on 78`' PL W at the X intersection with Olympic View Dr shall not exceed 6%. ---- -- ---- ------ - ------ -- --------........... ....... .... _...- ......... . --- - ....__.._...- -- - — ._...- ----- - ---....... Rapid defeatable barricades, approved by the Fire Department, X shall be installed at both ends of the emergency access road. Maintain a minimum of two foot (2') clear zone (shy distance) from X all obstructions. Install thermoplastic crosswalks and stop bars at: the intersection X of 801h Ave W. and 1841h PL SW; and at 781h PL W. and Olympic View Dr. Lots 1-6 shall access from 184`h PL SW X Lots 7-27 shall access from 781h PL W X Lots 4, 5 and 6 shall share a common driveway. The driveway X X shall be paved a minimum of 16.0 feet wide and the slope shall not exceed t4%. --..__—.------------ ----------------------...------ Lots 14, 14, 15 and 16 shall share a common driveway. The ----._._._....---- X X driveway shall be paved a minimum of 16.0 feet wide and the sloe shall not exceed 14%. Lots 18, N, and 20 shall share a common driveway. The X X driveway shall be paved a minimum of 16.0 feet wide and the sloe shall not exceed 14%. Maximum travel lane cross slope shall be 2%. X _ Street grade for both 184`h PL SW and 7W PI W shall not exceed X 12%. 4. 5treet turnaround: 781PL W: A cul-de-sac is required and shall be paved to a X radius of 35.00 feet (excluding curb/gutter). _ _minimum 184`fi PL W: 1/2 cut -de -sac shall be constructed at the end of the X street. 5, 5ldewalk5 and/or Walkwa 5: PER CITY STANDARDS of Construct f o ve fi-foot wide sidewalk on north side 18411 PL SW. X --------ve — ---------------- ------ ...----- Construct five foot wide sidewalk on both sides of 781h PL W ------ X -- — Construct a five foot wide sidewalk on Olympic View Drive along X the entire -proffer frontage_ ---_ V:\dvrw\pl\05-136 anglers crossing plt-revised 1-11-07.doc Id prlor to eq' d w/ bldq 13oid posted. - :Complete recordi `permit . 5, Sidewalks and/or walkways; CONTINUED Construct concrete curb ramps as required X Construct five-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of 80`h Ave W. X equal to the length of the property frontage. 6. Street lights; Install street lighting within the plat, at each intersection, and at the X end of the cul-de-sac. Spacing shall be determined by a licensed Professional Engineer experienced in the trade. Street lights shall be PUD's 100W/120V Cobra heads mounted on X PUD's standard 30' fiberglass poles, and shall be installed per their standards. I. MAIM Arlp: N/A X 8. Waters stem Im rovemed5 < elines, fire h dra95, pump, etc) Install 8" ductile iron pipe water main within the plat. Water main X shall be placed within City right-of-way and shall connect to the system on 80`h Ave W and to the main Olympic View Dr. This system shall not be connected to the 24" distribution main. Install 6" fire hydrants including 4" Storz adapter_ _ - — -- --- --- ......_...._..__.. X _ __..._..-------._.....- -.... -- ------ - ....- - - -- — ---- -- Provide water service to each lot X X -----------------------.—.....-------------------._...._._.......-------...._ Connect to public water system ----------._._....._....----.._. X X _ The existing 24" water main distribution line across the project site X shall be rerouted by installing a new 24" water main distribution line from 80`h Ave W to Olympic View drive. The location of the rerouted 24" main shall be within the City right-of-way of 184`h PL SW and 78`h PL W. 9, 5anitar4 sewers stem Im rovement5 ( p1pellne5, pump5, etc) Reroute existing sewer main on site by installing a new 8" sewer X main within the right-of-way of the 184`h PL SW and 78"' PL W and connect to the system on 80`h Ave W. and on Olympic View Dr. Any services connected to the existing line shall be connected to the new sewer main. Remove old manholes, plug and abandon the existing sewer main. Provide new service laterals for each lot. Laterals shall be stubbed X X to a point 10' behind the pr�ert� line - Connect to public sewer system X X 10. Storm sewers stem im rovement5 ( pipchnc5, pump5, PO , etc) ; Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots and stub to a point X 10' behind the property_ line _ Provide water qualm enhancements. X — _— _ — _ V:\dvnv\pl\05-136 anglers crossing plt-revised 1-11-07.doc keci d prior to Peck d w/ 61dq ' - Bond posted Complete recording permit 10. 5korm sewer 5g5tem Im roveme65: continued Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate X capacity for proposed single family dwellings and all street improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30. Infiltration will not be permitted and the detention system shall be private and located op_p ate-proRerty -------- The existing 24" storm drainage system across the project site X between 801h Ave W and Olympic View Dr. shall be abandoned. A new 24" storm conveyance system shall be constructed within the City right-of-way of 184"' PL W right-of-way and 78`' PL W and shall connect 80"' Ave W to the system on Olympic View Dr. The flat drainage system shall not connect to the 24" system — - Downstream outfall improvements at Perrinville Creek will be X Connect to public storm system X X 11. On -site drainage ( per Ord, 300) ; Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention sy tem. X X 12. Underground wire ( per Ord, 1381) ; Required for all new services X X 15. �xcavatlon and grading (per 113C, appendix J (2005 edition)): Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. X X 14. 51 e (per Citq Engineer); All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Standards. No silk X ______screened sins will be permitted_ Provide high intensity stop signs. Stop signs shall be installed at X the following locations: 184`h PLW and 80`h Ave W 78`h PL SW. at Ohm ip c View Drive_ Provide "No parking anytime" signs along the opposite side of the X street of on street parking._ 15. 5urvcq monumentatlon ( per Ord„ 5ectlon 12.10.120) ; Provide concrete monument and case at all intersections and cul- X de -sac and within theplat as required 16, As -built drawl s (per CI Ineer) ; Required for all utility construction. X X 11, Other re ulremed5: 777777777 _ a. Plat showinglots, easements, legals,_survey information _ _ X b. Legal documents for each lot --- — --------------- --- X ----------------- — --- --- ---- c. Field stake lot corners (by rofessional Surveyor) - X _ d. Maintenance agreements X V:\dvnv\pl\05-136 anglers crossing pit -revised 1-11-07.doc 11, Other re uiremen[s_ continued i - -- -e.- Utility Development Plan ---- ..... - ----- - -- ..—_... ----....----...- ----- --X - --- — -- f. Provide Geo-Technical report_ _..__...___._._._._..—____.__—..._._... X- g. Provide engineering calculations for any concrete retaining walls, block walls, etc. that may be used for lat development only_ X _ ..... h Clustered mailboxes required_ Postmaster to determine location X_ i. Lot driveway slopes must be identified on the development X plans as not exceed t4%_ j- Traffic Study X --- ---- - ---------- -- ----._..__._..._ ---- -- ----- ------------------- -- ---- ---- ----- .-...----- -------------- --- 18, �nconeerinq fees_- -- -- ..... a) Storm System Development charge (street only)( $ TBD) X - _ b) Storm System Development charge (sfr) - $428/lot —.... -- X c) Sewer LID fees to be paid to full d) Sewer Connection fee (new lots only) $730/lot X e) Water meter fee (based on 3/a") $550/meter ---- X _ —f) Water Connection fee (new lots only $908/lot .— - g) Traffic Impact Fee $840.72/lot $22,699.44 X h) Plan Review fee $1310 X i) Plat inspection fee (2.2% of im rovement costs) $ TBD X To be determined (TBD) -W Wl"i"nw4ri 11 Jan 07 ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded. Authorized for recording by: Date: V:\dvnv\pl\05-136 anglers crossing plt-revised I-11-07.doe November 24, 2006 Steve Bullock City of Edmonds Planning Division 121 5t`' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr Bullock, I recently attended a meeting in regards to the planned PRD at 7704 Olympic View Drive. At this time the McNaughton Group plans on building 27 houses on a 5.5 acre lot. The meeting I attended was to review an alternative neighborhood plan to the revised plan submitted by The McNaughton Group. The major differences in the neighborhood plan was the elimination of a through street on 18Wh from 8Uh Ave W that would be replaced with a main access road off 18Wh & 80' W with street parking on one side and an emergency vehicle road 15' graded at 15% and an entrance from Olympic View Drive. There would be three housing clusters with 5 houses off 8Uh Ave and 5 off Olympic View Drive with 17 houses in the south part of the PRD. The advantages of this plan are reduced daily traffic runs (220 runs vs 1,430 runs determined by the traffic planner), much less soil removal, less deep grading to prevent impermeable surface to channel water, greater preservation of the topography and geologic features, and more open space and paths within the PRD. As a Seaview resident on 81st Ave, I walk in the Perrinville area frequently, and am concerned with the revised plan that seems to have been approved by the City of Edmonds. The removal of a massive amount of soil, 90,000 cubic yards, I fear will have a significant impact on the environment, and stability of surrounding land, including damage or complete removal of an existing wetland. The water runoff from 27 houses is also worrisome for slide activity in years such as this with more than normal rainfall. As I understand it a large underground vault will be storing this water that will be released into or around the wetland. This will carry any oil from vehicles, toxins and pesticides which will be detrimental to plants and wildlife. I am much in favor of the alternative neighborhood plan as it would reduce substantially, the amount of soil being removed. Also, the idea of no through road on 184'h, to reduce the traffic that will undoubtedly occur should a through road be built, is favorable. According to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan of Edmonds, pages 64-66 of the 2005 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, one of the main goals stated is to preserve as much of the File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 natural vegetation and woodlands as possible. I feel that the Alternative Neighborhood plan that has been presented to The McNaughton Group, helps to more or less accomplish this goal. The McNaughton Developer has come together with the Save the Perrinville Woods Group and has drawn up this new plan of which he has agreed would be a good and reasonable option. ask that you review these changes before November 3U'. I understand that the PRD will be developed, but I hope for a plan that reduces the negative impact to the environment and the existing neighborhood. Thank you Mr. Bullock, for your consideration of my concerns and those of our neighbors. Sincerely, Lynne Greenup 18602 81 st Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 18223 — 84"' Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 30 November 2006 City of Edmonds Planning Department 121 — 5" Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Att: Steve Bullock Senior Planner Re: File # PRD-05-137 "Angler's Crossing" File # P-05-136 File # R-05-135 Dear Mr. Bullock: As thirty-six year residents of the Sea -View area of Edmonds, my husband and I are concerned about the proposed development of the Perrinville Woods area with a direct street from Olympic View Drive going through the development and exiting at 80`h Avenue. Sea -View Parkis directly across the street from this exit and we have observed over the years the increasing number of children of all ages who use the park. Each season brings a popular sport and the playground is always filled with teams using the park. Caution is always needed when driving past as balls tend to go into the street and of course kids follow. The original plan will bring many more cars plus service trucks into the area, and the resultant traffic onto 801h is a hazard to the neighborhood children. We recognize the right of the owner of the property to develop his land, but the second proposed plan entering from 80"' and ending in a dead-end, with no cut -through to Olympic View Drive (except for emergency vehicles) is one that we feel would better serve the community. We are also concerned about the development of the steep areas of the woods, with the resultant loss of soil and wet -lands. We hope that in your review of the two proposals, you will find that the second plan is better- for the area. Sincerely, Marguerite F. Huycke Exhibit" File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 (425) 774-7574 3 C� 3q.November 2006 18223 - 84TH PLACE W. goo 6 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 Mr. Steve Bullock Re: File # PRD-05-137 Senior Planner, Angler's Crossing City of Edmonds Planning Dept. File # P-05-136 121 Fifth Ave.\ File # R-05-135 Edmonds, 98020, Wash. Dear Sir; We, the undersigned,have been residents of the Seaview district of Edmonds for thirty six years. We are definitely concerned about the proposed development of what is commonly referred to as the Perrinville Woods. While we have learned some details about the proposed development of this area, into a major residential community, our primary concern centers upon the propsosed cut - through road, now only a dirt driveway , continuing Eastward from 184 Ave, and crossing at 80th W. As it is now 180' is the only access we on our block have to our street, 84P1. W. We are one of eleven houses on this block. 184th is a moderately traveled, local road connecting 88th, to 80th. Adjacent to the juncture of 184th and 80th W is the Seaview Park, which is a large playfield for many kids who use the area for various sports, nearly ten months each year, and maybe more depending upon weather. There are no warning signs of any consequence, nor fences, nor stop signs on 184th, and we have seen traffic both ways proceeding at nearly uncontrolled speeds, even as the park is filled with kids. On more than one occasion we have seen a loose baseball or soccer ball rolling across the street and some child chasing it. The proposed development of extending 184th across 80th W and into the new development will certainly make this street a main thoroughfare increasing the traffic many times more than what we see now. While the greater plan to develop the entire Perrinville Woods area will require extensive grading and expansion of traffic on all adjacent roads, this one cut -through extension of 184th will certainly create a major traffic condition, to say nothing of the pollution and attendant risks of accidents at the 184th and 80th intersection. Remember, the last 100 yards of 184th approaching 80th, going down hill is a steep slope, and when covered with ice in the winter it is even now a proper hazard for all traffic. • File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 Therefore we strongly support the "second plan' as submitted, which precludes the through traffic pattern of 184 h which will certainly transform this street from 88 h W to a major city byway. Sincerely yours, Marguerite and Harold Huycke SNOHOMISH COUNTY ' ■ PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT No."9 Steve Bullock City of Edmonds_ 121 — 51h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Bullock: Providing quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value December 10, 2006 Reference Number: P 2005 136 McNaughton Group — Anglers Crossing District DR Number: 06-718 The District presently has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development. However, the existing District facilities in the local area may require upgrading. Cost of any work, new or to upgrade, existing facilities that are required to connect this proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable District policies. The District policy requires the developer to provide a 10 foot easement and an 8 foot clearance between any building/structures and transformers/switch cabinets upon their property for underground electrical facilities that must be installed to serve the proposed development. Contact with the District is recommended prior to design of the proposed project. For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's Plat Development Team at (425)783-4350. Sincerely, 6(411 . � Dean Saksena Senior Manager Distribution Engineering Services 1802 — 75`h Street S.W. ® Everett, WA ® 98203 l Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 ® E 425-7834300 9 Toll -free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 lviessage I -age 1 01 J Bullock, Steve From: David Crouch [dcrouch@fosscare.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:05 PM To: Bullock, Steve Cc: Haakenson, Gary; Bowman, Duane; Chave, Rob Subject: RE: PRD Proposed at 18400 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (Han Z. Park) Mr. Bullock: We were very pleased to hear that there is informal negotiation underway leading to a positive outcome. We understand that the developer and key city departments can support a proposal to access 6 homes off of 80th and 21 off of Olympic with only an emergency connection between the two roads, blocked by bollards, movable only by emergency vehicles. We think most of the neighborhood will support this. We certainly will if the approved plan results in this configuration. Sincerely, David & Elizabeth Crouch From: Bullock, Steve [mailto:Bullock@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:38 PM To: David Crouch Subject: RE: PRD Proposed at 18400 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (Han Z. Park) Thank you Mr. Crouch. -----Original Message ----- From: David Crouch [mailto:dcrouch@fosscare.org] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:48 PM To: Bullock, Steve Cc: Haakenson, Gary; Bowman, Duane; Chave, Rob Subject: PRD Proposed at 18400 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (Han Z. Park) November 30, 2006 Mr. Steve Bullock Senior Planner City Of Edmonds Dear Mr. Bullock: We are writing with concerns and suggestions regarding the PRD under development by Dr. Han Park and The McNaughton Group at 18400 Olympic View Drive. This development is opposed by the majority of neighborhood residents for a variety of reasons. From our perspective, the PRD can be a constructive way for Edmonds to satisfy the requirements of comprehensive land use planning. However, a PRD should not have a negative impact by changing the character of the neighborhood of which it is part. It should add value to the quality of life in the community. The clustering of houses, the concentration of open space, the preservation of forest land, and the reduction of suburban sprawl in this PRD could be positive. The added car traffic from the proposed residents of the PRD can be managed. However, the added n Exhib-143 12/13/2006 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 Message rage z of .s caused by the extension of 184th Street S.W., making it a through -road from 80th Ave. W. to Olympic View Drive would disrupt the character and safety of the neighborhood. It would increase the danger to children, pets, and adults who currently live on, back cars from driveways onto, and walk along a residential 184th street. A through -way for traffic passing enroute elsewhere, often at excessive speed, is not a compatible use. Traffic studies show a substantial (1400+ vs. 200+ daily trips) potentially traveling that route if the through -road is allowed. A related safety concern is the adjacent City Park. It is extensively used by youth sports teams and others. Cars picking up and dropping off children routinely stop along 184th street, often partially in the traffic lanes. Children are constantly crossing the road just at the top of the steep hill to the west of 80th street towards the park. Increasing traffic on 184th would create a phenomenal hazard, not currently present. There are additional blind hills between 80th Ave. and 88th Ave. to the west creating additional hazards. As we understand it, the currently accepted design creates just such a liability to all concerned. We would suggest that alternatives be evaluated and adopted. This PRD could be built without the 184th Street through -road and at much less cost and environmental disruption. The through road design requires the removal of some 90,000+ cubic yards of cut material. We understand that if the PRD were designed with an upper and a lower cul-de-sac, one accessed from 80th Ave. and the other from Olympic View Drive, only about 15,000 cubic yards would be removed. We understand that the developer would prefer not to do a through -road. Fire safety is another issue. We understand that the Edmonds Fire Department has a desire to create a through road to reduce response times for their department and their mutual -aid partner, the Lynnwood Fire Department. The very occasional need for emergency use of a through -road, which might save a minute or so in response time, is more than offset by the daily safety concerns of families and City park users on 184th Street due to dramatically increased traffic. Lack of that road has not caused a major problem to -date. Why should we expect that to suddenly change? It appears to us that the interested parties have not communicated at the same place and the same time with full information to reach an acceptable solution. The formal approval system used thus far seems to be doing the community a disservice. Our suggestion is that the landowner, the developer, the neighborhood and the City hold an informal meeting or meetings to develop a proposal that works for the majority. The liability of inaction and the hostility it will create is not something any of us want. Sincerely, David & Elizabeth Crouch 8705 — 184th Street S.W. Edmonds, WA 98026 (425) 774-7066 12/13/2006 January 8, 2007 Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Hearing Examiner McConnell: RE: PRD-05-136 & P-2005-137 My wife and I own the property at 18335 8 1 " Avenue West, property that is within 300 feet of the proposed PRD identified above. This is the second letter I have written to you regarding the McNaughton Group application. I wish to be considered as a Party of Interest regarding this particular matter. My overall opinion of the proposed PRD remains the same. I believe the proposed PRD is not in keeping with the surrounding property. However, Dr. Park, the owner of the property and Mr. McNaughton, the developer, has a right to develop the property. Due to the steepness of the land extensive contour will be necessary and to make the property reasonably affordable, the maximum number of lots will be required. Though my wife and I do not like the PRD configuration, we recognize the right for Dr. Park and Mr. McNaughton to proceed. Recently Mr. McNaughton has reworked his PRD plan at the request of many of the surrounding landowners. That request came before the city on November 9, 2005 and completed on November 16, 2006. My wife and I are in support of the newly reworked PRD description scheduled for Public Hearing on January 18, 2007. However, both my wife and I are continuing our concern about safety of pedestrians and vehicles contained in our first letter to you. We are continuing to request that the sidewalk on the north side of Seaview Park be continued on down the hill along 180' Street SW to 80th Avenue W. and a sidewalk be built northward from the new intersection at least to the of the hill of 80th Avenue W. In addition the crowns on 80th Avenue W and and 184t Street SW should be substantially reduced to improve sight lines for safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic. I will be in attendance at the hearing and I am prepared to support my letter. Sincerely: Warren Henderson 18335 81st Avenue West Cc: Steve Bullock, Senior Planner, City of Edmomds File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 lhc.199v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: The McNaughton Group, Inc. GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR CASE NO.: P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 LOCATION: 7704 Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: To divide a lot with approximately 244,000 sq. ft. into 27 lots in a Single -Family Residential zone, RS-8, and nine height variances ranging from 1.5' to 6' (see Exhibit 1, Attachments 1-11). REVIEW PROCESS: A consolidated Formal Plat, PRD application and requested Variances shall be processed as follows: The Architectural Design Board reviews the project and makes recommendations to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner then conducts a public hearing and makes a final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20, RS- Single Family Residential. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.40, Rezones (Contract). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, Public Works Requirements. d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15A, Environmental Review (SEPA). e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 23.40-90, Critical Areas. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 2 f. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.35, Planned Residential Development's (PRD's). g. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, Subdivisions. h. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85, Variances. i. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100, Hearing Examiner, Planning Advisory Board and City Council Review. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve with conditions Approve with conditions After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 3:03 p.m., January 18, 2007, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 5:23 p.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following people offered comments at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager Planning staff reviewed the staff advisory report at the outset of the hearing. From the Applicant: Brian Holtzclaw, Attorney Craig Krueger, Chief Planning Officer Sue Jensen, Landscape Architect Edward Koltenowski, Traffic Engineer Comments offered by the Applicant include the following: • The original proposal was approved by the ADB, but neighbors were not happy with the proposed through road and the amount of grading that would occur. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 3 • After meeting with neighbors, the proposal was redesigned to allow an emergency vehicle connection, but no through road. • The revised proposal also would significantly reduce the amount of grading on the site. • The redesign will result in less roadway surface and more open space. • The proposed variances will allow 25' high houses to be built. The variances are needed due to the way Edmonds calculates height (from original grade). • No height variances were requested with the original plan, but are now necessary due to the revised road layout. • The code requires a PRD to have 10% open space. 26% open space is proposed here. • The code allows 35% lot coverage, but only 21% is proposed here. • The PRD code allows reduction of lot widths and setbacks. Lot widths will be reduced to 50' and interior lot setbacks will be reduced. However, no perimeter setbacks will be reduced. • Landscape treatments will be provided at each entrance. • The landslide hazard areas will be protected. • Storm drainage from the site will go into a 24" pipe that will discharge directly into a 60" catch basin before it drains into the native growth protection associated with the Woodscreek Place development across Olympic View Drive. • It was requested that recommended condition 3a)(4) be revised to allow more flexibility in the design of the fence. From the Communi Duane Farmen Warren Henderson Pam Van Sweringen Rowena Miller Robert Deigert Lori Haugh David Johnson Chaunte' Kashiwa Brian Furby Comments offered by neighbors include the following: • The applicant has met with neighbors and has revised the plan several times in response to neighbors' concerns. The current plan is a much improved alternative over the original proposal and was generally acceptable to those neighbors in attendance. • No one objected to the requested height variances and some felt the request was a reasonable tradeoff for the reduction in grading that would now occur. • Traffic and pedestrian safety were the main concerns expressed (a petition with 69 signatures was included in Exhibit 13, which discussed the traffic safety issue at length) • 80t' Ave W is a blind hill and sight distance at the crown is inadequate. The crown should be re -graded to increase safety. The additional traffic expected as a result of this proposed development will exacerbate the situation and increase the potential for accidents. • There is another crown on 184th that also prevents good sight distance. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 4 • Sidewalks should be installed in the neighborhood to improve pedestrian safety. There will be a number of children from the proposed development who will be walking to the nearby parks and school. • Funding of the safety improvements could come from contributions from the applicant, traffic impact fees associated with the subdivision and proceeds from the sale of the city owned property to the applicant. • Usable open space calculations were questioned, especially as it related to the proposed trail. Some felt there should be more usable open space and one person suggested making the emergency roadway more usable as an open space feature. • The existing mature trees should be protected during and after construction. • Evergreen trees should be planted for visual relief along 80t' Ave. W in the area just north of proposed lot 1, due to the loss of trees that will occur in the adjacent area due to development. • Many of the neighbors have been apathetic and have not involved themselves because they feel they wouldn't be listened to. Response by the Applicant included the following: • Several traffic studies were conducted relative to this proposal, • The original proposal would have added significantly more trips to 80th Ave. West and 184t' St. SW • Now, only six lots will access onto 80th Ave. W. A complete traffic study was done and showed that the LOS would be met, sight distance requirements for traffic entering the roadway was met, and requirements relative to all intersections in the area were met. • The sight distance problem at the crest of the hill on Wh Ave. W is due to the existing driveways accessing the roadway near the crest. • Most of the traffic from the six lots accessing 80t' from this development will flow to the south and not to the north of the development. About one (1) pm peak hour trip is expected to go north on 80t' Ave. W. There are 120 existing pm peak hour trips now so the proposed development would result in a worst case 1% to 2% change over the traffic that is there now. • Sidewalks will be provided along the frontage of the property on 80th Ave. W. • The mature trees in the designated open space areas will be protected, but hazardous trees could be removed. • The trail area was shown to be 15' wide because it will include some landscaping and benches. Response by City staff included the following: • Recommended condition 3a)(1) referred to Engineering Division conditions and now that should refer to the "revised" Engineering Division conditions. In addition, the words "or as otherwise approved by the City" should be added. • A new condition should be added that would require the Homeowners Association to be responsible for the maintenance of the landscape and open space areas. • A PRD requires 10% of the site to be set aside as usable open space. There is no requirement in a PRD to set aside landslide hazard areas. Here, approximately Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 5 29,000 square feet of open space will be provided over and above what is required. Some of the site is set aside as open space and some is set aside as usable open space. INTRODUCTION: In 1998 a contract rezone was approved on the subject property. Conceptually, that contract approved a change in zoning from RS-12 to RS-8 with the following major conditions: a connection would be made from Olympic View Dr. (OVD) to 80"' Ave. W. to comply with the City's Official Street Map enhancing emergency vehicle response times to the Seaview neighborhood, the property would be developed by means of a PRD, the lot coverage for the site would be limited to 21 % in an attempt to make sure that development on the site would not be incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The proposed application is in response to this contract rezone. It is submitted as a Plat and PRD and the following report reviews the application's compliance with the Plat and PRD approval criteria. One of the most significant elements of this site and also the contract rezone relates to the topography of the site. Between OVD and 80'h Ave. W there is an elevation change of approximately 50 feet. This is the area where the contract rezone requires that a road connection be made. In another part of the site, the elevation difference reaches about 75 feet. This elevation change is the difference between the most developable portion of the site and its main access to OVD. Trying to resolve the many issues associated with this application has been a major endeavor for both the applicant, the neighborhood and city staff. These concerns ranged from accommodating the density that the City Council authorized when the rezone was approved to retaining the established character of the neighborhood, which many see includes the existing large mature vegetation on the site. Some other issues included providing the emergency vehicle access that was required by the contract and the City's Street Map while at the same time trying to be sensitive to the neighborhood's desire to not entirely disrupt and change the established vehicle routes in their neighborhood. The applicant's solution to these problems, after much discussion with both City staff and the neighborhood, is to propose a 27-lot subdivision and PRD that has two cul-de-sacs. The first one will meet Olympic View Dr. on the sites east property line and provide access to 21 homes on the southern plateau of the property. The second cul-de-sac will come off of the western property line at the intersection of 80ffi Ave. W. and 184ffi St. SW. and provide access to 6 homes. An emergency vehicle road will connect the two roads at the center of the site. In building the roads as required by the contract rezone on a site that has as much change in topography as this site does, a large amount of grading will be required. In some cases, homes will be located either on steeply sloping lots or lots where a substantial amount of grading was required. The applicant has come to the conclusion that on 9 of their proposed 27 lots height variances are needed because of the sloping nature of the lot or Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 6 because of the fill that was required to build the road and have a reasonable relationship between the road and the lot. This report will focus on the revised plan now under consideration and will not address the original plan submitted by this applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning: a) Size: The subject property is irregularly shaped with frontage along Olympic View Drive and 80"' Ave. W. It covers 244,193 sq. ft. and is large enough to accommodate the proposed 27-lot plat (see Exhibit 1, Attachments 1 and 2). b) Land Use: The site is underdeveloped with three small houses on a property that is zoned to allow lots with a minimum size of 8,000 sq. ft. c) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential, RS- 8, however it is subject to a contract (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 1). d) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is encumbered by significant topography. Slopes on portions of the property exceed 40% and the elevation change from the highest point on the site to the lowest point is approximately 75 feet. Mature native vegetation covers a majority of the site. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Surrounding Development and Zoning: The subject property is surrounded on the north, south and west by residentially zoned and developed properties (they are RS-12, RS-8 and RS-10 respectively). Directly to the east is a US Post Office on property that is zoned Neighborhood Business. b) Consistency with neighboring development: A single-family residential neighborhood is proposed where the individual lots range in size from 4,600 sq. ft. to 7,100 sq. ft. Although neighboring lot sizes range in size from 8,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. the proposed dedicated open space of almost 56,000 sq. ft., much of it located around the perimeter of the site, will assist in making sure the proposed residential neighborhood is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The steepest portions of the site with the most valuable native vegetation, the large evergreen trees, are for the most part protected by the open space tracts. B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTRACT REZONE, R-97-28 The property and the proposed PRD application are subject to a Contract Rezone approved as R-97-28. In approving the contract rezone, the City Council and the applicant at the time signed a concomitant agreement. This was recorded along with the ordinance approving the rezone, which documents the conditions of the contract (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 13). These are summarized as follows: Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 7 1. Uses on the property are limited to Single Family Residential. 2. Lot coverage for the entire site shall not exceed 21%. 3. There shall be a landscape plan for each entrance that is maintained by a Homeowners association. 4. The owners shall pay for the improvements of the roadway and provide a connection from 80 Ave. W to Olympic View Dr. 5. A cul-de-sac shall be connected to 184th St. SW. 6. All residential structures shall be designed and constructed consistent with a style/theme approved through a PRD. 7. The contract and the PRD do not authorize any structure over 25' in height. (Any need for additional height would have to be reviewed and approved through the variance process.) 8. Sidewalks, gutters, streetlights and signs will be required as described in the code. The applicant has submitted declarations for how they believe they comply with the conditions listed above (see Exhibit 1, Attachments 4 & 5). The Examiner generally agrees with the applicant's statements. 1. All the proposed uses on the property are single-family residential homes or permitted associated secondary uses. 2. The applicant will comply with the 21 % lot coverage limitation. City staff will continue to monitor and ensure compliance with this requirement through the building permit process. At this point, it is most appropriate to indicate the 2 1 % limitation as a statement on the plat. 3. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that provides entrance plantings at both the east and west entrances of the site. The ADB has also reviewed this and recommended conditions related to this. 4. The applicant has proposed a 44' right-of-way on the western cul-de-sac and a 50' right-of-way for the eastern cul-de-sac. There will be a connecting emergency access road between the two cul-de-sacs. The Examiner believes the emergency access road complies with the intent of the contract condition. 5. As indicated above, the cul-de-sacs will be connected and allow for emergency access from 184t' St. SW to Olympic View Drive. 6. The Examiner believes the current PRD application complies with the PRD requirement. 7. The applicant has submitted separate height variance requests for nine lots, where additional height is needed due to the way the City calculates height. The applicant has applied for the variances in conjunction with their PRD so that everyone understands from the beginning what the total project is going to include. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 8 8. The Engineering Division has indicated what the required improvements for the site will be. See Exhibit 4. C. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography which appear to apply to this project. Residential Development B. Goal. 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, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines, which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. B.S. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: B.5.c Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. C. Goal. 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.1 Planned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. C.l.a Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 9 Soils and Topography B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Grading and Filling. C.1.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. C.1.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. C.1.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. C.l.d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. C.2. Building Construction. C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. C.2.a. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. C.2.a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff at predevelopment levels. C.3. Erosion Control. C.3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during construction. C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 10 C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep-rooted vegetation and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, pages 16-23 review the land capacity of the City and address the City's strategy for meeting the population and employment targets set for us by the County and the State. The preferred strategy is called "Design Inrill". Due to the overwhelming feedback to the City from its citizens which stated generally "Preserve the single family character of Edmonds. Don't rezone areas to higher densities." the City adopted this strategy. At its core, Designed Inrill encourages infill development under the existing densities with design controls to ensure that new development will fit into existing neighborhoods. PRD's are an identified tool to allow this to be implemented. This project, a PRD, allows a property to be developed to its full potential while at the same time protecting natural features and taking significant steps to ensure its compatibility with the neighborhood. 2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: Typical elevations of proposed residences, as shown in Exhibit 1, Attachment 14 illustrate high quality homes that should fit into the neighborhood. The orientation of the homes and yards should also protect the privacy of adjacent properties. Also, the use of the PRD has allowed the applicant to set aside the environmentally sensitive portions of the site and protect them while still achieving the density they are allowed based on the size of the lot and the underlying zoning. 3. Compliance with the Soils and Topography goals and policies: The application appears to meet the goals of the soils and topography section of the Comprehensive Plan. D. COMPLIANCE WITH 2O.15A, ENVHtONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued by the City's SEPA Responsible Official on November 161', 2006. When the applicant submitted revised plans for the subdivision which changed the circulation pattern of the project and significantly reduced the amount of grading required they also submitted a new checklist to indicate how the project had changed. The City in response adopted the initial SEPA determination because the impacts of the new proposal were equal or less than that anticipated under the original determination. The Determination is included as Exhibit A, Attachment 16. No appeal of the Environmental Determination was filed. The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 11 E. COMPLIANCE WITH 23.40-90, CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW: 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-1994-197 2. Results of Critical Areas Review: A "Study Required" Determination was issued to establish the degree and extent of steep slopes on the property and precisely locate them as well as to determine the presence and classification of wetlands on the property. The applicant completed the study requirement by submitting both a wetland study, a geotechnical report and a surveyed topography map which identifies the steep slopes on the property. The proposed development plan leaves the north slope of the ravine that runs east and west across the property in primarily its natural state. On the east side of the property, adjacent to OVD, the top of the steep slope will be removed to a point where there will be no slope where the new road enters the subdivision off of OVD. The reduction of both the height of the slope and the weight of soil at the top of the slope will reduce the potential for slides in the future. In response to the City's Critical Areas codes the applicant has submitted several geotechnical reports to document the soil and slope conditions on and adjacent to the property. The City's Landslide Hazard section of the Critical Areas Ordinance is not set up to outright prohibit development on steep or landslide prone slopes. Rather, it is designed to require an applicant to include the correct professionals in designing a project to ensure that any construction is done in a safe and responsible manner. In this case, the geotechnical consultant has determined that the existing soils are appropriate for development and in many cases the risk will be reduced from the current condition in that the height and weight of a slope will be reduced thereby significantly lowering the landslide potential (particularly for the slope on the southeast side of the property). The slope on the northern portion of the site is steep, but development is not proposed to encroach into that slope. Regarding the wetland on the site; trying to rectify the requirements of building a road between OVD and 80th Ave. W. and preservation of wetland has proven to be difficult. The applicant and City staff have considered a number of options related to the connecting road required by the contract rezone. In all of those options, the location of the existing wetland and the grading required to build the road are mutually exclusive. The current proposal eliminates the wetland with the both the excavation and filling that is proposed in that area of the site. The wetland report submitted by the applicant confirms the presence of a category 4 wetland approximately 400 sq. ft. in area. A category 4 wetland has the lowest level of value and functions as described by the Critical Areas codes. The City had a peer review of this report prepared which ultimately confirmed the findings of originally submitted report. ECDC section 23.50.040.I gives the Development Services Director the authority to exempt certain category 3 and 4 wetlands from the Critical Areas codes. Two of the four criteria that must be met for a wetland to Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 12 be exempt are not in dispute. The wetland is a category 4 wetland that is under 500 sq. ft. The remaining two criteria address the value of the wetland to wildlife and the overall development's habitat benefits. There are differing opinions on this matter, however, the amount of open space and significant native vegetation that is being preserved with the proposed development, in the City's opinion justifies the proposed filling. Therefore, the City recommends approval of this element of the proposal. 3. Conditions Required for Critical Areas Compliance: The following things should be done to ensure compliance with ECDC chapters 23.40-90 Critical Areas: a) A statement should be placed on the face of the plat to ensure that the Landslide Hazard Area will remain as an undeveloped area. b) Fencing and signage should be placed around the Critical Areas tracts to prohibit dumping and other activities that are prohibited in the Critical Areas. Split rail fencing is appropriate. c) Civil plans and construction of the plat improvements and all single family building permits must comply with the conditions of the LUI geotechnical report dated 9/12/05 including times of construction. d) Building Permit applications for all homes proposed within 25 feet of the adjacent landslide hazard area to the north and the east must submit a project specific geotechnical and/or structural report, which confirms compliance with general parameters of the LUI report dated 9/12/05. F. COMPLIANCE WITH 2O.35, PRD'S 1. Architectural Design Board review of the PRD The ADB reviewed the proposed project on September 6, 2006, and recommended approval of the project (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 14 & 15). BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER KENDALL, THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF PRD-2005-137 WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) CONSISTENT USE OF MATERIALS OR BUILDING FORMS MUST BE USED ON ALL SIDES OF THE HOMES; 2) BUILDING PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS MUST STILL BE RESOLVED WITH THE SITE PLAN; 3) REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE MUST STILL BE DEMONSTRATED; 4) A SIDEWALK WILL BE REQUIRED ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF THE ACCESS ROAD; Hearing Examiner Decision Case No_ P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 13 5) A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED FOR BOTH ENTRANCES. BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED POLICIES ANDTHE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.060, PRD — SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Items 3-5 have been resolved with additional material the applicant has provided the City since the Architectural Design Board reviewed the project. Items 1 and 2 should be included as a condition on the plat that informs potential builders of their obligation to work with staff on their final home designs to ensure compliance with these issues. 2. Modification of Standards, ECDC 20.35.030 a) The proposed PRD / Plat application proposes to modify the following development standards, interior building setbacks, lot sizes and lot width (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 1). (1) Density for a PRD is determined as follows: Gross Lot Area/Min Lot size of underlying zoning and round down to the nearest whole number. In this case 244,193/8,000=30.5. This conceivably would allow the applicant to propose a 30 lot PRD. They are proposing a 27 lot PRD and Plat. (2) The proposed setbacks match or are greater than the required setbacks for the underlying zone around the perimeter of the site. The interior setbacks, those setbacks between the proposed buildings and their proposed street, will be as shown on the submitted map. (3) Lot width is proposed specifically for each lot dependant upon the size of the house proposed for that lot. While the underlying zoning requires 80 feet in width for each lot, the variable lot width is entirely appropriate for a PRD. b) Conclusion: All of the proposed modifications are permissible if the modification approval criteria are met. 3. Modification Approval Criteria, ECDC 20.35.040 a) The PRDs compatibility with surrounding properties related to (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 3): (1) Providing more landscaping and greater buffering: A landscape plan is submitted with the proposal, which is more than is required with a standard subdivision. Additional buffering and landscaping is provided along the north, south, east and west property lines. Street trees have been introduced into the design of the development. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 14 (2) Efficient and safe circulation: Having an emegency through connection between the two cul-de-sac roads (which connects Olympic View Dr. with 80"' Ave. W) enhances the City's Public Safety units in accessing the Seaview neighborhood. At the same time, having two cul-de-sacs allows the existing traffic patterns to continue without radically alternating traffic in the neighborhood. (3) Architectural Design: The Architectural Design Board reviewed the proposed homes for compliance with the PRD single-family design criteria. As indicated in their recommendation, they find the proposed buildings to meet these criteria. (4) Exterior setbacks: All standard exterior setbacks have been maintained and enhanced landscaping is proposed. (5) Reduced visual impact: With a standard 8,000 sq. ft. lot, a building with a footprint of over 4,000 sq. ft. could be approved. Due to the size of the proposed lots and the height limitations, the proposed houses would have significantly less bulk than is allowable under RS-8 standards. (6) Preservation of Natural Features: The Landslide Hazard Areas to the north and east along with the significant mature vegetation in those areas are being preserved and protected. (7) Reduction of impervious surfaces: Minimization of the road area and building footprints has resulted in a reduction of impervious area. b) Conclusion: All of the modification approval criteria have been met. 4. Decision Criteria, ECDC 20.35.050 a) A PRD must demonstrate that it meets the following five Decision Criteria to be approved: (1) Design Criteria: The design criteria are met if the Single Family Design Criteria and at least 2 or more of the specified criterion are met. See Exhibit 1, Attachment 2 for the applicant's declaration on these items. The ADB has reviewed the proposal and recommended the project be approval. (2) Public Facilities: This Plat / PRD is served by all public facilities in the area. (3) Perimeter Design: Native growth areas will screen and buffer the project to the north and the east. An enhanced landscape area with fence will assist in providing separation from the developments to the west and the south. The landscape plan submitted (Exhibit 1, Attachment 2) appears to adequately address the concerns voiced by one of the neighbors relative to screening in the area along 80t' Ave. West, north of Lot 1. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 15 (4) Open Space and Recreation: For a PRD with more than 5 lots at least 10% of the site must be set aside as usable open space. This site is approximately 244,193 sq. ft. in size. Therefore, at least 24,419 sq. ft. needs to be developed as usable open space. The plans indicate 26,620 sq. ft. will be provided provided. The current proposal includes a recreation area at the eastern entrance of the plat as well as in the center of the site. A more native/natural area with a path and benches meanders through the natural open space area along the northwest portion of the site. This area will provide some passive open space. All of the open spaces will be connected to each other and the individual lots though the sidewalk along the street. Another 29,329 more sq. ft. of the site will be set aside and protected as a Critical Areas / Open Space Tracts. The retention of the existing native vegetation in this area as well as its shear size will continue to preserve the wooded character of this area. (5) Street and Sidewalks: The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and indicated any requirements that will be made of the applicant as part of Exhibit 4. The Examiner believes the proposal, as conditioned below, will comply with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Traffic and pedestrian safety problems that now exist should be addressed by the neighbors and the City through means other than requiring this applicant to correct those existing problems. b) Conclusion: The proposed PRD meets the decision criteria. Conditions recommended by the Engineering Department should be included in any approval. G. COMPLIANCE WITH 2O.75 SUBDIVISIONS 1. Subdivision Review Criteria a) Environmental Resources (1) The Critical Areas ordinance will ensure that Environmental Resources are being protected in the City of Edmonds. b) Lot and Street Layout (1) This criterion requires staff and the Examiner to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots would ultimately be buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section each of the lots appear to be buildable. (2) Lot sizes and dimensions: This criterion doesn't apply to individual lots in a PRD. (3) Setbacks: Setbacks from perimeter lot lines are proposed as follows: Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 16 Street setback from OVD and 80th Ave. W: 25' (minimum 25' is required). Side setbacks from all remaining property lines: 15' (minimum 15' is required). All remaining perimeter setbacks are larger than required due to the location of ravine areas, open spaces and road and landscape areas. Interior setbacks are typically as follows: All Rear setbacks adjacent to Critical Areas or Open Space tracts: 10' for buildings and 5' for decks and other accessory structures. All Side setbacks between buildings: 5' All Street setbacks from new street: 10, All of the proposed setbacks are acceptable through the PRD process. However, because people tend to park cars in front of their garages a condition requiring garages to be setback 18 feet from the back of the sidewalk would seem justified. Furthermore, the plat should be vested with the proposed setbacks. Therefore, it would be appropriate to place a condition on the subdivision that would require a statement to be placed on the face of the plat which reads: "The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under this PRD/Formal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicated setback areas without a variance being approved." (4) Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: (a) This is limited by the contract rezone to 2 1 % of the net buildable area of the site. City staff will monitor and track this condition through the issuance of building permits on the lots. c) Dedications (1) See City Engineer's Report (Exhibit 4). d) Improvements. (1) See City Engineer's Report (Exhibit 4). e) Flood Plain Management This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. 2. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan a) The Examiner finds this project complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. See section B of this report for details. 3. Compliance with the Zoning Code a) This project to complies with the provisions of the Zoning Code, See section F of this report for details. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 17 4. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions a) This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. H. COMPLIANCE WITH 2O.85 VARIANCES 1. Variance Review Criteria ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application demonstrates compliance with stated criteria. a) Facts (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. (2) The applicant has addressed each of these criteria in Exhibit 1, Attachment 6. A site plan that shows proposed grades and building footprints has also been submitted, which demonstrates the relationship between the road and the proposed building footprint. In concept the applicant's desire is to have a house that is 25 feet above finished grade on each of the lots. (3) The PRD approval authorizes the use of three different types of home designs with variations on each type for the development. Specific plans are not required to be used on specific lots. (4) Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that the proposed road grade was designed in a manner to minimize the amount of grading required and to reflect as close as possible the existing topography while at the same time complying with Engineering Department requirements for road slopes. (5) In an effort to make sure their variance request was the minimum necessary, the applicant has carefully evaluated the slopes on each of their lots and even moved the footprints closer to the street in some cases to reduce their request to the minimum necessary in their opinion. b) Analysis: (1) Special Circumstances The Angler's Crossing PRD site plan was developed in response to the varied topography, the approved contract rezone and in collaboration with the neighborhood. Because of the amount of grading associated with it, the road design and construction is the most significant aspect of the project. There are very few options for the location of the road and they all result in adjacent lots that have significant slopes or fill associated with Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 18 them. These multiple factors qualify as a special circumstance for each of the requests. (2) Special Privilege The variance will allow for the construction of residences that are consistent with the house designs approved through the PRD process. These approved designs are consistent with the Single Family Design Criteria found in ECDC 20.35, which ensure that homes consistent with the aesthetic values of this community and neighborhood are built. No additional views or other benefits are being permitted by the approval of this height variance. (3) Zoning Code The zoning code allows for single-family residential development. The proposed residences are consistent with single-family development. In addition, the variance will allow a house that is consistent with the design of the houses reviewed and approved through the Angler's Crossing PRD process. (4) Comprehensive Plan See section B of this report for how the proposed variance complies with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (5) Not Detrimental No views will be blocked or privacy invaded from the proposed development onto existing development by the approval of the proposed height variance. The proposed variance is not detrimental or injurious to any adjacent property owners. (6) Minimum Required The applicant has submitted a site plan with existing and proposed contour lines. The applicant also submitted height calculation analysis for each of the lots that height variances are requested for. Each request was tailored to the physical characteristics of the specific individual lots thereby making the request the minimum necessary for each lot. The proposal for height variances is as follows: • Lot 1 2.5' • Lot 2 3.5' • Lot 3 2.7' • Lot 4 6.0' • Lot 5 5.7' • Lot 7 3.0' • Lot 10 1.5' • Lot 11 3.2' • Lot 12 2.2' Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 19 c) Conclusions: (1) The Examiner believes that the variance criteria for all nine of the height variance requests have been met and should be approved as submitted. I. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS: After review of the subject proposal, the Examiner has concluded the following conditions of approval are directly related to the impacts of the development and are roughly proportional to those impacts. There was much discussion relative to traffic and pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. However, those problems are existing problems and were not caused by the proposed development. Furthermore, no substantive information was submitted to indicate that the proposed development would have any significant impact on that existing situation. Therefore, the Examiner has no authority to require the applicant to re -grade 80'h Ave. W or 184t' St. SW to reduce the height of the crowns on the hills. However, the Examiner believes the City has discretion over where traffic impact fees from this development are spent, and the City may choose to use those fees coupled with other monies to address both the sight distance problems on the roadways and the lack of pedestrian walkways in the area. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions the: The Subdivision and PRD, P-2005-137 and PRD-2005-136 are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The applicant shall comply with the Environmental Determination (see Exhibit A, Attachment 16). 3. Prior to Final Plat/PRD approval and recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) Civil plans must be approved prior to construction and recording. In completing the civil plans you must address the following: (1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed in Exhibit 4, or as otherwise modified and approved by the City Engineering Division. (2) During the construction of the required plat improvements temporary fencing must be installed between the construction areas and the protected open space areas. These protection measures must receive Planning Division approval prior to any clearing or grading. (3) All PRD improvements including perimeter landscaping, entry landscaping, protected critical areas, fencing and signage should be Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 20 included in the civil plans. They will also need to be installed or bonded for prior to requesting final plat and PRD approval. (4) Permanent fencing should be installed along those portions of Lots abutting Tracts 997 and 999. The fencing shall be split rail or other similar non -solid fencing. b) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents shall have the following information included: (1) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under this PRD/Formal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicated setback areas without a variance being approved." (2) Place the following statement on the face of the plat: "Net buildable area for the entire site shall not exceed 21%. (3) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "All construction on the site, both plat improvements and home construction must comply with the LUI geotechnical report dated 9/12/2005. Further, building permit applications for all homes within 25 feet of an adjacent Landslide Hazard area must submit a project specific geotechnical and/or structural report, which confirms compliance with the general parameters of the LUI report dated 9/12/2005. (4) Add a statement on the face of the plat that protects Tract 997 and those portions of Tract 999 that slope up to the north as a Critical Areas Landslide Hazard area. No work is allowed in these areas without a City approved plan. These areas must be protected during construction of plat improvements and homes with temporary or permanent fencing. (5) Add to the face of the Plat "Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final approval for the subdivision located in File P- 2005-136 & PRD-2005-137." (6) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff approval blocks. (7) Install fire hydrants and fire suppression to the specifications required by the Engineering Division and the Fire Department. (8) Submit a one-year performance security bond in accordance with the requirements of ECDC section 20.75.130.13 for any required improvements including landscaping which have not been completed. (9) Submit to the Planning Division a title report, which verifies ownership of the subject property on the date that the property owners(s) sign the subdivision documents. (10) Add to the face of the Plat "The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscape and open space areas." Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 21 (Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have been approved.) 4. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following: a) Provide the City Planning Division with three copies of the recorded plat, with the recording number written on them. b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building Permit" on Exhibit A, Attachment 18. 5. Prior to any construction for the plat improvements or issuance of individual building permits for each lot complete the following: a) Prior to the start of any construction on the site, fencing must be installed along the edge of the landslide hazard areas to protect the Critical Area throughout the plat and home construction process. b) Consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the home. c) Building plans must be consistent in type and style with those submitted with the PRD. Ramblers with daylight basements on down sloping properties. Tuck -under garage plans for those sites with up sloping properties. d) Building permits for each lot must demonstrate that the garages are setback 18 feet from the back of the sidewalk (or curb if there is no sidewalk). Height Variance, V-2005-141: the requested 2.5' height variance for Lot 1 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-142: the requested 3.5' height variance for Lot 2 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-143: the requested 2.7' height variance for Lot 3 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-144: the requested 6' height variance for Lot 41 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-145: the requested 5.7' height variance for Lot 5 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-146: the requested 3' height variance for Lot 7 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-147: the requested 1.5' height variance for Lot 10 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-148: the requested 3.2' height variance for Lot 1 lis approved. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 22 Height Variance, V-2005-149: the requested 2.2' height variance for Lot 12 is approved. Entered this 22nd day of January 2007 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. 2� c Ron McConnell, FAICP Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for riling reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his 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: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 23 was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBITS: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. 1. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 24 attachments 2. Packet of letter submitted prior to the final proposal now under consideration 3. Site sections 4. Updated Engineering Requirements, dated 1/18/07 (supercedes those dated 1/11/07) 5. Letter from Engineering to The McNaughton Group, dated 1/17/07 6. Letter from Charles D. Farmen, dated 12/29/06 7. Letter from Marshall Collen, dated 1/16/07 8. Letter from Nonnan and Sally Barringer, dated 1/16/07 9. Letter from Severt/Roy family, dated 1/18/07 10. Letter from Hillstrom, et. al., dated 1/18/07 11. PowerPoint presentation by the applicant 12. Proposed revision to recommended condition 3.a)(4), submitted by the applicant 13. Traffic safety information, submitted by Charles D. Farmen PARTIES of RECORD: The party of record list is quite long and is available in the Planning Division. SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 27 N, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. E i NOT P E%I NO REIAO11 EA5NN0 s?WATER WIN SEWER LWE INSTALL WNNOLE O+ER WO SEWER 1] 2a Wrt�1A rca t !N"ti S diS �i"• {tr," al 'E> t�' � _yCf \ / �• RELOGTEDN N` � ^� ( ,(Y.c�'1 v r r.,�, A WATER um _ 5 REUDVE/A&W N Ews NC STEEL WATER pAaT m Y a I ARANOON E% 12' PPE TO NE AND INS NEW W LINE TO EAST TO INTENEEPT -NLINE ROW. i f w > 1 I TONNEOT ' � 0 Fll WATER a 1? L\ ! VHF w U w I F JAN 1 1 2007 o J IL �LANNI G O;cp 1. o Z o Q U 50 0 50 iD0 C3. = 50 Scale F— R-\P:ora=�a\�aa (u:rvauantw S.ouR)\4Oa-05 [A.ale:z [.o+.�=al\e.a\Snoala\Polar\Ac-u1O �.ewa REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT This PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this 7th day of July, 2006 by and between THE McNAUGHTON GROUP, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, and/or assigns (the "Buyer"), and THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation (the "Seller"). Buyer and Seller are sometimes referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." SECTION 1: SALE AND PURCHASE Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller the following real property under the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein. The "Property" shall mean the real property located in the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington, Tax Parcel ID No. 00370800101200, approximately .66 acres more fully described on EXHIBIT A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with all improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto. The Parties agree that an additional legal description, if necessary, to more specifically describe the Property will be provided from the preliminary title commitment. Buyer and Seller hereby authorize the Listing Agent or Closing Agent to insert or correct, over their signatures, the legal description for the Property. SECTION 2: PURCHASE PRICE AND EARNEST MONEY 2.1 Purchase Price and Terms of Payment. Buyer agrees to pay Seller TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($220,000.00) (the "Purchase Price"), including the Earnest Money, in cash at Closing. 2.2 Earnest Money. As consideration for Seller's execution and delivery of this Agreement, Buyer shall execute and deposit with Seller a promissory note in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,000.00) (the "Earnest Money Promissory Note") in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Earnest Money Promissory Note will be returned to the Buyer at closing upon full payment in cash of the Purchase Price. 2.3 Acceptance of Agreement. If Seller does not deliver to Buyer a duly executed original of this Agreement on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2006 this Agreement shall be null and void and Seller shall no longer have any power to accept this Agreement. If either Party makes a counteroffer, such counteroffer shall expire automatically at 5:00 p.m. on the third day after the counteroffer is made. SECTION 3: CONDITIONS 3.1 Buyer's Acceptance of Development Approval. This Agreement is conditioned upon Buyer's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the preliminary plat/development approval issued by the City of Edmonds for the Property. In the event PURCHASE AND SALE Initials: AGREEMENT -- Bu er B eller Seller Page 1 of 10 the application is denied or the Buyer does not accept City of Edmonds' preliminary plat/development approval, this Agreement shall be terminated and the Earnest Money note shall be cancelled. 3.2 No impairment of quasi-judicial discretion. Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted to limit the legislative or quasi-judicial discretion of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, of its hearing examiner or of any other administrative body issuing an approval or denial with respect to any preliminary plat or development permit with respect to this Property. The City and the City Council expressly reserve full discretion as granted and limited by the laws of the State of Washington and the ordinances of the City of Edmonds. 3.3 Expiration Date. This Agreement shall remain effective for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of mutual acceptance, excluding any delays caused by any LUPA appeal. If the transaction has not closed in that time period, this Agreement shall be null and void. SECTION 4: REMEDIES IN EVENT OF BREACH 4.1 Seller's Remedies. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event that Buyer fails, without legal excuse, to complete the purchase of the Property, the Earnest Money shall be forfeited to Seller as the sole and exclusive remedy available to Seller for such failure. THE PARTIES AGREE THAT, SHOULD BUYER DEFAULT, ESTABLISHING SELLER'S ACTUAL DAMAGES WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL OR EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT AWARDING SELLER THE EARNEST MONEY AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WOULD BE REASONABLE AND SHALL BE SELLER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. BUYER AND SELLER ACKNOWLEDGE BY PLACING THEIR INITIALS BELOW THAT THEY UNDERSTAND AND ARE RELYING ON THE REMEDY IN THIS SECTION 4.1. Buyer s Initials /X1)9_ Sel er's Initials 4.2 Buyer's Remedies. If the Seller defaults in its obligations under this Agreement through no fault of the Buyer, Buyer shall be entitled to elect to: (a) seek specific performance of Seller's obligations under this Agreement; (b) terminate Buyer's obligations to perform under this Agreement, recover any and all damages, and have the Earnest Money returned to Buyer; or (c) pursue any and all remedies, in addition to or instead of the above -referenced remedies, available at law or in equity. SECTION 5: WARRANTIES r PURCHASE AND SALE Initials: I4 L-� AGREEMENT -- Buyer ' Seller Page 2 of 10 Seller 5.1 Seller's Warranties. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that the following facts are true as of the date of Seller's execution hereof, and will be true as of Closing: 5.1.1 Other Agreements. There are no other contracts or agreements in force or effect for the sale, lease, or rental of all or any portion of, or any interest in, the Property. Seller shall not sell, lease or rent, assign or convey any right, title or interest whatsoever in or to the Property, contract to do any of the foregoing, or create any lien, encumbrance or charge on the Property during the term of this Agreement. Seller shall not knowingly take any action, or omit to take any action, which action or omission would have the effect of violating any of its representations, warranties, covenants, or agreements contained in this Agreement. 5.1.2 Litigation. There is no action, suit, investigation, or proceeding (administrative or otherwise) pending or overtly threatened against or affecting the Property, or any portion of it or the transactions contemplated under this Agreement. 5.1.3 Encumbrances. Seller's execution, delivery, and consummation of this Agreement shall not result in any default or violation of any agreement or law by which Seller is bound. 5.1.4 Hazardous Waste and Toxic Substances. As an obligation surviving Closing under, or termination of, this Agreement, Seller represents, warrants, and covenants to Buyer that there exists no hazardous substance, petroleum, hydrocarbon, or toxic materials of any kind (Hazardous Substances) in or about the Property that have been deposited by Seller or its Agents, and that neither Seller nor its agents shall deposit, release or allow Hazardous Substances on the Property throughout the term of this Agreement. 5.2 Indemnity. Seller shall defend, indemnify, and hold Buyer harmless from and against any and all loss, cost, expense, or liability (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, consultants' fees and costs, and paralegal or clerical fees and costs) resulting from any inaccuracy in any of Seller's warranties under Section 5. Both the warranties under Section 5 and the indemnity set forth in this subsection shall survive any assignment of this Agreement, Closing, and delivery of the Deed. The total indemnity for breach of any warranty or warranties in Section 5 shall not exceed the purchase price. 5.3 Buyer's Warranties and Representations. As additional consideration for this transaction, and as an obligation surviving Closing under, or termination of, this Agreement, Buyer represents and warrants to Seller as follows: 5.3.1 This Agreement and all other documents executed and delivered by Buyer to Seller, now or at Closing, have been duly authorized and will be duly executed and delivered by Buyer and, when so executed and delivered, will be legal, valid, and binding obligations of Buyer enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, and PURCHASE AND SALE Initials: :i AGREEMENT— Buyer B Seller Seller Page 3 of 10 do not violate any provisions of charter, articles, bylaws, partnership, or membership agreement of Buyer; 5.3.2 Execution of all documents relating to this transaction and the full and complete performance of the provisions thereof will not violate, result in any breach of, or constitute a default under any agreement, indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, or other agreement by which Buyer is a party or by which Buyer is bound. No consent or approval of any federal, state, or local court, or federal, state, or local government, bureau, department, commission, or agency is required to permit Buyer to execute deliver, or perform the transactions contemplated under this Agreement. SECTION 6: POSSESSION AND INTERIM ACCESS 6.1 Possession and Entry Prior to Closing. Buyer shall be entitled to possession of the Property at Closing. Between the date hereof and Closing, or the earlier expiration or termination of the Agreement, Buyer, and Buyer's agents and employees, shall have the right to go upon the Property for the purpose of inspecting and making any tests or studies Buyer deems appropriate. Inspections, reviews and studies of the Property shall be completed at Buyer's sole cost and expense. Buyer agrees that it and its agents and employees shall use reasonable care in conducting any inspections, tests, or studies to prevent damage to the Property. Buyer agrees to maintain the Property in a safe condition at all times and to indemnify, defend, and hold Seller harmless from and against any and all liens, claims, loss from liability arising out of Buyer's entry onto the Property prior to Closing. In the event this Agreement is terminated, Buyer shall repair any damage to the Property caused by entry onto the Property by Buyer or Buyer's agents or employees. Buyer shall have the right to approach and interview governmental officials having jurisdiction over the Property, the architects and engineers involved in any of Seller's Work Product to date, and any persons providing services with respect to improving the Property. Buyer shall not be permitted to access the residence, if any, on the property without prior consent of Seller, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. SECTION 7: TITLE 7.1 Title Commitment. "Title Company" shall mean Chicago Title Insurance Company, Inc., in Everett, Washington. Seller agrees to remove on or before Closing all exceptions for deeds of trust, mortgages, liens, judgments, or other matters that may be removed by the payment of money (collectively the "Monetary Exceptions"). All other exceptions referred to in this Section are "Non -Monetary Exceptions". 7.2 Condition of Title. Seller covenants to convey the Property in a condition to be insured by the Title Company as provided herein. Closing shall be conditioned upon the Title Company issuing or committing to issue to Buyer an extended coverage ALTA owner's policy of title insurance in the amount of the Purchase Price, insuring a fee title in the Property vested in Buyer free and clear of all matters except (a) the Permitted Exceptions, (b) the lien of current real property taxes not yet due and PURCHASE AND SALE Initials: AGREEMENT— �uyer Bu e *11er Page 4 of 10 Seller payable, and (c) those matters excluded from coverage by the standard exceptions and exclusions contained in the form of title insurance policy required hereby. Buyer shall furnish any survey (the "Survey") required by the Title Company, at Buyer's cost, in order to issue the title policy required hereunder. SECTION 8: CLOSING 8.1 Escrow. Closing of this Agreement shall occur through Escrow One, Lynnwood, Washington, 425-672-7111 (the `Escrow"). Buyer and Seller shall deposit with Escrow all funds, documents, and instruments required hereby for delivery to the other. 8.2 Date of Closing. When used herein, "Closing" shall mean the date the Deed from Seller to Buyer is recorded and all funds to which Seller is entitled shall have been made available to Seller. Closing shall occur within forty-five (45) days of issuance of the decision approving the preliminary plat/development approval of the Property, or 45-days from the dismissal of any appeal if an appeal is filed. 8.3 Deposit of Closing Documents. 8.3.1 By Seller. On or before Closing, Seller shall duly complete, execute, and deposit into Escrow: (a) a warranty deed (the "Deed)" for the Property, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions, together with a corresponding Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit; and (b) assignments or other appropriate transfers or conveyances to Buyer of Seller's interest in Seller's Work Product in a form and content reasonably satisfactory to Buyer. 8.3.2 By Buyer. On or before Closing, Buyer shall deposit into Escrow the balance of the Purchase Price, as described in Section 2.2, above, and Buyer's share of the closing costs. 8.4 Costs and Prorations. Seller shall pay the cost of standard coverage on the policy of title insurance required under this Agreement. Escrow shall have closing documents prepared at Escrow's office at 19217 36"' Avenue W., Lynnwood, Washington, 425-672-7111 for signing by the Parties. Seller pays all its normal closing costs associated with Closing, including the real estate excise tax, if any. Buyer shall pay the additional premium for extended coverage and any endorsements requested by Buyer, the cost of any Survey required by the Title Company, the remaining escrow fee, and the cost of recording the Deed. All real property taxes and the current year's installment of real estate assessments shall be prorated between Buyer and Seller as of Closing. The real property taxes shall be prorated using the most recent tax information available. To the extent that the amount of any charges, expenses and income referred to in this Section 8.4 are not available at Closing, or in the event of prorations made on the basis of erroneous information or clerical errors, a readjustment of those items shall be made within thirty (30) days after Closing or as soon as practical after discovery of any erroneous information or clerical error. Seller shall, on or before Closing, furnish to n PURCHASE AND SALE Initials: `�1 �/ AGREEMENT— Buyer Bu er , eller Seller Page 5 of 10 Buyer and Escrow all information necessary to compute the prorations provided for in this Section 8.4. Escrow shall be responsible for reporting the Closing to the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to section 6045 of the Internal Revenue Code. 8.5 Escrow Instructions. This Agreement is intended by the Parties to set forth the Escrow Instructions to Escrow. Seller and Buyer agree to execute and deliver to Escrow any additional instruction(s) Escrow deems necessary to consummate this transaction. 8.6 Liabilities Not Assumed. Except as otherwise stated in this Agreement, Seller shall defend, indemnify, and hold Buyer harmless from and against any claims, acts, or omissions arising out of Seller's ownership, use, and occupancy of the Property. Buyer shall defend, indemnify, and hold Seller harmless from and against any claims, acts or omissions arising out of Buyer's ownership, use, and occupancy of the Property. 8.7 Foreign Person or Entity. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that Seller is not a foreign person, non-resident alien, foreign corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust, foreign estate, as those terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code and Income Tax Regulations. At Closing, Seller shall deliver to Buyer a certificate of non - foreign status in a form required by the Internal Revenue Code and reasonably acceptable to Buyer, including Seller's United States taxpayer identification number. In the event Seller shall not deliver such certificate to Buyer at Closing, Buyer may withhold a portion of the Purchase Price and submit each withholding to the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code. SECTION 9: MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 Tax Effect. No Party has made or is making any representations to the other concerning any of the tax effects of the transaction provided for in this Agreement. No Party shall be liable for or in any way responsible to any other Party because of any tax effect resulting from the transactions provided for in this Agreement. 9.2 Notices. Except as specifically set forth herein, any demand, request or notice that either Party hereto desires or may be required to make or deliver to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when personally delivered, faxed, or when delivered by private courier service (such as Federal Express), or three (3) days after being deposited in the United States Mail in registered or certified form, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: To Buyer: The McNaughton Group, LLC Attn: Kevin Hanchett P.O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Telephone: (425) 778-4111 ex. 111 Facsimile: (425) 778-0409 f1 PURCHASE AND SALE Initials: AGREEMENT— Buyer Buy A Page 6 of 10 Seller To Seller: City of Edmonds W. Scott Snyder Ogden Murphy & Wallace 2100 Westlake Center Tower 1601 5th Ave Seattle, WA 98101-3621 Telephone: (206) 447-7000 9.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with its Exhibits contain the entire understanding between the Parties and supersede any prior understanding and agreements between them with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no other representations, agreements, arrangements, or understandings, oral or written, between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. No amendment of or supplement to this Agreement shall be valid or effective unless made in writing and executed by the Parties. 9.4 Construction. The section headings throughout this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and the words contained in them shall not be held to expand, modify, amplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of this Agreement. All pronouns and any variations thereof shall be deemed to refer to the masculine, feminine, neuter, singular or plural as the identification of the person or persons, firm or firms, corporation or corporations may require. "Person" shall mean an individual, firm, association, corporation, trust or any other form of business or legal entity. Any reference in this Agreement to "days" means consecutive calendar days. Any reference in this Agreement to "business days" means days in which the recorder's office in which the Property lies is open. If the last day of any time period or any other specified date occurs on a day when the recording office of the County in which the Property lies is closed, such time period shall be extended to the next day the recording office is open. All Parties have been or have had the opportunity to be represented by legal counsel in this transaction. 9.5 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation between the Parties in connection with or arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall recover from the non -prevailing party all actual costs, actual damages, and actual expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, paralegal/clerical fees and costs, and other professional or consultant fees and costs, reasonably and necessarily expended or incurred in connection with such litigation, including appeals, which amounts shall be determined and fixed by the Court as part of the judgment. 9.6 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. 9.7 Condemnation. If prior to Closing any portion of the Property is the subject of a condemnation or eminent domain action or threatened therewith, Buyer may PURCHASE AND SALE Initials: AGREEMENT -- Buyer Bu Aeller� Seller Page 7 of 10 elect to either (a) terminate this Agreement and recover the Earnest Money Deposit or (b) consummate Closing and receive an assignment of all condemnation proceeds. 9.8 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under the laws of the state of Washington. 9.9 Survival. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, all warranties, representations, covenants, obligations, and agreements contained in or arising out of this Agreement shall survive Closing and the transfer and conveyance of the Property. All warranties and representations shall be effective regardless of any investigation made or that could have been made. 9.10 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and all counterparts shall be deemed to constitute a single Agreement. The execution and delivery of one counterpart by any Party shall have the same force and effect as if that Party had signed all other counterparts. The signatures to this Agreement may be executed on separate pages and when attached to this Agreement shall constitute one complete document. 9.11 Brokerage Commission/Agency Disclosure. Each Party represents and warrants to the other that it has employed no real estate brokers, agents or finders in connection with this transaction. Seller shall indemnify, defend and save Buyer harmless from and against any claims, fees (including attorneys' fees and costs) or costs arising out of any claim made by any other broker or agent claiming a commission is due by or through Seller. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between the Buyer and Seller as of the day and year above. BUYER: THE McNAUGHTON GROUP, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company By: Ke n 1 and Date Its: Chief Operating Officer SELLER: THE CITY OF EDMONDS By: a H ens n Its: Mayor �4 Date PURCHASE AND SALE Initials: ! �L �! . AGREEMENT— Bu� Bu r eller 2— Page 8 of 10 Seller EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12, BLOCK 1, ADMIRALTY ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON PURCHASE AND SALE Initials: 1VI�� t' AGREEMENT -- Bu_ er Bu ems{ S �Iler Page 9 of 10 Seller EXHIBIT B $5,000.00 Edmonds, Washington FOR VALUE RECEIVED, The McNau;hton Group, LLC and or Assigns (`Buyer") agree to pay to the order of the City of Edmonds ("Seller") the sum of FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,000.00), as follows: PURSUANT TO THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT DATED July 7, 2006 This note is evidence of the obligation to pay Earnest Money under the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement between Buyer and Seller dated July 7, 2006. Buyer's failure to pay the Earnest Money strictly as required by the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement shall constitute default on said Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement as well as on this Note. If suit is brought to collect any of the balance due on this note, the prevailing party shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney fees and costs as awarded by the court. Date: 2006 THE MCNAUGHTON GROUP, LLC By: Kevin Ballard Its: Chief Operating Officer PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT -- Page 10 of 10 Initials: Buyer Buy6r eller Seller LAMB HANSON LAMB Appraisal Associates, Inc. COMPLETE SUMMARY APPRAISAL OF APPROXIMATELY 0.66 ACRES OF LAND With no common address, located generally In the 18200 block of 80th Ave. W Edmonds, WA FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Duane Bowman 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 AS OF December 14, 2005 JOB NO. S006-025 PREPARED BY C. Edward Boyle, CCIM Appraiser and Consultant Michael B. Lamb, MAI, SRA Supervising Appraiser 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants December 14, 2005 Attn: Mr. Duane Bowman City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Appraisal of. an existing subdividable building lot located fronting on 80th Ave W, north of 184th St SW in Edmonds, WA. Dear Mr. Bowman: As requested, we have made an investigation and analysis of the above captioned property, more particularly described in detail within the following Complete Appraisal, Summary Report. The purpose of the report is to express a probable Market Value of the property in the present condition. Supporting analysis of the data is included to indicate the process of arriving at the conclusions herein. This is a Complete Appraisal, Summary Report, which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. As such, it reports the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value. Additional supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated below. The appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report. As this is a vacant lot, the Comparable Sales Approach is used to provide an estimate of the value. Because of site specific issues, we are providing two values. These issues are detailed in later sections for this report. In our opinion of Market Value, consideration was given to all known pertinent data including market trends and economic and general conditions affecting current value. In our opinion, the subject property has an estimated Market Value as of December 14, 2005, the date of valuation, as: If limited to a single building site: $220,000 _ If subdividable to two lots: It is our opinion that complying with development requirements is not .J economically justified. The appraisal includes only the land. It does not include any value for equipment, stock, inventory, furniture, tools, fixtures or any other items, movable or immovable, of a personal nature. Neither is any stumpage value included for such trees as are on the site and to be removed should the property be built upon. It is our opinion that the cost I to clear the overall site would approximate the merchantable value of the existing trees, a number of which do have merchantable value. Moreover, some of these trees may be considered as "significant trees", and may not be harvestable. Lastly, some of 1 the trees may well be saved for aesthetic purposes in any event. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Market value, as used in this report, is defined as: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (A) Buyer and seller are typically motivated; (B) Both parties are well informed or well advised, each acting in what they consider their own interest; (C)A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (D) Payment is made in terms of cash in U. S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (E) The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. This appraisal has been prepared in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as adopted by the Appraisal Standard Board of the Appraisal Foundation. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 r LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants I CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISER We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1.The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2.The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 5.Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 6.Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 7.Our analyses, or opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 8. C. Edward Boyle has made one or more personal inspections of the property that is the subject of this report. Michael B. Lamb, MAI, SRA did not inspect the subject property. 9. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person(s) signing this certification, but base information was gathered with the assistance of others. 10. We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 11. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by their authorized representatives. Michael B. Lamb, MAI, SRA, is currently licensed as a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser by the State of Washington under License No. 27011-00893. He is in compliance with all State continuing education requirements. Michael B. Lamb, MAI, SRA, is under the voluntary continuing education requirement for the MAI designation. As of the date of this report, he has completed the 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. He is current through December 31, 2007. 12. Possession of this report, a copy, or any part thereof does not carry with it the right of publication. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By -Laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 13. Neither all, nor, any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the MAI, or SRA designations, or to the RM, SRPA, CCIM or SREA designations) shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser. Nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the express written consent and approval of the undersigned. 14. The client has been advised and has also acknowledged that Title XI of the Federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 requires that all appraisals utilized for federally related transactions must be ordered directly by a regulated institution or its agent. C. Edward Boyle, CCIM Appraiser and Consultant Michael B. La MAI, SRA Washington ate General R.E. Appraisers License # 11 00893 Supervising Appraiser 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 ILAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants IASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS By this notice, all persons and firms reviewing, utilizing or relying on this report in any manner bind themselves to accept these assumptions and limiting conditions. Do not use this report if you do not so accept. These conditions are a part of the appraisal report. They are a preface to any certification, definition, fact, or analysis, and are intended to establish as a matter of record that the appraiser's function is to provide a present market value indication for the subject property based upon the appraiser's observations as to the subject property and real estate market. This appraisal is not an engineering, construction, legal or architectural study, nor is it a survey of the land. Expertise in these areas, among others, is not implied. 2. The appraisal is based on the premise that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in the report. Further, we assume that applicable zoning, building, L use regulations and restrictions of all types have been complied with unless otherwise stated in the report. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents, permits, or other legislative or administrative authority, local, state, federal and/or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use considered in the value estimate. 3. The appraisers have inspected so far as possible, by observation, the land and the improvements; however, it was not possible to personally observe conditions beneath the soil or hidden structural, or other components. We have not critically inspected mechanical components within the improvements and no representations are made herein as to these matters unless specifically stated and considered in the report. The value estimate assumes that there are no such conditions that I would cause a loss of value. 4. The appraisal is based on the assumption that there are no hidden, unapparent, or apparent conditions of the property site, subsoil, or structures that would render it more or less valuable. The appraiser and firm have no responsibility for any such conditions or for any expertise and engineering to discover them. 5. No specific soil bearing tests were furnished or made as a part of this report; however, soil stability and bearing capacity are assumed to be sufficient to permit development as improved, or to allow redevelopment consistent with the zoning. 6. All dimensions and legal descriptions are assumed to be correct as supplied and/or found through available records. Any maps, sketches, reproductions or photographs included in this report are for illustration and as an aid for visualizing the property only. 7. All information as found in data furnished or in public records is deemed reliable-. If any errors are found, the right is reserved to modify the conclusions reached. 8. This report is based on the premise that the title to the property is good and merchantable, and that there are no liens, clouds or encumbrances against the title. No responsibility is assumed for matters that are legal in nature. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants 9. Any liens or encumbrances that may now exist have been disregarded, and the property has been appraised as though free of indebtedness and as though no delinquency in payment of general taxes and special assessments exists. 10.It is assumed that the property that is the subject of this report will be under prudent and competent ownership and management, neither inefficient nor super- efficient, 11. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. The values assigned to improvement shown in this report are in proportion to the contribution said improvements make to the value of the property as a whole. 12. The value premises cited in this report are considered foundational and basic to the value opinions reported herein. The right is hereby reserved by the appraiser to alter, revise and/or rescind any of these said value opinions should subsequent or additional data be found, or in the event the conditions are modified to any extent. 13. Possession of this report or any portion or copy thereof does not carry with it the right to publication. Neither may the same be used for any purpose by anyone but the client without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser, and in any event only in its entirety. 14. Employment to make this appraisal does not require testimony in court unless mutually satisfactory arrangements are made in advance. 15. The estimated market value, which is defined in the report, is subject to change with market changes over time; value is highly related to exposure, time, promotional effort, terms, motivation, and conditions surrounding the offering. The value estimate considers the productivity and relative attractiveness of the property physically and economically in the marketplace. 16.In cases of appraisals involving the capitalization of income benefits, the estimate of market value is a reflection of such benefits and the appraiser's interpretation of income yields and other factors derived from market information. Such estimates are as of the date of the estimate of value only; they are thus subject to change as the market and value is naturally dynamic. 17.Appraisal reports that contain a valuation relating to an estimate in land that is less than the whole fee simple estate are subject to the following: "the value reported for such estates relates to a fractional interest only in the real estate involved and the value of the fractional interest plus the value of all Other fractional interests may or may not equal the value of the entire fee simple estate considered as a whole". 18.Appraised values that relate to geographical portions of a large parcel or tract of real estate are subject to the following: "the value reported for such geographical portion relates to such portion only and should not be construed as applying with equal validity to other portions of the larger parcel or tract. The value reported for 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants such geographical portion plus the value of all other geographical portions may or may not equal the value of the entire parcel or tract considered as an entity". 19.The appraiser assumes that a purchaser is aware that: (1) this appraisal on the subject property does not serve as a warranty on the condition of the property; (2) it is the responsibility of the purchaser to examine the property carefully and to take all necessary precautions before signing a purchase contract, and; (3) any estimate for repairs is a non -warranted opinion of the appraiser unless otherwise stated.. 20.If this appraisal is prepared in conformance with the plans and specifications provided to your appraiser it assumes completion in a workmanlike manner. The appraiser cannot be held responsible for unforeseeable events that alter market conditions prior to completion or effective date of the opinion. 21. Where a Discounted Cash Flow Analysis has been used it has been prepared on the basis of information and assumptions stipulated in this report. The achievement of any financial projections will be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events that cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections made and such variation may be material. 22. Prior to entering into an agreement to perform any assignment, an appraiser must carefully consider the knowledge and experience that will be required to complete the assignment competently; or disclose any lack of specific knowledge or experience to the client, and take all steps necessary or appropriate to complete the assignment competently. Your appraisers have both the knowledge and experience required to complete this assignment competently. 23. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, any of which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser,, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. The presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property. The value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if so desired. 24. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers, or the firm with which they are connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media or any other public means of communications without prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants 25. The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is probable that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, would reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property, as improved. Since we did not seek evidence relating to this issue, we did not consider possible non- compliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property. 26.The liability of Michael B. Lamb, MAI, SRA, Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc., its Associate Appraisers and employees is limited to the client only and only up to the amount of the fee actually received for the assignment. Further, there is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraisers are in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiency in the property. In the case of limited partnerships or syndication offerings or stock offerings in real estate, the client agrees that in case of lawsuit (brought by lender, partner, or part owner in any form of ownership, tenant, or any other party), any and all awards, settlements, or cost, regardless of outcome, the client will hold Michael B. Lamb, MAI, SRA, Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc. and its Associate Appraisers completely harmless. Acceptance of and/or use of this appraisal report by the client or any third party is prima facie evidence that the user understands and agrees to these conditions. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 i LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and consultants i SCOPE OF APPRAISAL: The Direct Sales Comparison approach to land value will be utilized in the present analysis. This is the most common and preferred method of appraising raw or vacant land where adequate sales data are available. This approach was utilized in that this is a vacant lot producing no income, thereby making the income approach to value not applicable. There are no existing improvements, so the Cost Approach to Value is not applicable. We will search the market for sales of similar small properties suitable for short platting. If adequate applicable sales of such are not found, we will search for improved property sales in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, and extract an indication of lot value from these. We will also look for sales of finished lots that are ready to be built upon. In all probability, few or no sales will be found that are completely comparable to the subject lot in its current condition, so the adjustments will need to be made. In such cases, the comparable sale is adjusted to the subject. There are environmental conditions that impact the site. These include limited sight distance to enter or leave the site from its fronting street; a natural drainage way on the site that may or may not contain wetlands; and, relatively steep topography at the street frontage. While making a determination of how these can be treated is beyond the scope of any appraiser, as answers can only be obtained by filing a complete short plat with the city of Edmonds, we will explore these issues to the best of our ability. INTENDED USE OF APPRAISAL: The client seeks to have a market value opinion to make a determination as to whether to sell the subject property and to establish a prospective sales price. No other use is intended. CLIENT AND INTENDED USER OF APPRAISAL: The City of Edmonds, as a prospective seller, is the client to whom this report is addressed NOTE ON CASH EQUIVALENCY: This appraisal estimates the cash equivalent value of the subject property. This requires that all comparables utilized must be cash transactions or adjusted to "cash" if atypical seller financing was involved. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Frontispiece Letter of Transmittal and Certification Frontispiece Underlying Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Frontispiece Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions 1 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION 2 Ostensible Owner 2 Delineation of Title & Sales History 2 Property Address 2 Tax Account Number and Assessed Valuation 2 Personal Property 2 Access 2 Intended Use and Intended Users 3 Legal Description 3 Definition of Property Rights Appraised 3 Effective Date of Appraisal 3 Date of the Report 3 Current Plat Map 4 Aerial Photograph 4 Subject Photographs 5 Description of Subject Property 7 BACKGROUND DATA 10 Overview, State and Local 11 Puget Sound Area Map 13 Edmonds area location map 14 Edmonds Overview 15 GENERAL DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY Highest and Best Use 16 Market Exposure time 19 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants VALUATION OF PROPERTY 20 Valuation Methods 21 Sales Comparison Approach to Value, Land 23 Final Opinion of Value 31 Final Considerations about subdivision of the site 32 Comparable Sales Location Maps 33 QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISERS C. Edward Boyle, CCIM Michael B. Lamb, MAI, SRA 34 36 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Property Appraised: A single lot within the city of Edmonds, WA. It is in a residential zone and is large enough to be subdivided into 3 residential building lots under the zoning, There are topography and ingress/egress issues with the site. Client and Intended User: The City of Edmonds Intended Use: To determine an indication of market value to assist in the potential sale of the subject property. Date of Value: December 14, 2005 Date of Report: December 15, 2005 Zoning: At the date of valuation, the Snohomish County Assessor's records indicate that the property is zoned Rs-12000, which allows for one single-family home per 12,000 SF of land, However, Edmonds Planning Department states that this zoning has been changed to Rs-8000, which would allow for a maximum of three lots. Land Area: 0.66 acre of land (28,750 SF) according to information available from the County Assessor's office. We have no survey, so must rely on this information as being generally accurate. Field measurement was not possible due to inability to locate precise property boundaries together with topographical restraints and overgrown conditions. Minor difference in total size would not impact the highest and best use or the value. Improvements: There are no improvements on site. It does front on an improved street and has utilities available to it. Highest and Best Use: The site is larger than required for one single-family dwelling. Under the zoning, it is adequate in size to short plat into three building lots. Whether this will be feasible will be discussed later in the report. It may prove that the site will be limited to "reasonable use", which would likely be defined as being one single-family residence. VALUATION: In our opinion, the subject property would exhibit an as is value as of the date of valuation of: $220,000 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 1 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION OSTENSIBLE OWNER: According to Public Records the present owner of the subject site is: City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 DELINEATION OF TITLE and SALES HISTORY: The ostensible owner appears to have been in title for more than 5 years. We discovered no history of the property being offered for sale during the past 3 years. We are not aware that it is currently being offered for sale, but the sale of the subject property is being considered by the City of Edmonds. PROPERTY ADDRESS: The property has no common street address. Please see the plat map following this section to identify its specific location. TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAXES: Tax Parcel Assessed Value, Land Assessed Value, Improvements Total Assessed Value (2005) 2005 Taxes and Fees 00 3708 001 012 00 $37,000 -0- $37,000 Exempt As the property is owned by a governmental entity, it is exempt from paying ad valorem taxes. The assessed value is quite low, as well. We are unsure as to whether the assessor's office makes an effort to accurately assess the property, given that it produces no tax revenue regardless of the level of assessed valuation. PERSONAL PROPERTY: There is no value for personal property included in this appraisal. ACCESS: The subject parcel fronts on 80th Ave. West, a neighborhood collector street that connects on the north to Olympic View Drive, and on the south to 196th Ave. SW, both of which lead into downtown Edmonds to the southwest of the subject. The access onto the subject lot is an issue for two reasons: 1) The site lies significantly below street grade, as the street is built on fill where it fronts the subject, and 2) there is an issue with sight distance to the north of the subject, with a very limited distance due to a vertical curve. Please see pictures. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 2 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants INTENDED USE AND INTENDED USER(S): The client herein named is the intended user, with the use being to assist in making a decision about selling the subject property. No third parties are intended to rely upon the opinion expressed herein. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: No legal description was provided by the client. According to the Assessor's records, the legal description is ADMIRALTY ACRES BLK 001 D-00 - LOT 12 City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Also identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 00 3708 001 012 00. DEFINITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: The property rights being appraised are those of the fee simple estate, free and ri clear of all encumbrances and liens. Real Estate Appraisal Terminology defines `:l a fee simple as "An absolute fee; a fee without limitations to any particular class or heirs or restrictions, but subject to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, -N police power, and taxation." Should liens on the property exist, it would be the expectation that they would be satisfied or negotiated as a part of any sale or financing. EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL: This appraisal report, its analysis, opinions, and the final expression of Market Value are specifically applicable to the date of values as of December 14, 2005, the date of the appraiser's last inspection of the site. r� DATE OF THE REPORT: J The date of this report is December 15, 2005 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 3 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Current Plat Configuration 181 r'v- lers _"T PL of 7� PL= SW i 182h°�PL`51i'l 182NDPLSW i r k ��.0. —18ATH--ST SW ! t fa. Yellow arrow indicates subject property. 2002 Aerial Photo of Subject Property ��ss' c Y "LY..q_ All y 1 a cn �00 yy s aii cS W.-M. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 4 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants SUBJECT PHOTOS Looking easterly from west side of property Looking from western lot edge down into property. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 5 ik fir:'.•' _ -4T.i \ %f� � - ' V.� LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and consultants 17 fit y'Tr - Street scene lookina south down 80"' Ave. W from lot frontage. Arrow indicates most probable access point to lot. Note the lack of alignment with the street intersection from the west. Street scene, looking northerly up 80`' Ave. W. Note vertical curve limiting sight distance to only about 100 feet from probable driveway location 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 6 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: The'subject property is in rectangular shape, with the west end of the lot fronting on 80th Ave. West. Please see plat maps and photographs, including the below aerial photo with lot line and 20-foot contour overlays. The dimensions are approximately 100 feet north to south and 288 feet east to west. According to the Snohomish County Assessor's information, the site is 28,750 SF, or 0.66-acres in size. 80th Ave. W, which provides its only street frontage, is a two-lane paved street without a centerline, likely classed as a neighborhood collector. It is lacking curbs, gutters, or sidewalks on either side. All typical Utilities are available to the site. The site slopes upward from south to north along its frontage. The street appears to have been built on fill at the frontage, making the slope from the lot up to the street quite steep, with the sloped portion of the lot increasing in height from the south corner to the north corner. This makes the most probable prospective driveway onto the site best located at the southwest corner of the lot. Even then, it is not an ideal condition as the street goes uphill rather steeply, cresting just north of the subject lot, and then leveling. This creates a vertical curve that makes the sight distance to any driveway onto the subject, even if located at the southern corner, less than 150-feet. This appears to be an incurable condition and creates a somewhat dangerous access point to the lot. Visibility to the south is more adequate. It may be possible to lower the hill crest, but the consequences would include not only the on -road work but realigning the driveway accesses to other flanking properties, and potential loss of use of a part of several lots due to slope easements, creating some degree of damages to those lots. -, The below aerial photo shows the general topography of the lot, but because it is only IL a 20-foot contour line map, it only shows a part of the picture. The site, at street frontage, slopes moderately downward to the south for about 60-feet, bottoms, and slopes moderately upward to the south property boundary. This creates a draw through I, f the site which angles somewhat northerly (approximately as indicated by blue line in below aerial). Once down to the foot of the steep slope from the street, the site levels considerably, but still continues to maintain a lesser slope down to the east. This more level area is adequate to site two houses, provided that the access can be engineered (likely) and approved by the city (prospects unknown due to the sight distance issues and non -alignment with 184" St SW). It retains the feature of a more leveled -out draw, however. Onsite drainage appears adequate due to the slope of the site. The bottom of the draw does . not appear to have the characteristics of a wetland, although it has the topography of a natural drainage way. The land to the west, across 80 h Ave. W, lies uphill, but 80th is represented to contain stormwater diversion. As a result, the natural runoff course would likely be the subject property, but the runoff is intercepted by the roadway storm water infrastructure. The downside of this is that there is a reported 24- inch storm sewer that runs approximately at the bottom of the draw for the length of the subject. Any buyer would be wise to retain an expert in identifying wetland to inspect the site prior to a firm commitment to acquire the property. Please note that the appraiser is reporting observations only, and is not a qualified expert in identifying wetland features such as facultative plants or hydrologic features of soils. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 7 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants The property does have some mature trees of species that have merchantable value. The number and size probably are not adequate to warrant a cruise to estimate the stumpage value. The likelihood is that there would be little profit from harvesting the trees after the costs to clear the site for development. Some trees would likely be retained in any event, as they would add to the appeal of the lot(s), if the land is developed and built upon. Moreover, there may well be a requirement by the city of Edmonds to retain some of the trees as significant trees, so they could not be harvested in any event. We do not have plans from public works to indicate the invert for the sewer. Given the distance below street grade for prospective building site(s), however, it is appears probable that post -construction would require grinder pumps or other equipment to provide the lot(s) with sanitary sewer. While there appears to be sewer downhill to the east, there is not an access via right of way or easement as best we can tell. _ °) +•�Lpd� I -'�.--,fir' � Tr�yt`-'. .4 s• �a►�i , sFf� .31151 The house and lot to the north, as well as the house to the south are both near street grade or above street grade. These respective neighboring lots also fall off in elevation to the east, but the elevation of the structures is much superior to the probable building pads on the subject. The property has not been previously improved with any buildings, as best can be seen. The developed areas nearby are single-family residential. The topography in the area generally prevents a grid layout of streets, The result is a number of streets that truncate without other interconnections. The immediate area contains numerous short, dead-end streets, many of which are not improved to typical urban standards, although paving is ubiquitous. Given the physical features of the site, the only probable use is to attempt to short plat it into 2 building lots. It is adequate in size to accommodate three lots under the zoning 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 8 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants (which allows for 1 lot per 8,000 SF). In order to gain entitlement for short platting, the issues of access and sight distance, as well as onsite issues such as potential wetland or intermittent creek or drainage must be addressed by any applicant. Without the benefit of a civil engineer and other appropriately selected experts, the appraiser cannot conclusively presume that short platting into 2 lots will be allowed. In the event that such a short platting is not permitted by the city, the remaining use would be under the provisions of "reasonable use". This typically is limited to a single residential structure and associated accessory buildings such as a detached garage as the highest use permitted. In speaking with the city, we were presented with the following additional information. A) The city would like to see a connection from 184th St. SW (which intersects 80th in a "T" from the west) to Olympic View Drive which is east of the subject. Indications were that this would be preferred to be run across the subject property at the southern property line. While this makes sense in some regards, there are two obvious issues with this. The first is that the property to the east that lies between the subject and Olympic View is under a third party ownership and appears to have a structure that intrudes into best location of such a new proposed street. The probability that this third party owner would resist allowing a right of way through his/her property. The second issue is that 184th does not align with the subject at any point. This would create a "jog", which is a configuration that most traffic experts believe to be a potential hazard, and this would be amplified by the sight distance limitation for southbound traffic on 80th Such a continuation of 184th St. would provide the subject with direct access to Olympic View, which would be a benefit to the subject property in terms of providing ingress and egress from the east. B) As before mentioned, there is an existing 24" storm sewer pipe traversing the subject, roughly aligned with the draw on the subject property. It continues to the east to connect with infrastructure in Olympic View. If the pipe is indeed so located, it will present issues as to proper locations for building pads if the pipe is left in the present location. However, it was indicated that the preferred engineering would realign this pipe to run along the edge of proposed 184th extension. If developed by itself, with no assemblage with property to the east, this would mean moving the pipe to the proper anticipated future position, then turning north to rejoin the current alignment. Given that this would be approximately 235-LF of 24" pipe, and this would introduce at least two points that structures to turn the water flow direction, the cost associated with this would be substantial. It is therefore our opinion that there are a number of issues that need to be studied and addressed before any reasonable expectation of short -platting the site into 2 or 3 lots can be legitimately measured. There are a number of potentially quite expensive issues to be addressed. These include the potential requirement to lower the road elevation of 80th, which would created additional issues to be resolved in association with other neighboring lots; extending 184th St eastward to Olympic View Dr; and, altering the location of the 24" storm sewer conveyance pipe. After having spent a considerable amount of time addressing these issues, we conclude that whatever combination of these "fixes" would ultimately be chosen, the associated costs would be so great that it may make short -platting of the lot financially unfeasible, even with current high lot prices. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 9 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants BACKGROUND DATA State of Washington Economy 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 10 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants The state of Washington Economic Forecast opinion for March 2005 stated that the Washington economy saw continued improvement during 4`' quarter 2004. The employment growth rate increased 1.4 percent in 4 1 h Quarter over the 1.1 percent in 3rd quarter 2004. Manufacturing employment increased 2.0 percent in 4" quarter following a 1.2 percent increase in the 3rd quarter. All other non -manufacturing sectors have shown an increase in employment growth. The strongest is construction was construction at 4.1 percent. The number of housing units authorized for the State of Washington rose 5,200 to 56,100 in the 4th quarter 2004. The multi -family market has been volatile, rising 3,900 units to 17,600 for 4th quarter 2004. Single-family permits rose 1,300 units to 38,400. This shows that the housing market is still strong. Forecasts indicate that the housing market will drop as interest rates climb. Employment is expected to remain steady through 2007. Inflation has been lower than US average at 0.9 percent. However, inflation is expected to rise to 1.7 percent in 2005, 1.9 percent in 2006, and 2.2 percent in 2007. Area Overview The Seattle metro area, encompassing King, Island and Snohomish Counties, is located in the Western half of Washington State. The metro area occupies a major lowland area between two mountain ranges, the Olympics to the west, and the Cascades to the east. It also borders an inland body of water called the Puget Sound that is connected to the Pacific Ocean. Topography Urban areas, small agricultural valleys, and forests dominate land use surrounding the Puget Sound. Inward from the shoreline, the land is mostly undulating between areas of flat valleys and plateaus. The Cascade Mountains act as a natural divider from the eastern portion of the state. ' Climate The Puget Sound basin is protected from heavy rainfall and high winds off the Pacific Ocean by the Olympic Mountains. On the east, the Cascade Mountains shield the area from the winter cold of eastern Washington. The area has a mild climate throughout the year. Access The Seattle metro area is accessible by all four of the region's major interstates including 1-5, 1-90, 520, and 1-405. Seattleites commute daily into downtown via the metro transit system, car, vanpool, carpool, ferry, and taxi. The regional airport, Sea- Tac, is only 25 minutes south of downtown Seattle. Diversity of the Puget Sound Region's Economy The diversity of the Puget Sound's economic structure has created a stable trade and industry base allowing businesses to thrive, relying less on the region's largest employer, the Boeing Company. With an expanding role as a center for medical and biotechnology research, the strategic advantage of its port in relation to growing trade with Asia and the countries of the Pacific Rim, and the successful development in the computer software business, the Puget Sound continue to flourish economically. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 11 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Regional Gross Metropolitan Product Seattle ranks as the 15th - largest metro area in the U.S. with a "gross metropolitan product" of $120.9 billion, an increase of 1.6 percent from the previous year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors report states. Population Growth The Seattle Metro area is home to 41 percent of the state's population and consists of 2,507,900 people, up 3.9 percent from the year 2000, according to the Washington State Office of Financial Management 2004 Population Cities, Towns and Counties report. The Seattle metro area is expected to grow by 1.1 percent in 2005 and 1.2 percent in 2006, states Dick Conway, co -writer of the Puget Sound Economic Forecaster. Area Cities with at Least 50,000 Residents City 2000 2004 % Growth 1990-2000 % Growth 2000-2004 Seattle 563,376 572,600 9.3 0 1.6% Bellevue 109,827 116,500 14.0% 6.1% Everett 91,488 96,840 32.7% 5.8% Kent 79,524 84,560 34.7% 6.3% Federal Way 83,259 83,590 22.8% 0.4% Shoreline 53,296 52,740 8.1 % -1.0% Renton 50,052 55,360 20.9% 10.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and WA Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division Employment & Personal Income Growth According to regional economic forecasters, Dick Conway and Doug Pedersen, employment will grow 2.6 percent in 2005, and 2.1 percent in 2006 and stay above 2 percent each year through 2009. The majority of employment growth will be in the service sector, though aerospace is also expected to add jobs despite the downturn in the airline industry since 9/11, according to 2005 Marcus & Millichap report. Personal income is forecast to remain strong with a 5.8 percent growth rate in 2005 and 5.6 percent 2006, according to the Puget Sound Economic Forecaster. Regional Housing Market In King County, the median home price jumped from $275,250 in December 2003 to $303,500 in December 2004, an increase of 10.26 percent. In Snohomish County, prices rose 9.18 percent from $228,975 to $250,000, respectively. The total number of households in the region is forecast to climb from 1,003,000 in 2003 to 1,067,000 in 2008, an increase of 6.4 percent. Total households in King County is projected to increase from 735,000 in 2003 to 774,000 in 2008, according to a recent report by CB Richard Ellis. Median Home Prices by County (Res. & Condo) County Dec-04 Dec-03 % Change King $303,500 $275,250 10.26% Snohomish S250, 000 $228,975 9.18% Pierce $214,650 $181,259 18.42% Source: Northwest Multiple Listing Service Regional Transportation 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 12 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants City voters also recently passed a new measure to construct a $1.75 billion Monorail project throughout downtown Seattle. The new Monorail project will consist of 14-miles of "Green Line" which will connect Ballard, downtown and West Seattle. It will complete by 2009 and is meant to be the first line in a citywide system. CONCLUSION: The Puget Sound Region is well into recovery from the "dot.com" downturn of a few years ago. Job formation is doing well, wages and salaries are the best in the northwest part of the country, and most real estate sectors are either doing very well or are well into recovery from the downturn. Housing, in particular, is quite active. Land development and new home construction continue at brisk levels. There is no present reason to predict that this will change as long as mortgage interest rates continue to be I ow. SEATTLEIPUGET SOUND AREA MAP 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 13 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Edmonds Area Map showing Subject Location f Pmyedy Conclusion: Pe SW Housing starts continue at a very brisk pace in the Greater Seattle Region. This has continued through a downturn in the economy in general. The principal drivers for this demand are the continuing growth in population and the low interest rates that are available for home mortgages. So long as interest rates remain at or below 7%, it is our opinion that the high level of activity will continue. The subject property will benefit from this by having virtually instant absorption of the lots. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 14 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Edmonds Market Overview The City of Edmonds is one of Washington State's most picturesque waterfront communities. It offers a variety of lifestyle activities including: beaches, parks, a senior center, two performance arts theatres, art center, historical society and museum, fishing pier, dining and comprehensive health services. It is the second largest city in Snohomish County and is located nearly 18 miles North of Seattle. The population of the area is estimated at 39,860, a 0.8 percent increase from the year 2000, according to the 2005 data from the Washington State Office of Financial Management. The median age of the Edmonds population is 42 years and the median household income in dollars is $53,522, according to the 2000 U.S. Census report. Despite slow growth in population, the Edmonds housing market seems to be going strong. The median home price in Edmonds was $329,950 in 2005, a 21.76 percent increase compared to the same time a year ago, according to the Northwest Multiple Listing Service statistical data. "Edmonds is most reminiscent of small-town America. A coming home feeling to a place you've never been," according to the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce. Edmonds Housing Stats Total Number of residential homes sold in 2005 1,975 Total Number of residential homes sold in 2004 1,814 Median price 2005 $329,950 Median price 2004 $270,975 Percent change 2004-2005 21.76% Average Time on Market 2005 47 Days Average Time on Market 2004 42 Days Number of New Construction residential sold in 2005 417 Number of New Construction residential sold in 2004 265 Median price 2005 $424,900 Median price 2004 $337,500 Percent change 2004-2005 25.90% Average Time on Market 2005 95 Days Average Time on Market 2004 85 Days Source: NWMLS Y-T-D as of September 2005 Conclusion Considering the recent housing market, low interest rates and economic trends, the local market is forecast to maintain a stabilized housing demand over the next two to three years, and the long-term projection is for moderate growth. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 15 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants ZONING AND HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Highest and best use is defined by the 12th Edition of "The Appraisal of Real Estate" as, The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum profitability. The highest and best use of a property is an economic concept that measures the interaction of the four criteria. The determination of a property's highest and best use is a critical appraisal component that provides the valuation framework upon which comparable market information is derived. Such comparable data includes cost, sales, and income and expense data when appropriate as it pertains to the property's concluded best use. Implied within these definitions is recognition of the contribution of specific uses to community environment or to community development goals in addition to the wealth maximization of individual property owners. Also implied is that the determination of the highest and best use results from the appraiser's judgment and analytical skill and that the use determined from analysis represents an opinion, not a fact to be found. In appraisal practice, the concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon which value is based. In the context of most probable selling price, fair market value, another appropriate term to reflect highest and best would be probable use. In the context of investment value, an alternative term would be most profitable use. To render a reliable use and value estimate, the highest and best use of the property as if vacant must be considered separately from the highest and best use of the property as improved. This is because the site must be valued as though vacant and available for development to its highest and best use even if the property's existing improvements do not represent the highest and best use of the site. The following discussions separately relate highest and best use consideration of the subject as though vacant and as improved followed by supporting analyses and conclusions. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS THOUGH VACANT: Highest and best use of land or a site as though vacant is defined by the 12th Edition of "The Appraisal Of Real Estate" as, Among all reasonable alternative uses, the use that yields the highest present land value, after payments are made for labor, capital and coordination. The use of a property based on the assumption that the parcel of land is vacant or can be made vacant by demolishing any improvements. Legally Permissible: The subject property is zoned under the City of Edmonds Zoning Code as Rs-8000, a zoning that allows for 1 single-family dwelling per 8,000 SF of land. This zoning is provided to allow for single-family development of moderate density. Under such zoning, the subject site is eligible to be subdivided into a maximum of three lots, each having 8,000 SF of minimum size. It is also this appraiser understands that the city of Edmonds does allow for smaller lots in, this zoning classification, provided that some of the land is put into a tract of permanent open space. This is typically called Clustering, and the intent is to keep planned densities while also retaining some open space. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 16 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants That having been said, the possibilities for the site are as follows: The subject site has environmental constraints as previously discussed, consisting of a draw though the site, the usable land lying well below street grade, and limited site distance to the north on the access point to the fronting road. Moreover, there may be limitations on harvesting existing merchantable trees presently growing on the site. These constraints encumber the property to the extent that there may be some difficulty in obtaining entitlements to short plat it into two building lots, even though this appears to be the highest and best use. If short platting isn't permitted by the city, the only remaining probable use is to invoke "reasonable use". In this instance, this means that a single family home can be placed on the site, provided that it is reasonable to engineer such a use. Short platting to two lots appears technically feasible, and a single home is likely the "fall -back" position. No other alternative use appears feasible, as the area is generally limited to single-family residential uses and zoning changes appear unlikely. ONE LOT YIELD: This presumes that the lot cannot be subdivided into smaller lots due to the on -site and off -site conditions that currently exist. As one lot, it can be built upon as a result of the Reasonable Use provision, and likely will not include requirements to realign 80th to eliminate the limitation to site distance. This provision, simply put, says that a legal parcel of land may be put to a reasonable use (usually limited to a single family dwelling plus usual accessory buildings such as a garage and tool shed), as opposed to being rendered unusable. If used in this manner, the lot would be atypical due to its size, but would otherwise be considered as being a common lot. However, even then there are deficiencies, given the topographical conditions at road frontage and on the lot itself. As compared to other typical lots that are "builder ready", such as those found in the typical new subdivision, there would be some extraordinary work to be done on the site. Imported material would be needed to bring a usable driveway onto the site. We estimate that the cost to create a typical access would be cured by approximately $10,000 of materials, compacted in place. Also, the typical new lot would have curbs, gutters, and perhaps sidewalks already in place. It is uncertain as to whether this would be required in this instance, as those elements are not a part of the existing street. It is our opinion that the difficulties with the topography of the site and the cost to cure them for building purposes would be an offset for the larger lot size, in terms of value. TWO LOT YIELD: Subdividing the site into 2 lots would require a short platting of the site. Short platting was originally established as a method to subdivide land via a simplified process, and the requirements to do so were considerably less onerous that for doing a larger subdivision via a formal long -plat method. Typically, the infrastructure requirements for short platting were more limited, and the entire process to obtain the short platting entitlement was much more streamlined. While the process still may be somewhat more direct than for formal long platting, it is no longer true that the infrastructure requirements are noticeably more limited. In other words, short -platting a parcel of land and meeting the requirements placed on the developer can entail as much effort as for a long plat. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 17 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants In this instance, the property has the ability under the zoning to short plat it into as many as three lots. However, after speaking with the Edmonds Planning Department, it became apparent that it cannot be determined how much new infrastructure will be required in order to gain entitlement to subdivide. It appears probable that any short plat, whether to two or three lots, will require all or some of the following to be accomplished. 1) The limited sight distance to the north on 80th will need to be addressed. 2) The existing storm water pipe that crosses the subject property may need to be located. This is a 24" pipe, according to Planning, so relocating it would be expensive if required. We do not have a precise location of this existing pipe, although it was indicated that it roughly follows the bottom of the on -site Swale. If it is not required to be relocated, the existing location likely will cause an effective bifurcation of the site such that it would eliminate the reasonable siting of three homes, so creating three lots would not be indicated. Any developer or builder who would acquire the site would be well served to do a complete due diligence of development feasibility prior to finalizing a purchase if his intent is to subdivide. This would include making accurate cost estimates for infrastructure construction or reconstruction that would be required. In order to do that, it is probable that a complete short platting application be made to the city in order to obtain accurate and specific answers to the elements of infrastructure that would be required. THREE LOT YIELD: It is our opinion that a three lot yield will be quite difficult to accomplish unless the property is assembled with other contiguous properties. It appears unlikely that subdividing the site into three lots would be allowed without full compliance with typical development requirements. In other words, a safe and suitable access onto the site would be required, at minimum. It may be required to contribute land to a public right of way that would connect 80th with Olympic View, to the east, as well as absorb the cost of construction of such a right of way. The realignment of the 24" storm sewer conveyance pipe will be a near certainty. In any event, the requirement to lower 80th (to the north of the subject) to increase site distance will almost certainly be invoked. In summary, we cannot determine the highest and best use for the site, beyond stating that it would be for the maximum number of single-family dwelling that are allowed under the zoning and economically feasible after determining economic and engineering feasibility. Making such a determination is well beyond the scope of this appraisal and cannot be done without the participation of the city in an application process in any event. In conclusion, the ability to subdivide the parcel into smaller lots presents both an engineering and an economic challenge. It is our opinion after having "played with" a couple of development "schemes", that the value added to the site may not provide adequate incentive to a developer to warrant the expenditure of the required costs to provide the probable elements of new infrastructure. While we acknowledge that assemblage with the property to the east may allow greater feasibility, from a "Market Value" standpoint, a single prospective buyer does not make a market. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 18 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AS IMPROVED: As the subject property is vacant and not likely to be permitted any alternative use than above discussed, no highest and best use, as improved, is indicated. ESTIMATION OF MARKETING TIME: Lots in close -in areas that are suitable for residential construction are becoming scarcer with each year that passes. Developers and homebuilders are actively seeking sites. Properties such the subject property have been bypassed until recently, as the issues associated with them made them undesirable for development. We have reached the point where the "easy land" is used, for the most part, and the difficult sites are being absorbed and developed. Even with the issues that are associated with the subject, the scarcity of building lots would make it attractive to a builder. Indeed, the subject lot, if placed on the market at market value, would likely be sold within a period of no more than 45 days, and likely less, based on MLS data, some of which is on page 13 herein. This would be true, whether subdividable or not. However, it is highly probable that such a sale would be contingent upon a period of time to perform a full feasibility and due diligence on the property before a firm commitment to close escrow on the purchase would be forthcoming from the buyer. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 19 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants VALUATION OF PROPERTY 650S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 20 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants VALUATION METHODS, APPROACHES TO VALUE The Appraisal Process is based on a dynamic problem -solving model consisting of a series of interrelated procedures with the common objective of formulating a reliable estimate of value. In the present analysis, the value to be estimated is Market Value as previously defined. This is value in exchange subject to the interplay of supply and demand together with other pertinent open market factors. Because Market Value reflects the reactions of typical buyers and sellers in the marketplace, it is the primary concern of most real estate appraisals. The first procedures in the appraisal process include defining the problem at hand, establishing an appraisal plan and collecting and analyzing appropriate data relating to the general area, subject property and comparable properties to establish the economic setting and competitive framework for the property under appraisal. Analysis of these factors leads to that of highest and best use and finally to the usual application of three approaches to value. These are the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Approaches. The Cost Approach is a summation of the various agents in production that contribute to the whole property. It is the process of estimating the Replacement or Reproduction Cost, New, of the subject improvements, and deducting from the new cost the estimated total loss in value from all causes to arrive at the depreciated value. The value of the land, as estimated from analysis of comparable land sales, is added to the depreciated value of the improvements to indicate the value of the whole property. The Cost Approach is based largely on the Principle of Substitution, which asserts that when items of equal utility are available in an open market, the one with the lowest price will attract the greatest demand. Since the value of a replaceable property tends to be indicated by the value of an equally desirable substitute property, the cost of producing such a substitute through new construction often reflects the upper limit of value. All of the value of the subject resides in the land. There are no improvements on the subject property. As a result, the cost approach is rendered as being without merit. The Sales Comparison Approach is the process of comparing sales of similar properties to the subject. When the sales have dissimilar attributes, these differences must be analyzed and adjusted in order to equate them with the subject property. As with the Cost Approach, this approach is based largely on the Principle of Substitution !-i which here implies that a typical prudent purchaser will not pay more for a property than it would cost to buy a comparable substitute property. Because this approach is a direct reflection of the attitudes and behavior of typical buyers and sellers, it is a i primary application of the theory of value in exchange. The reliability of this and other approaches depends largely on the availability of adequate comparative data. The subject property is zoned to allow a single-family home site, and is further limited by environmental constraints to that use. The value lies in the utility of the lot, which is a finished lot that is ready to build a house with adequate room to have a reasonable footprint. Lots are getting smaller as higher density is being sought to accommodate 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 21 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants limited amounts of developable land. As a result, differences in lot sizes are becoming a less significant element in valuing individual lots. This is the only method that is applicable to the subject property. A search was done for lot sales in the surrounding and in competing nearby areas. A few such sales were found. A significantly large portion of the newly developed lots in the area is being built out by the developers of the plats. Those that they do not build on themselves are being sold to builders, and often in transactions that have considerations that are other than cash. In subdivision appraisals done recently in the region, we have found that new subdivision lot sales to individuals were few. The lots selected were considered to be the most comparable to the subject lots and are located in near proximity to the subject. The Income Approach is not applicable in this appraisal process due to the fact that the property does not now, nor is it contemplated that in the post -developed condition, will it produce periodic income (rent). The price point to which a new house on this site is being built will generally produce a buyer that is a user. The Direct Sales Comparison Approach to lot value will be the most relied upon utilized in the present analysis. In cases such as this, it is the best method available. The following pages contain specific data on lot sales discovered to have occurred that will provide guidance as to the value of the subject property's potential lots in their as is condition. Following these pages there is discussion as to the conclusions that can be reached from this information. NOTE ON CASH EQUIVALENCY: This appraisal estimates the cash equivalent value of the subject property. This requires that all comparables utilized must be cash transactions or adjusted to "cash" if a typical seller financing was involved. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 22 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants COMPARABLE SALES METHOD OF VALUATION: When an appraisal assignment is undertaken, particularly when the subject property is primarily land, the appraiser must, during the course of developing the comparable sales, make a decision as to which of the possible units of value is most applicable in the particular assignment. Among the various important units of value are price per square foot; price per acre; price per building unit; price per waterfront or street front foot; and price per net usable square foot. While there are still other possible considerations, these are the most usual. In this instance, the clear unit of value is the value per building lot. This directly reflects the utility of the land, as in the current marketplace building lots are highly sought after. Moreover, lot sizes do not have a significant impact on value. While it is true that large lots command a premium over small lots, it is only nominal and by no means based directly upon the lot size. The subject land is being appraised on the basis of the determination that the highest and best use is for one single-family dwelling if it cannot be subdivided due to site constraints or two lots if short platting is allowable. The site is maximized in terms of potential yield with this use. This approach is consistent with the concluded opinion of highest and best use set forth in the previous segment of this report. The first section will deal with estimating the value of a building lot in the subject area. That will be followed by applying this estimated finished lot value to the land in its present state as it i applies to the potential yield in lots. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 23 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Lot Sale 1: Address 186`h SW. w/o 641h Ave W Parcel size 8 300 SF + SF average Assessors Parcel No. 010174-000-001 to 020 Topography Undulating, mild Sale price 178,500 each view No Sale date 12/14/04 Water To lots Assessed value 06 New lots, not assessed Sewer Stubbed to lots Zoning RS84 Lynn ood Site Vacant lots Buyer Two buyers: Contempra Homes, Inc for 6 lots — Dan Mus Westar Development as to 9 lots — Larry Seitz Seller Tri-Star Homes, Inc. Pat Crosby Comments This is a new subdivision of 19 developed vacant lots named Charles Place. Two buyers acquired all of the lots on the same closing date, both paying $178,500 per lot. The lots vary in size somewhat, but are reasonably uniform in size. This subdivision has been developed fully with a road, gutters, sidewalks and lights. The houses have sewer, gas, phone, cable, telephone and water connections supplied by the city. The subdivision seems to have mid to upper mid class income housing which is reflected in the finished quality of the homes. Most of the homes are occupied although some are in final stages of construction. The lots seem to be approximately 7,500 to 9,000 square feet in size and are on slight downward slope from the main street. The topography of the lots varies from location to location but most are uneven and required some site grading or filling prior to construction. An adjustment is needed for time since sale, which according to our best data is running at about 12% per annum, making the lot value indication from this sale $199,920 per lot. Through the back end of the property there is Natural growth and wildlife buffer zone approximately 50 feet wide. The homes on the other side of the buffer zone have been connected to the rest of the property via a bridge. The NGPE been fenced and is not accessible to the residents. 650 S Orr -as Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 24 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Lot Sale 2: Address 69th PI W e/o 172"d St SW Parcel size 10,800 SF average Assessors Parcel No. 010173-000-003 — 008 Topoqraphy Mild slope Sale price $192 000 per lot view Some territorial Sale date 2/15/05 Water On lot Assessed value 06 Pre-dev. Assessment Sewer On lot Zoning Rs20 000 Site Timbered, sloped Buver R H Hoover, Inc Seller MMR Development LLC Comments First takedown of 6 lots, with second takedown of 5 more to follow. A single lot was sold for $195 000 see sale 7 herein. Total of 12 lots in subdivision. This particular property is located on 36th Avenue and 170th St in Edmonds. The site has been fully developed with sidewalks, gutters, lights and roads. Most of the homes have been built and are occupied although it appears there is a single lot that has not been cleared or prepared for construction. The houses seem to be suited for middle income families and lots range in size at about 10,000 square feet. The houses seem to be similar in construction and design throughout the development. The roads have abrupt ends and have postings that they may continue after further development. It also appears that the developer has left an infrastructure for possible extension at a later time. Adjustment for time at 12% would indicate a lot value for the subject at about $215,000 per lot. As can be seen, the second lift on the new street is not yet completed. This picture looks south from the north end of the sac. Topography is evident in the picture. This sale is a bulk sale of 6 lots. The remaining 5 lots are being committed to the same buyer. These lots sold at the same date as the single lot sale, which exhibited a price of only $3,000 more than the bulk sale price in this sale. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 25 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Lot Sale 3: Address 1541 10th PI N Parcel size 0.28 acres 12,197 SF Assessors Parcel No. 27031300413000 Topography Modest slope to west Sale price $250,000 view Obscured, but maybe Sale date 3/30/2004 Water In street Assessed value 06 $176.000 Sewer I In street Zoning Rs-12.000 Site Vacant at sale Buyer Pacific Emerald Homes, Inc Seller Vesta P Lerdru Comments House built on site and sold 3/30/05 for $810,000. Site required some grading. The location of this lot is such that it could have some view, as it slopes toward the water, but it appears to be minimal due to trees on the view side. The sale of this lot is aged 20 months. The location is somewhat superior. Based on lot values for south Snohomish County, values have escalated by 1 % per month over the past 3 years, so an upward adjustment of 20% is indicated for time. A downward adjustment for location is estimated to be 20% when combined with the view potential, making the value indication from this lot $240,000. (Note that the time adjustment is applied, and then the location adjustment is applied to the total, so these adjustments do not directly cancel, despite being equal in percentage size.) 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 26 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Lot Sale 4: Address 18415 Hi h St. Parcel size .33 acres (14,375 SF Assessors Parcel No. 00565600101201 Topography Slopes to West Sale price $240.000 view Yes, some Sale date 12/30/2004 Water In street Assessed value 06 $171,000 Sewer In street Zoning Rs-12000 Site Vacant at sale Buyer Jan I & Roxanne Hilleren Seller Pacific Emerald Homes Comments Pacific Emerald bought 3/31/04 for $225,000, sold 01 for $190K; again in 02 for $215K. -V 14;.+ r "'+rs�r-• As can be seen, a home has been built on this lot, as well. The lot is smaller than the subject, but sizable for today's market, An upward adjustment for time of 12% is indicated. A downward adjustment for location and view of 20% is in order. Together, they cause this sale to indicate a value for the subject in the range of $215,000, rounded. It is located west of the subject in an area that generally slopes toward the sound. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 27 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Lot Sale 5: Address 1422 10th Place N Parcel size 0.42 acres (18,295 SF Assessors Parcel No. 00531904100300 Topography Slopes slightly to west Sale price $220 000 view Some obscured Sale date 2/13/20.04 Water In street Assessed value 06 $232,000 Sewer In street Zoning Rs-12000 Site Vacant at sale Buyer Sound View Home Builders Seller Ter E Hanna & Nancy K Krogh Comments I Built house and sold to Bruce Barreth Et Ux for $835,000 2/05. This is another relatively large lot, but smaller than the subject, but has somewhat superior utility. It is located about a SW of the subject in a generally better overall location. The lot required some reshaping prior to construction. The location and view are somewhat superior to the subject. The sale is aged 20 months, indicating an upward 20% adjustment for time. A downward adjustment for size, location, and partial view of 20% is indicated. The value indication for the subject is therefore $211,000, rounded. (Note that the time adjustment is applied, and then the location adjustment is applied to the total, so these adjustments do not directly cancel, despite being equal in percentage size.) 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 28 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Lot Sale 6: Address 16705 74th PI W Parcel size 0.49 acres (21,344 SF Assessors Parcel No. 00576300000100 Topography Some slope Sale price $270,000 view Undetermined, but probable Sale date 4/19/05 Water In street Assessed value 06 $243,800 Sewer In street Vacant , large trees Zoning Rs-20000 Site Buyer Custom Built Homes. Inc. Seller GBT Construction, Inc. Comments GBT bought 1/19/05 for $165,000, and resold for $105,000 gross profit. The resale rice included approved plans and permit ready. 005131e00105t2 r70�r3rfl6p1e5��r 00513100010501. r it N :+ X '00576300000600 57630RQg0 �! 1 00`76300000fOf,�� ,yam{ The parcel is another large lot, but smaller than the subject. It appears that it is not subdividable due to zoning. A deduction for the value of plans and entitlements is estimated at $20,000, reducing the equivalent price to $250,000. The sale is 8 months old, so an upward adjustment for time is indicated at 8%. An upward adjustment for location and probable view is indicated at 15%%. The value: indication from this sale is therefore estimated at $230,000, rounded. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 29 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Lot Sale 7: Address No address Parcel size 0.53 acres (23,087 SF Assessors Parcel No. 01017300000200 Topography Sloped Sale price $195.000 view Confined territorial Sale date 3/21/2005 Water In street Assessed value 06 $172,000 Sewer In street Zoning Rs-20000 Site Developed. timbered Buyer Michael & Rondi Murdock Seller MMR Development Co Comments Lot 2 in subdivision of 12 lots. As seen in the picture, the lot is well above street grade. While the site may have view potential, it is surrounded by a green belt and views will not be advantaged. R� "•a'4�p This is a new subdivision located NNE of the subject about 2 miles. This lot was sold to an individual'. As can be seen, considerable site work will be required to create a building pad and access to the house and garage. This subdivision is a total of 12 lots, 9 of which are sold (see next comparable sale). This is lot 2, located near the southern end of the plat. Topography in the plat varies, with some lots above grade and some below grade, as it was developed on a sloping site. A following picture shows a view down the cul-de-sac from the northern end. Lot sizes vary from an estimated 0.3 to 0.5 acres. This lot will require a significant amount of shaping to provide a good building pad. This sale is 9-months old, so a 9% upward adjustment i is indicated. The value indication from this sale is therefore $212,500, rounded. 'I 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 30 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants FINAL OPINION OF VALUE: We looked at all of the lots that are cited herein. The characteristics of the lots were considered. All lots were served with access and necessary utilities, so are alike in those regards, While some of the lots would require some shaping to alter the topography, most were adequately graded to provide for a building pad without extraordinary additional earthwork. Lot sizes varied, but nearly all were larger than typical lots. Selecting large lots was 1 one of the filters that eliminated some developments that features small lots. In general, the market does not provide for significant adjustment in value relative to size. Never the less, we did consider size in making our adjustments to sales values. With the current lack of building lots, the hue and cry from builders is "We need lots". The minimum utility is to provide an adequate area for a building footprint and required support such as room for a driveway and access for a garage. Beyond that, additional size has only a very modest effect on value and is certainly far less that a pro-rata value per SF of land. Location and lot view quality are the two elements that have the most impact on lot values. In addition to the lots sales reported herein, we also looked at many more sales than reported herein. We selected from the total group those that appear to have the most comparability. Some of the sales used range back to early 2004. Given that for the past 3 years lot values in South Snohomish County have been rising at a nominal 15% per year (or more in some locations), we adjusted for time since closing at 1 % per month. This is a somewhat conservative view. This level of adjustment will stand scrutiny. Due to the quantity of sales that we filtered through, not all were confirmed with principals or agents to the transactions. However, all sales were confirmed from Snohomish County Records, plus one or more of MLS, CoStar, or MetroScan. As can be seen from the photographs, the sold lots were almost all immediately built upon, and nearly all have new houses. After adjustments, the lot sales exhibited a range from $200,000 to $240,000. The predominance of them have adjusted values in the range of $212,500 to $215,000. It is our opinion that the subject property would have a market value, in the AS IS condition, after giving adequate consideration to the large size, and considering the minimum amount of work required to provide infrastructure and access, of: Two hundred twenty thousand dollars ($220,000) 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 31 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Final Considerations and opinions regarding subdivision: We have spent some effort estimating the costs associated with subdivision of the subject property. If smaller lots are created from the site, the individual lot values will not be substantially diminished as a result of the smaller lot size. Provided that the lots remain larger than 6,000 SF, a per lot value for finished lots should exhibit values in the range of $200,000 per lot, In order to create such lots, the developer will experience a holding period during which engineering and design will be completed and entitlement for subdivision gained. While we were assured that the planning department is pro -active in helping developers to maximize their sites, our conversation with the planners in Edmonds also indicate that design criteria will need to be met. This report has discussed the shortcomings of the site adequately, and it will not be repeated here. However, the costs associated with providing this conforming infrastructure appear to be great enough that the economic feasibility of subdivision is minimal, at best. The curing of the sight distance problem would appear to be the most costly element. It is within the power of the city to reduce the cost associated with this problem, but without fully addressing the issue a dangerous hazard would exist wherein southbound traffic traveling at legal speed would have inadequate reaction time to avoid slow - moving traffic entering onto or leaving the subject property. Using the property as a single lot (as is) leaves this hazardous situation, but with 1/3rd the probable trips to and from the property as opposed to subdividing into 3 lots. The costs that we estimated are not included herein, as they are hypothetical, at best. They were based upon a development plan that appeared feasible. Costs of changing the elevation of the existing street was based on a "best guess" as to the amount of material to be moved both in the roadway and on the aprons to provide for slope easements and reconstruction of access to the affected street abutting lots. An estimate of the costs to acquire slope easements was thrown in. An estimate of on -site work to provide a reshaping of the lot to provide internal access and building pads was made. Realigning the existing stormwater infrastructure was made. When all was said, the costs appear to be such that there would be no economic incentive to subdivide the parcel. We acknowledge that it is within the purview of allow for a less expensive set of alternatives to developing this site, but presuming that this would happen is an extraordinary assumption that is not supportable within appraisal practice. As a result, it is our opinion that the significant uncertainties associated with subdividing the parcel into more than one lot renders it economically unfeasible to ascribe a higher value for this acknowledged potential. We therefore conclude that the recognizable value lies in viewing the property as being a large, single-family lot. 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 32 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants COMPARABLE SALES LOCATION MAP Vacant Lot Sales -1QVT PL SW I Its 102I D PL SWI js ^� m 165TH PL SW Comp sale 6 0 T L 1 NyL SW _ Comps sales 2 & 7 - 100TH S� SW h-I f 109T PLS )172PL � ti J T 17�T Y SraualAe�1h-SW + �170T11 ST W i L 1 t . H'ST- J- 179 PL SW' T P S1A 17&TH-PL I �j T"L SW +JII (1 iOLYMPIC 180TH L � 180T11 S T � Comp sale 4 k sab ut pmp.ttp 1 i T $ 20 -PL< Comp sale l - 4 I o j{ ^ f / sic 1 _ 1B5THP p 80TS SW _ 1g01 6 1 TH Silsl v— Comp sale 3 _ 1 1 188TH PL t T 8 190TWP1 -'--LI- 1 fI v ff 10'F PI.:SVq I-- L. 1t}D gI6 c Sl T r 7 :T1192N S t$ iifiST 5i SW 1015 PL I I 1 1 D 51� .- i p'P 1R3R0 SW �T`cx� v Yd ST y A SOH T SIIY $I74 PL SW m zii 99 Q r� Comp sale S � s � �t _='gily98 P TST SW iD _ t y 100TH PL \ D S7 S p_p-.-.3t ST� 201 TP \ _ �iLE ~8 RAItSW 203R0 STi — I YT 203RD DST N PL �` 204T "ST —A o 1205T *I �J C ` Cow r VsIIeY �,..� 204TH-P -�� 0 3ourW'di tjm'1206TM S SW 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 33 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Qualifications of Appraisers C. Edward Boyle, CCIM PROFESSIONAL PROFILE Ed Boyle has been an Appraiser and Consultant with Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, since 1998. He has held the Certified Commercial Investment Member (CCIM) designation (#838) of the Commercial Investment Division of the National Association of Realtors since 1978. Mr. Boyle has been retained as a consultant in a variety of real estate valuation assignments including highest and best use studies, feasibility studies, market analysis, and investment analysis. He has served as an expert witness in a number of real estate related actions. He specializes in appraisal of raw land, development land, and subdivisions, and also has considerable experience appraising a wide assortment of other property types including: Industrial, Office, Retail, Multi- family, and Special Purpose buildings. Mr. Boyle's broad and diverse real estate experience assists him in determining accurate property valuations. PROFESSIONAL LICENSES 8? QUALIFICATIONS Certified Commercial Investment Member (CCIM) #838, of the Commercial Investment Division of the National Association of Realtors, attained designation 1978 25 years as a licensed real estate broker in the State of Washington 8 years licensed as out-of-state real estate salesman, State of Oregon 8 years DPP Securities license for syndication of real estate equities. WORK EXPERIENCE Present- Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc. Genera/ Rea/ Estate1�aprwser • Licensed salesman, and/or associate broker, West and Wheeler Assoc., a commercial brokerage firm. • Investment property sales manager, Vincent D. Miller, Inc., commercial brokerage firm • Founding principal partner, general manager, designated broker, Westlake Associates, Inc. commercial brokerage firm 1974-1982 • Past President (1981) and founding board member, Commercial Investment Brokers Association (now CBA), Statewide commercial multiple listing service. • Past President, (1983) Seattle, King County Board of Realtors. • Past President, (1986) Washington Association of Realtors, • Multiple terms as Director, National Association of Realtors. • President, GTT, Inc. real estate investment corporation • President, Allied Commercial Group, Inc., Commercial Brokerage, Consulting, Land development. • Founding Board Member, Loan Committee member, Washington State Bank, Federal Way 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 34 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants HONORS AND AWARDS "EDDY" Award, Washington Real Estate Education Foundation, a 1 per year award". Associate of the Year, Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 1981 Realtor of the Year, Seattle, King County Association of Realtors, 1983 Listed, Who's Who in Real Estate, 1986 OTHER • Instructor, various real estate topics and courses for such entities as N. Seattle Community College; Washington Real Estate Education Foundation; National Association of Realtors, Realtors National Marketing Institute; private real estate firms. Developed course -work in some instances. • Sought after for conducting half -day seminars on Parliamentary Procedure and "How to run a Productive Meeting" • Testified on real estate industry matters before U.S. House and Senate Committees S' State House and Senate Committees. • Liaison between National Association of Realtors and various congressmen including Rep. Don Bonker, Sen. Slade Gorton, Sen. Dan Evens, Rep. Mike Lowry. PROPERTY TYPES APPRAISED Food processing facilities Special benefit studies Industrial waterfront Multi -family complexes Office buildings Subdivision lands Indoor athletic facilities PARTIAL CLIENT LIST: U.S. Corps of Engineers U. S. Dept. of Agriculture City of Renton City of Seattle Housing Authority City of Seattle Public Works Seattle Port Authority Low Income Housing Institute Auburn School District Kent School District NW College of the Arts Julin, Fosso, McBride & Barrett Industrial park land Industrial buildings Retail buildings Raw Land Warehouses Restaurants Water rights Destination Resorts, Prospective College Campus Rural Lands Motel/Hotel Environmentally sensitive areas Private Schools Cellular Towers Asia Europe Americas Bank First Heritage Bank Frontier Bank US Bank Metro Mortgage Thurston First Bank Viking Bank Admiral Mortgage Corp Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. Sinsheimer F? Meltzer Washington Depart. of Natural Resources 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 35 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Michael B. Lamb, MAI, SRA Washington State Certified General Appraiser PROFESSIONAL PROFILE Since 1969, appraisal experience in various types of property for financing, acquisition, economic studies, estate valuation, feasibility reports, Ad Valorem Tax Reevaluation, Just Compensation, partial interests, business valuation, mechanical and equipment, and Fair Market Value in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and foreign, Russia and China Professional Memberships: Appraisal Institute 2005, Past Chair - Washington State Real Estate Appraisal Advisory Committee 1990 —1996, Past Chair - National Board of Directors — Appraisal Institute Region 1, 1995, Member, International Right -of -Way Association, 1996, Member, The Academy of Political Science, 2005. PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Washington License No. 1100893 MAI, General Commercial member of the Appraisal Institute, since 1976. SRA, Residential member of the Appraisal Institute, since 1976. WORK EXPERIENCE: President of Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc., in Seattle, Washington. Qualified as expert witness in King County, Washington Superior Courts and United States District Courts. Accepted by FNMPy FHLMC, MGIC, CLIC, PMI, XL, Department of Transportation, Department of Licensing Peer Review Panel, IAC State Review Appraiser, FHA and WSDOT fee panels. EDUCATION: • University of Portland - B.A. in Political Science and Business Administration. • Completed MAI, Course 1A, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Basic Principles, Methods and Techniques (1971). • Completed MAI, Course 1 B - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Income Approach, Capitalization and Ellwood Mortgage Equity (1972). • Completed MAI, Course 11 - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Urban Properties (1974). • Completed MAI, Course V1 - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Investment Analysis (1974). • Instructor Course 201 - Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Income Property Valuation. • International Conference, Workshop #2, #8, #11, #14,416 - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Aug. 1987. • Litigation Valuation Seminar - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - June 1988. • Numerous Appraisal Institute Education Seminars. • "Currently certified under the Appraisal Institute voluntary continuing education program." 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 36 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants PUBLICATIONS: "Real Estate Valuation", National Lawyers' Guild, 1984. "Appraisal" copyright, Washington Bar Association, 1983. "Income Pricing of Residential Properties", Washington Association of Realtors, GRI Course, 1978 Essay on "The Bundle of Rights Theory Easement Evaluation", International Right -of -Way, Chapter 4, 1982. "The Truth "About Professional Designations", The Diamond Productions "On -Site" paper, 2000; F? The "Mortgage Perspective" 2000. PROPERTY TYPES APPRAISED Retail/Commercial Waterfront Commercial Grocery Stores Gas Stations Convenience Stores Community F2 Neighborhood Shopping Ctrs. Strip Retail Centers Box Retail Mixed Use-Office/Retail & Residential Restaurants Office — Low, Mid and High Rise (trophy) Special Purpose Food Processing Plants J Automobile Dealerships Wood Processing Plants Hotel/Motel Marinas Nursing Homes i Grain Storage Facilities Gravel Pits Post Office Fraternity Houses Recreational Facilities Medical Clinics Historical Property Ranches Industrial High, Low & Flex -Tech, Including RFD Mixed Use Light F2 Heavy Manufacturing Distribution Centers Warehouses Residential Apartment Complexes Single -Family Homes Condominiums Land Retail/Commercial Industrial Large Land Tracts Wetlands and Tidelands Miscellaneous Highest & Best Use Studies Feasibility & Strategic Planning Studies Easement Valuations Subdivisions Lease and rental analysis 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 37 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES S. Michael Rodgers, Attorney David Santhuff Rodgers and Deutsch Real Estate Appraiser/Program Mgr. Three Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100 Washington State Department of Licensing Bellevue, Washington P.O. Box 9012 (206) 455-1110 Olympia, Washington 98507-9.012 (360) 664-6504 I James Oliver, Attorney Neil A Dial Short Cressman & Burgess Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC 3000 First Interstate Center 111 3`d Ave, Suite 3400 999 Third Avenue Seattle, WA Seattle, Washington 98104-4008 (206) 447-4400 (206) 682-3333 Bimey Mellor, Chief Appraiser John W. Sinsheimer King County Real Property Division Attorney at Law 500 Fourth Avenue 1930 Bank of California Center Seattle, Washington 98104 Seattle, Washington 98164 (206) 344-3970 (206) 623-1422 Julian G. Avellano, Diane Matson Contract Officer HUD USDA 1600 N. Broadway, Suite 100 1835 Black Lake Blvd., SW Suite B Santa Ana, CA 92706-3927 Olympia, Washington 98512-5715 (1) 888-827-5605 (360) 704-7740 Karl Geyer, Credit Manager Rodney J. Rennie, RPA, Real Estate Division Frontier Bank Washington State Dept. of Natural Income Property Division Resources 332 SW Everett Mall Way P.O. Box 47014 P O Box 2210 Olympia, Washington 98504-7014 Everett, Washington 98203 (360) 407-3414 (425) 513-6633 Cheryl Scheuerman, General Manager Lar Fagan Skyway Water and Sewer Wells Fargo 11909 Renton Ave. So. 1505 Westlake Ave. N. Seattle, Wash.98178 Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 772-7343 (206) 282-4000 John R. Huey III Kurt Engstrom VP — Marketing Manager King County Open Space Division Viking Community Bank 500 5"' Ave., RM 500 5701 1"Ave South Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 296-0886 (206) 658-4007 650 S Orcas Street, Suite 114 Seattle, WA 98108 206-903-1500 Fax 206 903 0648 Page 38 From: paul@macaulayltd.com [mailto:paul@macaulayltd.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:13 AM To: Clifton, Stephen Cc: Bob Macaulay Subject: [FWD: Fw: City of Edmonds is seeking an MAI appraisal] Mr. Clifton, Bob is out of town, but we discussed the above -referenced property and I am able to provide a time and fee quote on his behalf. The scope of work would include an analysis as a "stand-alone parcel", which I take to mean as without entitlements, and in the current status with preliminary approval for a residential subdivision. The latter analysis would involve an investigation of similar acreage sales as well as a subdivision analysis, which considers finished lot prices, absorption, development costs and other factors. For a complete narrative appraisal under the conditions discussed, our fee estimate is $4,450. Our turnaround time is four to five weeks upon your authorization to proceed. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this bid, and we look forward to working with you. Resp., Paul C. Bird Macaulay & Associates, Ltd. 2927 Colby Avenue, Suite 100 Everett, WA 98201 425-258-2611 Telephone 425-252-1210 Facsimile 425-319-3927 Mobile From: NorthWValu@aol.com [mailto:NorthWValu@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:25 PM To: Clifton, Stephen Subject: Proposal to appraise City Parcel & Land platted as Anglers Crossing Stephen: This is my proposal to conduct two appraisals from the City of Edmonds. One appraisal is of Lot 12, a 28,750 s.f. lot owned by the City of Edmonds. You report this parcel has been included in the approved preliminary plat of Anglers Crossing. The appraisal is to consider it free and clear of any planning action. This requires I make a hypothetical condition that this Lot 12 is not obligated to the plat. This second appraisal would be of the approved preliminary platted Anglers Crossing subdivision including the city of Edmonds parcel. My approach in this endeavor would be to find sales of similar properties with and without a preliminary plat. You mentioned the subdivision cost approach, I would only use this if necessary. Direct comparison is the best approach for this valuation. Problems to be considered are contributory value of timber, if any, highest and best use as vacant and as platted, topography issues and contributory value of improvements on site, if any. I estimate an appraisal fee of $5,750.00 for these estimates and a delivery date of four weeks from authorization. Thank you for allowing me to tender this proposal. I note there are still some issues which I have incomplete knowledge at this writing. Sincerely, Jack Dinniene, MAI 425-743-6522 From: Patrick Lamb [mailto:PLamb@lambhansonlamb.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:22 AM To: Clifton, Stephen Subject: RE: [FWD: Fw: City of Edmonds is seeking an MAI appraisal] Hello Stephen, We can provide a Self -Contained Appraisal report considering both valuation scenarios for $4,500 with a 4-5 week turn time. (Our fee for the single lot appraisal back in 2006 was $3,000). AM-5664 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: 60 Minutes Submitted By: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Review Committee: Type: Information Information Committee Action: 10. Subject Title Continued discussion on incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation Discuss next steps in the Harbor Square plan process. Previous Council Action The City Council heard an introduction to the Harbor Square Master Plan at the November 20, 2012 City Council meeting, with subsequent public hearings held on December 4 and December 18, 2012. The December 18th public hearing was continued to January 29, 2013, and deliberation was continued to February 5, 2013. At the February 5, 2013 meeting, the City Council requested staff to develop a modified draft of the Harbor Square Master Plan based on comments provided by City Council and testimony received during the Public Hearings. Review of a potential revised version of the Harbor Square plan began during the March 19, 2013 meeting and continued review during the March 26, 2013, with the Council voting to use the staff revisions to the Plan (as contained in Exhibit 2) as a basis for discussion rather than the Port's original proposal (Exhibit 1). Narrative Given that the Port has withdrawn their application for a master plan, the Council needs to discuss how it wants to proceed. If the Council desires to continue with planning for Harbor Square, this would require docketing a new plan proposal that would need to go through the entire planning process. This would necessitate substantial staff time, review and hearing(s) by the Planning Board, and subsequent review and hearing(s) by the City Council. Given current priorities and staffing levels, we have serious concerns about whether we have sufficient resources to undertake this work. The exhibits with this agenda packet are the same ones provided the Council for the March 19th. Also included are the Port of Edmonds Application Withdrawl letters (Exhibit 6). Attachments Exhibit 1 - Port of Edmonds' Harbor Square Master Plan Exhibit 2 - Harbor Square Master Plan - City Council Discussion Draft Exhibit 3 - Harbor Square Master Plan Issue Table Exhibit 4 - Council Member Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan Exhbit 5 - Council Member Fraley-Monillas email Exhibit 6 - Port of Edmonds Application Withdrawal Letter Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kemen Lien Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 09:43 AM Dave Earling 04/11/2013 11:31 AM Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 11:40 AM Started On: 04/10/2013 11:09 AM New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan APRIL 18, 2012 Revised for Planning Board Review August 29. 2012 INTRODUCTION The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan has been prepared as an amendment to the Port's Master Plan. Its purpose is to provide a framework and solid foundation for the eventual redevelopment of the 11-acre site into an economically feasible, environmentally responsible, and well -designed mixed -use transit -oriented development in the City's Downtown Waterfront District. Harbor Square is an important component of the Port's overall property holdings and when redeveloped will further the Port's statutory directive of "engaging in economic development programs" to benefit constituents of the Port District as well as the overall Edmonds community. The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan provides important site planning and design principles to be used for future development plans. The preparation and adoption of the Plan is in the midst of a multi -phased planning process. Completed, ongoing, and future phases include: Phase 1 (complete) Prepared a generalized fiscal impact analysis of site redevelopment scenarios. Phase 2 (complete) An extensive outreach program to define the community's preferred use, connections, and design principles for the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan. Phase 3 (ongoing) Port Commissioners will adopt the Redevelopment Plan into the Port Master Plan. Following Planning Board public hearings and action by the Edmonds City Council the Redevelopment Plan, if approved, will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Phase 4 (Future) Following approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Edmonds City Council, The Port will market the project to solicit responsible development interests. With the selection of a developer by the Port, negotiations between the Port and City will occur to address project issues including rezoning of the site, site layout, design issues, impact mitigation and other site development issues. Resolution of project issues will likely occur through the preparation and approval of a rezone and/or development agreement involving the City, the Port and the selected developer. Upon approval of the development agreement by the Edmonds City Council construction documents will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. Implementation of the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan is intended to occur over several years, depending on the economic climate, existing lease arrangements and site planning considerations. REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND CONCEPT The Port has identified opportunities to redevelop the Harbor Square site with a mix of residential, office, and retail uses that promote economic development, environmental responsibility, and a high quality design character. The redevelopment concept includes increased public access opportunities and other amenities that capitalize on the site's waterfront setting and adjacency to Edmonds Marsh. Public benefits include an expanded tax base, increased downtown activity, enhanced connections between downtown and the waterfront, an improved pedestrian environment, promotion of transit oriented development, improved ecology, and increased waterfront view opportunities with public gathering places. Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan This Master Plan is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and pursues a number of the Plan's goals and policies. Most of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relevant to Harbor Square are located in the Waterfront Activity Center element. Below are some of the goals and policies from that element that guide this master plan. Additionally, the Physical Design Principles included in this Master Plan implement the design -specific Comprehensive Plan policies which are listed in that section. Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are identified in "italics." Comprehensive Plan Goals • Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. • Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Z • Develop gateway/entrance areas into downtown which serve complementary purposes (e.g. convenience shopping, community activities). • Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically encouraging arts -related and arts -complementing uses. Comprehensive Plan Policies • E.1. Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues - and builds on - its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. • E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed -use development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. • E8. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. • E.9. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. • E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. • E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. The Comprehensive Plan identifies individual districts within Edmonds Waterfront. Harbor Square is located in the "Downtown Master Plan District" and the Comprehensive Plan describes the intent for this district as quoted below: Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of "the Bowl, " could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian -friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a "first impression" of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 3 Planning Principles The concept diagram on the next page illustrates the planning principles developed during Phase 2 of the planning process. The principles serve as design objectives and form the basis for the Plan Elements. The design intent as it relates to the uses, building character, circulation and parking, public spaces, and sustainability is defined below. ♦_W� LEGEND 114 Vehicle access and parking Pedestrian oriented storefronts and Village plaza actimlies Residentia[ Village -- - -- - - Pdrnary pedestrian route ❑ Mixed -use Gateway architectural element ■ ■ ■ W ■ Atlraciive streetscape edge Principles 1. Create a pedestrian entry and visual gateway at the Highway 104 / Dayton Street intersection which is the key link to downtown Edmonds. 2. Create an attractive street front along Highway 104. 3. Feature pedestrian -friendly facades and uses along Dayton Street W. 4. Establish a pedestrian -friendly esplanade with adjacent activities between the plaza (1) and the marsh. 5. Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around the marsh. 6. Provide vehicular access into the site from Dayton Street W. 7. Provide direct pedestrian access to the marsh from Hwy 104. 8. Create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or plaza in the center of the redevelopment. 9. Locate residential development in the southeast portion of the site. 10. Locate parking near the western perimeter, next to the railroad, within a parking structure designed to serve the entire redevelopment 11. Architectural character should emphasize a "Northwest Style" compatible with the rest of downtown and feature high quality traditional materials and a variety of colors, forms, and textures. 12. Provide improved vegetation buffers to protect and enhance the Edmonds marsh. 13. Provide for a well -landscaped, Northwest -oriented, small town design theme. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 4 PLAN ELEMENTS The Port will incorporate the following elements into the redevelopment of Harbor Square through design guidelines or conditions of purchase/sale agreement(s). Uses and Site Planning • Create a "village" character with pedestrian gathering spaces. • Create an attractive street front along SR104 as an entry into downtown, with a pedestrian and visual "gateway" at the SR104/Dayton Street intersection. • Locate most of the residential development in the southeast corner and southern part of the site in a village setting or well landscaped complex. • Introduce a mix of uses that complement downtown and that provide optimal tax revenue and other benefits to the City and Port, including pedestrian oriented retail and a residential mix geared toward a range of incomes. Circulation, Traffic and Parking • Provide vehicular access from Dayton Street approximately midway between SR104 and the railroad. • Locate most of the parking near the western perimeter of the site, next to the railroad. Parking could be enclosed in an above ground structure designed to serve the entire site. • Keep interior streets narrow to slow traffic and put the emphasis on pedestrians. • Provide for bicycle circulation with shared use trails, bike lanes and/or safe shared lanes on internal streets. Public Amenities • Create a pedestrian entry plaza to Harbor Square that invites public use and provides a visual gateway to Edmonds Marsh from the intersection at SR104/Dayton Street. This public entry point will serve as a key link to downtown Edmonds and also create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or public plaza in the center of Harbor Square that provides space for public activities such as concerts, performances, fairs or an outdoor market. • Establish a pedestrian friendly esplanade with compatible adjacent activities and building facades that extends from the public plaza at the corner of SR104/Dayton Street across Harbor Square to Edmonds Marsh.. • Create active sidewalk/pedestrian areas with retail spaces that open onto the Dayton Street W sidewalk. Small scale pedestrian spaces should be integrated between the development and the streetscape. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 5 • Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and pedestrian routes. Orient development in a manner that connects Harbor Square to downtown and the waterfront. • Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh from SR104. • Provide a civic/cultural/view point/interpretive element within the development as a public benefit. • Include bicycle connections and facilities (e.g.: storage racks) in circulation and open space planning. consistent with a village scale Flexible (retaillresidential) space on the ground floor Visual connection from �-��' = ` Dayton/SIR corner through the site to the marsh----,� Internal site connection to the marsh trail as well as the city wide trail system Pedestrian oriented central esplanade with Low Impact Development (LID) elements such as pervious pavement, rain gardens, etc. Public spaces for onsite residents and Edmonds as a whole Pedestrian friendly esplanade extending from public plaza at corner of SR104/Dayton Street across Harbor Square to Edmonds Marsh Sustainability Edmond's Comprehensive Plan includes a Community Sustainability Element with goals and poli- cies to increase the city's sustainability based on three principles: flexibilityto adapt to changing conditions, a holistic approach that integrates multiple actions to address the broad range of issues and a long term perspective that extends beyond the typical 20 year GMA time frame. Among the most relevant of this section's policies are: (See pages 19 through 26 in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan) New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing, cultural and recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a cohesive and mutually -supporting whole. 8.1 Undertake a multi -modal approach to transportation planning that promotes an integrated system of auto, transit, biking, walking and other forms of transportation designed to effectively support mobility and access. 8.4 When undertaking transportation planning and service decisions, evaluate and encourage land use patterns and policies that support a sustainable transportation system. D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis, designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs. E.4 Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the ability of local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally F.2 Recreational opportunities and programming should be integrated holistically into the City's infrastructure and planning process G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing needs while providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices. G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents to choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time. The Harbor Square Master Plan responds to these policies in several ways. The multi -functional uses proposed for the site and the connections to downtown and the waterfront called for in Master Plan's Planning Principles reflect the objectives of policies A.3 and EA Proximity and connections to bus, rail and ferry service respond to the transportation policies, especially B.1 and B.4. The Master Plan provisions directly below include an emphasis on green building and green infrastructure solu- tions as called for in Policy D.3 and the integrated pedestrian and bicycle scheme and supporting principles as well as provision for the athletic club and the marsh boardwalk address Policy F.2's call for integrated recreational opportunities. Finally, the Master Plan encourages a residential type and setting unique in Edmonds. Below are additional provisions to Edmonds' sustainability objec- tives. • Incorporate into individual buildings and the overall site redevelopment both low energy and low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint. Employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis, designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs • Provide improved natural vegetated buffers and building setbacks to protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan • Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain gardens to reduce undesirable run-off. • Contribute to day -lighting Willow Creek and improving the site's ecological value. Dayton Street sidewalk character Physical Design Criteria In order to direct the development of Harbor Square in an orderly manner to create a unified and attractive complex, the Port of Edmonds will establish design standards or guidelines that direct the design of individual buildings and spaces. The standards or guidelines will be used along with other zoning code and municipal code regulations to review projects within Harbor Square. The criteria are intended to be consistent with and implement the following goals and policies in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Downtown Waterfront Activity Center element: New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan $ E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and its economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. • E.17. Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown waterfront area, including such things as: o Weather protection, o Street trees and flower baskets, o Street furniture, o Public art and art integrated into private developments, o Pocket parks, o Signage and other way -finding devices, o Restrooms. • E 18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible. • E 19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. • E20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities. • E21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. • E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. The criteria described below present the general objectives and parameters that the standards or guidelines will implement. The physical design criteria for Harbor Square are necessarily general in nature because a specific lay -out for the complex will depend on development considerations and opportunities at the time. As noted above, they are intended to provide general guidance rather than serve as immutable standards. See site development objectives the Uses and Site Planning, Circulation and Traffic, and Public amenities sections. Height and Bulk Buildings should be no higher than 55' above grade except for 1) roof -top equipment and other appurtenances that are not visible from ground level and do not block significant views, and 2) special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 9 All structures above 35' in height should not diminish the "human scale" experience of pedestrians on Dayton Street or decrease sunlight on the street. To that end, all buildings over 35' should be set back at least 1' horizontally away from Dayton Street for every 1' in height above 35' above grade. (This results in in significant additional sun shading or perception of a taller building by a pedestrian on Dayton.) The schematic section below illustrates these relationships. Buildings modulated and enhanced with landscaping to provide pleasant pedestrian promenade from 104th/Dayton to the Marsh trail Buildings along All portions of buildings Dayton Avenue no (above 35' tall) set back taller than 4 from Dayton St. stories - sidewalk at least one foot horizontally for every one foot in height above 35' Marsh Vegetated setback & marsh Pedestrian oriented enhancements and boardwalk commercial activities on per Edmonds SMP ground floor along Dayton St. SCHEMATIC SECTION THROUGH HARBOR SQUARE LOOKING WEST Illustrating basic building height and setback requirements Dayton St. Furthermore, the "average building height" of all buildings on the Harbor Square site, taken as a whole shall not exceed 45'. The means of calculating "average building height" shall be as stated in the notes at the end of this Master Plan. Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh All development within shoreline jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Therefore, new buildings and development, including clearing, grading parking areas, etc. will comply with the SMP. Additionally, the Port is committed to improving the ecological health of the marsh and will ensure that new development along the marsh will increase ecological functions. Envisioned improvements include: on -site storm water improvements per the City's Storm Water Management regulations (which will improve water quality), vegetation plantings (buffers), and a nature viewing boardwalk. Small Scale Buildings All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to maintain the small scale of Downtown Edmonds. Articulation means placing emphasis on architectural elements such as windows, balconies, fagade modulation, rooflines, etc to visually break down the fagade of a building into smaller pieces. Modulation is the stepping back or projecting forward of portions of a building fagade as a means of breaking up the building's apparent bulk. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 10 In general, the articulation should be designed to reduce the scale of buildings so that the horizontal module is no greater than 60' in width. These preliminary dimensional provisions are intended to respond to Downtown Edmonds' historic 60' lot pattern and traditional architecture. Buildings over 35' in height should be horizontally articulated with upper story setbacks, different materials or window patterns on different stories, balconies, canopies or other means. Street Orientation Dayton Street Frontage The ground floor of buildings fronting on Dayton Street should feature "pedestrian oriented facades" and "pedestrian oriented uses". A "pedestrian oriented fagade" is one with transparent windows or window displays along most of the fagade front, pedestrian weather protection, signs oriented to the pedestrian rather than to the automobile passenger, a prominent building entry and other amenities such as building details, lighting, street furniture, etc. A "pedestrian oriented use" is a use that emphasizes human activity on the street such as retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, personal services and service oriented offices, etc. Buildings fronting on Dayton Street should either front directly on the street or be separated by a pedestrian oriented space such as a plaza, garden, outdoor seating area, etc. The sidewalk should be at least 15' wide. SR 104 Frontage The site frontage along SR 104 should feature either pedestrian oriented facades or attractive landscaping sufficient to screen the majority of building facades and all parking areas. There should be a pedestrian path along the entire SR 104 frontage. If WSDOT is amenable, the Port should enter into an agreement with WSDOT to improve the SR 104 ROW on the west side of the roadway to provide a much better streetscape, development edge and entry into downtown. Improvements should include street trees, landscaping, and if appropriate, a shared use (bike/pedestrian) trail. Architectural Character Provide for a well landscaped, Northwest oriented, small-town development character. Site Design and Landscaping Use green space that relates to and complements the adjacent uses. Use landscaping to create buffers between sidewalks and adjacent roadways. Notes: Average Building Height" shall be calculated by: 1. First, multiplying the foot print of each building on the Harbor Square site (as defined in the Harbor Square Master Plan) times the height (as defined in Edmonds Zoning Code) of the New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 11 respective building. (See conditions below for buildings with multiple heights) This calcu- lation will yield the volume for each building. 2. Then, adding together the products calculated in step 1 (building volumes) and dividing that sum by the sum of all building footprints on the Harbor Square site. Provided that: Existing and proposed buildings will be included in the calculations • Where the height of a building varies from portion to another (e.g.: one wing of a building is 3 stories in height and another wing is 5 stories high.) then the building volume (height x foot- print) of each building portion shall be calculated separately. The height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be calculated as the average of the height of the ridge and the lower ea ve. • For phased development where a portion of the site is developed, the maximum average building height for an early phase may exceed 45' if the average height of all buildings on site is less than 45' for all subsequent phases. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 12 Harbor Square Subarea Plan City Council Discussion Draft I March 19, 2013 Notes: This is a discussion draft attempting to illustrate how the Master Plan could be adjusted to respond to some of the public hearing concerns and Council discussion. In general, more details are left to a future zoning process, with any height considerations to be arrived at through an incentive system that would be included in a proposed zoning ordinance. Introduction The Harbor Square Subarea Plan has been prepared as an amendment to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Its purpose is to provide a framework and solid foundation for the eventual redevelopment of the 11-acre site into a community asset that will contribute to the City's economic, environmental, and community sustainability. The intent is to take advantage of the subarea's unique location and attributes, including its: • location adjoining the Edmonds Marsh; • proximity to different modes of transit; • located at the bottom of "the bowl", at the southern end of public view corridors; • key location, near both downtown and the city's waterfront • potential ability to take advantage of unique infrastructure opportunities, such as public fiber networks or district heating from the treatment plant. Harbor Square is an important component of the Port's overall property holdings and when redeveloped will further the Port's statutory directive of "engaging in economic development programs" to benefit constituents of the Port District as well as the overall Edmonds community. The Harbor Square Subarea Plan provides important site planning and design principles to be used for future development plans. Because it is a conceptual plan, this subarea plan does not establish any specific amount of square footage (commercial or retail) or any specific number of dwelling units. Following approval of the subarea plan by the Edmonds City Council, the City and Port will engage in more detailed planning to address project issues including rezoning of the site, site layout, design issues, impact mitigation and other site development issues. Resolution of project issues may occur through the preparation and approval of a rezone and/or development agreement involving the City, the Port and, possibly, a selected developer. Implementation of the Harbor Square Subarea Plan is intended to be adopted as a subarea plan consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. The subarea lies within the "Downtown Master Plan" district identified in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, and provides additional guidance for the future development of the Port's Harbor Square property. The plan will be implemented over a number of years, with the timeline depending on such factors as the economic climate, existing lease arrangements, and site planning considerations. Redevelopment Objectives and Concepts A key objective of the plan is that redevelopment of Harbor Square should complement and enhance the other features of the downtown/waterfront area that make it uniquely "Edmonds." These include such things as an active waterfront, natural amenities (notably Edmonds Marsh and the nearby trails and walkways), a pedestrian -oriented downtown that serves as both a business and employment center, and important multi modal transit facilities that provide benefits to both local and regional residents. In recognizing these features and amenities, certain potential concepts emerge that could take advantage of the unique opportunities that the subarea presents: Include a multi -use public space that offers opportunities for community gatherings and events, and providing opportunities to enhance the arts. Protect and enhance the Edmonds Marsh while providing enhanced public use areas and bike and pedestrian pathways that contribute to the larger downtown/waterfront activity area, improving connections between the waterfront and other parts of downtown. Focus on planning for and attracting employers and businesses who could provide a stimulus to the local economy and that take advantage of the site location. The availability of public fiber networks and transit could offer an attractive environment for technology or biotech companies, or arts or business incubators that are more dependent on community amenities and innovation rather than the scale advantages found in larger employment centers. Emphasize a mix of uses that contribute to an active subarea, which should focus on its location and potential for connections between the marsh, the waterfront, and downtown. Residential uses may be allowed that enhance this role, but should not be the principal use of the site. Apply a high level of sustainability principles in the site planning, infrastructure, and building design that takes place within the subarea. The result should be an example for the community to showcase and apply elsewhere. There are numerous examples of similar concepts employed successfully elsewhere. For example, Portland's Pearl District includes the idea of renovation and redevelopment of an older commercial/industrial district into a mixed use zone which includes public open space (Jamison Square) and ecological New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan L restoration (Tanner Springs Park). Themed redevelopment could leverage current interest in small industries such as breweries/brew pubs or arts workshops and galleries, similar to what the City of Tacoma is promoting for parts of its Brewery District. Farmers or arts markets could also be a feature included in this type of plan. Similarly, redevelopment of Harbor Square could seek to encourage space for incubator or start-up businesses, such as the TechStars or SURF Incubators in Seattle or the Environmental Business Cluster in i San Jose. Live/work space for artists a`P patterned after the Artspace Everett hem r Lofts could also fit with these '� � 0- 68L suaYcr �+ ' xS VE concepts. � 1 �"l `!` 5��:, p Wulf I• � � The Port of Edmonds has identified opportunities to redevelop the Harbor Square site with a mix of uses that promote economic development, environmental responsibility, and a high quality design character. The redevelopment concept includes increased public access opportunities and other amenities that capitalize on the site's waterfront setting and adjacency to Edmonds Marsh. Public benefits include an expanded tax base, increased downtown activity, enhanced connections between downtown and the waterfront, an improved pedestrian environment, promotion of transit oriented development, improved ecology, and increased waterfront view opportunities with public gathering places. Plan Elements The Port will incorporate the following elements into the redevelopment of Harbor Square through design guidelines or conditions of purchase/sale agreement(s). Uses and Site Planning • Create a "village" character with pedestrian gathering spaces. • Create an attractive street front along SR104 as an entry into downtown, with a pedestrian and visual "gateway" at the SR104/Dayton Street intersection. • Introduce a mix of uses that complement downtown and that further the redevelopment objectives and concepts identified in this plan (see discussion, above). Ensure that the public view corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced. Circulation, Traffic and Parking Provide vehicular access from Dayton Street approximately midway between SR104 and the railroad. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 3 Locate most of the parking near the western perimeter of the site, next to the railroad. Parking could be enclosed in an above ground structure designed to serve the entire site. Keep interior streets narrow to slow traffic and put the emphasis on pedestrians. Provide for bicycle circulation with shared use trails, bike lanes and/or safe shared lanes on internal streets. Public Amenities Establish a pedestrian friendly esplanade with compatible adjacent activities and building facades that extends from the public plaza at the corner of SR104/Dayton Street across Harbor Square to Edmonds Marsh.. Create active sidewalk/pedestrian areas with retail or other pedestrian -oriented spaces that open onto the Dayton Street sidewalk. Small scale pedestrian spaces should be integrated between the development and the streetscape. Whenever possible, spaces should be designed to be flexible and multi -use. Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and pedestrian routes. Orient development in a manner that connects Harbor Square to downtown and the waterfront, and that recognizes the vistas toward the Marsh and Puget Sound. Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh from SR104. Include bicycle connections and facilities (e.g. storage racks) in circulation and open space planning. Sustainability Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan includes a Community Sustainability Element with goals and policies to increase the city's sustainability based on three principles: flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, a holistic approach that integrates multiple actions to address the broad range of issues and a long term perspective that extends beyond the typical 20 year GMA time frame. The Harbor Square Subarea Plan is intended to provide a planning framework consistent with the city's sustainability principles. The multi -functional uses proposed for the site and the connections to downtown and the waterfront are intended to support the ability of Edmonds residents to work, shop and obtain service locally, while also serving to promote and support the local economy. Proximity and connections to bus, rail and ferry service respond to the need to integrate land use and transportation. The Subarea Plan provisions directly below include an emphasis on green building and green infra- structure solutions, and the integrated pedestrian and bicycle scheme and supporting principles as well as provision for the athletic club and the marsh boardwalk address the need for integrated rec- New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 4 reational opportunities. Below are additional provisions to Edmonds' sustainability objectives. • Incorporate into individual buildings and the overall site redevelopment both low energy and low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint. • Employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis, designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs • Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain gardens to reduce undesirable run-off. stories stepped back to mass High quality design features with long lasting materials Connection to the Landscape buffer between the sidewalk and traffic Spaces for pedestrian activity and gatherings and retail spaces opening onto the sidewalk Pedestrian oriented retail along Dayton Physical Design Criteria In order to direct the development of Harbor Square in an orderly manner and create a unified and attractive complex, the Port of Edmonds will develop design standards and/or guidelines that direct the design of individual buildings and spaces. The standards or guidelines will be used along with other zoning code and municipal code regulations to review projects within Harbor Square. The criteria are intended to be consistent with and implement the goals and policies in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Downtown Waterfront Activity Center element: The physical design criteria for Harbor Square are necessarily general in nature because a specific lay -out for the complex will depend on development considerations and opportunities at the time. As noted above, they are intended to provide general guidance rather than serve as immutable New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 5 standards. See site development objectives the Uses and Site Planning, Circulation and Traffic, and Public amenities sections. Height and Bulk To implement the plan, future zoning shall provide for a base zoning height no higher than 35' above grade. The zoning may authorize additional bonus height, provided that any bonus height options may only be achieved through the provision of public benefits and/or amenities to be detailed in a subsequent zoning ordinance. The following public benefits and/or amenities are examples of the range of items that might be required in a future zoning ordinance to achieve bonus height on portions of the Harbor Square site [option: up to a maximum of 451: Contribute to day -lighting Willow Creek and improving the site's ecological value. Provide improved natural vegetated buffers and building setbacks to protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh. Provide a civic/cultural/view point/interpretive element within the development as a public benefit. Create a pedestrian entry plaza to Harbor Square that invites public use and provides a visual gateway to Edmonds Marsh from the intersection at SR104/Dayton Street. This public entry point will serve as a key link to downtown Edmonds and also create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or public plaza in the center of Harbor Square that provides space for public activities such as concerts, performances, fairs or an outdoor market. Establish a transfer of development rights program that serves to protect or reduce heights in another sensitive location — identified by the City — in exchange for a height increase at Harbor Square. Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh All development within shoreline jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Therefore, new buildings and development, including clearing, grading parking areas, etc. will comply with the SMP. Additionally, the Port is committed to improving the ecological health of the marsh and will ensure that new development along the marsh will increase ecological functions. Envisioned improvements could include such features as on -site storm water improvements to improve drainage and water quality, enhanced or restored vegetation plantings and buffers, and a nature viewing boardwalk. Pedestrian Scale Buildings All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to maintain the pedestrian scale found in Downtown Edmonds. Articulation means placing emphasis on architectural elements such as windows, balconies, fagade modulation, rooflines, etc to visually break down the fagade of a building into smaller pieces. Modulation is the differential treatment of a building's fagade as a means of breaking up the building's apparent bulk. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan In general, the articulation should be designed to reduce the scale of buildings so that the horizontal module is no greater than 60' in width. These preliminary dimensional provisions are intended to respond to Downtown Edmonds' historic 60' lot pattern and traditional architecture. Street Orientation Dayton Street Frontage The ground floor of buildings fronting on Dayton Street should feature "pedestrian oriented facades" and "pedestrian oriented uses". A "pedestrian oriented fagade" is one with transparent windows or window displays along most of the fagade front, pedestrian weather protection, signs oriented to the pedestrian rather than to the automobile passenger, a prominent building entry and other amenities such as building details, lighting, street furniture, artwork, etc. A "pedestrian oriented use" is a use that emphasizes human activity on the street such as retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, personal services and service oriented offices, etc. Where these types of uses are not envisioned, artwork, open space, or other amenities could be placed to invite public interaction and interest. Buildings fronting on Dayton Street should either front directly on the street or be separated by a pedestrian oriented space such as a plaza, garden, outdoor seating area, etc. The sidewalk should be at least 15' wide. Consideration should be given to enhance street -side parking to support separating human activity from the traffic along Dayton Street. SR 104 Frontage The site frontage along SR 104 should feature either pedestrian oriented facades or attractive landscaping sufficient to screen the majority of building facades and all parking areas. There should be a pedestrian/multi-use path along the entire SR 104 frontage with connections to other existing and potential walkways. The Port should enter into an agreement with WSDOT to improve the SR 104 ROW on the west side of the roadway to provide a much better streetscape, development edge and entry into downtown. Improvements should include street trees, landscaping, and if appropriate, a shared use (bike/pedestrian) trail. Site Design and Landscaping Use green space that relates to and complements the adjacent uses. Use landscaping to create buffers between sidewalks and adjacent roadways. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan '] Harbor S uare Master Plan Council Comments/Suggestions Communicated to Staff How addressed in revised HSMP Residential Uses Comments regarding residential uses from the Council and citizens 1. No residential uses during the Public Hearing process were varied. In the revised HSMP, 2. Limit the extent of residential uses residential uses may be allowed to complement or enhance the overall a. Limit number of units development concept of Harbor Square, but should not be the principal b. Limit location along marsh use of the site. (Page 2) c. Provide for affordable housing d. Encourage live/work units 3. Allow residential development Height and Bulk Height: Heights are addressed on Page 6 of the revised HSMP. Base 1. Keep maximum height at 35 feet zoning heights are limited to 35 feet (as is currently allowed on the site) 2. Base height at 35 feet with possible increase in heights with with potential bonus heights if public benefits and/or amenities are incentives provide or a development rights transfer program is established. An 3. No mention of heights in Comprehensive Plan option is provided to cap any potential increase in height at 45 feet. 4. Establish a transfer of development rights program 5. Development should be pedestrian scale Bulk/Pedestrian Scale: Bulk and pedestrian scale design is addressed in 6. Limit building bulk a number of places in the HSMP including the following sections; Use and Site Planning (Page 3), Public Amenities (Page 4), Height and Bulk (Page 6), Pedestrian Scale Buildings (Pages 6 — 7), Street Orientation (Page 7), and Site Design and Landscaping (Pagel). Page 1 of 5 Harbor S uare Master Plan Council Comments/Suggestions Communicated to Staff How addressed in revised HSMP Buffers, Setbacks, and other Environmental Issues Setbacks and buffers from the Edmonds Marsh will be proscribed 1. Redevelopment not allowed in current "developed footprint". within the updated Shoreline Master Program, which is currently under New development must meet SMP and CAO buffers. review by the City Council. Any future development or redevelopment 2. Provide adequate buffers and setbacks to protect marsh at Harbor Square must comply with the SMP as noted on Page 6 of the 3. Geological Hazard (liquefaction) HSMP. 4. Flooding The HSMP also emphasizes green building and green infrastructure (LID techniques) as noted in the Sustainability section on Pages 4 — 5. Contributing to the day -lighting of Willow Creek and improving the buffers surrounding the Edmonds Marsh are also highlighted as potential incentives under the Height and Bulk section on Page 6. Geological hazard and flooding issues are items that will be dealt with during project level SEPA review. Incorporation into City's Comprehensive Plan The Planning Board recommended that the HSMP be incorporated in 1. Subarea Plan the City's Comprehensive Plan rather just be incorporated by reference 2. Incorporate full text of HSMP (PB Recommendation #12). Whether the HSMP is incorporated 3. Incorporate by reference completely into the Comprehensive Plan or adopted by reference, the effect is the same in that the HSMP would then be part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This can be implemented through the adopting ordinance. Treating the HSMP as a subarea plan specifically emphasizes that the master plan only applies to the Harbor Square property. Additionally, considering the HSMP as a subarea plan addresses a recommendation from the Planning Board (PB Recommendation #10) that language from the City Attorney's memorandum be incorporated into the adoption of the HSMP. Page 2 of 5 Harbor S uare Master Plan Council Comments/Suggestions Communicated to Staff How addressed in revised HSMP Special Districts or Incentive Zoning: All these ideas are supported in the Redevelopment Objectives and 1. Brewery/distillery/brew pub zone Concepts narrative on Pages 2 — 3 of the HSMP. 2. Create district energy area using waste heat from sewer treatment plant 3. Campus for tech firm or other business 4. Tourists destination (small hotels with first floor restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, art galleries, studios, small shops that sell a variety of item these shops that may sell locally made arts, crafts, and jewelry). 5. Year-round farmers market 6. Roger Brooks' Concepts Parking Parking provided at a redeveloped Harbor Square will have to be 1. Limit parking requirements for residences in order to encourage consistent with the City's off street parking regulations as contained in a single car ECDC 17.50, unless modified in a future zoning change approved by 2. Parking must be adequate for any development Council. Connectivity Improving the connections between the waterfront and downtown is 1. Provide connectivity between waterfront and downtown emphasized in the Redevelopment Objectives and Concepts on Pages 2 2. Provide connectivity to trains, ferries, and buses. — 3. The Public Amenities section on Page 4 also recognizes the need for connections between the waterfront and downtown. Also the Sustainability section on Page 4 notes that the proximity to bus, rail and ferry respond to the need to integrate land use and transportation. Page 3 of 5 Planning Board Recommendations: 1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to 55 feet if the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum. 2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of the property. 3. Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height. 4. Development plans shall ensure that the Public View Corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced. 5. On page 5 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "Circulation, Traffic and Parking", an additional sentence should be added to read: "The absence of available off -site parking requires that adequate parking allowance be made to accommodate all customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times." 6. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the exception to the 55 foot height limit for special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. should be deleted. 7. In the graphic "Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking West" on page 10, the annotation as to "setback" above 35 feet along Dayton Street should be revised to "building step back". 8. An additional sentence should be added to the "Dayton Street Frontage" section on page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan to read: "Consideration should be given to enhance street -side parking to support separating human activity from the traffic along Dayton Street." 9. On page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "SR 104 Frontage", "If WSDOT is amendable" should be stricken from the beginning of the third sentence. 10. The Edmonds City Attorney shall develop language consistent with the memorandum dated September 6, 2012 to be incorporated into the City's adoption of the Comprehensive Questions of have been raised about how the Planning Board's recommendations will be incorporated in the HSMP. Some of the recommendations from the Planning Board are no longer applicable with regard to the revised master plan while other recommendations have been incorporated. Below is a summary of how the Planning Board's recommendations have been addressed in the current draft of the HSMP. 1. The specific building heights in the recommendation are no longer applicable. The possibility of allowing some additional height through incentive zoning if certain public amenities are provided has been incorporated in the HSMP in the Height and Bulk section on Page 6. 2. With a base height of 35 feet spelled out in the current draft of the HSMP, this condition is less relevant. If during a subsequent rezone public amenities are provided and a height bonus granted, design and location of the taller building will be addressed at that time. 3. Base height has been limited to 35 feet for the entire site. 4. Language from this condition has been added under the Uses and Site Planning section on Page 3. 5. As noted above, parking provided at a redeveloped Harbor Square will have to be consistent with the City's off street parking regulations as contained in ECDC 17.50. The standards contained in ECDC 17.50 are intended to ensure that adequate off street parking is provided for all uses on a redeveloped Harbor Square. Only a zoning change approved by Council could alter parking requirements. 6. The base height of 35 feet may only be exceeded if public benefits and/or amenities are provided (Page 6). 7. The referenced graphic has been removed from the HSMP. 8. Language has been added under the Dayton Street Frontage Section on Page 7. 9. Wording has been removed under the SR 104 Frontage section on Page 7. Page 4 of 5 Plan addressing height limits, precedent, and views. 10. The City Attorney memorandum addressed three issues. 11. Clarifying language should be added to the Harbor Square a. The height issue is addressed by limiting base height to 35 Master Plan that residential uses must be multifamily and not feet. Any increase in height above 35 feet could only be single-family residential. accomplished through incentive zoning approved by 12. If and when the Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted by the Council. City Council, it should be physically incorporated into the b. Concern with regard to precedent is addressed by treating Comprehensive Plan rather than incorporated by reference. the HSMP as a subarea plan. 13. Any future development proposal shall clearly demark and c. The third question addressed by the City Attorney's provide protection for the Edmonds Marsh by establishing an memorandum had to do with the protection of private area of open space not less than 25 feet landward from the edge views. No specific language with regard to this item has of the Edmonds Marsh and ensure any development preserves been addressed. The memo noted the City has discretion or improves the Edmonds Marsh Park/Walkway. in how it addresses private views. Private view protection 14. The approved Master Plan shall be modified as necessary to is not mentioned in any of the City's Planning Documents maintain consistency with the Shoreline Master Program update or codes. However, as noted in the City Attorney's to be determined following submittal by the City and approved memorandum (Attachment 22 from the November 20, by the State in accordance with process deadlines existent 2012 agenda item on the HSMP), the City has designated between the State and the City. specific public view corridors (See page 58 of the Comprehensive Plan). Protection of the Dayton Street view corridor is called out under the Use and Site Planning section on Page 3. Additionally, language with regard to the Attorney memorandum could be incorporated in the adopting ordinance. 11. No specific language with regard to multifamily development has been added. As noted above, residential development in Harbor Square should not be the principle use, but provide to enhance and support the mixed use nature of Harbor Square. Any more specific provisions regarding residential uses would be the subject of a future rezone approved by Council. 12. See above with regard to incorporating the HSMP. 13. As noted above, setback from the marsh will be determined by the updated Shoreline Master Program currently under review by the City Council. 14. The Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh section on Page 6 recognizing the HSMP must comply with the HSMP. Page 5 of 5 This area is appropriate for development which takes advantage of its fiber access and strategic location between the waterfront and downtown, but which recognizes the environmental and geographic constraints of the area. . Ultimately, perhaps with the assistance of WRIA 8, Snohomish County Conservation Fu- tures, and other organizations, the southern portion of the near water- front area will be used for an expanded Marsh and/or Marsh buffer. To provide a necessary connection between downtown and the water- front. �t redevelopment in #iris the near waterfront area shall b� provide pedestrian friendly walking ar- eas and public gathering spaces or parks, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Public view corridors along Dayton and Main Street shall be maintained, and enhanced where possible (former Skippers site). Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the prop- erties, since this is an area that provides a "first impression" of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, land- scaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project. Due to view corridors and the need to maintain a pedestrian scale and small town character, building heights may not be increased, and build- ing bulk shall be limited. Parking must be adequate for any development, due to the need to also provide parking for the waterfront, the train station, and the ferry dock. Development shall include a destination for Edmonds residents and visi- tors, including but not limited to recreational, cultural, dining, lodging, hobby, commercial, tourist or entertainment attractions. Development shall not duplicate existing small scale retail or mixed use development or existing housing stock. Traditional housing such as mixed use, multi- family, transit oriented and condominimum uses shall be avoided, though a modest number of non-traditional housing options such as artist live/work studios may be considered in areas with adequate public ser- vices that are not geologically or otherwise hazardous. From: Clifton, Stephen To: Lien. Kernen; Earlina, Dave Subject: FW: Draft comprehensive plan amendment Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:51:52 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Monillas, Adrienne Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:44 AM To: Clifton, Stephen Cc: Petso, Lora; Chave, Rob; Taraday, Jeff Subject: Re: Draft comprehensive plan amendment By the way how does the 14 recommendations of the planning board get incorporated into the plan??? Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Sent from my Pad On Feb 25, 2013, at 6:33 PM, "Monillas, Adrienne" <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov> wrote: > Thanks Lora for your thoughts. > I would also like my "vision" added to the plan. > I would like to see this become a tourist destination. I vision multiple small hotels with first floor restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, art gallery's, studios, small shops that sell a variety of item these shops that may sell locally made arts, crafts, and jewelry. To include a year round farmers market in this space. This area should provide connectivity to trains, ferries and buses. This needs to be a walkable area only. > No more height than current zoning. > I would like to see a safe buffer for the marsh and care taken to maintain the fragile environmental aspects. > In my extensive travels the past couple of years internationally and nationally tourists are attracted to this type of development and they bring resources with them. > edmonds needs to become a destination! > Adrienne Fraley-Monillas > Sent from my Pad > On Feb 25, 2013, at 5:09 PM, "Petso, Lora" <Lora.Petso@edmondswa.gov> wrote: >> Stephen/Rob- >> I created the attached draft comprehensive plan amendment based on the public comment, and shared it with council via bcc. >> Since this version deals with entire near waterfront area, I will also work on a version that is specific to Harbor Square, and leaves the rest of the area as is. >> It is just a draft, but it includes most of the ideas raised in public comments. >> Lora >> 2-23-2013 4 42 05 PM » <2-23-2013 4_42_05 PM.pdf> :)ORT OF E D M 0 N D S 336 Admiral Way • Edmonds, WA 98020-7214 (425) 774-0549 • FAX (425) 774-7837 • www.portofedmonds.org April 3, 2013 Mr. Robert Chave, Planning Manager Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner AF%� City of Edmonds City of Edmonds 2013 121 Fifth Ave. N. 121 Fifth Ave. N.�A�''C� .� Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020'' . Re: Port of Edmonds Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment City of Edmonds File No. AMD20110009 Dear Rob and Kernen: This letter is to formally notify the City of Edmonds, through its Planning Department, that the Port of Edmonds is withdrawing its Land Use Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and/or Sub Area Plan Amendment to have the City adopt the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan as a City Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Sub Area Plan. This formal withdrawal of the Port of Edmonds Land Use Application is necessitated by the City Council's inability to substantively review the Planning Board's recommended decision approving, with conditions, the adoption of the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Council's failure to consider the City Staff s recommendation that the Council similarly adopt that Planning Board recommendation. Nonetheless, the Port of Edmonds understands that it is the City Council's ultimate prerogative to accept the Planning Board's and the City Staff s recommendations and with the Council's reticence to do so, the Port is left with its only realistic recourse, which is to withdraw its Application and terminate the processing of that Application. The Port of Edmonds would like to sincerely thank the Planning Department Staff for its significant time and energy expended in focusing on the substantive issues related to the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application. The Port of Edmonds also sincerely appreciates the thoughtful evaluation and deliberation that the Planning Board undertook in reaching its decision on the Port's Application. Please confirm that the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application and related proceedings pending before the City of Edmonds are terminated as a result of this withdrawal of the Port of Edmonds' Application. Again, thank you for your courtesies and cooperation extended through these proceedings. Ve truly yo r R bert Mc he ey Executive Dire for Cc: Port Commissioners Mayor Dave Earling City Council Members Planning Board Members r n ��u r�. M�uE01 1 336 Admiral Way - Edmonds, WA 98020-7214 • (425) 774-0549 • FAX (425) 774-7837 • www.portofedmonds.org April 9, 2013 Honorable Dave Earling, Mayor Honorable City Council Members CITY OF EDMONDS 121— Fifth Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Withdrawal Mayor Earling and Council Members: This letter provides notification that the Port of Edmonds has withdrawn its Application for an Amendment to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan into the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Port of Edmonds Executive Director Robert McChesney's letter to Rob Chave and Kernen Lien, which effects the withdrawal of the Port's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application and terminates the City's proceedings concerning the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, initiated by the Port's Application. The Port of Edmonds Commission made the decision to withdraw the Port's Application when, after a series of discussions before the City Council, it became apparent there was not sufficient support to obtain a majority vote for acceptance of the Planning Board recommendation to approve, with conditions, the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Instead, Council formally voted to stop consideration of the Port's proposed Master Plan, and instead, craft its own sub -area plan under the auspices of the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan Application. In developing of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the Port followed the City's process as directed by the City's Staff. The process was conducted in an open and transparent manner, beyond any normal standard. The Port involved the public to the maximum extent practical. The Port also accepted all fourteen conditions of the Planning Board. The Port made its case and demonstrated broad public support. It is our sincere belief that what the Port proposed in the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment, represented a reasonable compromise that would have provided the community significant benefits, without jeopardizing its values. It is clear to the Commission that the process failed. While the Commission finds this unfortunate, it understands that the City Council is the decision maker with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Commission believes it was acting not only in the best interest of its constituents, but also in the City's interest by creating opportunities for future beneficial development in our community. The Port of Edmonds is in the business of creating economic opportunity for the benefit of the entire community, which includes 18,000 Port residents and also the Town of Woodway. Economic opportunity needs to be part of the future of the community and we believe strongly that our city cannot thrive if its focus is static or retrospective only. There are important and challenging questions to resolve. Their resolution requires vision, leadership and partnership with the City. Through this last exercise, we didn't quite get there. Frankly, the formal dismissal of the Port's Master Plan for Harbor Square has been disappointing and discouraging to the Commission, the Port Staff, as well as to the many Edmonds/Woodway residents who worked hundreds of hours in developing the proposal. Nonetheless, it is time for us to move on. Consequently, as stated above, the Port has terminated the processing of its Application. The Port Commission stands ready to work with the City to achieve a true partnership and to discuss the future of Harbor Square. What the City Council needs to accept, is that the Port of Edmonds is a separate legal entity; an independent public enterprise with a parallel mandate to the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway, for economic development. The Port takes this opportunity to re -state that the fundamental driving premise of future redevelopment at Harbor Square is that it must be economically feasible enough to attract private sector investment participation, while also including the many public amenities the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan proposes. The Port of Edmonds is not a general purpose government and has statutory limitations on the uses to which it can put its property and a fiduciary obligation to generate a full market return from its investments. We invite continued discussion and partnership. Very truly yours, James Orvis, President Port of Edmonds Commission Cc: Port Commissioners Bob McChesney Attachment AM-5669 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: Committee Action: 11. Carolyn LaFave Subject Title Formal request from King County and the City of Seattle for $5,000 to support a Health Impacts Assessment of the Pacific Gateway Coal Terminal proposal. Recommendation Mayor Earling is recommending that the City of Edmonds commit $5,000 to support this proposed Health Impacts Assessment. Previous Council Action Narrative King County and the City of Seattle are requesting local municipalities contribute between $5,000 - $10,000 towards a proposed Health Impacts Assessment of the Pacific Gateway Coal Terminal proposal. The assessment will be conducted by Washington State University, the UW School of Public Health, and the Oregon Public Health Institute, and is the only Health Impact Assessment of its kind currently planned. Health Impact Assessments request email HIA Description HIA Pathways Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 09:44 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 11:30 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 04/11/2013 08:52 AM Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Wave, Carolyn From: Earling, Dave Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:32 AM To: LaFave, Carolyn Subject: FW: Health Impacts Assessment of the Pacific Gateway Coal Terminal Proposal Attachments: Two -page HIA Description April 8.docx; Coal HIA Pathways 2013-01-02.pdf From: Gala, Rob [mailto:Rob.Gala@seattle.Qoov] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 11:49 AM To: Earling, Dave Cc: Ahern, Melissa; Williams, Phil; Carolyn Robertson Subject: Health Impacts Assessment of the Pacific Gateway Coal Terminal Proposal Mayor Earling, I hope this finds you well. I wanted to let you know about something that King County and Seattle are supporting in the hope that the City of Edmonds might also be interested in. We are approaching in particular those cities that have previously expressed concerns about the Pacific Gateway Coal Terminal proposal. The attached documents provide a quick look at a Health Impacts Assessment of the coal terminal proposal that the Washington State University, the UW School of Public Health, and the Oregon Public Health Institute plan to conduct. The full scope of work is rather comprehensive and to be sure, the only analysis of its kind currently planned. PDF attached provides a very quick and easy to understand snapshot of the full scope which would include an analysis of the health impacts of coal burning in China. The full scope would cost between $250,000-300,000. We have about $175,000 in commitments. Of that total, Seattle and King County have both pledged $25,000 for a subtotal of $50,000. We are asking municipalities to consider contributions toward the assessment in the neighborhood of $5,000-10,000. It would be very easy to raise enough for the full scope of work if we were accepting contributions from advocacy organizations, however to protect the integrity of the work and professional neutrality of researchers in the future, it's necessary to fund the project entirely from sources outside the advocacy community. The final scope of work for the HIA will be determined in part by the level of funding secured. In the next several weeks a full proposal will be submitted to one of the larger potential funders and part of that submission will include letters of intent from municipalities and other contributors that demonstrate to that foundation that the balance of the funding required for the full scope of work will ultimately be secured. This is putting a bit of urgency into our efforts here. I'm cc'ing Melissa Ahern, the lead researcher at WSU who is my main contact. She can address any technical questions that you or your city manager might have and I'm available to help in anyway needed. Thanks for your consideration. Rob Gala City of Seattle I Regional Affairs Manager I Office of Intergovernmental Relations I Desk 206.233.0073 1 Cell 206.601.0053 Proposed Regional Strategic Health Impact Assessment (HIA): Coal Transportation to Multiple Proposed Coal Export Terminals in Washington and Oregon Background: Communities throughout the Pacific Northwest are considering proposals to build coal export terminals. These facilities will be part of an extensive infrastructure to transport coal by rail and barge from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming to ports in northwestern states, for shipment to Asian markets. Current coal -terminal permit applications include the Gateway Pacific Terminal north of Bellingham, Washington; the Millennium Bulk Terminal in Longview, Washington; the Morrow Pacific Terminal at the Port of Morrow in Boardman, Oregon; and Port Westward in St. Helens, Oregon. Collectively, these proposals could result in the export of more than 100 million tons of coal per year, requiring a significant increase in coal trains per day throughout Washington and Oregon communities. Each terminal is required to undergo environmental assessment to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). However, there is no clear mechanism to assess and mitigate the cumulative impacts of multiple regional terminals and associated train traffic, particularly their potential impacts on the health of all significantly impacted communities. Benefits and impacts: The coal terminals could bring economic benefits to the region —new employment, tax revenues, and investor profits —at a time when economic benefits are sorely needed. These benefits would undoubtedly have some positive health impacts for some portion of the regional population. The terminals and associated transportation could also have negative impacts on human health and quality of life both in coal -terminal and coal -train communities, with some communities realizing net negative benefits. Some potential direct consequences with adverse health impacts include: • air pollution caused by diesel emissions and/or coal dust • noise from trains and crossing signals, day and night • street traffic congestion resulting in vehicle and pedestrian hazards, stressed and divided communities, delays in emergency response, and restricted trucking • a greater probability of train derailment from straining a near -capacity system • water pollution due to coal shipment to Asia Other consequences could pose substantial indirect risks for health and quality of life. Local communities might be compelled to shift expenditures from health and human services and other health promoting public expenditures to absorb costs of accommodating rail traffic; for example, building vehicle and pedestrian overpasses. The increased emissions, noise and traffic congestion could reduce nearby property values, disrupt the local business environment, decrease tourism, and interfere with other rail or truck transport, resulting in losses of quality of life, personal income, tax base, and government revenues. Thinking globally, greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of exported coal by inefficient furnaces in rapidly industrializing countries could substantially contribute to climate change. What is health impact assessment? The National Research Council definition of HIA is ...a systematic process that uses an array of data sources and analytic methods and considers input from stakeholders to determine the potential effects of a proposed policy, plan, program, or project on the health of a population and the distribution of the effects within the population. HIA provides recommendations on monitoring and managing those effects.1 Proposal: To provide a sound evidence base for decisions related to development of regional coal export operations, we propose conducting a strategic health impact assessment designed to comprehensively examine the cumulative health impacts —favorable and unfavorable —of coal 1. Committee on Health Impact Assessment, National Research Council. Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment. Wash, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. transportation to the multiple proposed coal export terminals in Washington and Oregon; and develop recommendations for mitigating identified negative impacts. The proposed HIA will be comprehensive by examining the totality of related activity, including coal transportation from mine to port, and potential impacts on climate change from burning coal shipped to Asian markets. The HIA will be cumulative in that it will add up the incremental impacts of each potential port, enabling a more accurate understanding of total potential impacts. The proposed HIA will be coordinated by a team representing Washington State University, University of Washington, and Oregon Public Health Institute. The principal team members have combined experience in health impact assessment project management, stakeholder engagement, transportation and land use planning policies and practices, energy economics, environmental and occupational medicine and epidemiology, and spatial analysis and mapping. The team efforts will leverage resources and expertise from a network of potential collaborators, including the Oregon HIA Network and representatives of local and State health, transportation, and environmental quality agencies in Washington and Oregon. The team will engage faculty at their institutions with renowned specialty expertise including air pollution measurement and health effects, noise characterization and health effects, urban design and planning, and transportation engineering. Justification Based on current public discourse in both states, it is plausible that political leaders would delay permitting decisions pending the completion of this HIA if they knew that credible organizations would undertake it in a timely manner and provide useful information for multiple permitting decisions. It is also plausible that, if any one permit was approved, regional officials would draw upon the HIA results for secondary decisions related to mitigation. This is supported by the following observations: • A growing number of public officials and other stakeholders have identified the need for a study to provide comprehensive, cumulative understanding of the potential direct and indirect health impacts of granting individual permits for multiple coal -export ports in the Pacific Northwest. • More than 160 elected officials have called for such a study, including Oregon's Governor Kitzhaber, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, and Washington Congressman Jim McDermott. Many cities, counties and commissions in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana have publicly called for an area -wide study. Multnomah County, Oregon, is currently conducting its own health study of impacts related to increased coal train traffic. • The issue of environmental and health impacts from proposed coal export activities has become highly visible, with a substantial and growing level of citizen interest. At least 600 health professionals, 400 local businesses, 220 faith leaders, 30 municipalities, and some Northwest Tribes including the Lummi Nation have indicated serious concerns regarding coal exports through the Pacific Northwest. • Despite requests from public officials and agencies including the EPA Region 10 office, the US Army Corps of Engineers has not indicated a willingness to conduct a programmatic HIA despite clear legal precedent, which would be only other process for including consideration of cumulative health impacts in coal terminal decision -making processes. Conclusion: A comprehensive, strategic HIA is clearly warranted and wanted. Even if the USACE eventually conducts a cumulative impacts analysis, public officials and the general public would still be well served by having a comprehensive, cumulative HIA conducted by an independent, broadly based, credible and non -reluctant team with the full range of necessary expertise. Team Members are listed below. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Melissa Ahern. Melissa Ahern, MBA PhD, Project Investigator Associate Professor College of Pharmacy P.O. Box 1495 Washington State University Spokane, WA 99210-1495 ahernm@wsu.edu (509) 358-7982 William (Bill) Daniell, MD MPH, Project Co -Investigator Associate Professor Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences School of Public Health Box357234 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-7234 bdaniell@uw.edu (206) 685-3160 Steve White, MURP, Project Co -Investigator Project Manager Oregon Public Health Institute 315 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 202 Portland, OR 97204 steve@orphi.org (503) 227-5502 x228 Date: March 25, 2013 Coal Terminal Development, Transportation Activity, and Health Determinants Regional impacts HIA will focus on: • Coal transportation in Oregon and Washington Coal terminals developed in Oregon and Washington Global impacts HIA will focus on: • Coal transportation, from mines to Asia • Coal combustion in Asia Export terminal operations Transport traffic • Train • Truck • Barge • Ship Railroad infrastructure: planned improvements; maintenance and repair • Tracks • Freight yards • Crossings Transport noise • Train, vehicle noise • Crossing signals Regional transport emissions • Coal dust • Diesel exhaust: train, truck, ship • Bunker fuel exhaust: ship Global transport emissions • Greenhouse gases (CO2) Coal burning in Asia: global -scale emissions • Greenhouse gases (CO2) • Metals Economic gains & losses • Employment • Household income • Business, including tourism • Government • Funds reallocated from other needs, e.g., health & services Road traffic changes • Commuting and commerce • Emergency response time • Vehicle, pedestrian safety • Vehicle emissions • Community cohesion Train traffic changes • Rail congestion • Derailment risk Noise pollution Air pollution • Coal dust • Ambient pollutants (e.g., PM) Global climate change Global -scale pollution (e.g., mercury) Regional impacts • Climate change • Transported pollutants 0 3 0 X M r A r r+ � N rD O c S 0 fD s rp rr � C n c M fn .Cy G ' s ID o _, m x QrQ ru • I rc' A (D CA o ; r+ fD O ' h n _h fA AM-5673 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/16/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings of April 8 and 9, 2013. Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action N/A Committee Action: 12. Narrative Attached are copies of the meeting minutes for the following City Council Committee Meetings: • 04-08-13 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee • 04-09-13 Finance Committee • 04-09-13 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Attachments 04-08-13 Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Minutes 04-09-13 Finance Committee Minutes 04-09-13 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 04/11/2013 04:30 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/11/2013 04:43 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 04/11/2013 09:59 AM Final Approval Date: 04/11/2013 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting April 8, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Council Member Kristiana Johnson Council Member Diane Buckshnis Members of the Public Present: John Reed Val Stewart Don Hall Ron Wambolt Staff Present: Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Rob Chave, Acting Dev. Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services / Economic Development Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney The committee convened at 4:00 p.m. in the Fourtner Meeting Room, City Hall. Annual Special Event Contracts A brief discussion was held concerning the annual Special Event Contracts. ACTION: Committee forwarded to Council on consent. 2. Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 Regarding Classes. A brief discussion was held concerning the Interlocal Agreement. ACTION: Committee forwarded to Council on consent. 3. Discussion regarding development agreements / incentive zoning. City Attorney Jeff Taraday summarized the distinction between development agreements and incentive zoning, and that the two concepts could result in very similar zoning constructs, i.e. that the city could identify benefits or developments that are to be incentivized, and the incentives that the city was willing to `give' in exchange. The best place to start would be for the Council to discuss the types of things it wanted to see happen; this could be done city-wide, or targeted to a specific area. Benefits could be things like affordable housing or open space, or specific uses such as a boutique hotel in the downtown area. Incentives could be a variety of things, such as additional density or height, or reductions in other requirements (such as parking). Incentive zoning can be tailored to a specific location, such as Highway 99 or a portion of downtown. The Committee discussed what areas they would like to explore, with most of the discussion focusing on the potential for addressing the need for a boutique hotel downtown and whether some incentives could be developed for Highway 99. The Committee agreed to further discuss the incentive zoning/development agreement issue at its next meeting, focusing the discussion on downtown and Highway 99. 4. Discussion of Planning Report The Committee discussed how tracking of items referred by Council to the Economic Development Commission or Planning Board could be done. Planning Board members Valerie Stewart and John Reed noted that they intended to keep up their periodic reports to Council, and Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes April 8, 2013 Page 2 staff indicated that they could also post Planning Board extended agendas online, as is already done for Council extended agendas. The Committee also discussed timing of Westgate and Five Corners form -based zoning plans, with Councilmember Johnson indicating her preference for moving Five Corners ahead of Westgate while Councilmember Buckshnis stated her preference was to keep Westgate moving toward a conclusion. Planning Board Chair Reed said he couldn't speak for the entire Planning Board, but he indicated the Board was nearing completion of its work on Westgate and he felt that work could be completed within a couple of months and should be brought to a conclusion. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave indicated that it would be beneficial for the Planning Board to have a clear consensus from Council before changing its current work schedule (which has Westgate getting done first). The Committee also had a brief discussion about timing of the Westgate Corridor Study and how that might affect overall planning efforts. 5. Report on final construction costs for the Talbot Road Grind and Overlay Small Works Project and acceptance of project. Mr. Williams described the scope of work completed and the final cost paid to the contractor. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. 6. Authorization for Mayor to approve release of a Utility Easement & acceptance and recording of new Storm Utility and Public Pedestrian Access Easement Mr. Williams briefly described the locations of the new stormwater and pedestrian easements and why they were needed as part of the proposed Walgreen's Development. He also provided information on why the existing easement was being released. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. 7. Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Water Utility Easement. Mr. English explained the history of the Willow Townhomes and why the easements were necessary for water meters and a fire hydrant. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. 8. Authorization to award a construction contract for the 2013 Waterline Replacement Project. Mr. Williams gave a summary of the current project schedule and budget for the project. He informed the committee that bids are due on April 16t" and it was anticipated the construction contract would be on the consent agenda for award on the April 23rd Council meeting. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. 9. Quarterly Public Works Project Report. Mr. English reviewed selected projects that were in construction or scheduled for construction later this year. Councilmember Buckshnis recommended staff review the report at a future Council meeting on a night when there was availability on the agenda. Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes April 8, 2013 Page 3 ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for information. 10. Report on Five Corners Roundabout Project. Mr. Williams provided an update on the project schedule and right of way acquisition phase. The project will not start in 2013 because construction would continue into 2014 and require a winter suspension. ACTION: None. 11. Proposed Interlocal Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds for the SR99-228t" St. SW Corridor and Safety Improvements. Mr. Williams discussed the concept of pursuing an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County for the possible use of condemnation on the SR99-2281" St. SW Corridor Project. The City Attorney is in the process of reviewing the agreement. ACTION: Item will be scheduled for further discussion at a future City Council meeting. 12. Public Comments Ron Walmbolt asked about the Development Agreement that went through the Planning Board back in 2011. He further stated that the Council had given this to Mr. Taraday to review and the resulting document was the white paper on incentive zoning and development agreements. He requested that the PPP committee look into finding this original document that dealt with "incentives" as the developer only needed four feet to lower his rents by $200. Don Hall indicated that the PPP should concentrate on a boutique hotel in the downtown area and provided an example of Ballard opening a small hotel in its downtown. He stated rather than concentrate first on the incentive zoning of Hwy 99, that the BD2 zone should be reviewed as tourism can only benefit by having a downtown boutique hotel. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm. FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 9, 2013 Councilmembers Present Staff Present Councilmember Yamamoto Ronald Cone, Interim Finance Director Councilmember Fraley-Monillas Sarah Mager, Accountant Jeannie Dines, Recorder Public Present Ron Wambolt Bruce Witenber, Also Present Walker Kasinadhuni, Student Representative Councilmember Yamamoto called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. A. Surplus of Computers and Monitors and Donation to InterConnection Mr. Cone assured the computer hard drives have been wiped in accordance with federal standards. Interconnect will distribute the computers to non-profit organizations. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda B. Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles Councilmember Yamamoto explained it is standard procedure to auction surplus City vehicles via James G. Murphy. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda C. February 2013 MonthlV Financial Report Mr. Cone reviewed a revised February 2013 Monthly Financial Report and explained changes made to create the revised report. Councilmember Yamamoto requested YTD Actual for the previous year be added to the Monthly Expenditure Report. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda D. Public Comments Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, stated Goodwill at Westgate also accepts old computers. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, advised he had not received a response to the questions he asked last month regarding the type of claims WCIA covers, which claims have been paid by WCIA, which claims have been paid from the General Fund, what claims are pending against the City, how much money is in the litigation reserve fund to pay future claims, WCIA premiums for 2013 compared to previous years and whether the City was paying to defend claims against the former Mayor. He asked whether the City Attorney expenditure was only for the Lighthouse Group. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas requested Mr. Cone forward Mr. Witenberg's questions to the Mayor's office. Adjournment — The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 9, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Bloom (Committee Chair) Councilmember Peterson (Committee Member) Councilmember Johnson Councilmember Fraley-Monillas Mayor Earling City Staff Present: Chief of Police Al Compaan Fire Marshal John Westfall Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director / Human Resources Reporting Director The meeting was called to order at 6.00 p.m. A. HR Reporting Director special assignment. Mayor Earling requested this assignment be extended for another year. The Personnel Committee moved this item forward to the City Council consent agenda. B. Acting Development Services Director assignment. Mayor Earling requested this assignment be extended for another year. The Mayor has been working on the customer service on the second floor, and will have further information to bring forward. The Personnel Committee moved this item forward to the City Council consent agenda. C. Consideration of mandatory bike helmets. Councilmember Johnson was present at the meeting to address this issue. She noted that March was brain injury awareness month, and prompted this idea/discussion. She provided research in the packet. King County, Pierce County and 30 other cities in Washington currently have a bike helmet law. Question: Do we consider this for youth, and/or adults? Issues: Enforcement - cities have been creative in this area. Infractions range from $10 to $50. Some cities give authority to the Police Chief; some phase in enforcement (warning, before fines); some cities allow community service to be provided in lieu of payment; and some cities stated this is not the highest priority, so do not enforce it fully (maybe only in case of accidents). This is a public health and safety issue. Currently Kiwanis, Fire Department, Edmonds Bicycle group all have provided great education and a helmet program. Public Safety & Personnel Committee April 9, 2013 Page 1 of 4 Chief Compaan talked about the limitations about citing and with court appearances. He prefers voluntary compliance and an education program. This seems to be difficult to enforce with compliance. Councilmember Bloom asked PR Director Hite for clarification about the recreational immunity law. PR Director Hite clarified the issue with requiring helmets at the skateboard park, and/or in parks, and if the city can't enforce it, it could impact our ability to satisfy the recreational immunity law if someone gets injured. Councilmember Peterson asked if Cascade Bicycle Club and Edmonds Bicycle Club supports this. He stated that he could support this, but really would emphasize public education. Fire Marshal Westfall commented regarding the public education aspects of sports and bicycle usage. Fire District #1 has conducted Edmonds community bike rodeos at fire station open houses in the past. All fire stations have available, during daytime hours, bicycle and multi -sport helmets that can be fitted to children. The helmets are offered with a suggested donation that can be mailed to our headquarters later. The helmet fitting is also a great opportunity to discuss safety items with the kids and their parents. Additionally, FD#1 is a member of the Safe Kids Coalition of Snohomish County, part of a worldwide kids' safety network. McDonalds Corporation provided "citations" for uniformed fire and police to encourage safe riding when kids are found wearing helmets. These citations are valid for exchange of a happy meal at local McDonalds. Councilmember Bloom would also agree to a bicycle helmet ordinance. Next steps: Committee requests the City Attorney to work on an ordinance and research. Chief Compaan stated he will contact the City attorney and work with him on this. D. Resolution regarding Robert's Rules. A presentation to Council on Robert's Rules of Order is on the extended agenda for the April 16 council meeting. Council President Petso will be asked to put the draft resolution adopting Roberts Rules of Order on the agenda for discussion and vote at a council meeting following this (April 23 or later). E. Code of Ethics The Bainbridge Island Code of Ethics will be used as the framework for our policy. Councilmember Peterson will email passages from other code of ethics that he thinks should be considered for inclusion. The City Attorney will be asked to draft a policy for Council review. Council will also discuss forming an Ethics Board. F. Public Comments Citizen Don Hall stated that when a complaint was filed by an attorney, it was revealed that there is no code of ethics for officials of the City of Edmonds. He was supportive of moving forward with putting a code of ethics in place, noting that it has been in the works for over a year. He is also of the opinion that once we have a code of ethics, we should Public Safety & Personnel Committee April 9, 2013 Page 2 of 4 go ahead with forming an Ethics Board as well, because it means nothing if there is no means of enforcement. Citizen Ken Reidy commented that the helmet law for the skateboard park of the city of Milton was repealed in response to legal advice. He questioned whether or not renewal of the Development Services Director position can go on the consent agenda due to necessity of Council approval of the appointment. Following is the text of the remainder of Mr. Reidy's three minute comments: "I am here to express my strong support for the adoption of a comprehensive Code of Ethics and eventually an Ethics Board. In my opinion, the City Councils' greatest priorities should be the prompt completion of the Code Rewrite, the adoption of a Code of Ethics and the establishment of an Ethics Board. During his recent State of the City Address, Mayor Earling lamented that in Edmonds, we simply do not trust each other. The City's need to rebuild trust is critical and it requires strong action. The City can't just simply ask for more trust — the City needs to take bold action to earn more trust. Prioritizing the Code rewrite and Ethics must be at the foundation of the City's efforts to regain trust. Citizens should not receive emails like I have in the past stating that "By the way, Snyder mentioned they think you have been hit hard in the market and may choose not to proceed for financial reasons." Why would the City even consider my financial situation in any City decision making process, including whether or not to employ the tool of government known as Code Enforcement? A strong commitment to Ethics is absolutely critical at the City. When Ethics don't govern conduct, innocent citizens can be greatly harmed. In March of 2009, during an alley vacation, the City retained an easement on my property for the sole benefit of a private developer. For years, I have searched online all over the country to try and find a similar easement. I have never found one like the one retained on my property. The City Council retained the Easement in March of 2009 after Snyder told them the City was trying to balance my interests with the developer's interests. The City Council was told right before their vote that one goal of the City was to save my shed. The City Council was not advised as to the related State (RCW 35.79.030) and City laws. The City didn't try to balance my interests or save my shed. They immediately Code Enforced against my shed. I was able to get the City to admit that the developer's planned retaining wall ended well before my shed, but the City wouldn't drop its Code Enforcement. Every time I convinced the City their Code Enforcement efforts were improper, they simply replaced it with a new, refined Code Enforcement order. Look at the multiple Code Enforcements I was subject to (Show multiple orders) related to the same shed. On July 17, 2009, a "Framework for Resolution" was discussed between Snyder and the local developer's attorney in which the developer offered to drop the legal action if Reidys' shed and trees were removed by the Deadline Date of August 6, 2009. 1 had no knowledge at that time of these private "Framework for Resolution" discussions. Public Safety & Personnel Committee April 9, 2013 Page 3 of 4 There were no Executive Sessions during the time period but the City actually took steps to get my shed and trees removed by the Deadline Date of August 6, 2009!! I am a great example of why an Ethics Board is needed. Please adopt a comprehensive Code of Ethics and an Ethics Board." The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 PM. Public Safety & Personnel Committee April 9, 2013 Page 4 of 4