Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013-06-18 City Council - Public Agenda-1500
'4- o 0 -c9 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds JUNE 18, 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-5865 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2013. B. AM-5859 Approval of claim checks #202585 through #202721 dated June 13, 2013 for $1,006,525.45. C. AM-5844 Approval of 2013 Taxicab Operator's License for North End Taxi. D. AM-5869 April 2013 Monthly Financial Report E. AM-5860 Special Event Contract for Bastille Day F. AM-5862 Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles. G. AM-5848 Contract award for the FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project. H. AM-5849 Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet, Inc. for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. I. AM-5855 Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout Project. J. AM-5856 Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of right of way and easements from the Cavalry Chapel property for the Five Corners Roundabout Project. K. AM-5863 Authorization for Mayor to sign acceptance of additional Coordinated Prevention Grant Funding. L. AM-5858 Authorization to contract with Summit Law Group to provide legal services related to a union grievance. M. AM-5870 Authorization to contract with Carol Morris to provide legal services related to the Point Edwards Building 10 closed -record appeal. N. AM-5834 Resolution thanking Walker Kasinadhuni for his service as a Student Representative. O. AM-5868 Ordinance adopting 2012 International Building and Fire Codes 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) Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Walker Kasinadhuni Student Representative AM-5835 6. (90 Minutes) Closed record review of an appeal (File No. APL20130001) of the Hearing Examiner's AM-5861 final decision on Tom and Lin Hillman's critical areas and setback variances (File No. PLN20120033) for a new residence to be located at 1139 Sierra Place. Appellants: Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown, & Candy Brown. 7. (30 Minutes) Public Hearing on the Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2014-2019) AM-5850 8. (5 Minutes) Ordinance Amending Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.75 - Citizens Economic AM-5873 Development Commission. 9. (15 Minutes) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of June 11, 2013. AM-5866 10. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 11. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 12. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 13. (5 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN AM-5865 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 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 June 11, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Attachments 06-11-13 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 06/13/2013 11:44 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 11:48 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/13/2013 11:37 AM Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 3. A. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 11, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember *(Arrived at 6:06 p.m.) 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED (6-0). (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) 2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (6-0). (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #202434 THROUGH #202584 DATED JUNE 6, 2013 FOR $461,109.90. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60214 THROUGH #60232 FOR $450,623.94, BENEFIT CHECKS #60233 THROUGH #60244 AND WIRE PAY.MENTS OF $198,581.58 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16, 2013 THROUGH MAY 31, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2013. ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2013 Councilmember Buckshnis advised she pulled this item to abstain as she was absent from the May 28, 2013 meeting. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 11, 2013 Page 1 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINED. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one present in the audience who wished to make comment. 4. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) At 6:04 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) and labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas arrived at 6:06 p.m. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Police Chief Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless, Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:35 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 15 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 6:46 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 6:47 p.m. 5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling had no report. 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis encouraged everyone to attend the Edmonds Arts Festival this weekend, commenting the festival is put on entirely by volunteers. Council President Petso wished Councilmember Fraley-Monillas a happy birthday. Councilmember Johnson announced a public meeting regarding the Dayton Street & SR 104 Drainage Alternative Study will be held June 20 from 6:00 — 8:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room. 7. ADJOURN TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS With no further business, the Council meeting adjourned to Council Committee meetings at 6:49 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 11, 2013 Page 2 AM-5859 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Tnfner"Ofinn Submitted By: 3. B. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim checks #202585 through #202721 dated June 13, 2013 for $1,006,525.45. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: 2013 1,006,525.45 Fiscal Impact: Claims $1,006,525.45 Claim Checks 06-13-13 Proiect Numbers 06-13-13 Inbox Reviewed By Finance Roger Neumaier City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Review Date 06/13/2013 11:58 AM 06/13/2013 01:32 PM 06/13/2013 02:32 PM 06/13/2013 02:33 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 06/13/2013 09:30 AM Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202585 6/12/2013 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 06072013 2013 LAB ACCREDITATION WWTP Lab accreditation fees for 2013 423.000.76.535.80.51.00 800.00 Total: 800.00 202586 6/13/2013 074261 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES 37338925 E7AA.SERVICES THRU 4/26/13 E7AA.Services thru 4/26/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 839.33 Total: 839.33 202587 6/13/2013 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9333 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl- MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl- 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 126,187.48 Total: 126,187.48 202588 6/13/2013 001528 AM TEST INC 75678 WWTP - LAB SERVICE - MERCURY. WWTP - LAB SERVICE - MERCURY 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 200.00 Total: 200.00 202589 6/13/2013 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC WP42 WWTP - NPDES SAMPLES FOR LAI WWTP - NPDES SAMPLES FOR LAI 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 165.00 Total: 165.00 202590 6/13/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6845024 UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 97.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 9.25 Total: 106.67 202591 6/13/2013 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM PARKS FAX MODEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 45.36 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202591 6/13/2013 064343 064343 AT&T (Continued) Total: 45.36 202592 6/13/2013 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC 1003996 FS 17 - Velocity Sensor Inlet Filters, FS 17 - Velocity Sensor Inlet Filters, 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 446.40 Freight 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.00 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 43.17 1004005 FS 17 - ZZZ-0570 Part FS 17 - ZZZ-0570 Part 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 368.10 Freight 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.00 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.59 Total: 919.26 202593 6/13/2013 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0513 Background checks - employment Background checks - employment 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 540.00 Tota I : 540.00 202594 6/13/2013 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 3381 CEMETERY DISPLAY AD CEMETERY DISPLAY AD 130.000.64.536.20.44.00 108.00 Total: 108.00 202595 6/13/2013 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0703571-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 630.8 C Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 630.8 C 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 993.81 0740186-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 500 Ga Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 500 Ga 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 789.50 Total: 1,783.31 202596 6/13/2013 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 7074 E3JA.SERVICES THRU MAY 2013 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202596 6/13/2013 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC (Continued) E3JA.Services thru May 2013 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 19,374.75 Total: 19,374.75 202597 6/13/2013 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IL50197 Unit 91- Samurai Supplies Unit 91- Samurai Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 456.96 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 41.39 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 47.34 IM65619 Unit 18 - Supplies Unit 18 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,081.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.21 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 105.19 Total: 1,758.19 202598 6/13/2013 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMAN MAY 2013 PILATES 17446 PILATES 17446 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 467.46 YOGA 17119 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 139.95 YOGA 17116 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 371.70 YOGA 17108 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 359.55 YOGA 17111 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 407.14 YOGA 17114 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 504.45 YOGA 17105 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 198.45 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202598 6/13/2013 072005 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY (Continued) Total: 2,448.70 202599 6/13/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12775785 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES Contract charges for C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 83.35 Contract charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Contract charges for 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 Total: 273.74 202600 6/13/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN05130991 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.575.55.45.00 11.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.55.45.00 1.12 Total: 12.87 202601 6/13/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN05130992 WWTP - CYLINDER RENTAL WWTP - CYLINDER RENTAL 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 58.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 5.51 Total: 63.51 202602 6/13/2013 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 23432891 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW - Final "Prop Tax' 001.000.65.519.91.45.00 42.60 Total: 42.60 Page: 4 vchlist 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 5 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202603 6/13/2013 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD M&O MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEA MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEI 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00 Total: 27,602.00 202604 6/13/2013 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10115 INV#10115 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS VERIZON PHONE NARCS 05/2013 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 91.52 Total: 91.52 202605 6/13/2013 074461 CLARK, YVONNE CLARK 06042013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 50.00 Total: 50.00 202606 6/13/2013 071680 CODE 4 LLC 052713 INV#052713 - EDMONDS PD S&W M&P15A CARBINE, 5.56MM 104.100.41.521.21.35.00 6,984.00 MAGPUL PMAG, 5.56 MM 104.100.41.521.21.35.00 156.00 TACTICAL TAILOR QR, M4 104.100.41.521.21.35.00 240.00 Freight 104.100.41.521.21.35.00 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 104.100.41.521.21.35.00 702.53 052713 INV#052713 - CREDIT FOR FIREARI CR FOR 21 FIREARMS TRADED -IN 104.100.41.521.21.35.00 -2,785.00 9.5% Sales Tax 104.100.41.521.21.35.00 -264.58 Total: 5,047.95 202607 6/13/2013 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC JUN-13 C/A CITYOFED00001 Jun-13 Fiber Optics Internet Connect 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 407.20 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202607 6/13/2013 073135 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC (Continued) Total: 407.20 202608 6/13/2013 062891 COOK PAGING WA 9077759 WATER WATCH PAGER WATER WATCH PAGER 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.25 Total: 4.25 202609 6/13/2013 072848 COPIERS NW INV875355 INV#INV875355 ACCT#HMH636 - E[ MO COPIER RENTAL 05/05-06/04/1 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54 INV875896 INV#INV875896 ACCT#HMH636 - E[ BLACK COPIES 05/05 - 06/04/13 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 69.35 COLOR COPIES 05/05 - 06/04/13 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 93.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 15.49 Total: 426.87 202610 6/13/2013 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E3JA.Pmt 1 E3JA.PAYMENT 1 THRU 5/31/13 E3JA.PMT 1 thru 5/31/13 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 338,418.34 E3JA.Ret 1 421.000.223.400 -15,452.89 Total: 322,965.45 202611 6/13/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 335583 INV#335583 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATION RADAR #08527 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 335584 INV#335584 - EDMONDS PD Page: 6 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202611 6/13/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 (Continued) CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-03836 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 335585 INV#335585 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-03890 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 335586 INV#335586 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-12646 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 335587 INV#335587 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-12654 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 335588 INV#335588 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-14955 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 335589 INV#335589 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-14984 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 335591 INV#335591 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE RADAR GHS-08722 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202611 6/13/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 (Continued) 335592 INV#335592 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE RADAR GHS-08723 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 Total: 750.12 202612 6/13/2013 069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PWTF-111217 LOAN #PP09-951-014 Pr Pmt CTED 2009 Water Comprehei 421.000.74.591.34.78.00 20,000.00 PWTF-156595 LOAN #PW-04-691-031 Pr Pmt CTED 5 Corner Pump Station 421.000.74.591.34.78.65 25,838.97 Int Pmt CTED 5 Corner Pump Station 421.000.74.592.34.83.65 1,550.33 PWTF-176401 LOAN #PW-05-691-015 Pr Pmt CTED 2005 Sewer Lift Station 423.000.75.591.35.78.66 72,295.21 Int Pmt CTED 2005 Sewer Lift Statior 423.000.75.592.35.83.66 4,598.62 PWTF-81725 LOAN #PW-02-691-019 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se% 423.000.75.591.35.78.61 36,450.00 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se% 423.000.75.592.35.83.61 1,822.50 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se% 423.100.76.591.39.78.61 34,875.00 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se% 423.100.76.592.39.83.61 1,743.75 PWTF-87622 LOAN #PW-02-691-PRE-123 Pr Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improverr 112.506.68.591.95.78.62 18,143.28 Int Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improven 112.506.68.592.95.83.62 907.16 PWTF-87654 LOAN #PW-04-691-029 Page: 8 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202612 6/13/2013 069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (Continued) Pr Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improverr 112.506.68.591.95.78.63 21,176.47 Int Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improven 112.506.68.592.95.83.63 1,270.59 PWTF-89346 LOAN #PW-04-691-030 Pr Pmt CTED Stormwater Outfall Imp 422.000.72.591.31.78.64 32,062.50 Int Pmt CTED Stormwater Outfall Imp 422.000.72.592.31.83.64 1,923.75 PWTF-97976 LOAN #PW-06-962-012 Pr Pmt CTED 100th Ave W Stabilizati 112.200.68.591.95.78.67 32,881.58 Int Pmt CTED 100th Ave W Stabilizat 112.200.68.592.95.83.67 2,301.71 Total: 309,841.42 202613 6/13/2013 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2013050374 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for May 2013 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 940.00 Total: 940.00 202614 6/13/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3365 INV#13-3365 - EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-0897 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 372.00 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-1200 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 75.00 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-1738 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 135.00 Total: 582.00 202615 6/13/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3367 MINUTE TAKING 6/4 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 234.00 Total: 234.00 Page: 9 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202616 6/13/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 613 SIMPLE GREEN SIMPLE GREEN 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.47 Total: 5.46 202617 6/13/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP ABRAR JANOO 17199 ABRAR JANOO 17199 ABRAR JANOO 17199 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 52.00 AQSA JANOO 17202 AQSA JANOO 17202 SWIM AQSAJANOO 17202 SWIM 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 52.00 ARIBA JANOO ARIBA JANOO 17207 ARIBA JANOO 17207 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 52.00 JANOO 17199 JANOO 17199 JANOO 17199 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 52.00 JANOO 17202 JANOO 17202 SWIM LESSONS JANOO 17202 SWIM LESSONS 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 52.00 JANOO 17207 JANOO 17207 JANOO 17207 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 52.00 JANOO 17214 JANOO 17214 JANOO 17214 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 52.00 RAMINEZ 16886 ALVAREZ RAMINEZ TAEKWONDO 1 ALVAREZ RAMINEZ TAEKWONDO 1 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 58.00 VARGAS 16951 VARGAS 16951 KLS PRE -SOCCER VARGAS 16951 KLS PRE -SOCCER 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 59.00 Total: 481.00 Page: 10 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202618 6/13/2013 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2013-06-01 06/13 RECREATION SERVICES COP 06/13 Recreation Services Contract F 001.000.39.555.00.41.00 5,000.00 Total: 5,000.00 202619 6/13/2013 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 209941 INV#209941 CLIENT #3713 - EDMOI' AMOXICILLIN FOR IMP#8868 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 17.60 TRAMADOL FOR IMP#8868 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 17.00 MOMETAMAX OINTMENT-IMP#8868 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 58.00 EXAM IMP#8868 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 55.00 BOARDING IMP#8868 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 81.00 MEDICATION ADMINIST. IMP#8868 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 30.00 AMOXICILLIN FOR #8869 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 14.80 RIMADLY CHEWS FOR IMP#8869 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 30.90 EXAM IMP#8869 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 55.00 BOARDING IMP#8869 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 20.25 MEDICATION ADMINIST. IMP#8869 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 13.15 Total: 404.70 202620 6/13/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0881381 PARKS MAINTA7078 MAINT AGREE PARKS MAINTA7078 MAINT AGREE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 17.96 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 11 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202620 6/13/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1.71 Total: 19.67 202621 6/13/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 088024 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 3.06 Total: 3.06 202622 6/13/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 087944 COPIER CHARGES C5051 Copier charges C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 61.07 Copier charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 61.07 Copier charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 61.03 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 5.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 5.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 5.80 Total: 200.57 202623 6/13/2013 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 22003 FS 17 - Leak Test Trane Chiller FS 17 - Leak Test Trane Chiller 016.000.66.519.00.48.00 265.00 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.519.00.48.00 25.18 Total: 290.18 202624 6/13/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28764 TAPS TAPS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.25 Page: 12 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202624 6/13/2013 066378 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY (Continued) Total: 25.89 202625 6/13/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28547 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 95.49 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.07 WAMOU28558 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 14.78 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.40 WAMOU28658 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.89 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.03 Total: 132.66 202626 6/13/2013 074459 FAY L BARTELS 2-06900 #607054 UTILITY REFUND #607054 Utility Refund due to estimai 411.000.233.000 55.22 Total: 55.22 202627 6/13/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 2623295 Sewer - LS 12 - Supplies Sewer - LS 12 - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 98.87 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.39 Total: 108.26 202628 6/13/2013 069940 FIRST ADVANTAGE SBS 265218 INV 265218 ACCT ODY900JJM EDM CREDIT CHECKS - 2 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 21.00 Total: 21.00 202629 6/13/2013 074457 FREDERICK BROOKS 8-44500 #650285 UTILITY REFUND Page: 13 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202629 6/13/2013 074457 FREDERICK BROOKS (Continued) #650285 Utility Refund due to seller 411.000.233.000 28.50 Total: 28.50 202630 6/13/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 41.65 425-744-1691 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 40.99 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHIN BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHIN 001.000.64.574.35.42.00 54.44 425-776-5316 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MO GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MO 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 110.75 Total: 247.83 202631 6/13/2013 072515 GOOGLE INC 6302714 C/A#396392 MESSAGE DISCOVER' Internet Anti -Virus & Spam Maint Fee 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 367.00 Total: 367.00 202632 6/13/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9138000832 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 35.78 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.42 9138264354 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 336.92 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 32.00 9152584893 Shop Supplies Shop Supplies Page: 14 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202632 6/13/2013 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 86.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 8.20 9152992773 Shop Supplies Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 94.47 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 8.97 Total: 605.96 202633 6/13/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2261517 WWTP - BATTERIES, WALLPLATE, ' WWTP - BATTERIES, WALLPLATE, ' 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 73.77 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 7.01 4284656 WWTP - PEG BOARD, CEDAR BOAT WWTP - PEG BOARD, CEDAR BOAT 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 171.97 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 16.34 7034145 WWTP - KD WHITEWOOD STUD, H WWTP - KD WHITEWOOD STUD, H 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 35.06 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 3.33 8035881 WWTP - POLY SHEETS, PALLET, LI WWTP - POLY SHEETS, PALLET, LI 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 405.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 38.51 Total: 751.39 202634 6/13/2013 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 536266-1 Shop Supplies - Particulate Respiratc Shop Supplies - Particulate Respiratc 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 24.95 Page: 15 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202634 6/13/2013 072041 IBS INCORPORATED (Continued) Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.33 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.26 Tota I : 37.54 202635 6/13/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2290323 office supplies office supplies 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 24.00 supplies - paper (share cost) 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 12.65 supplies - paper (share cost) 001.000.61.519.70.31.00 12.65 supplies - paper (share cost) 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 12.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 3.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.31.00 1.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 1.21 Total: 67.85 202636 6/13/2013 061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY 941720 Sewer - LS 12 - Fuse's (6) Sewer - LS 12 - Fuse 's (6) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 125.88 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 11.96 Total: 137.84 202637 6/13/2013 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 000011392 Fleet - Battery Sticks (2) (returned) Fleet - Battery Sticks (2) (returned) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 111.24 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.57 Page: 16 vchlist 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 17 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202637 6/13/2013 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS (Continued) 000012090 Unit 43 - Vulcan Light Unit 43 - Vulcan Light 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 190.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.05 000012183 Unit 681 POL - 6V Batteries Unit 681 POL - 6V Batteries 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 137.69 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.08 000013003 Fleet Brake Inventory - Wave Rotors Fleet Brake Inventory - Wave Rotors 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 519.06 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 49.31 Total: 1,049.00 202638 6/13/2013 065873 ITE WASHINGTON STATE SECTION Hauss.ITE 2013 HAUSS.ITE CONFERENCE 2013 Hauss.ITE Conference 2013 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 125.00 Total: 125.00 202639 6/13/2013 074451 JAMES GRIFFIN 2-34810 #40113126-806 UTILITY REFUND #40113126-806 Utility Refund - recei% 411.000.233.000 139.63 Total: 139.63 202640 6/13/2013 074453 JAMES O'HANLON 4-05675 #4245-2029611 UTILITY REFUND #4245-2029611 Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 113.95 Total: 113.95 202641 6/13/2013 074450 JONATHAN & PAMELA BAKER 3-10225 #S13-00159-JBFS UTILITY REFUND #S13-00159-JBFS Utility Refund due 411.000.233.000 54.30 Page: 17 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202641 6/13/2013 074450 074450 JONATHAN & PAMELA BAKER (Continued) Total: 54.30 202642 6/13/2013 016600 KROESENS INC 13580 INV#13580 CUST#1320 - EDMONDS DANNER PATROL BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 229.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 21.76 Total : 250.76 202643 6/13/2013 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 06042013-01 INV#06042013-01 - EDMONDS PD 29 CAR WASHES @$5.03 (INCTX) 0 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 145.87 Total : 145.87 202644 6/13/2013 074449 LANDSCAPE DESIGN BLD20130548 Online permit, outside city limits. Online permit, outside city limits. 001.000.257.620 85.00 Total: 85.00 202645 6/13/2013 074462 LANE, ERIN LANE 06032013 ONE HOUR MONITOR FEE REFUNC ONE HOUR MONITOR FEE REFUNC 001.000.239.200 15.00 Total: 15.00 202646 6/13/2013 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 805000310015 Unit 11 - Radial Repair Unit 11 - Radial Repair 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 30.25 Parts 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 6.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 3.53 Total: 40.73 202647 6/13/2013 074452 LESLIE CAPUSAN 1-21380 #00633-001361210 UTILITY REFUNI #00633-001361210 Utility Refund due 411.000.233.000 213.54 Page: 18 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202647 6/13/2013 074452 074452 LESLIE CAPUSAN (Continued) Total: 213.54 202648 6/13/2013 068619 LINDA SWENSON 1247 FALL 2013 CRAZE COVER PHOTO FALL 2013 CRAZE COVER PHOTO 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 122.50 Total: 122.50 202649 6/13/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 679746 Unit 63 - Fuel, Oil and Hydraulic Unit 63 - Fuel, Oil and Hydraulic 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 71.68 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.81 679818 Unit 57 - Hydraulic Filter Unit 57 - Hydraulic Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 49.27 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.68 679826 Unit 57 - Air Filter Unit 57 - Air Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.70 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.06 679875 Unit 63 - Air Filter Unit 63 - Air Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.22 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.11 680212 Unit 4 - Oil Filters Unit 4 - Oil Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.28 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.31 680345 Unit 33 - Seals Unit 33 - Seals 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 19 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202649 6/13/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.86 680346 Fleet - Return Sandpaper Roll Fleet - Return Sandpaper Roll 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -172.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -16.39 680351 Unit33 - Bearing Cones Unit33 - Bearing Cones 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 30.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.86 680559 Unit 91- Rubberized Undercoat Unit 91- Rubberized Undercoat 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.45 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.80 680593 Fleet - Seat belt Fleet - Seat belt 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 55.15 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.24 680959 Unit 83 - Seat Belt Unit 83 - Seat Belt 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 29.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.84 680964 Fleet Return - Seat Belt Fleet Return - Seat Belt 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -55.15 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -5.24 681291 Unit 124 - Air Filter Unit 124 - Air Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.64 Page: 20 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202649 6/13/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.68 681338 Unit 124 - Hydraulic Filter Unit 124 - Hydraulic Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.09 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.86 681461 Unit 9 - Bulb Unit 9 - Bulb 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.62 681708 Unit 97 - Air Filter Unit 97 - Air Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.52 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.90 Total: 138.43 202650 6/13/2013 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 001308-00 SUPPLIES PARKS SUPPLIES PARKS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 383.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 36.46 Total: 420.30 202651 6/13/2013 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 474490-00 BIG TOP -PILE COVER MATERIALS Plate Washer 1/2 3x3 HDG 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 125.00 Powers 1/2x10 SIDS Bit 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 13.30 Total: 153.30 Page: 21 vchlist 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 22 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202652 6/13/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1288 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1289 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1292 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 Total: 264.96 202653 6/13/2013 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 53 LEOFF reimbursement LEOFF reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.29.00 8,464.50 Total: 8,464.50 202654 6/13/2013 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER MAY GYM MONITOR MILLER 6/5/2013 GYM MONITOR MILLER 6/5/2013 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 35.00 Total: 35.00 202655 6/13/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 168263 LIFT GENIE LIFT GENIE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 335.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 31.83 168773 GAS CAP GAS CAP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.66 Total: 374.51 202656 6/13/2013 072833 MVP MAY 2013 MAY 2013 - EDMONDS PD CD OF POLICE AWARDS CEREMO 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 180.00 Page: 22 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202656 6/13/2013 072833 MVP (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 17.10 Total: 197.10 202657 6/13/2013 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0497820-IN Unit 106 - Filters Unit 106 - Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.28 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.69 0497976-IN Unit 9 - Filter Unit 9 - Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 38.09 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.62 Total: 72.68 202658 6/13/2013 074458 NORTH AMERICAN FILTRATION CO 31384 POOL COVER POOL COVER 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 2,098.74 Freight 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 179.00 Total : 2,277.74 202659 6/13/2013 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 52715 Fleet Shop - Black Pro -Wrap Fleet Shop - Black Pro -Wrap 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 87.12 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 7.83 Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 8.74 Total : 103.69 202660 6/13/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-666986 HICKMAN PARK RENTALS HICKMAN PARK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.88 Page: 23 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202660 6/13/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued) 1-669756 RENTALS MATHAY PARK RENTALS MATHAY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 184.77 1-673988 RENTALS CIVIC FIELD RENTALS CIVIC FIELD 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 Total: 885.00 202661 6/13/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 379 Planning Board minutes for 5/8/13. Planning Board minutes for 5/8/13. 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 288.00 Total: 288.00 202662 6/13/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 018698 KLEENEX KLEENEX 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 44.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 4.24 Total : 48.92 202663 6/13/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 959256 INV#959256 ACCT#520437 250POL DVD+R RECORDABLE DISCS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 35.56 CD-R RECORDABLE DISCS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 34.26 PHOTO PAPERFOR LAB 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 25.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 2.47 Total : 104.90 202664 6/13/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 929002 Water Quality - HP Toner Water Quality - HP Toner Page: 24 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202664 6/13/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC Invoice (Continued) 4I'I:1111101 202665 6/13/2013 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER May, 2013 PO # Description/Account Amount 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 140.85 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.39 PW Office Supplies - Pens, HighlightE PW Office Supplies - Pens, HighlightE 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 65.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 6.21 Total : 225.83 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI• Emergency Medical Services & Traun 001.000.237.120 1,844.55 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 33,683.02 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 166.50 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 115.54 Judicial Information Systems Accounl 001.000.237.180 6,538.27 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 214.21 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 3,614.58 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 688.88 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.237.290 37.77 Multi -Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 37.78 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 183.34 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis Page: 25 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202665 6/13/2013 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER (Continued) 001.000.237.170 244.52 WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 655.47 Total: 48,024.43 202666 6/13/2013 073751 OKANOGAN COUNTRY SHERIFF OKC JAIL MAY 2013 EDMONDS INMATE HOUSING MAY 31 INMATE HOUSING DAYS - MAY 2 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 1,658.50 INMATE MEDICATION 001.000.41.523.60.31.00 1.29 Total: 1,659.79 202667 6/13/2013 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC, PLLC MAY 2013 Hearing Examiner services for May 21 Hearing Examiner services for May 21 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 710.88 Total: 710.88 202668 6/13/2013 064645 OLYMPIC MECHANICAL INC BLD20130602 Online permit, applicant did not get Online permit, applicant did not get 001.000.257.620 75.00 Total: 75.00 202669 6/13/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 3117 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 625.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 59.47 Tota I : 685.42 202670 6/13/2013 073987 OSMONSON, SHANNON OSMONSON 16796 LITTLE FISH 16796 LITTLE FISH 16796 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 502.20 Total: 502.20 202671 6/13/2013 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00067879 Sewer - Service Kit Sewer - Service Kit Page: 26 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202671 6/13/2013 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 85.00 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 11.28 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.15 Total: 105.43 202672 6/13/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 954023036977 FAC - Paint and Supplies FAC - Paint and Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 88.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.37 Total: 96.51 202673 6/13/2013 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 04255 INV 04255 EDMONDS PD - MAY 201 PERSONNEL EVALUATION PROFILI 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 60.00 Total: 60.00 202674 6/13/2013 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20100166.000-23 E2DB.SERVICES THRU 6/2/13 E2DB.Services thru 6/2/13 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 1,454.43 Total: 1,454.43 202675 6/13/2013 074455 PHONON LLC 4-17100 #605997 UTILITY REFUND #605997 Utility Refund due to estimal 411.000.233.000 27.50 Tota I : 27.50 202676 6/13/2013 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 06052013 POSTAGE FOR CITY METER 250-00303 Postage for City Meter 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 8,000.00 Total: 8,000.00 202677 6/13/2013 074441 PLANTE, KEN REF 6-2013 REFUND LICENSE FEES - EDMONE REFUND LATE FEES CHARGED Page: 27 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202677 6/13/2013 074441 PLANTE, KEN (Continued) 001.000.322.30.000.00 30.00 REFUND TAG FEE/NON SR FEES 001.000.322.30.000.00 7.00 Total: 37.00 202678 6/13/2013 071023 POINT EDWARDS LLC Pt Edwards.Refund POINT EDWARDS-TRAFFIC MITIGA Point Edwards -Traffic Mitigation Fee 112.502.68.595.64.49.00 26,427.15 Total: 26,427.15 202679 6/13/2013 072993 PRIMACIO, GEORENE PRIMACIO 16878 PRIMACIO 16878 PRIMACIO 16878 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 165.00 Total: 165.00 202680 6/13/2013 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ 17044 FELDENKRAIS 17044 FELDENKRAIS 17044 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 404.00 Tota I : 404.00 202681 6/13/2013 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 13-407 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,318.75 Total: 3,318.75 202682 6/13/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000136675 INSCRIPTION HUANG INSCRIPTION HUANG 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 240.00 Total: 240.00 202683 6/13/2013 070042 RICOH USA INC 89140067 Rent on reception NP171SPF Renton reception NP171SPF 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66 89183458 Rent on Engineering MPC6000 Rent on Engineering MPC6000 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 443.48 Page: 28 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202683 6/13/2013 070042 RICOH USA INC (Continued) 89183461 Rent on R907EX large copier for billir Rent on R907EX large copier for billir 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 827.00 Total: 1,301.14 202684 6/13/2013 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 1-879157 Unit 304 - Refurbished Motor Core Unit 304 - Refurbished Motor Core 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 356.66 1-879768 Unit 304 - Refurbished Motor Core Unit 304 - Refurbished Motor Core 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 398.00 Tota I : 754.66 202685 6/13/2013 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7911 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 600.00 Total: 600.00 202686 6/13/2013 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY MAY 2013 INVOICE 05/31/13 ACCT#70014 - EE #123677 10 NPC 05/06/13 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 113.20 #762300 2 NPC 05/20/13 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 22.64 Total: 135.84 202687 6/13/2013 072725 SAGACITY CUSTOM PUBLISHING 2013-3633 TOURISM AD IN SEATTLE VISITOR Tourism ad in Seattle Official Visitor 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 1,732.00 Total: 1,732.00 202688 6/13/2013 074463 SANCHEZ, YVETTE SANCHEZ 06112013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 63.00 Total: 63.00 202689 6/13/2013 074454 SANDRA NELSEN 4-37325 #4245-2068838 UTILITY REFUND Page: 29 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202689 6/13/2013 074454 SANDRA NELSEN (Continued) #4245-2068838 Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 179.75 Total: 179.75 202690 6/13/2013 074431 SEATTLE ASBESTOS TEST LLC 201311694 YOST POOL WATER SAMPLE TEST YOST POOL WATER SAMPLE TEST 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 850.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 80.75 201311747 YOST POOL YOST POOL 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 550.00 Total : 1,480.75 202691 6/13/2013 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-227328 Unit 24 - Brake Line Kit Unit 24 - Brake Line Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 56.07 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.33 03-228451 Unit 454 - Automatic Oil Unit 454 - Automatic Oil 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 115.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.94 03-228721 Unit 88 - Brake Shoes and Drums Unit 88 - Brake Shoes and Drums 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 191.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.24 03-229201 Unit 411 - Battery Unit 411 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 84.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.03 03-229445 Unit 104 - Screen Assembly Page: 30 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202691 6/13/2013 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued) Unit 104 - Screen Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.34 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.65 03-230099 Unit 104 - Trans Fluid Unit 104 - Trans Fluid 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 81.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.73 03-230215 Unit 776 - Break Rotors Unit 776 - Break Rotors 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 171.34 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.28 03-230558 Unit 649 - Rear Axle Oil, Oil Additive Unit 649 - Rear Axle Oil, Oil Additive 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 210.86 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.03 03-230729 Unit 37 - Element Assembly Unit 37 - Element Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 53.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.06 03-230801 Unir 37 - Element Assembly Unir 37 - Element Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.72 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.21 03-230891 Unit 25 - Element Assembly, Battery Unit 25 - Element Assembly, Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 97.22 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.24 Page: 31 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202691 6/13/2013 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued) 03-231277 Fleet Brake Fluid Stock Fleet Brake Fluid Stock 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 19.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.90 03-231973 Unit 95 - Battery Unit 95 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 78.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.47 05-462994 Fleet Returns - Brake Line Kit Fleet Returns - Brake Line Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -57.77 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -5.49 05-465060 Fleet Return - Element Assembly Fleet Return - Element Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -53.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -5.06 Total: 1,182.00 202692 6/13/2013 073859 SIMMONS, SHELLY SIMMONS 16858 SUPERSQUAD 16858 SUPERSQUAD 16858 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 360.00 ZUMBATONIC 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 180.00 Total: 540.00 202693 6/13/2013 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52207121 FLOWER PROGRAM FLOWER PROGRAM 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 839.60 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 79.76 Page: 32 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202693 6/13/2013 071725 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC (Continued) Total: 919.36 202694 6/13/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-2646-0 1000 MAIN ST 1000 MAIN ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.27 2022-5063-5 930 9TH AVE N 930 9TH AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.27 Total: 62.54 202695 6/13/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 8.69 Total: 8.69 202696 6/13/2013 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2013-1620 INV#2013-1620 - EDMONDS PD MAY BOOKINGS - 67.33 @ $94.95 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 6,392.98 MAY HOUSING - 404.83 @ $65.94 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 26,694.49 MAY WORK RELEASE - 34 @ $44.3 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 1,506.54 Total: 34,594.01 202697 6/13/2013 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER May 2013 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 930.89 Tota I : 930.89 202698 6/13/2013 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT CEDM 316970 Fleet HEPA/B Vaccine Fleet HEPA/B Vaccine 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 131.00 Total: 131.00 202699 6/13/2013 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 53081 ZULAUF.REPLACE BANDS AND INl< Zulauf.Replace Bands and Ink Pad or 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 29.69 Page: 33 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202699 6/13/2013 038100 038100 SNO-KING STAMP (Continued) Total: 29.69 202700 6/13/2013 074167 SOURCE NORTH AMERICA CORP 1088039 Fleet Fuel Island - Chip Keys Fleet Fuel Island - Chip Keys 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 85.50 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.28 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 8.72 Total: 100.50 202701 6/13/2013 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3248569 Sewer - Supplies Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 231.01 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 21.94 Total: 252.95 202702 6/13/2013 074456 STEPHEN & CAROL WILLOUGHBY 3-06405 #649342 UTILITY REFUND #649342 Utility Refund - received 411.000.233.000 159.60 Total: 159.60 202703 6/13/2013 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3002279759 INV#3002279759 CUST#6076358 - E MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.36 Total: 10.36 202704 6/13/2013 073629 TDS AKA BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS 801-17149 Unit 8 - Tires (2) Unit 8 - Tires (2) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2,426.31 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 230.31 Total: 2,656.62 202705 6/13/2013 063796 TECHNOLOGY UNLIMITED INC 273610 INV#273610 - EDMONDS PD ANNUAL MAIN AGMT CANON DR75 Page: 34 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202705 6/13/2013 063796 TECHNOLOGY UNLIMITED INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 480.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 45.60 Total: 525.60 202706 6/13/2013 073049 TEC-WORKS INC 12331 COARSE WAVELENGTH DIVISION P Transition Networks CWDM-M947LC1 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 3,848.32 Freight 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 14.02 Total: 3,862.34 202707 6/13/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1822381 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3923 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 27.52 1822584 NEWSPAPER ADS Hillman Critical Areas & setback vari. 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 39.56 1822586 NEWSPAPER ADS Six Yr. Trasnpt, Impr. Plan 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 36.12 Total: 103.20 202708 6/13/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1821277 5th Av Vet/PLN20130027 Legals. 5th Av Vet/PLN20130027 Legals. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 79.12 1821983 Farmers Market/AMD20130004 Lega Farmers Market/AMD20130004 Lega 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 32.68 1822724 Parker/PLN20130030 Legals. Parker/PLN20130030 Legals. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 99.76 1822725 Lindberg/PLN20130031 Legals. Lindberg/PLN20130031 Legals. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 72.24 Page: 35 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202708 6/13/2013 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) Total: 283.80 202709 6/13/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 360202 FS 17 - Lav Faucet FS 17 - Lav Faucet 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 245.15 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.32 Total: 280.29 202710 6/13/2013 068407 TROUT UNLIMITED EDMONDS SALMON 1712� BEGINNING FISHING FOR KIDS 17' BEGINNING FISHING FOR KIDS 17' 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 242.00 Total: 242.00 202711 6/13/2013 043935 UPS 00002T4T13223 Shipping - document Shipping - document 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 25.76 shipping - document Rohde 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 6.28 Total: 32.04 202712 6/13/2013 062693 US BANK 5923 PARKING, SUPPLIES, APA CONFER Parking fees while attending meeting: 001.000.61.558.70.43.00 9.00 APA Conference for Director on 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 415.00 Supplies for poster for Business Expc 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 15.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 1.47 Total: 440.97 202713 6/13/2013 062693 US BANK 5179 Amazon - Cisco Networking All-in-Oni Amazon - Cisco Networking All-in-Oni Page: 36 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202713 6/13/2013 062693 US BANK 202714 6/13/2013 062693 US BANK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 30.41 TigerDirect.com - Uninterruptible Pow 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 381.90 Network Solutions - Web address ren 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 184.95 Experts Exchange - IT Solutions Onlir 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 12.95 HP Services - Mobile Windows keybo 001.000.11.511.60.48.00 54.87 APC RBC2 Battery Cartridge #2 for C 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 51.01 5848 WFOA2013 CONFERENCE REGIST Washington Finance Officers Associa 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 425.00 Tota I : 1,141.09 3644 AET MAILING USPS AET mailing 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 44.95 Pentel rolling writer pens 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 12.29 Index dividers 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 7.49 desktop calculator 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 19.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 3.78 3686 JUNE ADVISORY GROUP Coffee traveler for Advisory meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 12.95 Parking for Mayor's conference 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 20.00 Lunch for Ron Cone 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 31.27 Page: 37 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202714 6/13/2013 062693 US BANK (Continued) Mayor's Lunch 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 11.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 1.23 Total: 165.25 202715 6/13/2013 072792 US MARSHALS SERVICE 9363 INV 9363 ACCT 1495 EDMONDS PD EXTRADITION FLIGHT - 4/30/13 FOI 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 1,865.31 Total: 1,865.31 202716 6/13/2013 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 113009243 INV#I13009243 EDM301 - EDMOND7 BACKGROUND CHECKS MAY 2013 001.000.237.100 412.50 Total: 412.50 202717 6/13/2013 045912 WASPC INV024952 INV024952 EDMONDS PD - WASPC SPRING CONF REG - COMPAAN 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 300.00 SPRING CONF REG - LAWLESS 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 300.00 SPRING CONF REG - ANDERSON 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 300.00 Total: 900.00 202718 6/13/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5925 WINDOW ENVELOPES WINDOW ENVELOPES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 70.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 6.70 Total: 77.20 202719 6/13/2013 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 123470 PROLFIC DG PROLFIC DG 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,144.12 Page: 38 vchlist 06/13/2013 7:49:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 39 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202719 6/13/2013 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 108.69 Total: 1,252.81 202720 6/13/2013 074460 WSU FOUNDATION WSU FOUNDATION HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT PLE Pledge for Health Impact Assessment 001.000.11.550.10.49.00 5,000.00 Total: 5,000.00 202721 6/13/2013 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0162588 PARKS (NO DOGS SIGNS) PARKS (NO DOGS SIGNS) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 89.40 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.45 Total: 108.94 137 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 1,006,525.45 137 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,006,525.45 Page: 39 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 6/12/2013 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 6/12/2013 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WWTP N/A c385 WWTP Switchgear Upgrade EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support KWTR EOIA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program OLAr c32 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs S ers Roundabout (212th Street Sa@ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neiahborhood Traffic Calmina 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Wal SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FA c336 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1 FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects tormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives E1 FN rrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Waterlitormwater Revenue Requirements Update nowSewer, WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with nwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study 1111�PRV Station 11 a Bandon WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program E1JK In Street Watermain STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program Pioneer Way Road Repai STIR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlav Proiect STM E2FA STM E2FC Revised 6/12/2013 c378 North Talbot Road Draina SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Funding Number STM E2FE SWR E2GB EYA STM E3FB Project Accounting Number Project Title c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c369J&12 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c406 1%013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects AW E3FC c408 ��reek Stor�v Reductrofit Sfudy STM EYD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) orthstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements * _ WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program OVD Watermain Improvements W STIR E61DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program E7AA Main Street LightipiLand Sidewalk Enhancements STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements _ E7CB hell Valley Emergency Ak. STM E7FG m013 NPDES E7MA 15ayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01/08) E8GC NSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD c301 City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA ourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking 2009 Street Overlay Program STIR E91DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 6/12/2013 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 6/12/2013 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 WWTP c385 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 Revised 6/12/2013 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 N/A E2CA E2CB E2GB E2AA E2AB E3JA E3GA E2CC E2AC E2AD E YA E3FB E3FC E3FD E3FE E7AC 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 WWTP Switchgear Upgrade 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 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 6/12/2013 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 6/12/2013 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 STR 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 STR 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 STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA WWTP WWTP Switchgear Upgrade c385 N/A STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 6/12/2013 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-5844 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: Review Committee: Type: City Clerk's Office Action Information Subject Title Approval of 2013 Taxicab Operator's License for North End Taxi. Recommendation Committee Action: 3. C. It is recommended that the City Council approve the 2013 Taxicab Opearator's License for North End Taxi. Previous Council Action Taxicab Operator's Licenses are issued annually. Narrative Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60 requires that the City Council approve Taxicab Operator's Licenses. A copy of the license application for North End Taxi is attached. In addition, the Police Department reviewed the application, vehicles and drivers, and recommended the applicant be allowed to continue through the application process. Attachments 2013 Taxicab Operator's License Application - North End Taxi Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 06/11/2013 03:17 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/12/2013 03:37 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/11/2013 03:05 PM Final Approval Date: 06/12/2013 Of LD.tij� CIVE CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICATION — TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60 MAY 2 8 2013 Name of taxicab business: Tac—T�ey Inc nBA Morth End Taxi TV CTTV Name of Applicant: Linda `T Ilawley Driver's License No.: First Name Aliddlelnitial last Address: 16409 20th Avenue West Street Address Lynnwood, TPA 98037 City State Zip Place of Birth: Tacoma, WA Date of Birth: Please list name and address changes that have occurred within the last two years preceding the current information: Previous Employment for Past Two Years: Employer: Tac—Key Inc Address: 16409 20th AVe- West, Lynnwood Telephone Number: 4 2 5 — 7 7 5 — 9 9 9 9 Dates of Employment. 12 /15 / 7 5 thru current Employer: _ Address: Telephone Number: Dates of Employment: Attach additional sheet if necessary. Previous Record as a Taxicab Driver or Operator: Have yo fiver be lice wed as to e driver r o erator? Xe Yes 6 No If yes, explain: ling Fount r Saea't e, 1°yt'nwood Where:Edmonds, yi cake- Terrace., Everett W}1en_12/15/75 thru current Has this license ever been suspended, revoked, or denied? 8 Yes v 6 No If yes, for what cause: Record of Conviction:(Note: All criminal, driving and all other court histories will be checked) Have you ever been convicted of or forfeited bail for a crime, including all traffic offenses, for the preceding five years? 6 Yes 6 No If yes, give a detailed account of the charge, the approximate date, the name of the Court, and the final disposition of the charge or charges: Information on Vehicles to be Operated: List of vehicles is on file in the City Make: Clerk's Office. Vehicle Identification No.: Make: Vehicle Identification No.: Vehicle License No.: Make: Year: Model: Vehicle Identification No.: Vehicle License No.: Make: Year: Model: Vehicle Identification No.: Vehicle License No.: Attach additional sheet if necessa?yt RIB List of Proposed Drivers (MUST BE KEPT CURRENT): List of drivers is on file in the City Name: Clerk's Office. Address: Date of Birth: Name: Driver's License Number: Address: Date of Birth: Name: Driver's License Number: Address: Date of Birth: .4ttach additional sheet if necessary. Financial Status of Applicant: List any and all unpaid judgments and the nature of the transaction or acts giving rise to such judgment: Please attach Proof of Insurance as required by EC Sect�ion�4.60.100. �:� Signature of Applicant: r Date: Subscribed and sworn before e this 1�2 day of 200 ;7_ 01 NOTARY PUBLIC(Signature) STATE OF WASHINGTON Al LkDW i MARK LUDWIG not ame My Appointment Expires1 NOTARY PUBLIC NOVEMBER 12, 201 S �/ l�- e �o%b My appointment expires: ISSUANCE OF LICENSE FEES: Initial Application Fee for Taxicab Operator's License (for investigation).............................................................. $100.00 Plus for each taxicab to be operated in the City of Edmonds ................ .......... $ 0.00 Or after June M the fee for each taxicab shall be.................................................................................. $15.00 Plus for each driver ($5 licensing fee plus $20 investigation fee)... ................................................................ $25.00 Renewal for Taxicab Operator's License (for each taxicab to be operated in the City of Edmonds) ......................... $30.00 For each previously licensed driver...................................................................................................................$5.00 New drivers pay the $5 licensing fee and the $20 investigation fee............................................................... $25.00 TOTAL FEES PAID: TREASURER'S RECEIPT NU ER: t J:,r .,n $� i. 0 3 - �18�c�3_oL:�lg_zwgf�v �'9k C 1q.-O'VI G�%9�-00le OVV f 1 D 1()-mil r jUvvi2 CONDITIONS: Yes ❑ No If yes, describe: City Clerk: Date: _cnoe METER RATES RATE METER DROP $2m5O MILEAGE PR MEE $2m 0 WAIT TIM MIENPR .60 EXTRAOVER EACH PASSENGER EXCLUDNG CHILDRCHILDREN R�2 ■ � O ACORD,, CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE °12/06/20° 2 PRODUCER Phone: (206)420-4270 Key Insurance, LLC THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 5200 Southcenter Blvd Suite 110 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Tukwila, WA 98188 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co INSURED Tac Key Inc. DBA North End Taxi INSURER B., 16409 20th Avenue West INSURERC: Lynnwood, WA 98037 INSURER D:INSURERS COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADD1 POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LTR INSRO TYEE OF IN UPANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE IMMIDDIM LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE S COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS MADE F—IOCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES Ea occurence S MED EXP Any oneperson) S PERSONAL BADVINJURY S GENERAL AGGREGATE S GEN'LAGGREGATELIMITAPPLIESPER- PRODUCTS -COMP/OPAGG $ POLICY F1 TAI= A N AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANYAUTO CA00040250 112/0312012 12/03/2013 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ 350,000 BODILY INJURY I (Per person) X ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULEOAUTOS S BODILY INJURY (Per accident) HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNEDAUTOS S PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) S GARAGE UAB11M AUTO ONLY- EA ACCIDENT S OTHER THAN EA ACC S ANY AUTO S AUTO ONLY: AGG EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE S OCCUR CLAIMS MADE _ AGGREGATE $ S $ DEDUCTIBLE S RETENTION $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND &STATU- OTH- EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNER/E(ECUTNE EL EACH ACCIDENT S E.L. DISEASE- EA EMPLOYEE S OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below I E.L DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT S OTHER � I A UIM CA00040250 12103,2012 1-03/2013 1001300 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS / VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS Evidence of insurance per the attached list of vehicles 01 a:ll l [;I LeLl City of Edmonds Civic Center 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 A anon 1! MnnA /neI SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR n, APVYor% P/l00ll0AT7f ki 11000 Printed by KKY on December 06, 2012 at 11:39AM AM-5869 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Subiect Title April 2013 Monthly Financial Report Recommendation N.A. For informational purposes only. Previous Council Action N.A. Narrative April 2013 Monthly Financial Report Inbox Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sarah Mager Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 Reviewed By Roger Neumaier Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Submitted By: Sarah Mager Type: Tnfnrm atinn Attachments Form Review Information Date 06/13/2013 01:38 PM 06/13/2013 02:32 PM 06/13/2013 02:34 PM 06/13/2013 02:38 PM Started On: 06/13/2013 01:31 PM 3. D. APRIL 2013 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT r117C 1$9" General Fund activity through April brought a deficit of $2.3 million to fund balances, while the first quarter brought a deficit of $4.2 million. The general fund deficit change from March to April is due mainly to tax revenue received in April. Several specific revenue line items are tracking ahead of budget so far through April. These include Natural Gas Tax (45% of budget), Electric Utility Tax (43% of budget), Gas Utility Tax (46% of budget), Amusements (72% of budget), Franchise Fees (average of 42% of budget), General Business License (84% of budget), Non -Resident Business License (69% of budget), and Real Estate Excise Tax (48% of budget). At the end of April, 33% of the year had expired. Overall, General Fund expenditures are on track with 34% of budget spent to date. Salaries and Wages for all departments are at 33% of budget, and Overtime is at 25% of budget. FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD 001-General Fund $ 4,829,369 $ 956,051 $ 2,880,308 $ (3,873,318) $ (1,949,061) 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 387,319 294,688 266,128 (92,631) (121,191) 011-Risk Management Fund 244,000 - - (244,000) (244,000) 012 - Contingency Reserve Fund 5,283,425 5,284,522 5,284,868 1,097 1,443 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,859 55,859 (0) (0) 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,064 945 955 (119) (110) 016-Building Maintenance 213,999 213,551 213,495 (448) (504) Total General Fund $ 11,015,035 $ 6,805,616 $ 8,701,611 $ (4,209,419) $ (2,313,424) General Fund 14 12 $11.02 10 $8.70 8 $6.81 ❑ General c c 6 - Fund 4 - 2 Dec2012 Mar2013 ADr2013 1 APRIL 2013 DASHBOARD YEAR TO DATE TREND COMPARED TO PROJECTIONS REFERENCE GENERAL FUND REVENUES General Fund Revenue Positive 21.66% Page 9 Sales & Use Tax Revenue Positive 2.59% Page 10 Gas Utility Tax Revenue V Negatived -13.64% Page 10 Telephone Utility Tax Revenue Neutral 110 1.05% Page 11 Electric Utility Tax Revenue Neutral 110 1.59% Page 11 EXPENDITURES General Fund Expenditures Page 12 NON -GENERAL FUND REVENUES Real Estate Excise Tax Positive 65.97% 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 April brought a deficit of $834,065 to fund balances. The General Fund was responsible for a deficit of $2.3 million, the special revenue funds for an increase of $1.5 million, and the remaining was due to an increase of $5,923 in the debt service funds. Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances - Combined 14 18 12 $14.56 $11.02 $13.72 10 $11.74 $g 70 General 12 c 8 Fund c $6.81 (Special 6 Revenue $5.00 Debt 6 4 Service $3.53 2 - L . 2 $0.02 Dec2012 Mar2013 Apr2013 Dec2012 Mar2013 Apr2013 3 CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD General Fund $ 11,015,035 $ 6,805,616 $ 8,701,611 $ (4,209,419) $ (2,313,424) Special Revenue 3,530,072 4,921,020 5,003,508 1,390,948 1,473,436 Debt Service 11,014 16,935 16,937 5,921 5,923 Governmental Funds $ 14,556,121 $ 11,743,571 $ 13,722,056 $ (2,812,550) $ (834,065) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW Activity in all special revenue funds year-to-date brought an increase of $1.5 million. The graph below shows the total fund balances for all nineteen special revenue funds as of December 2012, March 2013, and the current ending balance as of April 2013. Special Revenue Funds 6 $4.92 $5.00 5 4 N 0 3 Specia I Revenue 2 1 Dec2012 Mar2013 Apr2013 4 FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- Special Revenue ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW Utility Fund Activity through April brought a deficit of $285,103 in the Enterprise Funds. 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 Enterprise Funds- Fund Balances 43,942,247 43,697,210 ,592 +421- Water Utility Fund 43,056,304 t422 - Storm Utility Fund 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 7, Dec 2012 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 26 0 ENTERPRISE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 12,322,592 $ 12,698,431 $ 12,682,626 $ 375,839 $ 360,034 422 - Storm Utility Fund 7,552,075 7,800,453 7,792,880 248,378 240,805 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,942,247 43,697,210 43,056,304 (245,037) (885,943) Enterprise Funds $ 63,816,914 $ 64,196,094 $ 63,531,811 $ 379,180 $ (285,103 $47, 800,000 $ 37, 800,000 $ 27, 800,000 $17, 800,000 $7,800,000 $(2,200,000) Enterprise Fund Balances as of April 30, 2013 Water Utility Fund Storm Utility Fund Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 5 SUMMARY OVERVIEW At the end of April, 33% of the year had expired. Year-to-date activity brought a deficit of $872,736 to the City - Wide fund balances, bringing the total to $84.2 million. Of the year-to-date deficit, a deficit of $822,140 was generated by governmental funds, a deficit of $210,813 was generated by Enterprise (Utility) Funds, an increase of $208,859 was generated by Internal Service Funds, and a deficit of $48,643 was generated by the Pension Trust Fund. CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES CITY-WIDE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31/2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD Governmental Funds $ 14,556,121 $ 11,743,571 $ 13,733,981 $ (2,812,550) $ (822,140) Enterprise Funds 63,816,914 64,253,540 63,606,101 436,626 (210,813) Internal Services Fund 6,463,723 6,598,033 6,672,582 134,310 208,859 Pension Trust Fund 216,693 177,991 168,050 (38,702) (48,643) City-wide Total j $ 85,053,451 $ 82,773,134 $ 84,180,715 j $ (2,280,317) $ (872,736) Governmental Fund Balances as of April 30, 2013 Limited Tax G.O. Bond Fund $681 L.I.D. Guaranty Fund .1 $22,241 Business Improvement District Fund $11,925 Sister City Commission $8,649 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 1 $921 612 Parks Trust Fund $150,089 Parks Construction Fund 1 $8,26,530 Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement $46,093 Special Projects Fund $13,792 Gifts Catalog Fund $227 97 Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq $61 ,737 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 1,261,840 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts $66,098 Youth Scholarship Fund $14,846 Employee Parking Permit Fund 1 $75,750 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund $116,690 Memorial Street Fund $17,674 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund $418, 99 Combined Street Const/Improve $73 514 Street Fund $110,621 Drug Enforcement Fund $133,205 General Fund 8 701,611 $1 $ 2,000,000 Q INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW Internal Service Fund activity through April brought an increase of $208,859. We began the year with a fund balance of $6.5 million and currently at the end of April; we see an ending fund balance of $6.7 million. Internal Service Fund Balances 6.46 $6.60 $6.67 6 5 4 511-Equipment Rental Fund 3 2 1 Dec2012 Mar2013 Apr2013 7 FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD 511 -Equipment Rental Fund $ 6,463,723 $ 6,598,033 $ 6,672,582 $ 134,310 $ 208,859 Internal Service Funds $ 6,463,723 $ 6,598,033 $ 6,672,582 $ 134,310 $ 208,859 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 April 30, 2013 (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity/ Call* Yield to Weighted (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Various $15,027,724 Various 0.17% 0.135% 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% 0.016% 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 6/28/2013 0.90% 0.049% 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2013 0.75% 0.040% 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 3/19/2013 0.54% 0.029% 0.27% 0.270% % of Total Summary 81.1 % Current 6-month treasury rate 0.08% 2.7% Current State Pool rate 0.17% 16.2% Blended Edmonds rate 0.27% 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 5,680,288 12.04% April 7,688,984 2,619,174 9,354,134 21.66% 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 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 21.66% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance listed above is due to the several general fund revenue line items that are tracking ahead of budget at the end of April. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2013 Real Estate Excise Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 55,653 $ 88,310 129,657 187,545 241,350 303,047 363,652 430,206 492,808 555,912 604,828 650,000 1200000 55,653 $ 69,441 24.77% 32,657 115,535 30.83% 1000000 41,347 257,285 98.43% 800000 57,887 311,272 65.97% 53,805 600000 61,697 60,605 400000 66,554 200000 62,602 Real Estate Excise Tax 63,105 0 48,916 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 45,172 ---*--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 65.97%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 Sales and Use Tax Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 6000000 January $ 390,013 $ 390,013 $ 406,956 4.34% 5000000 February 884,364 494,351 894,736 1.17% 4000000 March 1,235,989 351,625 1,265,893 2.42% April 1,600,252 364,263 1,641,662 2.59% 3000000 May 2,031,316 431,064 June 2,414,769 383,453 2000000 July 2,801,571 386,802 1000000 August 3,255,906 454,335 September 3,657,629 401,723 0 October 4,069,329 411,700 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC November 4,525,665 456,336 December 4,913,150 387,485 --4--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 2.59% 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 Gas Utility Tax Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 900000 January $ 112,509 $ 112,509 $ 94,836-15.71% 800000 February 230,573 118,064 220,665 -4.30% 700000 March 338,041 107,468 303,170-10.32% 600000 April 428,064 90,023 369,694-13.64% 500000 May 504,039 75,974 400000 June 561,033 56,994 July 602,742 41,709 300000 August 632,326 29,584 200000 September 659,759 27,432 100000 October 688,968 29,210 0 November 738,628 49,660 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 811,174 72,546 ---Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of-13.64% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The Budget Forecast is taken from a five year average. Due to higher revenues in 2008-2009, the variance from forecast to actual is is greater. 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 l0uk"W 95,577 $ 134,596 40.82% 1400000 133,773 252,444 10.07% 1200000 147,142 366,495 -2.66% 102,564 484,087 1.05% 1000000 129,705 800000 104,465 600000 140,733 400000 135,459 102,643 200000 164,714 0 Telephone Utility Tax 93,146 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 179,578 tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 1.05% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2013 Flectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 151,925 $ 151,925 $ 153,240 February 320,049 168,124 326,077 March 474,600 154,551 487,478 April 631,769 157,169 641,845 May 769,731 137,963 June 882,641 112,909 July 989,535 106,895 August 1,081,971 92,436 September 1,180,465 98,494 October 1,265,812 85,346 November 1,372,881 107,070 December 1,475,638 102,757 10umut) 0.87/ 1400000 1.88 2 71% 1200000 1.59 % 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 *The variance of 1.59% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Electric Utility Tax JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --#---Actuals/Trend Budget 11 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals i F General Fund January $ 3,211,752 $ 3,211,752 $4,106,837 27.87% February 5,660,240 2,448,488 5,821,040 2.84% March 7,874,761 2,214,521 9,553,606 21.32% April 10,938,142 3,063,381 11,303,195 3.34% May 12,920,118 1,981,976 June 16,195,870 3,275,752 July 18,970,269 2,774,399 August 21,423,098 2,452,829 September 24,244,769 2,821,671 October 26,551,229 2,306,460 November 29,074,901 2,523,672 December 32,959,503 3,884,602 18000000 12000000 6000000 *The variance of 3.34% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Oa JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC tActuals/Trend Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2013 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals r Non -Departmental 14000000 January $ 1,818,292 $ 1,818,292 $ 2,450,235 34.75% 12000000 February 2,358,291 539,999 2,488,604 5.53% March 2,684,562 326,271 4,520,241 68.38% 10000000 April 3,827,781 1,143,219 4,569,788 19.38% 8000000 May 4,037,949 210,168 June 5,809,316 1,771,367 6000000 July 6,611,919 802,602 4000000 August 6,990,130 378,211 September 7,896,141 906,011 2000000 October 8,278,209 382,068 0 November 8,689,214 411,005 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 11,467,569 2,778,355 ---0--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 19.38%listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to the 2nd quarter Fire District #1 payment made in March 2013. 12 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2013 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals City COUriCIl 300000 Office of Mayor 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC �Actuals/Trend Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2013 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Human Resources Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 300000 January $ 21,417 $ 21,417 $ 19,264 -10.05% 250000 February 43,437 22,020 39,680 -8.65% March 71,550 28,113 59,024 -17.51% 200000 April 94,953 23,403 84,440 -11.07% May 119,752 24,799 150000 June 141,891 22,139 July 165,641 23,750 100000 August 186,678 21,037 50000 September 212,715 26,036 +00-4 October 233,346 20,631 0 November 254,495 21,149 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 287,190 32,695 tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of-11.07% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2013 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals Municipal Court 800000 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 400000 Economic Development/Community Services 600000 City Clerk 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC �Actuals/Trend Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services 2013 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals 1000000 January $ 41,302 $ 41,302 $ 92,733 124.53% February 107,298 65,997 139,675 30.17% 800000 March 158,751 51,453 195,470 23.13% April 207,167 48,416 243,433 17.51% 600000 May 262,166 54,999 June 315,619 53,452 400000 July 362,425 46,806 August 424,811 62,386 200000 September 471,078 46,267 October 532,480 61,402 0 Information Services November 602,576 70,096 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 723,534 120,958 +Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 17.51 % 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 YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals 1000000 January $ 72,772 $ 72,772 $ 57,510 -20.97% February 139,622 66,850 132,734 -4.93% 800000 March 202,376 62,753 195,061 -3.61% April 261,262 58,886 288,223 10.32% 600000 May 319,205 57,944 June 386,389 67,183 400000 July 447,973 61,584 August 502,922 54,949 200000 September 563,970 61,048 October 632,771 68,802 0 Finance November 699,652 66,881 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 768,484 68,832 Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 10.32% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance *The variance shown above is due to overtime and temporary contract work utilized until the permanent Finance Director position was filled. 16 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2013 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals 500000 City Attorney City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2013 ent Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % Development Services January $ 130,011 $ 130,011 $ 134,416 3.39% February 261,991 131,980 262,483 0.19% March 406,268 144,277 425,124 4.64% April 539,522 133,254 535,005 -0.84% May 673,721 134,199 June 805,445 131,724 July 931,841 126,396 August 1,069,195 137,354 September 1,204,663 135,468 October 1,348,572 143,909 November 1,481,034 132,462 December 1,619,042 138,008 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 4 wo- o JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -.84% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2013 Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 218,823 $ 218,823 $ 206,466 -5.65% February 455,695 236,872 441,862 -3.04% March 711,038 255,343 687,221 -3.35% April 958,565 247,527 940,767 -1.86% May 1,214,257 255,692 June 1,530,104 315,847 July 1,920,254 390,150 August 2,310,306 390,052 September 2,615,670 305,363 October 2,863,419 247,750 November 3,094,270 230,851 December 3,398,517 304,247 1500000 1000000 500000 0 *The variance of -1.86% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Parks & Recreation JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actuals/Trend Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2013 Public Works Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 27,007 $ 27,007 $ 26,193 -3.01% February 52,806 25,799 53,241 0.82% March 79,315 26,509 80,244 1.17% April 104,820 25,505 106,672 1.77% May 130,712 25,892 June 156,718 26,006 July 192,014 35,296 August 217,880 25,866 September 244,097 26,217 October 270,921 26,824 November 295,226 24,305 December 324,517 29,291 400000 Public Works 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 1.77% 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 % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 106,672 $ 220,921 343,665 478,949 552,523 670,350 775,460 878,941 997,041 1,099,774 1,211,822 1,344,159 1400000 106,672 $ 98,355 -7.80% 1200000 114,249 209,083 -5.36% 122,743 320,411 -6.77% 1000000 135,284 434,291 -9.32% 800000 73,574 117,826 600000 105,110 400000 103,481 118,100 200000 102,733 0 Facilities Maintenance 112,048 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 132,337 --#---Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -9.32% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 19 e ri City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 114,876 $ 230,249 344,770 468,067 577,602 692,761 811,020 927,980 1,048,722 1,171, 901 1,285,284 1,394,458 1400000 114,876 $ 116,885 1.75% 1200000 115,373 232,112 0.81% 114,522 347,757 0.87% 1000000 123,296 462,638 -1.16% 800000 109,535 115,159 600000 118,259 400000 116,960 120,742 200000 123,179 0 Engineering 113,383 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 109,174 --#--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -1.16% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 20 CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Adopted Budget 4/30/2013 Revenues Variance 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,858,589 $ 9,354,134 $ (23,504,455) 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 350,350 91 (350,259) 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 418,200 220,100 (198,100) 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 123,223 1,443 (121,780) 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 691 (14,309) 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,900 59 (56,841) 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,175 17,240 (2,935) III STREET FUND 1,406,800 456,437 (950,363) 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,223,755 762,877 (5,460,878) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 59,891 6,563 (53,328) 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 27 5 (22) 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 52,870 15,897 (36,973) 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,120 5,687 (12,433) 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,025 14 (2,011) 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 12,348 (6,652) 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 662,600 311,571 (351,029) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 650,600 311,380 (339,220) 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 20,483 18,661 (1,822) 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 166,187 (56,613) 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,950 32,761 (87,189) 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,010,350 143,231 (1,867,119) 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 228 216 (13) 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 14,600 3,875 (10,725) 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,517 2 (3,515) 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 202,657 (442,343) 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND - 11,925 11,925 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 5,916 (16,214) 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 22,230 7 (22,223) 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 - (1,009,902) 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 74,291 74,291 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,625,680 1,773,207 (8,852,473) 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,486,716 1,182,378 (2,304,338) 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 11,020,123 2,731,502 (8,288,621) 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,361,972 461,053 (900,919) 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 45,400 52 (45,348) % Received 28 0 53 1 5 0 85 32 12 11 18 30 31 1 91 75 31 1 21 CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Adopted Budget 4/30/2013 Expenditures Variance 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,959,503 $ 11,303,195 $ (21,656,308) 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,400 121,283 (498,117) Ol l RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 661,000 464,100 (196,900) 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 800 (14,200) 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,000 563 (204,437) 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,033 2,658 (77,375) Ill STREET FUND 1,557,715 459,962 (1,097,753) 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,324,984 212,270 (6,112,714) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 139,800 8,906 (130,894) 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 68,500 5,106 (63,394) 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,726 1,429 (25,297) 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 1,113 (2,887) 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 2,249 (16,751) 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,286,500 34,623 (1,251,877) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 668,534 - (668,534) 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 32,317 7,163 (25,154) 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 12,586 (210,214) 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 152,761 40,262 (112,499) 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,093,200 3,054 (2,090,146) 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 135 (4,466) 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 202,657 (442,343) 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) 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 9,201,851 1,413,173 (7,788,678) 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,565,772 941,573 (3,624,199) 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 16,830,109 3,617,445 (13,212,664) 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,095,372 252,195 (843,177) 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 108,790 48,694 (60,096) $ 80,620,299 $ 19,157,193 $ (61,463,106) % S 31% 22 CITY OF EDMONDS CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - S UMMARY Fund 1/1/2013 2013 2013 4/30/2013 No. Title Beg. Balance Revenues Expenditures Difference End. Balance 001 GENERALFUND $ 4,829,369 $ 9,354,134 $ 11,303,195 $ (1,949,061) $ 2,880,308 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 387,319 91 121,283 (121,191) 266,128 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 244,000 220,100 464,100 (244,000) - 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5,283,425 1,443 - 1,443 5,284,868 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 55,859 - - - 55,859 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 1,064 691 800 (109) 955 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 213,999 59 563 (504) 213,495 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 11,015,035 9,576,517 11,889,941 (2,313,423) 8,701,611 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 118,622 17,240 2,658 14,583 133,205 III STREET FUND 114,146 456,437 459,962 (3,525) 110,621 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (477,093) 762,877 212,270 550,606 73,514 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 421,142 6,563 8,906 (2,343) 418,799 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,669 5 - 5 17,674 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 105,899 15,897 5,106 10,790 116,690 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 71,492 5,687 1,429 4,258 75,750 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 15,945 14 1,113 (1,099) 14,846 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 55,999 12,348 2,249 10,099 66,098 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 984,892 311,571 34,623 276,948 1,261,840 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ 308,357 311,380 - 311,380 619,737 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 216,473 18,661 7,163 11,498 227,971 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (139,809) 166,187 12,586 153,600 13,792 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 53,593 32,761 40,262 (7,500) 46,093 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 686,352 143,231 3,054 140,178 826,530 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 149,873 216 - 216 150,089 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 817,737 3,875 - 3,875 821,612 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 8,781 2 135 (132) 8,649 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 202,657 202,657 - - 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND - 11,925 - 11,925 11,925 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 3,496 5,916 - 5,916 9,412 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 22,234 7 - 7 22,241 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND (15,397) - - - (15,397) 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, 681 - - - 681 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 74,291 - 74,291 74,291 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 12,322,592 1,773,207 1,413,173 360,034 12,682,626 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,552,075 1,182,378 941,573 240,805 7,792,880 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 43,942,247 2,731,502 3,617,445 (885,943) 43,056,304 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 6,463,723 461,053 252,195 208,859 6,672,582 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 216,693 52 48,694 (48,642) 168,050 TOTALALLFUNDS $ 85,053,451 $ 18,284,457 $ 19,1579193 $ (872,736) $ 84,1809715 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 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Page 1 of 3 %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX $ 9,781,109 $ 1,885,738 $ (7,895,371) 19% EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,775,282 584,313 (2,190,969) 21% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 916,103 185,918 (730,185) 20% LOCAL RETAIL SALES✓USE TAX 4,913,150 1,641,662 (3,271,488) 33% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 8,706 3,880 (4,826) 45% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 520,417 185,249 (335,168) 36% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,475,638 641,845 (833,793) 43% GASUTILITYTAX 811,174 369,694 (441,480) 46% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 287,710 99,793 (187,917) 35% WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 904,613 271,544 (633,069) 30% SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 155,496 (314,504) 33% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 274,600 104,112 (170,488) 38% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 730,910 196,078 (534,832) 27% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,529,498 484,087 (1,045,411) 32% PULLTABS TAX 61,385 24,510 (36,875) 40% AMUSEMENT GAMES 731 100 (631) 14% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 212,350 53,966 (158,384) 25% PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES - - 0% 25,673,376 6,887,984 (18,785,392) 27% LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 5,555 4,400 (1,155) 79% PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI 1,030 300 (730) 29% AMUSEMENTS 6,060 4,350 (1,710) 72% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 627,816 167,992 (459,824) 27% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 95,806 43,825 (51,981) 46% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK 8,287 5,710 (2,577) 69% FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO - 5,000 5,000 0% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 214,415 52,692 (161,723) 25% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 106,297 89,650 (16,647) 84% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 18,422 7,245 (11,177) 39% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 39,274 27,050 (12,224) 69% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,500 9,773 273 103% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 345,436 99,995 (245,441) 29% ANIMAL LICENSES 13,205 4,370 (8,835) 33% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 50,000 3,909 (46,091) 8% OT R NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S 7,070 3,601 (3,469) 51 % DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE - - - 0% 1,548,173 529,862 (1,018,311) 34% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 1,191 - (1,191) 0% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 10,000 1,480 (8,520) 15% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 6,000 776 (5,224) 13% SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - 250 250 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 185,181 - (185,181) 0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 8,828 4,562 (4,266) 52% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE 12,572 3,134 (9,438) 25% CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 33,290 17,090 (16,200) 51% DUI - CITIES 7,704 3,597 (4,107) 47% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 20,000 - (20,000) 0% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 301,761 89,450 (212,311) 30% SHARED COURT COSTS 3,030 - (3,030) 0% MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD 1,500 - (1,500) 0% 591,057 120,339 (469,218) 20% 25 Title C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Page 2 of 3 %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,065 266 (799) 25% D/M COURT REC SER 172 14 (158) 8% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN 188 47 (141) 25% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 72 68 (4) 95% PHOTOCOPIES 4,572 1,075 (3,497) 24% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,500 1,501 (2,999) 33% ASSESSMENT SEARCH 5 - (5) 0% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 100,000 31,160 (68,840) 31% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,011 - (1,011) 0% SNO-ISLE 57,236 36,542 (20,694) 64% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 9,571 3,500 (6,071) 37% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 - (26,000) 0% OCDETF OVERTIME - 1,800 1,800 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 11,615 - (11,615) 0% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 11,770 (24,230) 33% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 2,750 - (2,750) 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 532 382 (150) 72% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 27,808 13,304 (14,504) 48% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 16,300 (43,700) 27% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 165 - (165) 0% BOOKING FEES 5,711 1,796 (3,915) 31 % FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,577 2,130 (3,447) 38% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 23,976 4,343 (19,633) 18% DUI EMERGENCY AID 67 - (67) 0% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 814,318 412,923 (401,395) 51% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 496 35 (461) 7% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 698 180 (518) 26% CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,360 1,516 (2,844) 35% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,624 412 (1,212) 25% FIBER SERVICES 36,438 10,960 (25,478) 30% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,272 2,400 (4,872) 33% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 213 394 181 185% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 1,740 (4,876) 26% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 38,000 23,985 (14,015) 63% PLAN CHECKING FEES 216,457 73,743 (142,714) 34% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,911 650 (2,261) 22% PLANNING 1%INSPECTION FEE 1,200 75 (1,125) 6% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 3,395 (1,605) 68% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 12,000 4,960 (7,040) 41% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,921 3,691 (7,230) 34% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 56,000 - (56,000) 0% GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES 5,500 2,274 (3,226) 41% LOCKER FEES 300 - (300) 0% SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 (32,000) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 - (69,300) 0% PROGRAM FEES 780,000 253,643 (526,357) 33% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 115,500 51,634 (63,866) 45% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 31,600 - (31,600) 0% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 660 - (660) 0% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 1.520.248 575.683 (944.565) 38% 26 Title C ITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Page 3 of 3 %Received FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,214 3,182 (7,032) 31% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 24,000 8,290 (15,710) 35% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 213,000 78,135 (134,865) 37% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 20,086 5,979 (14,107) 30% SPEEDING DOUBLE 77 77 (0) 100% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,034 - (2,034) 0% OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 1,002 725 (277) 72% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 31,592 14,946 (16,646) 47% PR -HANDICAPPED 794 - (794) 0% PARKING INFRACTION LOC 404 - (404) 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 3,000 733 (2,267) 24% DWI PENALTIES 9,200 301 (8,899) 3% DUI - DP ACCT 415 667 252 161% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 8 - (8) 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 10,000 (23,000) 30% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT - 74 74 0% OT HER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 539 61 (478) 11 % OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 14,000 (2,320) (16,320) -17% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,491 532 (959) 36% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - 57 57 0% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 113,265 32,244 (81,021) 28% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 40,000 7,706 (32,294) 19% COURT INT ERP RET ER COST S 292 36 (257) 12% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 7,444 2,630 (4,814) 35% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 485 1,510 1,025 311% 526,342 165,565 (360,777) 31% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 8,000 144 (7,856) 2% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,250 387 (863) 31% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,491 1,080 (4,411) 20% PARKING 8,790 3,160 (5,630) 36% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 140,000 19,962 (120,038) 14% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 3,040 2,440 (600) 80% LEASES LONG-TERM 143,000 56,937 (86,063) 40% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 4,500 1,007 (3,493) 22% OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES 6,200 1,125 (5,075) 18% PARKS DONATIONS 4,300 7,500 3,200 174% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,400 200 (1,200) 14% PARKS GRANTS- PRIVATE SOURCES - 1,235 1,235 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,486 - (1,486) 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 1,750 1,592 (158) 91% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - 358 358 0% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 465 40 (425) 9% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 44 1 (43) 2% OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 2,572 (428) 86% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 66 2 (64) 3% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 182 30 (152) 16% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 978 233 (745) 24% NSF FEES- POLICE 91 - (91) 0% NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - 90 90 0% 334,033 100,092 (234,031) 30% 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 S 9,354,134 $ (23,503,045) 28% 27 This page is intentionally left blank. W:3 Title SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME HOLIDAY BUY BACK BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE EXCISE TAXES INT ERFUND TRANSFER (009,111,112,116) MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES OTHER DEBT INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT DEBT ISSUE COSTS INTERFUND SERVICES INTERFUND RENTAL LEO FF-MEDIC AL INS. RESERVE(009) BENEFITS IN HOME LTC CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIPTFUND (014) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DRUG INFO RCEMENTFUND (104) SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTL SVC C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 12,069,872 $ 3,930,021 $ 415,100 104,360 193,388 802 4,094,462 1,346,853 61,110 17,596 374,244 92,342 117,050 44,869 1,949,484 466,491 204,660 60,969 36,742 2,711 40,865 5,845 834,943 274,526 396,193 397,566 414,600 147,082 320,547 128,079 279,880 94,109 8,099,655 3,893,689 190,000 - 5,500 993 1,325,185 255,078 85,000 22,735 946,595 - 64,014 - - 478 185,614 - 5,000 - 201,800 - 48,000 16,000 $ 435,000 $ 79,011 $ 176,400 35,901 8,000 6,081 - 290 Variance (8,139,851) (310,740) (192,586) (2,747,609) (43,514) (281,902) (72,181) (1,482,993) (143,691) (34,031) (35,020) (560,417) 1,373 (267,518) (192,468) (185,771) (4,205,966) (190,000) (4,507) (1,070,107) (62,265) (946,595) (64,014) 478 (185,614) (5,000) (201,800) (355,989) (140,499) (1,919) 290 $ 661,000 464,100 (196,900 $ 2,000 $ - $ (2,000) 2,000 - (2,000) 1,000 - (1,000) 10.000 800 (9.200) Page 1 of 6 % Used 33% 25% 0% 33% 38% 24% 30% 7% 14% 33% 100% 35% 40% 34% 48% 0% 18% 19% 27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 18% 20% 76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% $ 10,000 $ - $ (10,000) 0% 20,000 70 (19,930) 0% 5,000 493 (4,507) 10% 170,000 - (170,000) 0% 205,000 563 (34,437) 0% $ $ - $ - 0% 2,000 1,523 (477) 76% 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 2,233 1,134 (1,099) 51% 800 - (800) 0% 20,000 - (20,000) 0% 50,000 - (50,000) 0% 29 Page 2 of 6 Title SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT (to 112,117) LAND CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTERFUND SERVICES MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND TRANSFER MEMO RIAL S TREET TREE FUND (118) SUPPLIES HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 117, 132) EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001) YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS TO URISM PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SVC ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS C TTY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 447,655 $ 138,785 $ 18,400 6,487 197,283 59,726 6,000 3,520 240,000 39,829 26,000 - 32,700 4,071 3,500 832 1,000 - 350 - 159,134 52,450 87,204 87,201 267,750 64,254 25,000 2,313 8,000 405 4,000 89 31,665 - 074 _ Variance (308,870) (11,913) (137,557) (2,480) (200,171) (26,000) (28,629) (2,668) (1,000) (350) (106,684) (3) (203,496) (22,687) (7,595) (3,911) (31,665) (2.074) % Used 31% 35% 30% 59% 17% 0% 12% 24% 0% 0% 33% 100% 24% 9% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% $ 1,152,100 $ 96,675 $ (1,055,425) 8% 378,500 - (378,500) 0% 909,400 - (909,400) 0% 3,502,300 75,590 (3,426,710) 2% 72,203 - (72,203) 0% 4,481 - (4,481) 0% 306,000 40,005 (265,995) 13% $ 4,200 $ 18 $ (4,182) 0% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 116,700 4,473 (112,227) 4% 50 12 (38) 24% 4,000 3,700 (300) 93% 550 - (550) 0% 300 - (300) 0% 10,000 702 (9,298) 7% 3.000 (3,000) 0% $ $ $ 0% $ $ - 0% $ 14,500 $ $ (14,500) 0% 37,500 5,006 (32,494) 13% 2,500 100 (2,400) 4% 14,000 - (14,000) 0% 68,500 5,106 (63,394) 7% $ 1,640 $ 874 $ (766) 53% - 555 25,086 - (25,086) 0% $ 10,500 $ 1,697 $ 4,500 553 a nnn - (8,803) 16% (3,948) 12% (4,000) 0% 30 Page 3 of 6 Title REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 132) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC Q (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 C ENIL'=Y MAINTENANC FIIMPRO VEMENT (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 TRUST FUND (136) INTERFUND TRANSFER SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES STUDENT TRIP MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DIS TRIC T (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 29,000 $ 23,098 $ 337,000 1,876 - 148 185,000 9,500 635,500 - 100,000 - 438,910 - 200,000 - 17,550 - 12,074 - 668,534 - $ 14,020 $ 1,013 $ 6,000 6,150 12,297 - 32,317 7,163 $ 31,700 $ - $ 171,600 - 19,500 12,586 222,800 12,586 $ 68,605 $ 23,058 $ 3,500 371 33,188 10,511 1,000 - 7,000 373 20,000 2,385 1,000 - 1,412 466 500 - 3,000 251 5,256 1,752 3,800 - 500 - 4,000 1,094 1,907,500 1,940 182,700 3.000 1 A 14 Variance (5,902) (335,124) 148 (175,500) (635,500) (100,000) (438,910) (200,000) (17,550) (12,074) (668,534) (13,007) 150 (31,700) (171,600) (6,914) (210,214) (45,547) (3,129) (22,677) (1,000) (6,627) (17,615) (1,000) (946) (500) (2,749) (3,504) (3,800) (500) (2,906) (1,905,560) (182,700) (1.886) % Used 80% 1% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 7% 103% 0% 22% 0% 0% 34% 11% 32% 0% 5% 12% 0% 33% 0% 8% 33% 0% 0% 27% 0% 0% 26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 37% $ $ - $ - 0% - - 0% $ 500 $ 2,600 1,500 - $ - 135 (500) (2,600) (1,366) 0% 0% 9% 4,600 135 4,466 3% $ $ 5,000 640,000 1,756 $ 5,000 195,902 1,756 - (444,098) 0% 100% 31% 645,000 S 202,657 (442,343) 31% 31 Title INTERFUND TRANSFER LID GUARANTY FUND (213) INTERFUND TRANSFER 2012 LTGO DEBTSERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS 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 INTERFUND REPAIR C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 22,130 $ - $ 22,130 - $ 825,372 $ - $ 184,530 - 1,009,902 - $ 756,455 $ 237,867 $ 24,180 7,052 285,866 98,402 6,840 2,836 143,505 19,916 1,725,000 287,250 140,000 33,515 10,400 269 173,136 56,517 30,280 12,899 3,400 - 560 - 91,205 30,796 67,699 67,607 28,000 16,022 24,160 667 307,630 110,509 30,000 10,079 904,893 271,544 927,500 - 85,000 - 2,532,580 - 2,025 - 209,471 - 45,839 - 280,306 - 16,553 - - 175 349,368 149,204 - 48 Variance (22.1 (825,372) (184,530) (518,588) (17,128) (187,464) (4,004) (123,589) (1,437,750) (106,485) (10,131) (116,619) (17,381) (3,400) (560) (60,409) (92) (11,978) (23,493) (197,121) (19,921) (633,349) (927,500) (85,000) (2,532,580) (2,025) (209,471) (45,839) (280,306) (16,553) 175 (200,164) 48 Page 4 of 6 % Used 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 31% 29% 34% 41% 14% 0% 17% 24% 3% 33% 43% 0% 0% 34% 100% 57% 3% 36% 34% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43% 0% 32 Title C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 5 of 6 %Used STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 568,591 $ 185,539 $ (383,052) 33% OVERTIME 6,000 2,789 (3,211) 46% BENEFITS 232,141 75,758 (156,383) 33% UNIFORMS 6,540 3,841 (2,699) 59% SUPPLIES 50,000 9,194 (40,806) 18% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,400 164 (4,236) 4% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 599,190 231,273 (367,917) 39% COMMUNICATIONS 3,480 420 (3,060) 12% TRAVEL 4,300 654 (3,646) 15% ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 217,412 70,941 (146,471) 33% INSURANCE 8,418 8,407 (11) 100% UTILITES 10,000 3,182 (6,818) 32% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 11,860 5,797 (6,063) 49% MISCELLANEOUS 106,100 35,041 (71,059) 33% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 16,763 (28,237) 37% INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 291,600 104,112 (187,488) 36% INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112, 117) 237,766 - (237,766) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,458,400 - (1,458,400) 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 101,469 - (101,469) 0% REVENUE BONDS 82,906 - (82,906) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 - (32,063) 0% INTEREST 187,245 - (187,245) 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 83 83 0% INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 300,391 187,615 (112,776) 62% 4,565,772 941,573 (3,624,199) 21% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,653,859 $ 517,620 $ (1,136,239) 31% OVERTIME 73,000 38,312 (34,688) 52% BENEFITS 677,979 210,921 (467,058) 31% UNIFORMS 11,190 6,884 (4,306) 62% SUPPLIES 482,505 83,968 (398,537) 17% FUEL CONSUMED 90,000 62,986 (27,014) 70% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 3,000 - (3,000) 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,400 2,044 (14,356) 12% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,024,236 421,769 (602,467) 41% COMMUNICATIONS 40,280 11,802 (28,478) 29% TRAVEL 7,400 - (7,400) 0% ADVERTISING 2,500 - (2,500) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 133,736 43,928 (89,808) 33% INSURANCE 157,117 156,092 (1,025) 99% UTILITIES 931,200 389,854 (541,346) 42% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 90,000 41,641 (48,359) 46% MISCELLANEOUS 211,100 72,559 (138,541) 34% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 290,000 42,648 (247,352) 15% INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 470,000 155,496 (314,504) 33% INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 414, 423) 1,125,280 - (1,125,280) 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 141,000 - (141,000) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 7,924,700 1,173,021 (6,751,679) 15% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 195,602 - (195,602) 0% REVENUE BONDS 222,625 - (222,625) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 138,939 - (138,939) 0% INTEREST 125,421 - (125,421) 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,551 - (16,551) 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 41 41 0% INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 574,489 185,859 (388,630) 32% 16,830,109 3,617,445 (13,212,664) 21% 33 Page 6 of 61 Title SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT INTERFUND SERVICES FIRI M EN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS PROF SERVICES TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS C rTY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 228,064 $ 48,517 $ 1,000 886 100,397 23,398 1,000 356 76,000 19,066 1,000 - 321,800 48,932 8,000 576 1,000 931 3,000 431 9,996 3,097 34,083 34,153 14,000 4,784 60,000 17,557 6,000 2,466 2,500 119 217,532 46,927 10.000 - $ 63,000 $ 13,504 $ 43,790 34,021 2,000 1,169 Variance (179,547) (114) (76,999) (644) (56,934) (1,000) (272,868) (7,424) (69) (2,569) (6,899) 70 (9,216) (42,443) (3,534) (2,381) (170,605) (49,496) (9,769) (831) % Used 21% 89% 23% 36% 15% 7% 93% 14% 31% 100% 34% 29% 41% 5% 22% 0% 21% 78% 58% 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 $ 4/30/2013 penditures 83,350 $ 78,215 84,440 232,844 174,295 531,656 163,684 4,569,788 2,792,819 112,729 535,005 940,767 569,310 434,291 11.303.195 $ Variance (190,273) (160,159) (202,750) (496,662) (412,536) (960,362) (335,516) (6,897,781) (6,138,366) (260,585) (1,084,037) (2,457,750) (1,149,665) 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 $ 4/30/2013 .penditures 1,413,173 $ 941,573 3,617,445 5,972,190 $ 1 Variance (7,788,678) (3,624,199) (13,212,664) (24,625,542) % Used % Used 30% 33% 29% 32% 30% 36% 33% 40% 31% 30% 33% 28% 33% 32% 34% 15% 21% 21% 20% 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 4/30/2013 Title Budget Expenditures Variance %Used CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 114,618 $ 39,372 $ (75,246) 34% OVERTIME 2,000 222 (1,778) 11% BENEFITS 68,165 23,144 (45,021) 34% SUPPLIES 1,000 88 (912) 9% PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,082 18,788 (34,294) 35% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 780 (2,220) 26% TRAVEL 2,500 358 (2,142) 14% RENTAL/LEASE 490 147 (343) 30% REPAIRS✓MAINT 1,500 - (1,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 450 (26,818) 2% 273,623 83,350 (190,273) 30% O FFIC E O F MAYO R SALARIES $ 183,722 $ 61,995 $ (121,727) 34% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 41,852 13,931 (27,921) 33% SUPPLIES 2,000 804 (1,196) 40% PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,500 29 (1,471) 2% COMMUNICATION 1,400 255 (1,145) 18 % TRAVEL 2,000 282 (1,718) 14% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 630 (1,770) 26% REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 288 (2,712) 10% 238,374 78,215 S (160,159) 3307o HUMAN RES O URC ES SALARIES $ 169,000 S 52,929 $ (116,071) 31% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 6L680 15,992 (45,688) 26% SUPPLIES 2,000 1,115 (885) 56% SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 32,000 6,394 (25,606) 20% COMMUNICATIONS 500 120 (380) 24% TRAVEL 500 100 (400) 20% ADVERTISING 5,000 1,388 (3,612) 28% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 631 (1,369) 32% REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 5,349 (651) 89% MISCELLANEOUS 8 410 423 (7,987) 5% 287,190 84,440 (202,750) 29% MUNICIPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 464,471 $ 149,982 $ (314,489) 32% OVERTIME 100 - (100) 0% BENEFITS 168,526 49,401 (119,125) 29% SUPPLIES 9,159 3,162 (5,997) 35% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 1,003 (997) 50% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60,500 24,385 (36,115) 40% COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 552 (2,048) 21 % TRAVEL 1,250 757 (493) 61 % RENTAL/LEASE 650 319 (331) 49% REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 304 (696) 30% MISCELLANEOUS 19,250 2,980 (16,270) 15% 729,506 232,844 (496,662) 32% 37 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 2 of 4 %Used CITY C LERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 305,572 $ 100,993 $ (204,579) 33% BENEFIT S 92,771 30,698 (62,073) 33% SUPPLIES 13,760 2,433 (11,327) 18% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,751 8,291 (76,460) 10% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 18,162 (31,838) 36% TRAVEL 250 - (250) 0% ADVERTISING 3,690 2,122 (1,568) 57% RENTAL/LEASE 25,000 5,331 (19,669) 21% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 4,795 (3,242) 60% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,470 (1,530) 49% 586,831 174,295 412,536 30% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 682,370 $ 223,289 $ (459,081) 33% OVERTIME 4,000 3,013 (987) 75% BENEFIT S 220,100 68,088 (152,012) 31 % SUPPLIES 35,700 9,064 (26,636) 25% SMALL EQUIPMENT 87,500 37,827 (49,673) 43% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 126,350 66,489 (59,861) 53% COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 17,100 (41,860) 29% TRAVEL 3,300 - (3,300) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 8,988 3,008 (5,980) 33% REPAIR/MAINT 171,750 71,900 (99,850) 42% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 9,143 1,143 114% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 22,735 (62,265) 27% 1,492,018 531,656 (960,362) 36% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 499,200 $ 163,684 $ (335,516) 33% MISC PROSECUTOR - - - 0% 499,200 163,684 (335,516) 33% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 136,000 $ - $ (136,000) 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 40,000 12,434 (27,566) 31 % PROFESSIONAL SVC 380,000 81,036 (298,964) 21% COMMUNICATIONS - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 396,193 397,566 1,373 100% MISCELLANEOUS 55,156 40,165 (14,991) 73% INTERGOVT SVC 7,532,912 3,778,439 (3,754,473) 50% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 190,000 - (190,000) 0% EXCISE TAXES 5,500 993 (4,507) 18% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 1,325,185 255,078 (1,070,107) 19% 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 4,569,788 (6,897,781) 40% 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 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 5,169,010 $ 1,707,771 $ (3,461,239) 33% 400,000 98,250 (301,750) 25% 193,388 802 (192,586) 0% 1,728,703 593,704 (1,134,999) 34% 52,410 15,439 (36,971) 29% 94,100 27,145 (66,955) 29% 14,300 3,244 (11,056) 23% 95,200 21,403 (73,797) 22% 33,592 6,268 (27,324) 19% 16,300 1,069 (15,231) 7% 375 36 (339) 10% 538,344 178,317 (360,027) 33% 16,115 2,618 (13,497) 16% 35,300 10,503 (24,797) 30% 496,048 110,250 (385,798) 22% 48,000 16,000 (32,000) 33% 8,931,185 2,792,919 (6,139,366) 31% $ 213,304 $ 71,283 $ (142,021) 33% 62,052 20,815 (41,237) 34% 1,500 204 (1,296) 14% 800 - (800) 0% 60,804 17,489 (43,315) 29% 1,490 485 (1,005) 33% 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 24,500 - (24,500) 0% 2364 751 (1,613) 32% 500 - (500) 0% 4,000 1,703 (2,298) 43% 373,314 112,729 (260,585) 30% $ 1,032,549 $ 382,092 $ (650,457) 37% 1,300 25 (1,275) 2% 358,465 124,624 (233,841) 35% - - - 0% 13,000 2,480 (10,520) 19% 1,100 - (1,100) 0% 145,600 6,384 (139,216) 4% 4,000 1,498 (2,502) 37% 1,600 12 (1,588) 1% 3,000 1,367 (1,633) 46% 32,828 10,803 (22,025) 33% 500 - (500) 0% 25,100 5,722 (19,378) 23% 1,619,042 535,005 1,084,037 33% $ 1,007,140 $ 332,460 $ (674,680) 33% 5,000 947 (4,053) 19% 342,150 119,093 (223,057) 35% 360 - (360) 0% - - - 0% 2,000 403 (1,597) 20% 5,000 840 (4,160) 17% 6,700 1,524 (5,176) 23% 600 10 (590) 2% - 264 264 0% 13,408 4,468 (8,940) 33% 1,800 - (1,800) 0% 10,300 2,629 (7,671) 26% 1,394,458 462,638 (931,820) 33% 39 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTLSVC PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED MINOR EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 1,745,631 $ 519,272 $ (1,226,359) 30% - 1,881 1,881 0% 584,326 180,564 (403,762) 31 % 5,340 1,691 (3,649) 32% 131,925 31,205 (100,720) 24% 3,250 1,820 (1,430) 56% 405,297 51,264 (354,033) 13% 28,218 9,367 (18,851) 33% 5,942 124 (5,818) 2% 4,300 668 (3,632) 16% 149,152 50,023 (99,129) 34% 135,000 45,894 (89,106) 34% 51,845 24,439 (27,406) 47% 77,596 17,557 (60,039) 23% 70,695 5,000 (65,695) 7% 3,398,517 940,767 (2,457,750) 28% $ 225,381 $ 80,084 $ (145,297) 36% 200 - (200) 0% 76,157 21,688 (54,469) 28% 5,100 2,126 (2,974) 42% 200 15 (185) 8% 1,200 493 (707) 41% 500 - (500) 0% 10,779 1,428 (9,351) 13% 2,600 837 (1,763) 32% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 1,400 - (1,400) 0% 324,517 106,6 22 (217,845) 33% $ 621,104 $ 208,498 $ (412,606) 34% 2,500 23 (2,477) 1 % 249,515 72,679 (176,836) 29% 3,000 466 (2,534) 16% 65,000 12,514 (52,486) 19% - - 0% 6,000 572 (5,428) 10% 13,000 4,365 (8,635) 34% 44,940 15,070 (29,870) 34% 277,000 100,351 (176,649) 36% 60,000 18,675 (41,325) 31% 2,100 1,078 (1,022) 51 % 1,344,159 434,291 909,868 32°0 32,959,503 11,303,195 (21,656,308) 34% 40 AM-5860 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Renee McRae Department: Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Subject Title Special Event Contract for Bastille Day 3. E. Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the special event contract for Bastille Day in Edmonds. Previous Council Action The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee reviewed the contract at the June 11 meeting and forwarded it to the June 18 Council consent agenda. Narrative The Edmonds Petanque Club is holding a new event this summer - Bastille Day in Edmonds - a celebration of French Bastille Day with a petanque tournament, music, food and wine. This event is taking place at the Civic Center Field on July 14. This first year event is on a smaller scale and has the ability to grow into a larger multi -day event dependent upon community interest. Attachments Bastille Day Contract 06-11-13 Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Minutes Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Renee McRae Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 Form Review Date 06/13/2013 11:29 AM 06/13/2013 11:45 AM 06/13/2013 11:48 AM Started On: 06/13/2013 09:54 AM CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND EDMONDS PETANQUE CLUB July 13-14, 2013 The following agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between CITY OF EDMONDS ("City"), and Edmonds Petanque Club ("EPC") (collectively, the "Parties"). WHEREAS, EPC has proposed to hold a public event known as Bastille Day in Edmonds (or "Event"); WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Event 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: City Responsibilities: 1.1 City shall provide use of surfaces on Civic Center Field hereinafter referred to as the "City -Provided Site" on Saturday, June 13, 2013 from 3pm-5pm for lining the field and on Sunday, June 14, 2013 from 9am-5pm for the Event. The provisions of this Agreement relate only to the City - Provided Site. City shall inspect the Civic Center Field facilities before and after the Event. 1.2 City has the right to check the noise level of any amplified sound equipment or other sound 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. 1.3 City shall provide two additional garbage containers and one recycle container for the Event. 1.4 City shall provide access to power at the west end of the stadium. EPC shall be responsible for providing appropriate power cords sufficient for its uses. 1.5 City shall install Bastille Day street banners as provided by EPC at approved sites. EPC shall obtain a Street Banner Permit and pay the required fee. 2. EPC Responsibilities: In addition to the above and in consideration of the use of the facilities and services above described, EPC agrees to the following: 2.1 EPC accepts the condition of the Civic Center Field as it currently exists. 2.2 EPC 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 respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. The City shall be named as an insured on EPC's General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that EPC's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of EPC's insurance and shall not contribute to it. EPC 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 EPC agrees that the Event is a public event. EPC further agrees that areas constituting the City -Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement are traditional public forums. As a result, EPC shall permit citizens attending events open to the general public at the City -Provided Site during the Event 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. EPC 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 EPC 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 EPC'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 EPC 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 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. EPC 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. 2.7 EPC shall provide any and all security services necessary 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 EPC or the participants in this Event. 2.8 EPC shall ensure that all boothsibeer garden/wine garden have the necessary state and local permits for serving and selling alcohol. EPC agrees to use its best efforts to prevent service of alcohol to minors, including segregation of the beer garden/wine garden and checking identification in accordance with common practice. EPC shall obtain any copyright licenses necessary for presenting licensed live and recorded music. 2.9 EPC shall contract for one additional sani-can and wash station at Civic Center Field. These may be placed on site the Friday night preceding the Event. Maintenance and removal of, and damage to, sani-cans, is solely the responsibility of EPC. EPC shall provide extra paper supplies for sani-cans and existing City portable toilets in the event there is a shortage of such supplies. 2.10 EPC shall obtain all required approvals for food handling and serving to the general public through the Snohomish County Health Department. EPC shall provide City with a written statement from that department that all requirements have been met and necessary permits issued. 2.11 EPC shall advise all participating vendors of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall insure that vendors maintain all insurance, licenses and permits required by local, state and federal law for the duration of the Event. 2.12 Upon completion of the Event, EPC 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 morning prior to the Event. 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. 2.13 EPC shall pay City all permit fees for the above -mentioned facility use ($100) prior to Wednesday, June 16, 2014. The fees are subject to change if requests for additional services are made by EPC. 2.14 EPC shall pay City a cleaning/damage deposit of $1,000.00 prior to Wednesday, June 16, 2013. The deposit shall be refunded to EPC if, upon inspection, all is in order, or a prorated portion thereof as may be necessary to reimburse City for supplies, losses or cleaning costs. In addition, EPC shall be responsible for any damages, labor and/or materials required to repair damage to City property. 2.15 Colored banners or flags may not be placed in the existing holes in the public sidewalk designated for the American flag program. 2.16 Neither EPC 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. 2.17 If the tent area exceeds 400 square feet, EPC shall contact the Edmonds Fire Marshal at Fire Prevention Services (425) 775-7720 for an inspection of the tent area prior to the opening of the Event to the general public, at or before 9:00 a.m., June 14, 2013, as the Parties shall agree. EPC shall correct all fire safety related problems prior to the opening of the Event. If 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. 2.18 A Class K fire extinguisher will be required if griddles or BBQ appliances are used for cooking. If cooking is taking place in a tent, the tent will have to be labeled fire resistant. 2.19 All use and configuration of structures, booths and other facilities used in the Event may be inspected and reviewed by the Fire Chief, Police Chief, Building Official and Parks and Recreation Director or their designees to determine that such facilities comply with State and local law, as well as to insure that no lasting damage shall be done to any public facility or property. 3 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 EPC. 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 EPC shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. EPC 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 2013. EDMONDS PETANQUE CLUB: Michelle Martin, President APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting June 11, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Council Member Kristiana Johnson Council Member Diane Buckshnis The Committee convened at 6:45 p.m. A. Special Event Contract for Bastille Day Staff Present: Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer ACTION: The Bastille Day Contract was forwarded to the City Council consent agenda. B. Park Impact Fee Study direction. A discussion of the following three options for a Park Impact Fee was held: Residential vs. Commercial: if Council chooses to do residential only, the formula would bump those rates up 20%. Both Council members like the idea of having both residential and commercial. 2. Phasing: Is Council interested in phasing this in or not, and at what schedule? Both Council members voiced their interest in 50% for the first year; phase in over two years. 3. Low Income Housing exemption: yes or no? There are some implications if we offer low income housing exemptions: (1) It is not consistent with the transportation impact fees; there is no low income housing exemption. (2) If we exempt low income housing, then the City will have to pay it. (3) Options include for nonprofits only, or nonprofit and for profit (but will require them to keep the prices low). (4) Define low income as 80% of the County's median household income. Both Council members voiced their interest in choosing no exemption. C. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet for channelization plan, right-of-way acquisition, and access management work on the 228t" St. SW Corridor Improvement project. The Committee reviewed the proposed Supplement and did not have questions. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes June 11, 2013 Page 2 D. Briefing on Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2014-2019) Mr. English reviewed changes that were made to the proposed Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program and answered Councilmember questions. Both Council members discussed defining the 104 study to confine it to the Westgate area that would be in conjunction with the Westgate sub -area plan. ACTION: Item scheduled for a public hearing on June 18, 2013. E. FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project Award The Committee reviewed the proposed Supplement and did not have questions. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. F. Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer utility rate increases. Mr. Williams provided a brief summary of the draft 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan. He discussed the capital and maintenance needs for the sewer collection system and the wastewater treatment plant. He also reviewed the City's current sewer rate and how this rate compares with other cities in Snohomish and King Counties. ACTION: A presentation on the proposed Sewer Comprehensive Plan will be made in July. G. Adoption of revenue bond ordinance and resolution. Mr. Williams outlined the remaining schedule in issuing and securing a bond to pay for capital infrastructure improvements for the City's sewer, water and stormwater utilities. ACTION: The item will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. H. Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments. Mr. Williams discussed possible strategies for utility rate adjustments to pay for capital infrastructure improvements for the City's sewer, water and stormwater utilities. ACTION: Staff will develop and present options for future rate adjustments to the City Council. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout Project. Mr. English provided the proposed fee for Supplement #7 and answered Councilmember questions about lighting and the project schedule. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. J. Public Comments None. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm. AM-5862 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 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. F. Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to sell at auction two (2) 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 vehicles are ready to be surplussed: Unit # 128-WTR 2002 Ford F-250 Utility Truck VIN# IFTNX205X2EL51077 Unit # 648-POL 2009 Ford Crown Victoria VIN# 2FAHP71V09X132648 Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact Revenue: $7,500 Fiscal Impact: Monies will be deposited into the B-Fund replacement account. Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kody McConnell Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 11:29 AM Dave Earling 06/13/2013 11:45 AM Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 11:48 AM Started On: 06/13/2013 11:23 AM Expenditure: AM-5848 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Jim Stevens Public Works Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Action "information Subject Title Contract award for the FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project. Recommendation 3. G. Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Approve the award of the contract for the FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project to Moon Construction. The recommended contract value includes Additive Alternate #1, per the narrative below. The addition of sufficient contingency to this amount will bring the project budget to a total of $134,131. Previous Council Action This project is already listed in the 2013 CIP and is within the budget anticipated there, as well as within the current spending authority for Fund 016 ($205,000) for 2013. At last week's PPPW Committee meeting, this agenda item was approved for review and action by the full Council as part of the consent agenda. Narrative A little over a year ago, staff identified the two locker rooms adjoining the Frances Anderson Center Gymnasium as being non -compliant with current accessibility requirements. Because there are no equivalent facilities available at any reasonable distance from the gym, staff determined it was necessary to undertake a construction project to remedy this situation. This project will take these locker rooms out of service between August 19th and October 18th and will provide essentially a complete reorganization of internal spaces. The work includes demolishing and rebuilding interior locker room walls, and purchasing and installing new fixtures, oriented with sufficient clearances such that the rooms will become fully accessible as currently defined in code. Because this project was estimated to be well within an appropriate value to qualify, the City used its procedures to seek quotes directly from 5 selected firms listed in the MRSC Small Works Roster subcategory of General Contracting - Building Contractor. Four bids were received and opened in the City Clerk's Office Conference Room on May 30, 2013. The bid recap sheet is attached to this agenda item. The low bidder is Moon Construction, of Lynnwood, and they have informed the City that they are fully prepared to undertake this project. On June 3, 2013, the City finished checking the references of this firm and a summary of the results is also attached to this agenda item. The winning bid was $97,736 for the base work, with another $8,781 for Alternate #1. This alternate will allow the complete refinishing of the floors in both locker rooms, rather than only patching cuts that must be made in the concrete flooring to accommodate plumbing changes. With sales tax, this comes to a recommended total contract value of $116,636. Because this area of the Frances Anderson Center dates from 1947, and because the work is critically tied to making changes to old plumbing, staff recommends establishing a contingency amount of 15% of this contract value, for an additional $17,495. This brings the total allotment requested for this project budget to $134,131. Attachments FAC Bid Recap Reference Checks Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 06/13/2013 11:45 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 11:47 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/13/2013 11:56 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 01:31 PM Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 06/12/2013 11:55 AM Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 ABSTRACT OF QUOTESfBIDS (AUTHORIZATION DATE: N/A BID TABULATION SHEET OPENING DATE: 5-30-13 AWARD DATE: TBD Supplies or Sen•ices: FAC Accessibility Upgrades Originating Office: Public Works Department: Public Works NAME OF BIDDERS: Remarks 1 2 3 4 Mark Construction Moon Construction Northwestern Const. Mike Werlich Const. ITEM 1 BASE BID (Inc. trench & shore) 143,000.00 97,736.00 162,713.00 184,043.00 2 ALTERNATE #1 12,000.00 8,781.00 5,900.00 5,964.00 WA State Sales Tax 13,585.00 9,284.92 15,457.74 17,484.09 TOTAL BASE BID 156,585.00 107,020.92 178,170.74 201,527.09 Bid De osit Bond Bond Bond Bond Bid Signed Yes Yes Yes Yes Rec'd Addenda if Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Is this product a WA State Contract item? Yes No XXX Indicate vendors from above listing who have previously provided services or products to the City and indicate whether the results were satisfactory or unsatisfactory: Recommended Awardee: I CERTIFY THAT ALL BIDS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION WERE OPENED, READ AND RECORDED ACCORDING TO CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. Low Bid That Is Unacceptable: — Agent for the City of Edmonds:_��L•- Note: Indicate N/A in each of the above categories that does not apply to the bid being presented EXCEi.DATAIADMEMBID9 Moon Construction Reference Checks - Completed 6-3-13 Project Entity and Contact Job Quality* Budget Control* Timeliness* Overall Rating* Comments Very good company. Small (2 projects at WWTP): COE: Pamela contractors do not always come with knwowledge and Aeration Basin; Randolph, WWTP experitse to work in treatment Switchgea r Wa I kway Manager 2 1 2 1 plant setting. Service Center at LWSD, Support "Superior small contractor, honest and willing to work with Services, Misc. Lake Washington SD: you and your architect. Cliff Projects Brian Berard 1 1-2 1-2 1-2 Moon is very knowledgable." Very happy with performance, don't often find small contractor like Moon, good Elevated Track Sound Sound Transit: Justin work on rush job with tight Mitigation and others Garrod 1 1 1 1 constraints * 1= excellent, 5 = worst AM-5849 3. H. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Action Information Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet, Inc. for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet, Inc. Previous Council Action On August 2, 2011, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement with Perteet on the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. On October 16, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Supplemental Agreement #1 with Perteet on the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. On June 11, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda at the June 18, 2013 Council meeting. Narrative The project will construct the missing link of roadway on 228th St SW from State Route (SR) 99 to 76th Ave W. and install two new traffic signals at the intersections of SR99 / 228th St. SW and 76th Ave. W. / 228th St. SW. The center median will be extended on a portion of SR99 to restrict left turns and improve safety. Sidewalk and bike lanes will be included along the new section of 228th St. SW. The section of 228 th St. SW from 80th Ave W to 1,000 feet east of 72nd Ave. W will be overlaid. A raised median with decorative elements will also be installed along SR-99. The proposed Supplement covers the professional services to complete the channelization plans, right of way acquisition phase, and access modifications along 76th Ave. W at 22625 Hwy 99. The design fee for Supplement No. 2 is $24,547 and will be paid by grant funds. The City secured a federal transportation grant for $4,233,000 to complete the design, right of way acquisition, and construction. No local match is required for this grant. The City has received a total of $4,769,000 in federal grant funds to complete this project. The design and right of way phases are scheduled for completion in early 2014 and construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in spring 2014. Attachments Supplemental Agreement No. 2 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/12/2013 04:51 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/13/2013 11:45 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 11:47 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/13/2013 11:54 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 01:31 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/12/2013 01:50 PM Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 -'A Washington State Department of Transportation Supplemental Agreement pp g Organization and Address Perteet, inc. Number 2 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, WA 98201 Original Agreement Number Phone: (425) 252-7700 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date August 11, 2011 April 30, 2014 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable City of Edmonds 228t" Street S.W. Corridor $ 535,387 Improvement Project Description of Work Additional services as detailed in Exhibit A-1, Scope of Work, attached. The Local Agency of CITY OF EDMONDS desires to supplement the agreement entered into with PERTEET, INC. and executed on August 11, 2011 and identified as Agreement No. provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: All Supplemental services are as covered by Exhibit A-1. Scope of Work, attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: April 30, 2014 Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: These additional services as set forth in this SupDlemental Agreement No. 2 will cause an increase to the contract maximum in The amount of Twenty -Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty -Seven Dollars ($24,547) for a new contract maximum of Five Hundred Thirty -Five Thousand Three Hundred Eiahty-Seven Dollars ($535,387) as referenced in Exhibit E-1, attached hereto. as set forth in the attached Exhibit A-1, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: Perteet, Inc. By: Consultant Signature Crystal L. Donner DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 912005 Approving Authority Signature Date Exhibit A -I Scope of Services City of Edmonds 228th Street S.W. Corridor Improvements Supplemental Agreement No. 02 Task I -- Project Management Assuming that there are no stops in design, the current project schedule indicates that the design phase will be completed by the end of February 2014. The intent of this supplement is to cover the additional nine months of project management support. Work Elements: • Weekly communications with the client • Facilitate monthly project coordination meetings • Prepare monthly progress reports • Manage subconsultant activities. Assumptions: • Notice to proceed on all design elements will be granted by May 5, 2013. • No stops in design work are anticipated. Deliverables: • Draft and Final Work Plan (2 hard copies) • Project Schedule (MS Project Format) PDF (12 updates) • Project Kickoff meeting agenda and minutes • Nine (9) coordination meeting agendas and minutes • Nine (9) progress reports and invoices Task 3 — Channelization Plan for Approval (Supplemented) The intent of this task is to address additional channelization plan for approval comments and to address Edmonds' desire to construct a raised median along Highway 99. Work Elements: • Revise Channelization Plan for Approval • Update the Project Analysis if required Assumptions: • This work is limited to WSDOT and Edmonds review comments received to date • No other work besides revising the channelization plan section showing the revised median will be performed. Deliverables: • Revised Channelization Plan for Approval (one typical section plan sheet) DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 912005 Task 8 — Right -of -Way Acquisition (Supplemented) The intent of this task is to provide additional technical design support to the negotiation team. Work Elements: • Technical design support • Revised right-of-way plan Assumptions: • None Deliverables: • Negotiation graphics • Revised right-of-way plan Task 23 — Access Modifications (New) The intent of this task is to reconfigure the northern biofiltration swale along 76th Avenue SW so that the 76 gas station northern access point shall remain open. Work Elements: • Modify drainage design • Update Drainage Report • Modify channelization plans • Modify paving plans Assumptions: • Based on our initial investigation, Perteet believes that the 76 gas station can remain open. The actual location will remain the same. • This access point will be limited to vehicles exiting and heading south bound along 76th Avenue SW. Construct this exit only access drive so that it is 15 feet wide. Deliverables: • Revised Drainage Report • Revised Drainage plans • Revised channelization plans • Revised paving plans SCHEDULE A time extension to April 30, 2014 is requested to complete the design phase of the project. DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 912005 MANAGEMENT RESERVE RELEASES The following management reserve releases have been issued and are now incorporated as part of the contract. MRR #I 3/8/2012 $5,634 Geotechnical Infiltration Rates and RIW Exhibits MRR #2 5/ 15/2012 $3,094 Survey Utilities & NEPA EJIRevisions MRR #3 5/15/2012 $5,900 Noise & Channelization Support MRR #4 10/24/2012 $5,924 AMEC Cultural Resource Assessment Management Reserve Budget = $35,000 Management Reserve Balance = $14,448 DOT Form 140.063 EF Revised 9/2005 Exhibit E- t Project: 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements - Supp No. 2 Client: City of Edmonds Hourly Costs Pius Fixed Fee Estimate Classification Hours Rate Amount Sr. Associate 68 60.10 $4,056 Lead Engineer 1 Mgr 14 46.63 $653 Lead Engineer 1 Mgr 36 50.00 $1,800 Lead Technician/Designer 46 35.00 $1,610 Accountant 5 33.50 $151 Clerical 5 26.73 $120 Total Direct Salary Costs 174 $8,390 Overhead @ 162.58% $13,640 Fixed Fee @ 30.00% $2,517 Total Labor Costs $24,547 Expenses Total Expenses In -House Costs Total In -House Costs Subconsultants Total Subconsultants Management Reserve Total Other Costs Reimbursables Amount 0 Qty Rate Amount 0 Subconsultants Cost Markup Amount 0 4 Other $0.00 $ 0.00 CONTRACT TOTAL $24,547.00 . Rates shown reflect the typical compensation rate of employees assigned to the billing category listed. Each category may have multiple employees assigned to that billing category and each employee may have a different hourly rate of pay. Employee compensation is subject to adjustment in June of each calendar year. Prepared By: Darrell C. Smith DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 912005 Date: May 29, 2013 AM-5855 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Action Information Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout Project. Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans & Associates. Previous Council Action On July 12, 2011, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project. On July 17, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental #3 with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project. On October 9, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental #4 with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project. On June 11, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda at the June 18, 2013 Council meeting. Narrative The proposed supplemental agreement includes the following revisions / additions to the plans, specifications, and estimates: • Additional work on Franchise utility plans due to the removal of one of the Comcast poles along 212th St. SW • Addition of several vaults within the project limits for the City of Edmonds underground fiber optic line • Water quality treatment change from filterras to filter cartridges, resulting in changes to the drainage plans, profiles, details, and the Storm Drainage Technical Information Report (TIR) • Illumination work, resulting in modifications to the Illumination plans / detail The total cost of the supplemental agreement is $35,831 and will be paid through grant and local funding. The design and right of way acquisition phase are scheduled for completion in Fall 2013 and the construction phase is scheduled to begin in Spring 2014. Supplemental Agreement #7 Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Phil Williams City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 06/13/2013 11:39 AM 06/13/2013 11:45 AM 06/13/2013 11:47 AM 06/13/2013 11:54 AM 06/13/2013 01:31 PM Started On: 06/12/2013 04:05 PM Washington State TAf Department of Transportation Supplemental Agreement p p g Organization and Address David Evans and Associates, Inc. Number 7 415 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 Original Agreement Number Attn: Victor Salemann ElAA/c342 Phone: (425) 586-9761 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date DEA Project No. COED0000-0003 8/5/2011 3/31/2014 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable Five Corners Roundabout $ 441,524.00 Description of Work Five Corners Roundabout - Provide engineering design services including preparing a topographic base map; environmental documents; project design documentation; PS&E construction bid documents; determination of right-of-way needs; preparation of a right-of-way plan, parcel exhibit(s), and legal descriptions(s); performing right-of-way acquisition services; and project management services to improve the level of service of the existing intersection. The Local Agency of City of Edmonds desires to supplement the agreement entered into with David Evans and Associates. Inc. and executed on 8/5/2011 and identified as Agreement No. ElAA/c342 All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: See Fxhihit A-1 for the ,Scope of Services 11 Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: There is no change to the comnletion _datc_ III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: The Snpnlement 7 total is , 35,831 (See Fxhihit F.-1)_ The New Maximum Amrnmt Pa�gahle. is . 44 524 as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: By: 5a Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 Date Exhibit A-1 Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project SCOPE OF SERVICES Supplement No. 7 Prepared for: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 - 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005-3518 (425) 519-6500 June 10, 2013 City of Edmonds Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project SCOPE OF SERVICES Supplement No. 7 Introduction Supplement No. 7 modifies the original agreement dated August 5, 2011, and Supplements 1 through 6, with the following revisions. Section 2.0 Project Management and Quality Control 2.1 Project Management and File Management The assumptions of Section 2.1 are supplement with the following: Duration of the project will an additional 3 months, for a total of 21 months. An additional 3 monthly meetings with the City shall occur at City offices. Section 7.0 Utility Coordination 7.2 Utility Conflict Resolution Section 7.2 is supplemented with the following: Prepare for and attend one additional utility coordination meeting; prepare meeting agenda and records, and distribute to all attendees. Revise Comcast utility design on 212th due to pole being removed from design base. Incorporate utility trench design with new Edmond's communication fiber vaults. Section 8.0 PS&E Design 8.3 Storm Drainage Technical Information Report Section 8.3 is supplemented with the following: The CONSULTANT shall update the final Storm Drainage Technical Information Report to include the use of either storm filter cartridges or stormceptor system for water quality treatment in lieu of the Filterra system previously designed. P:IcICOED000000031000000N10030ContractlSupplementslSupplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical DesignlExhibit A-1 DEA Scope Five Comers Roundabout 2013-0610.doc City of Edmonds 1 Supplement No. 7 Five Corners Roundabout Project June 10, 2013 Assumptions: • One submittal of the Drainage TIR will be provided to the City to include the storm filter cartridges for water quality. No other changes to the previous final Drainage TIR will be required. Deliverables: • Final Drainage TIR, two (2) copies (hard copy only). 8.7 Construction Documents (100% Completion Level) Section 8.7 is supplement with the following: The CONSULTANT shall conduct the following: • Revise the 90% drainage plan, profiles, and details to accommodate the use of storm filter cartridges or stormceptor system for water quality. • Update revised storm crossing elevations on water profiles. • Illumination: o Run breaker, load, and conduit calculations due to the additional GFCI receptacles at tree, luminaire, and central island locations. o Revise illumination plans and details; and luminaire, wiring, and breaker schedules due to new decorative luminaire style and addition of GFCIs. o Provide spare conduit on plans for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon. • Update design specifications based on project revisions and updated City front end forms and WSDOT GSPs/Amendments. • Update project cost estimate based on project revisions. 8.8 Assistance During Bid Period Section 8.8 is supplement with the following: Bid Support The CONSULTANT shall provide bid support and assist the CITY in answering questions from prospective bidders during the bid process. The CONSULTANT shall attend the pre -bid meeting. Bid Addendums The CONSULTANT shall prepare addendums to the contract documents during the bid period. This task is limited to 30 hours. P:IcICOED000000031000000N10030ContractlSupplementslSupplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical DesignlExhibit A-1 DEA Scope Five Comers Roundabout 2013-0610.doc City of Edmonds 2 Supplement No. 7 Five Corners Roundabout Project June 10, 2013 Supplement No. 7 Exhibit E-1: Consultant Fee Determination - Fixed Fee Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project City of Edmonds David Evans and Associates, Inc. Direct Classification Rate Hours Cost 1 Project Manager (PMGR) 57.00 70 $3,990 2 Managing Professional Engr/QC (MGPE) $ 57.00 10 $570 3 Professional Engineer (PFEN) $ 42.00 129 $5,418 4 CADD Manager (CADM) $ 38.00 8 $304 5 Sr. CADD Technician (SCAD) $ 32.50 10 $325 6 Administrative Assistant (ADMA) $ 26.75 18 $482 7 Exec. Administrator (EXAD) $ 31.00 11 $341 Total Hours 256 Salary Cost $11,430 Overhead Cost @ 184.46% of Direct Labor $21,083 Net Fee @ 28.00% of Direct Labor $3,200 Total Overhead & Net Fee Cost $24,283 Direct Expenses Unit Each No. Cost Reproduction: Reports reports @ $15 /report 0 $0 Reproduction: Plan Sets sets @ $10 /set 0 $0 Mail/Deliveries/Fed Ex @ $20 0 $0 Mileage miles @ $0.565 /mile 210 $119 High Definition Scanning Equip. days @ $520 /day 0 $0 Traffic Counts Vendor $0 Subtotal $119 David Evans and Associates Total $35,831 Page 1 of 1 P:\c\COED00000003\OOOOCON\0030Contract\Supplements\Supplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical Design\Exhibit E-1_DEA Budget Five Corners_2013-0610.xls Printed: 6/10/2013 Supplement No. 7 Exhibit E-1 Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project City of Edmonds David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Work Element # Work Element it 0 m o d o N y w ° C7 '50 @ 0) w Q c 0) w 3 .mow o LL a` Q U Q U m .E Q� U U) y N Q t` ca �a Q Q 0 a m Q x w DEA DEA direct rates: $57.00 $57.00 $42.00 $36.00 $32.50 $26.75 $31.0o Total Dollars Total Total Total hrs hrs hrs otal Total Total Total hrs hrs hrs hrs Total hrs Total $ no Esc. 2.0 Proj. Management and Quality Control 2.1 Project Management and File Management (3 additional months) 6 6 12 $1,570 2.4 Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices (3 additional) 3 3 3 9 $1,076 2.5 Coordination with the City 3 3 6 $928 2.6 Project Kick-off and Progress Meetings (3 additional) 9 12 3 24 $3,428 .0 Total 21 7.0 Utility Coordination 7.1 Utility Coordination (one additional meeting) 4 6 2 12 $1,667 7.2 Utility Conflict Resolution 7.2.1 Comcast Update 1 2 3 $441 7.2.2 Edmond's Communication Vault Update Work Element 7.0 Tota11MMMMMMM PSBE Design 2 4 6 21 $881 8.0 8.3 Storm Drainage Technical Information Report (TIR) 8.3.2 Final (TIR) Report 2 2 12 4 4 028 8.7 Construction Documents (100% Completion Level) 8.7.1 Update Drainage Plans/Profiles/Details 4 4 24 4 36(E$4,g81 8.7.2 Illumination Updates 4 4 28 2 38 $5,302 8.7.3 Design Specifications 12 8 20 $2,912 8.7.4 Project Cost Estimate 4 6 10 $1,500 8.8 Assistance During Bid Period 8.8.1 Bid Support and Pre -Bid Meeting 10 16 26 $3,881 8.8.2 Bid Addendums 6 16 8 30 $4,118 4 8 184 Direct Expenses 8 $119 PROJECT WORK ELEMENTS TOTALS 70 10 129 8 10 18 11 256 $35,831 Page 1 of 1 P:\c\COED00000003\000000N\0030Contract\Supplements\Supplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical Design\Exhibit E-1_DEA Budget Five Corners _2013-0610.xis Printed: 6/10/2013 AM-5856 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: 3. J. Megan Luttrell Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of right of way and easements from the Cavalry Chapel property for the Five Corners Roundabout Project. Recommendation Authorization for Mayor to accept and sign the Right -of -Way and Easement documents for the Cavalry Chapel property. Previous Council Action On March 12, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The City has reached an agreement with the owner of the Cavalry Chapel to purchase 1,143 square feet of right of way and 1,349 square feet of temporary construction easement for the Five Corners Roundabout project. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $33,534 and this cost will be funded by a federal transportation grant and a 13.5% local match (112 Street Fund). The Cavalry Chapel property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection. AttarhmPntc Calvary Chanel Barizain & Sale Deed Temp Construction Permit Improvements Permit Driveway Reconstruction Permit Real Property Voucher Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/13/2013 04:30 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 06/14/2013 08:32 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/14/2013 08:33 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/14/2013 08:54 AM Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 06/14/2013 Sandy Chase 06/14/2013 09:03 AM Started On: 06/12/2013 04:30 PM Return Address: City of Edmonds 121 — 5" Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Bertrand Hauss BARGAIN AND SALE DEED Grantor: Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood Grantee: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington Abbreviated Legal: Ptn of Lots 1 & 2, Hawarden Tracts, V 14, P 69 Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00 Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project THE GRANTOR, Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood, a Washington non-profit corporation, for and in consideration of Twenty -Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty and N01100ths and Other Good and Valuable Consideration ($27,450.00) and underthreat of the exercise of eminent domain, bargains, sells and conveys to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation, the real property described in Exhibit "A" and "Exhibit "A-1" and depicted in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "B-1" herewith attached and made a part hereof, and any after -acquired interest therein, to the same extent and purpose as if the rights granted herein had been acquired by eminent domain under the laws of the State of Washington. SUBJECT TO all rights, restrictions, reservations, easements, conditions, covenants, rights -of -way, mineral leases, mineral reservations, and mineral conveyances of record. The lands herein described contain an area of 1,143 square feet, more or less, the specific details concerning all of which are to be found in that certain map of definite location now of record and on file in the Office of the City Engineer in Edmonds, Washington, and entitled Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project. It is understood and agreed that delivery of the deed is hereby tendered and that the terms and obligations hereof shall not become binding upon the City of Edmonds unless and until accepted and approved by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, as indicated by the signature of the City Major, below. Page 1 of 3 Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00 The Grantor(s) hereby request(s) the Assessor -Treasurer of said County to set -over to the remainder the lien of all unpaid taxes, if any, affecting the real property hereby conveyed, as provided by RCW 84.60.070. Dated this day of ^ / , 20/_� Accepted and Approved by Grantor Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood By.'>' Printed Name: Title: Date: Accepted and Approved by Grantee CITY OF EDMONDS (MAYOR) 0 Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM Bv: Office of the City Attorney By: Printed Name: Title: Date: ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED BV: Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk Page 2 of 3 Tax Parcel No. 004674-000-001-00 STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS. County of } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that W ., � -� V ; �, « u-. ',— and � l' —ta C� -�T 14 -- t_� (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is /they are) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the �7 r �, , a., -1 and KZ`�, . ( k" --- of Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: � -- \ z 3_ 3 ,eeeeeeAas IOHN S. McmASTERS NOTARY PUBLIC N,am typed or printed) �o- "TATE OF WASHINGTON .�I TARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington COMMISSION EXPIRES Residing at '- +-% -- AUGUST �-- ra 7 My appointment expires: 1:�,j f ! Page 3 of 3 Tax Parcel No. 004674-000-001-00 EXHIBIT A RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARENT PARCEL: LOTS I AND 2, HAWARDEN TRAC'°TS, AS PER PLATRECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, PAGE 69, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON, TRIG H T OFNVAY AQ21J SITION: A PORTION OF TIIE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT TIIL MONUMENTED SOUTH QUAR'TI R CORNER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. THENCE SOUTH 0036'50" WESTALONG THE CL;NTI=:RUNE OIa 84"" AVE WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.28 FEET; THENCE SOUTB 89023' 10" EAST FOR A DISTANCE O 30.00 FEET TO THE IN ERSI C '[JON OIL HE EAST MARGIN OF SAID 84'"' AVE T WEST AN17'I'I-II' SOUTH MARGIN OF 212"' S'I'IdE'ET SW AND TIME TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 'lHENCI SOUI'I-I 0°36'50" WEST ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN FOR A DiSTANCE OF 41.99 FEET TO A POINT ONTI-114 ARC OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE; WHOSE' CENTER BEARS SOUTI165°26'31" 1 AS't HAVING A RADIUS OF 51.50 PBET; THENCE NORTIIERLY ALONG THE, ARC OF, SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49°03'03" FOR A DISTANCE OF 44,09 TO A POINT ON AN ARC OF A COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 287.00 FEET, TIII NCE EASTERLY RLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVI TI-IROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE' OF 14037'05" FOR A DISTANCE OF 7312 Frl `I'; 1"H NCE NOR`11i 82"22'58" I= AST FOR A DISTANCE OF 2.54 F ET TO TI-ll SOU T1I MARGIN OIL 212""' STRI ls'C SW; TI-JE,NCENORTIT 98051'32" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.51 FI�ET'I'O THI: TRUE POINT OF 13F.GINNING. CONTAINING 1,133 SQUARE FFRT, MORE OR LESS. SITUATE IN Tl1F. CITY OF EDMONDS, SN0110MISI-1 COUNTY, WASHING'TON, I 100, L L tffiD-- EXHIBIT A-1 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARENT PARCEL: LOTS 1 AND 2, HAWARDEN TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED 1N VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, PAGE 69, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION: A PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE MONUMENTED SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. THENCE SOUTH 880'51'32" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 21f" STREET SW AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 19 FOR A DISTANCE OF 236.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 °08'28" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH MARGIN OF 212"' STREET SW AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 88°51'32" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1008'28" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88051'32" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF .10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1008'28" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1.00 FEET TO THE SOUT14 MARGIN OF 212"" STREET SW AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING '10 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B'4 L a FOUND CONCRETE MON WITH BRASS — — RIVET IN CASE 20+00 ROW ACQUISITION STA 20+30.26, _ 30, 00' LT 212TH ST S S88'51'32"E N o 3'23'10"W B 30.00' N 00 N 3 21t00 F- 00 30, 0 30' 5' / J PARCEL. # G` y 1 -� e nnnnn n nn � vv-r5 � -ruww � v� h�cti. EDMONDS LUTHERAN CHURCH TPOB TEMP CONST. ESM T a 1a 2a ,� STA 20+72.27, LEGEND 1020 30.00' LT RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AREA ® TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AREA — — — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY 5' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY 22 00 I I I I FOUND CASED MON I� EXHIBIT B OA1E. 11-9-12 bMGNI g)a Fm COE00003 /avEM02cped0003 DRAW 9jo LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S0036'50"W 41.99, L2 N82`22'58"E 2.54' L3 N88'51'32"W 106.51' CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH Cl 49`03'03" 51.50' 44.09' C2 14°37'05" 287.00' 73.22' FIVE CORNERS rr,AV,. EVAN. RIGHT—OF—WAY ACQUISTION AND AS80C1ATE8 ino. 1826 W. Manne Via. uAm E.R. 2911 EDMONDS LUTHERAN CHURCH Everettw-hhpWn 052Ul Pone: Q5.259A099 FOUND CONCRETE MON WITH BRASS RIVET W CASE 9 212TH ST S- — S88'51'32"E 2663.16 30 236.23' L20+000 30, o 6 o n cis L1 w—_.._— -- — -- ---L7 L3 L2T ITPOB EDMONDS LUTHERAN CHURCH EXHIBIT B-1 STA 22+36.23, 130,00' RT I I t� 4' [[yy I I 0 io 20 40 FOUND ,s 2° CASED 3° z9 MON 46+63.16 LEGEND r,--/] RIGHT—OF—WAY ACQUISITION AREA EXISTING RIGHT —OF —WRY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S88'51'32"E 10.00' L2 S01 `08'28"W 1.00' L3 N88'51'32"W 10.00' L4 N01 `08'28"E 1.00' DATE; 11-9-12 DESM 91,n MMMDAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES tNa. 1640 W. Mamw'4— DA-,Suite 200 r4L• COEUO°03 / s�EMOBcCO�W3 oRnwN: g)a E..n W-hi'.0-9E201 Pt._ 425.259.4099 FIVE CORNERS RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISTION EDMONDS LUTHFRAN CHURCH City of Edmonds TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project Property Address: 8330 — 212t" St SW Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00 Property Owner: Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood The undersigned, Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood, a Washington non-profit Corporation, for themselves and for their heirs, successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "GRANTOR", for and in consideration of the promises set forth below and the improvements to the City's Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project, hereby convey and grant to the City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, and its successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "the City", a temporary, non-exclusive easement (the "Temporary Construction Easement") over, under, in, along, across and upon the GRANTORS' property as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Temporary Easement Area"), for the purpose of building the Five Corners Roundabout Intersection. The GRANTOR further grants the use of the property immediately adjacent to the Temporary Easement Area for the purpose of performing this work. Work will include necessary construction activities of the project, and incidental items necessary to restore the property to a condition similar to its previous state. All costs of this work shall be completely borne by the City. The GRANTOR and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1. The City shall upon completion of the work, remove all construction debris and restore the surface of the above -described property to substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject project. 2. Access to the GRANTORS' property shall be maintained at all times during the City's Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project. 3. This Temporary Construction Easement shall commence upon the date this Agreement is signed by both parties and shall terminate and expire upon the City's final acceptance of this project by the Edmonds City Council. 4. This Temporary Construction Easement is valid for twelve months from the start of construction and shall not be revoked by GRANTOR without giving the City forty-five (45) days' advance written notice. 5. Upon the expiration of the term of this Temporary Construction Easement, all of the rights and benefits of the City in, to and under this Agreement with respect to the Temporary Construction Easement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect. 6. The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood and their respective tenants, licensees, invitees, and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, liabilities, damages, actions, proceedings, expenses and costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of or resulting from the use of the Grantor Property under this Temporary Construction Easement and the related Improvements Permit and Driveway Reconstruction Permit by the City and/or its successors, assigns, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and employees (the "Indemnifying Parties"), provided, however, an Indemnified Party shall not be indemnified to the extent that any such claims, demands, losses, liabilities, damages, actions, proceedings, expenses and costs are suffered or incurred by such Indemnified Party as a result of the negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnified Party and the foregoing defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligation shall not extend to and in no event shall the Indemnifying Parties be liable with respect to any pre-existing hazardous substances in, on or under the Indemnified Parties' property. If and to the extent that this Agreement is subject to Section 4.24.115 of the Revised Code of Washington, it is agreed that where such liability, claim, damage, loss or expense arises from the concurrent negligence of the Indemnifying parties and an Indemnified Party, the Indemnifying Parties' obligations of indemnity under this Section with respect to such Indemnified Party shall be effective only to the extent of the negligence of the Indemnifying Parties. Solely for the purpose of effectuating the indemnification obligations hereunder, and not for the benefit of any third parties (including employees of the parties), each party specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted it under applicable federal, state or local worker compensation acts or other employee benefit acts. The parties acknowledge that the foregoing waiver has been specifically and mutually negotiated between the parties. DATED this day of �'� / 20 Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood Byi� 1�7 Printed Name:h✓,,,_��77 Title: Date: Z 3- / Phone Number (Optionao ACCEPTED BY: City of Edmonds Printed Name: Title: I By: III I/ ,-u-_A__� Printed Name: Title: , r� Date: Date STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS. County of } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sc- d --A- V ; V, C.'V- -4— and (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is /they are) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the and �N're �--\'j f— of Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: .��- ' \ ,, JOHN S. MCMASTERS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES Name (typed or printed): -j V— NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at S, -'-�k, '-, r"�' My appointment expires: �Ea f 4 I --,-u I Z: ISM\.11 i -, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARENT PARCEL: LOTS I AND 2, HAWARDEN TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, PAGE 69, IN SNOHOMISII COUNTY, STATE OF WASIIINGTON, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: A PORTION OF THE ABOV1 DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL MORE PARTICULARLY Dl3SCIZIBI3D AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MONUMENTED SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. THENCE SOUTH 0036'50" WEST ALONG THE CliN'I'ERI_,INI� OF 84""' AVE WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.28 FELT; THENCE SOUTH 89023' 10" BAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TT) TIlE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID 84"' AVE WEST AND'I'III SOUTH MARGIN OF 212""' STREET SW; THENCE SOUTT1 0036'50" WITS"T ALONG SAID EAST MAR(AN FOR A INSTANCY,'. OF 42.0I F1: E'f 'TO'THE'I'RIJE POINT OF 131iGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 0036'50" WEST ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 122.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89023' 10" EAST' FOR A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEE I'; THE.NCE NORTH 0°36'50" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 121.80 hI:;I:"I"TO A POINTON TI1E ARC OF A. NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE WIIOSE CENTF"R BEARS SOUTH 64"10'03" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 46.50 FEET; `I'llENCE 1 ASTERLY ALONG T'I-IE ARC OI� SAID CUIZVI;'ITWOUGH A CENTRAI, ANGLE OF 47046'34" FOR A :DISTANCE' OF 38.77 FEET TO A POINTON THE ARC OF A COMPOUND CURVE TO'l HE, RIGII`h HAVING A RADIUS OF 282.00 FELT; TII]:;NCE I AST'I RI'.,Y ALONG VEIN ARC OF SAID C,UIZVE T"HROUGII A CENTRAL ANGLE, OI-� 14°40'22" FOR A DISTANCE OF 72,22 FEET: THENCE? NORTH 81055' 13" EAST I�OR A DISTANCE OF 2.39 FEET; TIIl NCIs SOUTH 88°51'32" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1 "09'40" EAST FOR A DISTANCE' OF 5.00 FEET" "I'O TII_F,, SOUTH MARGIN OF SAID 212""t STREET SW; THENCE NORTII 88051'32" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 81 °55' 13" WEST FOR A DISTANCE; OF 2.54 FEET" TO A POINT ON THIS ARC OF A NON 'TANGENTIAL CURVI: WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 1 °46'23" EAST IIAVING A RADIUS OF 287.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A. CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14037'02" FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.22 FEET "TO A POINT ON'1`HE ARC OF A COMPOUND CURVE TO THE LEFTHAVING A RADIUS OF 51.50 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49003'03" FOR. A DISTANCE OF 44.09 FEET TO TI-IE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.,349 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. SITUATE 1N TIIE CITY OF 1 DMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. i ��J J `sT FOUND CONCRETE MON WITH BRASS ` RIVET IN CASE ROW ACQUISITION 20+0o STA 20+30.26, 30.00' LT 212TH ST S _ 4 S88`51'32"E cc CD n 30' 89'23' 10"W L3 30.00' 7-/ �/71 T/T' 7� L2 — — — — - 5. yrjl �OJ PARCEL. # , J 00467400000100 oo EDMONDS LUTHERAN CHURCH 21 00 TPOB TEMP CONST. ESMT Q STA 20+72.27, o 10 20 Q 30' 30.00' LT LEGEND OD E-2 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AREA ® TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AREA (! — — — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY I o 5' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S00°36'50"W 41.99' L2 N82°22'58"E 2.54' L3 N88°51'32"W 106.51' CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH Cl 49°03'03" 51.50' 44.09' C2 14°37'05" 287.00' 73.22' EXHIBIT B FIVE CORNERS DATE.- 11 —,2 ���,, 9ja AN AVID EVANS RIGHT—OF—WAY ACQUISTION a88CCIaTE9 INC— FIE; COED0003 / svEM02coed0003 DRA15N: g ja 1620 W. Marine View Drive, Suite 200 E D M O N D S L U TH E R A N CHURCH Everett Wastdntm 98201 Ph.— 425.259.4099 City of Edmonds IMPROVEMENTS PERMIT Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project Property address: 004674-000-001-00 Property owner / Grantor: Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood The City of Edmonds (hereafter "City") has undertaken a public works construction project (hereafter "Project") in the vicinity of property owned by Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood, a Washington non-profit corporation, (hereafter "Owner") located at 8330 — 212th St SW, Edmonds, WA (hereafter "Property"). The City agrees to perform certain work on the Property to facilitate the construction of the Project. 1. Scope of Permit. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Owner hereby grants to the City, its contractors or assigns, subject to the conditions hereafter set forth, a temporary Improvements Permit over the following described property: Property description: Portion of Lots 1 and 2, Hawarden Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 14 of Plats, page 69, in Snohomish County, Washington Assessor's Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00 1.1. Driveway Reconstruction. The Owner hereby grants to the City, its contractors or assigns, subject to the conditions hereafter set forth, this temporary Improvements Permit to enter upon the Property and perform work for the purposes of reconstructing a portion of Owner's existing driveway, so as to conform to the Project improvements. The reconstruction of Owner's driveway shall occur on the portion of Owner's Property approximately shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. Any portion of Owner's driveway lying within the City road right-of-way shall be paved. Reconstruction of Owner's driveway outside the City road right-of-way shall be equal in kind to the existing driveway on private property. Select One: ❑ Accepted ❑ Rejected �Ej Not Applicable Page 1 of 3 1.2. Utility Undergrounding. The Owner hereby grants to the City, its contractors or assigns, subject to the conditions hereafter set forth, a temporary Improvements Permit over Owner's Property to trench and relocate aerial utility lines from the right-of-way to connection point(s) as determined by the City. Work may include but is not limited to pavement, landscaping and other ground surface removal, excavating, conduit installation, and conduit attachment to buildings. Undergrounding shall be provided to reestablish existing electrical service; any system upgrades are the responsibility of the Owner. Select One: ❑ Accepted ❑ Rejected ❑' Not Applicable 1.3. Utility Undergrounding. The Owner hereby grants to the City, its contractors or assigns, subject to the conditions hereafter set forth, a temporary Improvements Permit over Owner's Property to trench and relocate a catch basin and storm drain facility from the right-of-way to connection point(s) as determined by the City. Work may include but is not limited to pavement, landscaping and other ground surface removal and excavating approximately shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. Select One: ❑ Accepted ❑ Rejected E] Not Applicable 1.4. Property Restoration. The Owner hereby grants to the City, its contractors or assigns, subject to the conditions hereafter set forth, a temporary permit to enter upon said parcel of land and work on the land for the purposes of restoring a portion of Owner's remaining property so as to conform to said improvements The property restoration shall occur on the portion of Owner's land approximately shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. Select One: 0 Accepted ❑ Rejected ❑ Not Applicable 2. Conditions. This Improvements Permit is granted and accepted subject to the following conditions: a. This Improvements Permit shall not be revoked by the Owner without giving the City forty-five (45) days' advance written notice.. b. Upon completion of the construction work associated with the Project, the City shall leave the Owner's Property in substantially the same condition it was in on the day work commenced. Owner shall not obstruct, or allow any tenant or third party to obstruct, or, in any manner prevent or interfere with the performance of the work described in paragraph 1. d. If the City is not allowed to enter the Property for the purposes accepted above, the Owner agrees to complete this work at a later date at the Owner's expense. Page 2 of 3 e. The Owner grants permission to the City, its contractors or assigns, the right to access the Property beyond the shown limits of the Improvements Permit area, as necessary to construct necessary improvements. This Improvements Permit shall expire upon the City's completion of the construction work on the Property. DATED this 2- 3 day of o , 20 Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood By: "4* kv, By: Printed N a me: l�� f'� tz` l.� « Printed Name:�� Title: Title: jJ,C C.c} — Date: Date: ` 2 ACCEPTED BY: City of Edmonds Date Printed Name: Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS. County of } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that A- and ' �- Vy, � (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is /they are) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the P3-%a- S and r-- of Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: sr—^ \ z-:!�, kAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA JOHN S. MCMASTERS NOTARY PUBLIC N Ttyped or printed): STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington COMMISSION EXPIRES Residing at y�\-,,,� �� n^, sA e • S My appointment expires: -23 f yr Page 3 of 3 ��. 6,0 0 10 20 40 . ,.,- :.. :. •. 1 .,, ' ,. ............ LEGEND RIGHT—OF—WAY PARCEL. MBER 00467400000100 PROPER OWNER CALVARY CHAPEL OF EDMONDS PARCEL I RE A 1.02 AC (- 4.4,431 SF) ROW AC UISITION AREA 1,143 SF PARCEL ' REA REMAINING 0.99 AC (-43,288 SF) ,TEMPOR..RY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (TCE) AREA 1,349 SF ii 5.0' - f P:\c\COE000000003\0400CAD\TT\DWG\Exhlblts\ROW Exhibits Flve Comers Roundabout — ROW Exhlbits.dwg CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING DIVISION FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RIGHT-OF-WAY EXHIBIT FEDERAL AID NO. CM-2512(007) Est 1890 DRAWN BY: K. POTUZAK DATE: 3/07/2013 SCALE: AS NOTED SHT: 1 OF 1 Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project Property Address: 8330 2121h Street SW Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00 Property Owner: Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood The undersigned, Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood ,a Washington non-profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as "GRANTOR", for and in consideration of improvements to be constructed on the Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project, hereinafter referred to as "THE PROJECT", hereby convey and grant to the City of Edmonds, including but not limited to its employees, officers, officials, agents and contractors and their subcontractors, hereinafter referred to as "the City", a driveway reconstruction permit over, under, in, along, across and upon the GRANTORS' property, which is identified above, for the purpose of reconstructing the sidewalk and driveway, per City plans for THE PROJECT and applicable local codes. Without limitations, the grant of this Driveway Reconstruction Permit shall include the use of and access to GRANTORS' property for the purpose of performing necessary work to complete the aforementioned plans and code, such as excavating, compacting, shaping, and grading of sidewalk and driveway sections on or adjacent to GRANTORS' property, and other miscellaneous construction activities. The City shall be responsible for its own costs of construction. Furthermore, the GRANTORS and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually covenant and agree as follows: E 1. The City shall, upon completion of the work, remove all debris and restore the surface of the above described property to a condition equal to or better than that which existed as of the date of this Agreement. 2. Access to GRANTORS' property shall be maintained at all times during the City's Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project. 3. The Grantor accepts and approves the City's plans for THE PROJECT, including but not limited to its impacts and effects on and to the GRANTORS' property. 4. This Driveway Reconstruction Permit shall terminate upon completion of the sidewalk / driveway work. 5. This Driveway Reconstruction Permit shall not be revoked by the GRANTOR without first giving the City forty-five (45) day' advance written notice. DATED this S day of 204;2 Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood Printed Name: lam'! i`�` l -- �.�` Printed Name: �Y Title: Title: Date: Date: '3 ? , 15�`2J-- 6"'2 2 - 7 Phone Number (Optionao ACCEPTED BY: City of Edmonds Date Printed Name: Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS. County of } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that � >" V%, V �-4- and �� \,, ��� � —5 (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that`( e/she/they) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is /they are) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the me—<- �- ,-5 K ---► and of Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: 1tiLLAAAAAAAAMA 'OHN S. MCMASTERS ;, OTARY PUBLIC Name (typed or printed): `'' ATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington (COMMISSION EXPIRES `Residing at 7 �UGU T 17 My appointment expires: t ` c `ST FOUND CONCRETE MON WITH BRASS — RIVET IN CASE TPOB 20+00 ROW ACQUISITION STA 20+30.26, 30.00' LT — — — 212TH ST S _ S88°51'32"E 00 N Pw� M 30, 89'23'10"W L3 L2 30.00' j��� j7 71 — — — — - Ih/// Pn 1 p/vri # u . � J A 670!1Q0/10 coN EDMONDS LUTHERAN CDCHURCH 3 21 00 TPOB I � TEMP CONST. ESMT 0 10 20 40 STA 20+72.27, LEGEND 30 30.00' LT I °0 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AREA ® TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AREA — — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY o Ln 5' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY I o I N I 1 22 00 I I I I I FOUND CASED MON LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S00°36'50"W 41.99' L2 N82°22'58"E 2.54' L3 N88°51'32"W 106.51' CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH Cl 49°03'03" 51.50' 44.09' C2 14'37'05" 287.00' 73.22' I I EXHIBIT B FIVE CORNERS DALE •11-9-72 ocSRra: gjD O )AVID EVAN8 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISTION ASSOCIATES,No. FILE COED0003 / svEM02coed0003 DRANK: 9Ja 1620 W. Marine Ve Drive, Suite 200 E D M O N D S LU TH E R A N CHURCH Everett Me Nnymn 98201 Phone: 425.259.4099 -� City of Edmonds Real Property Voucher Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project Claimant Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood 8330 212th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026-7442 8330 — 212th St SW Project Parcel No. 004674-000-001-00 A full, complete, and final payment for settlement for the title or interest conveyed or released as fully set forth in the Statutory Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement, dated Lands Conveyed Fee: 1,143 SF (m/1) $27,450.00(R) Temporary Construction Easement: 1,349 SF (m/1) 3,300.00(R) Improvements: Lawn 1,450.00 Statuary Evaluation Allowance 1,334.00 Total $33,534.00 1 have been informed that if there is a mortgage or lien on my property, the mortgage company or Iienholder may require that all or a portion of the proceeds from this transaction be applied towards principal reduction of the outstanding lien balance. If necessary, the City of Edmonds will deposit the funds from this transaction into escrow for the purpose of clearing title of the purchased land. The escrow company will disburse the funds according to the requirements of the Mortgage Company or Iienholder. I/we hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and amounts listed herein are proper charges against the City of Edmonds, that the same or any part thereof has not been paid, and that I/we am/are authorized to sign for the claimant. Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood By:i Printed Name: 1 Title: Date: —/? By: i Printed Name: Title: Date: Mirk` rSderson, Flight -of -Way Consultant Date: Place Sign e,-/M Printed Name: Title: Date: Place Signed: AM-5863 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Phil Williams Department: Committee: Public Works Finance Submitted By: Kody McConnell Type: Action Information 3. K. Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign acceptance of additional Coordinated Prevention Grant Funding. Recommendation It is recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign an amendment accepting additional Coordinated Prevention Grant funding. Previous Council Action On January 23, 2012, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Recycling Grant Agreement between the City of Edmonds and the Washington State Department of Ecology for 2012-2013. Narrative The City's recycling coordinator implements a solid waste prevention program primarily funded by a Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Grant. The Department of Ecology has raised the City's grant share for this agreement by $5,730 to a total of $40,074. In order to accept this additional grant award, the City's enterprise utility fund will need to expend $1,910 to match the additional award. Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact Revenue: $5,730 Fiscal Impact: No impact on General Fund. Expenditures are from enterprise utility fund. Edmonds 2013 CPG Amendment Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Kody McConnell Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 Attachments Expenditure: $1,910 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 11:29 AM Dave Earling 06/13/2013 11:44 AM Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 11:48 AM Started On: 06/13/2013 11:23 AM AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. G1200260 I' �A'/_*&IM 111 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND CITY OF EDMONDS Amendment Purpose: This amendment will increase the state grant share to cover staff time for full implementation of the Public Outreach and Education Task, described in the agreement scope of work. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that the agreement is amended as follows: 1. The total maximum eligible cost for this agreement increases by $7,640 from $45,792 to $53,432. 2. The state grant share for this agreement increases by $5,730 from $34,344 to $40,074. 3. The revised budget for this agreement is as follows: CATEGORY -TOTAL CATEGORY COST CURRENT BUDGET: AMENDMENT BUDGET CHANGES: TOTAL MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST: Waste Reduction and Recycling $45,792 +/$7,640 $53,432 1. Public Outreach and Education $45,792 +/$7,640 $53,432 TOTAL MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST $45,792 +/$7,640 $53,432 FUND SOURCE: (LTCA) Maximum Eligible Cost: $53,432 FUND GRANT PERCENT (%) STATE GRANT SHARE Local Toxics Control Account (LTCA) 75 % $40,074 MATCH REQUIREMENT MATCH PERCENT (%) LOCAL SHARE Cash Match 25 % $13,358 4. The effective date of this amendment is January 1, 2013. Page 1 of 2 Agreement No. G 1200260 Coordinated Prevention Grant Program City of Edmonds 5. All other terms andconditions of the original agreement and any amendments remain in full force and effect IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Grant Amendment: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Laurie G. Davies Program Manager Waste 2 Resources APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY Assistant Attorney General CITY OF EDMONDS Date Authorized Official Print Name of Authorized Official Title Date Page 2 of 2 AM-5858 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Review Committee: Type: Parks and Recreation Action Information 3. L. Committee Action: Cancel Subject Title Authorization to contract with Summit Law Group to provide legal services related to a union grievance. Recommendation Council authorize the Mayor to contract with Summit Law Group in an amount not to exceed $7,000 to provide legal services related to a union grievance. Previous Council Action Narrative This request is for Council to authorize the Mayor to engage with Summit Law Group for assistance with a potential litigation matter. This authorization is not to exceed $7,000. Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 Form Review Date 06/13/2013 11:29 AM 06/13/2013 11:46 AM 06/13/2013 11:48 AM Started On: 06/13/2013 09:27 AM AM-5870 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Department: Review Committee: Type: City Clerk's Office Action Information Submitted By: Committee Action: 3. M. Sandy Chase Subject Title Authorization to contract with Carol Morris to provide legal services related to the Point Edwards Building 10 closed -record appeal. Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to contract with Carol Morris in an amount not to exceed $5,000 to provide legal services related to the Point Edwards Building 10 closed -record appeal. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative This request is for Council to authorize the Mayor to contract with Carol Morris to provide legal services related to the Point Edwards building 10 closed -record appeal. This authorization is not to exceed $5,000. Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/13/2013 02:31 PM Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 02:33 PM Started On: 06/13/2013 01:55 PM AM-5834 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Council President Petso 3. N. Submitted By: Jana Spellman Department: City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Resolution thanking Walker Kasinadhuni for his service as a Student Representative. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Resolution thanking Walker Kasinadhuni for his service as Student Representative to the Edmonds City Council. Attachment: Resolution Kasinadhuni Resolution Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 06/12/2013 A++arhmgin +e Form Review Date 06/12/2013 03:36 PM 06/12/2013 03:45 PM 06/12/2013 05:01 PM Started On: 06/06/2013 10:54 AM Re OlUtIOU No: 1292 A 1Resolution of the Edmonds City CouncifCommending Walker Xasinadhuni for.Ifis Service as a Student representative on the Edmonds City Councif Whereas, •p Wafker Yasinadhuni, a student at Meadowdale High School, volunteered to serve as a Student Representative of the Edmonds City Council; and I I Whereas, - Wacker,, served as a student member of the City Council from March 12 to June 18, 2013; and Whereas, 9I,Lr. Xasinadhuni was interested in learning what issues and questions the City of Edmonds faces today and to find out what active role he could assume surrounding these issues; and Whereas, he was conscientious in his attendance at meetings and very observant of the issues before the Council; Now, Therefore, Be It resolved, that the City Council and the Mayor hereby extend their best wishes to Wacker in his future endeavors and express the hope that he will continue to contribute to the democratic process of government in the City of Edmonds and elsewhere. Now, Therefore, Be It Passed, Approved, andAdopted this 18th day of June, 2013 Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Attest: City Clerk Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember AM-5868 3. O. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Leif Bjorback Department: Building Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Ordinance adopting 2012 International Building and Fire Codes Recommendation Adopt the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) Previous Council Action Council held a public hearing on 6/4/2013 and directed the city attorney to draft an ordinance for Council consent approval. Narrative The proposal is to amend Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code adopting the 2012 International Building and Fire Codes. Following council approval on June 4, the city attorney has drafted the necessary ordinance. See Exhibit 1. AttnrhmPnfe Ordinance Amending ECDC Title 19 Exhibit A to Ordinance Amending ECDC Title 19 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Leif Bjorback Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 Form Review Date 06/13/2013 01:32 PM 06/13/2013 02:32 PM 06/13/2013 02:33 PM Started On: 06/13/2013 12:12 PM ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 19 ECDC TO INCORPORATE THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATES AND TO USE A HEARING EXAMINER IN LIEU OF A BOARD OF APPEALS. WHEREAS, the 2012 International Building Codes (see RCW 19.27.031), as amended by the State, become effective statewide on July 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, RCW 19.27.040 authorizes cities to amend these codes as they apply within the city as long as minimum performance standards of the codes and the objectives enumerated in RCW 19.27.020 are not diminished; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Building Codes" is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through). Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Im JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 19 ECDC TO INCORPORATE THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATES AND TO USE A HEARING EXAMINER IN LIEU OF A BOARD OF APPEALS. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 3 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Edmonds Community Development Code 19.00.000 Title 19 BUILDING CODES Chapters: 19.00 Building Code......................................................................................... 3 19.05 Residential Building Code..................................................................... 16 19.10 Building Permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas ...... 17 19.15 Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code .................................................... 31 19.20 Plumbing Code....................................................................................... 32 19.25 Fire Code................................................................................................ 33 19.30 Energy Code........................................................................................... 39 19.35 Repealed................................................................................................. 39 19.40 International Property Maintenance Code ............................................. 40 19.45 International Code Council Performance Code ..................................... 41 19.50 International Existing Building Code .................................................... 41 19.55 Electrical Code....................................................................................... 42 19.60 Moving Buildings.................................................................................. 43 19.65 Marinas.................................................................................................. 44 19.70 Fees................................................................................................... 46/48 19.75 Street Names and Address Numbering .................................................. 50 19.80 AoaFd of Appeals................................................................................... 52 19.85 Penalties.............................................................................................. 56.1 19.90 Limitation of Benefited and Protected Classes ...................................... 57 19.95 Conversion Condominiums................................................................... 57 Exhibit A to Ordinance Chapter 19.00 BUILDING CODE Sections: 19.00.000 Purpose. 19.00.005 Referenced codes. 19.00.010 Conflict between codes. 19.00.015 Administrative provisions. 19.00.020 International Building Code adopted. 19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments. 19.00.030 Architectural design review — Optional vesting. 19.00.040 Excluding nonconforming religious building from certain requirements. 19.00.000 Purpose. The purpose of the codes and regulations adopted in this title is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures within the city of Edmonds. It is not the purpose or intent to create or designate any particular class or group of persons to be especially protected or benefited, nor is it intended to cre- ate any special relationship with any individual. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. 19.00.005 Referenced codes. Where the following codes are referenced within any of the codes adopted and amended in this title, they shall be substituted as follows: A. "International Building Code" shall mean the building code as adopted and amended in this title. B. "International Residential Code" shall mean the residential building code as adopted and amended in this title. C. "International Mechanical Code" shall mean the mechanical code as adopted and amended in this title. D. "International Fuel Gas Code" shall mean the fuel gas code as adopted in Chapter 19.27 RCW and in accordance with the mechanical code as adopted and amended in this title. E. "International Fire Code" shall mean the fire code as adopted and amended in this title. F. "Uniform Plumbing Code" shall mean the plumbing code as adopted and amended in this title. G. "Washington State Energy Code" shall mean the energy code as adopted and amended in this title. H. The "National Electrical Code" shall mean the electrical code as adopted and amended in this title. I. "International Existing Building Code" shall mean the existing building code as adopted and amended in this title. J. "International Property Maintenance Code" shall mean the property maintenance code as adopted and amended in this title. K. "International Code Council Performance Code" shall mean the performance code as adopted and amended in this title. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. 19.00.010 Conflict between codes. In case of conflict among any of the codes referenced in ECDC 19.00.005 asnd adopted and subsequently "amended by this chapter, the first named code shall govern over those following. In case of conflicts between other codes and provisions adopted by this chapter, the code or provision that is most specific, as determined by the building official, shall apply. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. 19.00.015 Administrative provisions. The administrative provisions contained in Chapter I of the International Building Code as adopted and subsequently amended by this chapter shall be used as the general administrative provisions for the codes listed in ECDC 19.00.005(A), (B), (C), (D) and (F), unless otherwise .nd ed required to meet the purpose of the code.. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. 19.00.020 International Building Code adopted. The International Building Code (IBC), 2009-2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-50 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix Chapters E, G, H, I and J. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. 19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments. The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows: A. Section 104.3, Notices and Orders, is amended to read: The building official shall issue all necessary notices or orders to ensure compliance with this code. The building official is also authorized to use Chapter 20.110 ECDC for code compliance in addition to the remedies provided for in this code. B. Section 105.1.1, Annual Permit, is deleted. C. Section 105.1.1, Demolition Permits, is added and shall read: Before the partial or complete demolition of any building or structure (interior or exterior), a demolition permit shall be obtained from the building official. The permit fee is established pursuant to Chapter 19.70 ECDC. The applicant shall also post with the city, prior to permit issuance, a performance bond, or frozen fund, conforming to Chapter 17.10 ECDC herein, in an amount to be determined by the building official to satisfy all city requirements no later than 180 days after the issuance of the permit. The demolition performance bond or frozen fund shall not be released until the building official determines the following requirements have been completed: 1 Cap Abandoned Sanitary Sewers. Septic tanks shall be pumped, collapsed and removed and/or filled with earth, sand, concrete, CDF or hard slurry. 2 Knock Down of Concrete Foundation Walls, Porches, Chimneys and Similar Structures. Concrete, bricks, cobbles and boulders shall be broken to less than 12-inch diameter. Debris left on site shall conform to IBC Section 1804.2 for clean fill. 3 Construction debris, vegetation, and garbage attributable to the demolition shall be removed from the site and from unopened street right-of-way within 30 days of written notice. No debris of any kind may be placed or maintained on street right-of-way (including alleys) without a permit issued pursuant to Chapter 18.60 or 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 4 Repair of any damage to, and restoration of, any public property to substantially original conditions, i.e., alley, street, sidewalk, landscaping, water meter, utilities, rockeries, retaining walls, etc , in accordance with this code and the City's engineering requirements. 5 Grading of Site Back to Original Topography Grades. Basements shall be filled and compacted to 90 percent as verified by a special inspector. "Structural fill" is defined as any fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils need to support loads with- out unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill shall be clean and free draining, placed above unyielding native site soils and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent modified proctor, per ASTM D1557. 6 Temporary erosion control shall be installed and maintained per Chapter 18.30 ECDC. D. Section 105.1.2, Annual permit records, is deleted. E. Section 105.2, Work exempt from permit, is replaced as follows: Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with bulk zoning code standards per ECDC Title 16 and storm water management provisions per Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Permits shall not be required for the following unless required by the provisions of ECDC Title 23 or limited or prohibited by the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC: 1. Building (general): (a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (measured to the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 120 square feet, with a maximum eave of thirty (30) inches. (b) Fences not over six (6) feet high; provided a permit is not required by Chapter 17.30 ECDC. (c) Movable cases, counters and partitions not over five (5) feet nine (9) inches high. (d) Retaining walls 4 feet (1,219 mm) in height or less measured vertically from the finished grade at the exposed toe of the retaining wall to the highest point in the wall, I Supporting a surcharge; or II Impounding Class I, 11, III -A liquids; or III Subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC. (e) Rockeries. (f) Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 500 gallons and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed two (2) to one (1). (g) Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route, provided a permit is not required by Chapter 18.60 ECDC. (h) Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, countertops and similar finish work. (i) Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. Q) Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes. (k) Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to an occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade and the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons. Hot tubs and spas less than 5,000 gallons, completely supported by the ground. ( ) Grading less than fifty (50) cubic yards (placed, removed or moved within any 365-day period) unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC. ( ) Repair of appliances which do not alter original approval, certification, listing or code. ( ) Replacement or adding new insulation with no drywall removal or placement. ( ) Replacement or repair of existing gutters or downspouts. ( ) The following types of signs are exempt from permit requirements except that dimensional size and placement standards shall comply with Chapter 20.60 ECDC: I. Replacing the panel on a previously permitted existing wall cabinet or pole sign, 11. Repainting an existing previously permitted wood sign, 111. Painted or vinyl lettering on storefront windows, IV. Governmental signs, campaign signs, official public notices, and signs required by provision of local, state, or federal law, V. Temporary signs announcing the sale or rent of property and other temporary signs as described in ECDC 20.60.080, VI. Signs erected by the transportation authorities, and temporary seasonal and holiday displays. 2. Mechanical: (a) Portable heating, ventilation, cooling, cooking or clothes drying appliances. (b) Replacement of any n+n— part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such equipment unsafe. (c) Portable fuel cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed piping system and are not interconnected to a power grid. (d) Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by this code. (d) Portable evaporative cooler. (f) Self-contained refrigeration systems containing ten (10) pounds or less of refrigerant or that are actuated by motor of one (1) horsepower or less. 3. Plumbing: (a) The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided that the replacement of defective material shall be done with new material and a permit obtained and inspection made. (b) Reinstallation or replacement of approved prefabricated plumbing fixtures that do not involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves or pipes. 4. Residential permit exemptions: In addition the following exemptions apply for single family dwellings: (a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (measured to the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 200 square feet, with a maximum eave of twelve (12) inches and maxi- mum height of fifteen (15) feet. Vehicle storage structures, such as garages and carports, are not exempted except as set forth in ECDC 19.05.010 (E)(33) for canopies. (b) Window awnings supported by an exterior wall and do not project more than fifty-four (54) inches from the exterior wall and do not require additional support. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply to such awnings. (c) Sport courts less than 2,000 square feet. (d) Dock repair of individual decking members. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply. (e) Replacement or repair of existing exterior siding. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply. (f) Replacement or repair of existing window or doors provided; no alteration of structural members is required, the replacement would not require installation of safety glazing, the installation does not fectinvolve required egress Feq irement indow:. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply. (g) Minor like -for -like drywall repairs not involving fire -rated assemblies. ( ) Replacement or repair of individual decking, joists, Stair stair treads, or intermediate rails. ECDC Title 23 provisions do not apply. (i) Uncovered platforms, decks, patios, not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not more than thirty (30) inches above grade at any point. are not attached to a dwell;nr and do not serve the exit door required by IRC Section R311.4. 0) Canopies, as defined in ECDC 17.70.035, accessory to a single family dwelling, with a floor area measured to the exterior wall or post not to exceed 200 square feet, for covered storage, carport or similar use. (k) Reroof overlays, except that all existing layers of roofing must first be removed if the existing material is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos tile, or where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roofing. F. Section 105.3.2, Time limitation of permit application, is amended to read: 1. Applications, for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application, shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. 2. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days prior to such expiration date. 3. No application shall be extended more than once for a total application life of 360 days .nis sectic . In order to renew action on an expired application, the applicant shall submit a new application, revised plans based on any applicable code or ordinance change, and pay new plan review fees. 4. The Building Official may extend the life of an application if any of the following conditions exist: (a) Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act is in progress; or (b) Any other City review is in progress; provided, the applicant has submitted a complete resaonse to Citv reauests or the Buildina Official determines that uniaue or unusual circumstances exist that warrant additional time for such response, and the Building Official determines that the review is proceeding in a timely manner toward final City decision; or (c) Litigation against the City or applicant is in progress, the outcome of which may affect the validity or the provisions of any permit issued pursuant to such application. G. Section 105.3.3, Fully complete application, is added and reads: In accordance with the provisions of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074, an applicant's rights shall vest when a fully complete building permit application is filed. A fully complete building permit application is an application executed by the owners of the property for which the application is submitted or the duly authorized agent(s) for such owners, containing each and every document required under the terms of these ordinances and the IBC and is substantially complete in all respects. It is anticipated that minor changes or revisions may be required and are frequently made in the course of any building application review process, and such minor revisions or changes shall not keep an application from being deemed complete if a good faith attempt has been made to submit a substantially complete application containing all required components. Where required, the application and supporting documents shall be stamped and/or certified by the appropriate engineering, surveying or other professional consultants. A fully complete building permit application shall be accompanied by all fees, including but not limited to plan review fees required under the provisions of this chapter and code. H. Section 105.3.4, Concurrent review, is added and reads: An applicant may submit an application for building permit approval and request plan review services concurrently with, or at any time following, the submittal of a complete application for any necessary or required discretionary permit approval or discretionary hearing; provided, that any building permit application submitted concurrently with an application for discretionary permit or approvals shall not be considered complete unless the applicant submits a signed statement, on a form approved by the director, which acknowledges that the building permit application is subject to any conditions or requirements imposed pursuant to the review and approval of any necessary or required discretionary permit or approvals. The applicant shall solely bear the risk of building permit submittal with discretionary permit approval. If, after discretionary approval, the building permit plans are modified or amended to comply with conditions or restrictions required by any discretionary permit or approval, the applicant shall be solely responsible for any and all costs which result therefrom, including but not limited to additional full plan review fees; provided further, that any applicant -initiated changes made after the original plan review is complete shall also require payment of full plan review fees. I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read: 1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00. (2). 2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be extended, ui ncaa a icy ai c aaavuiaLcu vvni 1 a Ni ii 1 iai y vuuun iy Nci 11 nL ivi a iai He _.,;tion project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit: Demolition permits required by ECDC 19.00.030; Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC; Mechanical permits; Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits; Grading, excavation and fill permits; Water service line permits; Plumbing permits; Gas piping permits; Deck and dock permits; Fence permits; Re -roof permits; Retaining wall permits; Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits; Sign permits; Shoring permits; Foundation permits. 3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for an additional year. if the plans and speGii�fiica+i�;nr the permit extension applioatinn are the sarne as the plans and speGifiGations submitted fer the eriginal permit appliGation -r-I -"rovided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one hafE uarte the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year expiration, an extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended .mac shall be— rrr� fir #ho rem'iininn work based on the � __.. _..,_.._. _.., ..._r__,._. ���rarr-vim 'arS number of required inspections remaining for the projeGt for all Gity departments. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required, with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an appeal is filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC 20.07.004 the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision. 6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred since the original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of a new permit. K. Section 107.3.3, Phased approval, is amended to read: 1. The building official may issue partial permits for phased construction as part of a development before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building or structure have been approved provided architectural design board approval has been granted and a fully complete permit application for the entire building or structure has been submitted for review. 2. Phased approval means permits for grading, shoring, and foundation may be issued separately, provided concurrent approval is granted by the planning manager, city engineer and fire marshal, when applicable. No phased approval permit shall be issued unless approved civil plans detailing the construction of all site improvements including, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved streets, water lines, sewer lines, and storm drainage have been signed as approved by the city engineer. 3. With such phased approval, a performance bond shall be posted with the city pursuant to Chapter 17.10 ECDC, to cover the estimated cost of construction to city standards for the improvements. L. Section 108, Temporary Structures and Uses, is deleted. M. Section 110.3.3, Lowest floor elevation, is amended to read: In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to further vertical construction, the elevation certification required in Section 1612.5 shall be submitted to the building official. Prior to final inspection approval, the building official shall require an elevation certificate based on finished construction prepared and sealed by a State licensed land surveyor. N. Section 113, Board of Appeals, is deleted and replaced by Chapter 19.80 ECDC. O. Section 501.2, Address Identification, is amended to read: Approved numbers or addresses shall be installed by the property owner for new and existing buildings in such a position as to be clearly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property. Letters or numbers on the building shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height and stroke a minimum of .75 inch of a contrasting color to the building base color. Where public or private access is provided and the building address cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other approved sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. This means of premises identification does not preclude approved identification also affixed to structure. P. Section 1612.1.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads: Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded from the 50 percent calculation. Q. Section 3103, Temporary Structures, is deleted. R. Section 3108.1.1, Radio, television and cellular communication related equipment and devices, is added and reads: A permit shall be required for the installation or relocation of commercial radio, television or cellular tower support structures including monopoles, whip antennas, panel antennas, parabolic antennas and related accessory equipment, and accessory equipment shelters (regardless of size) including roof mounted equipment shelters. S. Section 3109.1, Applicability and maintenance, is amended to read: 1. Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas of all occupancies shall comply with the requirements of this section and other applicable sections of this code. 2. It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain a swimming pool, hot tub or spa in a clean and sanitary condition and all equipment shall be maintained in a satisfactory operating condition when the swimming pool, hot tub or spa is in use. A swimming pool, hot tub or spa that is neglected, not secured from public entry and/or not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition or its equipment in accord with manufacturers recommendations shall be determined to be a hazard to health and safety and shall be properly mitigated to the satisfaction of the building official. T. Section 3109.3, Public Swimming Pools, is deleted. U. Section 3109.4, Residential Swimming Pools, is deleted. V. Section 3109.6, Location and Setbacks, is added and reads: Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas shall meet requirements of the zoning code of the city of Edmonds. 1. Minimum setbacks are measured from property lines to the inside face of the pool, hot tub or spa as required by the zoning code for accessory structures. 2. All other accessory buildings and equipment shall meet the normally required setbacks for accessory structures in the zone in which they are located. W. Section 3109.7, Tests and cross -connection devices, is added and reads: 1. All swimming pool, hot tub and spa piping shall be inspected and approved before being covered or concealed. 2. Washington State Department of Health approved cross connection devices are required to be provided on potable water systems when used to fill any swimming pool, hot tub or spa. X. Section 3109.8, Wastewater disposal, is added and reads: A means of disposal of the total contents of the swimming pool, hot tub or spa (including partial or periodic emptying) shall be reviewed and approved by the public works director. 1. No direct connection shall be made between any swimming pool, hot tub or spa to any storm drain, city sewer main, drainage system, seepage pit, underground leaching pit, or sub -soil drain. 2. A sanitary tee (outside cleanout installed on the main building side sewer line) shall be provided for draining of treated water into the city sanitary sewer system. Y. Section 3109.9, Inspection requirements, is added and reads: The appropriate city inspector shall be notified for the following applicable inspections: 1. Footing, wall, pre -form, pre-gunite, erosion control, underground plumbing, sanitary extension and cleanout, mechanical pool equipment, gas piping, mechanical enclosure location, cross connection and final inspection. 2. An initial cross connection control installation inspection is required by the city cross connection control specialist prior to final installation approval. 3. All backflow assemblies shall be tested by state certified backflow assembly testers upon initial installation and then annually thereafter. Copies of all test reports shall be submitted to the city water division for review and approval. Z. Section 3403.2.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads: Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor areas; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded in the 50 percent. AA. Appendix E, Accessibility Requirements, is amended by deleting Sections E107, E108, El10 and El 11. BB. Appendix G, Flood -Resistant Construction, is amended by addition of new section: Section G301.1(4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is less. CC. Appendix H, Signs, is amended as follows: 1. Section H101.2, Signs exempt from permits, is replaced by subsection (E)(1)(q) of this section. 2. Section H101.2.1, Prohibited signs, is added and reads as follows: a. It is unlawful for any person to advertise or display any visually communicated message, by letter or pictorially, of any kind on any seating bench, or in direct connection with any bench. b. All signs not expressly permitted by Chapter 20.60 ECDC. c. Signs which the city engineer determines to be a hazard to vehicle or pedestrian traffic because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or pose a hazard to a pedestrian walkway or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage. Such signs shall be immediately removed at the request of the city engineer. d. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way and that have been improperly posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to immediate removal and confiscation per ECDC 20.60.090. 3. Sections H104, Identification, H106.1.1, Internally illuminated signs, H107, Combustible materials, H108, Animated devices, H109.1, Height restrictions, and H110, Roof signs, are deleted. [Ord. 3845 § 6, 2011; Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. 19.00.030 Architectural design review — Optional vesting. In addition to the vesting rights created by RCW 19.27.095 and ECDC 19.00.015, an applicant for development as defined in ECDC 20.10.010 and subject to architectural design board (ADB) review may, at the applicant's option, file a fully complete augmented architectural design review application (hereinafter "augmented ADB application") and vest rights including applicable permit, development and impact fees under the provisions of the ECDC and the State Building Code as adopted and amended by the city of Edmonds, this title as then in effect, to, but only to, the extent that the application provides full and detailed information necessary to confirm the particular regulation to be vested. The burden is on the applicant to provide such detail. A. A fully complete, augmented application for architectural design review shall consist of a complete application for architectural design review, executed by each and every property owner of record of the development site or their duly authorized agent(s), accompanied by the following: 1. All fees required by ordinance, including impact mitigation fees, to be deposited at the time such State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements become final. 2. A site plan showing the current zoning of the development site, the footprint of all proposed structures, the total square footage and use of each floor, all setbacks required by either the zoning code or State Building Codes, proposed parking configurations, and exits. 3. Elevation drawings showing the original grade of the site, any proposed alterations to grade, the proposed height of the structure and the number of stories. 4. A letter executed by all owners of record or their duly authorized agent(s) detailing the proposed use in sufficient detail to determine whether the proposed use complies with the zoning code then in effect and with the building code then in effect to determine type of construction and occupancy classifications of the IBC and IFC as those codes then in effect. 5. A building permit application, as described in IBC Section 105.3 as the same exists or is hereafter amended, and all building permit and plan review fees as established and set forth in Chapter 19.70 ECDC; provided, that the plans required by IBC Section 107, as the same exists or is hereafter amended, and other engineering documents, plans or drawings required by ECDC Title 18 may be submitted within 90 days of final ADB approval, or final approval on appeal. B. Upon filing of the augmented ADB application, the applicant shall be deemed fully vested as if a fully complete building permit application had been filed; provided: 1. The burden shall be upon the applicant to supply all material required by the provisions of this section and as necessary to meet the requirements of Chapter 20.10 ECDC. The applicant may supplement the original application in the event an application is deemed incomplete by the development services director or designee. Vesting shall occur only when the application is deemed complete by the development services director. Failure to supplement an incomplete application within 90 days of final ADB approval shall result in forfeiture of all fees paid and no vesting right shall attach. 2. The application shall expire along with all rights vested 180 days following the date of application if final architectural design approval is not received. a. The development services director or designee may issue an extension for an additional period, not exceeding 180 days, upon written request by the applicant(s) or their agent(s). Such request for extension shall be filed prior to the expiration of the original application time period. An extension shall be granted if the architectural design board has not yet considered the application or an appeal thereof is pending. b. The time period shall run concurrently with the periods established by ECDC 19.00.025 as the same exists or is hereafter amended. No application shall be extended more than once. In order to renew an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit all required information and pay a new plan review fee. 3. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of state law and regulation and this code regarding SEPA review. Review periods or delays occasioned by SEPA shall stay the time periods set by this chapter. 4. Following final ADB approval, the applicant shall file the plans and information required by IBC Section 107. It is anticipated that minor adjustments and changes may and are usually required to the plans submitted as a result of the plan review and administrative process; provided, that the following changes shall not be considered "minor" and shall forfeit vesting rights, and shall require the filing of a new application: a. Any substantial change not required by the terms of ADB approval. b. Any increase in height or total square footage or any change which would change the occupancy classification for the purposes of the State Building Code. 5. Any decision of the city staff regarding the application stated in this section and its interpretation shall be considered a Type I decision appealable only to the superior court of Snohomish County by Land Use Petition Act. C. The rights vested by ECDC 19.00.025(G) (Section 105.3.3 of IBC as amended) and this section refer only to zoning and building code rights protected by RCW 19.27.095. D. These sections shall not be interpreted to create vesting rights not protected by RCW 19.27.095 and shall not be interpreted as a further limitation on the administrative obligations and legislative powers of the city. By way of illustration and not limitation, this chapter does not limit: 1. The city council's authority to create local improvement districts. 2. The city council's authority to legislate life safety requirements that are not required to recognize existing vested rights. 3. Environmental and shorelines review and mitigation procedures. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. 19.00.040 Excluding nonconforming religious building from certain requirements. Existing legal nonconforming churches, synagogues, mosques and other buildings used for religious observance (hereinafter "church" or "churches") are hereby excluded from any requirement of the State Building Code which would be triggered by a change of use as specifically limited and set forth herein: A. This change in use exclusion is limited solely to a change in use for the provision of emergency housing to the homeless and other indigent persons. The term "emergency" shall mean the housing of indigent and homeless persons when the ambient temperature is forecast by the National Weather Service to be below 33 degrees for a four-hour overnight period or when wind chill, violent storms or other inclement conditions present a direct threat to the lives of homeless and other indigent persons without shelter. Such danger could include, but is not limited to, the threat presented by carbon monoxide poisoning for persons attempting to take shelter in cars or other vehicles with the motor running. B. In order to claim this exclusion, a church shall: 1. Be a legal nonconforming structure prior to the provision of emergency housing for the homeless and indigent. In the alternative, a church may establish that it has previously provided overnight housing to members of its congregation or the public in emergencies, for educational, religious or other purposes. 2. Maintain a "fire watch." The term "fire watch" shall mean the maintenance during all times when indigent housing services are provided of a watch by paid staff or volunteers who shall, on premises, monitor for fires or violations of no smoking prohibitions. At least one fire monitor shall be provided for each eight persons housed. 3. Provide an operational smoke detection system. 4. Prohibit the smoking of tobacco or similar products on the premises and prohibit the use of any open flame in the area in which the homeless or indigent persons are temporarily housed. 5. Maintain clear and unobstructed means of egress. Exits must not be locked in the direction of egress unless a special egress control device is installed in accordance with the building code. C. The application of this exclusion is intended to fulfill the city's obligation to provide flexibility and consider reasonable alternatives in the application of the rigid requirements of the State Building Code. The building official is directed to avoid technical inflexibility, to consider the use of any reasonable alternative which would provide the minimum protections required either under the State Building Code or this exclusion and to be flexible when considering alternative approaches to the specific requirements set forth above. All decisions by the building official shall be in writing and articulate the public interest to be served as well as an analysis of the alternatives. D. These provisions are for the purpose of providing for and promoting the health, safety and welfare of the general public. See Chapter 19.90 ECDC, Limitation of Benefited and Protected Classes. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010]. Chapter 19.05 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE Sections: 19.05.000 International Residential Code adopted. 19.05.010 Chapter 1 not adopted. 19.05.020 Section amendments. 19.05.030 Manufactured home installation standards. 19.05.000 International Residential Code adopted. The International Residential Code (IRC), 2009-2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-51 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix Chapters A, B, C, G K, R and S. [Ord. 3819 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3796 § 2, 2010]. 19.05.010 Chapter 1 not adopted. Chapter 1 is not adopted, except as provided for in 19.00.015. See ECDCT9.00�.015. [Ord. 3796 § 2, 2010]. 1 A ()5 ()1 5 Other Chapters not adopted. Chapters 11, 20, 21, and Part VII Plumbing and Part VIII Electrical are not adopted. See 19.20 for adopted Plumbing Code and 19.55 for adopted Electrical Code. 19.05.020 Section amendments. The following sections of the IRC are hereby amended as follows: A. Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria, is amended with the following criteria: 1. Ground Snow Load = 25 psf 2. Wind Speed(d) = 85 mph 3. Topographical effects(k) = No 4. Seismic Design Category(f) = 32D1 5. Weathering(a) = moderate 6. Frost Line Depth(b) = 18 inches 7. Termite(c) = slight to moderate 8. Winter Design Temp(e) = 27 degrees F 9. Flood Hazard(g) = NFIP adoption 3/26/74. FIRM maps 11/8/99 10. Ice Shield Underlayment(h) = not required 11. Air Freezing Index(i) = 0-1000 12. Mean Annual Temp(j) = 50 degrees F B. Section R324, Automatic fire sprinkler system, is added and reads: An automatic fire sprinkler system is required for buildings containing five (5) or more attached dwelling units. Refer to ECDC 19.25.040. C. Appendix S — Section AS107.1, Fire Sprinklers. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in new one -family and two-family dwellings and townhouses exceeding 3,000 square feet of fire area, and in accordance with Appendix R. No m edifieations will be made to this thr-esho t prieftoHe—xacede eyele update o Yaly 1, 2 [Ord. 3819 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3796 § 2, 2010]. 19.05.030 Manufactured home installation standards. A. Permit Regulations. 1. Chapter 296-150M WAC, as currently promulgated together with any future amendments thereof, or future additions thereto, is hereby adopted. The building official is authorized to issue building permits and collect permit fees for the installation of all manufactured homes that meet the requirements of this chapter, to inspect the installation of manufactured homes, and enforce all violations of this chapter. 2. All references to "installation permits" in Chapter 296-150M WAC, as herein adopted by reference, shall refer to building permits issued for the installation of manufactured homes. 3. Fees for the installation of a manufactured home shall be set forth in Chapter 19.70 ECDC. All other applicable development fees shall also be imposed as with any other single-family residence. 4. Mobile homes shall be permitted only within designated mobile home parks. 5. Pursuant to added RCW 35.21.897, 35A.21.310, 36.01.220, and amended RCW 35.63.160 and 1998 c 239 s 1, homes built to 42 USC Sections 5401 through 5403 standards (as amended in 2000) shall be regulated for the purposes of siting, in the same manner as site -built homes, factory - built homes, or homes built to any other approved state construction. 6. Manufactured homes to be placed within the city shall not be older than three calendar years from the date of complete permit application submittal. The applicant is required to provide the vehicle identification number (VIN) information. 7. All spaces measured from the underside of the home to finished grade shall be enclosed with a decorative skirting. 8. Manufactured homes shall be thermally equivalent to the current State Energy Code. 9. The minimum manufactured home size shall be at least two fully enclosed parallel sections each not less than 12 feet wide by 36 feet long. 10. Coated metal, tin, or vinyl roofing material is not permitted. 11. Manufactured homes shall comply with all other development standards of this code. [Ord. 3796 § 2, 2010]. Chapter 19.10 BUILDING PERMITS — EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS Sections: 19.10.000 Statement of purpose and application. 19.10.010 Section amendments. 19.10.020 Definitions. 19.10.030 Minimum required application submittals. 19.10.040 Site posting notice, disclosures, declarations, covenants and waivers. 19.10.050 Site bonds and contractor general public liability insurance. 19.10.060 Review to determine compliance with engineering practice and best available science. 19.10.070 Issuance and denial of permits. 19.10.080 Site access, professional/special inspection, monitoring during construction and final geotechnical report. 19.10.000 Statement of purpose and application. A. This chapter has been enacted in order to provide both substantive and procedural provisions relating to the issuance of permits within designated earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas of the city. It shall be the policy of the city that no permit shall be issued for any site which is found to be unsuitable for improvement due to excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, instability or unsuitable topography for the particular permit requested for issuance. When development occurs on an unstable site, an unreasonable risk of danger may exist to the public, to public improvements or to adjacent property owners. If such a site can be stabilized through the construction of on -site improvements, that risk may be reduced. B. The construction of professionally designed structures addressing the risks of earth movement, and employing feasible attendant measures (including but not limited to drainage improvements, specially designed foundations, retaining walls, removal of over- burden and other improvements designed to minimize the risk of earth movement, prevent avoidable damage to structures, safeguard adjacent properties, limit risk to inhabitants, and to stabilize the structure in the event of movement) may mitigate and reduce the risk of earth movement on individual properties. Nothing herein shall relieve an owner of any obligation imposed by the State Building Code or city ordinance to take all reasonable and practical measures available to reduce or eliminate the risk or hazard. C. The IRC/IBC, as promulgated by the state of Washington and required to be adopted by the city, does not specify a standard regarding lot stability. Since the city's request for an interpretation of the International Building Code by the State Building Code Council to designate an acceptable level of lot stability was denied, and because the city wishes to comply with state law requiring that the issuance of building permits be a ministerial and not a discretionary act, the provisions of this chapter have been adopted in order to provide reasonable certainty in the permit issuance process. The purpose of these provisions is not to lessen the minimum requirements of the current adopted building code, but rather to define its requirements for city implementation. D. These provisions have been adopted in order to establish a policy that permits shall not be issued for any site where a substantial risk of earth subsidence and landslide hazard exist unless: 1. The risks can be defined with reasonable scientific certainty and found to be within acceptable limits as determined in accordance with this chapter. 2. Any hazard associated with the site is scientifically ascertained and fully disclosed through the permit process. 3. Notice of any risk is given to future purchasers through the land records of Sno- homish County. 4. Any risks associated with construction and habitation are assumed by the builder and future owners of the site. 5. Adequate indemnification is provided by the builder, and the owner, of the site in order that the general public not assume or bear any portion of the costs or liability associ- ated with the builder's investigation, design and construction as well as the continuing maintenance of the site by the property owner. E. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this chapter or the IRC/IBC, all applications for permits received for any site, any portion of which lies within an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area, shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter. In addition to all other requirements of these sections, the restrictions and provisions of this chapter shall apply to all building, grading, fill and excavation permits (herein "permits"). Minor permits such as plumbing, mechanical, re -roof and interior alterations are exempt from the requirements of this chapter. F. All applications for permits under this chapter shall disclose within the geotechnical report whether or not any part of the site lies within or adjacent to an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area or within a critical area as defined by the city's environmentally criti- cal areas title. The building official may require preliminary investigation by a geotechnical engineer for any applicant whose property lies within or lies adjacent to a known earth subsidence landslide hazard area, or within a known hazard area, or areas with steep slopes or unusual topography or which has a history of earth movement in order to assist the building official in determining whether these provisions should be applied. G. Nothing in this chapter should or shall be interpreted to guarantee issuance of a permit with respect to any property unless the requirements of the IRC/IBC as amended and interpreted by this chapter have been met. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.10.010 Section amendments. The provisions of this section amend the 2003 Edition of the IRC/IBC and all subsequent revisions adopted by RCW 19.27.031 as the State Building Code as previously amended by Chapter 19.05 ECDC. All prior substantive amendments have received the approval of the State Building Code Council. All provisions of the IRC/IBC which conflict with this chapter shall be deemed amended hereby, and any ambiguity created shall be resolved in favor of the specific provision or general intent of said chapter. In addition to the amendments of the IRC/IBC by its alteration, improvement and correction to incorporate the chapter, the following specific code provisions are amended and the substantive and procedural requirements of this chapter are amended by the correction and alteration of the following sections of the IRC/IBC: A. Chapter 1, Administration. 1. Section R105.1.1 Permit review applicability. Any permit requested for a site lying in whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as defined by ECDC 19.10.020(F) shall be processed and acted upon in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC. 2. Section R105.2 Work exempt from a permit. ECDC 19.00. exemptions ,u,, -, , , , , �, ..\„/, -„1, , , and and ECDC 19. 'I-025E(,J' exemptions A(a), S(c), (h' and shall not apply in any area designated as an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as defined in ECDC 19.10.020(F). 3. Section R105.3.2 Time limitation of permit application. a. Applications, for which no permit is issued within two (2) years following the date of application, shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. b. The building official may not extend the time for action by the applicant on an expired application. In order to renew action on an expired application, the applicant shall submit a new application, revised plans based on current adopted codes and pay new plan review fees as well as any outstanding peer review fees incurred to date. 4. Section R105.5 Permit expiration and extension. a. Every permit issued under the provisions and development standards of Chapter 19.10 ECDC shall expire by limitation two (2) years after issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6)(b). b. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for a third and final year. If the plans and specifications for the permit extension application are the same as the plans and specifications submitted for the original permit application and provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one half the original building permit fee to extend the permit. c. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required, with full fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The issuance of a new permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or building codes. Whenever an appeal is filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act, the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision. d. The building official shall reject requests for permit extensions if modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and building codes have occurred since the original issuance of the permit, and modifications or amendments would significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of a new permit. 5. Section R105.5.1 Recommence work on an expired permit. a. In order to recommence work on an expired permit, a new permit application with full fees shall be submitted to the building official. b. New permit applications shall be reviewed under current zoning and building codes in effect at the time of complete application submittal. If a new permit is sought to recommence work on an expired permit, the new permit shall be vested under the codes in effect at the time of complete application for the new permit, not the expired permit. When additional plan review is required, plan review fees shall be charged. When applicable, peer review and peer review fees shall be assessed. 6. Section R106.3.3.1 Phased approval. a. The building official may require sequencing of construction phases or activities such as the installation of shoring or temporary erosion control remedies and/or drainage systems, well in advance of grading or foundation construction on a time frame consistent with geotechnical recommendations and peer review. As part of the sequencing process, the building official may impose permit conditions that address site work sequencing to include but not be limited to: limiting all excavation, drainage systems and foundation installation to the drier season between May 1st and September 30th. b. When permit conditions such as groundwork are limited by the building official on a particular project, the applicant's geotechnical engineer may submit a letter detailing geotechnical recommendations that portions of work may progress. The letter shall include a detailed work schedule submitted by the general contractor specifying work to be done, timeline, provisions for monitoring and equipment to be used. Any such recommendation shall be based upon best available science and be consistent with standard geotechnical engineering practice. The building official may require a peer review prior to a decision which provides concurrence regarding at least the following issues: i. Duration of work, ii. Type of equipment to use, iii. Additional temporary erosion and sediment control provisions required, and iv. Applicability of special inspections, and similar issues. c. The building official may issue partial permits for phased construction before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building or structure have been approved provided peer review approval has been granted. Phased approval means separate permits for grading, shoring, and foundation may be issued separately, provided concurrent approval is granted by the planning manager, city engineer, and city public works director, when applicable. No phased approval permit shall be issued unless approved civil plans detailing the construction of all site improvements (including, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved streets, water lines, sewer lines, and storm drainage) have been signed as approved by the city engineer. With such phased approval, a performance bond shall be posted with the city pursuant to Chapter 17.10 ECDC, to cover the estimated cost of construction to city standards for the improvements. B. Chapter 2, Definitions. 1. Section R202 and IBC 202 are hereby amended to include the definitions set forth in ECDC 19.10.020, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. C. Chapter 4, Foundations. 1. Section R401.1 General Exception 3. Any permit requested for a site lying in whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area shall be processed and acted upon in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC. D. IBC Chapter 16, Structural design. 1. Section IBC 1601.1.1 Scope. Setting forth the requirements of Chapter 19.10 ECDC, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. E. IBC Appendix J, Grading. 1. Section IBC Appendix J 101.1.2, Scope. Setting forth the requirements of Chapter 19.10 ECDC, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.10.020 Definitions. The following terms, when used within this chapter, shall have the following definitions: A. "Architect" shall mean a person licensed to practice architecture by the state of Wash- ington. B. "Best available science" shall be determined in accordance with the criteria estab- lished in WAC 365-195-900, et seq. C. `Bluff' shall mean any slope 10 feet in height or greater inclined at greater than one unit vertical in one unit horizontal or 100 percent slope. D. "Building official" shall mean the building official of the city of Edmonds. E. "Director" shall mean the director of development services as well as any authorized representative of the director. F. "Earth subsidence and landslide hazard area" shall mean any area of the city which, by reason of excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, stability or topogra- phy, has a risk of earth subsidence and landslide hazard in excess of normal allowances. The earth subsidence and landslide hazard area is a subcategory of "landslide hazard area" (a geologically hazardous area) as defined in city of Edmonds environmentally critical areas title (ECDC Title 23). The hazard area designated as the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area in the 2007 report of Landau Associates and as may be amended in future adopted earth subsidence and landslide hazard maps are hereby incorporated by this reference and made a part of this chapter as fully as if herein set forth and may be provided in a summary text form. Future adopted landslide hazard maps shall be incorporated by reference upon adoption by ordinance. Areas designated on the adopted North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas Map, or any future adopted landslide hazard map, as having a risk of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, areas with slopes as designated in ECDC 23.80.020, areas which exhibit geologic characteristics of earth movement, or any other area identified as having a history of earth movement shall be presumed to have such risk and shall be considered to be an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area. Applicants for permits in such areas shall submit a geotechnical report and complete plan set submittal as required by this chapter to the building official for review. The presumption of risk shall be rebuttable and the decision of the director or building official that any area lies within, or adjacent to, such earth subsidence and landslide hazard area shall be appealable as a staff decision to superior court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act. Copies of the reports and maps shall be maintained in the offices of the building official and shall be available for inspection during all normal working hours. Individual copies of the reports and map may be obtained by the public upon the payment of the cost of reproduction. G. "General contractor" shall mean a bonded, insured and registered contractor in the state of Washington. A general contractor shall maintain state -required bonding and shall carry general public liability insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000. The general contractor shall have a current valid state contractor's license with the state of Washington and a city of Edmonds resident or nonresident business license, whichever is applicable. H. "Geologist" means a practicing geologist licensed in the state of Washington with at least four years' experience as a licensed geologist in responsible charge, including experi- ence with landslide evaluation. I. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of pro- fessional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge, including experience with landslide evaluation. J. "Landslide hazard areas" means areas mapped or otherwise defined by the city of Edmonds as environmental critical areas or geologically hazardous areas. K. "Land surveyor" means a person who holds a Washington State land surveyor's license. L. "Lead design professional" means the person designated by the applicant to oversee and coordinate the permit review process on behalf of the applicant. M. "Plan set submittal" means a complete application pursuant to ECDC 19.00.015 including: 1. Vicinity map. 2. Topography map and survey. 3. Civil plans including grading, temporary erosion and sediment control, storm drain- age, utilities and site improvements. 4. Tree cutting/land clearing plans. 5. Geotechnical report. 6. Architectural and structural plans with design calculations, stamped and signed by licensed design professionals of the state of Washington. N. "Site" means the entire area within the boundaries, as described in a legal description, of the property that is to be developed under the permit for which the applicant has applied. O. "Stable" shall mean that the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adja- cent properties, from soil instability is minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the reports developed under the requirements of ECDC 19.10.030 and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. In the event that any site has an underlying risk of movement based upon deep-seated earth movement or large-scale earth failure which is not susceptible to correction by on -site improvements, such hazard shall not render a site proposed for single-family residences to be presumed unstable for the purpose of this provision if the geotechnical engineer of record and recommendation of any peer reviewer confirm the risk of probability of earth movement is 30 percent or less within a 25-year period. In order to meet the definition of "stable" the geotechnical report shall include identified hazards for the property and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce or correct the hazards along with measures taken to mitigate potential impacts from the remaining hazards, including all on- and off -site measures taken to correct or reduce the risk. These shall be fully disclosed to the applicant and future owners, heirs and assigns in the covenant required to be executed in accordance with provisions of this chapter, in which case the defined risk may be approved as an acceptable condition. P. "Steep slope" shall be defined and calculated pursuant to Chapter 23.80 ECDC. Q. "Storm event" means one inch or greater precipitation in a 24-hour period as reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). R. "Structural engineer" means a person licensed to practice structural engineering by the state of Washington. S. "Structural fill" shall mean any fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils are intended to support loads without unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill should be clean and free -draining and should be placed above unyielding native site soils compacted in accordance with an approved geotechnical report prepared utilizing best engineering science. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.10.030 Minimum required application submittals. A. The applicant shall submit a complete plan set submittal and permit application and specifications for the proposed development as defined in ECDC 19.10.020(M) and this chapter. B. An earth subsidence and landslide hazard area permit submittal checklist shall be adopted at the direction of the director and shall be provided to all persons inquiring re- garding building permit applications or development permits in the designated earth subsidence and landslide hazard area of North Edmonds. The submittal checklist shall in- clude but not be limited to the requirements contained in city public handouts, written pol- icies, adopted maps, reference maps, summary reports, minimum geotechnical report guide- lines, and the following: 1. North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Map. 2. Vicinity map. 3. Topographic map and survey. 4. Civil plans (i.e., grading, temporary erosion and sediment control, storm drainage, utilities and site improvements). 5. Tree cutting/land clearing plan. 6. Geotechnical report. 7. Owner and professional declarations. 8. Detailed architectural and structural plans with structural calculations and specifi- cations. 9. Bonds, covenants and contractor public liability insurance in accordance with the detailed requirements stated below. If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, a letter or a report shall be provided to the director stamped by the appropriate licensed design professional, with sufficient information or data to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable. The director may utilize appropriate licensed consultants to determine if generally accepted engineering practice requires submission of an application requirement. When consultants are used to determine if generally accepted engineering practice requires submission of an application requirement, the cost of review shall be paid by the applicant. C. A copy of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Map shall be included in the submittal checklist materials. D. The vicinity map shall be suitable for locating the site and include information related to existing conditions on or near the site, based on the topographic map and survey and shall designate all known landslide masses, or debris flows or mud flows on or near the site which could threaten proposed structures within 100 feet, as referenced, noted, described or discussed in the geotechnical report. E. The applicant shall submit a topographic map and survey prepared and stamped by a licensed land surveyor, prior to studies and evaluations by the geotechnical engineer, and shall show: 1. Map scale, north arrow, legal description, tax account parcel numbers, easements, and lot property lines. 2. Existing grade contour lines, at two -foot intervals. 3. All distances between existing structures on the site and approximate distances of existing habitable structures on adjacent sites within 50 feet of property lines (all adjacent sites which could affect or be affected by the proposed development shall be shown). 4. Lowest footing or basement slab elevation of existing and proposed structures on the property and on adjacent properties to the extent that such information is reasonably available, and proposed finish floor elevations. 5. The location of existing sanitary sewers, stormwater drainage facilities, septic tanks, drain fields, wells, piezometers, private drainage systems, underground storage tanks, subsurface drains, and other sewer/drainage facility components on, and adjacent to, the site to the extent such information is reasonably available. 6. The location of all existing underground utilities on, and adjacent to, the site including, but not limited to, telephone, cable television, gas, electric and water utilities, vaults, fire hydrants and other cables, wires, meters and drainage pipes to the extent that such information is available. 7. A separate topographical drawing shall be submitted showing proposed grade contours at two -foot intervals. This drawing shall include the bottom of proposed footing elevations including all stepped footing elevations. F. Civil -engineered plans shall be prepared and stamped by a state of Washington licensed civil engineer pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.30 ECDC and current adopted city stormwater manual. Geotechnical report recommendations affecting civil plans shall be incorporated into the design and detailed on the plans and shall include: 1. Storm drainage plan with storm drainage calculations. 2. Provisions for building pad and foundation drainage. 3. Temporary erosion and sediment control with drainage and maintenance provisions, and/or other sediment control assemblies. 4. Permanent erosion control with drainage and maintenance provisions. 5. Fill/soil stockpile limitation provisions, specific location, height, protection and maintenance. 6. Slope protection plans, rockeries, retaining walls, ecology blocks, keystone block walls, soldier pile walls, and soil nail walls. 7. Utilities and site improvements. 8. Grading plans, temporary and permanent shoring plans, top and toe of slope set- backs, driveway slope. G. In lieu of the procedural requirements of Chapter 18.45 ECDC, a tree cutting/land clearing plan shall be submitted when significant trees are proposed to be removed. A significant tree is a tree with a trunk diameter of six inches or greater measured four feet from the ground. No significant tree shall be removed until the permit is approved. A detailed landscape plan may also be required in order for the city to evaluate long-term erosion control measures. The plan shall comply with all requirements of the ECDC relating to tree clearing and critical areas review, if applicable. The director may require the project geotechnical engineer's concurrence regarding an approval of a tree cutting/land clearing plan when slope stability is at issue. H. Included in the permit submittal checklist shall be general and specific soils and geo- technical information, details or analysis required pursuant to IBC 1802. The applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to prepare a report and evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions on the site to include: 1. The geotechnical report shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices, under the supervision of, and signed and stamped by, the geotechnical engineer. A geologist may be required to be part of the geotechnical consulting staff. The report shall reference the Landau Associates Summary Report (2007) as a technical document reviewed as part of the geologic analysis for the project and discuss all items listed in the permit submittal checklist and shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. 2. The opinions and recommendations contained in the geotechnical report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the geotechnical engineer. The report shall be based on best available science. 3. The report shall include an analysis of material gathered through appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits to a minimum depth of six feet below the proposed lowest footing or pile, an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other applicable standards. The report must provide subsurface data to support the engineer's conclusions regarding slope stability. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.10.040 4. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a geologist. It shall be the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer to assure that the geologist meets the qualifications listed in ECDC 19.10.020. A letter of concurrence from the geologist shall be included in the report. 5. Based upon the North Edmonds Landslide Area Geology and Slide Mechanisms map and table found in the Landau Associates Summary Report (2007), any lot which contains any portion of any hazard zone or is adjacent thereto (regardless of whether the proposed building pad is located within any hazard area) shall specifically consider within the geotechnical report the following types of typical hazard zones and shall specifically note if the hazard is, or is not, present on the site. The report shall address hazards from encroaching landslide materials, hazards from ground failure in material that has not previ- ously failed, and hazards from ground failure in previously failed material. For each land- slide hazard identified on a property, the geotechnical engineer shall identify the types of specific processes associated with the hazard and include design features to reduce such hazards and mitigate impacts. 6. For properties containing or adjacent to bluffs, the geotechnical engineer shall, as a part of the building permit process, provide analysis of the rate of retreat of the bluff pre- pared by a geologist and estimate the bluff retreat amount and regression rate for periods of 25 and 125 years. The geotechnical engineer shall address the effects of bluff retreat on the stability of structures and/or improvements. A "structure" is defined as: a. A building intended for human habitation, b. A building, structure or other improvement whose stress or weight, collapse or movement would endanger public safety in the event of slope failure, and c. Any improvement on the site which is necessary to mitigate danger to public safety or provide stability. If the bluff retreat rate analysis shows that the rate of retreat of the bluff is such that any structure or improvement constructed pursuant to the building permit would be unrea- sonably endangered or reasonably could be anticipated to be endangered by landslide or earth subsidence during its normal useful life, the application shall be denied. 7. Geotechnical letter addressing the provisions of Chapter 23.80 ECDC. I. The applicant shall submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, detailed structural plans with corresponding calculations prepared and stamped by the structural engineer of record. When architectural plans incorporate such structural details, said plans shall be stamped and signed by the structural engineer of record. All other archi- tectural plans may be prepared by an architect, designer, builder or lay person. J. The applicant shall submit documentation of required bonds, frozen funds or adequate instrument of credit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the contractor's general public liability insurance pursuant to ECDC 19.10.050. K. The applicant shall submit declarations, disclosures, covenants and waivers as required by ECDC 19.10.040. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.10.040 Site posting notice, disclosures, declarations, covenants and waivers. A. Notices of permit submittal application with the city shall be posted pursuant to ECDC 20.03.002. Such notices shall be conspicuously posted and maintained at each street frontage. Notice of permit issuance or denial shall be conspicuously posted as required above. Upon each posting a 10-day appeal period shall commence. Appeals shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act, and no other appeal shall be permitted. 19.10.040 B. At permit application submittal, the applicant shall submit a written declaration with the permit application that includes the statement that the accuracy of all information is warranted by the owner/applicant in a form which relieves the city and its staff from any liability associated with reliance on such submittals. The declaration shall also state that the owner/applicant understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that the owner/applicant will advise in writing any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers or residential lessees of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. The owner/applicant shall also acknowledge that he, she or they understand and accept the need for future monitoring and maintenance of the property as described in the final geotechnical report when future monitoring and maintenance may affect slope stability over time. While an application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the city, all conclusions shall be those of the owner/applicant and his or her professionals. C. The plan set submittal shall include a disclosure letter from the geotechnical engineer and civil engineer who prepared the geotechnical report and civil plans, stating that in his or her judgment the plans and specifications submitted for the project conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report, and that the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimized subject to the conditions set forth in the report, and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. "Minimized" shall mean that the applicant has utilized best available science and com- monly accepted engineering and architectural practice to minimize, to the extent possible, the risks associated with development of the property. The geotechnical engineer shall review the erosion and sediment control plan and provide a statement about the adequacy of the plan with respect to site conditions and report find- ings. The geotechnical engineer's statement shall also include an identification of landslide hazards applicable to the site, the on -site measures taken to correct or reduce the hazards, as applicable, and measures taken to mitigate potential impacts from the remaining hazards. For sites where the hazards are not mitigated or where the risks from deep-seated or large-scale earth movement cannot be practically reduced by individual lot owners, the geotechnical engineer shall prepare a statement identifying what design measures will be taken to mitigate the risk to structures, adjacent properties, and inhabitants in the event of deep-seated or large-scale movement. The statement shall specify any risks from earth movement that are not fully mitigated by design measures and render an opinion as to whether the site will be stable within the meaning of this chapter following installation of all proposed improvements. The statement will clarify to current and future owners what measures were installed to reduce risks and what hazards could not be addressed by individual lot development. D. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions or other supporting data. If the geotechnical engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the director accompanying the plans and specifications, express agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and state that the revised plans and specifications conform to the new recommendations. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.10.050 E. The plan set submittal shall include a disclosure letter or notation on the design drawings by the structural engineer of record stating that he has reviewed the geotechnical report(s), that he understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner/applicant the risk of loss due to slides on the site, and that he has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any risk of earth movement refer- enced in the report. The statement shall note any risks, hazards, and potential problems from earth movement that are not fully mitigated by design measures. F. The owner shall execute a covenant (in a form provided by the city) to be submitted with the application (with necessary fee) to be filed with the Snohomish County auditor. The director shall cause such completed covenant to be so filed. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall be a covenant running with the land, which shall at a minimum include: 1. A legal description of the property. 2. A statement explaining that the site is in a potential earth subsidence and landslide hazard area, that the risk associated with the development of the site is set forth in permit file No. with the city of Edmonds building department, that conditions or prohi- bitions on development may have been imposed by the city in the course of permit issuance, and referencing any features in the design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes. The covenant may incorporate by reference the statements and conditions to be observed in the form proposed by the owner/applicant's geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer as approved after the review set forth in ECDC 19.10.060. 3. A statement waiving and promising to indemnify and hold harmless the city of Edmonds, its officers and employees from any claims the owner/applicant and his/her successors or assigns may have for any loss or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement and arising from or out of the issuances of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site, as well as due to any act or failure to act by the indemnitor, its agents or successors, in interest under or following issuance of the permit. 4. The date of permit issuance and permit number authorizing the development. [Ord. 3817 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 36, 2009; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.10.050 Site bonds and contractor general public liability insurance. A. Site Bonding Requirements. 1. A surety bond, in an amount to be determined by the director, executed by a surety company authorized to do business in the state of Washington shall be posted by the owner/applicant or general contractor to assure the restoration of any areas on the site, or in the surrounding area, disturbed or damaged by slides during construction, and to ensure completion of the work authorized by the permit, or, if the work is not completed, to assure that the site will be restored to a safe and stable condition at least equal to the safety and stability of the site prior to commencement of work under the permit. The bond will be exonerated upon occupancy approval of the building permit by the building official. 2. In lieu of the surety bond, the owner/applicant or general contractor may propose to file a cash deposit or an instrument of credit with the director in an amount equal to that which would be required in the surety bond, and similarly conditioned. B. Public Liability Insurance. The general contractor of record shall carry general public liability insurance effective through final occupancy in the minimum amount of $1,000,000, and which shall name the city as an additional named insured, against the injury, death, property damage and/or loss arising from or out of the city's involvement in the permitting process for the project. 19.10.060 C. Homeowner Insurance. The city strongly recommends that each property owner maintain policies of liability insurance, adequate to provide sufficient funds, to indemnify and hold harmless third parties in the event of earth subsidence or landslides emanating from or across the owner's property. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.10.060 Review to determine compliance with engineering practice and best available science. A. The city shall require professional peer review of the plan set submittals accompany- ing the permit application by a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, geologist, and/or struc- tural engineer as may be necessary and determined by the building official or director, in order to determine whether the plan set submittals were prepared in accordance with gen- erally accepted engineering practice or the practice of the particular engineering or design specialty and are based upon best available science. The full cost of such peer review shall be paid in full by the owner/applicant within 30 days of billing by the city. Failure to make timely payments shall result in a stay of city plan review services on the application. B. This requirement may be selectively waived at the discretion of the director, provided the applicable project geotechnical engineer, civil engineer or structural engineer provides written concurrence, determination, details, facts and/or data that individual site conditions warrant an exemption from outside peer review. Once waived, the building official shall not be required to inquire further into the adequacy of any report, plans, or data, but rather may rely upon the submittals as warranted by the owner/applicant as reviewed by the city's consultant. Nothing herein shall relieve the owner/applicant of the obligation to submit a complete application fulfilling all the requirements of this chapter and the IRC/IBC. C. The final recommendation of the peer review regarding whether a submittal complies with generally accepted practice and/or is based on best available science shall be binding upon the building official. Such recommendation may be appealed to superior court under the Land Use Petition Act. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.10.070 Issuance and denial of permits. A. Permit Issuance. The following requirements must be satisfied before a permit will be issued: 1. An approved geotechnical report has been submitted and approved. 2. Plans and specifications have been submitted incorporating the recommendations of the geotechnical report and said plans have been approved. 3. The required declarations, disclosures, covenants and waivers have been submitted and approved. 4. Required bonds, cash deposits and public liability insurance have been posted with the city. 5. When peer review has been required, all submittals have been determined to have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. 6. Peer review concurrence for permit issuance has been received by the building official. 7. All other provisions of ECDC Titles 16, 18 and 20 have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate city official. B. Permit Denial. The following criteria shall result in the denial of issuance of permit: 1. Building, grading and excavation permits for construction on land which the direc- tor finds to be unsuitable for improvement due to excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, instability or unsuitable topography, or 2. The resulting development would increase the potential of soil movement resulting in an unacceptable risk of damage to adjacent properties or an unreasonable risk of damage to the proposed development, or 3. Excessive flooding, seepage, high water table, or inadequate drainage, or 4. If the bluff retreat rate analysis shows that the rate of retreat of the bluff is such that any structure or improvement would be unreasonably endangered or reasonably could be anticipated to be endangered by landslide or earth subsidence during its normal useful life, the application shall be denied. A "structure" is defined as: a. A building intended for human habitation, b. A building, structure or other improvement whose stress or weight, collapse or movement would endanger public safety in the event of slope failure, and c. Any improvement on the site which is necessary to mitigate danger to public safety or provide stability, or 5. Other hazardous conditions posing an unreasonable risk to public health, safety, or welfare, or 6. Where the noted site dangers or geologic hazards are not minimized to the extent possible by the use of best available science and generally accepted engineering and archi- tectural practice, or 7. If the applicant's geotechnical engineer determines that there is a greater chance than 30 percent in a 25-year period that landslide damage on site will occur. C. In making a determination of permit denial, the director shall consider not only the land which is the subject of the application, but in addition, the surrounding area which would be adversely affected if the permit were granted. Permit denial shall be made in writing to the owner/applicant when the site cannot be rendered "stable" as defined in ECDC 19.10.020(0). This decision and other preliminary determinations as referenced herein shall be appealable to Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act. No other appeal shall be permitted. The appeal period shall commence upon the date of mailing of any preliminary or final decision, or upon posting, if posting is the only notice a party with standing receives under the terms of this chapter. D. Prohibitions. Because of the relationship of groundwater to stability, the discharge of collected surface water or stormwater to the ground surface or subsurface is prohibited on sites within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area. In addition, the following con- struction, buildings, or improvements are hereby prohibited within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area: 1. Swimming pools or hot tubs. 2. Ponds or other artificial impoundments of water. 3. Watering or irrigation systems. 4. Temporary or permanent stockpile of fill on top or bottom of slopes. 5. Rockeries. E. Waiver. The prohibitions established in subsection (D) of this section shall apply unless the property owner requests a waiver based upon the written analysis of a geotechni- cal engineer which clearly establishes that the proposed improvement will have no reason- able likelihood of triggering or otherwise contributing to any landslide hazard or earth subsidence risk either on the site or in the neighboring earth subsidence or landslide hazard area. In any review or appeal of the director's or building official's denial of a waiver to con- struct an otherwise prohibited improvement, the burden of proof shall always be upon the applicant to establish by a clear preponderance of the evidence that no such risk will be cre- ated by the improvement. Any geotechnical engineering report provided in any review shall consider not only the risk incurred due to or during construction of the otherwise prohibited improvement, but also the potential impacts due to failure to maintain the improvement, damage through reasonably foreseeable events such as earthquakes or other acts of God, or the reasonably foreseeable negligence of the owner or future owners. The director may utilize peer review consultants. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.10.080 Site access, professional/special inspection, monitoring during construction and final geotechnical report. A. Site Clearing and Grading. The owner/applicant or contractor shall secure the building official's approval before entering an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area site with excavating or other grading and clearing equipment to clear, remove trees or grade for any purpose including the creation of access to the site. The building official may condition such access approval if site conditions are warranted and when discretionary approval permits are required. As part of the approval process the building official may impose conditions that address site work issues; such measures could include but are not limited to limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as the installation of drainage systems well in advance of construction. Requests for early site access in advance of building permit approval or in the time period between October Ist and April 30th for any purpose shall be submitted to the building offi- cial accompanied by written concurrence of the owner/applicant's geotechnical engineer of record. The building official may utilize peer review consultants to determine whether the request is based on generally accepted engineering practice and is reasonable with regard to time -frame to complete the work, types of equipment proposed to perform the work, length of exposure of slopes, and adequacy of site monitoring and temporary erosion control measures. When such peer review is utilized, the applicant is responsible for the peer review fee. B. Reporting Authority. The owner/applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to monitor the site during construction. The owner/applicant shall preferably retain the geotechnical engineer who prepared the final geotechnical report in the plan set submittal and who has reviewed the approved plans and specifications. If a different geotechnical engineering consultant is retained by the owner/applicant, the new geotechnical engineer shall submit a letter to the director stating that he or she has read all reports and recommendations and reviews to date and state whether or not he or she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original geotechnical report and peer review comments. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the new geotechnical engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions or changes to the original recommendations that would affect the approved plans. C. Construction Monitoring, Special Inspections. 1. Inspection Requirements. During the period from October 1st to April 30th, when on site, the owner/applicant or designated erosion sedimentation control (ESC) site supervisor shall perform erosion and sedimentation control inspections. Records of installed ESC facilities shall be maintained by the erosion and sedimentation control supervisor and copies of all ESC records shall be provided to city inspectors upon request. ESC facilities on inactive sites (sites where no work will be performed for more than three consecutive days) shall be inspected weekly by the erosion and sedimentation control supervisor. During all other times of the year, weekly inspections by the ESC site supervisor are required and shall be recorded. 2. Weekly Field Reports. The geotechnical engineer shall monitor, during construc- tion, compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report including: site excavation, shoring, temporary erosion control, soil support for foundation, piles, subdrainage installation, soil compaction and other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the director, the specific recommendations contained in the geotechnical report shall be implemented by the owner/applicant. Omissions or deviations from the approved geotechnical report and civil plans shall be highlighted to the city in a separate report. All reports shall be submitted to the city on a weekly basis for review. Failure to submit required reports may result in the issuance of a stop work order. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.10.080 3. Storm Events. During all work periods, special inspections shall be performed after "storm events" as defined in ECDC 19.10.020(Q). The storm event report shall be provided within one week of the event. D. Final Construction Report. The geotechnical engineer of record shall prepare a final written report to be submitted to the building official stating that, based upon his or her pro- fessional opinion, site observations and final site grading, the completed development sub- stantially complies with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and with all geotechnical-related permit requirements as shown on the approved plans. "Substantially complies" means that the completed development offers at least the level of stability and safety, on- and off -site, as was afforded by the original recommendations and report. Recommendations to the owner/applicant shall be included in the report for future monitoring and maintenance of the property including drainage, tightlines, catch basins, berms, retaining wall drainage, hazard mitigation improvements, slopes, bluffs, vegetation, and permanent erosion control that affect slope stability over time. Occupancy of the residence shall not be granted until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the building official. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. Chapter 19.15 MECHANICAL CODE AND FUEL GAS CODE Sections: 19.15.000 International Mechanical Code adopted. 19.15.005 Amendments. 19.15.010 International Fuel Gas Code adopted. 19.15.015 Amendments. 19.15.000 International Mechanical Code adopted. The International Mechanical Code (IMC), 2009-2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-52 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter is hereby adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 3, 2010]. 19.15.005 Amendments. Chapter 1 is not adopted, except as provided for in 19.00.015.E e Errs 19.00.015. [Ord. 3796 § 3, 2010]. 19.15.010 International Fuel Gas Code adopted. The International Fuel Gas Code, 2009-2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-52 WAC inclusive of NFPA 54 and 58, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 3, 2010]. RM REM MT� go .. ._. . . 19.20.000 Chapter 19.20 PLUMBING CODE Sections: 19.20.000 Uniform Plumbing Code adopted. 19.20.005 Amendments. 19.20.010 Evidence of potable water. 19.20.000 Uniform Plumbing Code adopted. The Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), 2OW2012 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-56 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, provided that any provisions that affect fuel gas piping are not adopted, is hereby adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 4, 2010]. 19.20.005 Amendments. A. Chapter 1 is not adopted, except as provided in 19.00.015. C. Seet 1016, Sand intereepters, is deleted. D. Seetion 1017, Oil and flammable liquids intefeeptofs, is del E. Chapter 12, Fuel piping, is deleted. F. Chapter 15, Firestop protection, is deleted. [Ord. 3796 § 4, 2010]. 19.20.010 Evidence of potable water. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for new development, the building official shall require substantive evidence of an adequate potable water supply from the purveyor of water to the site for which a building permit is requested. For those areas lying within the service area of the city of Edmonds water utility, the notification from a duly authorized representative of the city's water utility shall be sufficient; provided, nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent the city or any of its water purveyors from declaring a moratorium or other water emergency limiting or otherwise restricting the availability of adequate potable water. Applicants relying on a well shall provide a copy of applicable state approval for the appropriation and a current test of water quality by a qualified laboratory. [Ord. 3796 § 4, 2010]. 19.20.010 Chapter 19.25 FIRE CODE Sacfinnc- 19.25.000 International Fire Code adopted. 19.25.005 Section amendments. 19.25.010 Department of fire prevention. 19.25.015 Definitions. 19.25.020 Permits. 19.25.025 Charges for fire review and inspection. 19.25.030 Modifications, interpretations and appeals. 19.25.035 Automatic sprinkler systems. 19.25.036 Dwelling fire sprinkler systems and connection fees. 19.25.040 Fire protection water supplies. 19.25.045 Charges for water mains and hydrants. 19.25.050 Mains and service lines. 19.25.055 Location of public hydrants. 19.25.060 Location of private hydrants. 19.25.065 Hydrant specifications. 19.25.070 Penalties. 19.25.000 International Fire Code adopted. Under the statutory authoritv of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074. the International Fire Code (IFC 2012 Edition, as published by the International Code Council including amendments set forth in Chapter 51-54A WAC, and subsequently revised by this chapter, is hereby adopted including reference standards of the National Fire Protection Association and Appendix Chapters B. and C. 19.25.005 Section amendments. The following sections of the IFC have been added, amended, deleted or replaced as follows: A. Chapter 1 Administration. 1. Section 102.5 Application of Residential Code. Adopted as originally set forth in IFC (notwithstanding revisions thereto by the state building code council). 2. Section 103.1-.2 Department of Fire Prevention. Replaced by ECDC 19.25.010. 3. Section 104.8 Modifications. Replaced by ECDC 19.25.030. 4. Section 104.10.1 Assistance from other aaencies. Police and other enforcement aaencies shall have the authority to render necessary assistance in the investigation of fires and enforcement and hazardous conditions of this code when requested by the fire marshal. 5. Section 105.1.1 Permits required. Replaced by ECDC 19.25.020. 6. Section 108 Board of appeals. Replaced by Chapter ECDC. 7. Section 109.4 Violation Penalties. Replaced by ECDC 19.25.070. B. Chapter 5, Fire Service Features. Section 503 Fire Apparatus Access Roads. The following sections are adopted as originally set forth in the IFC: 1. Section 503.1 Where required. 2. Section 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. 3. Section 503.1.2 Additional access. 4. Section 503.1.3 High -piled storage. 5. Section 503.2 Specifications. 6. Section 503.3 Marking. 7. Section 503.4 Obstruction of fire apparatus access roads. C. Chapter 56, Explosives and Fireworks. Section 5601.1.3 Fireworks. Replaced by Chapter 5.27 ECC. D. Chapter 57 Flammable and Combustible Liquids. Sections 5704.2.9.6.1 (outside) and 5706.2.4.4 (inside) Locations where above -ground tanks are prohibited. Class I and II flammable liquids in aboveground storage tanks are restricted for the protection of residential districts and shall be no more than 1,000 gallons capacity in residential zones designated by the city. E. Chapter 61 Liquified Petroleum Gases. Section 6104.2 Maximum capacity within established limits. The maximum capacity for each installation is restricted for the protection of residential districts within the city and shall be no more than 500 gallons water capacity in residential zones designated by the city. F. Chapter 36 Marinas. Replaced in entirety by Chapter 19.65 ECDC. 19.25.010 Department of fire prevention. A. There is established in the city a department of fire prevention supervised by the fire marshal or deputy chief of fire prevention acting under the supervision of the fire chief. The function of the department shall be the implementation, administration and enforcement of the provisions of this code. B. An annual report shall be provided to the mayor containing proceedings under this code, with other statistics as the fire chief and mayor wish to include. The fire marshal may also recommend any changes to the code. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 2010L 19.25.015 Definitions. A. Whenever the term "fire code official" is used in the IFC, it shall mean the fire marshal or deputy chief of fire prevention. B. Whenever the word "jurisdiction" is used in the IFC, it shall mean the city of Edmonds. C. Whenever the term "legal representative of the jurisdiction" is used in the IFC, it shall mean the city attorney. D. Whenever the term "police" is used in the IFC, it shall mean the city of Edmonds police department. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. 19.25.020 Permits. A. Operational permits required under the city's fire code and regulated by the city shall be issued by the fire marshal. The application for the permit shall be accompanied by the full application fee in order to vest rights under the permit and to constitute a complete permit application. The permit fee shall be set by the city council annually by resolution or on such review cycle as the council, in its discretion, shall determine. All permits shall be renewed annually unless the specific time period is set forth when the permit is aranted. No permit shall be transferable and each permit shall be issued on a single job, transaction, owner, or occupancy basis, except that the fire marshal is authorized to consolidate permits for a single location, building, or unit. B. In the event that the activitv. location or risk associated with the activitv reauires a fire inspection in excess of the time estimated within the permit fee (one hour) an inspection fee equal to the actual cost to the city of providing the inspection shall be charged pursuant to ECDC 19.25.025. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. 19.25.025 Charges for fire review and inspection. A. Certain licenses and permits issued by the city include a fire department inspection. The cost of the permit may include an estimate of the normal time associated with the fire inspection. Where the permit does not include such an estimate, or when the estimate of time established within the ordinance is exceeded by the actual time spent inspecting a premises, location or activity, the actual cost of conductina the inspection shall be charged. The administrative services director is authorized to establish on an annual basis, in conjunction with or immediately following the budget process, a fee for the hourly charge associated with the provision of services by reasonable classifications of fire marshal and fire inspector. B. The permittee shall pay the actual charges of inspection, in addition to the permit fee associated with such activity. Licenses and permits requiring the actual payment of inspection charges include, but are not limited to, public amusement licenses issued pursuant to Chapter 4.32 ECC, cabaret dance licenses issued pursuant to Chaster 4.48 ECC. adult entertainment facilitv licenses issued pursuant to Chapter 4.52 ECC, business licenses pursuant to Chapter 4.72 ECC, and aircraft landing licenses issued pursuant to Chapter 4.80 ECC. C. No charge shall be levied against any department or agency of the city of Edmonds operating_ within the city's general fund.. 19.25.030 Modifications, interpretations and appeals. A. The fire marshal shall have the authority to modify any of the provisions of the IFC or this chapter on written application by the owner, lessee, or his duly authorized agent when there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the code. Approved modifications, including alternative materials and methods, shall observe the spirit of the code, preserve fire- and life -safety, secure the public health, and do substantial justice. A signed copy of approved modifications shall be promptly given to the applicant. B. Details of actions granting modifications and related interpretations shall be recorded and preserved in the records of the department of fire prevention to aid in conformance and uniform application of related codes. ordinances. and standards. C. Whenever the fire marshal disapproves an application or refuses to grant a permit applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of the code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal from the decision of the fire marshal to the hearings examiner. Such appeals shall be governed by the rocedures set forth in Chapter ECDC.. 19.25.035 Automatic sprinkler systems. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and maintained throughout every building constructed under the International Residential Code containina five or more attached dwellin units. Residential or quick response standard sprinkler heads shall be used in accordance with their approved listing in the dwelling. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. 19.25.036 Dwelling fire sprinkler systems and connection fees. A. Where dwelling fire sprinkler systems are required to be installed in a dwelling (building_ containing one or two dwelling units) constructed under the International Residential Code (IRC). a single water connection may provide fire protection and domestic services through combination water lines utilizing an integrated fire and plumbing flow -through piping system described in IRC Appendix R (WAC 51-51-60105). B. Automatic sprinkler systems installed pursuant to subsection (A) of this section shall not be subject to the cost differential from general facility charges for connection to the public water system when an up -sized meter is required to meet the design flow rate for, and is solely attributable to, the installation of the automatic sprinkler system. All other costs, including the expense of a larger meter, a general facility charge attributable to the meter sized for the domestic service alone, and other permits and fees, shall remain the responsibility of the owner. C. When automatic sprinkler systems designed for life safety and installed pursuant to subsection (A) of this section are integrated and dependent upon the domestic water supply of the residential dwelling unit, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the service connection and paying for an adequate supply of water to the residential dwelling unit. [Ord. 3819 § 3, 20101. 19.25.040 Fire protection water supplies. All fire hydrant, water main and appurtenance installations shall meet the provisions of this chapter as well as other applicable plans, standards and codes adopted by the city of Edmonds, as a condition of approval of subdivisions and building permits. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. 19.25.045 Charges for water mains and hydrants. A. For private development, owners shall be responsible for the replacement (upgrade) of the existing public main (including fire hydrants and appurtenances) to city standard when identified by the city engineer as a condition of development approval. The city will pay the difference in material costs only between six inches and the size that is required to be installed only when the existing_ system is a looped system. B. A hydrant use permit issued by the public works director is required in order for any person or entity other than fire department personnel to draw water from any fire hydrant. C. The installation of water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances to properties not previously served shall be sized in accordance with the city's water comprehensive plan, built to city standard and shall be at the benefited property owner's or developer's expense. D. Oversized water mains required for special use demands relating to a particular property or development shall be installed at the developer's or property owner's expense. E. If the water mains installed pursuant to subsections (C) and (D) of this section provide service or benefits to properties other than owned by the water main installer, latecomer agreements may be arranaed between the citv and the installer for the construction and dedication of the water facilities pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 35.91 RCW. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. 19.25.050 Mains and service lines. A. All public hydrants in single-family areas shall be supplied by not less than six-inch looped water mains. All hydrants in areas other than single-family residential shall be supplied by not less than eight -inch looped water mains. Dead-end water mains to hvdrants shall be at least eiaht inches in diameter, with the exception of mains up to 50 feet long which may be no less than six inches in diameter. B. The service line from the water main to the hydrant shall be no less than six inches in diameter. Any service lines over 50 feet in length from water main to hydrant shall be no less than eight inches in diameter. C. When city streets, or state highways having water mains in the public right-of-way, are improved to permanent street or highway improvement standards, any water mains in the public right-of-way of said streets or hiahways that are substandard as to size or material accordina to applicable citv standards shall be replaced with ductile iron water mains conforming to applicable city standards and plans. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. 19.25.055 Location of public hydrants. A. Public hydrants are those owned by the city. B. All public fire hydrants shall be installed at street intersections where possible. Public hydrant spacing shall be measured along vehicle access routes. C. In areas zoned for single-family residential use, public hydrants shall be spaced no more than 600 feet apart. If dead-end streets, or driveways, singly or in combination, are over 300 feet long, additional public hydrants shall be installed so that the public hydrant spacing is not over 600 feet. D. In areas other than single-family residential, public fire hydrants shall be spaced an average of 300 feet apart. If dead-end streets or driveways, singly or in combination, are over 150 feet long, additional public hydrants shall be installed so that the public hydrant spacing is not over 300 feet. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. 19.25.060 Location of private hydrants. A. A private hydrant is privately owned, but is subject to the use of the city for inspection and testing at reasonable times, and for fire suppression at any time. All private hydrants shall be connected to the citv water main throuah a Drivatelv owned and maintained double detector check valve assembly. B. All buildings except single-family dwellings that are located so that a portion is more than 200 feet from a street. as measured alona vehicle access routes. shall have Drivate fire hvdrants located at the building. Single-family dwellings with a fire -flow calculation area greater than 4,800 square feet may require a private hydrant. C. Buildings having required fire flows of 3,000 gallons per minute may have fire hydrants on one side of the building only. There shall never be fewer than two fire hydrants for any building larger than 5,000 square feet in the first floor area including covered parking and storage. When the reauired fire flow is 3.000 aallons Der minute or areater. the fire hvdrants shall be served by a looped main around the building or complex of buildings. D. Fire hydrants shall be spaced on an average 300 feet around the perimeter line, 50 feet out of the buildings. All hydrants shall be placed in locations accessible to fire department vehicles adjacent to fire apparatus access roads. The fire marshal shall determine the location of fire hvdrants dependina on utility, topography and building location for maximum fire protection. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. 19.25.065 Hydrant specifications. A. The installation of flush type hydrants (hydrants entirely below grade) is prohibited. B. Fire hydrants shall have two two -and -one -half -inch hose outlets and one four -and -one -half -inch pumper outlet. All outlets' ports shall have national standard thread. Additionally, the pumper outlet shall be provided with a four -inch Storz adapter. Fire hydrants shall meet the American Water Works Association Standard No. C-502 and current city standards. C. Fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and city standards, and to the approval of the city engineer, who shall also approve the selection and use of all pipe fittings and valves. There shall be a foot valve installed between the service main and the hydrant sufficient to permit the repair and replacement of the hydrant without disruption of water service. The foot valve shall be installed to city standards. The location of all such valves installed shall be properly and accurately marked on as -built plans or drawings with generally acceptable engineering detail, two copies of which shall be furnished to the public works department. Valves shall be furnished with a standard valve box. D. Hvdrants shall stand plumb. be set to established street arade with the lowest outlet of the hvdrant at least 18 inches above the adiacent finished arade and at least 36 inches of clear area around the hydrant for clearance of hydrant wrench on both outlets and on the control valve. The pumper port shall face the street, as determined by the fire marshal. E. Where reasonably necessary to protect a hydrant from damage, the fire marshal may require hydrants to be protected by two or more posts, eight inches in diameter by five feet long, made either of reinforced concrete or steel. F. If there presently exist fire hydrants which do not conform to these requirements, they shall be replaced with conforming hydrants upon redevelopment or the timetable established by the city's comprehensive Dian. G. No person shall plant any vegetation, erect any structure or perform any action which results in the obstruction of a fire hvdrant for a distance of 50 feet alona the immediate route of approach. The owner -occupant of any area in which a hydrant is located shall be responsible for removing weed and tree growth from around the hydrant for a distance of not less than five feet. The purpose of this section is to maintain clear approach and visual area around the hydrant. H. The installation of the fire hydrants and mains may be accomplished by city capital contract, developers (as a condition of development) or public works department employees. All installations are to be approved by the city engineer. I. Following the installation of fire hydrants, all pipes, valves and hydrants shall be pressure tested, purified, flushed and sampled to meet the requirements of the American Water Works Association Standard No. C-502. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. 19.25.070 Penalties. A. Any person who violates any of the provisions of the IFC including those standards of the National Fire Protection Association specifically referenced in the IFC as adopted and amended herein or fails to comply therewith, or who violates or fails to comply with any order made thereunder, or who builds in violation of any detailed statement of specifications or plans submitted and approved thereunder, and from which no appeal has been taken, or who fails to comply with such an order as affirmed or modified by decision of the citv's hearinas examiner. or by a court of competent jurisdiction, within the required time, shall severally for each and every such violation and noncompliance, respectively, be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable as provided in ECC 5.50.020. B. The imposition of one penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation nor permit it to continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violations or defects within a reasonable time: and when not otherwise specified. each day that prohibited conditions exist or are maintained shall constitute a separate offense. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.30.000 Chapter 19.30 ENERGY CODE Sections: 19.30.000 State Energy Code adopted. 19.30.000 State Energy Code adopted. The Washington State Energy Code, 2OW2012 Edition, as adopted and amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-11 WAC, is hereby adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 5, 2010]. Chapter 19.35 VENTILATION CODE (Repealed by Ord. 3796) 19.40.000 Chapter 19.40 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE Sections: 19.40.000 International Property Maintenance Code adopted. 19.40.005 Amendments. 19.40.000 International Property Maintenance Code adopted. The International Property Maintenance Code, 2-009 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, is hereby adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 6, 2010]. 19.40.005 Amendments. A. Section 102.3, Application of other codes, is amended to read: Repairs, additions or alterations to a structure, or changes of occupancy shall be done in accordance with the procedures and provisions of the codes listed in 19.00.005. Nothing in this code shall be construed to cancel, modify or set aside any provision of the ECDC. B. Section 106, Violations, is deleted and replaced as follows: Violation of any provisions of this code are subject to the Civil Violation — En- forcement procedures in Chapter 20.110 ECDC. C. Sections 108.2, Closing of vacant structures, 108.3, Notice, 108.4, Placarding, 108.5, Prohibited occupancy, 108.6, Abatement methods, and 108.7, Record, are deleted and replaced by the provisions of Chapter 20.110 ECDC. D. Section 111, Means of Appeal, is deleted and replaced by ECDC 20.110.040(C). E. Section 302 is deleted. F. Section 303 is deleted. G. Section 308 is deleted. H. Section 309 is deleted. [Ord. 3796 § 6, 2010]. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.45.000 Chapter 19.45 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL PERFORMANCE CODE Sections: 19.45.000 International Code Council Performance Code adopted. 19.45.000 International Code Council Performance Code adopted. The International Code Council Performance Code, 2009-2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, is hereby adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 7, 2010]. Chapter 19.50 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE Sections: 19.50.000 International Existing Building Code adopted. 19.50.000 International Existing Building Code adopted. The International Existing Building Code, 2009-2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-50 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix Chapter A (Guidelines for the seismic retrofit of existing buildings) and Resource A (Guidelines on fire ratings of archaic materials and assemblies). [Ord. 3796 § 8, 2010]. 19.55.000 Chapter 19.55 ELECTRICAL CODE Sections: 19.55.000 National Electrical Code adopted. 19.55.005 When code effective. 19.55.010 Nonliability. 19.55.015 Conflicts — How resolved. 19.55.000 National Electrical Code adopted. Under the statutory authority of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074, the National Electrical Code, 2008-2011 Edition, as published by the National Fire Protection Association, is hereby adopted as the electrical code for the city of Edmonds subject to the amendments made herein. The State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries, Electrical Inspection Section, Rules and Regulations for Installing Electric Wiring and Equipment and Administrative Rules, 2008 Edition, is hereby adopted as part of the electrical code of the city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3796 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.55.005 When code effective. If the state of Washington, through its duly designated electrical inspector or inspectors, for any reason fails to continue to inspect electrical installation, license the same or provide the standards, the provisions of the Edmonds electrical code as amended shall be applicable to all electrical installation in the city as if the state of Washington had not exercised jurisdiction of any kind. [Ord. 3796 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.55.010 Nonliability. This chapter shall not be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of any person owning, operating or installing any electrical equipment for damages to anyone injured by a defect of the equipment, nor shall the city or its agent be held as assuming any such liability by reason of the inspection under this code or the certificate of inspection issued by the building department. [Ord. 3796 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.55.015 Conflicts — How resolved. If there is any conflict between the electrical code of the city, the National Electrical Code and/or the rules and regulations as set forth by the state of Washington for electric wires and equipment, then the conditions, requirements, provisions or terms which provide, in the opinion of the building official, for the greatest public safety shall be observed and shall control. [Ord. 3796 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.60.010 Chapter 19.60 MOVING BUILDINGS Sections: 19.60.000 Permit required. 19.60.005 Applicability. 19.60.010 Application requirements. 19.60.015 Pre -move inspection requirements and building upgrades. 19.60.020 Correction of defects. 19.60.000 Permit required. Any person who proposes to move an existing building into or through the city of Edmonds shall, before the move, apply for and obtain a moving permit from the building official. A moving permit is separate from, and in addition to, any and all other permits required to bring the moved building into compliance with current adopted codes and city regulations. Separate permit approvals for grading, shoring, foundation, remodeling, repair or alteration may be imposed to bring the building to current adopted code standards and zoning compliance for height and setbacks. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.60.005 Applicability. Buildings or structures moved into or within the city shall comply with the provisions of this code including the current adopted editions of the following codes: International Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, Interna- tional Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Washington State Energy Code, Ventilation T,,,aoo Air- Quality Co State Historic Building Code, Unif6fffl Heusi„ "International Property Maintenance Code, and applicable state WAC amendments. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.60.010 Application requirements. A. In order to obtain permits to move any building through, along, or across the streets or any public place within city limits, the building official shall determine permit submittal requirements which, at a minimum, shall contain: 1. Proposed route; 2. Location of any overhead utility lines or traffic signals along with their height along the route; and 3. Dimensions of building proposed to be moved. B. The permit application shall be reviewed by the building official, public works director, police chief, traffic engineer, fire department and any other affected city department. If the proposed moving will unduly interfere with the rights of the public as determined by the city engineer or designee, the permit shall be denied. Denial of the application by one department shall constitute denial of the permit by the city. C. A performance bond or frozen fund, pursuant to Chapter 17.10 ECDC, in an amount to be determined by the building official shall be posted prior to permit issuance guaranteeing the completion of all required site development improvements or site clean-up and/or repair of damage to public property no later than 180 days after the permit is issued. The bond or frozen fund will be exonerated upon final project approval provided all required site restoration and/or improvements are installed, inspected and approved to city standards. D. The moving contractor shall be state licensed and carry general public liability insurance for the amount no less than $1,000,000, valid during entire building moving operations, and the insurance policy shall name the city as an additional named insured, against the injury, death, property damage and/or loss arising from or out of the city's involvement in the permitting process for the project. E. As a condition of obtaining a moving permit, the moving contractor shall assume all liability for any damage to public property by such moving operations. Repair of damage to any public property improvement shall be completed under a valid permit within 30 days of date of notice. Emergency repair work performed by city crews to repair damage to public improvements shall be charged against the moving contractor. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.60.015 19.60.015 Pre -move inspection requirements and building upgrades. A. Upon application and payment of the building moving permit fee, the building official shall notify coordinate a date and time to perform a pre -move inspection with the applicant. of the dateand time of his pfe ,r o eEtien The pre -move inspection shall be made at the original location of the building before it is moved. B. The applicant shall remove from the building as much of the interior wall and ceiling coverings as is necessary in the judgment of the building official to conduct a thorough inspection of the wiring, plumbing and structural features of the building. The building official shall determine what structural, energy, ventilation, plumbing, mechanical and life - safety upgrades shall be imposed on any building moved into or within city limits in compliance with current adopted codes. Designated historic buildings are also subject to provisions of Chapter 19.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.60.020 Correction of defects. If, at or after the time of the inspection, the building official notifies the applicant that any portion of the building, electrical wiring or rough plumbing is in any way in violation of the ordinances of the city of Edmonds, so that compliance will require a replacement of any parts or materials used, then any defective parts or materials shall be removed from the building before it is moved. Any corrections required to comply with the ECDC, IBC and IRC shall be completed and inspected before final approval and occupancy is granted. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. Chapter 19.65 MARINAS Sactinnc- 19.65.000 Application. 19.65.005 Building code — Compliance required. 19.65.010 Desian live loads. 19.65.015 Materials. 19.65.020 Area and location requirements. 19.65.025 Fire Protection Standard adopted. 19.65.030 Fuel floats. 19.65.000 Application. The provisions of this chapter apply to the construction, changes, repair and use of a small boat marina orovidina covered floatina boat mooraae within the citv. A marina is a basin of safe anchorage providing moorage for small vessels. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101. 19.65.005 Buildina code — Compliance reauired. All construction on or in connection with a marina shall comply with all the provisions of this title including permits, permit fees and penalties and all other applicable ordinances of the city and other applicable laws. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101. 19.65.010 Design live loads. A. Decks. Float decks shall have a design live load of at least 40 pounds per square foot minimum. B. Roofs. The roof structures shall have a design live load of at least 25 pounds per square foot minimum. C. Ramps. The ramps to floats shall have a design live load of at least 40 pounds per square foot minimum. [Ord. 3798 F4 2, 20101. 19.65.015 Materials. A. Roofs. Roof coverinas shall be noncombustible. B. Floats. Floating structures and floats shall be material of a type approved by the building official. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101. 19.65.020 Area and location requirements. A. Length of Floats. The maximum length of any combination of floats shall be 500 feet from the shore end of the aanaolank to the outer end of the main float. A main float is a center or side float connected by a ramp to the shore, being fixed laterally by a system of piling but allowed to move vertically, and may have finger floats connected at intervals. B. Length of Roofs. The maximum length of any roof over floats shall be 400 feet, measured along a main float. At least 75 percent of the exterior walls shall be open. The maximum area covered shall be 30,000 sauare feet over anv sinale main float area. C. Separation. The minimum separation of covered moorage shall be 20 feet. D. Floats, piers, and walkways shall provide an aisle not less than 44 inches in width. E. Slips and mooring spaces shall be individually identified by an approved numeric or alphabetic designator that shall be posted at each space. Signs indicating the space designators located on finger piers and floats shall be posted at the base of all piers, finger piers, floats and finger floats. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101. 19.65.025 Fire Protection Standard adopted. A. The "Fire Protection Standard for Marinas and Boatvards." 2006 Edition, of the National Fire Protection Association Publication No. 303 is hereby adopted to provide the minimum acceptable level of safety to life and property from fire and electrical hazards at marinas and boatyards. The most restrictive requirements from all codes and adopted standards may apply. In the event of any conflict between provisions of the fire and electrical codes of the city of Edmonds as adopted by this title, the fire and electrical codes shall prevail. B. Access and Water Supply. Piers shall be provided with fire apparatus access roads and water - supply systems with on -site hydrants where required by the fire marshal. The maximum distance from any point on a float system to an approved fire hydrant shall be 600 feet, except for fuel floats there shall be 300 feet. C. Emergency Operations Staging Areas. Approved areas on piers and ashore shall be provided for the staging of emergency equipment. These areas shall be posted with approved signage to keep clear for emergency operations. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101. 19.65.030 Fuel floats. A. Fuel floats shall be constructed of gas -resistant flotation material and shall be separated from other floats by at least 80 feet of open water. B. All fuel storaae tanks shall be located underaround. C. All fuel lines shall be provided with flexible connections from shore to floating facilities. D. Fire extinguishers shall be provided near fuel dispensers as approved by the Edmonds fire department. E. Gangplank access from shore to fuel floats shall be within 175 feet of fuel dispensers. F. Fresh water taps shall be available on fuel floats. G. All portions of a fuel float shall be located within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. H. Mooraae at anv fuel float shall be prohibited and unlawful except durina the shortest time necessary to take on fuel. Moorage shall be unlawful at any fuel float at any time the fuel pumps are not open for business and physically attended by the fuel pump proprietor, his agent, employee or port tenant trained to a fire department approved environmental and safety standard. It shall be the independent responsibility of the fuel pump proprietor, vessel operator, and vessel owner to comply with this subsection and each said person or class of persons shall be subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020 for any and all violations hereof. I. All fuel spills shall be reported immediately in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 2010]. Chapter 19.70 FEES Sections: 19.70.000 197n 005 Scope. Payment f fees. 19.70.010 Schedule of permit fees. 19.70.015 Establishing building construction valuation. 19.70.020 Work commencing before permit issuance. 19.70.025 Refunds. 19.70.000 Scope. Fees associated with this title including plan review, permit, inspection and related devel- opment or mitigation fees are established by this chapter and as set forth in ECDC 15.00.020. Fees may be altered pursuant to city Resolution 997. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. .. Up 0i ON 19.70.010 Schedule of permit fees. For buildings, structures, grading, gas, mechanical and plumbing systems or alterations requiring a permit, a fee for each permit shall be paid as required, in accordance with this chapter and ECDC 15.00.020. Fee schedules are on file in the city clerk's office. A. Plan Review Fee. Before accepting a set of plans and specifications for plan review, the building official shall collect the full plan review fee. Plan review fees shall be in addi- tion to, and a percentage of, the required per- mit fee as calculated pursuant to ECDC 19.70.015. B. Permit Fee. Before issuing a building permit and releasing approved plans, the build- ing official shall collect the full building permit fees including supplemental required permit fees, inspection fees and any additional plan review fee or violation compliance fee, development fee or mitigation fee outstanding at the time of permit issuance. Building con- struction valuation shall be determined by ECDC 19.70.015. C. Inspection Fee. Inspection and reinspection fees shall be paid prior to any inspection by city staff. Inspection fees are established and set forth in this chapter. D. Related Development or Mitigation Fees. The payment of the fee for construction, alteration, removal or demolition done in connection, or concurrently with, the work autho- rized by a building permit shall not relieve the applicant or holder of the permit from the payment of other fees that are prescribed by law. Fees for other permits or related development fees shall be as set forth in ECDC 15.00.020. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.70.015 Establishing building construction valuation. The applicant for a permit shall provide an estimated building construction valuation at time of application. Building construction valuation for the purpose of calculating permit fees shall include total value of work including fair -market labor and materials with equip- ment needed to complete the work, including but not limited to all construction work for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. If, in the opinion of the building official, the building construction valuation is underestimated on the application, the building official shall assign a building construction valuation. Permit valuation for new construction shall be based on square footage building construction valuation as established by the building official. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.70.020 Work commencing before permit issuance. Any person who commences any work regulated by this title including work on a build- ing, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to a violation compliance fee established by the building official pursuant to the city's fee schedule adopted by resolution that shall be in addition to the required permit fees. The violation compliance fee shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The payment of such violation compliance fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law. Violation compliance fees are set forth in this chapter. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.70.025 Refunds. The building official may authorize refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was erro- neously paid or collected. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is done. The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee on an expired permit. �a'Pepon written applieation filed by the original pefmit4ee no latef than 180 days after- the date 0 fee aymem�Any application for a refund must be made in writing and describe the circumstances to justify. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. Chapter 19.75 STREET NAMES AND ADDRESS NUMBERING Sections: 19.75.000 Adoption of street name map and criteria. 19.75.005 Adoption of property and building numbering system and criteria. 19.75.010 Other street names and premises numbers prohibited. 19.75.000 Adoption of street name map and criteria. A. There is hereby established a uniform system of designating street names/numbers in the city of Edmonds. The street names/numbers are those depicted on that map entitled, "official street map," a copy of which has been authenticated by the mayor of the city and the attestation of the city clerk. The map and all explanatory matter on the map is re -adopted and affirmed and by this reference is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Official street name/number desianations are the responsibility of the city engineer. B. Pursuant to ECDC 18.50.030. anv chanae to the name or number of anv street on the official street map shall be by action of the city council approving an ordinance changing the official street map. C. The city engineer shall maintain and update the official street map and shall designate/approve public and private street names/numbers in accordance with this chapter. All approved street names/numbers shall be forwarded to the United States Postal Service (USPS), public and private utilities, law enforcement agencies, emergency services providers, and other persons of new or corrected street names/numbers. The city engineer shall develop policies and guidelines for street names and numbers in accordance with the following guidelines. 1. New street designations shall be in accordance with the Snohomish County grid system and the official street map. 2. When descriptive street names (as opposed to numerical street designations) are allowed by subsection (C)(1) of this section, preference shall be for descriptive names with logical relationship to locale or aeoaraphic area, and avoidance of private individual names. 3. Facilitation of map reading and indexing to assist in rapid location of streets and addresses. 4. Avoidance of multiple and/or alternative names for single street sections and requirement of selection of a primary street designation to assist in the Enhanced 9-1-1 grid system for emergency services dispatching_ 5. Any other appropriate and applicable standards concerning street and street designations as well as current department of public works policies, guidelines, or rules for naming public streets as determined by the director. [Ord. 3651 & 1. 20071. 19.75.005 Adoption of property and building numbering system and criteria. A. There is hereby established a uniform system for numbering properties, buildings and primary_ structures in the city of Edmonds. The official building and property address map depicting all issued property address numbers is maintained by the building official or designee. The building official assigns, maintains and corrects addresses for the city of Edmonds and shall notify the United States Postal Service (USPS), emergency services providers and other persons of new or corrected arlrrmccac B. Addresses shall conform to the numerical and system established by Enhanced 9-1-1. The number utilized by each building or property shall be that number within the system assigned by the building official. Addresses are assigned based on the location of the driveway access or house frontage to a street and only one address is allowed per building on any lot. Numbers assigned during any previous numbering system that fit within the grid system are hereby ratified and shall remain in full force and effect. C. The buildina official shall reauire anv address not in conformance or anv address that poses a problem or confusion for safety and emergency response be changed within 30 days of written notification from the city of Edmonds. D. All owners or occupants of all buildinas and structures in the citv of Edmonds. other than or other similar buildings or structures of a secondary nature to the primary building or structure, shall affix and maintain the officially designated premises number to the building or structure pursuant to ECDC 19.00.025(0). When topography or vegetation may obscure vision from the street. the numerals shall be affixed as to be reasonably visible from the street. E. Where anv commercial buildina, multiple-familv residential structure, or other similar structure has more than one entrance serving separate occupants, a suite designation or apartment number shall be assigned to each entrance serving a tenant or resident in addition to the number assigned to the principal entrance of the building or structure. The unit designations shall be progressive as assigned in the progressive direction of the street and per the property numbering system approved by this code. F. All requests for a building or property address change shall be made in writing to the building official and all of the followina conditions shall be present in order for the reauest to be approved: 1. An obvious error shall exist (i.e., the buildina was addressed off a street not associated with the site, the building or property addresses are out of sequence, duplicate address exists), etc. 2. The existing address could delay fire, police or emergency services from finding the location in an emergency. 3. The fire department agrees the address change is necessary. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 20071. 19.75.010 Other street names and premises numbers prohibited. It is unlawful for any owner or occupant of any premises, building or structure to display a street name or premises number other than those officially designated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, subject to penalties per Chapter 5.50 ECC and Chapter 20.110 ECDC. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 20071. Chapter 19.80 BOARD OF APPEALS Sections: 19.80.000 Purpose and applicability. 19.80.005 Application and fee. 19.80.015 B ^,.a of appef ^Hearing examiner procedures. 19.80.020 Powers and duties of the beardhearing examiner. 19.80.025 Appeals from decisions of the hearing examinerbea-rd. 19.80.030 Snohomish County regional board of appeals. 19.80.000 Purpose and applicability. A. All properly filed appeals pursuant to the adopted codes of this title shall be heard by the hearing examinerboar- of appeals efeate'' by this ehaptef. The hearing examiner bear - shall have no authority to review administrative decisions or grant modifications to the provisions of any administrative chapter as adopted by this title, nor can the hearing examiner bear waive a code requirement. B. The term "building code official" refers to the building official or fire marshal in exercise of authority over applicable building and fire codes from this chapter. BC. The hearing examiner board of appe sshall hear appeals from the building -code official's interpretation of the adopted building codes, determinations of suitable alternative methods and materials, and any other appeal delegated to a boar' of appeals pursuant to the state building codes and this code, including but not limited to the International Building Code, the International Residential Code, the International Fire Code, the International Property Maintenance Code, -IIU a „^;,,teethe State Histerz^^' Building Code, the T nifef, (ode etheAbateme-nt of Daarg s u,,;',h 's, the International Fuel Gas Code, the International Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code and any and all other codes adopted pursuant to the direction and authority of Chapter 19.27 RCW. CD. The provisions of the state building codes as adopted by the city are not intended to prevent the use of any material, alternate design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided any alternative has been approved and its use authorized by the , ttildiag7code official or on appeal or request for review by the beam E) app€alshearing examiner. rn�651 § 1�2007]. E. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to hearing examiner proceedings under Title 20 ECDC (land use hearings) unless such a hearingis s required to be combined with a hearing under this chapter, in which case the provisions of this chapter shall only pply to the Title 19 portions of that combined hearing. 19.80.005 Application and fee. An application for appeal shall be filed with the ui code official upon a departmental form within 10 days of the date of formal written decision. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee as set forth in Chapter 19.70 ECDC and shall be complete in all aspects before the hearing shall be scheduled. Failure to supplement an incomplete application within 10 business days of filing shall constitute an incomplete application and the administrative recourse of appeal shall be denied. rn�651 § 1�2007]. ., PRIM . . M . M- - - - MM • WO . �iT�!�Elll:lf�Efff!T�STS!lIEiFE!lI:�ESTf/�Ef�i�.. 9�1 W. I. MIME • x. 19.80.015 Hearing examiner procedures. , shall be appointed to thfee yeaf tefms. Following initial tefms, subse of all shall sefve mofe than thfee eonseetitive ffill tefms, of a total of ofe than nine eonseel-Alive lend B. Regttlaf Meetings. Regulaf meetings may be held onee eaeh month, of as often as may the boafd be polled dttfing voting at the meeting. Seven membefs of the boafd shall eonsti C. Speeial Meetings. Speeial meetings may be held by the ehaifma-n and at sueh times as Any speeial meeting held at the fequest of an appellant shall be paid f6f by the appellant in quomm t speeial eti D. Exeetttive Sessions. Exeetitive sessions of the boafd may be ealled pufstiant to the State Open Publie Meetings law by the ehaifman of the viee ehaifman of the boafd and afe not open to the r„blie The building o eial shall ttend as seefet EA. Public Notice. Public notice shall be given of all meeti-,gshearings. Upon written receipt and confirmation of a complete appeal of a request, notice shall be sent to the fire department, the health department, the city attorney and the owner of the real estate and parties within 100 feet affected by the request. No hearing shall be scheduled until 15 days after the required hearing notifications are mailed. Meetings -Hearings shall be open to the public. The appellant, the appellants' representative, the buildiag- official, and any person whose interests are affected shall be given an opportunity to be heard. FHB. Department/Interested Party. At any public fneeti ig--hearing a representative of the city building and fire department and any other interested party may appear in person, by agent or by attorney, offer evidence and testimony and cross-examine witnesses. All evidence and testimony shall be presented publicly. The beafd hearing examiner may take judicial notice of facts to the same extent and in the same manner as courts of record and may consider relevant facts within the personal knowledge of any member of the board that are stated into the record by such member. 14C. Recording. All meeti ags-hearings befefe *h,o --,e ,.,a shall be recorded. 1. Compensation. The board shall Feeeive no eempensation fegar-diess of numbef or type of eases hoary of their- tefms only fef just ea -use. Any membef! who is una-vailable f6f thfee e0fiseetitive lain.. nd veting on stieh fnattef!s • r� � 651 § 1, 2007]. 19.80.020 Powers and duties of the hearing examinerboard. A. The hearing examiner board shall adopt rules and procedures governing all proceedings consistent with the provisions set forth herein. The rules and regulations shall include meeting location, meeting time, procedures, contents of a complete appeal application and time to be allotted for each case. B. Subject to the limitations enumerated herein, the hearing examiner boafd have and may exercise the following powers: 1. The hearing examiner boafd shall have no authority relative to the interpretation of the administrative provisions of any of the state building codes, nor shall the hearing examiner bombe empowered to waive any requirement of any such code. 2. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to permit the hearing examiner beafdto hear any appeal, nor any request for deviation of design or alternative methods with respect to any property lying within a recognized landslide hazard and earth subsidence area or which is otherwise subject to the requirements of Chapter 19.10 ECDC including effecting map changes. 3. The hearing examinerbeard, on review, may approve the use of any material, alternate design or method of construction providing that it finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the provisions of this code and that the material, design, or method is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the applicable code in suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and sanitation. The decision of the building code official shall not be overturned unless the hearing examiner beafdshall find that the following conditions exist: a. That the appellant properly applied for an appeal; b. That sufficient evidence, proof or testing reports were submitted by the appellant that substantiated claims of equivalency; c. That the proposed modification or alternate will not weaken the general purpose of the adopted code; d. That the proposed modification or alternate will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the adopted code; e. That the proposed modification or alternate will not adversely affect the public health and safety; £ That the proposed modification or alternate will not adversely affect the struc- tural integrity of the building; and g. That the proposed modification or alternate will not adversely affect the fire safety of the building. 4. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any notice or order made by the building code official and/or fire marshal in the enforcement of the adopted codes in this title. The hearing examiner board shall have the power to stay the enforcement of any order issued by the building and/or fire prevention department unless the building ode official and/or fire mafshal certifies that a stay of the order or denial would, in the opinion of the building code official and/or- fire mar-sha1, cause imminent peril to life or property. A stay shall not constitute hearing examiner beapproval, shall be personal to the appellant and not transferable, and shall be subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the hearing examinerbear-d. Any determination or order of the building and/or fire department shall be presumed to be correct until evidence is introduced that would support a contrary determination. 5. Whenever the owner or legally responsible person of an alleged unsafe building, structure, utility or other condition does not agree with the order from the building code official and/or fire marshal as to the correction to be made, he shall have the right to appeal to the hearing examiner bewithin 10 days from the date of said order. In his appeal, the appellant shall state how he proposes to make the unsafe building, structure, utility or other condition safe and the hearing examiner beard -may require the appellant to submit detailed engineering analysis or recommendations, accompanied by plans and specifications prepared by a state licensed architect or registered professional engineer, as prescribed in this adopted code. The hearing examinerboard, in hearing such appeals, may require substantiating data concerning the removal or other remedial steps to be taken to render the unsafe building, structure, utility or other condition safe. In any matter in which an order or notice relating to an unsafe building, structure, utility or other condition is appealed, the building and/or fire department may certify to the hearing examiner bethat the unsafe building, structure, utility or other condition could become an imminent hazard, in which case the hearing examiner beafd shall schedule a meeti i-g-hearing within five business days to hear said appeal. C. Burden of Proof. 1. The appellant bears the burden of proof in any proceeding before the hearing examinerboar-d. If there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of this code or evidence that any material or construction does not conform to the requirements of this code, the appeal from the decision of the building code official shall be denied. 2. The hearing examiner beafd-may continue any proceeding in order to permit the appellant to provide proof of compliance through tests conducted in accordance with general engineering practice and best scientific evidence. Such tests shall be made by the appellant and at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified by the applicable building code or by other recognized testing standards. If there are not recognized and accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, testing methods shall utilize generally accepted engineering practice and best scientific method. Reports of such tests shall be retained and made a part of record of the proceedings. D. Decision of the hearing examinerBea . 1. The hearing examiner board shall render formal written decisions within 10 days of the date of the hearing. Every decision of the hearing examiner board shall be based upon findings of fact and every finding of fact shall be supported in the record of its proceedings. A mere finding or recitation of the enumerated conditions unaccompanied by findings of specific facts shall not be deemed findings of fact and shall not be deemed compliance with the code. The building code official shall take immediate action in accordance with the decision of the hearing examinerboa-rd. 2. Copies of the decision shall be forwarded to the appellant, a copy shall be placed in the appeal file and copies shall be made available to any person as a matter of public information. Decisions shall be filed with the building or fire department as a matter of pub- lic record. 3. In the exercise of the powers described above, the hearing examiner beard —may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the order, requirements, decision or determination appealed from the hearing examinerboar-d, may impose conditions or requirements as deemed necessary and may hold cases in abeyance until proper information needed by the hearing examiner beads supplied. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. M INS. I OPINION MI. .� �I 19.80.025 Appeals from decisions of the hearing examinerhoard. A. The filing of a land use petition for review shall not stay proceedings upon the decision appealed but the court may grant a stay in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act. B. All decisions of the hearing examiner beard are appealable by Land Use Petition Act to Snohomish County superior court. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. Chapter 19.85 PENALTIES Sections: 19.85.000 Applicability. 19.85.000 Applicability. The provisions of all adopted codes within this title shall be subject to penalties as described herein. It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or other organization to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure in the city, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person, firm, corporation or other organization violating any of the provisions of this title as adopted herein, or other provision of this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this title herein is committed, continued or permitted, and upon the conviction thereof of such violation, and each violation thereof such person, firm, corporation or other organization, and the officers, directors and managers thereof shall be punishable as set forth in ECC 5.50.020 and Chapter 20.110 ECDC. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the discretion of the city to seek any other available civil, statutory or common law remedies. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. Chapter 19.90 LIMITATION OF BENEFITED AND PROTECTED CLASSES Sections: 19.90.000 Limitation of benefited and protected classes. 19.90.000 Limitation of benefited and protected classes. The building and supplemental codes adopted by this title are for the purpose of pro- viding for and promoting the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Nothing in this title shall be interpreted to create or otherwise establish any particular class or group of persons who will or would be especially protected or benefited by the adoption of any code in this title. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. Chapter 19.95 CONVERSION CONDOMINIUMS Sections: 19.95.010 Definitions. 19.95.020 Relocation assistance. 19.95.030 Violations. 19.95.040 Civil penalty. 19.95.050 Enforcement. 19.95.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases used in this chapter shall have the meaning set forth in this section: A. "Condominium" means real property, portions of which are designated for separate ownership and the remainder of which is designated for common ownership solely by the owners of those portions. Real property is not a condominium unless the undivided interests in the common elements are vested in the unit owners, and unless a declaration and a survey map and plans have been recorded pursuant to this chapter. B. "Conversion condominium" means a condominium (1) that at any time before creation of the condominium was lawfully occupied wholly or partially by a tenant or subtenant for residential purposes pursuant to a rental agreement, oral or written, express or implied, for which the tenant or subtenant had not received the notice described in subsection (2) of this definition; or (2) that, at any time within 12 months before the conveyance of, or acceptance of an agreement to convey, any unit therein other than to a declarant or any affiliate of a declarant, was lawfully occupied wholly or partially by a residential tenant of a declarant or an affiliate of a declarant and such tenant was not notified in writing, prior to lawfully occupying a unit or executing a rental agreement, whichever event first occurs, that the unit was part of a condominium and subject to sale. "Conversion condominium" shall not include a condominium in which, before the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, any unit therein had been conveyed or been made subject to an agreement to convey to any transferee other than a declarant or an affiliate of a declarant. C. "Declarant" means any person who: 1. Executes as declarant the document, however denominated, that creates a condo- minium by setting forth the information required by RCW 64.34.216 and any amendments to that document; or 2. Reserves any special declarant right in the declaration; or 3. Exercises special declarant rights or to whom special declarant rights are trans- ferred; or 4. Is the owner of a fee interest in the real property which is subjected to the declara- tion at the time of the recording of an instrument pursuant to RCW 64.34.316 and who directly or through one or more affiliates is materially involved in the construction, mar- keting, or sale of units in the condominium created by the recording of the instrument; or 5. Undertakes to convert, sell, or offer for sale units in a conversion condominium. D. "Director" means the development services director or his designee. E. "Notice of conversion" means the 90-day notice pursuant to RCW 64.34.440(1) required to be given by the declarant or his agent to residential tenants and subtenants in possession of a portion of a conversion condominium. F. "Person" means a natural person, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, trust, association, or other legal entity. G. "Tenant" or "subtenant" means any person who occupies and has a leasehold interest in a rental unit under a lawful rental agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied. H. "Unit" means a physical portion of the condominium designed for separate ownership, the boundaries of which are described pursuant to RCW 64.34.216(1)(d). [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.95.020 Relocation assistance. A. Declarant shall pay relocation assistance of $500.00 per unit to tenants and subtenants who elect not to purchase a unit and who are in lawful occupancy for residential purposes of a unit, and whose monthly household income from all sources, on the date of the notice of conversion, was less than an amount equal to 80 percent of the monthly median income for comparably sized households in the Seattle -Everett Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined and established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. B. The household size of a unit shall be based on the number of natural persons actually in lawful occupancy of the unit on the date of the notice of conversion. C. The tenant or subtenant actually in lawful occupancy of the unit shall be entitled to the relocation assistance. D. Relocation assistance shall be paid on or before the date the tenant or subtenant vacates and shall be in addition to any damage deposit or other compensation or refund to which the tenant is otherwise entitled. Unpaid rent or other amounts owed by the tenant or subtenant to the landlord may be offset against the relocation assistance. E. Rights of tenants and subtenants set forth in the notice of conversion pursuant to RCW 64.34.440(1) must set forth tenants' and subtenants' right to relocation assistance as pro- vided in this section. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.95.030 Violations. It shall be a violation of this chapter for a declarant to fail or refuse to comply with the provisions of this chapter. Each tenant and subtenant who is subjected to a violation of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a separate violation. Each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.95.040 Civil penalty. Any person who fails or refuses to comply with the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of $100.00 per violation per day from the date that the violation is first committed until the declarant complies with the requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. 19.95.050 Enforcement. A. Tenants and subtenants subjected to violations of the provisions of this chapter, or their agents, may file a complaint with the director. The director is authorized and directed to receive complaints and conduct such investigations as are deemed necessary such as contacting declarants and seeking explanation for apparent violations. B. Whenever it is determined that there has been a violation of this chapter, the director is authorized to pursue, at the director's discretion, enforcement of the code pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.110 ECDC. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007]. AM-5835 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Council President Petso Department: City Council Review Committee: Type: Action Tnffher"0 finn Submitted By: Committee Action: Subject Title Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Walker Kasinadhuni Student Representative Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Walker Kasinadhuni Student Representative Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 06/12/2013 Form Review Date 06/12/2013 03:36 PM 06/12/2013 03:44 PM 06/12/2013 05:01 PM Started On: 06/06/2013 10:56 AM 5. Jana Spellman AM-5861 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: 90 Minutes Submitted By: Jen Machuga Department: Planning Review Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Committee Action: 71, Closed record review of an appeal (File No. APL20130001) of the Hearing Examiner's final decision on Tom and Lin Hillman's critical areas and setback variances (File No. PLN20120033) for a new residence to be located at 1139 Sierra Place. Appellants: Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown, & Candy Brown. Recommendation Possible options for the City Council's decision on the appeal are discussed in the June 7, 2013 letter from Jeff Taraday and Beth Ford with Lighthouse Law Group PLLC, which is included as Attachment G. The Council may affirm, modify, reverse, or remand the Hearing Examiner's decision. Refer to the June 7, 2013 letter from Lighthouse Law Group PLLC (Attachment G) for further discussion on the Council's options. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Tom and Lin Hillman submitted a consolidated application on August 1, 2012 for setback and critical areas variances for the construction of a new single-family residence at 1139 Sierra Place under File No. PLN20120033. The subject site is currently vacant and is located within the Single -Family Residential, RS-12 zone. Due to the presence of various critical areas and associated critical area buffers throughout the majority of the site, the site has major development limitations. Mr. and Mrs. Hillman requested a setback variance to reduce the minimum required street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for the residence and 3 feet for a retaining wall, and to reduce the minimum required western side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall. A Category 3 wetland and its associated buffer cover approximately the western two-thirds of the site. A Type Np stream is located on the northern side of the western approximate half of the site. Additionally, an erosion hazard area is located on the eastern side of the site. In addition to the requested setback variances, Mr. and Mrs. Hillman requested a critical areas reasonable use variance because the strict application of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. A hearing on the consolidated setback and critical areas variance application was held before the Hearing Examiner on March 14, 2013. The Hearing Examiner issued an initial decision on March 28, 2013, of which the City and applicant requested reconsideration. Following an order on the reconsideration issued by the Hearing Examiner on April 16, 2013 and receipt of comments from parties of record, the Hearing Examiner issued a final decision upon reconsideration on April 24, 2013, which was mailed to all parties of record on April 25, 2013. A timely appeal by Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown, and Candy Brown was received on May 8, 2013 (File No. APL20130001). Variances are Type III-B decisions which are appealable to the City Council as a closed record appeal. A closed record appeal means an administrative appeal on the record to the City Council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence nor information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005.B. Only parties of record are allowed to testify at the closed record appeal. ECDC 20.07.003.B defines parties of record as: • The applicant; • Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application; • Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II decision). Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or • The City of Edmonds. Pursuant to ECDC Section 20.07.005.A, closed record appeals shall be based on the record established at the open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner, which includes the written decision of the Hearing Examiner, copies of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings. ECDC 20.07.005.1) also provides appellants an opportunity to submit written arguments, and parties of record and the applicant an opportunity to respond to those written arguments on a prescribed time line. Staff has developed a web page that contains all of the information related to this closed record appeal. This web page is linked from the City Council's web page and is available directly at http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/city-council/agendas/closed-record-review.html. This web page contains the record on appeal (including links to three videos that were shown at the public hearing), the appeal received, and the written arguments related to the appeal. No official transcript of the March 14, 2013 hearing was prepared; however, a link to the audio recording of this hearing is provided on the above web page. The official written record on appeal for the Hillman variance application is included as Attachment A. The written record on appeal has been Bates Stamped with sequential numbers (0001 to 0294) to help the City Council and parties of record identify and reference specific sections of the record. It shall be noted that three videos that were shown by a party of record at the March 14, 2013 hearing as well as the audio of the hearing itself are also considered to be part of the record on appeal; however, these files cannot be attached to the City's agenda software. Please refer to the web page above to access these files. The letter of appeal by Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown, and Candy Brown is included as Attachment B. The written arguments, responses, and rebuttals allowed for by ECDC 20.07.005.D that have been received to date have been included as Attachments C through H. It shall be noted that the applicant has an opportunity to submit a written surrebuttal, which is due on June 14, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. If the applicant submits a surrebuttal prior to this deadline, it will be attached to the web page listed above since it will be too late to add the surrebuttal to this agenda memo. All files attached to this agenda memo and on the above mentioned web page are available for review at the Planning Division, located on the second floor of City Hall at 121 5th Ave. N. Office hours are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m and Wednesday from 8:00 a.m. to noon. Attachments Attachment A: Written Record for Hillman Variance Application (PLN20120033) Attachment B: Appeal by Schroeder, Beighle, & Brown (APL20130001) Attachment C: Written Argument from Appellant, received 5/31/13 Attachment D: Written Response from Alvin Rutledge, received 5/30/13 Attachment E: Written Response from David Thorpe, received 5/30/13 Attachment F: Written Response from Tom and Lin Hillman, received 6/7/13 Attachment G: Written response from Lighthouse Law Group PLLC, received 6/7/13 Attachment H: Written Rebuttal from Appellant, received 6/12/13 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jen Machuga Final Approval Date: 06/14/2013 Form Review Date 06/13/2013 04:57 PM 06/14/2013 08:59 AM 06/14/2013 09:03 AM Started On: 06/13/2013 11:20 AM I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Tom and Lin Hillman FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION PLN20120033 INTRODUCTION This Final Decision Upon Reconsideration replaces the final decision issued for the above -captioned matter that issued on March 28, 2013. The requested variance and reasonable use requests remain approved. Condition 1 of the March 28, 2013 decision is modified to provide more specific direction on the relocation of the home. Condition 2, requiring stormwater monitoring, is removed. The applicants are requesting a street setback variance, a side yard variance and two critical areas reasonable use variance requests to construct a single-family home at 1139 Sierra Place. The setback variances are necessary to provide separation from an on -site wetland and the reasonable use variances are necessary because it is not possible to build a single-family home on the subject lot without encroaching into a wetland and a stream buffer. In the street setback variance request, the applicants seek to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for placement of the residence. In the side yard variance request, the applicants seek to reduce a side yard setback from 10 to 3 feet for placement of a retaining wall. The reasonable use variance involves a request to building within a stream and wetland buffer as well as the wetland itself. The setback variances are approved. The reasonable use variance is approved for the encroachment within the wetland and stream buffers. The conditions of approval require further staff investigation for authorization of the encroachment into the wetland itself. There is insufficient evidence in the record to determine if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachments as required by the variance criteria. Direct encroachment into a wetland, as opposed to its buffers, potentially involves a significant impairment of wetland functions. Further information is needed to determine whether the direct encroachment of this proposal should or can be avoided. Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0001 ATTACHMENT I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORAL TESTIMONY Staff Presentation Ms. Jennifer Machuga, associate planner, stated the site is at 1139 Sierra Place. The site is currently a vacant lot in a single-family residential RS 12 zone, and the property owners Tom and Lin Hillman are proposing to construct a new single-family residence on the site. As seen in the attachments in the staff report, development of the site is very limited by the existing critical areas on the property. There is a category three wetland across the middle of the property, and the minimum required fifty -foot wetland buffers cover the majority of the project site. There is also a non -fish bearing type NE stream on the northern side of the site, and the minimum required fifty -foot stream buffer overlaps the wetland buffers. There is also an erosion hazard area located on the eastern portion of the site. Due to the location of these critical areas throughout much of the site, development of the site is really impossible without some impact to these critical areas and their buffers. Ms. Machuga said the city code has a provision for when a site is so encumbered by critical areas and their associated buffers that it is not possible to develop the site in such a way that it complies with the city critical area codes. This provision, the Critical Areas Reasonable Use Variance, allows for exceptions to the requirements to the critical areas code in order to allow the development of the site in such a way that has the least possible impact on the critical areas while still allowing the applicant reasonable use of that property. The applicants, the Hillmans, are requesting Critical Areas Reasonable Use Variance because they feel that the strict application of the critical area codes would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. The applicant is also requesting a Setback Variance to reduce the minimum required street setback from twenty-five feet to twelve feet for the residents and to reduce that street setback to three feet for retaining wall. They have also proposed to reduce the minimum required western side setback from ten feet to three feet for retaining wall while the house would comply with the side setback requirements. These proposals have been consolidated onto one application and are being reviewed as a Type 3B decision. Ms. Machuga testified that the applicant has provided project plans, a wetland report, and a geotechnical report, all of which are included as attachments to the staff report. There was a previous critical areas variance that was approved on this site for the previous owner, and that variance authorized the home to be constructed on the eastern side of the site, allowing the road to cut through the wetland area. It was found, however, that locating the house on the western side of the site had less impact on the critical areas than going with what was previously approved. Therefore, the proposed residence would be in the south west side of the site. The proposed building on the site would be 2,174 square feet and would include a 570 square feet garage, almost 1,600 square feet living space on the first floor, and a little over 1,000 square feet living space on the second floor. In order for the Setback Variance to be approved, the Hearing Examiner must find that all six required criteria in ECDC 20.85.010 are met. Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0002 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 These criteria include that the site must have special circumstances that would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity, that the approval of the variance would not grant a special privilege, that the approval of the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the zoning ordinance, that the variance would not be significantly detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare, and that the variance is the minimum necessary to allow the property owner rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. This is discussed in detail in the staff report. Ms. Machuga stated that the request for this setback variance appears to be consistent with the required criteria, because the purpose of the requested setback variances is to pull the house further to the south-western corner of the site for minimal impact on the critical areas. The size of the proposed house appears consistent with the size of the neighbouring houses. The requested variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan and with zoning ordinances. It does not appear that reducing the setbacks for construction of the home would be detrimental, and it appears that these are the minimum variances necessary to construct a home comparable to other homes in the neighbourhood. For the Critical Areas variance to be approved, the Hearing Examiner must find that the proposal is consistent with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.210 A2 and B. These criteria include that the application of the critical areas regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, that no other reasonable economic use of the property would have less impact on the critical areas, that the proposed impact on the critical areas is the minimum necessary, that there are special conditions on the property, that the inability to derive reasonable economic use from the property is not the fault of the applicant, that the variance would not grant the applicant any special privilege, that the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, and welfare, that the proposal minimizes net loss of critical areas function and volume, that the proposal is consistent with all other applicable regulations and standards, and that the approval is based on best available science. The staff report goes into detail analysing these required criteria and determined they are met. The site has special circumstances due to the location of the critical areas, and the presence of these critical areas is not due to any actions of the property owner. The size of the proposed home is consistent with the size of the neighbouring homes, thus the allowing the variance would not be granting a special privilege, and the mitigation plan detailed in the wetland report is based on the best available science and includes measures to enhance the wetland, the stream, and the buffer areas. Ms. Machuga noted that on February 26, 2013 the city issued a determination of non - significance concerning the storm water system, and the period for comments and appeals ended on March 12, 2013. No appeals were received. The city provided public notice consistent with the requirements for ECDC 20.03, and they received a few public comments. One major concern brought up in the comments dealt with drainage. The engineering division found that the proposed project is compliant with the wetland report, but they will conduct a full review of the storm water system during the building permit application review. Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The attachments from the staff report and the staff report itself were entered as exhibits. A letter from the PUD was entered as an exhibit. The city received a few comments, including (1) an e-mail from Mr. David Thorpe dated March 11, 2013, (2) a letter from Mr. Todd Brown dated March 12, 2013, and (3) an e-mail from Kevin Fagerstrom, dated March 11, 2013. These were entered as exhibits in addition to an e- mail from Robert Chave dated March 12, 2013. Ms. Machuga stated that the applicant could address whether they considered putting more living space on the second floor and over the garage to avoid further encouragement on the critical areas. There is a twelve foot distance from the street in order to leave enough space for the detention room, but the applicant might better address that question. Applicants Ms. Lin Hillman explained that they originally wanted to build a one-story house, but they had several discussions with the city and with neighbours and decided to have a second floor in order to shrink the footprint. The storm drainage pipe is two feet and requires five feet on either side, which is why they needed twelve feet between the house and the street; they tried to place the storm drainage pipe as far from the stream as possible. There is evidence of the previous owner degrading the critical area, and nobody seems concerned with caring for the critical space, but her family hopes to improve the existing condition and to put a fence around the remaining wetland to prevent pickup trucks from backing in to dump debris. Ms. Hillman said that they have talked to several neighbours about the issues, and the primary concern seems to be drainage. In the past, during high rainfall events, the culvert pipes have become clogged, and the city public works people had to come to dig out the sediment, rocks, etc. inside it. Their surveyor suggested that their proposal for the property include a plan to add a metal grid from preventing large debris from getting into the pipes, which would mitigate the clogging problem. The Department of Fish and Wildlife liked the idea. She also sent applications for approval to the Department of Ecology and the Army Corp of Engineers. Public Comments Mr. Todd Brown, who lives at 1135 Sierra Place up the access lane, said that the variances are concerning to the neighbourhood because, one, he thinks factual inaccuracies and strategic omissions in the planning documents; two, the applicants have failed to get written permission from the adjacent property owners, which the city requires; three, he thinks there are insufficient mitigation measures; and, four, he thinks that there are alternative interpretations of the city code regarding the best use of the property. He said correct drainage was the most important issue. The stream is prone to flooding, and the proposed plan increases the risk that flooding poses to access to the lane, to the house at 1111 Sierra Place to the west, and to other properties downstream. There could potentially be risk to the city from flood damage. Both Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0004 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 culverts are technically private, and the city has not yet obtained written permission from the property owners at I I I I Sierra Place for this project. Mr. Brown said the code requires the approach that least impacts wetlands and most closely mimics natural water flow, but the aerial photos provided in the staff report to indicate water flow direction are factually incorrect. Additionally, he said that attachment ten is incorrect in stating that the wetland on the I I I I property is charged solely from its own springs and stream. He also wanted to dispute the claims that the southwest culvert was not viable. He himself has seen water flowing in and out, and he thinks they must have been digging in to the wrong spot when looking for the output. The culvert has never really been backed up. On top of that, he thinks a trash rack would be ineffective in preventing a blockage due to the soil types in the area. The review of neighbourhood homes strategically omitted the nearest home at 1130 Sierra Place directly across from the property. His house is 2,050 square feet, including the basement, but is on a 1,400 square foot plot, which means a smaller house is possible. There are other reasonable uses for the property, too, such as putting a small wood shop. Mr. Brown also cites esoteric reasons, considering this is the last undeveloped wetland on Olympic Avenue. Habit construction would permanently change the wildlife, and cutting down the trees in the area is inconsistent with the Edmonds personality. Mr. Brown said he and his wife have seven at least sixty different bird species on the site as well as a beaver. Mr. Brown added that he thought it would be a shame for the variances to be approved simply because a lot of time has been put into the project, and how the cheap price at which the land was purchased is evidence that this property is not meant for a project like the proposed. Mr. Steve Schroder, 1142 Vista Place, showed an aerial photograph in which you could see the proposed property in relation to his house as well as to where Mr. Brown lives. He said he is opposed to the development, because he believes there are simply pieces of land in Edmonds that are not suitable for development. The area for the proposed project is a wonderful oasis that should not be disturbed. He said that the adjacent lots were sold for around half a million dollars, but this property was purchased for only $75,000. Additionally, the development would actually encroach on the wetlands, never mind the buffer. He said that the $5,200 proposed for plans to mitigate the encroachment is hardly sufficient. He questioned why the codes make exceptions for areas that supposedly deny all reasonable economic use, because those areas ought to be preserved as they are. The reduction of the street setback from twenty-five to twelve is an example of how the variances ought to be applied, but that is the only proper application of the variances. Ms. Ina Fernandez said that she has lived in the area for thirty-five years, and she is concerned about the water flooding across the street to the mailboxes, which has happened in the past. She opposes the proposed plan as too dangerous with concern to flooding. Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0005 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Sherry Zinner, who lives at 1027 Carol Way, showed a video that she took of the area during a rainfall in December. She said that this reveals the large volume of water that comes down from the property at 1139 Sierra Place. This water was not being caught by the storm water system. She said that she consulted Mike Johnson at Storm Water Management about an ankle-deep stream that has started to form in her backyard during the heavy rain season for the last few years. He made the determination that this was not a problem for which the city is responsible; it is a private civil matter dealing with private properties. She said she is concerned, therefore, with how the proposed development project will actually handle the drainage risks. The last few development projects on wetland areas are what caused the current flooding in her backyard. Trying to redirect the storm water flow, which the proposed development will do, poses an unpredictable risk, and she does not want an experiment that might adversely affect her private property to be under the control of private property owners rather than of the city. The storm water flow is already overwhelming, and she does not want to risk an increase in flow. Mr. David Thorpe, who lives at 2117 Shell Valley Road, said he was concerned particularly with the reduction of the critical areas buffer from fifty to zero. Additionally, he pointed out that there are slope issues; they are less than forty percent but should be considered nonetheless. He said that in Shell Valley the citizens encouraged the city to build an emergency access road that cut through the wetland, and this development destroyed the wetland. The wildlife has disappeared. He said he does not want to deny people to build, or to use their property, but wetlands are rare in the city, and every remaining wetland ought to be preserved. Ms. Katherine Erikson, who lives at 615 Twelfth Avenue North, which is upside the Sierra Place property, said that she cannot speak to issues surrounding drainage, but she wanted to address one concern the Hillmans raised. She personally has witnessed the dumping on the property that Ms. Hillman mentioned, and she agrees that someone, either the government or a private property owner, ought to address that issue. The property needs someone to look after it. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Jennifer Lambert, engineering technician for the city, stated that the city is very much aware of the storm water concerns. In regards to the drainage plans, at this phase, they are looking simply at whether it is feasible to put in a drainage system that meets the current city storm water requirements. According to the wetland resources person, the natural drainage flow eventually goes into the stream, thus using the south- west culvert for overflow makes the proposed drainage plan feasible. The trash rack was supposed to be an added protective matter; the city does, in fact, maintain that culvert. Ms. Lambert said the written approval from I I I I Sierra Place to use the south-west culvert is required only if wetland resources showed that the water was naturally draining there and the applicant wanted to install some sort of storm water system that Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0006 2 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 used the culvert. But at this time, that usage of the south-west culvert is to mimic existing conditions, thus at this time nothing is changing, therefore written permission is not required. Answering a question from the Hearing Examiner, she said that a development with over 2,000 square feet is required to install some sort of storm water management system. The Hearing Examiner also asked whether encroaching on the wetlands would impair the storm water functions of the wetland, and Ms. Lamburgh referred to the Wetland Resources consultant. Ms. Andrea Bachman, the senior ecologist at Wetland Resources, said the wetland was classified as a slope wetland, a kind that is generally less functional in retaining water than a flatter wetland. In fact, the proposed development will encroach on the area in the wetland that is least useful in retaining storm water. The Hearing Examiner asked her why she thought they could not move more living space to the second floor to minimize encroachment, but she could not speak to that. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Lin Hillman testified that the issue of the wetland mitigation plan only calling for $5,000 worth of plants was only the initial mitigation. She said the report also calls for annual monitoring and continued mitigation as necessary. She said the property was originally listed for $150,000, and the price they paid for it had a lot to do with their negotiations with her bank. Her family thought they could do a good job maintaining the property, which has been severely neglected. They see themselves as custodians of the wetland rather than as developers of the property. Ms. Hillman said the standard to which their development being held is reasonable. The standard does not say you have to avoid building in a critical area or together, or you have to build the smallest house possible in a box shape; the neighbouring houses are not held to that standard, and neither are they. The storm drainage maps from the city indicate that there are two options for sending storm water. One is the stream, which is what they have chosen to do. The other is a storm line that is across the street. If they ran a pipe from their property over to the line, the pipe would be running uphill, and tapping into the line further down the street would be extremely disruptive. The neighbours have suggested they use the southern culvert pipe, but that is not in the city's storm map, which is why she does not think using that pipe for anything other than overflow is appropriate. Their storm drainage mitigation plans would turn a flood into a trickle and would meet the requirement for storm water retention. The city mandates concerning growth management would support three houses on this property, thus the one small house they plan to build meets the balance between growth and preservation that is required. Additionally, Edmonds does not have in place a way to address the upkeep of a wetland on a larger scale. The state says that larger wetland preservation is best, but their recommendations are for a one hundred feet buffer that, if drawn around this stream, would touch neighbouring houses that have been built. Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0007 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Tom Hillman added that they are allowed reasonable use of their property, thus they should have the ability to make their house the size they want within reason. They are looking to make a reasonably sized house with as minor a footprint as possible. EXHIBITS All 27 attachments listed on page 19 of the staff report were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 1-27. At hearing on March 15, 2013 the following exhibits were also admitted: Exhibit 28 the staff report Exhibit 29 letter from the PUD Exhibit 30 e-mail from Mr. David Thorpe dated March 11, 2013 Exhibit 31 letter from Mr. Todd Brown dated March 12, 2013 Exhibit 32 e-mail from Kevin Fagerstrom, dated March 11, 2013 Exhibit 33 e-mail from Robert Shave dated March 12, 2013 Exhibit 34 an aerial photograph from Mr. Steve Schroder Exhibit 35 an aerial map from Ms. Sherry Zinner Exhibit 36 Letter from Ms. Sherry Zinner Exhibit 37 April 8, 2013 Reconsideration Request from City Exhibit 38 April 8, 2013 Reconsideration Request from Applicants Exhibit 39 April 9, 2013 Notice of Requests for Reconsideration Exhibit 40 April 10, 2013 Applicant Modification to Reconsideration Request Exhibit 41 April 16, 2013 Order on Reconsideration Exhibit 42 April 19, 2013 Todd Brown Reconsideration comments Exhibit 43 April 21, 2013 Cheri Zehner Reconsideration comments Exhibit 44 April 22, 2013 Alan Rutledge Reconsideration comments Exhibit 45 April 21, 2013 David Thorpe Reconsideration comments Exhibit 46 April 22, 2013 Applicant Reconsideration comments Exhibit 47 April 23, 2013 City Reconsideration reply Exhibit 48 April 23, 2013 Applicant Reconsideration reply Exhibit 49 Declaration of Mailing of Order on Reconsideration FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicants are Tom and Lin Hillman. 2. Hearing. A hearing was held at 3:00 pm on March 15, 2013 at the Edmonds City Council meeting chambers. 2.5. Reconsideration. Timely requests for reconsideration were filed by the applicants and the City on April 8, 2013. Notice of the requests was sent by the City to all parties of record on April 9, 2013. The applicants submitted a Variance P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0008 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 modification to their reconsideration request on April 9, 2013 and that date is considered the date of the reconsideration requests for purposes of the ECDC 20.06.010(G) ten day decision deadline. An Order on Reconsideration, setting an initial comment deadline of April 22, 2013, was mailed out to all parties of record on April 16, 20131. Five comment letters were received. As authorized by the Order on Reconsideration, replies to the reconsideration comments were submitted by the applicant and the City on April 23, 2013. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicants are requesting a street setback variance, a side yard variance and a critical areas reasonable use variance request to construct a single-family home at 1139 Sierra Place. The proposed residence contains a total living area of 2,623 square feet, with a footprint of 2,174 square feet. The subject lot is 0.93 acres in size. The purpose of the setback variances is to locate the residence and associated improvements further out of the critical areas and buffers than what otherwise might be possible. In the street setback variance request, the applicants seek to reduce the street setback from 25 feet required by ECDC 16.20.030 for the RS zone to 12 feet for placement of the residence. In the side yard variance request, the applicants seek to reduce a side yard setback from 10 feet required by ECDC 16.20.030 for the RS 12 zone to 3 feet for placement of a retaining wall. The applicants cannot build a single-family home on their property without approval of a reasonable use variance. A Category III wetland and its associated buffer cover approximately the western two-thirds of the site and extend off -site to the north and the south. The only part of the property not encumbered by the wetland or its buffer is the eastern third of the property, which could only be accessed by a driveway built through the wetland and buffers. A Type Np non -fish bearing stream is located on the northern side of the western approximate half of the site. Additionally, an erosion hazard area is located on the eastern side of the site with enough of a slope to make development of the eastern portion of the site challenging. In the reasonable use variance request, the applicants seek to construct their proposed home within the 50 foot buffer of a Category III wetland imposed by ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(c) in addition to construction within the wetland itself, which is prohibited by ECDC 23.50.040(B). The Category III wetland is about a half -acre in size. The total area of permanent wetland impact will be 1,790 square feet while the total area of permanent buffer impact will be 3,920 square feet. 1 In her reconsideration comments, Ms. Zehner expressed concern with the fact that she only had a few days to respond. She received the Order on Reconsideration in the mail on April 18, 2013 and comments were due April 22, 2013. The reason for the short time frame is because ECDC 20.06.010(G) requires a final decision within ten days of the receipt of a request for reconsideration. This means there is only ten days to review the request(s), prepare and mail an Order on Reconsideration, await the comments in response to the Order, review those comments and write a final decision. It should also be noted that comment from the adjoining property owners was not required for a ruling on the reconsideration requests. The four days is the most that could be provided given the short time frames imposed by City code for reconsideration review. Variance P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0009 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The reasonable use variance request also seeks to encroach into a stream buffer. A Type Np stream traverses the northern portion of the subject property. ECDC 23.90.040(D)(1) requires a fifty foot buffer for Type Np streams. The applicants propose to build their home within 25 feet of the stream. A consolidated application for a critical areas reasonable use variance and rear setback variance was submitted by prior owners of the property, Darryl and Shari Lewis, under File No. PLN20040008 (the site was referred to at that time as 1142 Sierra Place). For the Lewis application, the residence was proposed to be located on the eastern portion of the property with an access driveway running generally along the southern side of the site, going through a portion of the wetland. The project site plan from the Lewis variance application is included for reference as Attachment 14. Additionally, a table comparing the critical areas impacts of the subject application to the Lewis variance prepared by the applicant is included within Table 2 of the "Critical Areas Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8). A building permit application was submitted under File No. BLD20080237 for the single-family residence approved under the Lewis variance application (File No. PLN20040008). That building permit application expired, and a second building permit application was submitted under File No. BLD20100196. That building permit application also expired and was never issued. The Hillmans purchased the property in April of 2011 (according to Snohomish County Assessor's records), and came up with a new design and location for the proposed residence on the southwestern portion of the subject site in an attempt to take the existing critical areas and topographical constraints better into account. The Hillmans submitted a consolidated application for the requested street and side setback variance and critical areas reasonable use variance on August, 1, 2012. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject site is located within a single- family residential neighborhood in Edmonds. The site is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the area and is completely surrounded by parcels that are currently developed with single-family residences. 5. Adverse Impacts. With the extensive mitigation required by the conditions of approval, there are no adverse impacts associated with the requested variances. Impacts are more specifically addressed below. A. Stormwater Impacts. One of the two impacts of greatest concern is stormwater impacts. Neighboring property owners provided compelling information on significant flooding problems in the vicinity of the project. However, the proposed home has been placed in an area designed to minimize disruption of on -site drainage patterns and the City's stormwater regulations will ensure that there are no off -site impacts. Variance P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As noted in the critical area study, Ex.8, the location of the home is optimized to minimize stormwater impacts. The existing drainage on the site consists of a southeasterly to northeasterly flow pattern, following a downslope gradient from the high point of the property to the lowest elevation of the stream bed in its northwestern corner. The proposed single-family home for the property is located in the southwest corner of the site, where it will not interfere with the natural flow pattern of the upslope portions of the lot; the bulk of the site will remain undisturbed and continue to drain towards the stream in the present manner. Part of the home will encroach into a wetland and it is recognized that an important wetland function is to retain stormwater, which helps prevent flooding. However, the wetland report notes that the on -site wetland has a severely limited potential to provide flood control functions because of its lack of depressional features and lack of ability to become ponded. The minor encroachment into the wetland should not have any significant impact on the limited flood storage capacity of the wetland. The critical area study also concludes at page 9 that the proposal will not "create flooding issues in downstream systems". As confirmed by City engineering staff during the hearing, the City's stormwater regulations require a stormwater system that will retain pre -development stormwater volumes, velocities and discharge locations. Consequently, if the regulations satisfy their objectives there should be no stormwater impacts to adjoining properties. Further, City engineering staff have thoroughly reviewed the proposal and the comments made by concerned neighbors during the hearing process and have not found any need for additional stormwater mitigation. The March 28, 2013 decision required a three year monitoring plan to assure that the City's stormwater regulations did indeed prevent any increases in stormwater runoff as maintained by the applicants and the City. The purpose of the monitoring plan was to alleviate well justified anxieties by adjoining property owners that the proposal would contribute to flooding problems on their property. The adjoining property owners ably demonstrated during the hearing that their properties were subject to significant and regular flooding. Given that wetlands and stream buffers can serve to store flood waters during rain events, the filling of those areas as proposed by the applicants could exacerbate those flooding problems. A monitoring program would serve as an iron- clad assurance to the neighbors that the stormwater mitigation required by the City would prevent any adverse impacts as assured by the applicants' consultants and City engineers. Although a monitoring plan under these circumstances is certainly a reasonable means of responding to neighborhood concerns, the need for such a monitoring plan is ultimately not supported by the evidence in the record. Since the monitoring plan has been contested by both the applicants and the City, there is no legal basis to require it. Although neighboring property owners have shown that they have flooding problems, it is somewhat debatable whether those flood waters originate or first traverse the applicants' property. More importantly, there is no evidence that the proposal as mitigated will exacerbate these flooding problems. As previously noted, the critical areas report concludes that the proposal will not create any flooding problems and City Variance P. 1 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0011 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 staff have not found any need for additional stormwater mitigation. The critical areas report was written by a wetland ecologist and City staff have training and experience in stormwater engineering. The City's stormwater regulations are based upon decades of engineering science and have been designed to prevent any increase in off -site storm -water flows. Mr. Brown has raised some good technical issues regarding maintenance of the culverts and the need for a trash rack. The conditions of approval require City engineering staff to consider these comments when evaluating the final drainage system design. Beyond Mr. Brown's comments, there is no expert evidence or otherwise to rebut the conclusions of the applicant and city experts that the proposal will not create adverse stormwater impacts on adjoining properties. It is recognized that the City's stormwater regulations only require maintenance of pre -development maintenance rates of up to a 10-year, 24-hour storm event only. This does leave the possibility that the proposal could result in an increase in off -site run- off for larger storm events. As noted in the reconsideration order, compliance with the City's stormwater regulations does not in all cases satisfy the variance and rezone criteria for ensuring that approval doesn't adversely affect neighboring properties. However, the City's stormwater regulations do set a legislative standard on acceptable stormwater impacts and standard should be followed absent a showing of unique circumstances that the regulations are ineffective for the development in question. The subject property is fairly unique in the extent of critical areas on the property. However, as previously noted the wetland do not have any significant flood storage capacity because of its lack of depressional features and lack of ability to become ponded. The proposed encroachment into the wetland is relatively minor. There is no evidence that this minor encroachment into a wetland with minor storage capacity would have any significant impact on flooding that exceeds the 10-year storm events, nor could that reasonably be inferred from the record. For these reasons, the administrative record does not support the extra -ordinary measure of stormwater mitigation beyond that required by the City's stormwater regulations, including a monitoring plan. B. Wetland Impacts. The second major impact of concern is the impacts to wetlands. The proposal will not adversely affect wetlands. The wetland report concludes at p. 8 that "the proposed development is expected to reduce the level of existing functions on the site somewhat". In order to mitigate for the wetland encroachment, the applicant proposes to enhance 15,560 square feet of the wetland, for an 8:1 ratio. The applicant also proposes to enhance 2,410 square feet of buffer in the northwestern corner of the property for a 0.5:1 ratio. With this mitigation, the wetland report concludes that there will be no net loss of wetland function. The report 2 In their reconsideration request the applicants request that the condition requiring consideration of Mr. Brown's concerns during engineering review be stricken because they are not supported by City code. Condition No. 3 clearly required consideration of those concerns "when reviewing and applying the City's stormwater regulations". Any requirements imposed by the City staff would be based upon an application of City stormwater standards to the information provided by Mr. Brown and would, consequently, be based upon City code. All conditions imposed upon this proposal are firmly rooted in the requirements of City development standards. Variance p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0012 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was prepared by Andrea Bachman, a senior wetland ecologist working for Wetland Resources, Inc. The City's regulations require that wetland reports be either prepared by a qualified professional who is either a City selected wetlands consultant operating under a three party agreement between the applicant, city and consultant, or that the consultant's work be subject to peer review. See ECDC 23.40.090. Given the qualifications of the wetlands consultant, the safe -guards for objective review and the absence of any evidence supporting contrary determinations, it is determined that there will be no net loss of wetland function. C. Stream Impacts. No significant adverse impacts to the on -site stream are anticipated as a result of the request buffer reduction from 50 to 25 feet. ECDC 23.90.040.D.1 establishes a standard buffer width of 50 feet for Type Np streams. However, if the applicant were to provide a 50-foot stream buffer, this would push the residence further east into the Category 3 wetland. Thus, as part of the requested critical area variance, a balance is needed between potential impacts to the stream and potential impacts to the wetland. The applicant has proposed reducing the stream buffer to 25-feet, while allowing for a stormwater outfall pipe to be located within this buffer in order to directly discharge into the stream. The critical areas code does not specify a minimum ratio of stream buffer enhancement when reducing the buffer below the standard 50-foot buffer required for a Type Np stream and for a stormwater outfall pipe directly discharging into the stream. In the case of the subject lot, the entire area of proposed reduced stream buffer entirely overlaps the wetland and/or wetland buffer. As such, mitigation associated with the impacted wetland and wetland buffer will also mitigate for the impacted stream buffer. The applicant's proposal to provide mitigation at a ratio that is twice the minimum required for the portion of the wetland that is to be disturbed helps to compensate for this overlap in stream and wetland buffers. The critical areas report, p. 9, concludes that the proposed enhancement plan will improve stream buffer functions. There is no evidence to the contrary. D. Setback Variance Impacts. There are no adverse impacts discernible from the record that would result from the requested street and side yard variances. The staff report notes that "due to the topography of the surrounding area, it does not appear that the proposed residence would significantly impact existing views of Puget Sound." Despite heavy opposition from neighboring property owners, no one has raised any concern about potential view impacts and there is nothing in the record to suggest that would be a problem. Given these facts, it is determined that the proposal will not create any adverse view impacts. The side yard setback will not noticeably diminish the passage of light and air, as the eastern half of the property adjoining to the west is undeveloped and encumbered by a wetland. City staff have also not raised any concerns over site distance impacts or other traffic issues with the street setback variance request. 6. Minimum Variance. The most challenging issue for this proposal is whether the request constitutes the minimum necessary to grant relief from the City's critical area regulations. It appears that encroachments into the wetland could be almost entirely Variance p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0013 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 avoided by limiting the building footprint to 1,600 square feet, inclusive of garage space. The need to encroach into 1,790 square feet of Class III wetland is based upon the applicants' desire to have vaulted ceilings and a driveway that could be larger than necessary to serve the property. Almost of the living space and the garage could be located within the footprint proposed outside of the wetland if the applicant fully built out the second story of the proposed home in lieu of vaulted ceilings. As noted in the staff report, the proposed living area of 2,623 square feet appears to be average, if not smaller than those of existing residences within the vicinity, as demonstrated by the sizes of other homes in the area tabulated by the applicant in Table 3 of Ex. 8. As identified by comments from Todd and Candy Brown, Ex. 23, one outlier not identified in Table 3 is the Mallot home, located across the street with living space of 2,063 square feet. If only a buffer encroachment were proposed, as opposed to encroachment into the wetland itself, the size of the proposed home would clearly be considered a minimum variance request given the larger sizes of surrounding homes. However, a significant complicating factor in this application is that it appears that the encroachment into the wetland itself could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space. The only reasons for not fully using second floor living space presented by the applicant were that they have a preference for first floor living space as they grow older and they want to avoid a boxy appearance for their home. The author of the wetland report, Andrea Bachman, was not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. These are not sufficient reasons to justify an encroachment into wetlands. The concern over encroachment into wetlands is premised upon the understanding that encroaching into a wetland can cause significantly greater harm than limiting encroachments to buffer areas. The primary function of a wetland buffer would appear to be protection of a wetland from adjoining development, although it is recognized that a buffer has its own significance in the provision of habitat that is unique to wetland boundaries. Although a priority for building within buffers over wetlands themselves is a reasonable inference to make, this priority is not expressly imposed in the City's wetland regulations and there is no scientific evidence in the record to support this priority. Consequently, the conditions of approval will require the wetland consultant to address whether developing in the buffer would create significantly more damage to wetland functions than limiting development to the wetland buffer by prohibiting the proposal from encroaching into the wetland. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: Variance p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.85.020 provides the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications as Type III - A. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designations. The area is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS- 12). 3. Review Criteria and Application. Variances to street and side yard setback requirements are set by ECDC 20.85.010, quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Variances to critical area wetland buffers are governed by ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2) and 23.40.210(B). Applicable criteria are quoted in italics below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. ECDC 20.85.010.A(1) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; 4. The criterion is met for the street and side yard variances because the objective of the variances is to displace the footprint of the single-family home as far as possible from the Category III wetland and its buffers, which is solely attributable to the critical areas on the property. ECDC 20.85.010(B) — Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; Variance p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0015 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5. As noted in the staff report, similar setback variances have been approved for a couple other homes in the vicinity of the project in order to enable the construction of a single-family home within a critical area. In a broader sense, setback variances would likely be granted to anyone seeking to build a single-family home in the RS district vicinity if it would reduce otherwise unavoidable wetland impacts. ECDC 20.85.101(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; 6. The requested setback variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan for the reasons outlined at p. 8 and Section VII of the staff report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; 7. A single-family home is a permitted primary use in the RS-12 district. Approval of the variance would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the RS-12 district. ECDC 20.85.010(E) — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Consequently the criterion is met. ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 9. As discussed in FOF No. 3, the purpose of the variance is to maximize the distance of the proposal from the Category III wetland and so should be considered the minimum necessary to enjoy the same development rights as others in the vicinity with the same zoning. The size of the home, which is referenced in the staff report under the analysis of the criterion quoted above, is irrelevant since any reduction in building size would not result in any reduction of the setback encroachment. Any reduction in home size should be used to increase the separation from the wetland. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(a): The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; "Reasonable economic use(s)" is defined pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320 as follows: "The minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal Variance p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0016 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. `Reasonable economic use" shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure. Determination of "reasonable economic use" shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site. " 10. Application of the critical areas ordinance would deny the applicants minimum reasonable use of their property if not variance is granted. A minimum reasonable use of the subject property is a single family home. The definition of reasonable use quoted above makes it clear that minimum reasonable use is a single-family home for a lot that meets all bulk requirements, such as minimum lot size, setbacks, and lot width. Were it not for the critical areas at the project site, the subject lot is easily large enough to accommodate a single-family home that satisfies all minimum bulk requirements. No single family home could be built upon the subject property without encroaching into a critical area or a critical area buffer. The only options for the applicants are to either build the home into the wetland and stream buffers and potentially the wetland itself as currently proposed, or to build a driveway through the wetland and its buffer as proposed in the previously approved variance. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(b): No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; 11. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 11, a single-family home is defined as a minimum reasonable use for the subject property. As a minimum reasonable use, no other type of reasonable use could be required for the property unless it allowed for a greater economic return on the property. As outlined in ECDC 16.20.010, more intense uses allowed for the subject property include uses such as churches and schools. None of these types of uses could be construed as creating less impact to critical areas. If the "other" reasonable use referenced in the criterion above encompasses different project design as opposed to different types of uses, then as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 there is an open question as to whether impacts could be further reduced by building upwards into the second floor as opposed to outward into the wetland. Project design appears to be more directly addressed in the next criterion and at any rate project design is addressed in the conditions of approval to ensure that the design minimizes impacts to the wetland. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(c): The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; 12. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 and Conclusion of Law No. 11, there is an open question as to whether the home has been designed to minimize impacts to the on -site wetland. The conditions of approval require further staff investigation and redesign of the project to the extent necessary to mitigate project impacts. According to the testimony of Mr. Brown, the applicants only had to pay $75,000 for their lot whereas other lots in the vicinity average approximately $500,000. Although Mr. Brown did not provide any hard data to substantiate his cost estimates, his assertions were undisputed by the applicants and it is fair to conclude that the purchase price of the applicants' property was substantially reduced as a result of the wetland and stream. As discussed in the Variance p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0017 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order on Reconsideration, investment backed expectations are one of the factors involved in assessing reasonable use. If the living space and garage is limited to the footprint identified in Condition No. 1 of this decision, the applicants would still have 2,600 square feet of living space. This would be 1,200 square feet less than the average living space available to other homes that the applicants identified in the vicinity, but given the significantly reduced land value this would still qualify as reasonable use if there was an appreciable environmental benefit to not building within the wetland. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(d): The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; 13. The use limitations of the property are all directly attributable to the on -site critical areas and not to any actions by the applicant. However, the applicant's need for first floor living space due to advancing age is personally attributable to the applicants and cannot serve as justification for the currently proposed house design. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(e)3: The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 14. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal and, therefore, the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(f): The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and 15. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(B) and (C), the proposal will not create any net loss of critical area functions and values. This determination was based upon the study of a qualified wetland biologist, who in turn based her mitigation and assessment upon several scientific studies identified at p. 19 of her report. The scientific studies and the opinions and analysis of the wetland biologist qualify as best available science as defined in ECDC 23.40.310 because the biologist is professionally trained and works for a reputable company selected by the City and the studies she relied upon have been prepared by state and federal agencies such as the Washington State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(g): The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 16. The applicant has sought and is being granted variance requests to street and side yard setback requirements that the proposal will not meet. Compliance with all other applicable regulations and standards will be assessed and enforced during building permit review. 3 In response to the many assertions of the applicants that additional stormwater conditions are not based upon code, this provision would be one such source of code authority in addition to ECDC 23.40.210(B)(5) as referenced in the applicants' 4/21/13 reconsideration comments . Variance P. 18 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0018 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ECDC 23.40.210(B)(1): Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 17. As testified by several neighbors, the subject property is unique in its abundance of critical areas. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(2): The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 18. See COL No. 13. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(3): A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 19. See COL No. 10. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(4): Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 20. The applicants simply seek to build a reasonably sized single-family home on a lot large enough for that purpose. That is a right enjoyed by all other property owners in the vicinity and is not a request for a special privilege. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(5): The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 21. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal and it will not create any net loss in wetland or stream unction while also providing for reasonable use of the property. Given these factors the property the granting of the variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the critical areas ordinance and is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(6): The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. 22. As noted in COL No. 15, the granting of the variance is based upon best available science and as noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, there is no fish habitat associated with the proposal. Variance P. 19 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0019 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECISION The street, side yard and critical area reasonable use variance stream and wetland requests are approved, subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. As discussed in FOF No. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified wetland biologist, who can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether removing the proposed wetland encroachment would appreciably improve upon impacts to wetland functions. If there is any appreciable environmental benefit to avoiding the proposed wetland encroachment, the building footprint for the home, inclusive of the garage, will be limited to the squared building space (including the west bay window) depicted in Ex. 4, Sheet 2, excluding the garage area and the room appended to the north of the garage to the extent it encroaches into the wetland. The southeast wetland encroachment of this living space is authorized. The driveway shall be located outside the wetland. Retaining walls may be built into the wetland to the extent necessary to support the home and driveway. If the driveway cannot be built to City standards without encroaching more than a foot into the wetland, the applicants may build the home as proposed with the 1,790 square foot encroachment. 2. City engineering staff shall consider the stormwater comments of Todd Brown in Ex. 31 and the stormwater concerns summarized in the testimony section of this decision when reviewing and applying the City's stormwater regulations. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit and all other required local, state, and federal permits prior to commencing work on the subject site. 4. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. The applicant must show full compliance with all applicable regulations and standards that are not part of the approved variance at the time of building permit application review. 5. The applicant shall complete mitigation as detailed in the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" dated November 27, 2012 by Wetland Resources, Inc. (Attachment 8). 6. The existing man-made trench located along the west property line shall remain in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water event. In addition, the subject proposal shall not inhibit the usage of the existing southwestern storm drainage culvert. 7. During the building permit process, the applicant will be required to install a trash rack at the northwestern stream inlet if determined necessary by City staff and secure all applicable permits for all work within the stream and associated buffer. The applicant will also be required to revise the storm easement such that the easement encompasses the creek. Variance p. 20 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Dated this 24th day of April, 2013. � � ::: �" - e- Phi I R.01hreehts Edmonds Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices This land use decision is final and subject to closed record appeal to the City Council as authorized by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(B). Reconsideration may be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.06.010. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Variance p. 21 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0021 Applicant's Comments in Response to Public Comment Letters Submitted in Response Hearing Examiner's Order for Reconsideration dated April 16, 2013 Date: April 23, 2013 m' k� To: Planning Director, City of Edmonds From: Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants, 1139 Sierra PI, Edmonds qk/4fO ?�13 City of Edmonds File: PLN20120033 — Variance Approval with Conditions Applicant's Comments Regarding Letters from Brown and Zehner: Points raised in these letters appear to be, in large part, introduction of new testimony in the form of undocumented hearsay and opinions presented after the close of the hearing, and as such should not be admissible, in keeping with the Hearing Examiner's order that "No new evidence shall be allowed and all comments must be based upon evidence admitted into the record prior to the close of the hearing on March 15 [14], 2013." We could rebut their comments point by point, but not without introducing new evidence. If the Hearing Examiner does admit these letters, we would like to go on record as disagreeing with their conclusions, especially with respect to the drainage issues. In accordance with the purpose of the city's stormwater regulations, we believe our proposed stormwater detention system, installed in accordance with the City of Edmonds drainage code 18.30.00, will actually improve drainage by holding some of the runoff on -site and releasing it slowly into the stream in a controlled fashion, thus regulating the rate of flow onto the street from our property during storm events. Applicant's Comments Regarding Letters from Rutledge and Thorpe: None. We believe the above information to be true. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra P1 04/23/13 Page 1 0022 1 11 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION 'oe. 1 09- April 23, 2013 Mr. Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner Sent via email SUBJECT. Response to Comments on Order on Reconsideration Hillman Variances - File No. PLN20120033 Dear Mr. Olbrechts, The Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration issued on April 16, 2013 regarding Tom and Lin Hillman's variance application (File No. PLN20120033) allowed for all parties of record to submit written comments by 5:00 p.m. on April 22, 2013. Comments were received from five parties and were sent to the Hearing Examiner via email on April 22, 2013. The comments sent to the Hearing Examiner include the following: - Letter from Todd Brown, received 4/19/13 - Email from David Thorpe, received 4/21/13 - Letter from Cheri Zehner, received via email 4/21/13 - Letter from Alvin Rutledge, received 4/22/13 - Letter from Tom and Lin Hillman, received 4/22/13 As allowed for by the Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration, the City and applicant may respond to the above comments by 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2013. In response to the comments raised, the City would like to offer the following. With regards to stormwater flows at the subject site, the City has relied on the statements and documentation of a licensed professional Wetland Ecologist. As provided in Attachment 8 of the City's Report and Recommendations to the Hearing Examiner dated March 7, 2013, the Wetland Ecologist has indicated that stormwater from the subject site flows to the northwest culvert. It is the applicants responsibility to show compliance with stormwater codes with a city -prescribed design that attempts to match the post -development stormwater runoff rates with the pre -development stormwater runoff rates from the property up to the 10-year, 24-hour storm event only. As stated by the Wetland Ecologist and the neighbors, during heavy rain events the stream may overflow along the west property line and outfall via the southwest culvert. As the culvert is only used as an overflow outlet in both pre and post development conditions, there is no approval needed by the owners of I I I I Sierra Pl. City Engineering staff wishes to reiterate that monitoring of the proposed site stormwater management system to verify that it fully prevents any increase in stormwater discharges to 0023 neighboring properties is problematic. Flow onto the Hillman property in part comes from the City's storm system that discharges into the stream. This stream receives stormwater runoff from an area of at least 16 acres, encompassing 40+ lots and City right-of-way that were developed largely before stormwater management was required. In addition, the site is also subject to groundwater seepage from the surrounding upstream area and surface runoff from adjacent parcels, which may influence the surface water flows that come off the Hillman property. In closing, Planning and Engineering Division staff confirms its position made in the City's April 8, 2013 request for reconsideration and respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider/clarify the findings and conclusions of the decision on the Hillman variance request in addition to Conditions #1 and #2 and add clarification of the City's appeal procedures. Sincerely, r Jennifer Machuga Jennifer Lambert Associate Planner Engineering Technician Page 2 of 2 Reconsideration dated April 16, 2013 Date: To: From: City of Edmonds File: April 22, 2013 Planning Director, City of Edmonds is Order for APR 2 2013 OOUWER Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants, 1139 Sierra PI, Edmonds PLN20120033 — Variance Approval with Conditions CID Referenced Documents in the Record (referenced by Attachment Numbers to the Planning Division Report and Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, dated March 7, 2013, hereinafter "City's Staff Report') Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration, dated April 16, 2013 ("H.E. Order") Applicant's Request for Reconsideration of Variance Decision by Hearing Examiner, dated April 8, 2013 ("Applicant's Reconsideration Request") Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision, dated March 28, 2013 ("H.E. Decision") Planning Division Report & Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner dated March 7, 2013, with 27 attachments ("City's Staff Report") Attachment 3: Variance Request, latest revision dated February 11, 2013 ("Variance Request") Attachment 4: Project Plans (Sheet 1, revision 1 dated 1/14/13 and Sheet 2, latest revision dated 2/11/13 ("Whole Site Plan" and "Site Plan") Attachment 5: Sheet 2: Drainage, Grading & TESC dated 2-13-13 ("Drainage Plan") Attachment 6: Partial Topography Survey by Lovell- Sauerland and Associates, Inc., latest revision dated 7-18-12 ("Survey") Attachment 8: Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated November 27, 2012 ("WRI Study") Attachment 10: Applicant's Response Letter, dated January 14, 2013 including its attached site plan of 1111 Sierra Place ("Applicant's Letter of January 14, 2013" and "1111 Sierra Place Site Plan") Attachment 11: Applicant's Response Letter, dated February 11, 2013 ("Applicant's Letter of February 11, 2013") Attachment 14: Site Plan from Lewis Variance Application ("Lewis Site Plan") Attachment 18: Site Plan from Viking Properties Critical Areas Variance Application ("Viking Properties Site Plan") Attachment 20: Engineering and Planning Division Requests for Additional Information dated 8/16/12, 10/23/12 and 2/1/13 ("City's Letters" of same dates) Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 1 0025 Attachment 23: Comments from Todd and Candy Brown of 1135 Sierra Place, dated September 12, 2012 and September 25, 2012 (`Brown Letters" of same dates) Attachment 27: Comment Letter from Cheri Zehner of 1027 Carol Way, dated November 2, 2012 ("Zehner Letter") Exhibit 31 (from Hearing of March 14, 2013): Letter from Todd Brown ("Brown Letter of March 12, 2013") Edmonds Community Development Code (" BCDC") Storm Water Code Supplement to ECDC Chapter 18.30, dated April 20, 2010 ("Stormwater Code") Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, 2012 edition ("DOE Manual") Note: Wording shown in [brackets] and underlined emphasis are ours. 1. Condition 1: Justification for Filling of Wetlands A. H.E. Order, page 3, line 6: "The applicant failed to justify the proposed filling of wetlands under the city's reasonable use criteria." B. H.E. Order, page 3, line 18: "The final decision on this case recognizes that staff may have already considered all of these factors and expressly states that no further inquiry or modification of the project is necessary if that is the case." C. H.E. Order, page 4, line 5: "...identify evidence in the record that supports a determination that the wetland should be filled as proposed." D. City's Letter of 10/23/12, page 2, item 5: raised the question of second floor space and asked about design alternatives that might reduce the footprint. We responded with Applicant's Letter of January 14, 2013, item 2 (on the first and second page), item 5 (on the fourth page) and item 3 (on the sixth page) with descriptions of some of the numerous design alternatives that had been considered. E. City's Staff Report, page 3: "In order to provide a clear record of the applicant's current proposal, the previous versions of the project plans and reports that were replaced by the applicant with revised versions have been excluded from this staff report." F. WRI Study, Table 3: Shows neighboring house sizes with an average Floor 1 of 2288 square feet and Floor 2 of 1435 square feet (not including garage areas). G. 1111 Sierra Place Site Plan: Shows wetland impact 3,080 sq. ft., and shows driveway and portions of building encroaching into the category 3 wetland itself. Also shows wetland enhancement and restoration areas. H. Site Plan, distance from westernmost point of existing wetland boundary to the west wall of the house is scalable at roughly 25', about the same as the width of the garage, not including any allowance for setback or retaining walls. I. Site Plan also shows required 5' minimum separation between storm detention pipes and house. Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 2 J. Drainage Plan shows the lowest point of the proposed storm drainage system at 211', the invert elevation (bottom of pipe) for the proposed 6" diameter pipe outfalling at the stream bank, with the rest of the systems' invert elevations higher up to achieve the slopes for downhill flows. Catch basin CB#3 at the low point of the proposed driveway (near the 218' existing grade contour line) has an invert elevation of 213.65' (or 2.65' higher than the outfall). The driveway low point is shown at 218.55' (top of CB#3). The contour line at the southwest corner of the building is 214' (or 4' lower than at the present driveway low point), making a driveway at this location too low to achieve downhill flow via the storm drainage system. K. Site Plan, Foundation Detail BWS shows storm detention pipe constraints of 5' separation from the building's wall, 2' minimum cover and 1:2 maximum slope of fill soil, in combination with the location of the existing drainage ditch, necessitating placement of the house wall at least 16' east of the west property line at the detail cut location. L. City's Staff Report, page 5-6: "The proposal takes the environmental constraints of the property into account by locating the residence on the southwestern portion of the site, as far out of the critical areas and associated buffers as possible. As such, the proposal is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan related to residential development." M. WRI Study, page 8: "The applicant has carefully considered the house design and size. The total footprint and living space is considerably more modest that [than] those of the surrounding properties (see Table 3). The research and design work clearly demonstrate that the proposed development is the minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable economic use of the property." N. City's Staff Report, page 10: "It does not appear that any other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the City's Comprehensive Plan would have less impact on the on -site critical areas and their associated buffers." O. City's Staff Report, page 13: "In fact, it would be incredibly difficult to develop the site in such a way that would not include a portion of the residence to be located within the wetland itself, particularly when taking the location of the stream into account as well. P. City's Staff Report, page 9: quoting ECDC 23.40.320 definition, "'Reasonable economic use' shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant." Q. City's Staff Report, page 10: "Minimum necessary:.... Given the special circumstances of the site, the comparison of the residence to the sizes of those in the neighborhood, and documentation within the critical areas reports, the requested critical areas variance appears to be the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable economic use of the subject site." Regarding justification for partial loss of wetland area, reference is made here to the applicable excerpts from ECDC Chapter 23.50 included in Appendix A of this document, and the following quotes. Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 3 0027 R. WRI Study, page 13: "Based on anticipated conditions, proper implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will result in a net increase of wetland and buffer functions over time through vegetative enhancement." S. WRI Study, page 7: "...the overall impact [associated with the proposed home construction] is relatively low when compared to the low level of function offered by the wetland upslope of the proposed development." T. City's Staff Report, page 10: "The purpose of the mitigation plan (Attachment 8) is to replace and improve the functions and values of the impacted on -site critical areas and associated buffers to the greatest extent possible." U. WRI Study, page 12: "The applicant has addressed the permanent loss of wetland through wetland fill by proposing enhancement per City of Edmonds Code requirements, and all other potential impacts have been addressed." V. H.E. Order, page 4, line 20: quoting City's Comprehensive Plan, page 83: "The natural drainage system (i.e. streams, ponds, and marshes) shall not be filled or permanently culverted except where no alternative exists." W. WRI Study, page 1 of the Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington (attached at the back of the document) classifies this wetland as a category III sloped wetland without special characteristics including bog or marsh. The study proposes partial filling of the wetland, and no filling of the stream. X. WRI Study, pages 5 & 6, Pre -disturbance Wetland Functions Assessment: "The on -site wetland is hydrogeomorphically (HGM) classified as a slope wetland because it is located on a hillside and contains groundwater seeps that "daylight" and flow through the wetland without being impounded. Slope wetlands do not improve water quality or control floodwaters to the same extent as depressional or riverine wetlands because they lack the physical characteristics to be able to impound surface water for treatment and/or flood control." Y. WRI Study, page 6, Hyrdologic Control: "While this wetland functions to maintain base flows for the on -site stream, it holds a low capacity for reducing peak flows. Similar to water quality functions, the on -site wetland has a severely limited potential to provide flood control functions because of its lack of depressional features and lack of ability to become ponded." . Condition : ,Justification for Eliminating Stormwater Monitoring A. H.E. Order, page 4, lines 13 & 14: "The code basis for this monitoring condition are the reasonable use and variance criteria that require the minimization of impacts to surrounding properties and the public health, safety and welfare". B. ECDC 23.40.210.135 states this condition: "The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property." Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 4 C. City's Staff Report, page 8, item 5: "The proposed residence should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity." D. WRI Study, page 9: "The proposed development will not be hazardous to public health, safety, or welfare. The project has been carefully designed to minimize site impacts to the greatest extent possible. It will not affect water quality or create flooding issues in downstream systems." E. Stormwater Code, volume 1, page 42, paragraph 5.7.3.2, Simplified Sizing Approach: "A pre -sized approach for sizing flow control BMPs has been developed for small site projects in Edmonds with between 2,000 and 10,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface area." DOE Manual, Volume I, Section 2.4.1: Minimum Requirement #6 regarding flow control (a storm water detention system) is only required on sites that create at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. The city of Edmonds has adopted more stringent requirements as allowed by the DOE Manual Volume I, Section 1.6.2 "Federal, State, and local government agencies with jurisdiction can require more stringent measures that are deemed necessary to meet locally established goals, State water quality standards, or other established natural resource or drainage objectives." F. Stormwater Code, volume 3, page 3-43, table 4.5.2, Maintenance Standards, No. 5 — Catch Basins, describes facility -specific maintenance standards... "intended to be conditions for determining if maintenance actions are required as identified through inspection." G. H.E. Order, page 4, lines 16 & 17: "However, in this case surrounding property owners have presented evidence that the stormwater issues in their vicinity are unique and severe." H. Brown Letter of March 12th, 2013, 3rd page: "I am happy with the current state of the north stream — since it's been on the city's culvert maintenance watch list it has weathered some very severe rainstorms without obstructing. The expense and disruption of installing a trash rack is unnecessary to keep the stream safe from flooding." I. Zehner Letter (Ms. Zehner also presented a video showing rainwater flows in the street at the March 14, 2013 hearing): "Disturbances of this wetland area will cause more flooding of properties to the west of Olympic Avenue .... The flooding events are documented through Stormwater Management (See Mike Johnson).... After extensive investigation, Mr. Johnson concluded that the issue was not regarding public street run-off. He said that it was an issue with private property groundwater and storm water and that it was a civil matter." and "The City of Edmonds knows this is a critical wetland area that retains thousands of gallons of water, and prevents flooding of lower elevations...." J. WRI Study, page 5 & 6: "Slope wetlands do not improve water quality or control floodwaters to the same extent as depressional or riverine wetlands because they lack the physical characteristics to be able to impound surface water for treatment and/or flood control .... the on -site wetland has a severely limited potential to provide flood control functions because of its lack of depressional features and lack of ability to become ponded." and page 9: "It [the project] will not affect water quality or create flooding issues in downstream systems." K. WRI Study, page 12: "A relatively small area of wetland (just over 10 percent) will be filled ...through this proposal. The portion to be filled is saturated only in the wettest time of the year, thereby currently offering limited stormwater control functions. Therefore, through properly Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 5 implemented mitigation measures, no significant loss of stormwater control functions is expected. Any loss of this function can be achieved through [offset by] the proposed stormwater detention design and wetland enhancement. All collected stormwater will drain to a detention feature that drains to the on -site stream. Woody species planted within the wetland areas upslope of the new house will slow the hydrologic flow through the wetland and buffer, thereby creating some resistance and hence improvement to hydrologic control functions on the site. The proposed development, including retaining walls and footing drains will be located within the outermost part of the wetland, which is the transitional (least wet) part of the subject wetland. Because the wetland's primary source of hydrology is from natural springs/seeps upslope from the proposed development, it appears unlikely that the proposed development and associated retaining wall and footing drains would result in loss of natural hydrology within the wetland. Due to the direction of flow and careful engineering it is also appears that the proposed site design would not result in over - watering the wetland. Based on these anticipated conditions, no significant drainage impacts are expected as part of this project .... The applicant has addressed the permanent loss of wetland through wetland fill by proposing enhancement per City of Edmonds Code requirements, and all other potential impacts have been addressed." Regarding Comments in Applicant'sRequest •r Reconsideration dated April; Item C. Attachment 6: Survey shows invert elevations of 208.68 and 208.87, respectively, for the south and north existing culvert inlets. Item E. Brown Letter of March 12, 2013: "Ralph Mallot's... house footprint is approximately 1400 square feet." Whole Site Plan shows a proposed area of main floor (house footprint) of 1596 sf. (Numbers do not include garages.) We appreciate the opportunity to call to your attention those items in the record which we see as significant in making our case for approval of this variance without conditions # 1 and #2. We have demonstrated due diligence and conscientious investigation of alternatives, and have concluded along with the city staff and wetland biologist that there is no reasonable use of the property in question that does not involve a wetland encroachment aspect. It is a matter of degree, and the 11 % we have requested is minimal and not detrimental to the overall functions and values the wetland provides; the net result will be an increase in those functions and values (including the flow control aspects) once our 15,560 square feet of mitigating enhancements are in place. The footprint of a house designed entirely out of the wetland would be unreasonably small, and its driveway placement would be too low in elevation to allow its storm detention system to drain downhill to the stream. The city of Edmonds' stormwater design standards are already more conservative than those required at the State level, and their storm drainage infrastructure was presumably designed by those standards to accommodate all the anticipated drainage in the built -out area. In our opinion, a flow -monitoring study of our one lot would be overkill and not result in a better design for this lot, as well as place an undue hardship on a single property owner in terms of cost and time delay. If the city determines there are Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 6 storm drainage deficiencies in the whole area, then perhaps a more regional analysis would be appropriate when staff time and budget allow. We will continue to try to optimize our design with consideration to all of the discussions presented to date in anticipation of our upcoming building permit application submittal. We believe the above information to be true. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 7 0031 23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands. A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas. E. Category 3 and 4 Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category 3 and 4 wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. 23.50.050 Mitigation requirements — Wetlands. Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. [Mitigation strategies include.] 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. B. Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation actions shall address functions affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and shall provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when: 1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site -specific function assessment, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions... G. Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation. 1. Impacts to wetland functions may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands... Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a critical areas report that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 8 0032 Machuga, Jen From: David Thorpe <dethorpe@frontier.com> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:00 PM To: Machuga, Jen Subject: PLN20120033 Ms. Machuga, I agree with "no new evidence". All parties involved understood the process and that must be maintained. Thank you, David Thorpe 0633 4/22/2013 City of Edmonds Att: Ms. Machuga Planning Division 121-5th Avenue North Edmonds, Wa 98020 RE: Order on Reconsiderson RE: PLN 20120033 RE: A. B. D. Had to leave early, One of the kind oral comment should be considered if another hearing held. Party of record signed (note) sign-up sheet. on March 15, 2013 CC: file Resident Alvin Rutledge 7101 Lk Ballinger Wv Edmonds, Wa 425-776-7130 P/F Machuga, Jen From: Cheri Zehner <c.zehner@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:08 PM To: Machuga, Jen Subject: Comments on Request for Reconsideration File No. PLN20120033 Attachments: Request for Reconsideration PLN20120033.pdf Hi Jen, Please find attached my comments on the Request for Reconsideration. I don't know what the deal is but we did not receive the Notice until last Thursday, April 18th. This only gave us a couple of days to prepare a response. Don't you think at least a week's notice would be reasonable? Thanks, Cheri Cheri Zehner, MPH industrial Hygienist Indoor Air Quality Management www.cherizehner.com 0635 h � i hner, MPH 1027 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Industrial Hygienist (206) 799-6382 i Indaer A& QwalityMa ejt ►�C4t www.cherizehner.com April 21, 2013 Mr. Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Olbrechts, RE: Comments on Request for Reconsideration/Clarification re File No. PLN20120033 We received copies of the two requests for consideration on April 181h, giving us one businesses day to prepare our response regarding this issue. It appears that the City does not concern itself with due process. Please find below my comments on the two requests submitted. Comments on Tom and Lin Hillmans request for reconsideration. Comment 413: The videos submitted by me show a remarkable stream of storm -water running down Sierra Place, not intercepted by the storm drain located up hill of the stream on Olympic Avenue, and the stream of water turning north on Olympic Avenue not being intercepted by any storm drain. This condition begs the question, where does the water go. The video submitted only documented surface water. The water impacting our property is coming out of the ground in the backyard at 703 Olympic Avenue directly west and downhill from the Hillman property at the intersection of Sierra Place and Olympic Avenue. The Hillmans state that the water from their lot does not drain into ours. The Hillmans do not know that their surface or groundwater does not drain onto our property, and nor does the City. Comment F: Hillmans stated that they share their neighbors' concerns that drainage issues are a major priority for development in this area and that they have communicated this. Other than a couple of pleasantries at the hearing, the Hillmans have not contacted us. Our property has flooded every year since 2007, usually in the first week of December at about 2:OOAM. Are the Hillmans concerned enough to be part of our bailing team about 2:OOAM? Comments on the City of Edmonds' Request for Reconsideration Condition #2, Staff Response 1: The City states that in order to perform a storm -water monitoring program there needs to be baseline data of the current water discharge from the property. The City states that obtaining the data would be extraordinarily difficult and expensive, given that the flow is diffused off the wetland into the stream. As a property owner suffering from the consequences of indiscriminant and unmonitored land development in the Daly Place and Sierra Place area, I find it reprehensible that the City considers it too expensive a project to 40e monitor/control storm and ground water and is inadvertently putting the onus on one private property owner to pony up the funding to hire a hydrologist to save their house. Condition #2, Staff Response 2: The staff commented that the City's regulations attempt to match the post development storm -water runoff rates from the property with the pre -development storm - water run-off rates from the property up to the 10-year, 24-hour storm event only. This comment contradicts the statements made in Response 1. The staff stated that they do not have baseline data, so how can they know what post development rates are acceptable. Summary Reauest If the City does not have baseline data on storm or groundwater flow in the Sierra Place and Daly Place areas, which are the headwaters of Hindley Creek, then how can the City allow the development of the property in this area? These areas are critical wetlands. Apparently the City chooses to ignore this determination. I am disgusted with the City's lack of concern regarding the storm and ground water's devastating impact on property owners to the west and north of Sierra Place and Hindley Place. I think that the variance should be rescinded, or in lieu of it being rescinded, that the building permit not be issued until the City completes at three year monitoring plan of storm and ground water flow from the Hillman property and the surrounding headwaters of Hindley Creek. Then the City will have some baseline data. City staff are welcome to visit our property the first week of December to view and measure the volume of water that threatens to flood our basement. As a public health professional, I have embraced the concept of the precautionary principle. Basically, the principle means that if you don't know that something is safe you don't employ it. Essentially, don't use the public as a guinea pig. Please don't allow our property to be used in an experiment to find out what happens to the storm and groundwater diverted from the Hillman property. Sincerely, Cheri Zehner, MPH 0037 April 19, 2013 APR 19 201 To: Jen Machuga, Associate Planner, City of Edmonds DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER From: Todd Brown, party of record Subject: Comments in response to reconsideration requests re: PLN20120033 Dear Jen, Per the recent Order on Reconsideration from Mr. Olbrechts dated April 16, 2013,1 would like to provide this written response to the April 8, 2013 reconsideration requests. Points 1 and 2 regard buffer encroachments and storm water. In the city staff rebuttal Jennifer Lambert describes the conditions which would require written approval from the 1111 owners before a variance can be granted —that is, if it was shown that water naturally drains into the SW culvert and the applicants wanted to install some sort of storm water system that used the culvert. This is exactly the condition. Integral to the applicants' storm water drainage scheme is an overflow plan, as required by the city - the man-made ditch leading to the SW culvert as a route for overflow during high water events. During these events the north stream will be diverted to the SW culvert, substantially altering the water flow, thus requiring written permission from 1111. This is discussed more in point C below. The on -site drain system is designed to only accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Given recent weather pattern changes and the unique, severe conditions on this site it seems reasonable to consider requirements for less frequent storm events. And if the city can't show, through some monitoring plan, that this drainage plan will be safe, then the request should be denied. The applicants' hired wetland ecologist didn't rebut the claim that the alternate drainage plan through the SW culvert was the best for the site, a position she held earlier. The applicants suggest in point 3 that flooding fears are unsubstantiated and are not enforceable review standards. While I took no pictures or videos of the flooding culvert, my wife and neighbors also witnessed these events. The city's Public Works department has records, both of when work was conducted to clear the blocked culvert and when preventive maintenance was performed. Also, I had at least 2 conversations with crew members, once when they were clearing the culvert and again as they were performing their culvert surveillance. I believe these substantiate our flooding concerns. I would like to clarify point 4, which regards the trash rack. In my presentation at the hearing I referred to Attachment 10, point 6 (a), dated January 14, 2013 from the applicants. In it they say "...including debris removal which the current proposal hopes to reduce the need for by installing a trash rack..." If you review the recording of that hearing you will hear me say from my written notes "A trash rack may be ineffective in preventing culvert blockage based on the soil type of this property." My opinion was formed after speaking to the culvert crew as they described the lay of the land and what they had removed from the blocked culvert. I'm unsure what contradictions the applicants are referring to. Comments from the city's culvert cleaning experts seem like applicable standards for review. 1 go on to say at the hearing "I think we deserve much more than just a hope that it will work." I would like to reiterate that — given the huge amount of water flow during heavy rainstorms, I would like to rely on more than the applicants' hopes that it will work to prevent our lane from being washed out. At the hearing the applicants did not rebut most of my testimony. In speaking with Tom Hillman after the hearing he said the reason was that I had made no legally rebuttable claims. From their request for reconsideration it now seems they were surprised by my comments. I would note that my written comments were submitted to the city before the required deadline, which allowed almost 3 days of review before the hearing. In point A the applicants state that our property does not receive runoff from their site. While that's true, our concern is not for our own property; rather, our access to it should the lane be flooded. They describe the 1111 owner as being helpful and agreeable "...to provide any necessary easements at the appropriate time." While that may be true, I maintain his written permission is still needed, as required by the city, and the appropriate time is during these variance requests proceedings. Point B regarding the home video is inaccurate. The video shows water rushing west, down Sierra Place, in the open culvert on the north side of the road in front of 1111. This water is easily traceable to the applicants' property. Olympic Avenue does not have any open culverts or ditches, which can be confirmed by the city. Point C again regards the culverts. The applicants state that the most water they've observed at the SW culvert's inlet is "... a small puddle." With this I agree. However, through our almost daily excursions past this culvert to our mailbox over the past 8 years, we have witnessed running water there every time it rains. A review of the site topography shows that most of the water from this property flows to the north stream — a point the applicants have made and to which I agree. A review of the topographic maps, though, shows that the water which falls on the proposed building site flows towards that SW culvert. This is the source of the flow we see during and after rainstorms and the water they wish to divert to the north stream. That it only accumulates a small puddle is further testament to the drainage value of this culvert. At the hearing the applicants said they had looked for the SW culvert outlet using some electrical culvert -finding device. In their request for reconsideration they describe snaking "a steel tape through it and found it dead -ended..." Knowing how flexible and prone to kinking these devices are, it seems that inserting a flexible steel measuring tape or electrical wire fish tape are not the most reliable methods for determining culvert patency. That it's not on the city's storm water system map seems like an easy fix — add it, especially since the 1111 owners are willing. Point D regards trees. A neighbor's conversation with Kat Ericson indicates Kat's tree opinions were misrepresented and that she doesn't support the tree removal plan. My conversations with Ida Fernandez indicate the same misrepresentation. Point E considers local house comparisons. While it's true they reviewed all of the lots directly abutting their property, many of these cannot even be seen from the proposed building site. They are higher up the hill, not accessible from the applicants' property, on completely different streets and are considered a different neighborhood. The intent of the comparison should be to look at other homes in the neighborhood — those on Sierra Place. Finally, I appreciate their ongoing concerns about drainage issues. Like them, we will also continue our diligence in reviewing these issues. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, YiY Z Todd Brown 1135 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA From: Phil Olbrechts Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:14 AM To: Machuga, Jen Subject: RE: Hillman Reconsideration Order And of course the City and the Hillmans can reply to any public comments that come in by the April 22 deadline. From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto. Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:09 AM To: 'Machuga, Jen' Subject: RE: Hillman Reconsideration Order They've already been mailed out to all parties. From: Machuga, Jen jmailto:Jen.Mach ugaCcbedmondswa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:47 AM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Subject: RE: Hillman Reconsideration Order_ Hi Phil, Could you please double check the dates in Item D under the "Order on Reconsideration" heading? I believe it is meant to state the following: If any public comments (i.e. not those from staff or the applicant) are received by April 22, 2013, the applicant and/or staff may reply to those comments by 5:00 pm, April 23, 2013. Also, are you going to be mailing this out to all parties of record, or do we need to send it out? Thank you, Jen Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner City of Edmonds, Planning Division 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ext. 1224 Jen.Machug_a@edmondswa.gov From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:58 AM To: Machuga, Jen Subject: Hillman Reconsideration Order 1-1117-119 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Tom and Lin Hillman Order on Reconsideration PLN20120033 The City and the Applicant have requested reconsideration of the final decision on the above -captioned matter. The reconsideration requests are based upon the mistaken impression that new evidence can be considered after the close of the hearing. The rule against consideration of new evidence significantly affects the arguments made in the reconsideration requests as well as the remedies sought in those requests. For those reasons all parties of record (anyone who participated in the hearing) will be given an opportunity to comment on the reconsideration requests taking into account the "no new evidence" rule. Comments are due April 22, 2013. Details on submission are provided at the end of this order under "Order on Reconsideration". Background A final decision on the above -captioned matter was issued on March 28, 2013. Both the City and the Applicant submitted requests for reconsideration on April 8, 2013. The requests for reconsideration were mailed to all parties of record by the City on April 9, 2013. The applicants submitted a modification to their request on April 10, 2013, which stated as follows: We hereby retract the portion of the last sentence of item D regarding tree removal that included the names of two of our neighbors. We did not receive their permission to use their names and regret that we included them. The April 10, 2013 is accepted as part of the applicants' reconsideration request. The requests for reconsideration primarily focus upon Conditions No. 1 and 2 of the final decision in this matter, which address wetland filling and stormwater controls, respectively. Other matters were also addressed in the reconsideration request. There is no need for additional argument on those additional matters and they will be addressed in the final Decision on Reconsideration. Order on Reconsideration P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0042 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 No New Evidence Rule Although there has not yet been a court opinion that directly addresses the issue, it is widely recognized and accepted that no new evidence is permitted once a hearing is closed. This requirement derives from the Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.7013 RCW. RCW 36.70B.050(2) provides that a permit application shall be subject to no more than one "open record hearing". An "open record hearing" is defined by RCW 36.70B.020(3) to constitute a hearing that creates the administrative record for the review of a permit application. As further detailed in the definition, the administrative record is composed of the "...testimony and submission of evidence and information...". Judicial review of a permitting decision is limited to this administrative record, subject to some limited exceptions. See RCW 36.70C.120. The purpose of the one hearing rule is to reduce the considerable amount of time and expense involved in multiple public hearings as well as to reduce public confusion as to when and how to provide timely comments on land use proposals. See RCW 36.7013.010. For this reason, when a hearing is announced as closed that is the end of the hearing and no new evidence can be considered from that point forward. There are four reasons for this interpretation: (1) allowing new evidence after the close of a hearing would serve to completely undermine the one hearing limitation, by opening the door to multiple additional hearings under the guise of "re -opening" the initial hearing; (2) in order to further the objective of reducing public confusion, the announcement of the close of a hearing should serve as a reliable assurance to the public that no new evidence will be considered so that from that point forward hearing participants no longer need to be vigilant about monitoring the decision making process to rebut newly admitted evidence; (3) permit decisions must be based upon the administrative record only since the courts reviewing those decisions limit their consideration to the administrative record -- the announcement that a hearing is closed serves as an announcement that the compilation of the administrative record is completed and that no new evidence will be considered; and (4) the consideration of new evidence after the close of a hearing would probably be considered to qualify as an ex parte communication that is prohibited by the appearance of fairness doctrine. See RCW 42.36.060. "No New Evidence" and Condition No. 1 The "no new evidence" rule sometimes presents a dilemma in situations where the administrative record contains insufficient information to support a finding of compliance with applicable permit criteria. The applicant has the burden of proof in establishing that all criteria are satisfied and a permit cannot be approved unless a finding can be made that all criteria are satisfied. Consequently, when the administrative record does not contain enough evidence to establish compliance with a permit criterion, the permit cannot be approved. The natural inclination under such circumstances is to request additional information from the hearing parties, but such a request would be barred by the "no new evidence rule". Denial of the permit Order on Reconsideration p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0043 2 9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application in many cases is the only option. Denial due to insufficient information is a harsh result given that the permit may actually comply with applicable permit criteria. The reversal can be avoided through the adoption of conditions of approval that require staff verification of limited information and/or minor modifications to the proposal as necessary to assure compliance with permitting criteria. That is why Condition No. 1 was imposed in this case. Condition No. 1 was imposed because the applicant failed to justify the proposed filling of wetlands under the City's reasonable use criteria. Under the city's critical area regulations, an encroachment into a wetland should arguably only be authorized as a measure of last resort where no other options for reasonable use of land are available. In this case it gppears that most, if not all, of the portion of the home encroaching into the home could be moved to the second floor of the home in lieu of the proposed vaulted ceilings. The wetland encroachment could potentially be further reduced by displacing the home further to the north into the stream buffer. The only justification provided in response to the examiner's repeated inquiries on this issue was that the applicants wished to avoid an odd shaped home and that they needed a rambler as they advanced in age (despite the fact that the home already has a second story). Neither of these reasons comes close to supporting a finding that the filling of a Class III wetland is necessary for reasonable use of the land. Although the applicants did not provide any adequate justification for the filling of a wetland, it is very possible that such justification exists. It is possible that further encroachment into the stream buffer would cause more environmental damage than avoiding wetland fill, or perhaps the displacement of living space to the second floor would make little difference because almost all of the proposed fill would still be needed for a safe driveway. There may well be other very good reasons for retaining the design "as is". Those reasons are just not evident in the record. The final decision on this case recognizes that staff may have already considered all of these factors and expressly states that no further inquiry or modification of the project is necessary if that is the case. As noted in the City's request for reconsideration, the delegation of some fact finding to the conditions of approval as contemplated in Condition No. 1 is problematical because the notice and appeal process for the staff s implementation of conditions of approval differs from that which applies to the original variance and reasonable use decisions. That argument is of limited persuasiveness because the implementation of any condition of approval requires some interpretation and fact finding by staff. The issue is ultimately a matter of degree, where a condition of approval could delegate so much decision making authority to staff that it violates code provisions that require the examiner rather than staff to make the final decision. For Condition No. 1 staff have essentially argued that they have been delegated too much decision making authority because the condition is not sufficiently specific. Order on Reconsideration p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0044 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Condition No. 1 is more specific than the reasonable use criteria that staff were comfortable in applying for their staff recommendation. Condition No. 1 also restricts the staff s decision making authority to moving the limited portion of the home located in the Class III wetland to the second story of the home or further northward. It is debatable whether or not the parameters of Condition No.I do in fact constitute an improper delegation of authority. If staff is correct in this position, there are three remaining options: (1) deny the application; (2) formulate a more specific condition that doesn't improperly delegate decision making authority; or (3) identify evidence in the record that supports a determination that the wetland should be filled as proposed. The consideration of new evidence as suggested by staff in their reconsideration request is not an option since that would violate the "no new evidence" rule. In regards to providing for a more specific condition, staff suggested in its reconsideration request that the examiner identify how much space should be displaced out of the wetland. This cannot be done without knowing the design options for the driveway, the impacts to the stream buffer and the amount of space available for development on the second floor of the home. Condition No. 2 — Stormwater Monitoring In their request for reconsideration, the City and applicants have made some compelling arguments for the elimination of the stormwater monitoring condition. The code basis for this monitoring condition are the reasonable use and variance criteria that require the minimization of impacts to surrounding properties and the public health, safety and welfare. The home, and hence its associated stormwater impacts, could not be built as proposed but -for the approval of the variance and reasonable use applications. The City has adopted extensive stormwater regulations that are usually found adequate to address stormwater impacts. However, in this case surrounding property owners have presented evidence that the stormwater issues in their vicinity are unique and severe. The proposal could exacerbate this situation by allowing the placement of a home in buffers and critical areas that are in part protected by the City's critical area regulations in order to prevent adverse stormwater impacts. The City's comprehensive plan recognizes this function by providing at p. 83 that "the natural drainage system (i.e. streams, ponds, and marshes) shall not be filled or permanently culverted except where no alternative exists."' The requirement of a monitoring plan to ensure that the City's stormwater regulations effectively addresses this fairly unique situation is an arguably reasonable means of ensuring that approval of the variance doesn't adversely affect the public or surrounding properties. Applicant's Presentation of New Evidence in Reconsideration Request In their reconsideration request the applicants submitted numerous comments that 1 Legal authority, such as City regulations, court opinions and adopted comprehensive plan policies, are not subject to the "no new evidence" rule. Examiners are allowed to take "judicial notice" of legal authority. Order on Reconsideration p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0045 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appear to contain information that was not submitted into the record. The applicants claim that this additional information was necessary in order to address documents that they did not have time to review at the hearing. However, the applicants did not object to entry of the documents into the record when they were admitted as exhibits nor did they request any additional time for review and comment prior to the close of the hearing. For these reasons, the applicants were given a fair opportunity to review all exhibits entered into the record and no additional evidence may be submitted subsequent to the close of the hearing. Any evidence submitted after the close of the hearing is barred from consideration. Investment Backed Expectations COL No. 10 of the final decision on this matter noted that the purchase price is irrelevant under the City's definition of reasonable use. For clarification, this conclusion was addressing the issue of whether a home should be considered a minimum reasonable use for the Hillman property. Under the City's reasonable use definition, the applicants are entitled to build a home on their property no matter how little they spent in purchasing the property. However, the purchase price is still a relevant consideration on the size of the home. "Investment backed expectations" (i.e. purchase price) is one factor considered in assessing reasonable use and takings and due process claims. See Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 330, 787 P.2d 907 (1990); Buechel v. D.D.E., 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994). The applicants may be at somewhat of a disadvantage in arguing that they are entitled to a home of comparable size to others in their neighborhood if they paid significantly less than their neighbors for their property because of the presence of wetlands and their sole reason for filling those wetlands is house size. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION A. All persons (including the applicants and the City) who have submitted written or oral comment on the above -captioned Hillman variance and reasonable use requests prior to the close of the hearing may provide a written response to the April 8, 2013 reconsideration requests from the City and applicants as well as this reconsideration order. Any such written responses are due by 5:00 pm, April 22, 2013 and should be received by Jen Machuga at the City of Edmonds. B. Comments may be submitted to Ms. Machuga by email at Jen.Machuga(ab,edmondswa.gov, or delivered or mailed to her at City of Edmonds, Planning Division, 121 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. C. No new evidence shall be allowed and all comments must be based upon evidence admitted into the record prior to the close of the hearing on March 15, 2013. D. If any public comments (i.e. not those from staff or the applicant) are received by March 15, 2013, the applicant and/or staff may reply to those comments by 5:00 pm, April 23, 2013. Order on Reconsideration p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0046 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E. Comments shall be limited to the reconsideration issues pertaining to Condition No. 1 (wetland filling) and Condition No. 2 (stormwater monitoring) of the final decision on this matter. F. In its reconsideration response due April 22, 2013, the applicants are also invited to identify the evidence in the record it used to make its comments in its April 8, 2013 reconsideration request. As previously noted, any information not taken from the record of this proceeding cannot be considered. Dated this 16th day of April, 2013. Ph, h_ oibrcci s Edmonds Hearing Examiner Order on Reconsideration p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0047 Machuga, Jen From: Lin Hillman <LinHillrnan@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:25 PM To: Machuga, Jen Cc: Tom Hillman Subject: Reconsideration of PLN2012033 Hearing Decision Attachments: RetractMemo041013.doc Hi Jen, Could you please include the attached as part of the record during this reconsideration period? Do I need to bring in a signed hard copy to the office or is this emailed one okay? Thanks, Lin Memorandum Date: April 10, 2013 Regarding: PLN20120033: Decision of March 28, 2013 and Reconsideration Request Dated April 8, 2013 Notice of Retraction To: Planning Director, City of Edmonds Requestors: Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants 15915 74th PI W, Edmonds WA 98026 (425) 745-4669 LinHillman@comcast.net Retraction of Portion of Request for Reconsideration We hereby retract the portion of the last sentence of item D regarding tree removal that included the names of two of our neighbors. We did not receive their permission to use their names and regret that we included them. Sincerely, Tom and Lin Hillman UT'' OF EDMONDS 121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 . Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION {hC. l89" Notoce of Requests for Reconsideration Date: April 9, 2013 To: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicant Parties of Record of File No. PLN20120033 Interested Parties of File No. PLN20120033 Subject: Requests for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Hillman Variance, File No. PLN20120033 Two requests for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding Tom and Lin Hillman's variance application for a new single-family residence at 1139 Sierra Place (File No. PLN20120033) were filed on April 8, 2013 pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.06.010. One request for reconsideration was made by the applicant and one request was made by the City. Both requests are enclosed with this notice. This notice of request for reconsideration is being sent to the Hearing Examiner, applicant, and parties of record of the subject application according to the requirements of ECDC 20.06.010.F. The notice is also being sent to interested parties of the subject application as a courtesy. Pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010.G.1, the time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all parties of record once the Hearing Examiner's decision on the requests for reconsideration is issued. Any questions may be directed to the Planning Division at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Jeri Machuga Associate Planner Enclosures: Request for Reconsideration by Tom and Lin Hillman, filed 4/8/13 Request for Reconsideration by City, filed 4/8/13 Cc: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Tom and Lin Hillman Ida Fernandez Cheri Zehner Adam and Emily Fountain Todd and Candy Brown Stephen Schroeder and Cheryl Beighle David Thorpe Katherine Ericson Alvin Rutledge 0050 IT M-n • • • - TU • •' - on Examiner Date: Regarding: To: 4�' PLN20120033: Decision of March 28, 2013 1V Planning Director, City of Edmonds Requestors: Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants 15915 741h PI W, Edmonds WA 98026 (425) 745-4669 LinHillman@comcast.net We ask that reconsideration include the following: 1. The opinion of wetland biologist Andrea Bachman of Wetland Resources, Inc. which was emailed to Jennifer Machuga of the Planning Department on Friday, April 5, 2013 in response to condition 1. We believe this addresses the issues and the condition should be removed. (Additionally we feel that the part of this condition that directs staff to "displace as much of the wetland encroachment into the second story of the proposed home and further northward into the buffer as much as reasonably possible" is both vague and unenforceable. It is not staff's role to perform redesign functions, nor to presume what level of reduced encroachment the hearing examiner would view to be reasonable.) 2. Revision of condition #2 to indicate a code source for the requiring of a stormwater monitoring program for a single-family residential project as well as a performance standard to which it should be held, or elimination of this condition. 3. Revision of condition #3 to limit city engineering staff's application of stormwater regulations to the appropriate code sections and city policies. Neighbors' unsubstantiated claims and letters describing their no -growth opinions and flooding fears are not enforceable review standards. 4. Removal of condition #8 requiring trash rack installation. Our proposing of - stream •-• was in direct response to Mr. Brown's previously stat-• concern• - culvert blockage • potential 0051 overflow, but we are willing to remove it from our plans should city engineering staff s review determine it is either unneeded or in any way detrimental to the flow of the stream. This should be determined during staff review subsequent to our building permit submittal. Mr. Brown's opinions that the proposed trash rack is both "unnecessary to keep the stream safe from flooding" (page 3) and "insufficient to prevent culvert obstructions" (page 4) are contradictory and not standards for review. During the hearing, documents were entered into the record which were not part of the packet of exhibits distributed prior to the hearing, and we had neither seen nor read until they were given to us at the hearing itself. We were not given sufficient time to prepare an adequate rebuttal to the points made in these documents written by the neighbors. Therefore we would like to make herewith the following points of clarification and rebuttal to the comments generated by the neighbors: A. Both Mr. Brown and Mr. Schroeder own properties that are upslope of the proposed project and would not receive runoff from our site. Mr. Hachler of the immediately neighboring 1111 Sierra Place directly to the west and downslope of the property has been very helpful and agreeable to our proposed development. He granted access to his property for our investigation of drainage issues and offered to provide any necessary easements at the appropriate time. B. The home video shown at the hearing showed rainwater flows northward along Olympic Avenue that were coming from the south, not from our property. Our lot does not drain to theirs. C. The existing culverts under the lane accessing neighboring properties to the north have invert elevations within 2-1/2 inches of each other. The northwest (streambed) one is at 208.87' and the southwest at 208.68', which led us to believe that runoff from our lot could drain either way. The most water we have observed at the southwest culvert's inlet over the 2 years we have owned the property is a small puddle. On the other hand, the northwest culvert in the streambed has always had an ongoing flow. We abandoned our idea of using the southwest culvert when we snaked a steel tape through it and found it dead -ended, and also discovered it was not included in the city's stormwater system map. The map showed the northern streambed stormwater path as well as a storm pipe line across the street in the neighbors' front yard under a rockery built over the city right-of- 0052 way. We decided the streambed discharge was less disruptive and more in keeping with the existing flow path. D. The location of our proposed residence requires tree removal of primarily older and smaller alders, many of which are leaning and pose falling hazards. The largest one we intend to take out is a 40-inch maple which is a stump. We have made continuing efforts to retain both the 42- inch cedar in the middle of the stream buffer as well as the 36-inch maple at the buffer's edge, keeping our building envelope as far out of the drip lines (canopies) of these trees as we could. The hearing examiner's suggestion of moving the house further northward into the stream buffer ignores these significant trees. Additionally, two of the neighbors (Fernandez and Ericson) have verbally expressed their agreement with our proposed tree removal. E. Our comparison of the building footprints and square footages of living spaces and garages of neighboring properties considered all of the lots immediately abutting ours. Our proposal showed a smaller size than all of them. The Mallot house across the street, and other homes further away were not included. We agree that the Mallot home is smaller than our proposal. However, including it in the analysis would still show that our proposal is smaller than the average of all the homes nearby, and therefore still reasonable. We do not claim, nor do we need to show, that we are proposing the smallest house in a 300-foot radius, nor in the R-12 zone. F. We wish to reiterate that we share the neighbors' concerns that drainage issues are a major priority for development in this area, and we have communicated this to them. We are prepared to continue our diligence in studying the issues, requirements and best available science and engineering practices to apply to this project. We believe the contents of this request to be true. Thank you for your reconsideration. Sincerely, Tom and Lin Hillman 0053 Fwd: Sierra Place property, Edmonds mailbox:///C:/Email/mail.comcast.net/Sent?number=528646... Subject: Fwd: Sierra Place property, Edmonds From: Lin Hillman <LinHillman @comcast.net> Date: 4/5/2013 8:50 AM To: "Machuga, Jen" <Jen.Mach uga@edmondswa.gov> CC: "Lambert, Jennifer" <jennifer.lam bert@ci.edmonds.wa.us> Hi Jen, Here's Andrea's opinion regarding the decision. Lin Original Message Subject:Sierra Place property, Edmonds Date:Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:19:40 -0700 From:Andrea Bachman <andrea@wetlandresources.com> To:Lin Hillman <LinHillman @comcast.net> Hi Lin, This is regarding the question of whether encroaching into the on -site Category III wetland causes significantly more damage to the wetland functions than building within its buffer. The buffer in consideration is the 25' wide upland area between the proposed house and the on -site Type Np stream. While this area is both a wetland and stream buffer, it was specifically retained for protection of the stream. In considering all ecological functions provided on this site, it is my opinion is that the current proposal is likely to be the least damaging alternative. On this particular site, buffers provide functions that are as important as wetland functions. If the house were constructed closer to the stream, it would be difficult to replace lost stream buffer functions, especially water quality and erosion control functions. Since the on -site slope wetland offers moderately low levels typical wetland functions, impacts to water quality improvement functions are expected to be minimal and can be easily mitigated through a proposed enhancement plan and stormwater plans. Potential impacts to mature evergreen trees should be considered as well. 1 ..4?7 A /n 1'1n90 4n.1^ AWN rwu: sierra riace property, numonus maiioox:///t.:/ nmau/ maii.comcast.net/3encrnumber=bzbb4b... There is a 42" western red cedar tree between the proposed house and stream that shall be retained by the current project proposal. This tree is of greater value than the immature red alder and mixed native and non-native shrub community within the wetland impact area. This mature cedar tree has potential to provide valuable habitat for a variety of small mammals and birds. It also provides stream bank protection and water temperature control functions. Constructing a new house any closer to the stream would certainly result in detrimental impacts to this tree. In the highly unlikely case that a "reasonable" development could actually achieve 100% avoidance of the on -site wetland, the result would still be zero buffers along the wetland and stream. Based on the conditions of this site, building closer to the stream to avoid wetland impacts would likely cause greater detrimental impacts to stream functions and values than the current proposal to impact the wetland. Sacrificing a small part of this on -site wetland to maintain an adequate stream buffer appears to be the best option for this site. I hope this helps. Please contact me if you have any other questions. Andrea Bachman Senior Wetland Ecologist Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Ave SE, Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 Phone: 425.337.3174 Fax: 425.337.3045 0055 2 of 2 4/A/9012 10-17 AM ;iT�tiT���7► r�7►1��' 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION `nc. I S9, April 8, 2013 Mr. Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner Sent via email and mail SUBJECT. Request for Reconsideration/Clarification of Hearing Examiner's Decision Hillman Variances - File No. PLN20120033 Dear Mr. Olbrechts, The City's Planning and Engineering Divisions are in receipt of the decision dated March 28, 2013 regarding Tom and Lin Hillman's requested setback variances and critical areas reasonable use variance for the construction of a new single-family home at the property addressed 1139 Sierra Place (File No. PLN20120033). Staff has reviewed the decision and is respectfully requesting reconsideration/clarification pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.06.010 related to the findings and conclusions of the decision, Conditions #1 and #2, and the City's appeal procedures. Pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010, parties of record may file a request for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision within 10 calendar days of the Hearing Examiner's written decision. Since 10 calendar days from the date of your decision (March 28, 2013) ended on a Sunday (April 7, 2013), ECDC 20.06.010.0 extends the deadline for requests for reconsideration to the next business day, which is today (April 8, 2013). The following includes a detailed explanation of staff s request for reconsideration/clarification as related to the findings and conclusions stated within the decision, Condition #1, Condition #2, and the City's appeal procedures: Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions The first paragraph in the introduction of the decision summarizes the requested setback and critical areas variances; however, a portion of the request was omitted from this description. The requested street setback variance is to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for placement of the residence and to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall. This is in addition to the requested side setback variance to reduce the side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall. Additionally, the introduction states that the reasonable use variance is approved for the encroachment within the wetland buffer, but it does not state whether it is also approved for encroachment within the stream buffer and within the wetland itself. Within the Findings of Fact (at the top of Page 9), the street setback variance request is stated as being a request to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 10 feet for the residence, but the request to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall is omitted. The applicant requested to reduce both the street and western side setbacks to 3 feet for the construction of retaining walls associated with the development. Additionally, within the description of the reasonable use variance request on Page 9 and throughout the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law sections of the decision, the request to reduce the stream buffer is not specifically addressed. Staff would like clarification and confirmation from the Hearing Examiner that the portions of the proposal not specifically discussed within the findings and conclusions of the decision (i.e. the reduced street setback to 3 feet for a retaining wall and the reduced stream buffer) have been approved as part of the decision. Condition #1 Staff is requesting reconsideration/clarification of Condition #1 of the decision, which reads as follows: "As discussed in FOF No. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified Wetland biologist, who can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether encroaching into the Category III wetland of the subject property causes significantly more damage to wetland functions than building within its buffer. If that is the case, staff shall displace as much of the wetland encroachment into the second story of the proposed home and further northward into the buffer as much as reasonably possible to reduce the encroachment into the wetland. The side yard variance granted by this decision may be extended further northward in order to accommodate any redesign of the proposal. Staff may waive the requirement for a redesign of the proposal if the environmental benefits of the redesign are nominal and the burden upon the applicant is substantial. " Staffs Response: In reviewing Condition #1, staff finds that this condition would be very difficult to administer, particularly because no quantitative measurement for compliance with this condition is provided. The condition states that staff may waive the requirement for a redesign if the environmental benefits of the redesign are nominal and the burden upon the applicant is substantial; however, this is not a quantifiable measurement. Additionally, displacing some of the wetland encroachment further northward would move the project further into an already reduced stream buffer. Staff needs a more quantifiable basis for implementing this condition, or possibly this issue needs to be remanded in order for the Hearing Examiner to take additional testimony in order to adequately determine if the proposal complies with all applicable criteria. Staffs decision on compliance with a condition such as Condition #1 would not be done until review of the building permit application, which does not have a public notice requirement. Additionally, building permits are only subject to LUPA appeal, while variances are appealable to the City Council. Since the allowed encroachment into the critical areas and associated buffers would not be determined until the building permit phase of the process, the neighbors would face different noticing and appeal processes during the building permit phase than they do now under the variance application review. Also, with no public notice requirements, interested parties may miss their appeal opportunity of the building permit. Possible Alternative Condition: If the Hearing Examiner finds that it is necessary for the applicant to reduce the encroachment into the wetland, staff suggests that Condition #1 be revised to provide a quantitative measurement for compliance. For example, the Hearing Examiner Page 2 of 5 0057 could specify the amount of square footage that must be displaced from the first floor to the second floor and/or the Hearing Examiner could specify a measurable area within the wetland that cannot be impacted by the development. Alternatively, the Hearing Examiner could remand this issue to take additional testimony in order to determine if the proposal complies with all applicable criteria. Condition #2 Staff is requesting reconsideration/clarification of Condition #2 of the decision, which reads as follows: "If no stormwater monitoring plan is required by the City's stormwater regulations, the applicant shall prepare a three stormwater monitoring plan that verifies that the stormwater system fully prevents any increase in stormwater discharges to neighboring properties. City staff shall require improvements to the stormwater system to the extent that the system fails to prevent increases in stormwater run-off to neighboring properties. The monitoring plan shall be subject to the approval of City engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposal. " Staff s Reading of Condition #2: The City's stormwater regulations do not require a stormwater monitoring plan. This being the case, the Hearing Examiner is requiring a stormwater monitoring plan (to be Approved by the Engineering Division) to verify that the proposed stormwater system fully prevents any increase in stormwater discharges to the neighboring properties compared to the pre -development condition. Further, the condition states that City staff shall require improvements to the stormwater system to the extent that the system fails to prevent increase in stormwater runoff to neighboring properties. This monitoring plan shall be in place for a three-year period. Staff s Response: Staff feels that implementation of this condition is not feasible due to the following: 1) The request to compare the amount of water leaving the site after development would imply that there is data available or easily attainable for the amount of water that leaves the pre - developed site. In order to determine if there is an increase in stormwater discharges from the subject property, there needs to be a baseline assessment of what the discharges are in the current pre -developed conditions. Obtaining this data is extraordinarily difficult and expensive given it is diffused flow off the wetland into the stream. 2) For a single-family residence with impervious surfaces between 2,000 square feet(sf) and 5,000 sf, a stormwater management system is required that meets the current City of Edmonds' stormwater regulations. The City's regulations attempt to match the post - development stormwater runoff rates from the property with the pre -development stormwater runoff rates from the property up to the 10-year, 24-hour storm event only.' Any larger event will result in more runoff than the pre -development flows. (Note that the City of Edmonds requirements in this regard are more stringent that the current Department of Ecology regulations.) 1 The event that has a 10% chance of being exceeded in any given year. Page 3 of 5 Possible Alternative Condition: If it is determined by the Hearing Examiner that the City's stormwater regulations are not stringent enough, then City staff requests that the Hearing Examiner consider conditions that are measurable and can be administered. An alternative condition to Condition #2 is to increase the design of the stormwater management system to a larger storm event, such as a 25-year, 50-year or 100-year, 24 hour event. This will require the applicant to provide more on -site storage of stormwater flows from the developed property prior to discharging to the stream. Appeal Procedures When issuing the decision on the subject request for reconsideration, staff asks that the Hearing Examiner provide clarification on the City's appeal procedures. On Page 12 of the decision, ECDC 20.85.020 is referenced, which states that the Hearing Examiner shall review variances as Type III -A decisions. Additionally, ECDC 23.40.210.0 states that the Hearing Examiner shall also review critical areas variance application as Type III -A decisions. These two code sections, however, are in conflict with the permit type and decision framework of ECDC 20.01.003, which lists variances as Type III-B decisions. This conflict was missed during an update to the ECDC; however, it was the intention that variances would be reviewed as Type III-B decisions, which are appealable to the City Council. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.000.13, the provisions of this title supersede all other procedural requirements that may exist in other sections of the city code. Therefore, whenever there is a conflict between the text of the ECDC related to the decision type and the table of ECDC 20.01.003.A, the table prevails. As such, the Hearing Examiner's decision on the setback variances and critical areas reasonable use variance is a Type III-B decision. When issuing the decision on the subject reconsideration request, please clarify that the decision is subject to the appeal procedures applicable to Type III-B decisions (appealable to the City Council) so that all parties of record are clear on the appropriate appeal measures. I have reviewed this request for reconsideration with the Planning and Engineering Divisions and believe the content of this request to be true and accurate. City staff respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider/clarify the findings and conclusions of the decision on the Hillman variance request in addition to Conditions #1 and #2 and add clarification of the City's appeal procedures. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions on the City's request for reconsideration, please contact me at Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov or (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Jennifer Machuga Associate Planner CC: File No. PLN20120033 City of Edmonds Tom and Lin Hillman Ida Fernandez Planning & Engineering Divisions 15915 — 74th Pl. W 1133 Sierra Pl. 121 — 5th Ave. S Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 4 of 5 Cheri Zehner Adam and Emily Fountain Todd and Candy Brown 1027 Carol Way 602 — 12th Ave. N 1135 Sierra Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Stephen Schroeder & Cheryl Beighle 1142 Vista Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 Alvin Rutledge 7101 Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds, WA 98026 David Thorpe 21117 Shell Valley Rd. Edmonds, WA 98026 Katherine Ericson P.O. Box 757 Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 5 of 5 I'7c. 1890 JNV CITY OF EDMONDS .'le DAVE EARLING MAYOR 121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • fax (42771-02210,1,? www.edmondswa.gov N ,3 HEARING EXAMINER BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EIDP�Ii ONIDS Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Tom and Lin Hillman 7�7�7 ��p �v CONCLUSIONS }�� FINDINGS 011` FACT, CONCLIUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION PLN20120033 INTRODUCTION The applicants are requesting a street setback variance, a side yard variance and a critical areas reasonable use variance request to construct a single-family home at 1139 Sierra Place. The setback variances are necessary to provide separation from an on -site wetland and the reasonable use variance is necessary because it is not possible to build a single-family home on the subject lot without encroaching into the wetland buffer. In the street setback variance request, the applicants seek to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for placement of the residence. In the side yard variance request, the applicants seek to reduce a side yard setback from 10 to 3 feet for placement of a retaining wall. The reasonable use variance involves a request to building within the wetland buffer as well as the wetland itself. The setback variances are approved. The reasonable use variance is approved for the encroachment within the wetland buffer. The conditions of approval require further staff investigation for authorization of the encroachment into the wetland itself. There is insufficient evidence in the record to determine if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachments as required by the variance criteria. Direct encroachment into a wetland, as opposed to its buffers, potentially involves a significant impairment of wetland functions. Further information is needed to determine whether the direct encroachment of this proposal should or can be avoided. At the hearing and in the written comments there were numerous concerns raised by neighbors about stormwater impacts. There is no question that the vicinity of the project has some major stormwater problems. However, the City's regulations prohibit any increases in stormwater discharge to neighboring properties and no evidence was presented that these regulations would not adequately protect the neighbors. In order to ensure that the stormwater regulations do in fact prevent any increase in stormwater discharge, the conditions of approval require a three year Incorporatedotlu au� 11, 1890 • Sister Citv - Hekinan .Tanan 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 monitoring plan. The neighbors also raised several technical stormwater design issues that are pertinent to engineering review of the building permit application. The conditions of review require City engineering staff to consider those comments in their review of stormwater design. Staff Presentation Ms. Jennifer Machuga, associate planner, stated the site is at 1139 Sierra Place. The site is currently a vacant lot in a single-family residential RS 12 zone, and the property owners Tom and Lin Hillman are proposing to construct a new single-family residence on the site. As seen in the attachments in the staff report, development of the site is very limited by the existing critical areas on the property. There is a category three wetland across the middle of the property, and the minimum required fifty -foot wetland buffers cover the majority of the project site. There is also a non -fish bearing type NE stream on the northern side of the site, and the minimum required fifty -foot stream buffer overlaps the wetland buffers. There is also an erosion hazard area located on the eastern portion of the site. Due to the location of these critical areas throughout much of the site, development of the site is really impossible without some impact to these critical areas and their buffers. Ms. Machuga said the city code has a provision for when a site is so encumbered by critical areas and their associated buffers that it is not possible to develop the site in such a way that it complies with the city critical area codes. This provision, the Critical Areas Reasonable Use Variance, allows for exceptions to the requirements to the critical areas code in order to allow the development of the site in such a way that has the least possible impact on the critical areas while still allowing the applicant reasonable use of that property. The applicants, the Hillmans, are requesting Critical Areas Reasonable Use Variance because they feel that the strict application of the critical area codes would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. The applicant is also requesting a Setback Variance to reduce the minimum required street setback from twenty-five feet to twelve feet for the residents and to reduce that street setback to three feet for retaining wall. They have also proposed to reduce the minimum required western side setback from ten feet to three feet for retaining wall while the house would comply with the side setback requirements. These proposals have been consolidated onto one application and are being reviewed as a Type 3B decision. Ms. Machuga testified that the applicant has provided project plans, a wetland report, and a geotechnical report, all of which are included as attachments to the staff report. There was a previous critical areas variance that was approved on this site for the previous owner, and that variance authorized the home to be constructed on the eastern side of the site, allowing the road to cut through the wetland area. It was found, however, that locating the house on the western side of the site had less impact on the critical areas than going with what was previously approved. Therefore, the proposed Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0062 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 residence would be in the south west side of the site. The proposed building on the site would be 2,174 square feet and would include a 570 square feet garage, almost 1,600 square feet living space on the first floor, and a little over 1,000 square feet living space on the second floor. In order for the Setback Variance to be approved, the Hearing Examiner must find that all six required criteria in ECDC 20.85.010 are met. These criteria include that the site must have special circumstances that would deprive the owner of use lights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity, that the approval of the variance would not grant a special privilege, that the approval of the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the zoning ordinance, that the variance would not be significantly detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare, and that the variance is the minimum necessary to allow the property owner rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. This is discussed in detail in the staff report. Ms. Machuga stated that the request for this setback variance appears to be consistent with the required criteria, because the purpose of the requested setback variances is to pull the house further to the south-western corner of the site for minimal impact on the critical areas. The size of the proposed house appears consistent with the size of the neighbouring houses. The requested variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan and with zoning ordinances. It does not appear that reducing the setbacks for construction of the home would be detrimental, and it appears that these are the minimum variances necessary to construct a home comparable to other homes in the neighbourhood. For the Critical Areas variance to be approved, the Hearing Examiner must find that the proposal is consistent with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.210 A2 and B. These criteria include that the application of the critical areas regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, that no other reasonable economic use of the property would have less impact on the critical areas, that the proposed impact on the critical areas is the minimum necessary, that there are special conditions on the property, that the inability to derive reasonable economic use from the property is not the fault of the applicant, that the variance would not grant the applicant any special privilege, that the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, and welfare, that the proposal minimizes net loss of critical areas function and volume, that the proposal is consistent with all other applicable regulations and standards, and that the approval is based on best available science. The staff report goes into detail analysing these required criteria and determined they are met. The site has special circumstances due to the location of the critical areas, and the presence of these critical areas is not due to any actions of the property owner. The size of the proposed home is consistent with the size of the neighbouring homes, thus the allowing the variance would not be granting a special privilege, and the mitigation plan detailed in the wetland report is based on the best available science and includes measures to enhance the wetland, the stream, and the buffer areas. Ms. Machuga noted that on February 26, 2013 the city issued a determination of non - significance concerning the storm water system, and the period for comments and appeals ended on March 12, 2013. No appeals were received. The city provided public notice consistent with the requirements for ECDC 20.03, and they received a few Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0063 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 public comments. One major concern brought up in the comments dealt with drainage. The engineering division found that the proposed project is compliant with the wetland report, but they will conduct a full review of the storm water system during the building permit application review. The attachments from the staff report and the staff report itself were entered as exhibits. A letter from the PUD was entered as an exhibit. The city received a few comments, including (1) an e-mail from Mr. David Thorpe dated March 11, 2013, (2) a letter from Mr. Todd Brown dated March 12, 2013, and (3) an e-mail from Kevin Fagerstrom, dated March 11, 2013. These were entered as exhibits in addition to an e- mail from Robert Chave dated March 12, 2013. Ms. Machuga stated that the applicant could address whether they considered putting more living space on the second floor and over the garage to avoid further encouragement on the critical areas. There is a twelve foot distance from the street in order to leave enough space for the detention room, but the applicant might better address that question. Applicants Ms. Lin Hillman explained that they originally wanted to build a one-story house, but they had several discussions with the city and with neighbours and decided to have a second floor in order to shrink the footprint. The storm drainage pipe is two feet and requires five feet on either side, which is why they needed twelve feet between the house and the sheet; they tried to place the storm drainage pipe as far from the stream as possible. There is evidence of the previous owner degrading the critical area, and nobody seems concerned with caring for the critical space, but her family hopes to improve the existing condition and to put a fence around the remaining wetland to prevent pickup trucks from backing in to dump debris. Ms. Hillman said that they have talked to several neighbours about the issues, and the primary concern seems to be drainage. In the past, during high rainfall events, the culvert pipes have become clogged, and the city public works people had to come to dig out the sediment, rocks, etc. inside it. Their surveyor suggested that their proposal for the property include a plan to add a metal grid from preventing large debris from getting into the pipes, which would mitigate the clogging problem. The Department of Fish and Wildlife liked the idea. She also sent applications for approval to the Department of Ecology and the Army Corp of Engineers. Public Comments Mr. Todd Brown, who lives at 1135 Sierra Place up the access lane, said that the variances are concerning to the neighbourhood because, one, he thinks factual inaccuracies and strategic omissions in the planning documents; two, the applicants have failed to get written permission from the adjacent property owners, which the city requires; three, he thinks there are insufficient mitigation measures; and, four, he Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0064 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thinks that there are alternative interpretations of the city code regarding the best use of the property. He said correct drainage was the most important issue. The stream is prone to flooding, and the proposed plan increases the risk that flooding poses to access to the lane, to the house at 1111 Sierra Place to the west, and to other properties downstream. There could potentially be risk to the city from flood damage. Both culverts are technically private, and the city has not yet obtained written permission from the property owners at 1111 Sierra Place for this project. Mr. Brown said the code requires the approach that least impacts wetlands and most closely mimics natural water flow, but the aerial photos provided in the staff report to indicate water flow direction are factually incorrect. Additionally, he said that attachment ten is incorrect in stating that the wetland on the 1111 property is charged solely from its own springs and stream. He also wanted to dispute the claims that the southwest culvert was not viable. He himself has seen water flowing in and out, and he thinks they must have been digging in to the wrong spot when looking for the output. The culvert has never really been backed up. On top of that, he thinks a trash rack would be ineffective in preventing a blockage due to the soil types in the area. The review of neighbourhood homes strategically omitted the nearest home at 1130 Sierra Place directly across from the property. His house is 2,050 square feet, including the basement, but is on a 1,400 square foot plot, which means a smaller house is possible. There are other reasonable uses for the property, too, such as putting a small wood shop. Mr. Brown also cites esoteric reasons, considering this is the last undeveloped wetland on Olympic Avenue. Habit construction would permanently change the wildlife, and cutting down the trees in the area is inconsistent with the Edmonds personality. Mr. Brown said he and his wife have seven at least sixty different bud species on the site as well as a beaver. Mr. Brown added that he thought it would be a shame for the variances to be approved simply because a lot of time has been put into the project, and how the cheap price at which the land was purchased is evidence that this property is not meant for a project like the proposed. Mr. Steve Schroder, 1142 Vista Place, showed an aerial photograph in which you could see the proposed property in relation to his house as well as to where Mr. Brown lives. He said he is opposed to the development, because he believes there are simply pieces of land in Edmonds that are not suitable for development. The area for the proposed project is a wonderful oasis that should not be disturbed. He said that the adjacent lots were sold for around half a million dollars, but this property was purchased for only $75,000. Additionally, the development would actually encroach on the wetlands, never mind the buffer. He said that the $5,200 proposed for plans to mitigate the encroachment is hardly sufficient. He questioned why the codes make exceptions for areas that supposedly deny all reasonable economic use, because those areas ought to be preserved as they are. The reduction of the street setback from twenty-five to twelve is an example of how the variances ought to be applied, but that is the only proper application of the variances. Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0065 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Ina Fernandez said that she has lived in the area for thirty-five years, and she is concerned about the water flooding across the street to the mailboxes, which has happened in the past. She opposes the proposed plan as too dangerous with concern to flooding. Ms. Sherry Zinner, who lives at 1027 Carol Way, showed a video that she took of the area during a rainfall in December. She said that this reveals the large volume of water that comes down from the property at 1139 Sierra Place. This water was not being caught by the storm water system. She said that she consulted Mike Johnson at Storm Water Management about an ankle-deep stream that has started to form in her backyard during the heavy rain season for the last few years. He made the determination that this was not a problem for which the city is responsible; it is a private civil matter dealing with private properties. She said she is concerned, therefore, with how the proposed development project will actually handle the drainage risks. The last few development projects on wetland areas are what caused the current flooding in her backyard. Trying to redirect the storm water flow, which the proposed development will do, poses an unpredictable risk, and she does not want an experiment that might adversely affect her private property to be under the control of private property owners rather than of the city. The storm water flow is already overwhelming, and she does not want to risk an increase in flow. Mr. David Thorpe, who lives at 2117 Shell Valley Road, said he was concerned particularly with the reduction of the critical areas buffer from fifty to zero. Additionally, he pointed out that there are slope issues; they are less than forty percent but should be considered nonetheless. He said that in Shell Valley the citizens encouraged the city to build an emergency access road that cut through the wetland, and this development destroyed the wetland. The wildlife has disappeared. He said he does not want to deny people to build, or to use their property, but wetlands are rare in the city, and every remaining wetland ought to be preserved. Ms. Katherine Erikson, who lives at 615 Twelfth Avenue North, which is upside the Sierra Place property, said that she cannot speak to issues surrounding drainage, but she wanted to address one concern the Hillmans raised. She personally has witnessed the dumping on the property that Ms. Hillman mentioned, and she agrees that someone, either the government or a private property owner, ought to address that issue. The property needs someone to look after it. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Jennifer Lambert, engineering technician for the city, stated that the city is very much aware of the storm water concerns. In regards to the drainage plans, at this phase, they are looking simply at whether it is feasible to put in a drainage system that meets the current city storm water requirements. According to the wetland resources person, the natural drainage flow eventually goes into the stream, thus using the south- west culvert for overflow makes the proposed drainage plan feasible. The trash rack Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0066 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was supposed to be an added protective matter; the city does, in fact, maintain that culvert. Ms. Lambert said the written approval from 1111 Sierra Place to use the south-west culvert is required only if wetland resources showed that the water was naturally draining there and the applicant wanted to install some sort of storm water system that used the culvert. But at this time, that usage of the south-west culvert is to mimic existing conditions, thus at this time nothing is changing, therefore written permission is not required. Answering a question from the Hearing Examiner, she said that a development with over 2,000 square feet is required to install some sort of storm water management system. The Heating Examiner also asked whether encroaching on the wetlands would impair the storm water functions of the wetland, and Ms. Lamburgh referred to the Wetland Resources consultant. Ms. Andrea Bachman, the senior ecologist at Wetland Resources, said the wetland was classified as a slope wetland, a kind that is generally less functional in retaining water than a flatter wetland. In fact, the proposed development will encroach on the area in the wetland that is least useful in retaining storm water. The Hearing Examiner asked her why she thought they could not move more living space to the second floor to minimize encroachment, but she could not speak to that. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Lin Hillman testified that the issue of the wetland mitigation plan only calling for $5,000 worth of plants was only the initial mitigation. She said the report also calls for annual monitoring and continued mitigation as necessary. She said the property was originally listed for $150,000, and the price they paid for it had a lot to do with their negotiations with her bank. Her family thought they could do a good job maintaining the property, which has been severely neglected. They see themselves as custodians of the wetland rather than as developers of the property. Ms. Hillman said the standard to which their development being held is reasonable. The standard does not say you have to avoid building in a critical area or together, or you have to build the smallest house possible in a box shape; the neighbouring houses are not held to that standard, and neither are they. The storm drainage maps from the city indicate that there are two options for sending storm water. One is the stream, which is what they have chosen to do. The other is a storm line that is across the street. If they ran a pipe from their property over to the line, the pipe would be running uphill, and tapping into the line further down the street would be extremely disruptive. The neighbours have suggested they use the southern culvert pipe, but that is not in the city's storm map, which is why she does not think using that pipe for anything other than overflow is appropriate. Their storm drainage mitigation plans would turn a flood into a trickle and would meet the requirement for storm water retention. The city mandates concerning growth management would support three houses on this property, thus the one small house they plan to build meets the balance between Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0067 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 growth and preservation that is required. Additionally, Edmonds does not have in place a way to address the upkeep of a wetland on a larger scale. The state says that larger wetland preservation is best, but their recommendations are for a one hundred feet buffer that, if drawn around this stream, would touch neighbouring houses that have been built. Mr. Tom Hillman added that they are allowed reasonable use of their property, thus they should have the ability to make their house the size they want within reason. They are looking to make a reasonably sized house with as minor a footprint as possible. EXHIBITS All 27 attachments listed on page 19 of the staff report were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 1-27. At hearing on March 15, 2013 the following exhibits were also admitted: Exhibit 28 the staff report Exhibit 29 letter from the PUD Exhibit 30 e-mail from Mr. David Thorpe dated March 11, 2013 Exhibit 31 letter from Mr. Todd Brown dated March 12, 2013 Exhibit 32 e-mail from Kevin Fagerstrom, dated March 11, 2013 Exhibit 33 e-mail from Robert Shave dated March 12, 2013 Exhibit 34 an aerial photograph from Mr. Steve Schroder Exhibit 35 an aerial map from Ms. Sherry Zinner Exhibit 36 the letter from Ms. Sherry Zinner FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: l . Applicant. The applicants are Tom and Lin Hillman. 2. Hearing. A hearing was held at 3 :00 pm on March 15, 2013 at the Edmonds City Council meeting chambers. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicants are requesting a street setback variance, a side yard variance and a critical areas reasonable use variance request to construct a single-family home at 1139 Sierra Place. The proposed residence contains a total living area of 2,623 square feet, with a footprint of 2,174 square feet. The subject lot is 0.93 acres in size. The purpose of the setback variances is to locate the residence and associated improvements further out of the critical areas and buffers than what otherwise might Variance p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0068 Pa 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be possible. In the street setback variance request, the applicants seek to reduce the street setback from 25 feet required by ECDC 16.20.030 for the RS zone to 12 feet for placement of the residence. In the side yard variance request, the applicants seek to reduce a side yard setback from 10 feet required by ECDC 16.20.030 for the RS 12 zone to 3 feet for placement of a retaining wall. The applicants cannot build a single-family home on their properly without approval of a reasonable use variance. A Category 3 wetland and its associated buffer cover approximately the western two-thirds of the site and extend off -site to the north and the south. The only part of the property not encumbered by the wetland or its buffer is the eastern third of the property, which could only be accessed by a driveway built through the wetland and buffers. A Type Np non -fish bearing stream is located on the northern side of the western approximate half of the site. Additionally, an erosion hazard area is located on the eastern side of the site with enough of a slope to make development of the eastern portion of the site challenging. In the reasonable use variance request, the applicants seek to construct their proposed home within the 50 foot buffer of a Category III wetland imposed by ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(c) in addition to construction within the wetland itself, which is prohibited by ECDC 23.50.040(B). The Category III wetland is about a half -acre in size. The total area of permanent wetland impact will be 1,790 square feet while the total area of permanent buffer impact will be 3,920 square feet. A consolidated application for a critical areas reasonable use variance and rear setback variance was submitted by prior owners of the property, Darryl and Shari Lewis, under File No. PLN20040008 (the site was referred to at that time as 1142 Sierra Place). For the Lewis application, the residence was proposed to be located on the eastern portion of the property with an access driveway running generally along the southern side of the site, going through a portion of the wetland. The project site plan from the Lewis variance application is included for reference as Attachment 14. Additionally, a table comparing the critical areas impacts of the subject application to the Lewis variance prepared by the applicant is included within Table 2 of the "Critical Areas Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8). A building permit application was submitted under File No. BLD20080237 for the single-family residence approved under the Lewis variance application (File No. PLN20040008). That building permit application expired, and a second building permit application was submitted under File No. BLD20100196. That building permit application also expired and was never issued. The Hillmans purchased the property in April of 2011 (according to Snohomish County Assessor's records), and came up with a new design and location for the proposed residence on the southwestern portion of the subject site in an attempt to take the existing critical areas and topographical constraints better into account. The Hillmans submitted a consolidated application for the requested street and side setback variance and critical areas reasonable use variance on August, 1, 2012. Variance P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0069 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject site is located within a single- family residential neighborhood in Edmonds. The site is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the area and is completely surrounded by parcels that are currently developed with single-family residences. 5. Adverse Impacts. With the extensive mitigation required by the conditions of approval, there are no adverse impacts associated with the requested variances. Impacts are more specifically addressed below. A. Stormwater Impacts. One of the two impacts of greatest concern is stormwater impacts. Neighboring property owners provided compelling information on significant flooding problems in the vicinity of the project. However, the proposed home has been placed in an area designed to minimize disruption of on -site drainage patterns and the City's stormwater regulations will ensure that there are no off -site impacts. The conditions of approval will also require a three year monitoring program to ensure that implementation of these regulations successfully prevents any off -site impacts. The location of the home is optimized to minimize stormwater impacts. The existing drainage on the site consists of a southeasterly to northeasterly flow pattern, following a downslope gradient from the high point of the property to the lowest elevation of the stream bed in its northwestern corner. The proposed single-family home for the property is located in the southwest corner of the site, where it will not interfere with the natural flow pattern of the upslope portions of the lot; the bulk of the site will remain undisturbed and continue to drain towards the stream in the present manner. Part of the home will encroach into a wetland and it is recognized that an important wetland function is to retain stormwater, which helps prevent flooding. However, the wetland report notes that the on -site wetland has a severely limited potential to provide flood control functions because of its lack of depressional features and lack of ability to become ponded. The minor encroachment into the wetland should not have any significant impact on the limited flood storage capacity of the wetland. As confirmed by City engineering staff during the hearing, the City's stormwater regulations require a stormwater system that will retain pre -development stormwater volumes, velocities and discharge locations. Consequently, if the regulations satisfy their objectives there should be no stormwater impacts to adjoining properties. However, it is unclear if the City's stormwater regulations require any monitoring to ensure that these objectives have in fact been met over the long term. If monitoring is not required by the City's regulations, the significant stormwater problems in the area compel such monitoring for this project. Monitoring will be required as a condition of approval. Engineering staff will also be directed to consider the stormwater issues raised by Todd Brown in Ex. 31 and the stormwater comments summarized in the testimony of this decision when reviewing stormwater design at the building permit stage of review for the project. Variance P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0070 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1A B. Wetland Impacts. The second major impact of concern is the impacts to wetlands. The proposal will not adversely affect wetlands. The wetland report concludes at p. 8 that "the proposed development is expected to reduce the level of existing functions on the site somewhat". In order to mitigate for the wetland encroachment, the applicant proposes to enhance 15,560 square feet of the wetland, for an 8:1 ratio. The applicant also proposes to enhance 2,410 square feet of buffer in the northwestern corner of the property for a 0.5:1 ratio. With this mitigation, the wetland report concludes that there will be no net loss of wetland function. The report was prepared by Andrea Bachman, a senior wetland ecologist working for Wetland Resources, Inc. The City's regulations require that wetland reports be either prepared by a qualified professional who is either a City selected wetlands consultant operating under a three party agreement between the applicant, city and consultant, or that the consultant's work be subject to peer review. See ECDC 23.40.090. Given the qualifications of the wetlands consultant, the safe -guards for objective review and the absence of any evidence supporting contrary determinations, it is determined that there will be no net loss of wetland function. C. Setback Variance Impacts. There are no adverse impacts discernible from the record that would result from the requested street and side yard variances. The staff report notes that "due to the topography of the surrounding area, it does not appear that the proposed residence would significantly impact existing views of Puget Sound." Despite heavy opposition from neighboring property owners, no one has raised any concern about potential view impacts and there is nothing in the record to suggest that would be a problem. Given these facts, it is determined that the proposal will not create any adverse view impacts. The side yard setback will not noticeably diminish the passage of light and air, as the eastern half of the property adjoining to the west is undeveloped and encumbered by a wetland. City staff have also not raised any concerns over site distance impacts or other traffic issues with the street setback variance request. 6. Minimum Variance. The most challenging issue for this proposal is whether the request constitutes the minimum necessary to grant relief from the City's critical area regulations. It appears that encroachments into the wetland could be entirely avoided by moving living space to the second floor of the home and reducing the yard area supported by retaining walls. The conditions of approval will require that staff investigate further reducing the encroachment by moving the proposed living space to the second floor and/or extending the home fiuher north within the buffer. As noted in the staff report, the proposed living area of 2,623 square feet appears to be average, if not smaller than those of existing residences within the vicinity, as demonstrated by the sizes of other homes in the area tabulated by the applicant in Table 3 of Ex. 8. As identified by comments from Todd and Candy Brown, Ex. 23, one outlier not identified in Table 3 is the Mallot home, located across the street with living space of 2,063 square feet. Variance P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If only a buffer encroachment were proposed, as opposed to encroachment into the wetland itself, the size of the proposed home would clearly be considered a minimum variance request given the larger sizes of surrounding homes. However, a significant complicating factor in this application is that it appears that the encroachment into the wetland itself could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space. The only reasons for not fully using second floor living space presented by the applicant were that they have a preference for first floor living space as they grow older and they want to avoid a boxy appearance for their home. The author of the wetland report, Andrea Bachman, was not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. These are not sufficient reasons to justify an encroachment into wetlands. The concern over encroachment into wetlands is premised upon the understanding that encroaching into a wetland can cause significantly greater harm than limiting encroachments to buffer areas. The primary function of a wetland buffer would appear to be protection of a wetland from adjoining development, although it is recognized that a buffer has its own significance in the provision of habitat that is unique to wetland boundaries. Although a priority for building within buffers over within wetlands themselves is a reasonable inference to make, this priority is not expressly imposed in the City's wetland regulations and there is no scientific evidence in the record to support this priority. Consequently, the conditions of approval will require the wetland consultant to address whether developing in the buffer would create significantly more damage to wetland functions than limiting development to the wetland buffer by displacing living space to the second story of the home or extending the home further north within the buffer. The examiner recognizes that it is likely that staff has thoroughly considered the need to encroach into the wetland and has determined that the proposed encroachment results in the least overall impacts to the wetland while accommodating the right of the applicant to reasonable use. Unfortunately, this aspect of the staffs analysis did not make it into the record and the direct encroachment into a wetland is too serious an issue to authorize on the presumption that other options have been fully assessed. If staff has already in fact compared the impacts of building more in the second story of the home or further northward into the buffer in lieu of encroaching into the wetland, no further work on the condition imposed by the preceding paragraph is necessary. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.85.020 provides the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications as Type III - A. Variance p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0072 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Substantive: 2. Zoning Designations. The area is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS- 12). 3. Review Criteria and Application. Variances to street and side yard setback requirements are set by ECDC 20.85.010, quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Variances to critical area wetland buffers are governed by ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2) and 23.40.210(B). Applicable criteria are quoted in italics below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. ECDC 20.85.010.A(l) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; 4. The criterion is met for the street and side yard variances because the objective of the variances is to displace the footprint of the single-family home as far as possible from the Category III wetland and its buffers, which is solely attributable to the critical areas on the property. ECDC 20.85.010(B) — Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; 5. As noted in the staff report, similar setback variances have been approved for a couple other homes in the vicinity of the project in order to enable the construction of a single-family home within a critical area. In a broader sense, setback variances would likely be granted to anyone seeking to build a single-family Variance p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0073 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 home in the RS district vicinity if it would reduce otherwise unavoidable wetland impacts. ECDC 20.85.101(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; 6. The requested setback variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan for the reasons outlined at p. 8 and Section VII of the staff report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which ; the property is located; 7. A single-family home is a permitted primary use in the RS-12 district. Approval of the variance would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the RS-12 district. ECDC 20.85.010(E) — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the properly or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Consequently the criterion is met. ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 9. As discussed in FOF No. 3, the purpose of the variance is to maximize the distance of the proposal from the Category III wetland and so should be considered the minimum necessary to enjoy the same development rights as others in the vicinity with the same zoning. The size of the home, which is referenced in the staff report under the analysis of the criterion quoted above, is irrelevant since any reduction in building size would not result in any reduction of the setback encroachment. Any reduction in home size should be used to increase the separation from the wetland. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(a): The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; "Reasonable economic use(s)" is defined pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320 as follows: "The minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Reasonable economic use " shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one Variance p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0074 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 single-family residential structure. Determination of "reasonable economic use" shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site. " 10. Application of the critical areas ordinance would deny the applicants minimum reasonable use of their property if not variance is granted. A minimum reasonable use of the subject property is a single family home. The definition of reasonable use quoted above makes it clear that minimum reasonable use is a single-family home for a lot that meets all bulk requirements, such as minimum lot size, setbacks, and lot width. The purchase price is irrelevant under this definition. Were it not for the critical areas at the project site, the subject lot is easily large enough to accommodate a single-family home that satisfies all minimum bulk requirements. No single family home could be built upon the subject property without encroaching into a critical area or a critical area buffer. The only options for the applicants are to either build the home into the wetland buffer and potentially the wetland itself as currently proposed, or to build a driveway through the wetland and its buffer as proposed in the previously approved variance. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(b): No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; 11. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 11, a single-family home is defined as a minimum reasonable use for the subject property. As a minimum reasonable use, no other type of reasonable use could be required for the property unless it allowed for a greater economic return on the property. As outlined in ECDC 16.20.010, more intense uses allowed for the subject property include uses such as churches and schools. None of these types of uses could be construed as creating less impact to critical areas. If the "other" reasonable use referenced in the criterion above encompasses different project design as opposed to different types of uses, then as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 there is an open question as to whether impacts could be further reduced by building upwards into the second floor as opposed to outward into the wetland. Project design appears to be more directly addressed in the next criterion and at any rate project design is addressed in the conditions of approval to ensure that the design minimizes impacts to the wetland. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(c): The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; 12. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 and Conclusion of Law No. 11, there is an open question as to whether the home has been designed to minimize impacts to the on -site wetland. The conditions of approval require further staff investigation and redesign of the project to the extent necessary to mitigate project impacts. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(d): The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; 13. The use limitations of the property are all directly attributable to the on -site critical areas and not to any actions by the applicant. However, the applicant's need for first floor living space due to advancing age is personally attributable to the applicants and cannot serve as justification for the currently proposed house design. Variance p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0075 2 3 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(e): The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 14. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal and, therefore, the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(f): The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and 15. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(B), the proposal will not create any net loss of critical area functions and values. This determination was based upon the study of a qualified wetland biologist, who in turn based her mitigation and assessment upon several scientific studies identified at P. 19 of her report. The scientific studies and the opinions and analysis of the wetland biologist qualify as best available science as defined in ECDC 23.40.310 because the biologist is professionally trained and works for a reputable company selected by the City and the studies she relied upon have been prepared by state and federal agencies such as the Washington State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(g): Pie proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 16. The applicant has sought and is being granted variance requests to street and side yard setback requirements that the proposal will not meet. Compliance with all other applicable regulations and standards will be assessed and enforced during building permit review. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(1): Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 17. As testified by several neighbors, the subject property is unique in its abundance of critical areas. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(2): The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 18. See COL No. 13. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(3): A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; Variance p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0076 0a M 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19. See COL No. 10. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(4): Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 20. The applicants simply seek to build a reasonably sized single-family home on a lot large enough for that purpose. That is a right enjoyed by all other property owners in the vicinity and is not a request for a special privilege. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(5): The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 21. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal and it will not create any net loss in wetland function while also providing for reasonable use of the property. Given these factors the property the granting of the variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the critical areas ordinance and is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(6): The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. 22. As noted in COL No. 15, the granting of the variance is based upon best available science and as noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, there is no fish habitat associated with the proposal. DECISION The street, side yard and critical area reasonable use variance requests are approved, subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. As discussed in FOF No. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified wetland biologist, who can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether encroaching into the Category III wetland of the subject property causes significantly more damage to wetland functions than building within its buffer. If that is the case, staff shall displace as much of the wetland encroachment into the second story of the proposed home and further northward into the buffer as much as reasonably possible to reduce the encroachment into the wetland. The side yard variance and associated wetland buffer variance granted by this decision may be extended further northward in order to accommodate any redesign of the proposal. Staff may waive the requirement for a redesign of the proposal if the environmental Variance p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0077 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 benefits of the redesign are nominal and the burden upon the applicant is substantial. 2. If no stormwater monitoring plan is required by the City's stormwater regulations, the applicant shall prepare a three stormwater monitoring plan that verifies that the stormwater system fully prevents any increase in stormwater discharges to neighboring properties. City staff shall require improvements to the stormwater system to the extent that the system fails to prevent increases in stormwater run-off to neighboring properties. The monitoring plan shall be subject to the approval of City engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposal. 3. City engineering staff shall consider the stormwater comments of Todd Brown in Ex. 31 and the stormwater concerns summarized in the testimony section of this decision when reviewing and applying the City's stormwater regulations. 4. The applicant must obtain a building permit and all other required local, state, and federal permits prior to commencing work on the subject site. 5. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. The applicant must show full compliance with all applicable regulations and standards that are not part of the approved variance at the time of building permit application review. 6. The applicant shall complete mitigation as detailed in the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" dated November 27, 2012 by Wetland Resources, Inc. (Attachment 8). 7. The existing man-made trench located along the west property line shall remain in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water event. In addition, the subject proposal shall not inhibit the usage of the existing southwestern storm drainage culvert. 8. During the building permit process, the applicant will be required to show the installation of a trash rack at the northwestern stream inlet and secure all applicable permits for all work within the stream and associated buffer. The applicant will also be required to revise the storm easement such that the easement encompasses the creek. 9. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Dated this 28th day of March, 2013. Phil A. Olbrechts Edmonds Hearing Examiner Variance p. 18 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0078 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices This decision is final and only subject to appeal to superior court as governed by Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeal deadlines are short (21 days from issuance of the decision) and the courts strictly apply the procedural requirements for filing an appeal. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Variance P. 19 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 0079 March 14, 2013 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM OR TO BE NOTIFIED OF FUTURE HEARINGS ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. FILE NO.: PLN20120033 HILLMAN (;DID Fr I ��l IL --z 11 :5�5 c �' �b 9- b t LtCL� kid Lu Ct�b 617Gi1 fii LH �/rvtUxL� !� l� /SZler ,i16JS� u13 Lt I�Cs1.�1e u� It) C. 18c)0 CITY OF EDMONDS DAVEEARLING MAYOR 121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Hillman Single -Family Residential Development Setback Variance and Critical Area Reasonable Use Variance File Number: PLN20120033 Date of Report: March 7, 2013 From: nnifer Machuga, Associate Planner Public Hearing: March 14, 2013 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION...................................................................................2 11. GENERAL INFORMATION....................................................................................................2 III. APPLICATION MATERIALS.................................................................................................3 IV. HISTORY/BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................3 V. CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION.................................................................................4 VI. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION...............................................................................5 VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN......................................................................................................5 VIII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS..............................................................................6 IX. SETBACK VARIANCE ANALYSIS.......................................................................................6 X. CRITICAL AREA REASONABLE USE VARIANCE ANALYSIS .......................................8 XI. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE............................................................................15 XII. PUBLIC NOTICE...................................................................................................................15 XIII. CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................17 XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................17 XV. EXPIRATION.........................................................................................................................18 XVI. APPEALS.................:..............................................................................................................18 XVII. PARTIES OF RECORD..........................................................................................................18 XVIII. ATTACHMENTS....................................................................................................................19 • Incor porat6d 1st 11, 1890 • Exhibit 1 — Page 1 of 19 Sister City-+Re�g inan, Japan Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The owners of the property addressed 1139 Sierra Place, Tom and Lin Hillman, are proposing to construct a new single-family residence at the subject site, which is currently a vacant lot. The subject site is located within the Single -Family Residential, RS-12, zone. Due to the presence of various critical areas and associated critical area buffers throughout the majority of the site, the site has major development limitations. As a result, the applicants are applying for a Setback Variance and a Critical Area Reasonable Use Variance in order to construct a home on the southwestern portion of the site. The requested Setback Variance is to reduce the minimum required street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for the residence and 3 feet for a retaining wall, and to reduce the minimum required western side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall. A Category 3 wetland and its associated buffer cover approximately the western two-thirds of the site. A Type Np stream is located on the northern side of the western approximate half of the site. Additionally, an erosion hazard area is located on the eastern side of the site with enough of a slope to make development of the eastern portion of the site challenging. As such, the applicants are requesting a Critical Areas Reasonable Use Variance because the strict application of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. Given that the two variance applications are intricately intertwined, both requests have been consolidated into a single development project pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.13 and are being reviewed concurrently under File No. PLN20120033. The following is staff s analysis of the project. IL GENERAL INFORMATION A. Request: The applicants are requesting two variances: 1. A setback variance to reduce the minimum required street setback applicable to the RS-12 zone from 25 feet to 12 feet for the house and to 3 feet for a retaining wall and to reduce the minimum required western side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall. 2. A critical area reasonable use variance to allow construction of the residence within a portion of an existing wetland and within the minimum required buffers from the wetland and stream. B. Review Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003, requests for variances are reviewed as Type III-B decisions, where the Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final decision. C. Major Issues: 1. Compliance with ECDC 16.20 (Single -Family Residential Zones). 2. Compliance with ECDC 20.85 (Variances). 3. Compliance with ECDC 23.40 (Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions). 4. Compliance with ECDC 23.50 (Wetlands) 5. Compliance with ECDC 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas) 6. Compliance with ECDC 23.90 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) 0082 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 2 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 D. Owner/Applicant: Tom and Lin Hillman E. Tax Parcel Number: 00548900002215 F. Location: 1139 Sierra Place G. Zoning: Single -Family Residential (RS-12) (Attachment 1). H. Lot Size: 0.93 acre / 40,510.8 square feet. I. Access: Access to the site is available directly off of Sierra Place. J. Existing Use: Vacant property. K. Proposed Use: Single-family residence. III. APPLICATION MATERIALS The land use application is included as Attachment 2. Portions of the applicant's original proposal submitted on August 1, 2012 were revised during review of the application in response to staff s requests for additional information. In order to provide a clear record of the applicant's current proposal, the previous versions of the project plans and reports that were replaced by the applicant with revised versions have been excluded from this staff report. The applicant provided a cover letter on February 15, 2013 describing the variance request and compliance with applicable code requirements (Attachment 3). The project plans (site plan, floor plans, and building elevations) are included as Attachment 4, preliminary civil plans are included as Attachment 5, and a partial topography survey is included as Attachment 6. Additionally, the applicant submitted reports by professionals addressing the on -site critical areas, including a "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Study" by Earth Solutions NW, LLC dated July 16, 2012 (Attachment 7) and a "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" dated November 27, 2012 by Wetland Resources, Inc. (Attachment 8). During review of the application, staff sent the applicant a few requests for additional information (Attachment 20). The applicant submitted responses to those requests on August 28, 2012 (Attachment 9), January 18, 2013 (Attachment 10), and February 15, 2013 (Attachment 11). One of the applicant's resubmittals included a proposal to direct all stormwater to an existing culvert at the southwestern corner of the site. As part of that proposal, the applicant wrote and submitted a letter on October 2, 2012 (Attachment 12) and also provided a letter by Wetland Resources, Inc. dated October 10, 2012 (Attachment 13). The proposal has since been changed so that the stormwater is directly discharged to the stream, and the aforementioned letters are included for reference only. Pursuant to ECDC 20.02.002, the subject application became procedurally complete on August 29, 2012. IV. HISTORYBACKGROUND A consolidated application for a critical areas reasonable use variance and rear setback variance was submitted by prior owners of the property, Darryl and Shari Lewis, under File No. PLN20040008 (the site was referred to at that time as 1142 Sierra Place). For the Lewis application, the residence was proposed to be located on the eastern portion of the property 0083 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 3 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 with an access driveway running generally along the southern side of the site, going through a portion of the wetland. The project site plan from the Lewis variance application is included for reference as Attachment 14. Additionally, a table comparing the critical areas impacts of the subject application to the Lewis variance prepared by the applicant is included within Table 2 of the "Critical Areas Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8). A building permit application was submitted under File No. BLD20080237 for the single- family residence approved under the Lewis variance application (File No. PLN20040008). That building permit application expired, and a second building permit application was submitted under File No. BLD20100196. That building permit application also expired and was never issued. The Hillmans purchased the property in April of 2011 (according to Snohomish County Assessor's records), and came up with a new design and location for the proposed residence on the southwestern portion of the subject site in an attempt to take the existing critical areas and topographical constraints better into account. The Hillmans submitted a consolidated application for the requested street and side setback variance and critical areas reasonable use variance on August, 1, 2012. V. CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION A critical area review of this site was conducted on April 2, 1993 under File No. CRA19930057. A conditional waiver was granted at that time; however, upon further reconnaissance of the property on July 13, 2001, it was determined that the property potentially contained a number of critical areas and further studies were required. Potential critical areas identified on the site included geologically hazardous areas (landslide and erosion hazard areas), a stream, and a wetland. A three -party contract was entered between the city and a previous property owner for analysis of the stream and wetland, and a topography survey was also analyzed by staff. It was determined on October 29, 2003 that the slope was not steep enough to qualify as a landslide hazard area, but that it did qualify as an erosion hazard area. Refer to Attachment 15 for the critical areas checklist and staff s original and revised determinations. As part of the submittal for the subject application a "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC and dated July 16, 2012 was provided (Attachment 7). This study confirmed that the overall slope across the site is less than 40% and does not qualify as a landslide hazard area; however, the slope was confirmed to exceed 15%, which qualifies it as an erosion hazard area. The report concluded that the proposed development activity can occur on the western portion of the site without additional setback or buffer requirements from the erosion hazard area. A "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" dated November 27, 2012 and prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. was submitted by the applicant on January 18, 2013 (Attachment 8). It should be noted that this report is a revised version of the July 18, 2012 report that was initially submitted with the application. The November 27, 2012 report finds that the western approximate two-thirds of the subject site contains a Category 3 wetland, which extends off - site to the north and south. This wetland is stated as functioning hydrogeomorphically as a slope wetland that primarily receives hydrology from groundwater seeps and drainage from upslope properties. The report also finds that this wetland supports a Type Np stream (perennial, non-fishbearing), which flows from the wetland in multiple small channels that coalesce into one stream channel towards the northern side of the western portion of the site. Refer to the map prepared by Wetland Resources (included with the report in Attachment 8) 0084 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 4 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 and the project plans (Attachment 4) for a depiction of the locations of the existing wetland and stream as well as their associated buffers. The subject proposal includes a request for a critical areas variance in order to construct the residence and associated improvements within a portion of the wetland as well as within the standard required stream and wetland buffers. Refer to Section X of this report for a detailed review of the requested critical areas variance and review of the proposal's compliance with the applicable critical areas regulations of ECDC 23.40 through 23.90. VI. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Construction of a single-family residence is a minor new construction project exempt from SEPA review pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(b), except when undertaken wholly or partly on lands covered by water. The subject proposal, however, includes direct discharge of a stormwater outfall pipe into the stream. Therefore, this project is not exempt from SEPA review because a portion of the project is on "lands covered by water." The applicant submitted an environmental checklist on February 15, 2013 (Attachment 16). A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on February 26, 2013 with concurrent comment and appeal periods running through March 12, 2013 (Attachment 17). To date, no comments related to the SEPA DNS nor appeals of the SEPA DNS have been received. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Single Family — Resource." The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has a vision for residential development, and has developed a number of goals and policies to achieve this vision. The applicable excerpts are shown below: Residential Development (2012 Comprehensive Plan, pages 71-73) 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 to all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, 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 views of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. B. 6 Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of the slope, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. The proposed single-family residential development is consistent with the "Single Family — Resource" designation for the site. Additionally, the proposed residence is compatible in style with the existing residences in the neighborhood. The portion of the site where the house is proposed to be located is heavily vegetated and contains several trees. Although neighboring properties have been enjoying views of the existing vegetation on the subject site itself, it does not appear that construction of the proposed home would block any existing views of Puget Sound due to the uphill slope on the eastern portion of the site. The proposal takes the environmental constraints of the property into account by locating the residence on 0085 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 5 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 the southwestern portion of the site, as far out of the critical areas and associated buffers as possible. As such, the proposal is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan related to residential development. VIIL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The subject site is located within a single-family residential neighborhood in Edmonds. The site is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the area and is completely surrounded by parcels that are currently developed with single-family residences. The site and surrounding properties are located within the Single -Family Residential, RS-12, zone (Attachment 1). IX. SETBACK VARIANCE ANALYSIS ECDC 20.85 states that a variance to any requirement of the zoning ordinance (ECDC Titles 16 and 17) except use and procedural requirements may be approved when the findings required within ECDC 20.85 can be made. This chapter sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the findings that must be made in order for an application for a variance to be approved. According to the aforementioned code section, "No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. " The findings are as follows: Q Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; 1 Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as ofpublic structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats; 1 Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with, the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; Q Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; Q Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; Q Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; Q Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; 0086 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 6 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 Q Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. ECDC 16.20.030 requires the following setbacks for properties located within the RS-12 zone: 25-foot street setback, 10-foot side setback, and 25-foot rear setback. The applicant, however, is requesting a reduction in the minimum required street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for the residence and to 3 feet for a retaining wall, and a reduction in the minimum required western side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall. The purpose of the requested street and side setback variance is in order to construct the proposed residence and associated retaining walls as close as possible to the southwestern corner of the site in order to minimize impacts to the on -site critical areas and associated buffers. The applicant has submitted a criteria statement explaining how they feel the proposed street and side setback variance request complies with the applicable code requirements (Attachment 3). Additionally, the applicant has submitted a site plan, floor plans, and building elevation views for reference (Attachment 4). The following is staff s analysis of the proposal's compliance with the variance criteria: 1. Special Circumstances — The subject site is approximately 0.93 acre in size, which is much larger than the minimum 12,000 square foot lot size applicable to the RS-12 zone. However, development of the site is significantly encumbered by the presence of critical areas on the site, including a stream, wetland, and erosion hazard area. According to the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. dated November 27, 2012, 2012 (Attachment 8), the western approximate two-thirds of the site contains a Category 3 wetland. The site is further constrained by a stream running along the northern side of the site and a slope on the eastern side of the site. Refer to the critical area map included as part of the mitigation plan in Attachment 8 for a depiction of how constrained the site is by the existing stream, wetland and associated buffers. These critical areas and associated buffers are a special circumstance, which is not the result of any action by the current or past owners of the property. Applying the minimum required setbacks applicable to the RS-12 zone to the subject site, particularly the 25-foot street setback, would substantially increase the development impact by pushing a potential home further into the stream and wetland buffers and even further into the wetland itself. Although the applicant could construct a home in a location that complies with all minimum setbacks applicable to the RS-12 zone, this would have a larger impact on the critical areas on the site, which goes against the purpose of the critical areas regulations to provide the best possible protection of existing critical areas. 2. Special Privilege — Refer to Attachment 4 for proposed floor plans. The house is proposed to have a footprint of 2,174 square feet, which is to be comprised of a 1,596 first floor and a 578 square foot garage with a 1,027 square foot second floor above. The applicant prepared a comparison table of the sizes of neighboring properties in order to depict that the footprint and total living space of the proposed residence is smaller than that of several neighboring homes (refer to Table 3 of Attachment 8). The size of the proposed residence appears to be consistent in size with other single-family residences within the vicinity. Additionally, not only was a critical areas variance and setback variance approved in the past (Lewis, File No. PLN20040008) for a larger residence on the subject site (refer to Attachment 14 for a site plan), but a critical areas variance was also approved in 1999 (Viking Properties, File No. PLN199900136) for a home with a 2,565 square foot footprint at the adjacent property to the west of the subject site (refer to Attachment 18 for a site plan). Therefore, approval of the requested variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. 0087 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 7 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 3. Comprehensive Plan — Refer to Section VII of this report for a discussion on consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Single Family — Resource." The requested variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy that new residential development must be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation, and drainage. By reducing the street and western side setbacks for the construction of the residence and retaining walls as requested, the applicant is able to locate the residence and associated improvements further out of the critical areas and buffers than what otherwise might be possible. Thus, this proposal is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Zoning Ordinance — The subject site is located within the Single -Family Residential, RS-12, zone. A single-family residence is a permitted primary use within the RS-12 zone. The proposed residence is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. Apart from the requested street and side setback variances, the proposal is consistent with the development standards of the RS-12 zone. 5. Not Detrimental — As discussed above, the purpose of the requested street and side setback variances is to minimize impact to the existing critical areas on the site. Additionally, due to the topography of the surrounding area, it does not appear that the proposed residence would significantly impact existing views of Puget Sound. The proposed residence should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. 6. Minimum Variance — The proposed residence contains a total living area of 2,623 square feet, with a footprint of 2,174 square feet, which appears to be average, if not smaller than those of existing residences within the vicinity (refer to Table 3 of Attachment 8). The existing on -site critical areas and associated buffers substantially limit the development potential of the site, and the purpose of the requested street and side setback variance is to minimize disturbance of these critical areas and associated buffers. Given the special circumstances of the site, the comparison of the proposed residence to the sizes of those in the neighborhood, and documentation within the critical areas reports, the requested street and side setback variances appear to be the minimum necessary to allow the construction of a single-family residence on the subject site. X. CRITICAL AREA REASONABLE USE VARIANCE ANALYSIS Refer to Section V of this report for a description of the critical areas present on/adjacent to the subject site. The site contains a geologically hazardous area (erosion hazard area), stream, wetland, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. These critical areas are regulated within the City's critical areas code requirements of ECDC Chapters 23.40, 23.50, 23.80, and 23.90. As part of the subject proposal, the applicants are requesting a critical areas reasonable use variance because they feel that strict application of the City's critical area regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. ECDC 23.40.210.A.2 states that variances from the standards of the critical areas code may be authorized through the process of Hearing Examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in ECDC 20.85 if the applicant can demonstrate that the strict application of the critical areas code would deny all reasonable economic use of the subject property. 0088 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 8 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 "Reasonable economic use(s)" is defined pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320 as follows: "The minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Reasonable economic use " shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure. Determination of "reasonable economic use " shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site. " Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.210.A.2, in order for a variance for a reasonable use exception to be authorized, the applicant must demonstrate the following: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. ECDC 23.40.210.13 further states that a critical area variance may only be granted if it is found that the proposal conforms to all of the following criteria: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; S. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 0089 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 9 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. The applicant's variance request cover letter (Attachment 3) and the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) contain statements addressing how the applicant feels that the proposal complies with the criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.A.2 for a Reasonable Use Variance and the Specific Variance Criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.13, all of which are listed above. Staff s analysis of the proposal's compliance with these criteria follows in Sections X.A and X.B. A. Compliance with Reasonable Use Variance criteria of ECDC 23.40.210.A.2: a. Deny all reasonable use: As described in the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) and depicted within the project plans (Attachment 4), almost the entire site is covered by the wetland, stream, and/or their associated buffers. If the applicant were to construct a residence on the easternmost portion of the site outside of the wetland buffer, a significant amount of the wetland and buffer would still need to be impacted in order to provide access to a residence on the eastern portion of the site. As a result, the strict application of the critical area code would deny all reasonable economic use of the subject property. b. No other reasonable use: It does not appear that any other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the City's Comprehensive Plan would have less impact on the on -site critical areas and their associated buffers. c. Minimum necessary: The proposed residence contains a total living area of 2,623 square feet, with a footprint of 2,174 square feet, which appears to be average, if not smaller than those of existing residences within the vicinity according to the documentation provided within Table 3 of Attachment 8. The existing on -site critical areas and associated buffers substantially limit the development potential of the site. Given the special circumstances of the site, the comparison of the residence to the sizes of those in the neighborhood, and documentation within the critical areas reports, the requested critical areas variance appears to be the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable economic use of the subject site. d. Actions by applicant: The existing critical areas located on/adjacent to the site are naturally occurring and are not the result of any actions taken by the current or prior property owners. As such, the inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant nor their predecessors. e. No unreasonable threat to public: The purpose of the mitigation plan (Attachment 8) is to replace and improve the functions and values of the impacted on -site critical areas and associated buffers to the greatest extent possible. The stormwater system must comply with applicable stormwater requirements. As such, the hydrology of the site should not be significantly altered and water quality should not be impaired as a result of the proposed development. The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public. f. Minimize net loss of critical area functions and values: The applicant is proposing to construct a home with a structural footprint of 2,174 square feet. The applicant is proposing to mitigate impacts by enhancing the remaining portion of the on -site wetland as well as the stream and wetland buffers with trees and shrubs as described 0090 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 10 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 in the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8). These actions will help to minimize the net loss of critical area functions and values. The applicant is also trying to further minimize impact through the requested street and side setback variances, which will assist in locating the proposed residence as close as possible to the southwestern corner of the site, further out of the critical areas and associated buffers. g. Consistency with other regulations: Apart from the critical area regulations and the requested setback variance, the proposal appears to be consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. The applicant must show full compliance with all applicable regulations and standards that are not part of the subject variance request at the time of building permit application review. Based on the above review, it appears that the proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.A.2 for a critical areas reasonable use variance. B. Compliance with Specific Variance Criteria of ECDC 23.40.210.B: 1. Special conditions/circumstances: Development of the site is significantly encumbered by the presence of critical areas on the site, including a stream, wetland, and erosion hazard area. According to the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8), the western approximate two-thirds of the site contains a Category 3 wetland. The site is further constrained by a stream running along the northern side of the site and a slope on the eastern side of the site. These critical areas and associated buffers are a special circumstance. 2. Special circumstances not result of applicant actions: The on -site critical areas are naturally occurring, and are not the result of any action by the current or prior owners of the property. 3. Deny all reasonable use and minimum necessary: As discussed above, nearly the entire site is constrained by the stream, wetland, and their associated buffers. Additionally, the eastern portion of the site contains an erosion hazard area. Constructing a residence on the easternmost portion of the site outside of the stream and wetland buffers would still require significant impact to the wetland and the stream and wetland buffers in order to construct access to this portion of the site. As a result, the strict application of the critical area code would deny all reasonable economic use of the subject property. 4. Not a special privilege: The house is proposed to have a footprint of 2,174 square feet, which is to be comprised of a 1,596 first floor and a 578 square foot garage with a 1,027 square foot second floor above (Attachment 4). Refer to Table 3 of Attachment 8 for a comparison table of the sizes of neighboring residences. The proposed residence appears to be consistent in size with other single-family residences within the project vicinity. Additionally, not only was a critical areas variance and setback variance approved in the past (Lewis, File No. PLN20040008) for a larger residence on the subject site (refer to Attachment 14 for a site plan), but a critical areas variance was also approved in 1999 (Viking Properties, File No. PLN199900136) for a home with a 2,565 square foot footprint at the adjacent property to the west of the subject site (refer to Attachment 18 for a site plan). The proposed residence is consistent with other residential development in the area and the granting of the critical area reasonable use variance would not constitute a special privilege. 0091 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 11 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 5. Consistent with this title and not detrimental: Refer to the rest of Section X of this report for discussion on the proposal's compliance with applicable provisions of the critical areas code. The granting of a reasonable use variance for the construction of a single-family residence under the specific circumstances surrounding this site is consistent with the City of Edmonds critical area ordinance. The proposed action will impact the on -site Category 3 wetland; however, this wetland currently provides a low level of functions and values according to the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8). While the proposal will result in the loss of a portion of this low -quality wetland, the proposed mitigation of the wetland and stream and wetland buffers strives to improve the water quality and wildlife habitat functions and values provided on the subject site. The proposed mitigation will also. increase the diversity of species on the site, minimize invasive species, and provide a source of cover as well as forage opportunities for birds and small mammals. Due to the slope of the land on the eastern side of the site, it is not anticipated that the proposed residence will block views of surrounding properties. The proposed residence should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property nor improvements in the vicinity. . 6. Based on best available science and special consideration for anadromous fish: The applicant has applied the mitigation sequencing described ECDC 23.40.120 and provided a justification of the proposed mitigation plan based on best available science. The on -site stream is not fish bearing. As such, special consideration for anadromous fish bearing streams is not applicable to the subject proposal. Based on the above review, it appears that the proposal is consistent with the specific variance criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.B. C. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 23.40 — Environmental Critical Areas General Provisions In addition to the analysis of the applicable critical areas reasonable use variance review criteria of ECDC 23.40.210 provided in Sections X.A. and X.B above, the following general critical areas regulations are also applicable to the subject proposal. 1. ECDC 23.40.110 and 23.40.120 — Mitigation requirements and sequencing: The "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) provides a detailed analysis of the mitigation sequencing conducted for the proposal. As discussed above, development of the subject site is significantly impacted by the presence of critical areas and associated buffers throughout the majority of the site, and impact to the existing critical areas and buffers is unavoidable with development of the site. However, the proposed mitigation plan strives to replace and improve the functions and values of the impacted critical areas and buffers. 2. ECDC 23.40.160 — Review criteria: The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with the mitigation requirements and sequencing discussed above. Additionally, the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) provides for mitigation of the impacted wetland and stream and wetland buffers. The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with all applicable critical areas requirements as discussed throughout this section of the report. 3. ECDC 23.40.250 — Critical areas markers and signs: This provision allows the director to require the outer edge of a critical area or buffer be delineated with wood fencing and signage. The applicant has indicated that such fencing will be provided 0092 EXHIBIT 1 —Page 12 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 along the retaining wall surrounding the eastern and northern sides of the development. This will help to ensure protection of the critical areas in the future, particularly if ownership of the subject site changes. 4. ECDC 23.40.280 — Building setbacks: Unless otherwise provided, buildings and structures must be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. The requested critical areas variance requires the residence to be constructed within a portion of the existing wetland as well as within the minimum required stream and wetland buffers. As such, an exception to the critical areas building setback requirement is also necessary. The applicant's cover letter (Attachment 3) requests a 5-foot critical area setback from the wetland edge and a 3-foot critical area setback from the edge of the proposed 25-foot stream buffer; however, the proposal includes a retaining wall located within the wetland itself and at the edge of the proposed 25- foot stream buffer. As part of the critical areas variance approval, the requirement for a critical area building setback should be eliminated due to the need to locate a retaining wall in these locations. Since critical areas buffers provide better protection of critical areas than critical area building setbacks do, it makes sense to keep the buffers as large as possible and eliminate the requirement for a critical area building setback. 5. ECDC 23.40.290 — Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring: The applicant will be required to post a bond at the time of final building permit inspection in order to ensure maintenance and monitoring of the required mitigation plantings. The "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) provides for a three-year monitoring program. D. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 23.50 — Wetlands ECDC 23.50.040 — Development standards — Wetlands: The "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) identifies the on -site wetland as a Category 3 wetland. ECDC 23.50.040.F establishes a standard buffer width of 50 feet for Category 3 wetlands. As depicted on the project plans (Attachment 4), the wetland and its associated buffer cover all but the easternmost portion of the site. Additionally, access to the easternmost portion of the site is impossible without going through the wetland and buffer. As such, development of the site in such a way that provides for the standard 50-foot wetland buffer is impossible. In fact, it would be incredibly difficult to develop the site in such a way that would not include a portion of the residence to be located within the wetland itself, particularly when taking the location of the stream into account as well. Therefore, the applicant has requested the subject critical areas variance to not only allow development within the standard wetland buffer, but also within a portion of the wetland itself. 2. ECDC 23.50.050 — Mitigation requirements — Wetlands: The "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) provides an analysis of the proposal's compliance with mitigation sequencing requirements. ECDC 23.50.050.F.1.c requires a two -to -one ratio for creation or in -kind restoration of an impacted Category 3 wetland; however, ECDC 23.50.050.G.2, requires acreage for enhancement to at a minimum be double the acreage required under subjection F of this section. For the subject proposal, 1,790 square feet of wetland is proposed to be impacted. Therefore, enhancement is required at a minimum four -to -one ratio, for a minimum wetland buffer enhancement area of 7,160 square feet. The mitigation plan, however, 0093 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 13 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 specifies a total enhancement area of 15,560 square feet, which well exceeds the minimum requirements of 7,160 square feet of enhancement area. The mitigation plan also proposes to mitigate for the 3,920 square feet of impacted wetland buffer with 2,410 square feet of buffer enhancement area. E. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 23.80 — Geologically Hazardous Areas 1. ECDC 23.80.050 — Special study and report requirements — Geologically hazardous areas: Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, detailed critical areas report requirements may be waived for erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability. Report requirements for stable erosion hazard areas may be met through construction documents that shall include at a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the requirements of ECDC 18.30. As part of the submittal for the subject application, a "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC and dated July 16, 2012 was provided (Attachment 7). This study confirmed that the overall slope across the site is less than 40% and does not qualify as a landslide hazard area; however, the slope was confirmed to exceed 15%, which qualifies it as an erosion hazard area. The report concluded that the proposed development activity can occur on the western portion of the site without additional setback or buffer requirements from the erosion hazard area. The applicant will be required to show compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements of ECDC 18.30 as part of the building permit application review process. Additionally, the Engineering Division will perform an inspection at the time of construction in order to verify that the erosion control measures are adequately in place. F. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 23.90 — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 1. ECDC 23.90.030 — Development standards — General habitats: The on -site stream is a Type Np stream, which is not fish bearing. The "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) specifies that wildlife habitat functions would be greatly improved by the proposed mitigation measures, and that the proposed mitigation will increase habitat diversity, which is important for different wildlife species to thrive in the area. The applicant is also proposing fencing along the retaining walls surrounding the eastern and northern sides of the project area, which will help to delineate areas of habitat conservation. 2. ECDC 23.90.040.13 — Development standards — Streams: The "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) identifies the on -site stream as Type Np (perennial nonfish habitat stream). ECDC 23.90.040.D.1 establishes a standard buffer width of 50 feet for Type Np streams. However, if the applicant were to provide a 50-foot stream buffer, this would push the residence further east into the Category 3 wetland. Thus, as part of the requested critical area variance, a balance is needed between potential impacts to the stream and potential impacts to the wetland. The applicant has proposed reducing the stream buffer to 25-feet, while allowing for a stormwater outfall pipe to be located within this buffer in order to directly discharge into the stream. The critical areas code does not specify a minimum ratio of stream buffer enhancement when reducing the buffer below the standard 50-foot buffer required for a Type Np stream and for a stormwater outfall pipe directly discharging into the stream. In the case of the subject lot, the entire area of proposed reduced stream buffer entirely overlaps the wetland and/or wetland buffer. As such, 0094 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 14 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 mitigation associated with the impacted wetland and wetland buffer will also mitigate for the impacted stream buffer. The applicant's proposal to provide mitigation at a ratio that is twice the minimum required for the portion of the wetland that is to be disturbed helps to compensate for this overlap in stream and wetland buffers. XI. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 as well as the City's Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Building Division and Engineering Division. The reviewers from Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, the Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department, and Building Division commented that the proposal would not affect their departments (Attachment 19). The Engineering Division provided initial comments in the form of a memorandum dated August 16, 2012, and then provided review comments as part of Planning Division staff s October 23, 2012 and February 1, 2013 requests for additional information (Attachment 20). Following the applicant's February 15, 2013 resubmittal, the Engineering Division provided a memorandum dated March 7, 2013 approving the requested variance with conditions (Attachment 21). The Engineering Division's conditions have been added to the recommended conditions of approval. XII. PUBLIC NOTICE ECDC 20.03 provides the City's regulations for public notice of land use applications. A "Notice of Application" and vicinity map were posted at the subject site as well as at the Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, and Library on September 12, 2012. This notice and map were also mailed to residents within 300 feet of the subject site using a mailing list provided by the applicant. A legal notice was published in the Herald Newspaper on September 12, 2012. A "Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination" and vicinity map were posted at the subject site as well as at the Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, and Library on February 26, 2013. This notice and map were also mailed together with the SEPA DNS to residents within 300 feet of the subject site and parties of record on February 26, 2013. A legal notice of the SEPA DNS was published in the Herald Newspaper on February 26, 2013, and a legal notice of the public hearing was published in the Herald Newspaper on February 28, 2013. Copies of the noticing materials including the public notices, declarations of mailing with the adjacent property owners' list provided by the applicant, declarations of posting, and affidavits of publication are included as Attachment 22. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03. To date, six public comment letters/emails on the proposal have been received, and one USB drive with video footage has also been received. The following is a summary of the public comments received to date and staff s response to the comments. Todd and Candy Brown sent an email on September 12, 2012 and submitted a letter on September 26, 2012 (Attachement 23). Mr. and Mrs. Brown addressed concerns related to stormwater flows, particularly during overflow events when the culvert at the northwestern side of the site is obstructed and water flows along their access road to a culvert at the southwestern corner of the site. The Browns are concerned that the proposed development will increase the potential for overflow events and potential flooding and erosion of their 0095 EXHIBIT 1 —Page 15 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 private access road adjacent to the western side of the site. Mr. and Mrs. Brown also addressed concerns related to the proposed wetland and buffer enhancement. The Browns commented that they feel that it would be possible for the applicant to construct a smaller - sized home and that there are other economic uses of the land. Adam and Emily Fountain sent an email on September 13, 2012 stating that they support the proposal because they feel that the removal of some of the existing trees from the subject site may improve views for homeowners living on 121h Avenue North (Attachement 24). Ida Fernandez submitted a letter on October 12, 2012 (Attachment 25) stating that she supports the comments submitted by Todd and Candy Brown, which are summarized above. Stephen Schroeder and Cheryl Beighle submitted a letter on October 12, 2012 (Attachment 26). Mr. Schroeder and Ms. Beighle commented that they are opposed to the requested variance because they feel that the proposal would seriously degrade the on -site wetland, and they are concerned over the extent of the requested buffer reduction. Additionally, Mr. Schroeder and Ms. Beighle addressed concerns over the applicant's proposal to direct stormwater towards the stream, which could increase the potential for obstruction, overflow, and erosion. They also commented that the footprint of the proposed residence is equivalent to that of a 4,000 square foot house due to the limited living space proposed for the second floor. Mr. Schroeder and Ms. Beighle state that the proposal is not a reasonable economic use of the land. Cheri Zehner submitted a letter with photographs on November 2, 2012 (Attachment 27) and also submitted a USB drive with video footage on December 21, 2012 (the video footage is available upon request). Ms. Zehner is opposed to the proposal. She addressed concerns over not receiving notice of the subject application. Ms. Zehner also commented that she has experienced flooding at her property annually since 2007 and is concerned that the subject proposal would worsen flooding issues in the area. Staff's Response to Comments Received: Staff s analysis of the proposal's compliance with the applicable critical areas regulations is contained within Section X of this report. The applicant will be required to complete the mitigation detailed in the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8) as a condition of the variance approval in order to mitigate for the impacts to the wetland and to the stream/wetland buffers associated with the proposal. The Engineering Division will conduct a full review the stormwater system during the building permit application review process for compliance with all applicable stormwater requirements. As specified in the conditions of approval, the Engineering Division requires that the applicant install a trash rack at the northwestern stream inlet in order to minimize potential stream obstruction and overflow situations. Additionally, the existing man-made trench located along the west property line must remain in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water event, and the proposal shall not inhibit the usage of the existing southwestern storm drainage culvert. The "Notice of Application" was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, posted on site, and published in the Herald newspaper. Ms. Zehner's residence is located further than 300 feet from the subject site; however, as a party of record, Ms. Zehner has been added to the mailing list for the subject application. 0096 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 16 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 XIII. CONCLUSIONS A. The subject property has special circumstances and considerable development limitations including slopes, a wetland, and a stream. B. The underlying zoning is RS-12, which lists single-family dwellings as a permitted primary use. C. The proposed single family residential development is consistent with the "Single Family Resource" Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. D. The proposed development is compatible with existing development of the surrounding neighborhood. E. The proposed residence should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. F. The requested setback variances to reduce the minimum required 25-foot street setback to a 12-foot street setback for the residence and a 3-foot street setback for a retaining wall, and to reduce the required 10-foot western side setback to a 3-foot side setback for a retaining wall are all consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.85.010. G. The requested Critical Area Reasonable Use variance is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.210.A.2 and ECDC 23.40.210.B. XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested street and side setback variance and critical area reasonable use variance under File No. PLN20120033, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a building permit and all other required local, state, and federal permits prior to commencing work on the subject site. 2. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. The applicant must show full compliance with all applicable regulations and standards that are not part of the approved variance at the time of building permit application review. 3. The applicant shall complete mitigation as detailed in the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" dated November 27, 2012 by Wetland Resources, Inc. (Attachment 8). 4. The existing man-made trench located along the west property line shall remain in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water event. In addition, the subject proposal shall not inhibit the usage of the existing southwestern storm drainage culvert. 5. During the building permit process, the applicant will be required to show the installation of a trash rack at the northwestern stream inlet and secure all applicable permits for all work within the stream and associated buffer. The applicant will also be required to revise the storm easement such that the easement encompasses the creek. 6. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. 0097 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 17 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 XV. EXPIRATION ECDC 20.85.020 describes the time limits for variance approval. An 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. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). Any person wishing to file an extension should contact the Planning Division at 425.771.0220 for further procedural information. XVI. APPEALS Pursuant to ECDC 20.07.004, a party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type III-B decision to the Development Services Director within 14 days after the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal shall be made in writing and shall include all required information stated in ECDC 20.07.004(D) as well as the applicable fee. The appeal would be heard at a closed record hearing before the City Council according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.07. XVII. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds, Planning Division 121 — 5th Ave. S Edmonds, WA 98020 Tom and Lin Hillman 15915 — 74th Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Ida Fernandez 1133 Sierra Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 Cheri Zehner 1027 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Adam and Emily Fountain 602 — 12th Ave. N d Edmonds, WA 98020 Todd and Candy Brown 1135 Sierra Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 Stephen Schroeder and Cheryl Beighle 1142 Vista Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 18 of 19 Hillman Variance Request File No. PLN20120033 XVIII. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning and Vicinity Map 2. Land Use Application Form 3. Variance Request Cover Letter (received 2/15/13) 4. Project Plans (Sheets 1, 3, and 4 received 1/18/13, Sheet 2 received 2/15/13) 5. Preliminary Civil Plans (received 2/15/13) 6. Partial Topography Survey (received 8/1/12) 7. "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Study" by Earth Solutions NW, LLC dated July 16, 2012 (received 8/1/2012) 8. "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" dated November 27, 2012 by Wetland Resources, Inc. (received 1/18/13) 9. Applicant's Response Letter (received 8/28/12) 10. Applicant's Response Letter (received 1/18/13) 11. Applicant's Response Letter (received 2/15/13) 12. Applicant's Response Letter (received 10/2/12) (for reference only) 13. Letter dated October 10, 2012 from Wetland Resources, Inc. (for reference only) 14. Site Plan from Lewis Variance Application (File No. PLN20040008) 15. Critical Areas Checklist and Determinations from File No. CRA19930057 16. Environmental Checklist (received 2/15/13) 17. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 18. Site Plan from Viking Properties Critical Areas Variance Application (File No. PLN199900136) 19. Review Comment Forms from Fire District No. 1, Public Works Department, Parks & Recreation Department, and Building Division 20. Engineering and Planning Division Requests for Additional Information dated 8/16/12, 10/23/12, and 2/1/13 21. Memo from Engineering Division dated 3/7/13 22. Public Notice Materials 23. Comments from Todd and Candy Brown (received 9/12/12 and 9/26/12) 24. Comment Email from Adam and Emily Fountain (received 9/13/12) 25. Comment Letter from Ida Fernandez (received 10/12/12) 26. Comment Letter from Stephen Schroeder and Cheryl Beighle (received 10/12/12) 27. Comment Letter and Photos from Cheri Zehner (received 11/2/12) 0099 EXHIBIT 1 — Page 19 of 19 Lit kILI&I ML � kv, Ll AL WWI ALI LILI I LX I Lil L, IkIkIlLill ILllll City of Edmonds Land Use Application 11 ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW • ' • • ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT �Liv Lot ZCo _ 2 , 1 ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # 7 ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE o 9 . D 1. (2 REC' D BY J a n i (; e, — ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE k �rS (7 , RECEIPT # 0 5 S 1 �� ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE JU Yi,V1 Glee (�j ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT VVARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION �1 �� I 1 28 � G ❑ OTHER: V GL "v Gl Vi L� C X 2-) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION i/ I!",PROJECT + NAME (IF APPLICABLE) �I 1 G(&V_l t o G✓ O ey)G l PROPERTY OWNER � 0 i-7q L 1�/l�l i 11 ho 6 Y PHONE, # � �� 7Ar 4 (J61 f ] ADDRESS i 11 5 1 Y'I k Y ) W) t Z1i(I n 0 /l & V V A E-MAIL � � � H i Oh-) a/ o ez' o ry- () ,,2 � h e,�FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # Q �� V t� 1 7 SEC. TWP.i� RNG. �I✓ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECJ OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) GlihilC) FO, n-Ilia H01-nU DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTA COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) Pr Sri r,(�� Va vi o hr f2t,�i �� APPLICANT ✓ iAL U 0,�2 0 l J tit C11,-_ PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAx # // CONTACT PERSON/AGENT r 2N-n 0 (/V.% U bJ PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAx # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that 1 am authorized to file this application on the of the owner as listed below. .behalf SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT /l. DATE Property Owner's Authorization I, L 1" H l ( I }-,, @, i�:, , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection\ andposting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER V w `- —' DATE Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 9114110 B - Land Use Application.doc 0101 Page 1 of] ATTACHMENT 2 DATE: July 9, 2012 (Revised January 14, 2013 and February 11, 2013) PROJECT: HILLMAN RESIDENCE 1139 SIERRA PLACE W' EDMONDS WA 98020 FEB 15 2013 OWNER/APPLICANT: TOM & LIN HILLMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 15915 74T" PL W COUNTER EDMONDS WA 98026 425-745-4669 LinHil lman?_c omcast. net PROJECT: New single family residence on a shy acre lot with critical areas (type Np stream, category 3 wetland, moderate -to -steep slope) Site and Floor Plans and Elevations by Owner/Applicant May -June 2012, revision 1 dated 1/14/13, revision 2 dated 2/11/13 2. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan Wetland Resources, Inc., Project #11033 September 21, 2011, revised July 18, 2012, latest revision dated November 27, 2012 3. Geotechnical Engineering Study Earth Solutions NW, LLC, Project #ES-2348 May 9, 2012, revised July 16, 2012 4. Partial Topographic Survey Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc., File No. 5354-0-12 March 21, 2012, revised July 18, 2012 5. Civil (Grading and Drainage) Plan Donna Breske, P.E. June 25, 2012, latest revision dated February 13, 2013 A variance is hereby requested for the following sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC): 1A. 23.50.04011c: Category 3 Wetland Buffer Reduction This section requires a 50-foot buffer for a category 3 wetland. The applicant requests reduction of this buffer to zero on a major portion of the western boundary of the Hillman Variance Request February 11, 2013 0102 ATTACHMENT 3 wetland, and proposes partial encroachment into 11 % of the wetland itself, with compensatory mitigation measures. 1 B. 23.50.04018c: Stormwater Management Facilities Location This section requires that stormwater outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems only be allowed in the outer 25% of a Category 3 wetland buffer (at least 37.5' away from the wetland edge), provided that no other location is feasible and that the wetland's functions and values will not be degraded. The applicant requests that an outfall pipe be placed in the outer 50% of the proposed wetland buffer (at least 25' from the existing wetland edge) due to existing wetland edge location at only 38' from the western property line at its closest point. 1C. 23.50.05011c: Category 3 Wetland Replacement Ratio Reduction This section requires that category 3 wetlands which are eliminated be mitigated by replacing them at a 2:1 ratio. The applicant requests that this requirement be reduced to zero, and proposes compensatory mitigation measures. 2. 23.90.040.D1: Type Np Stream Buffer Reduction. This section requires a 50-foot buffer for a type Np stream, reducible by 50% per Section 23.90.040.D2. The applicant requests a 25-foot stream buffer and proposes stream buffer enchancement measures. 3. 23.40.280: Critical Area Building Setback Reduction This section requires a 15-foot building setback from critical areas/buffers. The applicant requests a reduction to 5' at the wetland edge, and 3' at the stream buffer edge, in order to allow a larger portion of these areas to remain intact. 4. 16.20.030: Front Yard (Street Front) Setback Reduction This section requires a 25-foot front yard (street front) setback for properties with an RS-12 zoning designation. The applicant requests a reduction to a 12-foot front yard setback to the front wall of the house in order to maximize distance from the stream, as well as a reduction to a 3-foot front yard setback to a portion of a retaining wall on the west side of the house, needed to preserve an existing drainage ditch. 5. 16.20.030: Side Yard Setback Reduction This section requires a 10-foot side yard setback for properties with an RS-12 zoning designation. The applicant requests a reduction to a 3-foot side yard setback to a portion of the retaining wall mentioned in item 4 above on the west side of the house. (The house itself does not encroach into the 10' side yard setback.) Hillman Variance Request February 11, 2013 2 0103 -I J I I I- 1 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES The special circumstances affecting this property consist of multiple critical areas, including a category 3 wetland covering roughly the middle third of the site, a type Np stream running across the rear of the parcel, and a moderate -to -steep slope covering approximately the eastern third of the lot. The ECDC provisions limit the placement of a new single family home to that portion of the lot outside the 50-foot wetland buffers. The only part of the property that is not either wetland or buffer is the eastern fifth of the lot, which has the steepest slope. However, providing vehicular access to this area from the street would require over 200 linear feet of driveway passing through both western and eastern buffers, as well as through the entire width of the wetland itself. Driveway slopes would exceed 18%, involving significant grading disturbance of the wetland and its buffers, as well as significant retaining structures for cuts and fills. This is not the least disruptive option for development of the property; the current proposal placing the house in the southwest corner of the lot causes much less disturbance. The applicant proposes to place the house in the western buffer, with the partial encroachment into the wetland itself consisting primarily of the garage and driveway. The code requires a 2:1 replacement ratio for wetlands that have been eliminated. However, due to the steepness of the slopes on the property and other factors, Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) recommends against wetland creation in favor of wetland enhancement (as discussed in their referenced study). The code also limits placement of the house to that portion of the lot outside the 50-foot stream buffers. Due to the location and shape of the stream, the only parts of the lot not in its buffers are the easternmost fifth (described above as undesirable because of the slope issue and access disturbance problem), and the small southwest corner of the property immediately adjacent to the street. This southwest corner, although inclusive of both stream and wetland buffers, was determined to be best place to locate a house that would cause the least amount of impact to the critical areas of the site. The property's geographical constraints make it impossible to place a dwelling on the site and provide access to it without obtaining a variance to the code requirements for wetlands and stream buffers. The challenge is to minimize the impacts and provide mitigation for them. The zoning code mandates a 25-foot front yard setback for houses in the RS-12 zone. Adhering to this requirement would push the proposed residence closer to the stream, necessitating a further reduction in the proposed stream buffer. There is basically a trade-off between stream buffer and front yard setback, with the building pad sandwiched inbetween. Reducing the front yard setback is seen as the lesser of two evils, and at 12' to the house wall it still allows for a 22' front yard (including the 10' between the front property line and the existing roadway edge). And due to the cul-de- sac configuration, it still provides for a driveway length in excess of the required 25 feet. Another consideration in proposing a 12' setback was the minimum width required to Hillman Variance Request February 11, 2013 5 . o I accommodate stormwater detention piping with a 5' clearance to both building and property line. The front and side yard setback reductions to 3' minimum for the proposed retaining wall are necessary for placement of the wall along the side of an existing drainage ditch which is being preserved. (Part of this wall exceeds the 3' height limit in the code's definition of "structure", section 21.90.150, due to the depth of an existing drainage pipe near the southwest corner of the site.) The unique combination of critical areas on this property severely limits its development. The applicant has investigated numerous design scenarios in order to come up with a reasonable proposal that both minimizes disturbance and mitigates it by enhancing the remaining portions of the property. The proposed design places the house in the western wetland buffer, with partial encroachment into the western edge of the wetland itself. The proposed mitigating enhancements include removal of invasive species and increasing native plant densities in the almost 90% of the wetland that remains, as well as in the remaining wetland and stream buffer area to the west of the wetland. The site investigation has included input and recommendations from professional wetland and geotechnical consultants, as well as a surveyor and civil engineer, plus the city's planning and engineering staff in order to produce an optimal design that takes all the factors affecting this complex site into account, and balances the competing critical area restraints to the greatest extent possible. Special attention has been paid to keeping existing site drainage patterns predominantly intact. On -site stormwater that currently runs over and through existing ground surfaces to drain downhill to the stream will be partially captured into footing drains that will discharge to the stream with less potential for erosion. New impervious roof and driveway surfaces will have their stormwater collected to detention piping under the front and side yards, before outfalling into the stream. Infiltration measures were reviewed as a possibility for dealing with stormwater, but determined to be inappropriate for this site due to the shallowness of permeable soils as a result of a high glacial till layer as discussed in the referenced geotechnical study. Possible discharge to a storm drain on the other side of Sierra Place was also considereded, but eliminated due to its location under heavily landscaped neighboring yards and the high elevation of the existing catch basin. The applicant further proposes to provide special attention to critical area issues during construction, including on -site field monitoring of all earthwork by both the geotechnical and civil engineers to address drainage issues and provide additional recommendations as needed throughout the project. 2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE Granting of this variance would not constitute special privilege, as it only enables the applicant to place a moderate single family dwelling on a lot zoned for this purpose. The applicant's proposed home is smaller than the smallest home of all the properties adjoining it as shown in the comparison in Table 3 in the WRI study. If no variance was Hillman Variance Request February 11, 2013 Ld 0105 granted, the applicant would be denied the use of property enjoyed by the neighbors in the same zoning district. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The single family home proposed for this property is consistent with its comprehensive plan map designation of "Single Family Resource", with goals stated as promoting "high quality residential development... balancing economic and aesthetic considerations". The applicant's design fulfills the comprehensive plan's priorities of harmonizing with existing surroundings (by use of similar style and building materials), minimizing view encroachments and protecting privacy (by building on the lowest portion of the parcel and away from neighboring homes' windows and yards), and providing compatibility with the various natural constraints of the site (reducing disturbance of existing conditions to a minimum level). 4. ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed single family home is consistent with the RS-12 zoning designation. Based on the large lot size, greater density would normally be allowed, but due to the critical area restraints, one dwelling is a more appropriate use of the property. Although reductions of front yard, side yard (for a retaining wall only) and critical area setbacks are requested, the remainder of the zoning code has been followed, including rear yard setback, minimum driveway length and building height limit. 5. NOT DETRIMENTAL The proposed design poses no more of a detriment to the public health, safety and welfare than any other normal single family residence, nor does it injure or harm the neighbors or their properties. This project will likely improve the neighboring properties' territorial views by virtue of the proposed enhancement of the existing wetland by means of the clearing of invasive vegetation and the introduction of additional landscaping in the form of new native species plantings (per the WRI study). 6. MINIMUM VARIANCE Without this variance, the applicants would be denied construction of any reasonable home on this property. Strict adherence to the ECDC provisions cited earlier would make the lot essentially unbuildable due to overlapping critical areas. Denial of any one of the requested variance items would reduce the buildable portion of the parcel to an unreasonable level. Hillman Variance Request February 11, 2013 51 Code section 23.40.210.A2s general criteria (items a. through g.) are addressed on pages 7 and 8 of the WRI study, paraphrased herein as follows: a. DENIAL OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE The on -site wetland, stream and associated buffers occupy about 78% of the subject property. Because of this, strict application of the standards set forth in Title 23 would prohibit a reasonable development on the site. b. NO OTHER REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE HAS LESS IMPACT This property is zoned RS-12 with a "Single Family Resource" comprehensive plan designation. There is no reasonable use for the site other than single family residential that would result in less impact to the critical areas. c. MINIMUM NECESSARY IMPACT The applicant has carefully considered the house size and design in order to minimize critical area impacts. The total footprint and living space are the smallest of all of the adjoining properties. The research and design work clearly demonstrate that the proposed development is the minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable economic use of the property. d. NOT CAUSED BY THE APPLICANT No actions by the applicant have resulted in the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the site. There are no outstanding violations, boundary line adjustments or like impediments to development. There are no existing structures on the lot. All obstacles to reasonable economic use come from the critical area requirements of the ECDC, resulting in the need for this variance. e. NO THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY OR WELFARE - The proposed development will not be hazardous to public health, safety or welfare. The project has been carefully designed to minimize site impacts to the greatest extent possible. It will not affect water quality or create flooding issues in downstream systems, nor cause erosion or tree hazards for neighboring properties. f. MINIMIZED LOSS OF CRITICAL AREA FUNCTIONS AND VALUES The proposal has been carefully designed to minimize net loss of on -site functions. A watershed approach to protection and mitigation design has been considered as part of the proposed mitigation measures. g. CONSISTENT WITH OTHER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS All other pertinent regulations and design standards are being applied as part of this application. Hillman Variance Request February 11, 2013 0 0107 Code section 23.40.210.B's specific criteria (items 1. through 6.) are addressed below. 1. PECULIAR TO THE LAND The special conditions and circumstances necessitating this variance are the property's critical area features. Other lots in the area do not have the unique combination of wetland, stream and slope that make this parcel such a challenge to develop. 2. NOT CAUSED BY THE APPLICANT The critical areas on the parcel are existing natural geographical features not resulting from actions by the applicant. 3. MINIMUM NECESSARY VARIANCE FOR REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE Due to the predominance of the site's critical areas, it is not possible to place a dwelling on the lot and provide access to it without a variance to the code requirements for wetlands and stream buffers. The buffer/setback reductions requested herein are the minimum necessary to allow a modest -sized house to be placed on the property in the only location where it makes sense to develop. The applicant is not proposing to build anything more than a reasonable single family home in keeping with what the neighboring properties have. 4. NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE Granting this variance will only allow the applicant to build a modest single family home on the southwest corner of this lot. No other privileges will be provided. 5. CONSISTENT WITH TITLE NOT DETRIMENTAL Granting this variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 23 to protect critical areas from degradation of functions and values. The proposed project will mitigate its impacts to the critical areas by means of enhancement and protection of remaining wetland and buffer portions of the lot. As previously stated, the project is not materially detrimental to public health, safety or.welfare, nor injurious to the neighbors or their properties. 6. BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE In accordance with ECDC 23.40.310, the WRI study prepared for this project has made use of the best local, regional and national tools available to classify, analyze and propose protective mitigation measures to maintain beneficial functions for the critical areas on this property. The stream on the site is non-fishbearing, type Np. The requested variance will allow the applicant to develop a modest single family home on a difficult site that would not otherwise be buildable. The applicant has worked with a qualified wetland biologist to determine the least detrimental method of developing the property in terms of minimizing wetland, stream and buffer disturbance and enhancing remaining wetland and buffer areas. The applicant has invested in a geotechnical study, survey and civil engineering to assist in optimizing the design and creating an overall plan that represents an improvement to the existing condition. Hillman Variance Request February 11, 2013 7 51 STREAM TO VIAIN 9� \T ARDERLINE: 6" MAPLE VANT TO KEE 'ERIFY W/ ,RBORIST O� 16" CEDAR ALDERS (3) 81- ALDERS (3) 2" ALDERS (2 2" ALDERS (4) /�^ ��• 5' ALDERS (4) 8" ALDERS (6) 0" ALDER 1 TREE RE1� I(OV L PVAN SCALEf SAME/AS WHOLE SITE PLAN. NOTE: ALL TREES REMAINING SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH BARRIER FENCES AT THEIR DRIP LINES PER CITY CODE. CtLWReWEsteteV Nr�t 2"MMAPLE(T('1) 0" MAPLE (I' p6"ALDER (1) 0" ALDER (1) PROPERTY LINE REMAIN HILLMAN RESIDENCE 1139 SIERRA PLACE, EDMONDS WA 98020 TOM & LIN HILLMAN 425-745-4669 LinHillman@comcast.net WETLAND & BUFFER AREAS: AREA WETLAND DISTURBANCE 1790 SF CALCULATIONS: WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 15,560 SF (8.7:1 > 4:1 READ.) MAIN FLOOR 1596 SF BUFFER DISTURBANCE 3920 SF GARAGE 578 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 2410 SF (0.6:1*) FOOTPRINT 2174 SF TOTALS: W & B DISTURBANCE 5710 SF PORCHES 163 SF W & B ENHANCEMENT 17,970 SF (3.1:1) ROOF OVERHANGS 220 SF DRIVEWAY 940 SF IMPERMEABLE 3487 SF HEIGHT CALCULATIONS: 2ND FLOOR 1027 SF 218.2 + 224.3 + 224.5 + 213.0 = 880/4 = 220 TOTAL LIVING AREA 2623 SF EFFECTIVE HEIGHT = 220 + 25' = 245' ALLOWED 2ND FLOOR DECK 184 SF 245' - 219' (FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT) = 26' NET 298'-11" ALL(E)TREES — -- — — -- — BUFFER NORTH OF STREAM /LAENHANCEMENTi / / — jPGE -- -- // WET TO REMAIN � ENHANCEMENT (E) 32"CEDAR % ND AREA = 2410 5r BOUNDARY TO REMAIN (E) 36" MAPLE \/ ) a _ F Np STREAM \'y— — — CNON-FISHBEARING) TO REMAIN 4 .) 01 c n' — —`— BSBL C 8� . GARDEN WALL ( `e� F qM CVO 1 - THIGH PROPOSED SIDE / ' SETBACK 13' I i \ I / u, u � COR EN R , D = 213.0' FROPOSEl I...-- _+ FRONT \ �. O SETBACK p� " « — C:\Lin\RealEstate\Sierra\Sierra20l 2\VarResubWholeSite PROPOSED' HOUSE BUFFER DISTURBANCE AREA = 3920 Sr BSBL �—T YARD .T CURB G 42"CEDAR TO REMAIN E CATEGORY 3 T CORNER WETLAND TO B = 224.3' REMAIN WETLAND RETAINING WALL ENHANCEMENT 2'- 8' HIGH AREA = 15,560 SF I WETLAND DIST=NCF. AREA = 17g0 si GENERAL INFORMATION: APN: 00548900002215 SITE ADDRESS: 1139 SIERRA PLACE, EDMONDS WA 98020 EXISTING USE: VACANT LOT W/ WETLAND PROPOSED USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE W/ WETLAND PROPOSED TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N NUMBER OF STORIES: 2 ZONING DESIGNATION: RS-12 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: 1 FLOOR AREAS: SEE "AREA CALCULATIONS" THIS PAGE FIRE SPRINKLER & ALARMS: NONE REQD. LOT AREA: 0.93 ACRES (40,510.8 SF) PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 5.8% < 35% ALLOWED --_p----_--;-----BSBL, PROPOSED SIDE ( SETBACK \ \, �$ 222'-11° _Ls d" NOTE: SEE WETLANDRESOURCES, INC, REPORT FOR �\� �O 10' WETLAND ENHANCEMENT PLAN_ \� �E150 N ONo s��Ro p ' `1 PROPOSED BLDG. SETBACK STRIP @ WETLAND EDGE I (E) HIGH SLOPE %I FcORNER AREA TO REMAIN C = 224.5' UNDISTURBED - — — — — — — — — `--BSBL-------t/ --- J STAMPED / NOTE: SEE CIVIL DWGS. FOR BSBL GRADING, DRAINAGE & / CCONCRETE N EROSION CONTROL FEATURES. G G G GARDEN WALL 1 - 3' HIGH SS SS SS > > CONC. APRON % WETLAND LD. SIGN PER CITY STDS. PER CITY CODE WHOLE SITE PLAN (E) WATER METER BOX W ® W 1/14/13 » E FIRE HYDRANT 4 - ( ) SCALE: 1" = 30' ON 11x17" PAPER (E) POWER POLE 1" = 15' ON 24x36" PAPER C:\Lin\RealFstate\6i(,rra\Sierra2012\WholeSite011413 r —SD SD SD w U u1 z U W� �5 °- w � z ui CQ C 00 J co Lij 2 O co (n N % <t m m O Z Q I— C) 0 0 LV--1 REVISIONS 1: 1/14/13 (E) CATCH BASIN ATTACH ME 6\\d9 I /! 0109 RIECEIVED F-F-D 15 7013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTED CONSULTANT TEAM TO A TO REMAIN (E) ASPHALT 212' WETLAND ECOLOGIST.] WETLAND RESOURCES, INC. 9505 19TH AVE. SE SUITE 106 EVERETT WA 98208 425-331-3174 ANDREA BACHMAN, SENIOR WETLAND ECOLOGIST and rea@wet landresou rces. com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PROPERTY LINE I 1G BSBL 10' i to (E) GRADE = 2 O FIN. GRADEcE fV r� \OUTFALL PIPE SEE CIVIL V-6" WEST SIDE SIDE YARD FOUNDATION DETAIL "AW" PROPERTY LINE 16 BSBL BLOCK WALL SEE CIVIL TOP OF \ 1 (E) DRAINAGE DITCH WALL 7" TO REMAIN 215 U _ EARTH SOLUTIONS NW LLC (E) ASPHALT 212' 1805 136TH PL NE, SUITE 201 �I -3' BELLEVUE WA 98005 \ T �° r 425-284-3300 9' STEVE AVRIL, STAFF GEOLOGIST (E)GRADE =FIN. steve.avril@earthsolutionsnw.com IN FRONT OF WALL CIVIL ENGINEER: DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. SNOHOMISH WA 98290 t__69 SOD FILL I r-2,. — ,TOP OF FLOOR 21V �G -De FINISHED CUT y GRADE L� os na, BOTTOM OF FOOTING 212' 2/11/13 FdnDetAW0213 ,TOP OF FLOOR 219' BOTTOM OF DETENTION PIPE FOOTING 212' SEE CIVIL WEST SIDE SIDE YARD 2111/13 FOUNDATION DETAIL "BW" FdnDetBW0213 PROPERTY LINE 16 I BSBL I to� 9' 2' 425-334-9980 TO DITCH TO REMAIN' donnabreske@comcast.net (E) ASPHALT212'\ LAND SURVEYOR_ PE TO LOVE LL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES INC. REMAIN, NAGE CUTBACK REMAIN, CUT BACK 1' 19217 36TH AVE W, SUITE 106 & REMOVE DEBRIS. LYN N WOOD WA 98036 (E) GRADE = FIN. GRADE IN FRONT OF WALL 425-775-1591 JEFFREY T. TRIEBER, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR Jeffr@lsaengineering.com ARBORIST: SCHOFFNER CONSULTING 14823 10TH AVE SE MILL CREEK WA 98012 206-755-2871 TONY SCHOFFNER, ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANT tony@tonyschoffner.com [■7yy�i �77'Ti6'3 FINISHED GRADE TOP OF 2 N SOD WALL 1� 215.68' p/ U FILL lE1 G� O - •____BOTTOMOF 4 FOOTING 212' \DETENTION 1' PIPE SEE CIVIL CONC. RET. WALL SEE CIVIUSTRUC. WEST SIDE SIDE YARD AT (E) PIPE INV. EL.208.68' FOUNDATION DETAIL "BWS" FdnDetBWS0213 2/11/13 `z1g R=20.00' ALL TREES NORTH OF L=10.56' STREAM TO REMAIN 6=30°14'46" a 2ja �1_i -'(E) MENS \2j4 E LG. TREE REMAIN, e,\S SHOWN TO S LE OF RIST TO VERIFY v� APPROX. DRIP INE, TYP - ITY OF TREES 91 TEDTOREMAIN, TYP. n IMPERVIOUS ouTFA L Y w a° SURFACE AREA: PIPE O etz FOOTPRINT 2174 SF N uwi a PORCHES 163 SF PROPERTY ROOF OVERHANGS 210SF = LINE 9 ZZ DRIVEWAY 940 SF D m - A� OTAL 3487 SF 3' SIDE > SETBACK PROPOSED 10 1,31 G4RDl J BLDG. ENV. FOR HEIGHTCALC.: m AT WALL E N 224.3'+ 224.5'+ 218.2'+ 213.9 L = 880/4 = 220.0' + 25' = 245.0' m LAWN MAX. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT z 13 �PP 245 - 219 F.F. = 26'NETA.F.F. T PS D I 23- 3' MIN. PROPOSED W A Cl JS BLDG.SETBACK 13' �TO BUFFER L HOUSE I - — �� R.C. RETAINING WALL 1'-4' HIGH 2B BLOCK WALL, F.F. 219' & WOOD FENCE AT R EDGE OF WETLAND SEE CIVIL PLANS USE 0.. E . =215 - - -- — - - 5' MIN z »' 21T-11"SIDE (E) MAN-MADE 5 r _- SETBACK DRAINAGE DITCH - - GARAGE PROPOSED TO REMAIN -- F. = 219 a PROPOSED ul❑ BW m BLDG.SETBACK _ --- (� ' TO WETLAND 4'-T HIGH CONC. RET. WALL, SEELL v_ N _ _ v o CIVIUSTRUC. 9^' ' <� Z 0 co PLANS af WS ^ PORCH +CATCH d d 8ASI I; TYP_ - w M 19 TYP.. Z A (E) E E 12' FRONT Q (N) E E SETBACK DETENTION PIPE a N PROPO STAM ED > ' / LAWN �� CON RETIE WAY DRIVPER BSBL ZONNG CODE DRA GESY TEM FEA RES:f;EIE g�ti 2�8 CIVI PLANS-\ 3' FRO R.C. RETAINING WALL SETBACK O m0� & WOOD FENCE AT (N) PROPOSED T WALL n� EDGE OF WETLAND As HALT CURB WM(2) NCRETE ASPHALT PAVEMENT PRON PER CIT v C:\Lin\RealEastate\Sierra\Sierra2012\VarResubP artSiteO213 0110 ti Ai ti SIERRA PLACE r 8" WATER SOUTH OF LINE TO REMAIN PARTIAL SITE PLAN ;� GA - SCALE: 1" = 20' ON 11X17" PAPER ,- 1" = 10' ON 24X36" PAPER 2/11/13 C:\Lin\RealEstate\Sierra\Sierra2012 %VarRequb0213 N U LI w Z U 0 J U) °_ mow < Z Qw VJ J (y) 0 LLI T_ oT_m Z I- U) 04 <C co m O Z Q C0 0 1__I m ■ N REVISIONS 1/14/13 1 1-1, 2013 rOLIPITrt, SECOND FLOOR PLAN ARE EWTHNSI" SCALE: 3/32" = VON 11X17" PAPER 3/16" = VON 24X36" PAPER 7'-5 POST PORCH Py 9:12 9-.12 � E LIVING - a t/ UP A V AREA w 5' T a I K TCHEN BATH V -- < STORAGE d DEWOFFICE ENTRY PORCH ma HALL — d NDRY ■ W U W W Q C) J U/ 1f..11.. W Z W J_ (y) 1 PANTRY I 'ELEC.PANEL D GARAGE I LLI Lu N m 0 O J �p & I _ Q (fl m O a m LU I� W Q Q BEDROOM 0 Q co I LIVING AREA = 1596 SF N —1724' 5' 3'E• �--4' 4' N' J' z FIRST FLOOR PLAN AREDIMENSIONS WITHN1" Q SCALE: 3/32" = VON 11X17" PAPER C:\Lin\RealEstate\Sierra\Sierra2012\VarResubFlooisO11413 J '/1F" = 1' OKI 7dX'IR" PAPER 1/14/13 0111 C:\Lin\RealEstate\Sierra\Sierra2012\VarResubFloor LIL 0� 0 0 I� RL-VI61UN5 1: 1 /14/13 M JAl tuS 20�13 Or"IvIENT SERViCi: ; C 0 U N TE 1 m D m U) 00 00 zz N - �X x rn � -v T D D m m ;u x SCALE: AS NOTED HILLMAN RESIDENCE DATE: 06/20/12-r.l. 0 4. ELEVATIONS W DRAWN BY: LBH 1139 SIERRA PLACE TIE W,RUCHB. 4i4L tF RCSP0+66LE FOR YOWBW RY LOC SNOW OV R PUNS OR W1,, BY POW—, )BE MISS AI C45)IRI,CTCAt tH6 SMALL_( Of CAll MIT, 86.ATE A,; Und,ls 17 )Jfq Lo:A YU,R O' AEV UTUTY G565SSR3i5' TO Pf SAID U.- AS 9tlm 0V 9E2 P145 ARE BASED L:KW Tf ------- I I I i I PUGS $OGW .. 4Y IP61H ST SW t PLGF7 i OR 524 =LAEPER 5, _ SI TE FERRY!IERV'.4AC :.: •. p� DALfY ST R7 SYRRA PL = Q VICINITY MAP eEu sr UAW STREET O � UEU.XRbt'- 01 "NOT PARK 57 - J T12R1 ST SW 2 BaAEy� crTr Y � a PASS SET NAIL AND 7 -"- Iv — v I — rr /, %7� "o v 0- I �, � , \'L , - - L�U. �J -- WASHER IN EAST �{� --..- -. SIDE OF TREE AT I z - LIA/E-'' _ - ro _ _ _-- _ P.C. �. -� - �� SURREY tN il C -{�2,..., CD- rzA RRFRS rLOHIL PFIY, Ah'D nCYI SURI£v ORDIIV 7i \ - --- ( __ - - �' . � � �. ' � _ � MAP 06 ASS MAP Cenaav 47-)5-15-ssIaRW. sA 0s 12 IES VA R1C PIWd: 475-]]5-1591, TkE W. Si5i-0-IT DAIFD J_ I 1 u y�CN_ /r_`__\�P_�___ v EX. 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT CALL DIAL -DIG AT 1-800 424-5555 AT q _. ------_--�RDINARY _ _ _ ,_-- 0 A.F. N0. 1495750 LEAST 3 BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE DIGGING GRADING OUAN7777ES 'J v---- cur. - G ---- �� - -- - --25' p E�]aacoY ------------------------- tt: ]7 1 I-� /1 -- LJ L \l \ h— UC'UL------------------------ J cw Avn7ks ARE RDW,YL CA1CLU iKMS RUT DO AKF 1,4T0 ACCOU47 S'RNKAGf O7 SU[iLAGC. _ - - ®- _ - - _ _ - - - _ �/ - - ---- -I. rl�_ -'I ___1� ------��ER 3 WATTES / -�� \ - PR -" v v _ �TRA) T� F -, -,2181- < FARTHJVORK RES rRICnGN NOTE: = n .o-CG �Ll EARTIMWK R RESTRICTED PEAHEN OCTOO& I AND APRL 30 NO ANY EARINAORK RL BT Is THAE P-RRCO RE" APPROVAL TROY BOTH RE GCOIEUVOCAL RNGBN'EER OF RECa4O AND BE OTY amoM Offm ESC LNYYLW PEOURCUc'N7S ALL ACTWTES AECESSITA RNG A CLEARNG OR GRAD:40 POROT AND At UhUTY PROECTS COI SSA.NG OF WE PLAN SOO LW,11 FEET OF BREACH FYCA VAPOR `HALL BE REOLRED 70 CO4T5 EF W4 AND SIIAIh'NT YAJRWO OAVETRU'CTIO4 AND TO PRRUANfNNY SIX84aE RXPoSEO SOS RE94 ThO FROM CONSMUCTAO'L PRO.ECTS A1WLVVG A CRITICAL AREA UAY ALSO BE RE,UA0 TO OCWPLY WTN ANY COWAM TIDY Q 1NE ESC t@EVLN4 FfCUs4elE1lTS CO6'LUACE Wut BE D_NOVSI?ATEO MOW THE IUP1Ed_MIATNJN OF ANAPPRO.9 ESC PLAN WORMS FOR P;VPARBY ESC PLAYS ARE PROVDZO A THE UANVAL ME PLAN UST ACORES THE FCCt006 REOURREMUn 1. ESC ILfetRAl REC'ULREVENT - CMSTEWPON ACCESS ROUTE CONSTRUCTA4 I'MCLE ACCESS SNAIL K kSEAEWR PRACTP.'AL, LAWTEO TO 0-9 ROUTE ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE SAB902ED WIN OUARRY SPALLS OR CRUSHED R" TO UVW' OF W BUICKAO OF SMUffif ORB) )HERS ROADS F SEAMW S IRANSPORIED D,470 A ROAD SIAiTACE, W ROADS 9RAU BE UVAED THORO OiI'(A / THE END OF EACH DAY. M4491T SHALL BE REW IED FREY ROADS BY SHOURM O4 SVA1FNO AND BE TRANSPORTED r0 A COYIRCLUD SFD"T DISPOSAL AREA MAIN 24 HOURS STREET WSW SNAIL BE ALLOWED 0R'tY AFTER SEOM10 IS RELOAD AT RYS YARNER. 2. ESC LBl'.MW REDUh.'EIFHT - STAei1LA NO OF EXP0.17 AREAS Ai SOtS EXFO&T BY LAND OTS RVWA7 ACRII>L+'S M41G BE STAB )ZED BY SUITABLE APHCAMV CS BVR_; A'CLUDAS, BUT PAJT LAPTEV 74 5w HIA4 ITM4 OR OIHER WOIATO4, PLASBC COIFRAM O4 MOONS ALL BLS 9ULL BE SRIOND, DEOGNED, SEDIMENT TRAP nW.a. .4A0 YAWAMED RI ACCORDANCE AJTN WYANVAL. THE EXPOSE) SOTS SHALL B_ STABi0 12 ACCORRNG TO AN STRAY BALES NAY BE USED IN APPROVED 7BEIA&I.. (TWALLY, NO SO1S 914LL REUb'T EXPOSED FOR W1Y THAN TINT DAYS FROU OCTOBER 1 CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE h" nWOUCH APP.A 30 A'M NO YORE nWl LIEN DAYS TRW UAY I P0005H SEP06ER 30/'I 0.HA41ACE / \ � jj FF-�1 9' 0 /I DETAIL EIA.D. THIS APPLICAITUN 1 FSC LULL' 41H MORM ENT - PRORCbON OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES ADJACENT PROPERTIES .AWL BE PROIFCIID SHALL RE MAINTAINED AT ALL f FROU SEDAKNT DEPOSITION BY APPROPRIATE USE OF WC-TAnIE DI" $TAPS SFOVLNT BARRIERS 04 rx TER; � lllO �) - TINES DURING COYSTRIMLION PEES CW UUtUE'lC, CR BY A COI YA TO4 aF IHffS 4FASilRES AND Ol7ER APPROPRIATE BLIPS ' t I \ / l PERIO 4. ESC WPVU REOVAELENT - NAIINE 'ASCE. ALL ERO£YN! AW SMMENT CONTROLBUIS SHALL BE REDWRLY ' / /� p q \ VAT \ AGE= 2 F 9. 0 1 INSPECTED A`D UAVVTAVTID BY THE a"MYR TO ENSURE COfTNUED PERFORVANa OF THEIR D OMED F=TKYL &I C �.,•.. \ 0MITHAYCE AID REPAR SHALL BE CON WCIED A4 ACCO90ANCE WTI nE UAWAL ESC V"FWU RfO�VENT - OTHER BYPS AS RFCTPREO BY TNF CITY, OWN APPROP RLA IT 8W S TO WBOAE /I \ \ / \ 1 8'-IO' CAA PE MYCIS OF PKRFA_ RUXC+T 91At1. - APPiI'D. B BROOM AHO SDWEIIT CONTROL REOUREVEN7 - W MC.M00 UIRLTY CONSTROCT OY PE CCN5TRvcwi 01 j III \ \ \ \ r TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR CBS "'E -- UNDERGROUND UnVIY YNES SHALL SPEWA11Y ADDRESS THE FOUGA54G 2 A EROTOV C0177?a FOR EYCAVA7E0 AW STOCKNLED UA ITAAIS 4 - ZS' 1' Y 1' ST,VV<ES R PE PUm"r LY EXCAVATE UATERIAL 'HERE CCNsIsm wTH vary AND SPACE CaN omvpms STALL BE H _ l B$e� \ �ny D } 5 i %� - NOT TO SCALE Edmonds 570 E1.3 PLACED Ltl1 nE tWku SIDE' 0' 1REAG+ES D T DISCHA%f 1VT0 SEBRUENT TRAPS, S MEET PONU; OR 07HP ACCEPTABLE j D. A.WJ 'PI!L64O` LG(rrRE<J STREETS&DEMOR T EP`JD 12" I UD N �� 1 7 AM7MArFscVANDA a ��T°� LA.4CACiRT TIPS A LL CWIH ARE 12 2 ,�% ,� iNz li VfflLW UFT'lREU7n-(i'LREA7EFO7 3 STRAW WATTLES KT TK lW�AA hWF'+n S�eT FiHTES R80R 9�ALLdiTHANYdRY EQUAL TEMPORAR}Y REMROPMENT TURN ABOW SHALL ARY W fA ESTCO R� S1L75 LLSRFD ''' j ' ( sf\ #, 1 N.T.S. r/,' /; \ I..✓�1 B.blift E CifAR SEC ASO EASEVENT MIS a4 THE F&LD LURK CIEARNG LUTS CONST. ENTRANCE ARDOR ANY usnm,TS, SETBACKS;SEN9TW FnCM. AREAS AW THE BUTTER$ TREES WA ORASW,CE WMSEc / I i I I / I ' 1rIV1�G, I -SET REBAR AND CAP NOD 22969 ' CN 373.82' SIERRA ST. Ln N t hT'1_. ` VACATED SIERRA _ A iy2 STREET PER s SOP 226 5 1 ORDINANCE NO. `IT ; 2 ' �' } �'` 279s 10E=219. 2 1 L IF- 1 NORTHWEST ,� - NORTHWEST BONNET � Ji � %i N 89'34'28" W BOLT ON HYDRANT V � / R 0 (� - c\r `v I u)!1 ELEVATION:224.67 b ,il�(APPROX. LOCATION OF SSCO- 38' CONVEYED TO — (NOT FOUN CITY OF EDMONDS tDA=107*50'011 /%A r TOP= _ s L=75.28' BY A.F. NO. R=40.00' \ F\\ 1412708 -- —--- / i =1r2.`;i not 9. ESC "WV PO4"V917 - SDXAOVT TRAP RhO PRO? TO LEAV'X THS WE SPCRU WATER RV'KYF 914Lt PASS P67006H A StP"T POW OR SEWYT TRAP, OR ODER APPROPRIATE BLIPS SEDTELTT PCHOS AND TRAPS, PERQETER DXES SEDT%NT OARRfR; ACED OTHER BUDS RNEADED TO TRAP SEMEW 04-97E SHALL BE COWTRWn AS A MST SRP IN MAIX% HIES' BWS STAR BE nAt BOND NAL BfME LAPSWEV,G ACRNPES LINE PLACE EMUN STRUCRFE; SUCH AS DADS &M. ,, AND AIERSYANS SHALL OF SEM9 AND 444CMEO ACCORC:NC 10 AV APROhD PVCTABLE -12' CONVEYED TO SANITARY SEINER "iNw IP 4Y`A�uAA`INORTHA vALPUEVT Y ERMSQWG`Lv MFOLSLOPESSHALLB SHALL RE S s zt CITY OF EDMONDS EASEMENT PER ACCORBANt£ URR FSC RECUR LNHI NO 2 11. ESC L.NUUU REOUfi'MaT - COYRCLLOW CIT-971 EROSKI4 PROMRTCS AYO WEB WAYS C096WAU PROP BY A.F. NO. CITY OF EDMONDS naWR "OF STORuu47RE ER RPL96T VRROUTFRO HE MAGI�rOINCREASESev U IEIX NO PEX 1370835 ORDINANCE NO. 'ZTiwaRA YON-SITE M'ACYAWE CHAb.,a$ SHAOF LL 81 DCsc`Em,' ca TEDNCE `'AND STAgV20 OUTLETS AhO PIL RE ENT 3543 ERO50 FROU THE EXPECIED IROOTY OFF ROW MU A BOO-YN4, 24-NNIR FRE00 Y SIM FOR THE DEVELOPED CO4DIT01 STA83FUTO7 ADAUATE TO PREVENT EROSKW CP WILES; ADJACENT STREAV OUa: SLOPES A10 DO"TREAV REACHES SHALL BE PROVOED AT ME OUTLETS 0' ALL CONWXU.rf SYSTEM P A --------------- ------------- 11 ESC LWVW REGF�CUENr STORY D4A1V ET PRO7ECTOR4 ALL SIORM MAR! REFS MALI QY.4AU GUN --RTC UklSz4LGRO4 SNAtt BE FROIECTED 50 1NAT STOTU W.A�ER R1krOTF SHALL N01 EN1ER M'F CanEYAArR S67M URYU7 FiRS7 ERR7 a IMP OR OTMRMSE TREATED TO RENOIT SEOSRNT. - t 74, ESC RECU;REVENi - FEUOYM OF TEUPOPA4Y BLIPS ALL TELLPORARY EROS'G4 AND &F04M IT CO4TRC4. BURS STU4u BE NEVOLED LIMN W DAYS AM MAL SHE ST"ZATA4 IS ACNfIED ON AFTER RIF TEUPORARY 6HP ARE NO LG,GER NFEM. TRAPPED SED'VFHT SHALL BE REVERED 064 STAWND O4 SIM 6SBRBEO SOY AREAS Pf AAW F' A-UOVAL SHILL BE PEROWNRY SIARLIZER (EK`RC Sr57EVS SNAIL # - n rz -, a ---- N 89 34'28" --------------41 --- 15. ER05g4 AW SL41h7l7 CG'L7RAL REOI&4EAKN7- ClWA7ER='M C04'SIRUCTAV 97ES Df➢L'A DTSOURcr AIR A SOPMENT TRAP 07 SEDAnT POli7 �E V /i 16. EROSCW A.V7 SLsL4Rl7 L0,'L7R0.' RECYDffVff7i - CWiR01 CY P0:1UTAIRS 071§-R MAN SC4{Li]!7 ONT CtWSTRLCROY SLITS All MUTANTS OUR RRFN SCDJI➢!7 THAT CCCO4 CN! 91F DURRD ONtSIRLC]7O'! SHALL P" _ BE HANELFO AIM O'SPOSED OF IN A VANNER MAT DOES WT CAUSE CaWAVALATAN OF STORU WATER, IT FROM A'9 S05ENT CONTROL RNU EVEAT - PWANCIAL WRITY. PEWYRUAbOF BONNr OR ODER APPROPRIATE F&AYCIAL ANSMIJOTIT; SHALL 8E RECURRED FOR ALL PROECTS TO ENSURE COUPITA.W WTN THE APPROVED EROSW A'N SWAAENT CONTROL P N4 (MD. 3013 1 1, I9951 y.A . — — — — — — — — — — — — — --SITE ADDRESS CITY I IJ9 SERRA RACE ENGINEER DATE EDuavn; WA, 98020E L..- B PREPARED BY: GRADING & TESC PLAN } F - DONNA L. RRESKE, P.E. FOR 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 HILLMAN RESIDENCE - SIERRA PLACE PHONE: (425) 334-9980 TAX 10: 06548900002213 PFN: FAX: tires 334-7380 ��� ®�� ® ®,T donnabreske®comcast.net scarce ry_ ro xswa Tarr z-Es-L A M N I 1�1VG.Ti, W.M. __. EARTHWORK RESTRICTION NOTE: SURVEY., � FAgMCn"A IS RiSWTW WWTEEN OCTLY9ER I AM APRT EG571% TTARA4ES 7OFCGRAPHY, AND BalimRY SIIRA7Y O 1. CUP OR CFEP SMOOTH IMERIOR END 30 A'AT A.YY UPTRAORK dY IMF T5 DUf Pb-" RCO'IRES PAT 031U.YCO TRW LOV2L-SAVE&AW A ASSa,'A7TS - T - '� Q CUP ON SHO'A,J Ft>wCT SUkID APPROVAL TROR BOTR THE G:01EO&AL ENGVuZR Cr PX PrO.1"E: 42.5725-1591, 11f Ma 6JM-0-12 DATED RCCON AIA IF.E o1Y fdILANG ORTOAL }2i-12 O'T• CAST IRQN Cii PLASTIC GRATE 2. ALL STEEL PARTS SHALL BE GALVANIZED AND ASPHALT COATED (TRE -)T- 1 i� 4 NOTEUCIES-- - - I BETTER). ' IPSM ST Sd 324 \ CO2 DRILL I xa r PUf�T ¢ !W FOZ YARD B WITH MULTIPL/'• s COYY.ECONS ODARRY SPALL DISSIPAT.. , PAJ I 3/4" 0 SNOOTH BARS 2' t 5• AYCHOR SiRiPS WELDED AT TRASH RACK rITR'/ `x CASPEA ST x o W/ENOS WELDED TO TO 3/4' a BAR FRAME. 4 PLCS. ¢ x SITE r-----'-_.�—-----____--- _. — — ) I E%. 12• 8aR-FRALE PIPE 2CALV. ROR NON'�� ECNOI OSSERRA PL 6- PlC PIPE CIXIROSA'E BOLTS & Nws i[RRY 7CR65Ut P DAlEY ST'GRour wPE ro $ VICINITY AIAP R-t O.56 1' MIN I IBAR $PRCINGL-10.5612' OR 18• RCP O.R N-12 P- T - 3 3�/4A�EDIA EMR RELL ST A=30'14'46' SGGIe 1" = 10'riOSFa° MIN. WASHED R1 " ' M3Kk2S4G o 0 101 � IeALrovr a sr PAR`' NJ ar2TN s1 sv \; j INSTALL TRASH YARD BASIN 2 - - 4 MAX "cYm are barn . i " RACK TO 12" SD 1 N. T. S. - PIPE I BE4E7 ED END SECTION PARK WITH QUARRY - COUPLING RACK %11 \ i SPALL DISSIPATION PAD N.T.S. / � cE� LIST OF APPROVE PIPE MATERIALS FOR DETENTION: 1� p L� _ UETAL. A - w F,YC ,w - �'G 'yV�� — - 'v U 9'34' 2 S ' W 298. 93' - a I ACSP - A11DL000 CORREWED STEEL PIPE (TIPE 2 MEETS SET NAIL AND -o v�0 „ '� .,,_ ,gip - .1Z AASTO DESICNAROVS IJ274 AND LAM) WASHER IN EAST )p, - Q, - \� ASRP - AUTWUM SPIRAL R18BE0 PPE 16 GAGE OR BETTER SIDE OF TREE AT `_., ¢ g.. ... _h• - _ _ -. YI Y J ��� /" j/r/ /% % CaiPACiFD ( I P C \ v i ti - Ne V MH CO ji /� j�/ j - ; HAn� MATERIAL CAP - 0RRUCATED ALUYINUdI PIPE (16 CAC£ 04 dET7ERJ J -'--,s QUARRY SPALL _ _ _ m „ D,P - 011CTdf fRtAV PIPE (CLASS 50 0,4 BETTER) FR "7 I 1a' CIA. DETENTION PrPE c, ORDIL DISPERSION PAD cavcREE' ` - TREMCH FRLEO W TH PCP - PLAW CaICRETE PIPE C7 3 1' TO 1-1 2' WA%1E0 r T I '+ /%/ _ 1� GRAWL OR PEA CRAWL ' RCP- RF>h'FD4CfD CQVCRE7E PIPE I - - - - - - �P� T EX. 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT --- -- --- `� (I' •tiG 'aRDIN A A.F. NO. 1495750 _ __ _ PtASDC: ARy _ J � � � l . PICP - Pa YNtJri CHLORIDE PIPE (SOR 35 CR BETTER) 18°YARD BASIN #2 ' 7<1 I r _ _\� _ y/ _ -- i -- - - - + - - - CPEP - CORRUGATED PafflHnEaE PIPE (SWOW INTERIOR t� s --- �y r_ --- --25' BSBL-------------------------- 6 zs WALL-" AuN-rzP�A TOP=213.90 # �, ' - ----_---- - 2"YARD BASIN 1 - _-- _---- -®��ER - , DETENTION PIPE BEDDING DETAIL 5 RPP - maeED PawrmcmaelDE Pr 2 /E(N&S)=211.40 I TOP=217.90 v z - ",L1 aPe TOP=21ZO N.T.S. - IE(SE)=211. 40 I IE(W)=214.0 ` '� NL�4 ` --21 B 4 +1 TYPE I-L CDC IE(E)=212.90 ° I © ��e �� </N 4 MODULAR BLOCK .220 24 LF-6" PIPE @ 2.9q �.�� �"WALL 1'-2' HIGH 3 CB#1-TYPE 1-L-GRATED LID--r� W/RESTRICTOR DEVICE o; j TOP=2170 \ :•�_ III /17LF-6" PVC @15Jq ,-_-_ `� { IE(S&N)=213.10 IE(E)=214.5 AOR — — — — — — PIC 1NSD£ DIAKE7ER CAP s TUN 210 - ��� 5 DETENTION PIPE SECIIRE mm AD17ES T'E x /T ; 16� ti 34LF-18" PIPE @ 0.75q <-'T \ ` �� �� FOOTING DRILLQrOR I,, PROFILE SECTION A—A" I 4\ EaGE OF DOUSE ti .:. cSWEL OFM.. ` I i " { \ � DRAIN (TYP.) 4 STAtiAESS STEEL SCRf{fS. u SCALE 1"--10' 4 MODULAR BLOCK --- �, ( 1 3 RESTRICTOR DEVICECB#i WALL 1'-4' HIGHco+1cRE� RETAINING wau 1 N. T.S. RETAINING FF=219,0 0 ( 230 WALL t B �d \ GAR GE=219 D 1U.11 TL _- DEIENBgN PIPE _ EXISTING MAN-MADE DRAINAGE DITCH B ' TO REMAIN; SEE ARCHITECTURAL m -, \` { B° M `'`° °`e rng s°° /caP unR s� m B1._* un7J --.- -.- --. - PROPOSED GRADE - PARTIAL SITE PLAN. ` 2 \ 1' - / ern i• ,l JH' EXISBNG j- u f O a a9 220 EF-219 13R GRA E \ \ __ _ 19 wa Ned a TJnrshed GTade .� p2% GARAGE=2t9 4CONCRETE HIGH,RETAINING ETAI(DESIGN BYALLivHOLES - . - - i - - - 25' gsg \y { 51 y Rovned Rack) J SI. ' IEP'D 1 OTHERS):) I / , i /F A' ^' R� da �\ b Perlorafed PVC Gushed Ston ew�ltng Pad 210 / \ { 12 /?8 N �� 6' Pm d nn W aP. - - - - 4 -CONCRETE RETAINING MODULAR BLOCK WALL 4 PROFILE SECTION "B-B" C6#2-TYPE 1-t i A 25VF / WALL 2'-8' HIGH AT& - GRATED LID 2•�� i I SCALE: 1" -10' W \ ��D (DESIGN BY OTHERS) - TOP-216.9 /7 1 T �/ { I \ 230 1L - - -- EXISBNG GRADE RETAINING WALL -- - - a- 6 1E(N&E)=21 3,: 35 1 r r ' 1 \ 2F9 {- 1 - � RETAINING WALL _ _.. {-,'�Lr SIREAM ffER�!\.__� -. O �.Q „I r i \ I FOOTING / 8$ Il%... - -- \-- -22% I{Ermrc .{_ / 18 X 12 REDUCER' S DETENTION PIPE 'i , `• i, 2201 - - - - _ - - - _ _ _ - _ Tox ?8 ORIL ESYT -1 ( F F QRAIN _ DRwEwnY z1s -- L l 40LF�18" PIPE @ 0.75q >, • Vt71\1\2; 1 / I �� ! c ;1 -CB13 a 61 PVC __SET REBAR AND CAP '_CB 3-TYPE 1-L ___ _ P A`, n1 210: PROFILE SECTION C C j G % - g - SCALE 1"-10' >-� PIO'D 22969 Q% i� ' � � R /\ • II / �� 7ALV4DS 517E IXASSITICABON W7XSHEET WATERSHED: I W/GRATED LID .,E o I L }N701fY CREEK OF ED' J LQ TOP=218. 55 sF 11, r, IE(N&E)=214.50 y / 373.82' TBM 1 �/ N f r _ -- "- C) il _ .;;u SIERRA �, BOLT ON H BONNET r P�` ALAI IOCAT BOLT ON HYDRANT - ET"7 1, N 'n ELEVATION 224.67 \' lau Tyee Mee (s a A`:t) 1 1Fr: ReS+E�tei I z Eax ( Re9�'sd Z Repbcad a W. (Past 077) -) -> -> -> F A498 s 4.Tu1m' M, 1rte,ns" Ra ,oed , ,aeon ,, 34.E sr `+ Told A Dtg f d b E'.al" 5lttmevfe Duf 1 S,simr(a) 0 a R,9a2. ed A NW Y l W4,11 0 Z Aw prep) to ba Wl pW b7 Lo+ krAa f Oe- .tp f ia•^hn' ,n - 0 8 A. GrcymM le to 4Rpted fh,, ,h Co-e,e+f6yvy SPA /r.W7. 44097 CALL DIAL -DIG AT 1-800-424-5555 AT SITE ADDRESS LEAST 3 BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE DIGGING 1139 S RRA PLACE CITY ENGINEER DATE EOWOS. WA, 93020 i h PREPARED BY: DRAINAGE, GRADING & MSC RAP o 3 DONNA L. BRESKE, P, E. FOR A 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. E CE SIERRA PLACE %' j (NOT FOUNn' �0 2 T ` r : SNOHOMISH, IVA 98290 HILLMAN REBID N - L1 A-107'50'011" A i COW,R9uErRESPO,r EFORILT5.P"LouRataT AWWP,CrAHLYS— u,ulasWfPfR fs y� PHONE: (425) 334-9980 O T sw>•`v cN 1 PANS 0T TOP, aY POTHOW, Ra uTRJrs AAA 9. V,f n TTE rrAvuvlAL AAn oBtrra Lcurxrs TO i \SJmJAt t 'h TAX I0. 00548900002215 PEN: N L=75.28' J / m a c TIS S"Aa &aWf c ua:; UPAN LVlr AT 1- » zJ-s s AIN TROT PaRY x u a R rrs x'c \ FAX: (425 334-7380 R = 40.00' \ {� { .se°1Or urai;:s ns sew. a - "'` TTTyyy''' c p�c'wir-aT i Lca`rEro Ft iu' e�.r"�YT�uA av7 �i'» iE[ s cr oT .IA J \� ) __� A a�E/Dv '. An'.0 ,V donna breske@comeast.net SCALB: )"=10' ISSUS DATd: 2-13-13 SHT NO, 2 OF 2 EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH TACK IN LEAD PLUG IN CASING (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WATERVIEW MANOR- VOL 35, PG. 23) TRACT 22 PUGET SOUND MACH 1 N E R Y DEPOT F'IVE ACRE TRACTS (V O L . b, P G. 4 7) ------------- I L t t1 I 1" J R- W i1. \ Si-• a &30'14'46" SET NAIL AND WASHER IN EAST SIDE OF TREE AT P.C. T----------------------- : cI .may-- I '. EX10' I J I NO. EASEMENT A.F. O.i1 9575D I �I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C I I I I I I I I I I I I I WEST END 12 SD NOT FOUND LL I I I I I I I I I I SET RFBAR AND CAP ----T 2296 I I NO'O 22969 I I I I I I SIERRA STREET e sEVM— — -- �� EXISTING CONCRETE N 89'34'28" W MONUMENT N1TH "X" IN 1-3/4" BRASS DISK IN CASING UTILITY NOTE 237 EX. 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT A.F. NO. 1495750 f N 89'34'20' W :-' IA- i 0 /- 25.00' T' 1 ) P \ A BVfiE.Y LLYE�EAY \d 1 v 9IT f«EI,E,w.v \ \ a�E3.YEA,aRs eY WcnAuu O 'e MY } 1 1Y VACATED SIERRA _ \NR O, pps� da-. STREET PER ORDINANCE NO. 3543 Q �e1 n+wcsr 6avr — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6tti ON NYGRAM. EtEYAl10.Y:22s.6) THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON IS APPROXIMATE ONLY. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES. THE OWNER SHOULD CONTACT THE PURVEYORS OF ALL UTILITIES IN THE AREA TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES ON AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. 1 } I I ( ROX LOCARPV OE $$CO 7n�oT iWNO) I ?21.Of N L S 0 N A D D 1 T 1 O N 0115 - 12' CONVEYED TO CITY OF EDMONDS r SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT PER BY A.F. NO. I CITY OF EDMONDS 137OB35 I ANCE NO. .__--_-- i 30RO3 _ - - - - _-___--_-_ I 9'34'2B- 8 N ' W _ - - I I N 89'34'28' W 38' CONVEYED TO CITY OF EDMONDS BY AF. NO. 1412708 N W E S SCALE : 1'=20' 0' 5' 10, 20, 1. 40' BASIS OF BEARINGS THE MONUMENT TINE FROM THE INTERSECTION OF OLYMPIC AVENUE AND SIERRA STREET TO THE MONUMENT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WATER`IEW MANOR PER THE PLAT OF NELSON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 19 OF PLATS, PAGE 59. RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH 120 FEET OF TRACT 23. PUGET SOUND MACHINERY DEPOT 5 ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5, PAGES 47; EXCEP C'AT PORT104 LYING WEST OF THE EAST UNE OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7706200208; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN SIERRA STREET AS DELINEATED ON THE PLAT OF NELSON ADDITION, ACCORDING TOTHE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 19, PAGE 89, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF TRACT 22, SAID PLAT LYING EAST OF THE CERTAIN EASEMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7706200508. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SIERRA STREET VACATED UNDER CITY OF EDMONDS ORDINANCE NO. 3543 AS DESCRIBED THEREIN. (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL B OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT SUBDIVISION S-93-87 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9307080525. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH. STATE OF WASHINGTON SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS. RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD BENCH MARK INVERT OF MANHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF SIERRA STREET AND OLYMPIC AVENUE. ELEVATION : 160.50 DATUM : CITY OF EDMONDS TBM NO. i NORTHWEST SGNNETT BOLT ON FIRE HYDRANT AT THE EASTERLY END OF SIERRA STREET. ELEVATION 224.67 LEGEND --d- SEWER MANHOLE -P UTILITY POLE Q ®a CATCH BASIN MANHOLE -0O GUY ANCHOR POLE ❑ CATCH BASIN ❑® ELECTRICAL BOX YARD DRAIN a- TELEPHONE PEDESTAL STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT 0 "^' CABLE TV BOX o SANITARY SEWER CLEANGUT PV POWER VAULT 04WATER VALVE w LUMINAIRE R^I FIRE HYDRANT k:(e AREA TIGHT IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE ->^-" GUY ANCHOR b4s WATER SPIGOT H/C HANDICAP RAMP oa+ WATER BLOW -OFF .n. SIGN AS NOTED 83`u WATER METER x—x—x FENCE AS NOTED os SPRINKLER MAILBOX GAS VALVE I BOLLARD 6 GAS METER 00::�O ROCKERY —SD— STORM SEWER UNE �' WETLAND FLAG SS— SANITARY SEWER LINE TREE AS NOTED —W— WATER LINE — E — ELECTRICAL UNE '.. T: ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT — T — TELEPHONE UNE CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT G — NATURAL AS LINE OH-- OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY FOR THOMAS & LINDA HILLMAN IN SE1 /4, NE1 /4 OF SEC. 24, T.27N., R.3E,, W. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I. PROPOSED BU'LDING ENVELOPE REMOVED 7-18-12 JTT ammT..,,.,A---- TT. t a. 21- x A I T E 'Fy. �clsrd° 19217 36th Avenue Y DRAM cllECKED I TACHMEN 1 MYTL L.m9 �1"' J.T.T. J.T.T. K91 NVA 01 Ili u_ May 9, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 Stephen H. Avril Staff Geologist I Raymond A. Coglas, Principal REVISED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED 1139 SIERRA PLACE EDMONDS, Earth Solutions 1Northeast,th 1 • • 115 0, _425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 1. `j" C 12012 AUG - 1 2012 0116 ATTACHMENT 7 Geotechnical Sepvices Are Popfopmed for Specific Pupposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one —not even you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read e Full Repopt Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Geotechnical Engineering Retort Is Based Unique Set of Project -Specific Factor Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsupface Conditions Can Chanue A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Gootechnical Findings Are Ppofessional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Repopt's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual 0117 subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation, GeolechniCal Engineelising RepoPt Is j Misintepppetaflon Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. o Plot Redpaw theEngineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contpactops a Complete Repoptand Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibilityruisios Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenviponmental C nern Ape Not Coveped The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants, Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. ObtainProfessional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, an Your A E- ember Geotechucial gene p for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, is strictry prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to ores an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M 511 May 9, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 ES-2348 Tom and Lin Hillman 159815 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington 9802 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hillman: w, Eairth Solutions,.. Earth Solutions NW LLC ® Geotechnical Engineering ® Construction Monitoring ® Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Single -Family Residence, 1139 Sierra Place, Edmonds Washington. Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed residence as planned is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on our field exploration, and review of the test pit logs prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI), the native soils underlying the proposed residence consist primarily of medium dense to very dense glacial till deposits. Moderately heavy groundwater seepage was observed during our field exploration (April 2012) at test locations HH-1 and HH-2. The groundwater was encountered at depths between one and three feet. Geotechnical recommendations for the foundation design and other pertinent geotechnical considerations are provided in this study. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the content of this Geotechnical Engineering Study, please call. Sincerely, Stephen H. April Staff Geologist Earth solutions NW, LLC 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 ® Bellevue, WA 98005 ® (425) 449-4704 ® FAX (425) 449-4711 0119 C INTRODUCTION........................................................................ 1 General.......................................................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS..................................................................... 2 Surface........................................................................... 2 Subsurface...................................................................... 2 Geologic Map and Soil Review .................................. 2 Groundwater..................................................................... 3 CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT.................................................................................... 3 Site and Construction Plans .............................................. I......... 3 Assessment of Geological Characteristics ................................ 3 Landslide Hazards.......................................................... ... 3 Erosion Hazards................................................................. 4 Minimal Critical Area Buffer and Setback ............................. 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ...................................... 4 General......................................................................... 4 Site Preparation and Earthwork ................ I.., ............. ,.......... 5 Temporary Erosion Control ....................................... 5 Excavation................................................................. 5 Structural Fill Placement ........................................... 5 Slope Fill Placement ................................................. 6 Excavations and Slopes ................................................. 6 Utility Support and Trench Backfill ...................................... 6 Foundations.................................................................... 7 Seismic Considerations........................................................ 7 Slab -on -Grade Floors . ..................................................... 7 Cast -In -Place Retaining Walls ............................................ 7 Drainage........................................ .................... . .......... 8 LIMITATIONS...................... ..................................... . ................ 8 Additional Services........................................................... 9 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0120 A T VICINITY 1 HAND HOLE LOCATION PLAN SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT _ DETAIL RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Han•'. Hole Logs Test Pit Logs (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.) Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0121 REVISED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING _ TUD 1139 SIERRA PLACE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This Geotechnical Engineering Study was prepared for the proposed single-family residence to be constructed on the north side of the cul-de-sac which forms the eastern terminus of Sierra Place in Edmonds, Washington (see Vicinity Map, Plate 1). The purpose of this study was to prepare geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this Geotechnical Engineering Study included the following: • Reviewing past subsurface information conducted by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., for the property located at 1142 Sierra Place in Edmonds, Washington; • Subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and; • Preparation of this report. As part of our report preparation, pertinent sections of the following documents were reviewed: • Preliminary Drainage Diagram prepared by Tom and Lin Hillman; • The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, USGS Map MF-1541; • Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Edmonds Residence, completed by AESI, project No. EE07659A, dated January 25, 2008; • The USDA Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) of Snohomish County, and; • City of Edmonds Geologically Hazardous Areas (Chapter 23.80). The site is located off the northern side of the east terminus of Sierra Place and near the top of a descending natural slope. The project site is a currently undeveloped. The proposal includes construction of a two-story single-family residence and associated improvements. The building construction will consist of relatively light wood -framing and conventional foundations. Perimeter and interior continuous footing loads are estimated to be on the order of 1 to 2 kips per lineal foot. Slab loading is estimated to be on the order of 150 pounds per square foot. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0122 Tom and Lin Hillman May 9, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 ES-2348 Page 2 We anticipate footings will follow the existing grade to the extent practical in order to minimize disturbance. The maximum cuts for the proposed structure foundations will be on the order of six feet. A series of concrete retaining walls will be utilized for support of the proposed cuts at the east side of the residential structure adjacent to the wetland. The currently proposed footprint for the new residence is approximately illustrated on Plate 2 of this study. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the design. Surface The site is located on the north side of the east terminus of Sierra Place in Edmonds, Washington. The approximate location of the subject property is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The property consists of a single tax parcel approximately 0.93 acres in size. The approximate limits of the property are illustrated on the Hand Hole Location Plan (Plate 2). The site consists of a roughly rectangular lot which is situated near the crest of a slope with a local high elevation of about 280 feet. The topography across the lot generally descends to the west with about 68 feet of total elevation change. The site is vacant and vegetated with a relatively mature forest of fir and cedar trees. Subsurface The approximate locations of the hand holes are illustrated on the Hand Hole Location Plan (Plate 2). The hand hole logs are provided in Appendix A. An ESNW representative observed, logged and sampled four test excavations using hand tools extending to depths of four feet below existing grades (April 2012). The eastern upslope portion of the site was explored during preparation of the referenced report prepared by AESI by excavating test pits to depths of approximately 14 feet. The following is a general description of the soil conditions encountered at the test sites. In general the lot is underlain by medium dense to dense silty sand consistent with Vashon glacial till deposits. Soil relative density generally increased with depth. As part of our report preparation, we reviewed available maps regarding soil conditions for the subject site. The referenced geologic map identifies glacial till deposits (Qgt) across the subject property, Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0123 Tom and Lin Hillman May 9, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 The Soil Survey of Snohomish County identifies Alderwood gravelly sandy loam soils (Map Unit 3) 15-25 percent slopes across the site and surrounding area. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam series soils formed in glacial till. In our opinion, the soils anticipated to be exposed during grading activities on the subject site would be low to moderate. ESNW encountered groundwater seepage during our subsurface exploration (April 2012) at a depth of two and three quarters feet at test location HH-1; and one and a half feet at test location HH-2. Groundwater seepage was reported at the test pit locations during the fieldwork conducted by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (January 2008) at depths of four and 11 feet. Groundwater seepage rates fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater seepage and flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. However, zones of persistent or chronic groundwater seepage are not uncommon, and can be encountered during any time of year. As part of this geotechnical engineering study we reviewed the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance (Chapter 23.80). Per the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Report requirements, the following topics related to development plans and site conditions are addressed. Site and Construction Plans Construction of a single-family residence is planned for the site. The maximum cuts for the proposed structure foundations will be on the order of six feet. The attached Hand Hole Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates the proposed building footprint area and site topography. ESNW observed no signs of surface seeps, hummocky terrain, head scarps, or rilling during our fieldwork. The overall stability of the steep slope areas can be characterized as good based on our field observations. The referenced geologic map identifies glacial till deposits across the subject property. The native soils encountered at the test locations consisted primarily of medium dense to very dense silty sand consistent with the geologic map designations. ESNW observed perched groundwater at a depth of one and a half to three feet during fieldwork. This condition is consistent with other till sites where groundwater is commonly found perched at the contact between loose silty sand topsoil and the cemented glacial till material. With respect to landslide hazard areas, 32.80.020 of the Edmonds City Development Code (ECDC) defines landslide hazard areas as slopes of 40 percent or greater with a vertical rise of more than ten feet. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0124 Tom and Lin Hillman May 0, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 i 4 M The natural slope across the subject site is less than 40 percent with a vertical rise of more than ten feet and does not meet the current criteria for landslide hazard designation, Overall stability of the slopes can be characterized as good. Typical indicators of instability such as head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, and erosion features such as rills were not observed during past site visits, In this respect, based on our observations the sloped areas of the site are stable with respect to landslide activity, in our opinion. .:::. ...:.. In our opinion site soils would be moderately susceptible to erosion. In our opinion, the planned development will not increase the erosion hazard at the site, provided appropriate Best Management Practices are implemented during the earthwork and development activities. General guidelines for erosion control are provided in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this study. Minimum Critical Area Buffer and Setback In our opinion, the proposed grading and development activity can be completed as currently planned without additional setback or buffer requirements. The proposed development will not result in an increased potential for landslide activity. This opinion does not cover unforeseen or changed conditions. General Based on the results of our study, construction of the two-story single-family residence as planned is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations are associated with foundation support and grading plans including cast -in -place retaining walls. In our opinion, the proposed single-family residence can be supported on conventional shallow foundations supported on competent or recompacted native soil or structural fill. We anticipate competent native soil capable of providing adequate foundation support will be encountered at foundation grades, retaining wall foundation grades, or at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades elsewhere. Overexcavation may be required under foundation elements depending on the condition during grading activities. ESNW should be onsite during foundation excavations to confirm conditions are as anticipated and to provide supplemental recommendations for foundation subgrade preparation. In our opinion, the soils generated from cuts throughout the majority of the site should generally be suitable for use as structural fill. However, -the native soils are moisture sensitive, and may not be suitable if the soil moisture content is over optimum. A representative of ESNW should be on -site during fill placement to confirm that adequate compaction is achieved. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0125 Tom and Lin Hillman May 9, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 ES-2348 Page 5 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Tom and Lin Hillman and their representatives. This study has been prepared 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. Site preparation will likely include removing existing vegetation from the construction envelope including, but not limited to trees, brush and topsoil. Temporary erosion control measures should include, at a minimum, silt fencing placed along the downslope perimeter of the construction envelope, and a construction entrance consisting of at least six inches of quarry spalls should be considered in order to minimize off -site soil tracking and to provide a firm surface. Surface water should not be allowed to flow over temporary or permanent slopes. Interceptor drains or swales should be considered for controlling surface water flow patterns. The geotechnical engineer should observe the erosion control measures, and provide supplement recommendations for minimizing erosion during construction, as necessary. If temporary discharge of stormwater offsite is planned during construction, turbidity monitoring should be performed, as required by the City of Edmonds. Excavations Based on the subsurface conditions described in the referenced report by AESI and our fieldwork, medium dense to dense silty sand soils are anticipated to be encountered in the planned excavations. The soils anticipated to be encountered in the proposed excavations can be characterized as having of moderate to high sensitivity to moisture. During periods of extended precipitation, or if the in -situ moisture content is over optimum, placement and compaction of the excavated soils could be difficult. The presence of localized perched groundwater seepage could be encountered in the planned excavations. The geotechnical engineer should observe the excavations, and provide supplement recommendations for drainage when necessary. Structural Fill Placement In general, areas to receive structural fill should be sufficiently stripped of organic matter and other deleterious material. The majority of the organic matter associated with trees, brush, root balls, and groundcover should be removed from the proposed fill and cut areas. Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in the building pad areas should be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557-02). Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0126 Tom and Lin Hillman May 9, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 ES-2348 Page 6 If the on -site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a maximum aggregate grain size of four inches, and a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. In general, fill placement throughout the existing sloped areas of the site is feasible, provided appropriate measures to bench and key the fill into the existing slope surfaces are utilized. General guidelines for slope fill placement are provided on Plate 3 of this report. The project geotechnical engineer should be on -site during the fill placement to assess the slope fill construction, and to provide supplement recommendations for the fill placement, as appropriate. During the construction of the fill slopes, appropriate means for compacting the slope face must be utilized. Excavations and Slopes The Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) provide soil classification in terms of temporary slope inclinations. The existing weathered native soil where groundwater is present is classified as Type C by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils must be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). The undisturbed dense glacial till where no groundwater is exposed is classified as Type A. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils must be sloped no steeper than .75H:1V, If the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be achieved, temporary shoring maybe necessary to support excavations. The geotechnical engineer should observe temporary and permanent slopes to verify that the inclination is appropriate for the exposed soil, and to provide additional grading recommendations, as necessary. Utilitv Support and Trench Backfill The native soils anticipated to be exposed during utility trench excavations would include firm silty sand deposits. In general, the on -site soils observed at the test sites described in the referenced report should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Areas of the onsite soils, however, may not be suited for utility trench backfill, and should be further evaluated by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable specifications of the City of Edmonds. Groundwater should be expected in utility trench excavations. Earth Solutions NW, LLc 0127 Tom and Lin Hillman May 9, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 In our opinion, the proposed single-family residence can be supported on conventional shallow foundations supported on competent or recompacted native soil or structural fill. We anticipate competent native soil capable of providing adequate foundation support will be encountered at foundation elevations or at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades elsewhere. Loose or otherwise unsuitable soil should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Assuming the foundations will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for the foundation design: • Allowable soil bearing capacity • Coefficient of friction • Passive resistance • Wind and seismic • Total settlement • Differential settlement 2,500 psf 0.40 (foundation /soil interface) 350 pcf (structural backfill) allowable one-third Increase 1.0 to 1.5 inches 0.5 to 0.75 inches A factor -of -safety of 1.5 had been included in the friction and passive resistance values. Seismic Considerations The 2009 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test pit locations, Site Class C, from table 1613.5.2, should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction susceptibility at the site can be characterized as low. The relative density of the native soil and lack of a shallow groundwater table is the primary basis for this opinion. Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on a minimum of one foot of structural fill. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). Installation of an approved vapor barrier should be installed below the slab. The vapor barrier must be a product specifically designed for that purpose and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Retaining walls should be designed to resist earth pressures and any applicable surcharge loads. For design, the following parameters can be assumed for retaining wall design: Earth Solutions NW, LLC 51 Tom and Lin Hillman May 9, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 ® Active earth pressure (yielding wall) At -rest earth pressure (restrained wall) ® Passive resistance ® Coefficient of friction 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) 50 pcf 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) 0.40 ES-2348 Page 8 Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be included in the retaining wall design. Drainage should; be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design, as appropriate. The geotechnical engineer should review retaining wall designs to verify that appropriate earth pressure values have been incorporated into design and to provide additional recommendations. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A rigid, perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an appropriate discharge location. A typical retaining wall and drainage detail is illustrated on Plate 4 of this report. The presence of groundwater seepage should be expected in the building site excavations and the utility trench excavations. Temporary measures to control groundwater and surface water runoff during construction will likely involve the use of interceptor trenches, sumps and associated conveyance systems. Interceptor trenches should be installed along the cut slope areas as necessary during the mass grading of the site. The geotechnical engineer should observe site conditions during the grading and utility installation and provide supplement recommendations for drainage, as appropriate. In our opinion, perimeter footing drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 5 of this report. Water should not be allowed to flow over the adjacent slopes. Provisions should be included in site designs to either tightline drainage elements to the base of the slope or convey runoff to an approved discharge point away from the slope area. IN ► M M The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test pit locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Earth Solutions NK LLC 0129 Tom and Lin Hillman May 9, 2012 Revised July 16, 2012 ENV ES-2348 Page 9 ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this study. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0130 �~31HIt=, �u1�.`tFi. Fr�r aK♦k � {�,+iost€s��t��f fY4 l _IUTF FL _ fi' .t fi4nk' t�i•1if Y�.A, vimm t={y,�.�"Pex� .� :..sari_ ir. ra 1 ��I `; $P� •�A ,-zy, ..`� _CIr r JTrl I .m : a' •'�1r ' i r•' , s r,rup P.�.�1_. 5�1 ld-4`'{ ,srSy, r�T �51:a 151tr54 aEt'. (C �,.."�..�iv.id:�v� �. - . 5� ,*� IMP ,ki"'.t j .y a ,•sc aax 5' Not 90 i t r MA GET e �x &'�79f •�°ktl'�f ° d �$6�• a "1 s 'spot £ r ati,.a 't 52 +.94•. a --a" i r€F 'YryFe �. a € e7 s. � SF as r�rt �5 r e:+ "O�Y had " 3•�d..." iPHI I N h5 rl`k•t 2_P.�$�,iP ra y. v j 7kcYl. �5"4¢��. '.}d•�-d �• � s s,' -1 io ar ,m �1 1�. r { Yt17H�� '. s�say-�a n,•.� 1?!,5 r Tt 3 •f' 2: 4 , x Y° tt.¢ !1C„, rs -r '� 1 i�'•, rf •+t�§ .Gx_ tP. s:a9• iP t � t it �,: III � ° �7' �. "4 ° n rF4'T; !3 rI f7YG A�; lkv .� `r m m a �. i }Y e31� ®41 s ��`iP s1� ,F� .1 ,I,IDUFARO AW r•" Sr ��,. iL'i y+Fi P `}P. f Irr4: :r e=kF •.rRANF CM rr si•raa5i , a" 6 i.-N s� v d 1.l, �s �' 9,7 d q^�s• a i AT � , {� .;; f _ � � a ,lAa�9L P; ,�. u. �_es 'G '4V tlLt' e + � R . x Tic ANow 6 sadtl f 'r>{r rra tt nr 1 Ci Lk'st, i iL `J:5 fdg A A$ 4oet ° �y,et' wr W,,l_..'q j � 1,..�2 1�'.�-i`� .€ $1 ®'s� :,s� �5'Ji,�j �z_ '� R37 � P. P ....f w:t a e+t1; `I1.—t�i P,im Op, yk •'a��:'S 3 iN4°, PN '�.Pi al "� y u tJ*.. SP ! L''T (---F--;- } S .R1 .-...-•c_ I+nl,07 - j4 °''°�' a "'� a era �� � r� j=t r�.a� �e � �_I., n �, s� w k a._.. � e�" �•`� r": . a g t`�o..�.�'3h i.. as ri - �`�•. � a�a?J -� �. a �at4 �".n � �fq`��.. a�� _�S� � ��' 0131 SIERRA HH-1-1-Approximate Location of ESNW Hand Hole, Proj. ES-2348, April 2012 j ? Subject Site El Proposed Building Mo NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. Lil 0 15 30 60 1 "=30 V. Scale in Fact Hand Hole Location Plan Hillman Single Family Residence Edmonds, Washington NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 04/12/2012 Proj. No. 2348 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked SHA Date April 2012 Plate 2 0132 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Bench and Keyway Fill to consist of suitable granular material approved by the Geotechncial Engineer. NOTES: o Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating Key Way or benches. o Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. o Final slope gradient should be 2 : 1 (horizontal : vertical). o Final slope face should be densified by over -building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. o Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. o Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. Final Slope Gradient Compacted Slope Face Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the "Site Preparation and Earth Work" section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. SLOPE FILL DETAIL Hillman Single Family Residence Edmonds, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 05/09/2012 Proj. No. 2348 Checked SHA Date May 2012 Plate 3 0133 18" Min. 00 0' oo 0' o'r)o0'oo 0 0, Oo ' o0 0 0 o00 0 C 0, o °o 0 o 0 0 000 O , G , 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 oo 0 Q 000 0 q o , o o 0 o p oo o 0 o 0 0 V o oo o o Q o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 d' ° 0 0 0 0 000 0 00 0oo 0 0 00 00 .0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 00° 00 , oo oo oo o 0 oo o Qo 0 0 oo 0` 0o 0 0 0' o o a o o 0 0 o 00 oo oQ o o C O , o 0 0 oS,0o00o0o�000g, 0 0 ,00o00 o 0 o a o po o , 0 0, °0 o 0 �� 0 0 o 0 o .0 0 00 o 0 0 o o o o o o oo 0 o o 0o 0 0 0 8 000 0 B o 0 00oo , o0 0 0 o 0 o 0 NOTES: Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. Rxel4i 1 000 0 0 op 0 Free Draining Structural Backfill o o. •r•r•r.r• ,r;r;rtir; 1 inch Drain Rock Structural Fill Perforated Drain Pipe (Surround In Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY.- NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Hillman Single Family Residence Edmonds, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 05/09/2012 Proj. No. 2348 Checked SHA Date May 2012 Plate 4 0134 Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: ® Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. �•r•r•r•r S••ti•ti•L• d•r•r•r•r r�r~rtiJLr 1" Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Hillman Single Family Residence Edmonds, Washington Drwn. GLS jDate05/09/2012 Proj. No. 2348 Checked SHA Date May 2012 Plate 5 0135 ITT» . Subsurface conditions at the site were previously explored by excavating a series of hand holes, The approximate locations of the hand holes are illustrated on the Hand Hole Location Plan. The logs are provided in this Appendix. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. We reviewed the previously referenced Test Pit Logs prepared by (AESI) in the preparation of this study. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0136 j MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS I TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH I LETTER GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS ° • ® • ® • GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) pQpOo p Q od GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, QR NVO FIN AND MIXTURES, LITTLE COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION GRAVELS WITH FINESo °Q Q • °0 ' p o GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SILT MIXTURES GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND. CLAY MIXTURES RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE AMOUNT FINES) ) MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SAND AND CLEAN SANDS SW LL-GRADED SANDS, SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINEASVELLY LARGER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SIZE SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH ;;. '.;; `S SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50%FINES OF COARSE FRACTION SC M BUR RCLAYEY ANDS, SAND - CLAY PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE AMOUNT OF FINES) LE INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY FINE GRAINED SOILS SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND LESS THAN 50 CLAYS CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS _ — — ®L ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO.200 SIEVE MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND CLAYS GREATER THAN50 CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ®H ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ' `—'' `�"' PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. 0137 Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER HH-1 1805 136th Place N,E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Hillman PROJECT NAME Hillman Single Family Residence PROJECT NUMBER 2348 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds, Washinqton DATE STARTED 4/2/12 COMPLETED 4/2/12 GROUND ELEVATION 219 ft HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESNW Rev GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD AT TIME OF DRILLING — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF DRILLING a NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 8": ferns , AFTER DRILLING — w o. U W - z p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ❑ ¢Z ❑ 0 TPSL '— 0.5 TOPSOIL 219.5 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet (Weathered Till) SM -water seepage ti 0 -becomes dense, Glacial Till 215.0 _ Hand Hole terminated at 4.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2,75 feet during excavation. Bottom of hole at 4.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER HH-2 r 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Hillman PROJECT NAME Hillman Single Family Residence PROJECT NUMBER 2348 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds, Washinaton DATE STARTED 412/12 COMPLETED 4/2112 GROUND ELEVATION 224 ft HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESNW Rep GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD AT TIME OF DRILLING — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": blackberries AFTER DRILLING — w o- a U a j 2 TESTS Uj a. O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a� z zi a v7 a_ PSL " ` 0.5 TOPSOIL 223.5 _ Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet (Weathered Till) MC = 21.90% SM -water seepage 3,0 -becomes dense 221.0 Hand Hale terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 1.5 feet during excavation. Bottom of hole at 3.0 feet. 0139 Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBERm3 1806 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Millman _ PROJECT NAME Hillman Single Fa ^milt' Residence PROJECT NUMBER 2348 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds,_ Washington v ~ DATE STARTED 4/2/12 COMPLETED 4/2/12 GROUND ELEVATION 221 ft HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESNW Rep GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD AT TIME OF DRILLING -� LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF DRILLING NOTES Depth of Topsoil 8, Sod 8": fems AFTER DRILLING --- w U _ w rw inai - Q_ J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 0 ¢z 0 TPSL ®= 0.5 TOPSOIL 220.5 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered Till) SM -becomes dense, Till 3,0 218.0 Hand Hole terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of hole at 3.0 feet. 0140 Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBEff-H-H-4 r 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Hillman PROJECT NAME Hillman Single Family Residence PROJECT NUMBER 2348 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds, Washington DATE STARTED 4/2/12 COMPLETED 412/12 GROUND ELEVATION 218 ft HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESNW Rep GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD AT TIME OF DRILLING -- L000ED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF DRILLING NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 8" duff _ AFTER DRILLING - w a- o! � w Uj g TESTS J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION A Q z :5 C� 0 TPSL = a 0.5 TOPSOIL 217:5 Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered Till) SM -becomes dense, Till MC = 11.80% 215.0 Hand Hole terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of hole at 3.0 feet. 0141 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 0142 IN fl� � in IN nN so ISO Gray silty $AND with gravel, SM m�- 0143 • EMAIL ONLY Tom and Lin Hillman ,. ; Edmonds, Washington 9r" Earth Solutions NW, LLC I Wetlwd Wow co'es, /w. Delin$ation i Mitlgatlon J AaGloration t Haoitai yreition / Per nit AAsistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 FOR ILL -1139 SIERRA PLACE CITY OF EDMONDS, WA Wetland Resources, Inc. Project #11033 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Ave. SE, Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 Prepared For: Tom & Lin Hillman 15915 74,h Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 �1 C? Zp,� November 27, 2012 N7 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PROJECT PROPOSAL SITE DESCRIPTION WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS - COWARDIN SYSTEM WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS - CITY OF EDMONDS WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED VARIANCE STREAM BUFFER REDUCTION MITIGATION APPROACH PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES POST -MITIGATION FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT STORMWATER DISCUSSION PROPOSED PLANTING PLAN PLANTING NOTES PROJECT SPECIFIC GOALS PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM MAINTENANCE CONTINGENCY PLAN PERFORMANCE BOND USE OF THIS REPORT REFERENCES ATTACHMENTS TABLE 2: PROJECT COMPARISON (1139 SIERRA PLACE) TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING AREAS FIGURE 1: AERIAL PHOTO WETLAND RATING FORM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS SITES 1 & 2) CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP AND MITIGATION PLAN SHEET 1 / 1) 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 19 Per the request of Tom and Lin Hillman (the applicants), Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) conducted a site visit on March 2, 2011 to verify the previously delineated wetland and stream boundaries on the approximate 1-acre site located at 1139 Sierra Place in the city of Edmonds, Washington (within a portion of Section 24, Township 27N, Range 3E, W.M.). The original delineation was performed in July 2003 by WRI. During the March 2011 site visit, only minor changes to the western wetland boundary were found. Appropriate modifications were made both on -site and in the attached drawings. A new project application for this site is proposed by new owners to construct a relatively modest - sized single-family residence within the western part of the property. The proposed plan would result in significantly less impact to the site when compared to the original application. The proposed development area is closest to the existing access to the site. Because the western part of the site is covered by wetlands, streams, and associated buffers, the applicant cannot achieve a reasonable economic use of the property through strict application of the provisions under Title 23 of the Edmonds Municipal Code. The applicant therefore proposes a variance, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.210 to achieve reasonable economic use of the property. Through this proposal, unavoidable impacts to on -site wetlands and buffers will be necessary. Impacts will be mitigated on -site to the greatest extent possible. The proposed impacts associated with this application are significantly reduced when compared to a previous building application for this site that included a proposal to construct a single-family residence in the eastern part of the site and an access driveway up the steep slopes leading to the new house. The previous project proposal would have filled over 50 percent more than the amount of wetland that is being proposed under the current applicant. It also would have required significant alteration and reconstruction of the existing slopes. The current project proposal is an improvement over what could have been constructed on the site. SITE DESCRIPTION Access to this site is from the east via Sierra Place. The site is situated on a west -facing aspect witli an average grade of about 20 percent. The entire site is forested. Dominant tree species include red alder (Alnus rubra), western red cedar (Thzq*a plicata), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiz), and big leaf maple (Aces macrophyllwn). Dominant understory vegetation consists of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniucus). A Category 3 wetland occupies approximately the western two-thirds of this site, and extends off - site to the north and south. The total estimated size of this wetland, including off -site portions amounts to a little more than one-half acre. This wetland functions hydrogeomorphically as a slope wetland and primarily receives hydrology from groundwater seeps and drainage from upslope properties. The wetland contains a vegetative community of red alder and a few western red cedars in the canopy, with a mix of native and non-native shrubs and herbaceous species. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place WRI #11033 REV: November 27, 2012 0147 The wetland receives a total score of 37 points on the DOE wetland rating form (attached), which equates to a Category 3 wetland. The on -site wetland supports a Type Np stream, which flows from the wetland in multiple small channels. Towards the western portion of the site, these channels coalesce into one channel. This stream was flowing strongly during the recent 2011 site visit. This stream continues off -site to the west, where it passes through a concrete -lined ditch and into a culvert under Olympic Avenue. No outlet to this culvert was located. As a result, it is assumed that from this point hydrology from this stream is conveyed via the city stormwater system. The stream is not shown on water typing maps or fish distribution maps as containing fish habitat. Because of the lack of documented evidence, the multiple barriers and steep gradient (> 16%) on the site, it is presumed that the stream is a non -fish bearing stream, and shall be classified as a Type Np stream. In the city of Edmonds, Category 3 wetlands typically receive 50-foot protective buffers per ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(c) and Type Np streams receive 50-foot protective buffers per ECDC 23.90.040(D)(1). Due to existing soil types (Alderwood soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes), the on -site slopes appear to be designated as erosion hazard areas. A Geological Hazards Assessment shall be prepared by a quality professional, Pursuant to 23.80.050, as part of a building application for this site. Other identified critical areas within 200 feet of the site include a wetland within the neighboring property to the west at 1111 Sierra Place (the Hachler property). According to historical site plans of the neighboring property, the off -site wetland lies approximately 30 feet to the west, just on the other side of the access driveway located along the western side of the subject site. Because the off -site wetland is downslope from the subject investigated site, receives hydrology from ground water and the stream, and is separated by the existing driveway, it is not likely to be affected by activities proposed on the subject site. See Figure 1 for a location of the off -site critical areas. The neighboring wetland is downslope and does not contribute water to the wetland on 1139 Sierra Place (the proposed project site). It was thought that water from 1139 might recharge the 1111 wetland by means of an existing storm drain pipe inlet located at the southwest corner of 1139, but upon further investigation it was determined that the pipe in question was inactive; its western outlet was buried and dry. It is therefore concluded that the 1111 wetland is recharged solely from the stream and springs located on 1111, and that the water from 1139 flows to the stream to the northwest rather than to the southwest pipe. According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of 'Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, the classifications for the on -site wetland and stream are as follows: Wetland: Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded Stream 1: Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble-gravel/Mud Critical Area Study and Wctland Mitigation Plan Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place WRI #11033 REV: November 27, 2012 Under ECDC 23.50, the on -site wetlands are classified according to the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Wetland Rating System (Hruby 2004). Streams shall be classified in accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (WAC 222-16-030). The classifications of the on -site wetland and stream are as follows: Wetland - Category 3 The on -site wetland is a slope wetland that receives a total score of 37 points for functions on the DOE Wetland Rating Form. Wetlands attaining a total score for functions of 31-50 on the DOE Wetland Rating Form are classified as Category 3. In the city of Edmonds, Category 3 wetlands receive standard buffers of 50 feet per ECDC 23.50.040(1)(l)(c). Note: Under the preceding City of Edmonds Critical Areas Code (Section 20.15.B.060), the on - site wetland met the definition of a Category 2 wetland because it vas between 2,500 square feet and one acre in size and contains a forested wetland class. Wetland classifications in Edmonds have since been updated to the Washington Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System referenced above. Under the current Edmonds Critical Areas Code (ECDC 23.50.010.B), the on -site wetland does not meet the criteria of a Category 2 wetland but does meet the criteria of a Category 3 wetland, as described above. Stream — Type Np The stream channel is approximately 2 feet wide at the confluence in the western part of the property, but is less than 2-feet wide further upslope. The stream channel is located on a slope grade that exceeds 16 percent. Its contributing basin is estimated to be less than 20 acres. There is no documented evidence that indicates that this stream contains fish habitat. Based on these existing conditions, the on -site stream appears to meet the criteria of a Type Np stream (non -fish, perennial). In the city of Edmonds, Type Np streams are dedicated 50-foot protective buffers Section 23.90.040(D)(1). Methodology The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94, March 1997) was used for this determination, as required by the City of Edmonds. Under this method, the process for making a wetland determination is based on three sequential steps: 1) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percent cover); 2) If hydrophytic vegetation is found, then the presence of hydric soils is determined; 3) The final step is determining if wetland hydrology exists in the area examined under the first two steps. The following criteria descriptions were used in the boundary determination: Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 3 WRI # 11033 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place REV: November 27, 2012 Vegetation Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, defines hydrophytic vegetation as the "sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present." One of the most common indicators for hydrophytic vegetation is when more than 50 percent of a plant community consists of species rated "Facultative" and wetter on lists of plant species that occur in wetlands. Soils Criteria and Mapped Description The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, defines hydric soils as those "that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Field indicators are used for determining whether a given soil meets the definition for hydric soils. The soils underlying the subject property are mapped in the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is described as a moderately well drained soil on till plains. It is moderately deep over a hardpan. This soil formed in glacial till. Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is dark yellowish brown and dark brown very gravelly sandy loam about 23 inches thick. Included in this unit are small areas of soils that are similar to this Alderwood soil but have cobbles or stones on the surface, Also included are small areas of Everett, Indianola, and Ragnar soils on terraces and eskers. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. Permeability of this soil is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it. Available water capacity is low. Soils sampled on site appear similar to the description for this series. Hydrology Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, states that areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days >_ 12.5 percent of the growing season are wetlands, provided the soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas inundated or saturated between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface for less than 5 percent of the growing season are non -wetlands." Field indicators are used for determining whether wetland hydrology parameters are met. :• 7 1 • r Wetland Dominant species within the areas mapped as wetlands include: red alder (Alms cobra, Fac), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniucus, FacU). Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 4 WRI #11033 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place REV: November 27, 2012 D I�Wl The soils are typically black (1OYR 2/1) mucky gravelly sandy loam in the upper 12 inches and very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) gravelly sandy loam in the sublayer. The soils were saturated within the upper 18 inches of the surface at the time of the March 2011 site visit. The dominance of species rated "Facultative" or wetter meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation in this wetland. Based on field indicators, it appears that the area mapped as wetland is saturated to the surface for more than 12.5 percent of the growing season, thereby fulfilling wetland hydrology criteria. Non -wetland Areas Dominant vegetation within the areas mapped as non -wetland includes: Western red cedar (Thuja plicata, Fac), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzeisii, FacU), big -leaf maple (Ater macrophyhim, FacU), red alder (Alnus nibra) Fac), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniucus, FacU), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), sword fern (Polystichum munitim, FacU), English ivy (Hedera helix, FacU), English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus, UPL), and English holly (Ilex aquifoliicm, FacU). Soils in the non -wetland portions of the site are typically very dark grayish brown (lOYR 3/2) gravelly sandy loam to a depth of 4 inches below the surface and dark brown (1OYR 3/3) gravelly sandy loam from, 4 to 18 inches below the surface. These soils were slightly moist at the time of the March 2011 site investigation. The soil type described above does not indicate persistent wetland hydrology. Based on the lack of field indicators, it appears that areas of the site mapped as non -wetland are not saturated to the surface for more than 12.5 percent of the growing season, thereby not fulfilling wetland hydrology criteria. Methodology The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretations. This assessment pertains specifically to the on -site wetland system, but is typical for assessments of similar systems common to western Washington. Functions and Values Components Wetlands in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions. Included among the most important functions provided by wetlands are stormwater control, water quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic value, recreational opportunities, and education. The most commonly assessed functions are Stormwater Storage/Floodflow Attenuation, Water Quality, and Wildlife Habitat. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided below. Pre -disturbance Wetland Functions Assessment The on -site wetland is hydrogeomorphically (HGl\4) classified as a slope wetland because it is located on a hillside and contains ground water seeps that "daylight" and flow through the wetland without being impounded. Slope wetlands do not improve water quality or control Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place WRI #11033 REV: November 27, 2012 floodwaters to the same extent as depressional or riverine wetlands because they lack the physical characteristics to be able to impound surface water for treatment and/or flood control. Water Qsality With its location on a relatively steep slope, the subject wetland has limited ability to trap excess surface waters that flow through it. The existence of organic soil in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile as well as the existence of moderate herbaceous plant cover does provide some water quality benefit for down stream systems. However, this wetland generally rates low for this function because of its other characteristics. Minor improvements could be made through enhancement by planting additional herbaceous species within the bare ground areas of the wetland. Hydrologic control While this wetland functions to maintain base flows for the on -site stream, it holds a low capacity for reducing peak flows. Similar to water quality functions, the on -site wetland has a severely limited potential to provide flood control functions because of its lack of depressional features and lack of ability to become ponded. The wetland contains moderate coverage of rigid vegetation that may help slow velocity. Minor improvements to this function could be made through enhancement by planting additional woody species in open areas of the wetland. Wildlife habitatfunction The wetland and adjacent upland areas are completely isolated by suburban development and cover only about an acre of undisturbed foresdand. As such, connection to other diverse habitats is limited. Species habitat features are limited within the wetland and its buffer. The wetland therefore receives a low score for habitat functions. Minor improvements to these functions could be made through enhancement of species richness in the wetland. This would be achieved through planting of a diversity of native trees and shrubs within the wetland area. Stream Habitat Assessment (Type Np Stream) The following is a habitat assessment, pursuant to ECDC 23.90.020. The on -site stream is classified as a perennial non -fish bearing (Type Np) stream that is fed by on -site springs and storm drainage from upslope properties. The on -site perennial stream serves to collect and convey stormwater and wetland hydrology from the site to downstream systems. Vegetation within the on -site riparian corridor consists of western red cedar, Douglas fir, big -leaf maple, red alder, Himalayan blackberry salmonberry, vine maple, English holly, and English ivy. The riparian vegetation is moderately intact, although there are several non-native species that could be eradicated from the site and replaced with native species. Trees and shrubs overhang the stream channel provide excellent shade, protection, and temperature control. Riparian vegetation and soils on this site also have potential to control and minimize the excess pollutants that may enter the stream system. Water quality remains an issue for the proposed on - Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 6 WRI #11033 Hillman — 1139 Sicrra Place REV: November 27, 2012 0152 site project, and measures are proposed to prevent intrusion of pollutants and sediments into the stream. The stream only flows for a relatively short distance before it enters the city stormwater system. The on -site stream drains many of the properties on 12th Ave. N; and the section of stream that crosses the subject property is confined to a storm drain before it enters the property and is confined to a storm drain after it leaves the property. There is no evidence of fish use in the stream. However, this stream flows to Hindley Creek, which has been identified by the city as fish -bearing. According to available resources, including WDFW PHS on the Web, there is no documented presence or use of species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive or candidate species on -site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, there do not appear to be any federal, state; or local special management recommendations for this site other than the 50-foot standard stream buffer. Conclusion Based on existing conditions, it appears that the wetland and stream system provides moderately low levels of the analyzed functions. Some factors limiting peak performance include the presence of invasive species in the wetland and buffers (mainly Himalayan blackberry). Potential Impacts to Functions and Values To achieve a reasonable use of the property, a portion of the on -site wetland and stream/wetland buffer areas will be permanently impacted for construction of a modest single-family residence. The total area of permanent wetland impact will amount to 1,790 square feet while the total area of buffer impact will amount to 3,920 square feet. Placing a single-family residence adjacent to the wetland results in complete elimination of its protective buffer along a portion of it. The areas to be impacted are within a relatively level area at the bottom of the slope on the subject site. Vegetation to be removed primarily consists of volunteer red alder covered in English ivy, as well as salmoriberry, Himalayan blackberry and sword fern. Impacts associated with the proposed home construction will affect the infiltrative capacity of that that portion of the site. However, the overall impact is relatively low when compared to the low level of function offered by the wetland upslope of the proposed development. Limited long-term water quality impacts may result from the removal of vegetation and placement of new impervious surface. These impacts shall be mitigated by directing runoff from impervious surfaces into a tight -lined system that precludes sediment contribution prior to discharge. Alternative strategies, such as bioswale infiltration techniques, were considered for this site. However, it was determined that infiltration cannot be achieved on this site due to the shallow layer of glacial till over an impermeable layer (see geotechnical report by Earth Solutions N'VV). Short-term water quality impacts will be mitigated during construction through installation of BMP erosion control fencing at the down slope clearing limits. Through removal of vegetation on the site, some wildlife species inhabiting the area may be displaced. Impacted wildlife would be limited to small birds, small mammals and insects. The Critical Area Study and wetland Mitigation Plan Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place WRI #11033 REV: November 27, 2012 D I�W area to be impacted does not support habitat for rare or endangered species, therefore no loss of significant species is expected. Based on existing and anticipated conditions, the proposed development is expected to reduce the level of existing functions on the site somewhat. However, the overall cumulative affects, when compared to the developed areas surrounding the site, are expected to be relatively minimal. The applicant is proposing to construct a relatively modest single-family residence with associated driveway and small yard and porches within the southwestern corner of the property. This will be achieved through the variance process under ECDC 23.40.210. Below is an explanation of how this application meets the criteria that warrant a variance. Variances from the standards in ECDC 23.40 may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner provided that the applicant demonstrates the following: 1) The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; The on -site wetland, stream, and associated buffers occupy about 78% of the subject property, including the entire front portion of the property. Because of this, strict application of the standards set forth in Title 23 would prohibit a reasonable development on the site. 2) No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; There is no other reasonable use for the site than residential that would result in less impact. 3) The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; The applicant has carefully considered the house design and size. The total footprint and living space is considerably more modest that those of the surrounding properties (see Table 2). The research and design work clearly demonstrate that the proposed development is the minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable economic use of the property. 4) The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; No actions by the applicant have been carried out that have resulted in the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the site. There are no outstanding violations, boundary line adjustments, or anything of the like associated with this site. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place WRI #11033 REV: November 27, 2012 5) The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; The proposed development will not be hazardous to public health, safety, or welfare. The. project has been carefully designed to minimize site impacts to the greatest extent possible. It will not affect water quality or create flooding issues in downstream systems. The location of the development on the site is not expected to create erosion hazards or additional tree hazards for neighboring properties. 6) The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and The proposal has been carefully designed to minimize net loss of on -site functions. A watershed approach to protection and mitigation design has been considered as part of the proposed mitigation measures. 7) The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. All other regulations and design standards are being applied as part of this application. STREAM BUFFER REDUCTION ECDC Section 23.90.040.D allows for stream buffer width reduction from 50' to 25' with a buffer enhancement plan, provided the enhancement plan demonstrates improvement in functions and values. The proposed building setback line (BSBL) from the reduced buffer is a minimum of 3' as shown on the site plan. This 3' BSBL is intended to minimize encroachment into the stream buffer. The proposed mitigation for stream buffer reduction consists of buffer enhancement measures. The mitigation features (invasive species removal, replanting, monitoring) indicated for wetland buffer enhancement also apply to stream buffer enhancement. Since there is no fish use in the on -site stream or in the vicinity, the primary functions that the proposed buffer enhancement would protect include water quality, stream protection and riparian habitat functions. With regard to water quality functions, the proposed storm drainage on this system includes detention in an on -site pipe, with an oil separator at the driveway catch basin, as well as herbaceous plantings in the stream buffer to provide filtration of surface water. Therefore, long- term preservation of water quality functions near the stream is expected for this site. The reduced buffer area will remain permanently protected within the single-family property. The planted native vegetation will grow and mature under developed conditions, to protect the stream, control temperature, and provide habitat functions for insects, amphibians, small birds and mammals. Overall, this proposed stream buffer reduction/enhancement plan will protect and improve the stream buffer functions, as demonstrated above. The plan appears to meet the goals and objectives under ECDC 23.90.040.D, including enhancement plant densities and ongoing maintenance and monitoring. See sections below for details. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 9 WRI #I1033 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place REV: November 27, 2012 0155 Mitigation Sequencing The hierarchy of review criteria is as follows: avoid impacts, minimize impacts, repair or restore impacts, and compensate for impacts. Below is a discussion of steps taken to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts related to the existing impact: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; Because the portion of the property adjacent to the access point consists almost entirely of wetland, stream and associated buffer areas, complete avoidance of the on -site critical areas and buffers cannot be achieved in conjunction with achieving minimum economic use of the site. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; Consideration is given to the fact that there is a non -wetland or buffer area in the eastern part of the property. However, obtaining access to that would require a substantial amount of construction and modification to the existing slopes and wetlands on the site. As such, constructing a house in the eastern part of the site would result in significantly more wetland, buffer, and slope impacts than what is currently being proposed. The proposed house design, size, and its location on the landscape results in the least amount of impact that could occur on the site. To further minimize impacts, the applicant is proposing to reduce the standard building line setback (per ECDC 23.40.280) from 15 feet to 5 feet along wetland edge and 3 feet along the stream buffer edge. This leaves a larger amount of critical areas and buffer intact, and clearly demonstrates that minimization of impacts has been achieved to the greatest extent possible. 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; This cannot be achieved because all impacts are permanent. 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering or other methods Hazard slopes and stormwater runoff will be evaluated and a mitigation design will be prepared by a professional engineer. 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 10 WRI #11033 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place REV: November 27, 2012 0156 All areas proposed to remain intact or be enhanced (approximately 3/4 of the site) will be enhanced, maintained and permanently protected by the landowners. 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or For impacting 1,790 square feet of wetland, the applicant shall enhance a total of 15,560 square feet of remaining wetland on the site for an 8:1 ratio. For 3,920 square feet of permanent buffer impacts (including 1,480 square feet of stream buffer reductions), the applicant shall enhance a total of 2,410 square feet of buffer in the northwestern part of the site for a .5:1 replacement to impact ratio. I The 2,410 square feet of buffer area indicated to be enhanced is the stream buffer area north of the house. It also serves as wetland buffer. The mitigation plan in the report includes enhancement of this area. 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. A three-year monitoring program will be implemented following successful installation of the mitigation plan. To mitigate for permanent impacts to a total of 1,790 square feet of wetland, the applicant proposes to enhance a total of 15,560 square feet of wetland at a 8:1 ratio, which exceeds the 4:1 requirements under ECDC Section 23.50.050(G). To mitigate for a total of 3,920 square feet of wetland buffer impact, including 1,480 square feet of stream buffer reduction, the applicant proposes to enhance total of 2,410 square feet of buffer in the northwestern corner of the property at a .5:1 ratio. After careful consideration and analysis, it was determined that wetland creation as mitigation could not be reasonably achieved on the site. The only available non -wetland areas on the site are upslope in the eastern part of the site. To construct wetlands on that part of the property would be difficult because of the uncertainty of whether sufficient natural hydrology could be created. Furthermore, creation of on -site wetlands within the eastern part of the property would require heavy excavation equipment to cross the existing wetlands, creating additional impacts to the wetland areas. Creation of wetland would also require clearing and grading within forested buffer areas. It is generally impractical to disturb forested habitat for the sake of wetland mitigation if alternative mitigation measures can be achieved. Based on these conditions, it was determined that wetland creation could not be achieved on the site. i The City's code does not specify a minimum ratio for buffer replacement nor enhancement. Additionally, the existing 50-foot wide eastern buffer shall remain undisturbed. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 11 WRI #11633 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place REV: November 27, 2012 0157 Similarly, buffer creation as a mitigation option was eliminated based on the steep slopes and difficult access at the eastern portion of the property. Providing double the required ratio for wedand enhancement is the preferred option for mitigating the buffer impacts in this case. Off -site mitigation has also been considered and determined to be unachievable. The applicant would have limited access to other privately owned lands within the same drainage basin. Furthermore, because of the vast coverage of suburban development in the area, few areas within the same drainage basin are available for potential improvement. In the interest of implementing a watershed approach to the greatest extent possible, it appears that on -site wetland enhancement is the most reasonable mitigation approach. Because of the presence of invasive weeds and relatively low native plant diversity in the wetland areas, it appears to be more practical to enhance the existing wetland and improve its overall value than creating new wetland or mitigating off -site. Mitigation Ratios The applicant will propose the following combination of mitigation measures: Table 1: Proposed Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Ratios Item Impacted _ Area Bnha_n_cement Mitigation Ratio Required Mitigation Ratio_ Wetland 1,790 SF 15,560 SF 4:1 8:1 Buffers 3,920 SF 2,410 N.A. .5:1 The intent of the proposed mitigation measures is to have a no net loss of functions and values after development of the site. This will be achieved through wetland and buffer enhancement as well as leaving the entire existing eastern 50-foot wetland buffer area undisturbed. A relatively small area of wetland (just over 10 percent) will be filled and 3,920 of stream/wetland buffer will be permanently impacted through this proposal. The portion to be filled is saturated only in the wettest time of the year; thereby currently offering limited stormwater control functions. Therefore, through properly implemented mitigation measures, no significant loss of stormwater control functions is expected. Any loss of this function can be achieved through the proposed stormwater detention design and wetland enhancement. All collected stormwater will drain to a detention feature that drains to the on -site stream. Woody species planted within the wetland areas upslope of the new house will slow the hydrologic flow through the wetland and buffer, thereby creating some resistance and hence improvement to Hydrologic control functions on the site. With regard to the retaining wall location and drainage impacts, it is our understanding that the proposed design with the retaining wall and footing drains at the downhill edge of the wetland are intended to minimize potential impacts from water intrusion and protect the new on -site structures. The proposed development, including retaining walls and footing drains will be Critical Area Study and Wctland Mitigation Plan 12 WRI #11033 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place REV: November 27, 2012 located within the outermost part of the wetland, which is the transitional (least wet) part of the subject wetland. Because the wetland's primary source of hydrology is from natural springs/seeps upslope from the proposed development, it appears unlikely that the proposed development and associated retaining wall and footing drains would result in loss of natural hydrology within the wetland. Due to the direction of flow and careful engineering, it is also appears that the proposed site design would not result in over -watering the wetland. Based on these anticipated conditions, no significant drainage impacts are expected as part of this project (please refer to project engineer's plans for additional information). The applicant has addressed the permanent loss of wetland through wetland fill by proposing enhancement per City of Edmonds Code requirements, and all other potential impacts have been addressed. No impacts to off -site wetlands are expected. The proposed wetland and buffer enhancement would also improve water quality functions. By planting bare ground areas with native sedges, suspended solids and other pollutants and nutrients will be trapped and absorbed as water flows through the enhanced wetland area. Wildlife habitat functions on -site would be greatly improved by the proposed mitigation measures. Habitat diversity is important for different wildlife species to thrive in an area. The proposed native trees and shrubs will provide increased habitat for birds and mammals to thrive. Thicker vegetation will provide hiding cover, thermal cover, and greater foraging opportunities for many birds and mammals. Many wildlife species would benefit from the proposed increase of vegetative structural diversity. Furthermore, the net increase of forested buffer habitat within the eastern part of the property ensures permanent protection of additional forested habitat areas on the site. The plantings within the wetland enhancement areas are also intended to provide added protection to the wetland to mitigate the loss of vegetated buffer areas adjacent to the wetland. Based on anticipated conditions, proper implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will result in a net increase of wetland and buffer functions over time through vegetative enhancement. Regarding Stormwater Manual Small Site Requirement #4 (Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems), please see approximate flow lines of the on -site drainage pattern in Figure 1. On -site springs and storm drainage from upslope properties contribute runoff that flows through the site. Most of the hydrology is intercepted by the on -site wetland, which drains directly into the on -site Type Np stream. All stormwater surface and subsurface flows generally end at the stream and exit the site via an existing culvert in the northwestern corner of the site. An existing man-made trench that was constructed when the private driveway was built in the 1970's intercepts excess and subsurface flows in the southwestern part of the site. Nevertheless, the applicant is proposing to leave the culvert in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water event. With the addition of a new quarry spall dispersion pad and trash rack at the culvert inlet, there should be much less chance of any culvert blockage or stream overflow; thus the developed condition will be an improvement over the existing situation. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 13 WRI #11033 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place REV: November 27, 2012 Dl�kN Regarding Stormwater Manual Small Site Requirement #8: Wetland Protection, this requirement only applies when the wetland in question is proposed to be part of the detention system. For this project, this is not the case; all drainage features are located to the west (downslope) from the wetland. The proposed detention of roof and driveway runoff is by means of detention piping buried in the side and front yards, not discharge into the wetland. That being said, wetland protection has been a primary concern in the design of this project. Wetland disturbance has been limited to 1,790 square feet whereas other variances have requested, and been granted, larger impacts: the Hachler variance was 3,080 square feet and the Lewis variance was 2,867 square feet. The applicant is protecting the remaining wetland by means of enhancement, invasive species removal, extensive replanting and monitoring, and adding a boundary fence and sensitive area site to prevent dumping on the site. The proposed drainage system matches existing drainage pattern on this site to the greatest extent possible. There are only two differences, one being that rainwater falling on the building pad area will be routed through detention prior to entering the stream, and will enter the stream at a reduced flow rate by means of the control structure. The other difference is that the water from the lower edge of the wetland will enter a footing drain rather than the building pad area, and also be discharged to the stream, where it ends up now. The remainder of the site's drainage, including the wetland that remains, is left in its pre -development natural condition. Plans for enhancement of 15,560 square feet of wetland and 2,410 square feet of buffer will include removal of invasive, non-native plant species. Following invasive plant removal and other site preparations, the applicant proposes to plant native trees and shrubs in the designated areas. Plant spacing will be variable throughout the designated areas due to existing vegetation cover. Generally, plant spacing will be based on 60 percent of the area planted to trees on 15- foot centers, 50 percent of the area planted to shrubs on 6-foot centers. The sedge plantings proposed will be placed within bare ground areas or areas dominated by invasive herbaceous species. About 10 percent of the area will be planted with sedges. The combination of new plantings and existing vegetation should be adequate to achieve the plan densities of 8-foot spacing for trees and 3-foot spacing for shrubs prescribed in code Sections 23.90.040(D)(2)(b) for stream buffers and Section 23.50.040(F)(3)(b) for wetlands. The proposed distribution of native plants for wetland enhancement follows: Pronosed Wetland Enhancement Plantings (15.560 sauare feet) Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quantity Western red cedar Tht ja plicata 1 gallon 15' '8 Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis 1 gallon 15' 8 Oregon ash Fraxinous latifolia 1 gallon 15' 12 Pacific willow Salix lucida 1 allon 6' 60 Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 1 crallon 6' 60 Red osier dog,,vood Cornus sericea 1 gallon 6' 60 BIack twinberry Lonicera inaolucrata 1 gallon 6' 30 Slough sedge C,arex obnupta plug 2' 200 Sawbeak sedge Carex sti ata PIug 2' 200 Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 14 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place WRI #11033 REV: November 27, 2012 D I�U*11 The following list of plants will be installed within the buffer enhancement areas following invasive plant removal. There is a sufficient quantity of plants listed to cover temporarily disturbed areas associated with installing the detention pipe and outfall. The proposed distribution of native plants for buffer enhancement follows: Proposed Buffer Enhancement Plantings (2,410 square feet) Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing uanti Western red cedar Thu'a plicata 1 gallon 15' 4 Douglas fir Pseudotszwa menzeisii 1 allon 15' 4 Oso-ber Oemle?ia cerasi ormis 1 gallon 6' 15 Vine maple, Acer circinatum 1 gallon 6' 15 Tall Oregon grape Mahonia a uifoliiint 1 gallon 6' 15 Red osier dogwood Cornus sericea 1 allon 6' 10 Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 1 gallon 6' 10 Sword fern Polystichzan 1 gallon 6' 20 PLANTING NOTES As part of the proposed enhancement plan, an access path will be necessary through the buffer and wetland areas to be planted. Its exact location will be determined during the preparation stages of the enhancement. Creating a path will include, but will not be limited to, some limited vegetation pruning. The path will be constructed out of pervious, natural materials, such as cedar or hemlock planks, wood chips, cut alder sections obtained from the building site, or any other suitable material. The applicant may begin invasive vegetation removal in the later winter/early spring 2012. A meeting will take place between the consulting biologist and the contracted landscaper prior to commencement of enhancement activities. This will provide an opportunity to clarify any questions that may arise and ensure success of the enhancement project in a timely manner. Silt fencing shall be placed as shown on the TESL design and be inspected prior to any mitigation site disturbance, Planting shall take place in the early spring or late fall. Potted plants should be obtained from a reputable nursery. All plant materials recommended in this plan are typically available from local and regional sources, depending on seasonal demand. Some limited species substitution may be allowed, only with the agreement of the consulting biologist or city representative. Care and handling of plant materials is extremely important to the overall success of the project. Lath stakes, or similar approved marking system, should be placed next to each tree and shrub to assist in locating the plants while removing the competing non-native vegetation. This will be done for all installed plants. Plants will be arranged in a pattern with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution to achieve the desired vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 15 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place WRI #11033 REV: November 27, 2012 The goal of this mitigation plan is to replace and improve the functions and values of the on -site critical areas and buffers to the greatest extent possible. To achieve this goal, three specific goals have been established and are listed below. Goal 1. Replace and improve impacted hydrologic functions within the wetland and buffer areas through the introduction of new plantings. • Implement stormwater control plans for the building site. • Plant native species within 15,560 square feet of wetland. • Plant native species within 2,410 square feet of buffer. Goal 2. Replace impacted functions associated with water quality improvement. Implement a piped detention system to capture and control stormwater that drains off the new impervious surfaces, to minimize erosion and sediment into the stream. Enhance the wetland with herbaceous plants to aid in water filtration. Goal 3. Increase Plant Species Richness within the wetland and stream buffer area. Remove invasive species and provide regular maintenance to ensure the success of the planted native species. Plant native trees and shrubs to discourage regeneration and recruitment of invasive species. Requirements for monitoring project: 1. Initial compliance report 2. Semi-annual site inspections (twice yearly, in the spring and fall) during years 1, 2 and 3. 3. Monitoring reports to be submitted to the city in the fall of years 1, 2 and 3. Purpose of Monitoring The purpose of monitoring this project is to evaluate the success of the enhancement plantings. Success will be determined if monitoring shows that at the end of three years that the performance standards are being met and that habitat values in the enhancement areas are equivalent to similar ecosystems in the immediate area. Inspection Schedule Upon completion of the mitigation project, an inspection by a qualified wetland biologist will be made to determine plan compliance. A compliance report will be supplied to the City of Edmonds regarding the completeness of the project. The project will be monitored for three years. Condition monitoring of the plantings will be done by a qualified wetland biologist in the spring and fall during years 1, 2 and 3. A written report describing the monitoring results will be Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 16 WRI #11033 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place REV: November 27, 2012 submitted to the City of Edmonds shortly after the fall inspection of each monitored year. Final inspection will occur at the third year following completion of planting. The contracted wetland professional will prepare a final report as to the success of the project. Vegetation monitoring transects and photo points will be established in the compliance report. Performance Standards Performance standards have been established to assess the success of the mitigation project in achieving the stated goals. Performance standards are as follows: Plant Survival Year 1 Monitoring Success Standard: 100 percent survival of planted species No greater than 20 percent coverage of invasive species Year 2 Monitoring Success Standard: Minimum 40 percent aerial coverage of native species No greater than 20 percent coverage of invasive species Year 3 Monitoring Success Standard: Minimum 70 percent aerial coverage of native species No greater than 20 percent coverage of invasive species MAINTENANCE The enhancement areas will require periodic maintenance during the monitoring period. The wetland enhancement will be maintained at least two times during the spring and once in the fall for each of the three monitored years, or as needed to assure the success of the mitigation project. Maintenance may include, but will not be limited to, removal of invasive vegetation, replacement of plant mortality, and/or the replacement of mulch for each maintenance period. If more than 20% of the plants are severely stressed during any of the inspections, or it appears more than 20% may not survive, additional plantings of the same species or, if necessary, alternative species may be added to the enhancement areas. If this situation persists into the next inspection, a meeting with a representative for the city of Edmonds, the consulting wetland biologist and the property owner will be scheduled to decide upon contingency plans. Elements of the contingency plan may include, but will not be limited to more aggressive weed control, plant mortality replacement, species substitution, fertilization, and/or soil amendments. A performance bond shall be provided to the city of Edmonds for the period of three years from the completion of the project, in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for plant material and Critical Area Study and Wetland \litigation Plan 17 WRI #11033 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place REV: November 27, 2012 labor. The city of Edmonds shall release this bond at the end of the three years, upon successful determination for all portions of this mitigation project. The following is an estimate of plant materials and labor only. This does not represent a bid to install: Estimated Project Cost Quantity of One -gallon plants 331 @ $9.50/plant $3,144.50 Quantity of plugs 400 @ $3.00/plant $1,200.00 Total $4,344.50 $5,213.40 TOTAL ESTIMATED BOND AMOUNT (120%) This Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan is supplied to Tom & Lin Hillman as a means of providing mitigation for wetland and buffer impacts, as required by the city of Edmonds during the permitting process. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access, which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Andrea Bachman Senior Welland Ecologist Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 18 Hillman — 1139 Sierra Place WR1 #11033 REV: November 27, 2012 REFERENCES City of Edmonds Municipal Code, Title 23. Edmonds, WAJune 2007. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FvVS/OBS-79/31. December 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Single Family Residence 1139 Sierra Place Edmonds, Washin�ton_(ES-H . May 9, 2012. Earth Solutions NW, LLC, Bellevue, WA-- — Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley (2009). Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #09-06-032. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region. 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1978). Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan 19 Hillman — 1139 Sieira Place Washington State WRI # 11033 REV: November 27, 2012 TABLE 2: PROJECT COMPARISON (1139 SIERRA PLACE) • • •' ' ADJACENTITEM LEWIS PROJECT HILLMAN PROJECT (Prior Permit) (Proposed) PROPERTIE Ground Floor Area 2364 sf 1596 sf 2288 sf Garage 1003 sf (421 sf imperm) 578 sf 714 sf Ground Floor Covered Porches/Decks ? 163 sf Building Footprint 4146 sf 2174 sf 2936 sf Lot Coverage (lot area = 40,511 sf) 10.2% 5.8% Driveway/Access Road 4508 sf 940 sf Walkways 384 sf 0 Total New Impermeable Surface 8654 sf 3487 sf Storm Detention Tank Size Needed 30" dia X 59' 18" dia X 74' long Second Floor Area 2932 sf 1027 sf 1435 sf Total Interior Living Space 5296 sf 2623 sf 3798 sf Second Floor Deck 184 sf Wetland Disturbance Area Wetland Replacement Area Buffer Disturbance Area Wetland Enhancement Area Buffer Enhancement 2867 sf (per WRI report) 0 sf 10,436 sf 14,933 sf (>5:1) 5368 sf (0.5:1) Grading Extensive Length of Retaining Walls/Rockeries 245' Maximum height 6' X 2 rows = 12' 1630 sf 0 sf 4110 sf 16,960 sf (> 10:1) 2050 sf (0.5:1) Moderate 90' (+45' of garden walls <3' high) 6' Advantages of the Hillman Plan over the Lewis Plan: 1. Proposed areas of clearing and tree removal are significantly smaller. 2. Proposed wetland disturbance area is reduced by over 40%. and proposed wetland enhancement area is larger. 3. Proposed buffer disturbance area is reduced by over 60%. 4. Proposed impermeable surface is reduced by over 50%. 5. Proposed living space is reduced by a third, and garage is smaller (and both are less than adjacent property averages). 6. Proposed retaining structures are less than a third. 7. Proposed driveway has an 8% maximum slope, compared to areas with over 18% slope. 8. Proposed house is near the existing fire hydrant. 9. More than 3/4 of the site is to remain in its natural undeveloped condition CompareAreas011413.xls 5• • O 0� 4 TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING AREAS IN SQUARE FEET (Updated 1/14/13) Neighbor Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Garage 1 Garage 2 Footprint* Brown 2329 1149 0 506 2835 Schroeder 2806 1948 0 561 510 3877 Gordon 2100 1190 0 441 2541 Doces 2402 1232 0 796 3198 Ericson 1984 1539 531 575 2559 Hachler 2179 774 0 770 2492 Chapman 2213 2213 0 840 3053 Average 2288 1435 76 714 2936 Average Total Living 3798 Proposed Lewis Residence 4146 (prior permit) Proposed Hillman Residence 1596 1027 0 578 0 2174 *Note: For this table, footprint = ground level floor + garage (floor 1 + garage 1 for most), not including any decks. For Hachler residence, footprint was measured from plan sketch in city's file. C:\Lin\Real Estate\Sierra\Sierra2012\Neighbo rAreas011413.xis O O O Approx Scale: 1" = 100' 1 50 100 150 Wetla#d Aso -M&91 /mac O6-1- ."1 f i.n / Flc.wm„on /_I Inbitu em_vmn / F111i0 A lil-cn 950519th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Phone;(425) 337-3174 Fax: (425) 337-3045 Email: mailbox@wctlandresources.com FIGURE 1: AERIAL PHOTO (WITH TOPOGRAPHY, CRrTICA'L AREAS & DIRECTIONS OF EXISTING DRAINAGE FLOWS) Tom & Lin Hillman FIGURE 1 15915 74th Place W WRI Job #11033 Edmonds, WA 98206 Drawn by: A. Bachman Scale r = 30. 0 30 60 _,� EX. 10. DRAINAGE __ EASEMENT A.F. NO. 1495750-y- _ =BUFFER IMPACT — _,v_. 3,920 SF PROPOSED- .�. BUILDING - ENVELOPE REGULATED WETLAND BUFFER EXTENDS ONTO. EXISTING OFF -SITE PAVED DRIVEWAY_ NOTE: PLEASE SEE PROJECT ENGINEER'S PLAN, FOR DRAINAGE DESIGN DETAILS. BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 2,410SF 11, / I IG 2T I 1 I ) a t in 3' MIN f f I I I I L l I 1 I I ` WET l� WETLANDS BUFFER CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN _1_13_9 SIERRA PLACE PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 3E, W.M. EX. 10- DRAINAGES` ,,, .�, ..__,.. ORDINARY NIGH. WATER LINE- EASEMENT AF. NO 1495750 TYPE NP STREAM SO'BUFFER ' \�BG AHIN \WALL\�\� \ \ AND IMPACT 1.790 SF SIERRA PLACE 151MIN. _ y, ENHANCEMENT I STREAM \\ }�\ WETLAND ENHANCEMENT REGULATED BUFFERS WETLAND IMPACT �� `d BUFFER IMPACT _® DATA SITES CATEGORY III WETLAND 50'BUFFER TO BE ENHANCED 15.560 SF {. I CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP AND W,,etla#,/ / Vp EcSO#ges, I�%C, I WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN 1139 SIERRA PLACE 9505 19M Avenuo S.E. Suite 106 Evemn.Washln64on 98208 Phone:(425) 337.3174 Fax: (425) 337.3045 Sheet 7/- Email: maAbox®wetlandresourees.wm Tom&Lin Hillman WRIJOb 011033' 15915 74th Place W Drawn by. A. Bacnman� FAmonas, WA 98206 - _ Date _Novemner 27_2012 Wetland name or number Wetland A WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Sierra Place Wetland Date of site visit: 3/2/11 Rated by A. Bachman Trained by Ecology? YesR Now Date of training 11 /2006 SEC: 24 TWNSHP:27N RNGE: 3E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yesfj No ✓a Map of wetland unit: Figure 1 Estimated size -0.5 Acres Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III V IV Category I = Score >=70 Category 1I = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV — Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarine De ressional. Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Sloe V Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 12 10 15 37 0170 Wetland name or number Wetland A Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES NO in addition to the protection recommended for its category)' SP 1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFWfor the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic_Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 0171 Wetland name or number Wetland A Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? F_V_jNO — go to 2 [YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YE — Freshwater Tidal Fringe (NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetla can be classified as a Freshwat Pidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and 11 estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. 0✓ NO — go to 3 ❑ YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? rV_�NO — go to 4 DYES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? V 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? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO - go to 5 Zd YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 0172 Wetland name or number Wettand A 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. ONO - go to 6 ❑YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑NO — go to 7 ❑YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑NO — go to 8 ❑YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Ratin' Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater I wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 DIX"] Wetland name or number Wetland A S Slope Wetlands Points WATER i QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit `functions to (only L scole im rove water ualit - Pero°") S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: ❑Slope isl% or less (a 1 % slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 ❑Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 0 ❑Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 ESlope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS de mitions) 3 - [✓� YES = 3 points ❑ NO = 0 oints S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Figure 1 Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the tivetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% ,cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. ❑ Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 ❑✓ Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points 3 3 ❑ Dense, woody, vegetation > %2 of area points = 2 ❑ Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 [� Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above _ A 6 I S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.67) 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. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. ❑ Grazing in the wetland or within 15Oft [❑ Untreated storrnwater discharges to wetland ❑ Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland E Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland multiplier ❑ Other 2 EYES multiplier is 2 ❑NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2 12 Add scone to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 11 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 0174 Wetland name or number Wetland A S Slope Wetlands points HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to (only 1 score reduce flooding and stream erosion per box) S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream (seep.68) erosion? S S 3.1 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. (stems ofplants should be thick enough (usually > 118in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) 0 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 3 F✓ 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 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. ✓OYES points = 2 2 NO points = 0 S Add the points in the boxes above 1 5 I S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? see p. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems F✓ Other Wetland is upstream of property and aquatic resources (Puget Sound) multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep 2 that is on the downstream side of a darn) AYES multiplier is 2 ONO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. 1 10 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Wetland A These questions apply to wetlands of all MGM classes. Points ; (only I score' HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat per -box) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure 1� Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is `/ acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. =Aquatic bed =Emergent plants [Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) =Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if =The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that quay. If you have: [j4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes =3 structures points = 2 =2 = 1 structures points C11 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Figure 1 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) =Permanently flooded or inundated =4 or more types present points = 3 =Seasonally flooded or inundated FV� 3 types present points = 2 =Occasionally flooded or inundated =2 types present point = 1 2 =Saturated only = 1 type present points = 0 Q Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland = Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Q Lake fringe wetland = 2 points =Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canaiygrass, Purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 0 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0, Total for page 4 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Wetland A H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure 1 Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high., medium, low, or none. 0 (:*) ❑None = 0 points Low = 1 point [Moderate = 2 points H 1.5. Special Habitat Features:_ (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number ofpoints you put into the next column. =Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland t__JUndercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (l Om) 2 =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 (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) =At least'/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated, (structuresfor egg -laying by amphibians) [� Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score potential for providing habitat m 7 Add the scores from HI. I, H1.2, HI.3, H1.4, H1.5 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 0177 Wetland name or number Wetland A H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure 1_ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text,for definition of "undisturbed. " ❑ 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 100 in (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 ❑] 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 [❑ 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% 1 circumference, . Points = 3 ❑ 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above ❑ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 in (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 ❑ No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 ❑ Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1 ❑ Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. ❑✓ Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland 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, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered brealcs in the corridor). ❑ YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) Q NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or 1 forest, 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? ❑ YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) ❑✓ NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: ✓0 within 5 mi (81cm) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR ❑within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR ❑ within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? ✓ YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page 2 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Wettand A H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFWpriority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report hitp://wdfw. wa..eov/hab/phslisthtm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. spen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). L_jBiodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands 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 less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. =Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). ✓O iparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. OWestside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). =Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological fonnations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 in (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 in (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. =Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 in (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 in (20 ft) long. 3 Olf wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points QIf wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points =If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point =No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form -- western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 0179 Wetland name or number Wetland A H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/2 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 0 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within ''/Z mile points = 5 3 0 There are at least 3 other wetlands within %2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 0 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within '/2 mile points = 3 [� There is at least 1 wetland within''/2 mile. points = 2 0 There are no wetlands within 'h mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat ®®® I Add the scores front H2.I,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 _8 7® Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on 15 .1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 �I 1 Wetland name or number Wetland A Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ❑ The dominant water regime is tidal, ❑ Vegetated, and ❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. ❑YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO ❑✓ SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑YES = Category I ❑NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?❑YES = Category I❑NO = Category II ❑ Cat. I ❑The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, ❑Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual ❑ Dual rating (Ull). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. ❑At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. ❑The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Wetland A SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage []Cat. I Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D Fl/-� or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES= — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? AYES = Category I NO ✓not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the Wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the Ivey below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 M F&/ No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? []Yes - go to Q. 3 Fv No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? =Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating 0No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2.®YES = Category I Non Is not a bog for purpose of rating hCat. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 0182 Wetland name or number Wettdlld Q SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? IJ'you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. ❑ Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. [-1 Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. Cat. I [DYES = Category I NO ✓[not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks 0 The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) 0 YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO FV__1 not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). ®At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. [] Cat. I ®The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) C]YES = Category I ®NO = Category II ®Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Wetland A SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? ❑YES - go to SC 6.1 NO anot an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Q Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 F__j Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? CJYES = Category II ONO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II C] SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? E]YES = Category III Cat. III E] Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on [] P. 1. 0 If you answered NO for all es enter "Not Applicable" on p.1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct, 2008 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Hillman -Sierra Place City/County: Edmonds/ Snohomish County Sampling Date: 3/11 Applicant/Owner: Lin Hillman. _ _ State: WA Sampling Point: S1 Investigator(s): A. Bachman _ Section, Township, Range: S24, T27N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope _ Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Let: _ Long: _ __ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name, Alderwood soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks,) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ ✓ _ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ` ✓ No— Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ ✓ No— _ within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 30 Y Fac That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. - Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 30 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B) Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Rubus spectabilis 35 Y Fac+ Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = 2. Rubus armeniucus 45 Y FacU 3. 4, 5. 80 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 = 1• Column Totals: (A) (6) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: °� Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is <3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5, g, 7, $ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No 2 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version 0185 SOIL Sampling Point: 31 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TYpe' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 mucky gr. salo saturated 12-18+ 10YR 3/1 gr. salo saturated 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all _ Histosol (Al) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) ✓ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, ✓ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 4B) ✓ Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (610) Water Marks (61) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (63) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No _ _ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version 0186 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Hillman -Sierra Place _ City/County: Edmonds/ Snohomish County Sampling Date: 3/11 Applicant/Owner: Lin Hillman. State: WA Sampling Point: S1 Investigator(s): A. Bachman Section, Township, Range: S24, T27N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope Subregion (LRR): LRR-A _ Lat: _ _ Long: _ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ Soil _. _ or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ ✓ _ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ a No- — Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ ✓ _ No- — within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Alnus rubra Absolute % Cover 30 Dominant Indicator Species? Status Y Fac Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (8) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (PJ6) 2. - - 3. - - -- Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:.. _ 1. Rubus spectabilis 30 _ ) 35 = Total Cover Y Fac+ Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by:. 2 Rubus armeniucus 45 Y FacU 3. _ OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species _ x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4, 5. _ 80 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 2. 3. 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✓ Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 5. 6. 7, $ 9. 10. 11 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. ) = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version 0187 SOIL Sampling Point: S1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc' Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR2/1 mucky gr. salo saturated 12-18+ 10YR 3/1 gr. salo saturated 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ✓ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (177) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ _ No Remarks: 7 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, ✓ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ✓ Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (610) _ Water Marks (61) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) — Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No— _ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes ca illa fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version 0188 BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 2,410 SF 1 EXIS ING CUL ERT I I I -------------------------------- -------- - _ 12"SD11 EX. 10' DRAINAGE \ EASEMENT A.F. N0. M \\ 1495750— i� Z D \ — BUFFERIMPACT— �� 3,920 SF 3MIN PROPOSED— __ BUILDING ENVELOPE r _ I REGULATED WETLANDy II BUFFER EXTENDS ONTO EXISTING OFF -SITE PAVED \ i, DRIVEWAY1 \\ NOTE: PLEASE SEE PROJECT ENGINEER'S PLAN FOR DRAINAGE DESIGN DETAILS. WETLAND /® STREAM \\\ REGULATED BUFFERS BUFFER IMPACT CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN SIERRA1139 PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 3E, W.M. EX, 10' DRAINAGE- .. ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE N0 — — 14EASEMENT AF. 95750 —/ - TYPE NP STREAM .i, .i, .j, 11, 50' BUFFER 777 \\\ \o\\ \\RETAINING WALL, \\\ \ \ \\\ \ \\\ 3-8' HIGH \ \\ \\\ \ \\\\ \\ 1�\ `\\ \ WETLAND IMPACT 1,790 SF SIERRA PLACE 5' MIN. BUFFER ENHANCEMENT WETLAND ENHANCEMENT WETLAND IMPACT DATA SITES 4 CATEGORY III WETLAND 50' BUFFER TO BE ENHANCED 15,560 SF W6666I`1ll R6cs'0#16' W, A0.. 0fl'meallon / Mifgation / Reetaralbn / Habitat peaUon / Pewit A.sstatance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Phone:(425) 337-3174 Fax: (425) 337-3045 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN 1139 SIERRA PLACE Tom & Lin Hillman 15915 74th Place W Edmonds, WA 98206 \tads E :AT" Sheet 1/1 WRI Job #11033 Drawn by: A. Bachman Date: Novemner 27, 2012 MEMORANDUM Date: August 27, 2012 To: Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician Jennifer Machuga, Planner City of Edmonds From: Tom and Lin Hillman Subject: PLN20120033 — Variance Application, Addendum 1139 Sierra PI — Tom and Lin Hillman U3 2 U 2012 0EVE LOP 'VIE T SERMCE This is in response to your memorandum dated August 16, 2012 regarding Small Site Minimum Requirements for stormwater management. #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls The existing drainage on the site consists of a southeasterly to northwesterly flow pattern, following a downslope gradient from the high point of the property to the lowest elevation at the stream bed in its northwest corner. Contributing waters include runoff from upslope properties as well as spring water originating on the site itself. The stream is part of the city's existing stormwater system., The proposed single-family home for the property is located in the southwest corner of the site, where it will not interfere with the natural flow pattern of the upslope portions of the lot; the bulk of the site will remain undisturbed and continue to drain towards the stream in the present manner. The runoff from the new impervious roof and driveway surfaces (as well as a small area of porch) will be collected via a tightlined drain system to the proposed stormwater detention pipe at the westernmost edge of the lot, and will discharge at a dispersion outfall at the stream edge. A footing drain behind the proposed retaining wall at the proposed wetland boundary will also discharge via the stormwater detention outfall pipe at the western edge of the wetland/stream buffer north of the house. The proposed drainage system results in the site's waters being delivered to the stream, similarly to the present pre -development condition, but with the additional protection provided by detention of the new roof and driveway runoff. #8: Wetland Protection This requirement applies to projects that include using wetlands as part of the stormwater detention system. The present project does not. None of the stormwater collected from the proposed new impervious surfaces will be discharged into the wetland. The stormwater collected from the proposed new impervious surfaces is tightlined to a detention pipe and remains contained until its discharge at the stream outfall location. Note: The remainder of the Small Site Minimum Requirements will be addressed as part of the building permit application for this project. DATE: January 14, 2013 PROJECT: HILLMAN RESIDENCE 1139 SIERRA PLACE EDMONDS WA 98020 OWNER/APPLICANT: TOM & LIN HILLMAN 15915 74TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026 425-745-4669 LinHillman@conicast.net 6 lC�li IA RESPONSE TO CITY OF EDMONDS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED SETBACK AND CRITICAL AREAS VARIANCES FILE NO. PLN 20120033 DATED OCTOBER 23 2012 AND CITY'S FOLLOW-UP EMAIL OF NOVEMBER 14 2012 MUM Variance Request, dated July 9, 2012, updated January 14, 2013 2. Site and Floor Plans and Elevations, 4 sheets, by Owner/Applicant Latest Revision dated January 14, 2013 3. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan Wetland Resources, Inc., Project #11033 Latest Revision dated November 27, 2012 4. Geotechnical Engineering Study Earth Solutions NW, LLC, Project #ES-2348 Latest Revision dated July 16, 2012 Grading, Drainage & TESC Plans, 2 sheets Donna L. Breske, P.E. Latest Revision dated January 15, 2013 Responses to October 23" Letter: 1. No portions of the proposed walls are proposed to exceed three feet in height over original grade. An additional longitudinal profile section "C-C" has been added to civil drawing sheet 2 to include the driveway, north retaining wall and stream buffer. 2. The existing topography of the site has been one of the main driving forces behind the design of the residence. The goal Was to place and configure the house where it would cause the minimum amount of critical area impacts and grading disturbance to the site. The proposed location immediately adjacent to the street achieves this goal by eliminating the need for a long driveway that would be required for access to any other place on the site. 0191 ATTACHMENT 1 C The option of locating the house on the eastern portion of the lot (as in the previously granted variance for this property) was discarded due to the steepness of the terrain and the need for an access drive to pass through both wetland buffers and the entire width of the wetland itself. Driveway slopes would have exceeded 18%, and the amount of wetland disturbance and grading were considerably greater than what is currently being proposed. The presently proposed location of the house in the southwest corner of the lot is the shallowest -sloped portion of the site that is not located entirely in the wetland. The finished floor elevation of 219' was at at by averaging the high and low points of the building pad area (224' and 214' respectively). The 219' floor level keeps the proposed driveway slope well within the city's 14% maximum while still providing adequate height for footing drainage down to the existing storm drain pipe inlet (at 208.9' in the stream bed). A significant factor affecting grading quantity is location of the layer of competent glacial till material identified in the geotechnical report for footing bearing; it is at three to four feet below the existing grade, necessitating at least that much excavation to provide adequate footing bearing. And on such a wet site, it is desirable to place the house floors over a crawler rather than slabs on grade. The total cut and fill quantity proposed is a small amount of grading for a sloped lot, and has been limited to the location of the building pad and driveway area and their immediate surrounds; the entire remainder of the site is left undisturbed. The civil plans have been revised to show more detailed information, including more precise cut and fill quantities. The natural topography has been preserved to the extent possible to accommodate the house in its proposed location. The proposed retaining walls shown to the east and north of the building pad area serve to delineate the proposed edge of the wetland and stream buffer, respectively, to protect them from encroachment, as well as to provide a moisture barrier to keep the house itself dry. The walls also serve as a stable base for the fencing at the wetland edge. (See foundation detail B attached.) The alternative of having the house walls themselves act as retaining walls was also considered (See foundation detail BX attached.), but found to be less desirable due to the resulting proximity of wetland moisture to the house footings in conflict with the geotechnical report's recommendation for draining away from house footings, as well as the increased retaining wall height that would be needed (8' rather than 6). Raising the finished floor elevation a few feet higher above grade was also considered, but was infeasible due to the city's 25' height limit. A single -story residence, which had been an earlier goal for the design, was also eliminated due to its significantly larger footprint and greater impervious surface area which would have impacted the critical areas further. And trying to include a daylight basement with living space would have been problematic due to drainage and sewer issues. In summary, the proposed location and configuration of the house and its surrounding retaining walls were determined to be the only option that made sense in terms of balancing all of the conflicting limitations imposed by the city's codes and the site's critical areas and topography. The current proposal limits the grading quantities to a reasonable amount and keeps the earthwork activities restricted to a small portion of the site. The natural topography of 86% of the site is preserved in its existing undisturbed condition. All other design alternatives resulted in worse' impacts: either more grading or more wetland encroachment or both. 3. The WRI report has been revised to show: a. "as required by the City of Edmonds" on page 3. b. "Note" regarding updating of classification methods to the DOE rating system on page 3. c. Pursuant to ECDC 23.50.030.17, a plan of the wetland located on the adjacent property at 1111 Sierra Place (the Hachler property) has been included with this letter. This plan was obtained from the city's variance file from 1999. The neighboring wetland is downslope and does not contribute water to the wetland on 1139 Sierra Place (the proposed project site). It was thought that water from 1139 might recharge the 1111 wetland by means of an existing storm drain pipe inlet located at the southwest corner of 1139, but upon further investigation it was determined that the pipe in question was inactive; its western outlet was buried and dry. It is therefore concluded that the 1111 wetland is recharged solely from the stream and springs located on 1111, and that the water from 1139 flows to the stream to the northwest rather than to the southwest pipe. See Figure 1: Aerial Photo (attached to report) showing the neighboring wetlands and drainage pattern. Other than the 1111 wetlands, there are no other known wetlands within 200'. The wetland on 1139 Sierra Place extends off -site slightly to the north and south as shown in the aerial photo. The 1139 wetland is 17,350 square feet or 0.4 acre in size on the property, and is estimated to be slightly over 0.5 acre overall, including the portions extending beyond the property lines. d. The typo in Table 1, now on page 12 of the report, has been corrected to show the area of wetland enhancement is 15,560 sf not 12,560 sf. e. See "Stream Habitat Assessment (Type Np Stream)" beginning on page 6, and "Stream Buffer Reduction" on page 9. ECDC section 23.90.040.D allows for stream buffer width reduction from 50' to 25', which is what has been requested for this project (and would not in itself trigger the need for a variance). The proposed building setback from this buffer is a minimum of 3' as shown on the site plan. As stated in the variance request, there is a tradeoff between a reduced building setback at the stream buffer and a reduced front yard street setback, with the building pad area sandwiched inbetween, and the proposal is attempting to balance these priorities. The 25' proposed stream buffer is indicated as one of the areas to be enhanced as shown on the Whole Site Plan, sheet 1. With regard to ECDC section 23.40.130.C. regarding construction sequencing, timing and duration, it is anticipated that earthwork operations for the overall project will begin on or shortly after May 1, with construction continuing through the end of the year. Invasive species removal in the wetland and stream buffer should begin in the late winter, when vegetation is at its annual minimum and access for landscaping crews is easier and creates less disturbance. Planting of new native species as described in the mitigation plan will likely be undertaken the following early spring, after the bulk of exterior construction activity is over but prior to occupancy of the completed project. Grading and excavation details, including erosion and sediment control features and Best Management Practices (BMP's), as well as existing slope percentages, .are included in the civil plans. The planting plan is described in the WRI report in terms of specification of plant species and quantities, size, spacing and density. Precise location of each plant will be field determined during installation based on locations of existing native plantings remaining after removal of invasive species, The monitoring program will determine when plants have been established, and provide for replacements as needed. D Oli_"] With regard to ECDC section 23.90.040.D.7, the stormwater management features of the proposed project have been located to minimize disruption to the critical areas of the property, with the detention piping as far away from the wetland as possible in the westernmost side and front setbacks. The footing drain at the proposed wetland edge will carry its water to the stream where that water goes now. The only feature passing through the 25' stream buffer is the outfall pipe necessary to convey the stormwater to its discharge point in the stream. This pipe will be buried as near as practical to the ground surface to avoid disturbing existing tree root systems in the buffer. No other locations are feasible without increased stream buffer disturbance. See also "Stormwater Discussion" beginning on page 13 of the report. f. See page 11, item 6, regarding stream buffer area. Mitigation sequencing per ECDC 23.40.120 is described beginning on page 10 of the report and includes both wetland and stream buffer areas. g. In accordance with ECDC 23.90, wildlife habitat conservation and water quality preservation are two of the primary goals for development of the site. To this end, the plant species specified in the mitigation plan include selections appropriate to promote wildlife habitat. For water quality purposes, the storm drainage system includes detention in an on -site pipe, with an oil separator at the driveway catch basin, as well as herbaceous plantings in the stream buffer to provide filtration of surface water. Details of fencing and signage for habitat protection will be provided with the building. permit application. 4. See tree removal plan added to plan sheet 1. 5. Regarding the size of the proposed house, the requirement of ECDC is that the proposal be "for reasonable economic use of the property" and that the "proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for" that reasonable use. Reasonable use for the RS-12 zone is one single family home for each 12,000 square feet of lot area, with no more than a 35% lot coverage. The maximum allowed footprint for a 12,000 square foot lot would be 4200 square feet. There is no minimum requirement for area of a second floor. The previously approved variance for this property which expired in 2012 was for a house with a footprint of 4146 square feet. The current proposal is for 2174 square feet of footprint (plus 163 square feet of porches), which is considerably smaller. As part of the research for designing the house for this project, the sizes and footprints of neighboring homes were tabulated and averaged to determine what should be considered reasonable for this street in this zone, with emphasis on the only 2 critical area variances that have been granted in recent history (the Hachler home at 1111 Sierra Place, and the Lewis Variance for 1139 Sierra Place, granted but expired). While county records do not show footprint amounts specifically, they do show ground floor and garage areas. The average ground floor plus garage area for homes in the immediate neighborhood is 2936 square feet, compared to 2174 square feet for the proposed house. The Hachler home's footprint is 2492 square feet (measured from a plan sketch in the city's file) and the Lewis proposal was for 4146 square feet; both granted through critical area variances. Although the code does not demand "the smallest house one could possibly build" nor "the smallest ground floor area possible" as requirements for development in a critical area site, the minimizing of critical area impacts has been a major consideration. Prior to selection of the presently proposed plan, numerous design alternatives were investigated, including an upslope plan. The upslope plan would have blocked the natural flow of the site's drainage by effectively placing a dam at the high end of the wetland, preventing the waters from DO uphill ever reaching the wetland. The current proposal with the house at the low end of the wetland does not interfere with its water sources. Other plans considered included different configurations of driveway placement as well as turning the garage on an angle, but these were eliminated due to drainage problems and increased wetland disturbance. The design goal was to balance the competing code requirements for setbacks, height limits and storm drainage, and to limit critical area impacts. The current proposal represents the best of all the alternatives that were considered. 6. The revised stormwater plan from October 2, 2012 is no longer going to be used as the southwest stormwater pipe was determined to be a non -viable channel. The proposal has returned to the previous alternative of outfalling into the stream as shown in the current civil plans dated January 2013. a. Stormwater Manual Small Site Requirement 44: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems. See "Stormwater Discussion" on page 13. The city's Public Works Department has records for culvert maintenance (approximately once a year) including debris removal which the current proposal hopes to reduce the need for by installing a trash rack at the inlet as shown on civil plan sheet 2. Stormwater Manual Small Site Requirement #8: Wetland Protection. See continuation of "Stormwater Discussion" on page 14. b. See Figure 1: Aerial Photo showing flow lines. Existing site flows are downhill from southeast to northwest. The water from the proposed development area is discharged to the stream to duplicate the existing condition. c. A spreader trench was considered for the footing drain system in order to deliver water to the stream in a more dispersed fashion; however, ECDC 18.30.060.A. Le indicates that installation of a spreader trench in the stream buffer would not be appropriate. Such a trench would need to be parallel to the existing site contours in the buffer, and at the upslope side in order to provide surface area for filtration; this would require disturbance in the eastern portion of the buffer close to the wetland. Disturbance of the stream buffer area for construction crews to excavate and install such a large feature would be significant and undesirable, and digging for a large trench would also disrupt the existing vegetation and the root system of the existing trees in the buffer. The proposed discharge pipe sloped close to the natural grade in the westernmost part of the buffer is preferable to keep the amount of construction disturbance in the stream buffer to a minimum. WAC 197-11-800 specifically exempts variances from SEPA. SEPA forms will be filled out at the building permit stage if required; however, it appears the intent of the SEPA updates in 2003 is to categorically exempt single family infill projects pursuant to achieving the GMA density requirements. The 2003 updates also limit the city's application of SEPA for a single family home in a.critical area to the enforcement of the city's adopted critical area ordinance, which is already being applied to this project (SEPA Handbook section 2.3.3.2). Additionally, the city's May 11, 2011 memorandum on "New Guidance from Ecology on SEPA Exemptions" regarding residential projects no longer triggering SEPA even if grading quantities exceed 500 cubic yards, also indicates trending away from using the SEPA mechanism for single family projects. d, e. No longer applicable, as discharge through the southwest culvert is no longer proposed. f. The existing ditch along the western property line adjacent to the private access drive will remain in place as an overflow option in the event of high water events, although we have no evidence D 114*1 of the ditch ever actually being used for that purpose. (Public Works maintenance records refer only to the "creek", not the ditch.) The southwest culvert which would have received water if the overflow condition occurred is dry, with its outlet buried. It is nevertheless the intent of this project to improve the stream potential overflow situation, rather than allow an existing situation that has been described as suboptimal to continue. The current proposal includes measures to reduce blocking of the northwest culvert, with proposed installation of a trash rack at the culvert inlet pipe to prevent debris accumulation. See revised civil plan sheet 2. g. Any necessary revision to the existing drainage easement will be provided during the building permit process. Mr. Hachler (at 1111 Sierra Place) has agreed to grant easements as needed to accommodate drainage. For the November 14" email: 1. See revised civil drawings and WRI report sections "Post -Mitigation Functions and Values Assessment" beginning on page 12 and "Stormwater Discussion" beginning on page 13. See also discussion in item 6c above regarding the desirability of installing a single shallow pipe passing through the outermost portion of the stream buffer rather than other potential means of conveyance that would involve more intrusive digging in the buffer, as well as disturbance further eastward; the current proposal includes placement of drainage features as far away from the critical areas as possible. 2. See "Post -Mitigation Functions and Values Assessment" beginning on page 12. 3. After further consideration, we have decided to leave the overall square footage of the proposed house unchanged, with the house and retaining walls in essentially the same location. However, we have modified the floor plans to reduce the area of impervious surface somewhat by shifting some square footage upstairs. The impetus for this modification was twofold: first, keeping the existing drainage ditch along the western property line necessitated moving the storm detention pipe and the house wall further east; second, the desire to save the large mature maple tree located at the stream buffer boundary at northwest corner of the building pad area meant the north wall of the house had to be shifted several feet further south to clear the drip line. Keeping the tree is subject to verification by the project arborist during construction. See tree removal plan and revised building plans. Attachments: Foundation Details B and BX Hachler Wetland Map C:\Lin\RealEstate\Sierra\Sierra20l2\0 11413 ResponseVarLtr D ISUR T TOP OF GARAGE SLAB 2191 zo -1 clq C.0 BOTTOM OFO FOOTING 217.5 (E) GRA, DE 2271 2 0 BOTTOM OF FOOTING 220 SiDE YARD AT GARAGE WALL I FOUNDATION DETAIL 91 Bvt� FdnDetBl 112 SIDE YARD AT GARAGE WALL IFOUNDATION DETAIL 11BX"I FdnDetBX1 112 49 Ej ILL tN ,� w'�� I Mum N 1 ,69'©cl d./�W LAJy r V 14 w q *10 tilt r y r ` a? ! t ti t j F . r r 11-t!5' l `.t AN 9 {�I• �i�t_ ! t�� et' ��k "h d �.��rar 1.., .. �tY1 e� i OQ'061 '. 3 .GEF3t GO by ua I!7' S " 777777, r 0,1 s�a,Y Of, On -.r .,.,.. ,. mr. ,. ...', .:. ....., ,.,. ,. r .- x�n .. :. ...�..,, - .,.,:.. ,.,,:� �' :�.. „-. r •.; >s ,... � ! t .a-1, t`. G. fF3.' ,�,.�, ,"bt''` ,� ,u 4. s., x9 •.: «, .;....: n,. ... . ._. ;;.- ., ,. ... ,xea. • a. , ....,..... ... ,Ms ,....,.. ,, ,r ,n..,= a rri. r, ` l 1. ri:r �, -i'• �.: s _ , , a ,.. c, ... , r,,,n •. ""-a r., _.. �7, ,._ a.. , ,:de. ....- :u= —., xr, Y r .a ..,,.:. ..� W.5 `m' � . �.•..aa r. a . f , n ,, a. � .ad 6,h `. i', , �,f al ri .;a . �,.�„..�.�! Y..,k.. ° '>h�§. ;� � <, l��Vr'. DATE: February 11, 2013 PROJECT: HILLMAN RESIDENCE 1139 SIERRA PLACE EDMONDS WA 98020 OWNER/APPLICANT: TOM & LIN HILLMAN 15915 74TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026 425-745-4669 LinHillman@comcast.net RESPONSE TO CITY OF EDMONDS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED SETBACK AND CRITICAL AREAS VARIANCES FILE NO PLN 20120033 DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2013 1. Variance Request, dated July 9, 2012, updated January 14, 2013 and February 11, 2013 2. Site and Floor Plans and Elevations, 4 sheets, by Owner/Applicant Latest Revision dated February 11, 2013 3. Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan Wetland Resources, Inc., Project #11033 Latest Revision dated November 27, 2012 4. Geotechnical Engineering Study Earth Solutions NW, LLC, Project #ES-2348 Latest Revision dated July 16, 2012 5. Grading, Drainage & TESC Plans, 2 sheets Donna L. Breske, P.E. Latest Revision dated February 13, 2013 Responses to February 1st Letter: 1. The western retaining wall will exceed three feet in height over the existing grade (although probably not above the "original" natural grade; before installation of the adjacent roadway and man- made drainage ditch, as it was presumably higher but we have no record of it). The variance request, site plan and civil plans have been revised to show this. Retaining walls will be engineered by the project structural engineer during the building permit process. 2. SEPA environmental checklist and check are attached. 3a. Existing man-made drainage ditch will remain; see revised site and civil plans and details. 0200 ATTACHMENT 11 3b. See detail BWS/2 on partial site plan, sheet 2 for proposed wall at existing pipe. Wall has been placed as close as possible to the edge of the existing trench. 4. Note has been revised. We look forward to receiving the staff s report and scheduling our hearing soon. Attachments: Variance Request, latest revision dated February 11, 2013 Partial Site Plan, sheet 2, revision 2: 2/11/13 Civil Plans, 2 sheets, latest revision dated February 13, 2013 SEPA checklist and $485 review fee check Copies: Andrea Bachman, Wetland Resources Inc. Donna Breske, Civil Engineer C:\Lin\RealEstate\Sierra\Sierra20l2\021113ResponseVarLtr 0201 DATE: October 1, 2012 PROJECT: HILLMAN RESIDENCE 1139 SIERRA PLACE EDMONDS WA 98020 OWNER/APPLICANT: TOM & LIN HILLMAN 15915 74TH PL W� >? EDMONDS WA 98026 425-745-4669 ' 1, LinHillman@comcast.net % is REFERENCES: PLN20120033 Variance Application, Filed July 31, 2012 for 1139 Sierra Place 2. City of Edmonds Case No. V-99-136, Attachment 3 (site survey) for 1110 Sierra Place (later 1111 Sierra Place), in October 18, 1999 Staff Report Letters from Todd and Candy Brown dated 9/12/12 (emailed to the Hillmans), and 9/25/12 (mailed to Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner, City of Edmonds) 4. Proposed Site Development Plan, 1139 Sierra Place, Edmonds, Washington, dated October 1, 2012. DISCUSSION: Since the above referenced variance application was filed on July 31, 2012, additional information regarding the existing storm drainage system in the immediate neighborhood has been provided by the above referenced variance case report for the adjoining parcel to the west (1111 Sierra Place, owned by Barry and Sandra Hachler) and letters from Todd and Candy Brown (at 1135 Sierra Place, to the north of the Hillman lot). As a result, the Hillmans' storm drainage design has been improved to incorporate this information and more closely mimic the existing hydrology of the area. The Hachler property includes a wetland that receives waters from the Hillman lot upslope of it. The existing 12" storm drainage pipe daylighting in the southwestern corner of the Hillman lot conveys stormwater under the private access drive (serving the Browns and Mrs. Ida Fernandez) and into the Hachler wetland. The collected stormwater from the Hillman project will be discharged to this existing southern storm drainage pipe, as suggested in the Browns' letter. The project Civil Engineer's Proposed Development Plan has been modified to reflect this discharge location. The stormwater collected from the new impervious surfaces on the Hillman site will be passed through detention as previously designed according to the City's detention pipe sizing handout for sites with less than 5000 square feet of new impervious surface, thereby reducing the potential for erosion on the 0202 ATTACHMENT let' site that would occur from sheet flow across the building footprint area. Erosion protection and water quality improvement will be provided by filter fabric placed around the footing drains to prevent sediment intrusion into the water conveyance pipes; this will be detailed in the building permit application drawings. This design does not direct more water to the existing stream to the north, cause additional erosion on the site, nor adversely affect the private access drive that serves the Browns' and Mrs. Fernandez's properties. Mr. Hachler has expressed support of the Hillmans' proposal to convey stormwater to the southern culvert rather than the northern one, and has offered to provide any drainage easement that might be required (although none is anticipated at this time). D OY1111 Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance October 10, 2012 12 Lin Hillman 15915 7411, Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Stormwater Design Changes for 1139 Sierra Place Dear Lin, 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 Per your request, I have reviewed the revised stormwater plan for your proposed development project on the above -referenced property. In lieu of discharging runoff from the site to the stream bank north of the new house, the design has been modified to direct collected stormwater to an existing stormwater drainage pipe within the southwest corner of the site, which will discharge into the wetland system west of the subject site. Much of the surface and subsurface drainage from your property currently flows west to supply hydrology within the neighboring wetland. The modified drainage plan is intended to match these existing drainage conditions to the greatest extent possible. The modified plan also minimizes potential flooding and/or erosion issues in the area resultant from directly discharging stormwater into the on -site stream. Overall, this modified drainage design appears be the least impactful to the hydrologic conditions of the surrounding critical areas. WRI therefore supports the new design. If you need further assistance regarding this matter or any other critical area -related issues, please do not hesitate to call. Cordially, Andrea Bachman Senior Ecologist V N Iio O O � a &90.19y_ City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklisi The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant is encouraged to include any other pertinent information or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Henning V. Nelson Name Title 1142 Vista Place Street Address Edmonds, WA 98020 776-2887 City, State, ZIP Phone Signature Date Applicant Representative: Wesley C. Dawson Name 1.2�5JQ Title 9723 Cherry Street Street Address C M Critical Areas Checklist Site Information Project Name: Dawson Short Plat Permit Number: Site Location: Sierra Place East Property Tax Account Number: 5489-000-022 r1506 of Olym is Avenue - Approximate Site Size acres or square feet): 0.84 Acres Have you filled out a Critical Areas Checklist for a project on this site before? No General Site Conditions 1. Has the site been cleared or logged? not recently Date of most recent action: Soils / Topography Alderwood Sandy 2. In the Snohomish County Soil Survey, what is the mapped soil type(s)? Gravelly Loam 3. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5 feet elevation change over entire site. X Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66 feet.) Hilly. slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10 feet of horizontal distance.) Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site. Comments Hydrology/Vegetation 4. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: No 5. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. No Approx. Depth: N/A 6. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 7. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? X flows are year-round? X Flows are seasonal? 8. Site is primarily: forested X ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed 9. Obvious wetland is present on site: only the area along the creek which is located on the northerly property line. 10. Wetland inventory or map indicates wetland present on site: No 11. Critical Areas inventory or map indicates any Critical Area on site: No C 1?3 C; City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Dawson Short Plat Determination #: FCA-93-57 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: Sierra Place East of Property Tax Acct #: 5489-000-022-1506 Olympic Ave Project Description: Short Subdivision Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): XX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; XX The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; XX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; XX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant must comply with any requirements the Building Official might call for because of construction on steep slopes (ECDC title 19.05, 19.00-UBC chapter 70). 2. The applicant must follow the requirements of the Engineering Division for erosion control (ECDC title 18). 3. The applicant must follow the direction of the Planning Department in the subdivision of this property. Based on the above findings and conditions, the requirement for a Critical Areas Study associated with this development permit is hereby Waived, as authorized by Chapter 20.15B.150 (B) of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Vendie Schulenburg Name Signature Date City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: N/A (Study requirements from Determination #: CA-93-57 prior Conditional Waiver determination) Project Name: 1 -1 Permit Number: I Site Location: 1142 Sierra Place Property Tax Acct #: 5489-000-022-1506 Project Description: Non -Project Specific Determination: Study Required: A recent inquiry regarding the ability to develop the subject property led to research of the existing file for the property, S-94-10. The file contains a prior Critical Areas Determination. However, a Conditional Waiver had been issued for the pending project. No Study Required letter had thus been prepared. Although the file contains some information on and evaluation of the Critical Areas that exist on the property, the documents were not prepared to the current standards required by the Edmonds Community Development Code (EDCD) for the evaluation of Critical Areas. In order to clarify the nature of the Critical Areas Study needed to determine the development potential of the property, the following Study Required Determination has been made: It has been determined that the subject site contains Critical Areas including a stream, a wetland, and steep slopes pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Based on this finding, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.1513 by completing the following: Stream / Wetland The site has been found to contain a stream and a wetland. Based on the above findings, a Critical Areas Study is required to determine the hydrology of the area and to delineate the approximate boundaries and identify buffers for the stream and wetland. In addition, the study will determinde whether or not salmonids, migrating fish, use the stream. If they do, a 50 foot buffer and a 15 foot building setback is required from the top of the stream bank. If salmonids do not use the stream, a 25 foot buffer and a 15 foot building setback is required from the top of the banks. The required qualified critical areas consultant needed to perform the study shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of two years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. This part of the required Critical Areas Study shall be performed as a three party agreement with the city selecting the consultant and the property owner or applicant paying the fees as required in ECDC 20.15B.140(D). The applicant may suggest qualified professionals for the City's approval. The qualified critical areas consultant shall perform the following: 1. Classification of the stream pursuant to the criteria established in ECDC Section 20.15B.060(A)(4). 2. Delineate the edge of the stream on the site. 3. State any mitigating measures appropriate to preserving and protecting the stream. 4. Determine whether or not a natural wetland exists on the property. The qualified critical areas consultant shall perform the following evaluation of the wetland: 1. Classify the wetland pursuant to the criteria established in ECDC Section 20.15B.060(A) (5). 2. Delineate the edge of the wetland on the site. 3. State any mitigating measures appropriate to preserving and protecting the wetland. After the qualified critical areas consultant has delineated the stream and wetland boundaries, a surveyor licensed by the State of Washington must perform the following: 1. Delineate the required buffer (see ECDC 20.15B.120.(A) and 20.15B.130.(C)). 2. Delineate the required building setback from the buffer (required setback is 15 feet). 3. Create a map showing the buffer and the building setback. The Land Surveyor is not required to enter into a three party contract. Steep Slope Hazard Area Delineation Requirements: To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope of 40% or more with at least 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50- foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15-foot building setback is required from the 50-foot buffer. OA 0210 For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50-foot buffer or 15-foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the study: For development proposals which will occur within the 50-foot buffer, but no closer than 10 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is not identified as exempt per ECDC Chapter 20.1513, a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.I70A and 20.15B.040C. If the results of the Critical Areas Study determine that the lot may not be developed, the applicant may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.I70(A) and 20.15B.040(C)). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Area or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Star Campbellrt G..'� July 13, 2001 Name Signature Date ❑ Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. 0211 Date: October 29, 2003 To: File CA-93-57 From: Star Campbell, Planning Divisiort"- Subject: STUDY COMPLETE The Planning Division has reviewed the following attached documents: • "Critical Areas Study for Lewis - Sierra Place," dated August 7, 2003, by Wetland Resources, Inc. (Study was completed through three -party contract. Indicates presence of Category 2 Wetland .on site, and Category 2 Stream - no salmonids. Stream requires 25' buffer (15' building setback) but stream channels are within wetland which requires 50' buffer (15' building setback). Consultant flagged stream/wetland for surveyor.) • Survey by The McAndrews Group, Ltd. Dated 9/19/03. (Survey delineates stream/wetland boundaries and buffers & is stamped by licensed surveyor.) Staff has also reviewed the attached survey by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. dated 12-14-93 that was completed in association with a former subdivision application at the site. The topography lines on this survey were analyzed in order to determine whether or not there is a "Steep Slope Hazard Area" on the site (per ECDC 20.15B.060.A.3.c.). This survey indicates that the slopes on the site do not meet the criteria for a "Steep Slope Hazard Area." Slopes over 15% are shown and are thus classified as "Erosion Hazard Areas" (per ECDC 20.15B.060.A.3.a). Erosion Hazard Areas may not be altered without an erosion control plan that has been reviewed and approved by the City. Further, if the property is determined to contain "Landslide Hazard Areas" (per ECDC 20.15B.060.A.3.b), alterations to these areas are not permitted without a report by a licensed geotechnical engineer that provisions provided in ECDC 20.15B.110.C. may be met. The critical areas determination for file CA-93-57 has been changed to "STUDY COMPLETE." City of Edmonds czR Planning Division 0212 EX, PAVE R-20 4wo luil 71 EX. llq(SR'�ESS, ANC;) UTILITY EASEMENT F S 7 7 L _J ... APPROX'. LOCATION EX. 8- SAN. SE WER MANUAL • SIGFRIO T. NELSON 7ERHANPEZ I I TWAVE. N. m P % Ex.PP 5 w 70 Da 415 3, _j w i2 APPROX. LOCATION EX. 4 "Cl. WA-rLrfZMAI W MILES T- Z PANC14ET. 11 PRELIMINARY SHORT SUBDIVISI F•O ORATT. 3 IN NE I/4,SEC.24,T2?N.,R.3E.,W.M. CITY Or EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNT YWASHINGTON Lovell-Sauenand &Associates, -Inc" EngUivou/Swvoyon/OlcMnert/l)ovolopment CorwUlton; 19400 3&d Avehue-W, Suite 200 • Lynnwood. WA 96036 * 000775,1541- (106)340.0830 D"W WAU rus im m 50*18 '734A l,,v46'1 m OF ED4 O� St. 1 Purpose of Checklist: MA_ IR.� 1 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. 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: 1. Name of proposed project, if � applicable: �� i 1 1 4r, to c, t'j 2. Name of applicant: —r. (m a I fl 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: City ofEdmonds Revised on 8/19/11 P71 - SERA Checklist. doe ATTACHMENT 0214 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): G�►�-}i-u�io� +0 Mek-n, 1, "-1-04 (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. (STAFF 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. P. I I>. i t" , /=1 I 1 i/ I i i IA' I l Noo S1r Ni (1 vy--, e,- P\j 1-- 11 ?-)- 9 ,�i t�VY�� r 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 2 of 24 0215 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,. if known. 7 Lti ��� �%'�'i Lim ��T i7 c,V�t �✓ ✓ Iy� �, vV � ��1y T �� � C �J V (STAFF COMMENTS) WGL+e-'� u,,6k t' `KcV" � D T• 1 r� 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and 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. . (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide 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. 11?�T�Zi UV f!)0UND M C R DC 1iQ i 5 A c TL 115 & LL 0d1) Dp15 TIAE, �J ; IaQrl- OP -M 2,5 Lc FIN L W of E LM VQ6 M6 AP goal © DELIAEATCD 0�1 FLAT OF 0Ei,S0N �bb.VyL 1q v PLATS N 0� 4 T6��, ye,& -�t6 ho. 170N201-2,Ez"? �? (STAFF COMMENTS) \%�-� I �-1, W u-A7 hn 1 '� '� J— el Q ( cLA - Vy � ` 1y r' f'I ci b Revised on 8119111 P71- SEPA Checklist.doc Page 3 of 24 0216 �b 48103 u 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly Csteeps ountainous, other: b. N (STAFF COMMENTS) Z?—�®ve. Q\j"t �I � yo% What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. (STAFF COMMENTS) U SbA S6,L d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Q. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doe Page 4 of 24 0217 e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. �-FNEAIM o LO 0 h 6 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) - Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS)�r-tw;re— er®c—',®, nr® (Ar-e QN e. i®c,. g: About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? (STAFF CO h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 1 (STAFF COMMENTS) a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and wive annrnximate miantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71- SEPA Checklist. doe Page S of 24 0218 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENT C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, -if any: (STAFF 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, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. a. (STAFF COMMENTS) (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: (STAFF COMMENTS) �4- in-r® �r; pe-_PA rev; (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. (STAFF CO AIN Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist. do Page 6 of 24 0219 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. I- 1V'f GLIB (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. . (STAFF COMMENTS) (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: (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. 1�10 (STAFF Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 7 of 24 0220 (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 chemicals...; 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. rz"h o 4 -- .—O vy-, V I h-, G u (f-' (Joh+A1, UU-) +0 �'o 20. �t&h(JCC h C)w5-6 V0o' +0 (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. W (STAFF COMMENTS) rl_ Prnncerd measnrec to rerdnce nr enntrnd .cnrfnee_ Qrnnnd_ and runoff water imnacts_ if anv_ COMMENTS) _ _ z Revised on_81191-11 P71- SEPA Checklist. doe Page 8 of24 0221 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: V shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: Water plants: water lily, eelgrasss, milfoil,, other: VV other types of vegetation: 6 e, V V KI: )Cl" t2! 0� (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doe Page 9 of 24 0222 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: �7e)o�- (STAFF COMMENTS) �i r �rryr� c.oe_$I d M 5. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: vV � ^ , -1- r t78 birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: T mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: `'i0. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: I V U ��'1/ ► {-. ft l�l h Cl (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Wohb. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 10 of 24 0223 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources n 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) b, Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? . If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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: (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 11 of 24 0224 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. (STAFF (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Noh6- . (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: (STAFF CO b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 12 of24 0225 (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 hour's noise would'come from the site. (� h� 2 a--r �7'a CI C L i 157 t/ I �7 ► T--) A) . (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) ; r, c:,6- _-_, nelse. 0e-d�n 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? 11 v--,-i" rx,!t , f',tiL 1 �i �1 t � fi 4;1 l h /A P! z�L Y ,� � LA �n f� lrn 6 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENT Revised on 8119111 P71- SEPA Checklist. doc Page 13 of 24 0226 C. Describe any structures on the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? ��,2� I� (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? (STAFF g. If applicable, what is the current- shoreline master plan designation of the site? -Do e,e ha`i- 0'�tztZ1L'/ (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 14 of 24 0227 h is Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally r 10% A,n F-f 0--sie9n -z_ Are _ " area? If so, specify. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? (STAFF COMMENTS) j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 1. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if anv: (STAFF COMMENTS) ass Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 15 of 24 0228 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 'A (STAFF b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. ki0toe) (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proiiposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: _aa''�kD e > (STAFF CO 10. Aesthetics 611 a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;, what is the principle - exterior building material(s) proposed? Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doe Page 16 of 24 0229 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: C (STAFF COMMENTS) �n �V C. i -- A �✓ h� o �7 eA 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? I . 1 t I ! t .i - r i O (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? l Ao. (STAFF C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71- SEPA Checklist. doe Page 17 of 24 0230 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: (STAFF CO 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to. be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 120 t,eiv In aI �&Vh1�I. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71= SEPA Checklist.doc Page 18 of24 0231 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. bve,'El had- 6,1Z17llj- (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. C€ V (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEP.4 Cheeldist. doe Page 19 of 24 0232 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Do ho-' 40W. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? C 6-K tt C� 11-� VA V b W a o i� �J f� A,i� a.� i-] C h 1 l ►rn 1 h _� G. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal. require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). �Q• (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. NC• (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 26 of 24 0233 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. ` fi A I A 1A f— n e� /t � x 4 1/ 1 � � /l 1 A :V—�— (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: WQh6. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. 0 VL ! J J (STAFF b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: loll v, Pam. (STAFF CO Revised on 8119111 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 21 of 24 0234 16. Utilities a. Circle ' ' ies currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, �telephone, (:sanitaryepticpsysteotherthe ,TO fsewJ (1 &/)er-6 1 V T ``oV b. (STAFF CO 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature of Proponent RP.V;e-t�oe� �oy Date Submitted Revised on 8119111 P71- SEPA Checklist. doe 0235 Page 22 of 24 1 J WAA WV Diem (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Revised on 8119111 P71 - SF-Pd h klist.doc Page 23 of 24 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such deniand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Revised on 8119111 P71- SEPA Checklist. doc Page 24 of24 0237 4OF ED4 O F11 ig90 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) , Description of proposal: File No. PLN20120033. Application for a critical areas and setback variance for the construction of a new single-family residence located at 1139 Sierra Place (File No. PLN20120033), which includes direct discharge of a stormwater outfall pipe into a stream. The project will include enhancement of stream and wetland buffers. Proponent: Tom and Lin Hillman Location of proposal, including street address if any: 1139 Sierra Place, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel No. 00548900002215 Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.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 March 12, 2013 Project Planner: Jen Machuga, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Robert Chave, Planning Manager Phone: (425) 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: February 26, 2013 Signature: 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 March 12, 2013 . 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 February 26, 2013 , at the subject site, Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. XX Emailed to the Department of Ecology (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov) along with a copy of the SEPA Checklist. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at www.EdmondsWa.gov through the Permits Online link. Search for file number PLN20120033. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. n ATTACHMENT 17 XX Mailed notice of the SEPA determination to property owners within 300 feet, parties of record, and the following agencies: XX COMCAST Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 1525 75th St SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Department of Fish & Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX Tulalip Tribal Council 6700 Totem Beach Road Marysville, WA 98270 XX Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 cc: File No. PLN20120033 SEPA Notebook XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 97034, MIS EST- 11 W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 XX Betty Tobin Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Donna J. Bunten Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environ. Assist. Program PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 XX Owner/Applicant: Tom and Lin Hillman 15915 — 741h Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 raj, •. C,_ . OF EDMONDS ® PLANNING DIVI-JN COMMENT FORM PW-Engineering 9Fire PW - Maintenance 171 Parks & Rec. ® Building Economic Dev. Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20120033 Applicant's Name: Tom & Lin Millman Property Location: 1139 Sierra Place Date .of Application: 8/1 /2012 Date Form Routed: 8/3/2012 Zoning: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12) Project Description: REQUEST FOR TWO VARIANCES (1) CRITICAL AREAS AND (2) REDUCE SIDE SETBACKS. "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS THIS O:, WAS ROUTED: If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: Jen Machucla Ext. 1224 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: 0 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department_may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ® I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should , be attached to this permit to ensure comp requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is nee, John J. Westfall Fire Marshal jwestfall@firedistricti.org 12425 Meridian Ave. Everett WA 98208 phone: 425-551-1200 fax: 425-551-1249 www.firedistrictl.org 0241 ATTACHMENT 1 C. OF EDONDS —PLANNING DI`✓Id. JN COMMENT FORM El PW-Engineering Fire ��PW - Maintenance ® Parks & Rec. 0 Building 11 Economic Dev. 11 Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20120033 Applicant's Name: Tom & Lin Hillman Property Location: 1139 Sierra Place Date .of Application: 8/1 /2012 Date Form Routed: 8/8/2012 Zoning: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12) Project Description: REQUEST FOR TWO VARIANCES (1) CRITICAL AREAS, AND (2) REDUCE SIDE SETBACKS. "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORMWAS ROUTED: DUE t_y If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: Jen Machuga Ext. 1224 Name of �Individual Submitting Co Title: I have reviewed this land use proposal or my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department.may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): AUG 0 9 an � °°RIC �'�` w The following conditions should . be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date Signc Phone/E-mail: 0242 Q OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIV1; ) COMMENT FOR P -Engineering Fire PW - Maintenance Parks & Rec. ® Building Economic Dev. El Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20120033 Applicant's Name: Tom & Lin Hillman Property Location: 1139 Sierra Place Date .of Application: 8/1 /2012 Date Form Routed: 3/3/2012 Zoning: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12) Project Description: REQUEST FOR TWO VARIANCES (1) CRITICAL AREAS, AND (2) REDUCE SIDE SETBACKS. "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: D8/23/2012 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: Jen Machuga Ext, 1224 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: 1"�✓L=� %%��� I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department.may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. El I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): S c? �bwl `3c1„i� Baca dC The following conditions shouldbe be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: Signature: Phone/E-mail: 0243 C OF ED ONDS ®PLANNING DIVI-.JN COMMENT FORM PW-Engineering Eire PW - Maintenance 11 Parks & Rec. Building El Economic Dev. 11 Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20120033 Applicant's Name: Tom & Lin Hillman Property Location: 1139 Sierra Place Date _of Application: 8/1 /2012 Date Form Routed: 8/8/2012 Zoning: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12) Project Description: REQUEST FOR TWO VARIANCES (1) CRITICAL AREAS ARID (2) REDUCE SIDE SETBACKS. P:. .CDECDC 20.02.005COMMENTS DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: Jen Machuga Ext. 1224 e r. Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: �4" �1`. ,r', �ti1 I have reviewed this land use proposal or my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should . be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): WE Sigr fJ:T: I-e . El Date: August 16, 2012 To: Jen Machuga, Planner From: Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician Subject: PLN20120033 — Variance Application 1139 Sierra PI — Tom and Lin Hillman The comments provided below are based upon review of the application and documents submitted for the variance at 1139 Sierra Pl. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time. Please ask the applicant to respond to the following. 1) Please provide have them provide a response as to how they are meeting the Small Site Requirement #4-Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls and #8- Wetland Protection. 2) Please also remind them of the following: Verification of the impervious surface area and sizing of the storm detention system will be reviewed by the Engineering Division at the time of building permit submittal. Please make sure that all utilities have proper slope, cover, and utility separation. Thank you. City of Edmonds DAVE EARLING MAYOR Inc. 15�0 October 23, 2012 121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 ® (425) 771-0220 a FAX (425) 771-0221 www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tom and Lin Hillman 15915 — 74th Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED SETBACK AND CRITICAL AREAS VARIANCES, FILE NO. PLN20120033 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hillman: During staff s continued review of your land use application for both a setback variance and a critical areas variance to construct a new single-family residence at 1139 Sierra Place; it was determined that additional information/clarification is necessary. Please provide responses to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staff's review of the proposal can continue and so that the public hearing can be scheduled: Your "Title Sheet & Whole Site Plan" (Sheet 1 of the plans packet) indicates a wall around the northern and eastern sides of the residence.. The ends of the wall are labeled as "garden wall P-3' high" and the middle of the wall is labeled as "retaining wall 3'-8' high." The wall is indicated slightly differently on the "Site Plan" (Sheet 2 of the plans packet). Walls that exceed three feet in height as measured over original grade must comply with setback requirements. It appears that much of the proposed wall would be supporting a cut slope; however, please confirm if any portion(s) of the proposed walls are proposed to exceed three feet in height over original grade so that staff can confirm compliance with setback requirements and/or so that the proposed wall can be incorporated into the setback variance request if necessary. 2. Sheet 1 of the "Proposed Site Development Plan" indicates a fmished floor elevation for the house and garage of 219 feet. Additionally, the "Site Plan" (Sheet 2 of the submittal packet) states a total of 362 cubic yards of proposed cut. The goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, however, state that natural topography should be preserved and that grading should be minimized by designing a residence that takes the existing topography of a site into account. The quantity of proposed grading and the proposal for a wall surrounding the residence makes it appear that the proposal is not taking the existing topography into account as much as it could. Please address why this quantity of grading is necessary and why it would not be possible to construct the home without as much grading. 3. The following questions/comments are related to the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" by Wetland Resources dated July 18, 2012: a. On Page 3 of the report, under the "Methodology" heading, it states that the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual was used, "as required by Snohomish County." However, it should state: "as required by Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.50.010.B." Incorporate u #st 11, 1890 Sister City' an, Japan b. The report classifies the on -site wetland as being Category 3; however, a report prepared by Wetland Resources for the past critical areas variance request on the subject site dated August 7, 2003 (Wetland Resources Inc. project #03199) identified the wetland as being Category 2. Please have Wetland Resources provide a written explanation of why the rating of the wetland has changed since the time of their 2003 report. c. The report needs to expand its focus on ECDC 23.50.030.F. As part of further addressing this code section, please have your biologist provide a map of the wetlands and buffers within 200 feet of the project area, including all information required in 23.50.030.F.1. This map should also indicate locations of other critical areas within the vicinity of the site. d. Table 1 on Page 11 states that the proposed wetland enhancement area is 12,560 square feet; . however, the proposed wetland enhancement area is stated elsewhere in the report and on the project plans as 15,560 square feet. It appears this may simply be a typo; however, please provide confirmation of the correct area of wetland enhancement. e. The report focuses on reduction of the required wetland buffer, but does not go into detail about the proposed reduction of the required stream buffer. Please have Wetland Resources provide a revised report (or an addendum to the existing report) that specifically addresses the critical areas requirements applicable to streams contained within ECDC 23.90. Particular attention must be paid in explaining how the proposal complies with the requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.D.2 and D.7. f. The report provides information on mitigation of the impacted area of the wetland and wetland buffer, but does not provide information on mitigation of the impacted stream buffer. Please include mitigation measures for all impacts to the stream buffer, and expand the discussion on the mitigation sequencing required by ECDC 23.40.120 (beginning on Page 8) to also address the mitigation sequencing applicable to the stream. g. The site contains a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. As such, please have Wetland Resources confirm that all applicable requirements of ECDC 23.90 are addressed within the report. 4. Your title sheet includes a tree removal list. Please provide a plan indicating the locations of all trees proposed for removal. Some of the comment letters received during review of the subject application raised concerns over the size of the proposed house, particularly regarding the fact that the proposed living space of the second floor is much smaller than that of the lower floor and that open ceilings are proposed over the living/dining room and front entry. Have you looked at the feasibility of other house designs, particularly any designs that would reduce the overall house footprint while providing the same amount of living space? Please provide additional information/analysis on how the proposal meets the criteria of ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.c. The following comments have been provided by Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician: 6. You submitted a revised stormwater plan on October 2, 2012 indicating that the detention system would be connected to the catch basin at the southwestern corner of the site, and that the stormwater would flow underneath the adjacent access driveway to the west and into the existing wetland located on the adjacent property addressed 1111 Sierra Place. The following questions/comments are related to the revised stormwater system proposal: a. Please provide a response from your biologist addressing number 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems, and number 8 — Wetland Protection of the Stormwater Supplement. It needs to be I FT.f-E, • shown that the proposed drainage system will not have any negative impacts on the wetland and/or stream. b. Provide a document from your biologist that shows where the site naturally flows (i.e. towards the culverts at the northwest or southwest corners of the site). All water entering the proposed developed area shall be directed as shown in the requested document in order to maintain existing site flow conditions. c. The proposed stormwater system must have as minimal impact as possible to the critical areas. Please consider a spreader trench for any water that is discharged towards the north culvert. The spreader trench should be designed by a licensed engineer and meet all requirements set forth by the biologist. If there is a direct discharge to the stream, SEPA review would be required. d. Since you are proposing to discharge some of the stormwater from your site into a private culvert, which outfalls into the neighbor's wetland to the west, written permission from the owner of the adjacent property at 1111 Sierra Place is required. Additionally, an easement will need to be provided during the building permit process. e. Please provide all invert elevations of the southwest culvert. Additionally, provide the elevation of the. water in the wetland on the neighboring property at 1111 Sierra Place during the rainy season. It will need to be determined that the elevation of the wetland during the rainy season is not higher than that of the west invert of the culvert. f. It has been brought to our attention that during high flow events, the stream diverts along the western property line. It is important that the pre-existing conditions on the lot remain the same. Therefore, you will need to show the overflow path of the stream to ensure that you are not changing the existing overflow conditions. g. It appears from the provided plans that the northwest culvert and stream may fall outside of the existing 10-foot drainage easement. Please indicate the location of the northwest culvert on the revised project plans. Additionally, please note that an easement will need to be provided to the City that encompasses the entire stream and culvert. The easement will be required during the building permit process. Please submit the above information to Jen Machuga, Associate Planner, as soon as possible, so that staff may continue processing your application and so that the public hearing can be scheduled. Please keep in mind that a complete response to this information request must be received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC 20.02.003.D). Thits, your application will expire if the requested information is not received by January 21, 2013. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224. Any questions related to the proposed stormwater system can be directed to Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician, at (425) 771-0220, extension 1321. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division " �, ��, I ZI Jennifer Machuga Associate Planner Cc: File No. PLN20120033 rl 2 1 ; DAVE EARLING MAYOR jnc. 1890 February 1, 2013 121 5th AVENUE NORTH"- EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tom and Lin Hillman 15915 — 74th Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hillman: Staff has reviewed the revised materials that you submitted on January 18, 2013 for your land use application for a setback variance and critical areas variance to construct a new single-family residence at 1139 Sierra Place. During review of your revised materials, it was determined that additional information/clarification is necessary. Please provide responses to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staffs review of the proposal can continue and so that the public hearing can be scheduled: Your revised preliminary civil plans indicate a "modular block wall l'-4' high" near the western property line. Based on the elevations indicated on the civil plans, it appears that this wall would be supporting .fill material. As discussed in staff s October 23, 2012 request for additional information, retaining walls that exceed three feet in height as measured over original grade must comply with setback requirements. If the western retaining wall is going to exceed three feet in height over original grade, it will need to be incorporated into your setback variance. Additionally, please note that if there is a surcharge on the proposed wall, it will need to be engineered. Engineering of the wall, if necessary, would be required as part of the building permit review process. 2. Since the stormwater outfall pipe is proposed to directly discharge into the stream, the project area includes "lands covered by water", which is an exception to the single-family residential exemption .for SEPA review that you referenced from WAC 197-11-800. Therefore, the proposal requires SEPA review. Please submit a completed and signed environmental checklist (enclosed) together with the required $485 SEPA review fee. Note that payments must be submitted Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. The following comments have been provided by Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician: The Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan states the following: "An existing man-made trench that was constructed when the private driveway was built in the 1970's intercepts excess and subsurface flows in the southwestern part of the site. Nevertheless, the applicant is proposing to leave the culvert in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water event." Your response letter states that the existing man-made trench will remain, but that the southwestern culvert outlet is buried. ® Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cit0214Wan, Japan a. Please show the location of the existing man-made trench on the preliminary civil plans. If it is not going to be feasible to utilize the existing man-made trench and southwestern culvert as the overflow path as established in the 1970s, please provide an alternate plan for the excess and subsurface flows that maintains existing site flow conditions. If an alternate overflow plan is proposed, please provide documentation from the project biologist and engineer that the proposal will mirror the existing site flow conditions and that the existing path is no longer needed. b. If the existing man-made trench and southwest culvert are to remain as the overflow path, please .conduct the following: i. It appears that the proposed modular block wall along the western side of the site is blocking the southwest culvert. Access to the southwest culvert must be maintained. Therefore, the preliminary civil plans must be revised so that the modular block wall does not block the access. ii. If the modular block wall is within the man-made trench, the modular block wall must be relocated such that it is not within the trench. iii. If the proposed detention system is within the man-made trench, the detention system must be relocated such that it is not within the trench. 4. On Sheet 2 of the preliminary civil plans, please remove the following note: "Existing man-made drainage ditch to remain per review comment 6(f) from city engineering technician Jennifer Lambert included in City letter dated October 23, 2012.". Please submit the above information to Jen Machuga, Associate Planner, as soon as possible, so that staff may continue processing your application and so that the public hearing can be scheduled. Please keep in mind that a complete response to this information request must be received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC 20.02.003.D). Thus, your application will expire if the requested information is not received by May 2, 2013. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224. Any questions related to the proposed stormwater system can be directed to Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician, at (425) 771-0220, extension 1321. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Jennifer Machuga Associate Planner Cc: File No. PLN20120033 Enclosure: Environmental Checklist 1025CF2 Date: To: From: Subject: March 7, 2013 Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner Jennifer Lambert, Engineer Technician PLN20120033, Variance — Setback & Critical Area Variance 1139 Sierra Pl, Edmonds, WA Engineering has reviewed and approved the subject application with the following conditions to be noted in the staff report. Approval of this variance shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. Likewise, verification of the impervious surface area and sizing of the storm detention system will be reviewed by the Engineering Division at the time of building permit submittal. Consistent with the Critical Areas Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Resources Inc, dated Novemeber 27, 2012, the existing man made trench located along the west property line shall remain in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water event. In addition the subject proposal shall not inhibit the usage of the existing southwestern storm drainage culvert. During the building permit process the applicant will be required to show the installation of a trash rack at the northwestern stream inlet and secure all applicable permits for all work within the stream and associated buffer. The applicant will also be required to revise the storm easement such that the easement encompasses the creek. Thank you. City of Edmonds 0251 ATTACHMENT 21 Notice. Application NAME OF APPLICANT: Tom and Lin Hillman DATE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF COMPLETENESS: DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: PROJECT LOCATION: August 1, 2012 August 29, 2012 September 12, 2012 1139 Sierra Place, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Number 00548900002215 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has submitted an application for a critical area variance and an application for a street setback variance for the construction of a new single-family residence. Variances are Type III-B decisions, which require a public hearing and a decision by the Hearing Examiner. The site is located within the Single -Family Residential, RS-12, zone. REQUESTED PERMITS: OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: REQUIRED STUDIES: EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE: Critical Area Variance and Setback Variance. Building Permit. Geotechnical Report and Biologist Report. Critical Area Determination. September 26, 2012 Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administra- tive appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Planning Division between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday or online through the city's website at www.edmondswa.gov through Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20120033. City of Edmonds Development Services Departmeni Planning Division 121.5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 9802( Project Planner: Jen Machuga machuga@ci.edmonds.wa.us 425.771.0220 x 1224 www.edmondswa.gov 0252 ATTACHMENT 22" AMMI On the 12th day of September, 2012, the attached Notice of Application was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Jennifer Machuga, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 12th day of September, 2012, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 0254 Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. I Signature of Applicant or Applicant's Representative; Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of _� G)� Y , aol'Z . and for the State of Washington Residing at L(dnll WOV 1/t% y IV o®®� EXAi�co ®a:F d U®12012 q. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Revised on 9130111 P2 - Adjacent Property Owners List Page 2 of 2 0255 ' worlV9Ae'M0W I 00548900002208 3/23/2012 JORGENSEN KELLY R & ST or RESIDENT 15523 3RD DR SE MILL CREEK, WA 98012-4506 00427000000600 3/23/2012 ORTEGA SUZANNE T or RESIDENT 614 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 00507000002300 3/23/2012 RILEY LOUISE M or RESIDENT 811 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 i 00530500000300 3/23/2012 MALOTT RALPH J or RESIDENT 1130 SIERRA PL EDMONDS, WA 98020 00548900002203 3/23/2012 SCHROEDER STEPHEN & BE or RESIDENT 1142 VISTA PLACE EDMONDS, WA 98020 00548900002212 3/23l2012 HACHLER BARRY & SANDRA or RESIDENT 1111 SIERRA PL EDMONDS, WA 98020 007749.00000400:_ .._ _ : ;3/23[20;12;' DIBBLE MARITAL TRUST or RESIDENT 1116 DALEY PL EDMONDS, WA 98020-2913 00774900000700 3/23/2012 HANCHETT KEVIN or RESIDENT 1111 DALEY PL EDMONDS, WA 98020-2913 (/ 00427000000100 3123/2012 SORVIK SONJA or RESIDENT 605 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2933 00427000000400 3/23/2012 LEE JOONG GUU or RESIDENT 718 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2934 �wi096S ®AU3AV 1 ap idle aang3e4 el a zallaaa i 00427000000300 3/23/2012 DOCES PAUL M or RESIDENT 631 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98.020 - 00507000000100 3/23/2012 WHITEAKER JAMES E & DO or RESIDENT 800 12TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 00507000002500 3/23/2012 POWELL TERRY & CALEB or RESIDENT 719 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 00530500000400 3/23/2012 SWANK J STEPHEN or RESIDENT 1140 SIERRA PL EDMONDS, WA 98020 00548900002205 3/23/2012 DEGUZMAN VEN & MARY or RESIDENT 1110 VISTA PL EDMONDS, WA 98020 00548900003102 3/23/2012 KOO ROBERT or RESIDENT 561 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 "-t6T749000d0500 '3123/2012 JOSAFAT ALFREDO & ALIC or RESIDENT 1117 DALEY PL EDMONDS, WA 98020-2913 00535600000300 3/23/2012 SKULLERUD STEPHEN & MA or RESIDENT 580 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2932 00427000000200 3123/2012 ERICSON WILLIAM B JR & or RESIDENT 615 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2933 00548900002302 3/23/2012 CHAPMAN JANET or RESIDENT 701 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2934 wla6P3 dn-do0256 .faded paad of aull 6uole pubsME—mum v a819a a saline¢ sauanbil 00427000000500 3/23/2012 GUO JINFENG JEFF or RESIDENT 626 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 00507000000200 3/23Y2012 LEIFER EVA or RESIDENT 810 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 00530500000100 3/23/2012 GERRY ROBERT & HELEN or RESIDENT 622 OLYMPIC AVE EDMONDS, WA 98020 00535600000400 3/23/2012 HEDGES HOLLY or RESIDENT 22225A WOODWAY PARK RD WOODWAY, WA 98020 00548900002209 3/23/2012 HIRAKAWA VICTOR S or RESIDENT PO BOX 322 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00774900000800 3/23/2012 COMSTOCK BRIAN & ERIN or RESIDENT 1107 DALEY PL EDMONDS, WA 98020 00774900000600 3/23/2012 CLARK MICHAEL or RESIDENT 1115 DALEY PL EDMONDS, WA 98020-2913 .. 00548900002405 3/23/2012 MILLER MICHAEL R & HEI or RESIDENT 591 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2932 00427000000700 3/23/2012 FOUNTAIN ADAM J & EMIL or RESIDENT 602 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2933 00507000002200 3/23/2012 GRUBS CLAIR L & SALLY or RESIDENT 821 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2935 ®09Ls aaeldwal AJ9AV asl stage, shad ICse �i ►�or/VaAe'AnnAAA u i ap ulle ainy:)ey el a zalloag � ®- i Jalea a salhej sal4anbla3 00507000002400 3/23/2012 00548900002202 3/231ZO12 00548900002207 3/23/2012 INGRAM MARK & LESSLEYor RESIDENT IHMELS WENDELL or RESIDENT PETRELLA LORI A or RESIDENT 801 12TH AVE N 750 OLYMPIC AVE 718 OLYMPIC AVE EDMONDS, WA 98020-2935 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2959 4 EDMONDS,-WA 98020-2959 00548900002213 3/23/2012. 00548900002206 3/23/2012 oo548900002204 3123/2012 PECK CHARLES & GALLUCC or RESIDENT SCHUSTER TIMOTHY or RESIDENT FERNANDEZ IDA or RESIDENT 730 OLYMPIC AVE 820 OLYMPIC AVE 1133 SIERRA PL EDMONDS, WA 98020-2959 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2960 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2962 00548900002214 3/23/2012 00548900002201 3/23/2012 00548900002215 3/23/2012 BROWN TODD & CANDIS or RESIDENT LANGFORD MARCELLA or RESIDENT HILLMAN FAMILY TRUST or RESIDENT 1135 SIERRA PL 24107 E GREYSTONE LN 15915 74TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2962 WOODWAY, WA 98020-5226 EDMONDS, WA 98026-4554 00530500000200 3/23/2012 DOYLE JOAN T or RESIDENT 3604 NE 195TH SEATTLE, WA 98155 , I i I .86p3 cln-doG25 i jaded paaj @09LS ejeldwa.L okaAV esi i —096S OANHAV 1 01 gull 6uole pugg 1916mgm ® I slagel alaad Ase FILE NO.: PLN20120033 Applicant: A, To z J On the 12th day of September, 2012, the attached Notice of Application was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Jennifer Machuga, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 12th day of September, 2012, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 0258 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION NAME OF APPLICANT: Tom & Lin Hillman DATE OF APPLICATION: 8/1/2012 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: 8/29/2012 DATE OF NOTICE: 9/12/2012 FILE NO.: PLN20120033 PROJECT LOCATION: 1139 Sierra Place, Edmonds, WA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has. submitted an application for a critical area variance and an application for a street setback variance for the construction of a new single- family residence. Variances are Type III-B decisions, which require a public hearing and a decision by the Hearing Examiner. The site Is located within the Single -Family Residential, RS-12, zone. REQUESTED PERMIT: Critical Area Variance and Setback Variance. Information on this application can. be viewed at the City of Edmonds Development Services Dept., 121 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98026, or on ' the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the online Permits link. Search for ppermit PLN20120033. OTHEfl REQUIRED PERMITS: Building Permit. REQUIRED STUDIES: Geotechnical Report and Biologist Report. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical Area Determination. COMMENT PERIOD: Comments due by September 26, 2012. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any' hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre -decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. HEARING INFORMATION: To Be Determined. ,CITY CONTACT: Jan Machuga, Associate Planner (425) 771-0220, ext..1224 Published: September 12, 2012, Account Name: City of Edmonds ! 11 t _ I� t c S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Notice of Application Tom & Lin Hillman File No.: PLN20120033 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: 12,2012 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of September, 2012 Laz6L_ 1J d"—u-', Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County. Account Number: 101416 Order Number: 0001793853 Notice of Public Hearing ?.nd SEPA Determination PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Consolidated applications for a critical areas variance and setback variance for the construc- tion of a new single-family residence at 1139 Sierra Place. As part of the critical areas variance request, the applicant is proposing enhancement of the stream and wetland buffers. The applicant is also requesting a setback variance to reduce the minimum required street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for the house and to 3 feet for a retaining wall, and to reduce the minimum required western side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall. Variance applications are Type III-B decisions, which require a public hear- ing and decision by the Hearing Examiner. The site is located within the Single -Family Residential, RS-12, zone. NAME OF APPLICANT: Tom and Lin Hillman PROJECT LOCATION: 1139 Sierra Place, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Number 00548900002215 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: March 14, 2013 Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the clos- ing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the de- cision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined inECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Planning Division between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday or online through the city's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permit Assistance link. Search for permit application PLN20120033. SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project requires SEPA review because it includes direct discharge of a stormwater outfall pipe into a stream. DATE OF ISSUANCE: February 26, 2013 SEPA COMMENTS DUE: March 12, 2013 SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than 4 p.m. on March. 12, 2013. City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Project Planner: Jen Machuga Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov 425.771.0220 www.edmondswa.gov OF E 0z-,oning and Vicinity Map �� File No. PLN20120033 0 100 200 400Feet loc. 189�3 0261 FILE NO.: PLN20120033 Applicant: HILLMAN On the 26th day of February, 2013, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. The Notice was also mailed to all parties of record. I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 26th day of February, 2013 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed:V12J {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 0262 wor/tjane'MMM i ap up aany:)>ie4 el a zalidaop w' i aalad a salhel sauanblI3 li 00548900002208 3/23/2012 00427000000300 3/23/2012 00427000000500 3/23/2012 JORGENSEN KELLY R & ST or RESIDENT DOCES PAUL M or RESIDENT GUO JINFENG JEFF or RESIDENT 15523 3RD DR SE 631 12TH AVE N 626 12TH AVE N MILL CREEK, WA 98012-4506 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00427000000600 3/23/2012 00507000000100 3/23/2012 G0507000000200 3/23/2012 ORTEGA SUZANNE T or RESIDENT WHITEAKER JAMES E & DO or RESIDENT LEIFER EVA or RESIDENT 614 12TH AVE N 800 12TH AVENUE NORTH 810 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 D0507000002300 3/23/2012 00507000002500 3/23/2012 00530500000100 3/23/2012 RILEY LOUISE M or RESIDENT POWELL TERRY & CALEB or RESIDENT GERRY ROBERT & HELEN or RESIDENT 811 12TH AVE N 719 12TH AVE N 622 OLYMPIC AVE EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00530500000300 3/23/2012 00530500000400 3/23/2012 00535600000400 3/23/2012 MALOTT RALPH J or RESIDENT SWANK J STEPHEN or RESIDENT HEDGES HOLLY or RESIDENT 1130 SIERRA PL 1140 SIERRA PL 22225A WOODWAY PARK RD EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 WOODWAY, WA 98020 00548900002203 3/23/2012 00548900002205 3/23/2012 00548900002209 3/23/2012 SCHROEDER STEPHEN & BE or RESIDENT DEGUZMAN VEN & MARY or RESIDENT HIRAKAWA VICTOR S or RESIDENT 1142 VISTA PLACE 1110 VISTA PL PO BOX 322 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00548900002212 3/23/2012 00548900003102 3/23/2012 00774900000800 3/23/2012 HACHLER BARRY & SANDRA or RESIDENT KOO ROBERT or RESIDENT COMSTOCK BRIAN & ERIN or RESIDENT 1111 SIERRA PL 561 12TH AVE N 1107 DALEY PL iEDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00774900000400. 3l23I201'2;'< ""?00774900000500' 3/2112012 011714900000600 3/23/2012 ,DIBBLE MARITAL TRUST or RESIDENT JOSAFAT ALFREDO & ALIC or RESIDENT CLARK MICHAEL or RESIDENT 1116 DALEY PL 1117 DALEY PL 1115 DALEY PL EDMONDS, WA 98020-2913 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2913 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2913 00774900000700 3/23/2012 00535600000300 3/23/2012 00546900002405 3/23/2012 HANCHETT KEVIN or RESIDENT SKULLERUD STEPHEN & MA or RESIDENT MILLER MICHAEL R & HEI or RESIDENT 1111 DALEY PL 580 12TH AVE N 591 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2913 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2932 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2932 I 00427000000100 3/23/2012 00427000000200 3/23/2012 00427000000700 3/23/2012 SORVIK SONJA or RESIDENT ERICSON WILLIAM B JR & or RESIDENT FOUNTAIN ADAM J & EMIL or RESIDENT 605 12TH AVE N 615 12TH AVE N 602 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2933 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2933 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2933 00427000000400 3/23/2012 00548900002302 3/23/2012 00507000002200 3/23/2012 LEE JOONG GUU or RESIDENT CHAPMAN JANET or RESIDENT GRUBE CLAIR L & SALLY or RESIDENT 718 12TH AVE N 701 12TH AVE N 821 12TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-2934 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2934 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2935 w,a6p3 do-do02 jaded paaj ®0965 aaeldwal �Gan� as( wi096S ®] i 01 gull 6uole pugs I siagel tilaad /(se: Uuo� RjaAe nnnnnn i ap up ajny:)e4 el a zalidaa 00507000002400 3/23/2012 00548900002202 3/231ZO12 INGRAM MARK & LESSLEY or RESIDENT IHMELS WENDELL or RESIDENT 801 12TH AVE N 750 OLYMPIC AVE EDMONDS, WA 98020-2935 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2959 4 00548900002213 3/23/2012. 00548900002206 3/23/2012 PECK CHARLES & GALLUCC or RESIDENT SCHUSTER TIMOTHY or RESIDENT 730 OLYMPIC AVE 820 OLYMPIC AVE EDMONDS, WA 98020-2959 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2960 00548900002214 3/23/2012 00548900002201 3/23/2012 BROWN TODD & CANDIS or RESIDENT LANGFORD MARCELLA or RESIDENT 1135 SIERRA PL 24107 E GREYSTONE LN EDMONDS, WA 98020-2962 WOODWAY, WA 98020-5226 00530500000200 3/23/2012 DOYLE JOAN T or RESIDENT 3604 NE 195TH SEATTLE, WA 98155 Cheri Zehner 1027 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 v salad a selpel sauanb'13 00548900002207 3/23/2012 PETRELLA LORI A or RESIDENT 718 OLYMPIC AVE EDMONDS,-WA 98020-2959 00548900002204 3/23/2012 FERNANDEZ IDA or RESIDENT 1133 SIERRA PL EDMONDS, WA 98020-2962 00548900002215 3123/2012 HILLMAN FAMILY TRUST or RESIDENT 15915 74TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026-4554 j(w'� -96P3 do-do.0jaded paaj f p096s aaeldwal �09AV asn 1 01 gulf 6uole pugs I slaae'1 Tlau Ase; • �_�I IRII g, On the 26th day of February, 2013, the attached SEPA DNS and Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination were both posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject.property. I, Jennifer Machuga, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 26th day of February, 2013, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 0265 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Notice of Pu Tom & Lin Hillman File No.: PLN20120033 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: February 28,2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County. Account Name: City of Edmonds Account Number: 101416 Order Number: 0001812042 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH S.S. Account Name: City of Edmonds The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Determination of Nonsiinificance Residence at 1139 Sierra Place File No. PLN20120033 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: February 26, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed /to its subscribers during all of said period. Princinnl (jerk v V Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of February, 2013 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County. Account Number: 101416 t r, '7f to at 1 verett; Snohomish Order Number: 0001811682 0267 i u51 a — Machuga, Jen From: smcbrown@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 11:32 AM To: linhiliman@comcast.net Cc: Machuga, Jen Subject: Thanks and welcome. Lin and Tom, Welcome to the Sierra Place neighborhood and thank you for the letter decribing your plans. It's a nice departure from the previous owner who tried to develop that property. We are Todd and Candy Brown at 1135, the property up the lane to your north. While we are sad about the habitat loss we feel that overall your house will be a good thing for the area and wish you the best. We've built before and know both the ups and downs you're about to experience. I had a chance to review some of the plans with Jen in the planning department yesterday. One concern we have regards water flow. As I think I mentioned to you once when you were out surveying the property, the culvert at the north end of the lane tends to plug up, usually during the winter rains. The city has been better about doing preventive maintenance on it but I don't believe it's considered a city street so don't know what support they'll be able to give in the future. (Jen - do you know?) When it becomes obstructed the water overflows down the east side of the lane into a culvert at the south end of the, lane. Our concern when this happens is that this overflow may erode parts of the lane and lead to road collapse. I also noticed that your plans don't seem to indicate this southern culvert. Since you plan to drain your storm water into the creek on the north I wanted you to be aware of this issue. Perhaps this southern culvert can play a role in your drainage plan. We'd hate for there to be erosion of our lane, but also potential erosion damage on the west side of your property. . We will be away from late September through early November so may miss some of the initial meetings, though our niece will be house sitting for us. If you need to contact us, we will be available at home until then (425-672-4418, or smcbrown@.comcast.net) or via cell phone (425-876-0152) during October. . Again, thanks for your consideration and welcome to the neighborhood! Todd and Candy 1268 ATTACHMENT 23 9/20/2012 September 25th, 2012 Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner Development Services Department 2DJ� 121 5 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: PLN2012033 (Hillman residence variance request) Dear Jennifer, Thank you for your help in steering us through the process of commenting on this variance request since we'll be out of town until early November. You and Jerry Schuster were very helpful. I sent a previous e-mail with comments several weeks ago for the record, which was before I had a chance to review the planning records. This letter is a follow up and a more thorough collection of our thoughts and comments. While we are saddened by the loss of habitat we realize that property owners have the right and privilege to develop their land in a manner consistent with the rules and regulations of the city. Our primary concern is the impact the variances will have on drainage as it affects our property. Specifically: 1A 23.50.040.F1c Category 3 Wetland Buffer Reduction - requests decreasing the category 3 wetland buffer from 50 feet to zero feet on the west side of the property and reducing the north Np stream buffer from 50 feet to 25 feet. Buffers are there for a reason and this stream has a history of flooding. The 12 inch culvert at the north end of the lane has obstructed with rocks and gravel from the stream bed 3 times in the past 5 years. One public works employee reported that over 6 yards of material were removed on one occasion and the truck had to be emptied before they could continue. They described the stream as constantly delivering rocks and gravel from upstream, which increases during heavier rain periods. When it obstructs, the lane is essentially turned into a dam. The dam overflows and water runs through the existing buffer down a shallow diversion ditch on the west side of the property (on the east side of the lane). It then enters another 12 inch culvert at the south end of the lane and daylights beneath the west side of the lane into the adjacent wetland. Removing this buffer thus eliminates this drainage "safety valve," leading to erosive effects explained later. 1B. 23.50.040.F8c: Stormwater Management Facilities Location — requests the storm. drainage system be placed within the buffer proximate to the existing wetland edge. The plan redirects the vast majority of the property's runoff to the north stream, and not just the water from the 3,498 square feet of new impermeable surfaces like the roof and driveway. Additional water will be directed to the stream from the footing drains of the approximately 140 feet of 3-to-8 foot tall retaining wall built on the wetland. We believe that routing all of that storm water to this stream will degrade its wetlands function and value by increasing the likelihood of obstruction. Mitigation is suggested through the use of detention piping of water from the impermeable surfaces. This looks good on paper but detention pipes fill with silt and sediment over time, reducing their capacity and function. Despite good intentions, these systems eventually fail. We're concerned about what will happen to all of that water in the future as well. This mitigation also doesn't address the majority of the water drainage from the property — that from the upper reaches of the site. Based on the placement of the proposed retaining wall it appears that approximately 50% of the upper site's water will be diverted north to the stream through undetained footing drains. Our understanding of groundwater flow is that it sinks below the surface, then flows downhill like a slow percolating river through the wetland beneath the lane. The placement of the home and long retaining wall will divert all of this water in an undetained fashion right to the stream. And again, despite good intentions and promises of ongoing annual footing drain maintenance, these drains silt up and fail, leading to a catastrophic retaining wall failure. Collecting the flow in this way may also change the hydroperiod of the entire wetland, which is not permitted by state and city codes. The neighbors downhill to the west (1111 Sierra Place) have done considerable stream bank work to deflect the stream to the south away from their house. Increased stream flow could alter the hydroperiod and flow characteristics of their property, increase their flooding risk and potentially damage the wetland to the west of the lane, leading to additional downslope erosion of the lane. Substantial runoff comes from the site through the south 12 inch culvert, especially when it rains. It also provides relief when the north culvert occludes. This fact was overlooked in the geotechnical and water management reports. The plan will bury and inactivate this south culvert, further exacerbating the above -mentioned problems by removing this drainage "safety valve" when the north culvert occludes. The lane would then be converted into a large spillway with water flooding across the lane, leading to road erosion, potential loss of access to our home, loss of utilities which run beneath that road, and erosion of the soil around the large leaning alder trees at the north with potential tree damage to Ida Fernandez's house. Since this stream is part of the city's storm water system the city assumes the risk and liability for damage when this erosion damage occurs in the future. . 2. 23.90.040.D1 Type Np Stream Buffer Reduction - requests the Np stream buffer reduction from 50 feet to 25 feet, and; 3. 23.40.280 Critical Area Building Setback Reduction — requests a stream buffer setback reduction form 15 feet to 3 feet. Taking these 2 points together, current code would allow a house to be built within 65 feet of the stream's ordinary high water mark (a 50 foot stream buffer plus a 15 foot building setback). This variance request seeks to reduce that distance by a full 62%, to 25 feet. The plan proposes buffer planting enhancements as mitigation, but this stream buffer is already described as mature natural forest so it's difficult to see how this could be improved upon. Part of the mitigation plan states "Minor improvements could be made through enhancement by planting additional herbaceous species within the bare ground areas of the wetland". There aren't many bare ground areas on this land and we feel that major, rather than minor, improvements are needed given the extent of this variance. Given this stream's propensity to overflow this seems untenable. VARIANCE CRITERIA. PER ECDC 20.86 (ZONING) 2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE - "If no variance is granted the applicant is denied the use of the property enjoyed by the neighbors." As we mention on the next page it is possible to build a smaller yet still reasonable home, as other neighbors have, so as to not deny the applicants enjoyment of their property. The previous owner purchased this lot for around $90,000 and was unable to build because of 0270 the lot's many constraints. The current purchase price at auction was $75,000. Our neighbors directly to the north purchased their smaller lot for $600,000. It seems too good to be true for a shy acre building lot anywhere in Edmonds let alone the Edmonds bowl. Perhaps the reason this property was so cheap is that, aside from a smaller home, the site really. is unbuildable. You get what you pay for. 5. NOT DETRIMENTAL - claim of no detriment to neighbors. As mentioned before, flooding leading to the loss of the lane, utilities or tree damage risks public safety, neighbors' welfare and increases liability for the city. 6. MINIMUM VARIANCE — claim that without this variance the applicant would be denied construction of any reasonable home on this property. The proposal describes a modest single family dwelling of 2,623 square feet. At first glance the comparison of neighborhood building areas bears this out. However, the list excludes the closest neighbor (the Mallot home directly across the cul-de-sac) which is only 2,063 square feet on a much smaller lot. So it is possible to build a smaller yet still reasonable home. And while the blueprints describe a living space of only 2,623 square feet, this minimizes the actual size or volume of the home. The design of the home contains many vaulted ceilings and the square footage value doesn't include the garage, which has living space above it. The result is that the actual footprint of the home looks like one which supports a home greater than 4,000 square feet — far from modest. , 23.40.210.A2a. b DENIAL OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE/LESS IMPACT We believe there are other reasonable economic uses for the property. We would love the economic option of purchasing the lot and building a small woodshop. Another economic use would be a wetland swap with the city for property elsewhere and converting the site into a small park or city wetland for public enjoyment. C. MINIMUM NECESSARY IMPACT As mentioned before, we think there is an option for even less site impact - directing the drainage to the south. Also, a comparison to the previous Lewis plan is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. The Lewis plan was dead on arrival due to the massive scope of the structure on a completely different part of the property. While the benefits of the Hillman plan versus the Lewis one are evident this still doesn't discount the drainage risks with this variance. e. NO THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH. SAFETY OR WELFARE We disagree that the plan will not affect water quality, create flooding issues in downstream systems, nor cause erosion or tree hazards for neighboring properties, as we stated before. Two neighbors live directly downhill from a new house, recently built on the adjoining property north of us. They have both had flooding in their homes because of redirected water requiring expensive repairs. This underscores that, despite good engineering assessment, there are unpredictable consequences from water on this Edmonds hillside. 0271 We have some final points. These are some miscellaneous quotes and aspects of the planning documents which got our attention. - There was' only a partial topographic survey of the property. Given the extensive water flow from the hillside and the steepness it seems it should be explored more completely. - "Site soils are moderately susceptible to erosion." - "Due to existing soil types (Alderwood soils; 15 to 25 percent slopes), the on -site slopes appear to be designated as erosion hazard areas." - "In our opinion site soils would be moderately susceptible to erosion." - "Native soils are moderately to highly moisture sensitive and may not be suitable if the soil moisture content is over optimum." - "Placing a single family residence adjacent to the wetland results in complete elimination of its protective buffer along a portion of it." (We think this is the most critical portion). We like certain aspects of the plan, including the removal of invasive species, and applaud the Hillmans for the care and diligence they've taken in this process, especially their communications to us. Unlike the previous owner our issue is not with the Hillmans — we have met them and find them friendly and forthcoming. But given our history with the stream, the characteristics of that land and the experiences of our neighbors, we have serious concerns about the drainage plans, the impact on our property and utilities, and the effects on other neighbors. Thank you for your consideration. Todd and Candy Brown 1135 Sierra Place 425-672-4418 0272 Machuga, Jen From: Emily Fountain [emily.fountain@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 6:33 PM To: Machuga, Jen Cc: Adam Fountain Subject: Hillman Application, File #PLN20120033 Ms. Machuga, My husband and I own the property located at 602 12th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020. I am writing regarding the Hillman's application for a critical area variance. My husband and I support this application, as removing some of the trees on the subject property would open up the views for a large number of homeowners on 12th Ave N, including us. Thank you for your time and'consideration. Emily Fountain 0273 ATTACHMENT 24 9/14/2012 Stephen C. Schroeder Cheryl L. Beighle 1142 Vista PI. Edmonds, WA 98020 October 10, 2012 Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner Development Services Department 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: PLN2012033 (Hillman Residence) Dear Jennifer: Thank you for your assistance in understanding the variance process: My wife and I own the property to the immediate north of the land on which the Hillmans propose to build. We do not believe that the requested variances are reasonable, we think that the proposed construction would seriously degrade the wetland areas, and are adamantly opposed to the application. Particularly troubling are the proposals to reduce the north buffer adjacent to the wetlands by fifty percent (from fifty to twenty-five feet) and to eliminate entirely the 50 foot buffer on the west side. When coupled with the requested reduction of the stream buffer setback from 15 feet to 3, the proposed house would infringe on more than half of the mandated setback. In addition, the applicants propose to redirect the runoff from the property to the stream on the upper north portion of the lot. This would greatly increase the volume of water that stream would have to handle. Given that this stream as already prone to obstruction, overflow and erosion, this aspect of the requested variance is particularly troubling. The Hillmans refer to their proposed house as a "modest home" of some 2,623 square feet. A review of the diagram of the layout of the proposed house, however, shows that it would have the footprint of a much larger structure. The ground floor plus the garage would cover some 2,200 square feet. Due to the planned deck and open areas, the second floor would comprise only 851 square feet of living space instead of the possible 2,200 square feet if it were fully built over the garage. In other words, the proposed building would have the footprint of a house of nearly 4,000 square feet. Given the nature of the building site, this is not a reasonable plan. The Hillmans also contend that there are no other reasonable uses for the land and that the (wetland) conditions of the site were not cause by them. This land could be used for a wetland swap with the city. In addition, tax records reflect that the Hillman Family Trust paid $75,000 for this property last year after another purchaser had failed to get the requisite permits to build on it. $75,000 represents about 10% of what this land in this location would be worth if it were a buildable site. Surely, the Hillmans went into this venture knowing that there were serious impediments to building on this land. The simple truth is that not all land in Edmonds is buildable, and that wetlands were designated for sound reasons, namely protecting habitat and preserving the environment of our city. The 0275 ATTACHMENT 2 application of the Hillmans does not adequately address these concerns. We oppose the application in this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Steve Schroeder Cheryl Beighle 0276 Cheri Abner, PARK IndustrialFtyg-lenlst ladau Vt Q440 y fftniagpMQat November 2, 2012 Jen Machuga Planning Services Division City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ms. Machuga, Re: Proposed Land Use Action at 1139 Sierra Place 1027 Carol Way Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 799-6382 wuwv. ch erize hn er. corn I just found out from a neighbor in Edmonds that there has been a proposed land use action on the property located at 1139 Sierra Place. I am furious that residences that will be most adversely impacted by development on this property were not notified about this application. The property at 1139 Sierra Place is a critical wetland area. Disturbances of this wetland area will cause more flooding of properties to the west of Olympic Avenue. We have lived on the west side of Olympic Avenue since 1997 and have experienced flooding of our property at 1027 Carol Way every December since 2007. The flooding events are documented through Stormwater Management (See Mike Johnson). The flooding started occurring after construction was completed on two homes along Hindley Creek headwaters on Daly Place. In addition to our flooding, the residences at 703 Olympic Avenue have been experiencing seasonal flooding in their basement since 2007. I worked with Mike Johnson in Stormwater Management for five years to determine the source of this drastic change in surface water run-off patterns that threaten to flood our house. After extensive investigation, Mr. Johnson concluded that the issue was not regarding public street run-off. He said that it was an issue with private property groundwater and storm water and that it was a civil matter. I do not think that this is a civil matter. It is a matter of the Planning Services Department issuing building permits that should have never been issued. I trust that the building permit for the property at 1139 Olympic Avenue will not be issued because development of this lot would put the residence west of Olympic Avenue in jeopardy of having their homes flooded. The City of Edmonds knows this is a critical wetland area that retains thousands of gallons of water, and prevents flooding of lower elevations to the west of Olympic Avenue. If the City has already issued this building permit without my input, I want to know what the City's plan is to protect my property from being flooded. Will the City install a French drain from Glen Street to Cascade Lane along Olympic Avenue? How will the City manage the excess, non -street, storm water and groundwater generated by this development? I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, a 54— Cheri Zehner, MPH 0277 ATTACHMENT 2 1 Flooding Photos Cheri Zehner Kevin Fagerstrom 1027 Carol Way Edmonds WA b. Storm -water Breaching Retaining Wall and Pond during Flooding December 2007 Normal Water Level in Pond Spring 2011 0278 . y i Storm -water Run-off in Small's Backyard April 2011 Ankle-deep Strom -water Run-off in Small's Backyard at Back Fence April 2011 Ankle-deep in Storm -water Run-off in Our Backyard December 2010 Storm -water Run-off Pouring out to Driveway between Foundation and Retaining Wall in Our Yard December 2010 SNOHOMISH'COUNTI( ; Providing quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value Marlch 6, 2013 Rob Chave City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Chave: Reference Number: PLN20120033 Hillman SFR District DR Number: 13-024 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 upgrade, to existing facilities that is required to connect this proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable District policy. The developer will be required to supply the District with suitable locations/easements upon its property for any electrical facilities that must be installed to serve the proposed development. We recommend contact with the District prior to design of the proposed project. For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's South County office at 425-670-3200 to contact a Customer Engineer. Sincerely, L- lisabeth A. Tobin Senior Manager Planning, Engineering, & Technical Services 1802 — 75th Street S. W. ® Everett, WA ® 98203 / Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 ® Everett, WA ® 98206-1107 425-783-4300 ® Toll -free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 ® www.snopud.com Machuga, Jen From: David Thorpe <dethorpe@frontier.com> y Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:33 PM — To: Machuga, Jen ` Subject: PLN20120033 Ail] "� $a Hi, I would like to be a party of record for this permit application. I have walked the property and have spent a fair amount of time looking at the information on the website. My main interest in becoming a party of record is self serving. We live on a similar size lot with slope issues however we do not have a wetland issue. 1 am interested to see how this application moves along and what the final decision is. We too may want to develop our lot. I am concerned about the wetland issue. From how I read things about $5000 will be spent by the owner to "fix" the damage and loss of the current wetland. I understand the owner's right to build on their lot but even though the house is "smaller" than the ones around it, the impact of that large of a foot print will have a huge effect on the existing wetland. I remember when the emergency road down in Shell Valley was being talked about and designed, there was great concern about what would happen to the wetland in that area where the road was to be built. Despite assurances from the City, that wetland has been destroyed. The City has so few wetlands that extreme caution needs to be taken when treading on this slippery slope. Currently the wetland buffer reduction requires a 50 ft buffer for a cat 3 wetland. The owner wants a reduction of this buffer to ZERO feet on the western boundary of the wetland and wants to encroach 11% into the wetland itself. I do not agree with this. Category 3 wetland replacement ratio reduction requires that category 3 wetlands which are eliminated be mitigated by replacing them at a 2:1 ratio. The owner wants this requirement be reduced to ZERO. I do not agree with this. Critical Area Building Setback Reduction requires a 15 ft building setback from critical areas/buffers. The owner wants a reduction to 5' at the wetland edge and down to 3' at the stream buffer edge. The owner wants the Front Yard Setback reduced -from 25' to 12'. I understand there has to be some give and take when dealing with wetland and slopes but as I read the application I continue to come away with the feeling that the owner is asking for to much and not giving enough. This lot is a challenge because of its natural make-up and I question if it can, or should, be developed. As stated in the report this lot has special circumstances. Multiple critical areas including a category 3 wetland covering roughly the middle third of the site, a type Np stream running across the rear of the parcel and a moderate to steep slope covering about the eastern third of the lot. I have gone on to long but will end with this. The company hired by the owner to work on the wetland, Wetland Resources Inc, has stated, "we recommend against wetland creation in favor of wetland enhancement". That to me sounds like double talk and I worry about such a thought process. Thank you for your time, David Thorpe 1 0282 EXHIBIT 30 21117 Shell Valley Road Edmonds WA. 98026 March 12, 2013 MAR 12 2013 DEVELOPMENT CERVICES To: Jennifer Machuga, Planner COUNTER From: Todd Brown /6 Subject: PLN20120033 — comments regarding variance application Thank you, Jen, for the opportunity to provide some final comments prior to the hearing examiner meeting. My name is Todd Brown and I live at 1135 Sierra Place, on the north side of this property. This beautiful shy acre should remain in its natural state. I grew up in Edmonds then moved back in part because of the conservative way the city manages its trees and outdoor spaces. This is the last undeveloped wetland on Olympic Avenue and it seems a shame to remove 29 or 30 of its stately alders, maples and cedars, some 30 to 40 inches in diameter. This is a better, higher use of this property. This land is a rare gift and it seems a shame to develop it. While the mitigation plan may make some improvements, like removing and replacing some non-native species, the trees can never be replaced. And developed land never has the same natural beauty and function as the original. There is much inertia in this project. Much time, effort and cost have gone into the planning for this house, both by the owners and city staff. One planner said that in her 7 years with the city this is the first critical areas variance she's worked on. I think that gives you some idea how rare this property is and I would hate to have the variances approved simply because so much time and effort have gone into it. The land's purchase price of $75,000 should be some indication of the problems inherent to this site. A similar site without the erosion and wetland issues would cost 10 times that in Edmonds. This variance should be denied for many reasons. There are some factual inaccuracies in the planning documents, failure to obtain necessary written permission from adjacent landowners as required by the city, insufficient mitigation measures and misinterpretations of city code. I summarize them at the end but will provide support here. The first, and most important, is the site drainage. The original plan involved routing the storm water from the 130 or so feet of retaining wall footing drains and the 3500 square feet of new impervious surface into the north stream through a private culvert. Prior to getting on the city's culvert maintenance watch list the north stream culvert was prone to blockage and backing up. When it did, the water ran down the west end of the property in a ditch which day -lights into a 12 inch culvert at the SW. I suggested a change to the original plan; that is, to route all of the storm water to the SW culvert. This would do several things - minimize the risk of the north stream culvert plugging up due to increased water flow; reduce the downstream flooding potential for the Hachlers at 1111 Sierra and other residents west of Olympic Avenue like Cheri Zehner (see her 0284 EXHIBIT 31 Attachment #27 regarding her flooding property); and better mimics the natural flow of water on that site. Attachment 6 is a topographical survey of the site. The land of the southern two- thirds of the site, where the house and retaining walls are planned, slopes downhill from the northeast down towards the culvert at the SW. This was recognized by many people. The Hillman's senior wetland ecologist, Andrea Bachman, (Attachment 12, October 1, 2012) describes, after reviewing our letters and a previous variance case report for the 1111 property, that using this SW culvert is a better approach. She says "As a result, the Hillman storm drainage plan has been improved to incorporate this information and more closely mimic the existing hydrology of the area. This design does not direct more water to the existing stream to the north, cause additional erosion on the site, nor adversely affect the private access drive. Mr. Hachler has expressed support of the Hillmans' proposal to convey storm water to the southern culvert rather than the northern one, and has offered to provide any drainage easement that might be required (although none is anticipated at this time)." I believe Mr. Hachler supports this SW plan because it would minimize his risk of flooding from more water from the north culvert. Ms. Bachman continues (Attachment 13, October 10, 2012): "Much of the surface and subsurface drainage from your property currently flows west to supply hydrology within the neighboring wetland. The modified drainage plan is intended to match these existing drainage conditions to the greatest extent possible. The modified plan also minimizes potential flooding and/or erosion issues in the area resultant from directly discharging storm water into the on -site stream. Overall, the modified drainage design appears be the least impactful to the hydrologic conditions of the surrounding critical areas." Finally, the city engineering department gives credence to this plan (Attachment 21, March 7, 2013): "... the existing man made trench located along the west property line shall remain in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water event. In addition, the subject proposal shall not inhibit the usage of the existing southwestern storm drainage culvert." Attachment 10, dated January 14, 2013, though, indicates a drainage plan change back to the original one, dumping storm water directly into the stream. Point number 6 says "The revised storm water plan from October 2, 2012 is no longer going to be used as the SW storm water pipe was determined to be a non -viable channel". 6F states "The existing ditch along the western property line adjacent to the private access drive will remain in place as an overflow option in the event of high water events, although we have no evidence of the ditch ever actually being used for that purpose. The southwest culvert which would have received water if the overflow condition occurred is dry, with its outlet buried." I dispute these statements. I saw this overflow occur at least twice, as did the 2 city workers when they came to unplug the northern culvert. I saw the SW culvert outlet discharging storm water. I also saw where someone (I presume the wetland ecologist) had done some shovel work looking for the outlet and they were looking in the wrong place. The outlet is about 20 feet to the west of the lane, overgrown by blackberries but certainly not buried. Also, that SW culvert has running water whenever there's a rainstorm, consistent with the topography of the site. The city requires the owners to have a backup overflow plan in the event of high water in order to approve this variance. They must believe there is viability to the SW culvert as it represents their backup plan. If that culvert is non -viable then they have no overflow plan, which is required as part of the city granting the variance. Using the SW culvert, per the owners' own expert recommendation with city support, also helps save a gorgeous 18 inch diameter cedar which would have to be removed if the storm water drains to the north. I question the ability of a trash rack to prevent obstructions in this case. One public works employee described removing 6 yards of material from the stream bed 3 times in the past 5 years. He said it had obstructed from rocks and gravel washed down the stream during heavier rain periods. A trash rack is designed to prevent large objects, such as branches and sticks, from blocking a culvert. The gravel and rocks inherent to the soil of this hillside can still cause obstructions. I am happy with the current state of the north stream — since it's been on the city's culvert maintenance watch list it has weathered some very severe rainstorms without obstructing. The expense and disruption of installing a trash rack is unnecessary to keep the stream safe from flooding. Finally, in a request for additional information from the city (Attachment 20, page 3, point 6d) "Since you are proposing to discharge some of the storm water from your site into a private culvert, which outfalls into the neighbor's wetland to the west, written permission from the owner of the adjacent property at 1111 Sierra Place is required." I have not seen that this written permission has been obtained. See Attachment 6 showing the northern culvert intake placed outside the existing drainage easement, making it a private culvert. Another issue regards habitat mitigation. The variance requests to decrease the allowed buffer by a full 62%. The mitigation plan states "Minor improvements could be made through enhancement by planting additional herbaceous species within the bare ground areas of the wetland." This property is already described as "mature natural forest" — major, rather than minor, improvements are needed given the extent of this variance and the risk of flooding. A final issue concerns the size of the home and the economic use of the property. The original variance request (Attachment 3 July 9, 2012) says that (point 6, page 5) "Without this variance, the applicants would be denied construction of any reasonable home on this property." And 6c, page 6, says "The total footprint and living space are the smallest of all the adjoining properties." While this is technically correct it is misleading. Their review of the neighborhood homes fails to include the closest one, across the culdesac. Ralph Mallot's home at 1130 Sierra Place is listed in county records as being 2,063 square feet, which includes his basement. Ralph's house footprint is approximately 1,400 square feet, demonstrating that the Hillman plan is not the smallest necessary to achieve a reasonable economic use of the property. The city even recommended a smaller house footprint. Section 6b, page 6, says "There is no reasonable use for the site other than single family residential that would result in less impact to the critical areas." I would have loved the opportunity to purchase the property and build a small 500 square foot workshop. The lot's purchase price of $75,000 should have hinted at the problems inherent to this site. Even one of the city's managers, Rich Lindsay, (attachment 19, page 3) says "It seems this would be a very difficult area to build unless all variances are met." To summarize, I believe these variances should be denied for these reasons: 1. Written permission has not been obtained from the Hachlers at 1111 Sierra Place allowing the discharge of storm water into their private culverts. 2. Building on this site endangers downstream homeowners of flooding. 3. Potential flooding risks access to the private lane. 4. Trash rack mitigation is insufficient to prevent culvert obstructions. 5. The current plan does not represent the minimum needed for a reasonable home. 6. There are other possible uses for the land besides a single family residence. 7. This site may not be buildable, as discovered by the previous owner. 8. The loss of 30 stately trees is not in keeping with Edmonds' personality. I hope you'll decide that, given discrepancies in the plan, the failure to meet certain requirements set forth by the city and the Herculean effort required to conform this bargain -basement land, it's a better choice to leave it be. To quote city council member Joan Bloom (Edmonds Beacon, March 7, 2013) "Edmonds is a gift, let's show our appreciation." Machuga, Jen From: Chave, Rob Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:40 AM To: Machuga, Jen Subject: FW: Please forward the comment (below) to the Hearing Examiner. Rob Chave I Planning Manager Acting Development Services Director From: Earling, Dave Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:05 PM To: Kevin Fagerstrom Cc: Chave, Rob Subject: Re: Kevin.... Thanks for your note. I am including my answer to you to Rob Chave, who is Director of Planning. I'm sure he will get back to you regarding your request. Dave Earling Sent from my iPad On Mar 11, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "Kevin Fagerstrom" <k1f300(a7yahoo.com> wrote: Sir, I have lived in Edmonds for 15 years. I live at 1027 Carol Way. I am directly below the property at 1139 Sierra Place. There is a proposed variance that is set to be heard by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2013 at 3pm. The Planning Department file number is PLN20120033. This property is within a designated Critical Area and the owner is applying for a variance to be allowed to construct a single family residence on the site. If you read the file, you will find that this is the 4T" time that an application has been filed for such an action. We have been involved in this matter before and when we saw the land use action notice posted on the site last Fall, we immediately contacted the Planning Department and asked to be placed on the mailing list so that we could provide input into this matter. We received a packet in the mail on Monday afternoon and were dismayed and quite frankly very angry when we find that the matter will be heard in front of the Planning Commission on Thursday, March 14th at 3pm. This does not even equate to 72 hours of advance notice of this hearing. This proposed action is fraught with potential flaws and if it approved, we believe that it will have very severe adverse effects to our property as well as others. We wish to be heard on this matter and to receive a less than timely notice of such an important potential action, is not what I have come to expect from my city government. If the matter proceeds on the 14th, neither my wife nor I will be able to attend the hearing because of a lack of timely notice and if the matter is approved, we will likely have no other course of action, but to initiate legal action to appeal the decision in order to protect our home. I would ask that this matter be scheduled to a later date and that we receive sufficient notice to allow us time to adjust our schedules in order to attend. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Kevin Fagerstrom kif300@vahoo.com Machuga, Jen From: Chave, Rob Sent. Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:40 AM To: Kevin Fagerstrom Cc: Earling, Dave; Machuga, Jen Subject: RE: Hello, Mr. Fagerstrom: I appreciate your concerns regarding the project and that you've been actively tracking its progress for some time. After checking our files on the project and talking with the project planner (Jen Machuga), it does appear that a notice of hearing specifying the date and time of the hearing was mailed to your home address on February 26th of this year. It was included in the same mailing with the SEPA notice on the project, and you should have received both approximately two weeks ahead of the hearing date. We then followed up with a more recent mailing of the full hearing packet, which is what you just received. Given the timing of the mailings, it may be difficult for you to argue that you didn't know about the hearing day/time, but you are free to make that case to the Hearing Examiner if you would like. In any case, we will go ahead and forward your comment (your email) to the Hearing Examiner. You don't say so, but perhaps you are arguing that you would like more time to study and respond to the material contained in the staff report. I can't say whether the Examiner will grant more time, but he has occasionally done so when good cause is shown; it is completely his decision as to whether to continue a hearing or allow additional comments within a specified timeframe of the actual hearing date. This is not something that is done lightly, since hearings frequently involve multiple parties and time commitments. Please contact the project planner, Jen Machuga, if you have any questions or wish to provide any additional comments. I believe you and your wife have been in contact with Ms. Machuga on this project previously, and I'm sure she is willing to assist as best she can. Rob Chave I Planning Manager Acting Development Services Director From: Earling, Dave Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:05 PM To: Kevin Fagerstrom Cc: Chave, Rob Subject: Re: Kevin.... Thanks for your note. I am including my answer to you to Rob Chave, who is Director of Planning. I'm sure he will get back to you regarding your request. Dave Earling Sent from my iPad On Mar 11, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "Kevin Fagerstrom" < wrote: Sir, I have lived in Edmonds for 15 years . I live at 1027 Carol Way. I am directly below the property at 1139 Sierra Place. There is a proposed variance that is set to be heard by the Planning 0190 EXHIBIT 33 Commission on March 14, 2013 at 3pm. The Planning Department file number is PLN20120033. This property is within a designated Critical Area and the owner is applying for a variance to be allowed to construct a single family residence on the site. If you read the file, you will find that this is the 4T" time that an application has been filed for such an action. We have been involved in this matter before and when we saw the land use action notice posted on the site last Fall, we immediately contacted the Planning Department and asked to be placed on the mailing list so that we could provide input into this matter. We received a packet in the mail on Monday afternoon and were dismayed and quite frankly very angry when we find that the matter will be heard in front of the Planning Commission on Thursday, March 14th at 3pm. This does not even equate to 72 hours of advance notice of this hearing. This proposed action is fraught with potential flaws and if it approved, we believe that it will have very severe adverse effects to our property as well as others. We wish to be heard on this matter and to receive a less than timely notice of such an important potential action, is not what I have come to expect from my city government. If the matter proceeds on the 14tn, neither my wife nor I will be able to attend the hearing because of a lack of timely notice and if the matter is approved, we will likely have no other course of action, but to initiate legal action to appeal the decision in order to protect our home. would ask that this matter be scheduled to a later date and that we receive sufficient notice to allow us time to adjust our schedules in order to attend. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Kevin Fagerstrom klf300@vahoo.com Oi91 8.638� 8-63 ,� - r ��� B-64 6r:� j .►�11 I I f�� :� i, f .j� 's1 ac�r >8-25�. :f "'t -�,., ter' 1 1. . y t •4. � 0•t3:i1 _. {F O „ a8-1.5G -�-:'�_ • �.t �•. t. I a � •�c .❑f 4't I „ •�. 8-257 �.�..� 8-1186 j ;�,. �lYc, • [ ' wu �1 7h+1; �•'j, 1i CT1n Zr�q �i"�s ❑ , f i, YJf �¢�f tv ��St..•� „fit , °rr' r� .�. �r /� 'T `'�[�,�• ti i f or If )rr 14re 1 }' Av 6'0 -26 UI o t st y� 4 to l 8 6 { 283 "' 8 .� �• 1 i '' t s- _..,.� c :'TP'' 1 • y, M ❑• . i I t,. `` �` „ G'i'� , VIA 'r j`6 ou Ifs ° 1 ae • . i !7 . ^ / .', , A + x, ,.i t '� I� , fir, p '� { - • 8-645 13 8-6,19 8-650 8 618 . ❑ �� ❑ ra ice. { 8SI7 �,,���[: L r..+.• - ��►-r arr r 1 is 8,265 41 � - s rat 't+ .,` 1_ r r.� i('��AP t 1 G: ► I -8-31 : . . ,. ❑��'s IID 'f4'• .7 8s8 65M1 g `�. 658 (jBdSi3, + p 659 -661 r 1 e i; r .'tlr • ! tb• �� ��. : -yy -1i6 7 i !�T� -,8.27 3. i►r s 1 r mot- — • I�• taf - '' r. 8.656v�. r+. ` i;f* ;}F. ,U12Q". 27 'n F -" `''"—""�' �` dG4d zR: 41 5_ - ) 2 3 4F . + ,� 1i�i.�, i.'.rd, 1. r 1 ;'•' `: '� 'i. If Legend 0 40 80 160 240 320 400 w• o Storm Manholes Contour _2ft_smoothed Feel ❑ Storm Catch Basins ( Edmonds_ Parcels _2010_03 1 in = 150 ft s f FO,, Storm Pipes fr No warranty of any sort, including accuracy, fitness, or merchant ability DITCH —CREEK accompany this product. cm' ed �Jt, TL. 2c�(�bA 0293 7•do33 O `= Wul, fa, EXHIBIT 35 iner� Zehner, MPH Industrial Hygienist Indoor Air Quality Management March 12, 2013 Hearing Examiner City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Reference File # PLN20120033 We do not support the issuance of a building permit for the parcel of land at 1139 Sierra Place based on the drainage risks to the properties west of the site. Attachment 9 addresses stormwater management on the proposed property. The plan states that run-off from impervious surfaces will be collected in a tight -line drain system to a stormwater detention pipe at the westernmost edge of the lot and will discharge at a dispersion outfall at the stream edge. I am concerned that though a dispersion outfall, in theory, is a responsible means of stormwater management, alterations of the site soils and redirecting stormwater is unpredictable, despite good engineering assessments, We are concerned that water detention focused on new areas of the site will create groundwater movement in new and unpredictable paths. We are not willing to be the empirical experiment to determine how much surface and groundwater impacts our property from this proposed development. Currently, the stream on this site is managed by the City of Edmonds. During heavy rains I have seen this stream at capacity. We are not willing to put the protection of our property into the hands of private property owners and think that the City of Edmonds is better equipped and a more responsible entity. Our property at 1027 Carol Way has received a drastic increase in stormwater run-off since 2007. This drastic increase coincides with the development of two land parcels on Daly Place. Both of these properties supposedly have responsible stormwater management systems. One of the properties was a critical wetland and one had a water -well that was decommissioned. Last December we estimated that we were receiving about 7,200 gallons of water per day during the heavy rains. During these rains, I have witnessed groundwater surfacing on the property at 703 Olympic Avenue, which is at the intersection with Sierra Place, directly west of the subject property. This letter is in addition to my comments in Attachment 27 and the video footage (December 21St 2012) of the stream/ditch (at capacity) at the south end of the property, Sincerely, Cheri Zehner, MPH 0294 EXHIBIT 36 BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Re: Tom and Lin Hillman APPEAL FROM FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION, ENTERED BY EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER PHIL A. OLBRECHTS APRIL 24", 2013 PLN20120033 Stephen C. Schroeder and Cheryl L. Beighle, 1142 Vista Pl., Edmonds, WA 98020, Telephone # (425) 712-8694; and Todd and Candy Brown, 1135 Sierra Pl., Edmonds, WA 98020, Telephone # (425) 672-4418; Parties of Record, Appellants. ATTACHMENT B I. STATEMENT OF STANDING TO APPEAL Appellants are adjacent property owners and Parties of Record in this matter who testified at the open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Pursuant to ECDC 20.07.003, they are accorded the right to appeal from this decision. ii. ISSUES ON APPEAL 1. The Final Decision Upon Reconsideration found that "there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachments as required by the variance criteria" [Final decision Upon Reconsideration, p. 1]. The same Hearing Examiner also ruled that "the applicant failed to justify the proposed filling of wetlands under the City's reasonable use criteria" [Order on Reconsideration, p. 3.]. Inconsistently with these rulings, the Hearing Examiner then invited the Applicants' hired consultant, (Wetlands Resources, Inc.) to submit, by means of untested expert opinion testimony, a finding of whether "removing the proposed wetlands encroachment would appreciably improve upon impacts to wetland functions," [Final Decision Upon Reconsideration, p. 20]. This aspect of the decision is improper, and deprives the appellants of due process rights to contest the application. This decision should be reversed, and a finding entered that the applicants have not sustained their burden of proof that the filling of 11 % of the wetland was "the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning," as required by ECDC 20.85.010.F. Consequently, the application for a variance should be denied. N 2. The strict application of the wetlands and sensitive area regulations in this matter would not amount to a "taking," the legal concept that is incorporated within the definition contained in ECDC 23.40.320. "Definitions pertaining to critical area: "Reasonable economic use(s) means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process." That standard is not applicable to regulation on the use of land so long as the regulation in question is aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose. If this Council were to find that the wetlands regulations, strictly applied, would amount to a taking or inverse condemnation, however, that impact was visited upon the prior owners, Darryl and Shari Lewis, in 2003 when the wetland and buffers were delineated. The applicants, Tom and Lin Hillman, reaped the benefits of that past reduction in value, having purchased the land at a price substantially below fair market value for a comparably -sized buildable lot. That reduced price obviously reflected the fact that the nature of the property and the existence of the wetlands regulations rendered the construction of a home on the lot problematical. Their argument that the advent of these highly -predictable results amounts to an unreasonable taking should be rejected, and their application for variances denied in total. STATEMENT OF FACTS On August 7, 2003, the area in question was the subject of a Critical Area Study conducted for the City of Edmonds by Wetland Resources, Inc. As a result of that Study, the wetland and stream boundaries, and their buffers, were delineated. Those boundaries were substantially unchanged ten years later when Wetland Resources, Inc., performed a Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Hillmans [Attachment 8, Planning Division Report & Recommendation]. County tax records reflect that Darryl and Shari Lewis purchased the property on May 28, 2003, for $190,000. On January 15, 2004, they filed with the City a consolidated application for a critical areas reasonable use variance and north property line setback variance. As part of their proposal to build a large house on the eastern (slope) section of the property, they requested a variance to allow them to put a portion of the footprint of the house in the wetland and stream buffer areas, proposed to run a driveway through a portion of the wetland substantially along the Sierra Pl. right of way, and requested a boundary setback variance to allow them to put the north - most portion of the house (a large, enclosed deck) ten feet from the property line instead of the twenty-five feet required by the Code. Those variance requests were approved and, on April 19, 2005, the City Council heard an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. The issue was raised whether the setback variance, necessitated solely by the large deck, was "necessary to a reasonable use of the property" [Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes, April 19, 2005]. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Council was limited to the issues raised on appeal. City Attorney, Scott Snyder, advised the Council that they were limited to facts in the record and the issue raised on appeal (whether the footprint of the house would intrude into the adjacent property). Based upon that legal advice, the Council voted 6-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner [Id. P. 16]. Subsequently, City Attorney Snyder concluded that his advice had improperly restricted the scope of the Council's review and that they were free to review all of the variance criteria and determine whether they had been met [Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2 2005]. Based upon that clarification, the Council reopened the matter. When it became clear upon the record that the large enclosed deck on the north end of the structure had not been justified by the evidence (Councilmember Dawson pointed out that, on the record, the Hearing Examiner had indicated that the deck was not necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property), the Council voted 5-2 to remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner to review the criteria regarding the rear setback variance [Id. P 13]. Upon remand, on July 13, 2005, the Hearing Examiner issued Findings, Conclusions and Decision of the Hearing Examiner in which he denied the application to reduce the rear boundary setback from 25 to ten feet. The Lewis house was never built. Public land records reveal that the Hillman Family Trust purchased the property in April of 2011. On November 27, 2013, Wetland Resources, Inc., filed a Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan commissioned by the Applicants. The Hillmans filed the instant Variance Request on July 9, 2012. In that Request, they asked that the fifty -foot buffer for the category 3 wetland be reduced to zero and that they be allowed to build on 11 % of the wetland, itself. They also asked that the requirement for a fifty -foot buffer for the type Np stream be reduced to twenty-five feet. They further requested that the fifteen -foot building setback from critical area buffers be reduced to five feet at the wetland edge, and three feet from the stream buffer. They, finally, requested reductions of the property line setback from twenty-five feet to twelve feet at the front of the property, and reduction of the ten -foot side yard setback to three feet. On March 28, 2013, the Hearing Examiner approved the street, side yard and critical area reasonable use variance requests, subject to Conditions. Condition 1 read, in pertinent part: "As discussed in FOF No. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified wetland biologist, who can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether encroaching into the Category III wetland of the subject property causes significantly more damage to wetland functions than building within its buffer. If that is the case, staff shall displace as much of the wetland encroachment into the second story of the proposed home and further northward into the buffer as much as reasonably possible to reduce the encroachment into the wetland." The Finding of Fact No. 6, referred to, read: "The most challenging issue for this proposal is whether the request constitutes the minimum necessary to grant relief from the City's critical area regulations. It appears that encroachments into the wetland could be entirely avoided by moving living space to the second floor of the home and reducing the yard area ... " The City and the Applicant requested reconsideration of the final decision, the City seeking further clarification of the footprint determination that they were asked to make. In an Order on Reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner explained that: "Condition No, 1 was imposed because the applicant failed to justify the proposed filling of wetlands under the City's reasonable use criteria. Under the city's critical area regulations, an encroachment into a wetland should arguably only be authorized as a measure of last resort where no other options for reasonable use of land are available. In this case it appears that most, if not all, of the portion of the home encroaching into the home (sic — presumably wetland) could be moved to the second floor of the home in lieu of the proposed vaulted ceilings." The Final Decision Upon Reconsideration was issued on April 24, 2013. The Hearing Examiner modified Condition No. 1 to provide guidance to City staff. It now read: "As discussed in FOF No. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified wetland biologist, who can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether removing the proposed wetland encroachment would appreciably improve upon impacts to wetland functions. If there is any appreciable environmental benefit to avoiding the proposed wetland encroachment, the building footprint for the home, inclusive of the garage, will be limited to the squared building space (including the west bay window) depicted in Ex. 4, Sheet 2, excluding the garage area and the room appended to the north of the garage to the extent in encroaches into the wetland. The southeast wetland encroachment of this living space is authorized. The driveway shall be located outside the wetland." Finding of Fact No. 6 was also amplified, thus: "6. Minimum Variance. The most challenging issue for this proposal is whether the request constitutes the minimum necessary to grant relief from the City's critical area regulations. It appears that encroachments into the wetland could be almost entirely avoided by limiting the building footprint to 1,600 square feet, inclusive of garage space. The need to encroach into 1,790 square feet of Class III wetland is based upon the applicants' desire to have Ci vaulted ceilings and a driveway that could be larger than necessary to serve the property.... These are not sufficient reasons to justify an encroachment into wetlands." Despite these unambiguous findings, the Hearing Examiner seemingly remanded the issue, inviting the Applicants' paid expert to offer an unchallenged opinion on the footprint issue. As of the date of the filing of this appeal, no further information has been provided by the City or by Wetland Resources, Inc., and the Appellants are treating the Decision Upon Reconsideration as a final, appealable, order. IV. N'IW14 8 LTJIae 11 Typically, the argument that a zoning or development restriction deprives an owner of all reasonable use of her property, arises in the context of long-term ownership of that property. To take the most obvious example, if an owner's property is subjected to a retroactive restriction that decreases its value, that owner might be entitled to fair compensation as a matter of Constitutional law. Therefore, an alternative approach might be to exempt that property from the newly imposed restriction (a practice commonly referred to as being "grandfathered.") A somewhat lesser, but still compelling case for a variance or non -conforming use permit, is presented when a buyer purchases a property intending to use it for a purpose that is consistent with zoning and development laws as they existed at the time of his purchase. In other words, the buyer relied upon being allowed to build on the newly acquired land according to plans. A subsequent change in the ordinances restricting the uses would be inconsistent with the legally sanctioned assumptions that the buyer was entitled to make. To put it another way, by spending money in reliance on existing law, the buyer's rights to develop his newly acquired property may have vested. N The two situations set forth above are not exhaustive, but illustrate that the advent of zoning variances and non -conforming use permits was a response to the reality that, at times, land use restrictions had unintended consequences to individual property owners that were fundamentally unfair. In addition, however, because all land use restrictions have economic impact on property owners within the jurisdiction (both positive and negative), the criteria for the granting of relief from the application of the law via a variance evolved to require that the restriction have an impact upon one seeking a variance that is unique from the impact on all property owners as a class. This requirement is set forth in ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made: A(1) —Special Circumstances: That, because ofspecial circumstances relating in the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The Hillmans contend, and the hearing examiner seemingly found, that the only reasonable use of the property in question was the construction of a single family dwelling. To bolster this argument, they point to adjacent properties that contain houses of a comparable or larger size, and urge that: "If no variance was granted, the applicant would be denied the use of property enjoyed by the neighbors in the same zoning district." A source of this confusion may be found in Chapter 23 of the ECDC, specifically 23.40.320: Reasonable economic use(s) is defined as: "The minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. `Reasonable economic use' shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure." The term "minimum bulk requirements" is not defined, but is presumed to refer to the size of the proposed structure. W The language "minimum reasonable use" lacks clarity, even with the extended definition. On its face it would grant the owner of every plot of land in the City that exceeded minimum size requirements, the right to build a house on that land. A literal application would seem to erase critical area protections from all privately owned property in the city, even land containing swamps, critical habitat, or even fish -bearing streams. Thus, a well-intentioned attempt to add clarity to the concededly difficult constitutional standards went too far and, if applied in the manner advocated by the applicants, would make the uniform application of the Edmonds City sensitive area regulations generally impossible. The proper cohort of property owners against which to measure the development rights of the applicants is not, as assumed, other property owners in the vicinity and zone, but those properties in the greater City of Edmonds that contain wetlands that are subject to restrictions. It is self-evident that recognizing a right to build that is available to unrestricted properties would render ineffective the wetlands regulations. Indeed, it would put all zoning restrictions in jeopardy. Wetlands restrictions and general zoning codes in fact discriminate among properties based upon ascertainable attributes. So long as those discriminations are reasonably designed to promote a legitimate public purpose, they do not arise to a "taking." A look at the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) reveals that the City of Edmonds and this City Council have been leaders in protecting wetlands and other critical habitat areas. The Code requires, for example, that a Category 3 wetland such as the one at risk here, have a buffer of fifty feet [ECDC 23.50.040.Fl.c.]. Recognizing some margin for compromise and accommodation, this legislative body provided that the Director of Development Services could approve a reduction of that fifty -foot buffer to "no less than 50 percent of the standard width" [ECDC 23.50.040.F.3], but even then only if certain provisions were met. The Hillmans in this Application would have the City eliminate the wetland buffer altogether. Indeed, they propose to actually intrude their house into the wetland itself. In their own words: "The applicant requests reduction of this buffer to zero on a major portion of the western boundary of the wetland, and proposes partial encroachment into 11% of the wetland itself, with compensatory mitigation measures." [Variance Request received by the City on February 15, 2013]. The language concerning the "reduction of the buffer" is, at first glance, misleading. What, in fact, the applicants are seeking is permission to construct a house entirely inside the buffers. In addition, the proposed structure would intrude into some 11 % of the wetland, itself. In other words, no portion of the proposed structure would exist outside of areas protected by Edmonds Ordinances. It is not a variance that they seek. It is a total abrogation of the laws that were enacted by this body to protect wetlands in the jurisdiction. The Applicants have placed much emphasis upon the proposition that the wetlands regulations that apply to their newly -acquired property would, if strictly enforced, deprive them of all reasonable economic use of the site. That test, however, is but one of three inquiries that must be made when determining whether a jurisdiction's regulation of the use of land amounts to a "taking" in the Constitutional sense. The basic premise is that "mere regulation on the use of land has never constituted a `taking' or a violation of due process... ," Presb3jery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn,2d 320 (1990), so long as the regulation in question is aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose and it is not unduly oppressive on the landowner. As to the latter issue, the deciding body should consider the economic impact of the regulation on the property and the extent of its interference with investment -backed expectations. 10 It is clear beyond cavil that the denial of development plans for environmental reasons does not constitute a taking of private property for public use without compensation, State of Washington v. Lake Lawrence Public Lands Protection Association, 92 Wash. 2d, 656, 663 (1979). This is a critical factor in this case, as the Hearing Examiner noted. [Final Decision Upon Reconsideration, Conclusions of Law 12]. Public land records reflect that the property was purchased by the Hillman Family Trust on April 1, 2011. By that time, there had been at least one attempt to develop the property, by the Lewis family. The Lewis family had purchased the property on May 28, 2003, for $190,000. They filed for a variance to allow the construction of a large house on the eastern portion of the site. After that variance request was largely granted by the Hearing Examiner, the matter was appealed to the City Council. That body astutely discerned that the Hearing Examiner's decision had not been supported by evidence that a large enclosed deck that was proposed for the north side of the house was "essential" in order for the Lewis's to enjoy a reasonable use of their property. Upon remand, the Hearing Examiner denied the variance request that included the large, enclosed deck. The public record does not disclose the reasons, but the Lewis family effort to build on the property was abandoned, and the property went into foreclosure. The record of that matter does reveal that the adjacent property owner established by means of a survey that the proposed structure would actually intrude onto his property. County tax records reflect that the Hillmans purchased the property in question on April 1, 2011, for $75,000. Those same County tax records reflect that the same property had been M purchased by the Lewis family in 2003 for $190,000.00. 1 The property at 1142 Vista P1 was purchased on August 9, 2000, for $525,000, while the property at 1122 Vista PI (a much smaller parcel) was purchased on September 29, 2006, for $660,000. Both of those purchase prices reflected the value of the building lots alone, as the existing old structures on the sites were razed prior to the construction of the new. Neither property is as large as the parcel in question. Thus, while the surrounding properties (the development of which did not entail filling in a wetland) sold for up to nearly ten times what the Hillmans paid, the one that they purchased had continuously fallen in value, due solely to the nature of the plot and the restrictions that were required by Edmonds City laws. Indeed, by the time they purchased it, it was valued at a fraction of its peak value and had had a rather fractious history of hearings, appeals, remands, modifications and, ultimately, abandonment. Thus, when the Hillmans paid their bargain - basement price for the land, they did so with full knowledge that its development would be problematical. For them now to contend that they are entitled to build a house that is comparable in size to those of their neighbors, is, under the circumstances, unreasonable. In the words of the Washington State Supreme Court, if their "investment -backed expectations" were to reap a wind -fall profit, those expectations were not reasonable. There is a further aspect to this large disparity in pricing. Their contention is that the wetlands regulations would deprive them of "reasonable economic use" of the property. If, in fact, such an impact occurred it was already in place when the Hillmans purchased the property. If the regulation unreasonably restricted the use of the property, any loss flowing therefrom had been visited upon the owners of the property at the time that it was designated a sensitive area in 2003. What the Hillmans are seeking by means of this variance request amounts to a gratuitous 1 The County land records also contain a copy of a Deed of Trust running from the Lewis's to Cascade Bank for $380,000.00. This document, dated October 6, 2006, is curiously reflected in the County Land records as a transaction with a sales price of $0 for excise tax purposes. 12 enrichment — not a reasonable economic use of the land. Indeed, should this variance go forward, the value of their land will increase immediately by a factor of more than eight. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the Hillmans' proposal has been designed to minimize encroachment of the wetlands. [Final Decision Upon Reconsideration, p. I] Consequently, upon the state of the record, the permit cannot be approved. [Order on Reconsideration, p. 2]. Because no new evidence is permitted under prevailing law, the Applicants have simply failed to carry their burden of proof that the filling of 11 % of the wetland presents the only reasonable option for a reasonable use of the property. [Id., at p.3]. Inconsistently with this proper ruling, the Hearing Examiner invited the Applicants' partisan experts (Wetland Resources, Inc.) to unilaterally submit expert opinion evidence as to "whether removing the proposed wetland encroachment would appreciably improve upon impacts to wetland functions." [Final Decision Upon Reconsideration, p. 20, Condition 1.] This not only puts the opposing parties of record at a decided disadvantage, it is improper as a matter of law. Upon the record as it exists, the only lawful outcome is to deny the application for a variance because the applicants have not established that the proposed footprint is essential in order to not deny the applicants all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone. In the context of properties in the area in general, the granting of a variance in this case that allows a dwelling to be built entirely inside the wetland and its buffers would be a dangerous precedent. As David Thorpe testified at the hearing on this matter, the entire elimination of the stream and wetlands buffers would establish a precedent for the development of similarly - situated properties. It is anticipated that both property owners and developers, looking to the decision in this matter, will also file for variances allowing them to build within wetlands and 13 buffers. Should any of those variance requests be denied, the City is likely to become engaged in litigation brought by persons seeking equal treatment. Given the broad scope of the concessions made in the Hearing Examiner's Decision, the City of Edmonds would be hard-pressed to protect and preserve other wetlands and sensitive areas within its jurisdiction. In a matter such as this, the City Council has a dual function. On one level, it sits in a quasi-judicial capacity to review the Decision and findings of the Hearing Examiner as to this specific property. At the same time, this is essentially a legislative body that makes decisions based upon what is best for the community as a whole. In the latter capacity, you are not bound by the "no new evidence" convention. You are free to elicit and consider information that goes beyond the scope of this particular matter — information that is relevant to the impact of the ruling on the City's ability to protect sensitive areas in general. In this regard, we urge the City Council to ask the Planning Division staff to research and identify similarly -situated, privately held properties that contain wetlands, streams or other sensitive areas that are protected by Chapter 23 of the Edmonds Code — and, hence, would be put in jeopardy by the precedent that would be set in this case if affirmed. Staff should be instructed to pay particular attention to sites that are comprised of more than fifty percent of sensitive, protected areas and buffers. V. RELIEF SOUGHT The sensitive area variances sought in this matter are inconsistent with the ECDC provisions that protect wetlands, streams, other sensitive areas and their buffers from development, and should be denied. In so doing, this body should clarify that the "reasonable use" standard was enacted to comply with constitutional law 14 requirements, and not to expand them. Consequently, reasonable land regulations that protect important public interests do not amount to a taking of private property. 2. Alternatively, this body should find that the evidence submitted in this matter by the applicants was not sufficient to establish that the encroachment of their proposed house into the wetland itself was the minimum necessary to allow them a reasonable use of their property. We have read this appeal and believe the contents to be true. Dated this day of May, 2013, Lle�' tep n C. Schroeder Cheryl L. Bei le 112 Todd Brown Candy BrowiV 15 BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Re: Tom and Lin Hillman PLN20120033 APPEAL FROM FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION, ENTERED BY EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER PHIL A. OLBRECHTS APRIL 24", 2013 ARGUMENT Stephen C. Schroeder and Cheryl L. Beighle, 1142 Vista Pl., Edmonds, WA 98020, Telephone # (425) 712-8694; and Todd and Candy Brown, 1135 Sierra Pl., Edmonds, WA 98020, Telephone # (425) 672-4418; Parties of Record, Appellants. ATTACHMENT C ARGUMENT The Hillmans (Applicants) seek various variances from boundary setback requirements as well as from stream, wetlands and buffer restrictions found in the ECDC. Indeed, they are seeking permission to construct a single-family residence entirely within the buffers and the wetland itself. County tax records reflect that Darryl and Shari Lewis purchased the property on May 28, 2003, for $190,000. On August 7, 2003, the area in question was the subject of a Critical Area Study conducted for the City of Edmonds by Wetland Resources, Inc. As a result of that Study, the wetland and stream boundaries, and their buffers, were delineated. Those boundaries were substantially unchanged ten years later when Wetland Resources, Inc., performed a Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Hillmans [Attachment 8, Planning Division Report & Recommendation]. In 1905, the area in question was platted into five acre tracts, known as the Puget Sound Machinery Depot. Over the subsequent ninety years, the tracts were designated as R12 (12,000 square foot lots) for building purposes, and most of the lots were developed with single-family residences. With one exception (the Hachler property), all of the other properties could be developed without the granting of a variance from the wetlands protection statutes. It is significant that the property in question, 1139 Sierra Place, is, more than a hundred years after the filing of the original plat, the sole property designated therein that has not been developed. This is due to the obvious sensitivity of the lot and its general unsuitability for building, even before the enactment of the now customary statutory protection of such areas. The City of Edmonds, recognizing its duty to maintain the public trust in wetlands, habitat, and other sensitive areas, enacted broad protections for these areas. In 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3318 updating its Shoreline Master Program. Currently found in ECDC 23.10.105.13, those provisions recognized the unique and valuable nature of certain sensitive areas: "2. Natural Environment. These are characteristically large undeveloped or sparsely developed areas exhibiting some natural constraints such as wetland conditions, frequently containing a variety of flora and fauna and in a natural or semi -natural state. The natural environment is intended to preserve and restore those natural resource systems existing relatively free of human influence and those shoreline areas possessing natural characteristics intolerant of human use or unique historical, cultural or educational features. These systems require severe restrictions on the intensities and types of uses permitted so as to maintain the integrity of the shoreline environment. This environment designation is intended to: a. i. Maintain diverse natural resource systems, including wetlands, associated with or within the area of shoreline jurisdiction, particularly Puget Sound; and ii. Prevent the loss or degradation of the functional value of natural resources including primary food chain productivity, wildlife habitat, flood attenuation, water quality improvements, and vegetation community diversity; and iii. Protect areas with unique or diverse natural characteristics from disruptive activities including human and domestic animal intrusion. ECDC 23.40.000., added by Ordinance 3527 on November 23, 2004, continued to recognize this duty. "C. The city of Edmonds finds that critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit Edmonds and its residents, and/or may pose a threat to human safety or to public andprivate property. The beneficial functions and values provided by critical areas include, but are not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation of flood waters, ground water recharge and discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, protection from hazards, historical, archaeological, and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial functions are not listed in order of priority. " The same Ordinance added or amended other provisions dealing with the City's duty under State law and public trust doctrines, namely 23.50 ( Wetlands), and 23.90 (Fish and wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas), among other sections of the ECDC. In light of this history of regulation as well as the fact that this property remains undeveloped more than a hundred years after the plat was filed, the Applicants simply had no reasonable expectation that they would be allowed to develop it. In the area of regulatory restrictions on private property, two separate clauses of the U.S. Constitution have been held to apply. First, the Fifth Amendment provides "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The second applicable clause is found in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." The former, known as the takings clause, was long applied to eminent domain actions whereby a State asserted a physical presence on private property, ranging from a total condemnation of the land for a public purpose, to the reduction of an owner's right to exclusive access, such as an easement or enforced right of entry.1 Such physical invasions of property have long been treated as takings requiring compensation. The second situation in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a compensable taking might occur "is where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land."2 Even 'Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (regulation that allowed cable company to attach small box to structure). 'Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992). then, the Court expressed the continued efficacy of the prior rule, which was stated in the disjunctive, i.e., "the fifth Amendment is violated when land -use regulation `does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land. ,,3 The nature of those "legitimate state interests" was further revealed to include reasonable regulation of land use, thus: "Where the State seeks to sustain regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use, we think it may resist compensation only if the logically antecedent inquiry into the nature of the owner's estate shows that the proscribed use interests were not part of his title to begin with.... It seems to us that the property owner necessarily expects the uses of his property to be restricted, from time to time, by various measures newly enacted by the State in legitimate exercise of its police powers."4 Implicitly, the Lucas Court distinguished between restrictions that had been enacted prior to the owner's acquisition of the property, and those newly enacted after her rights had vested. "Any limitations so severe (as to prohibit all economically beneficial use of the land) cannot be newly legislated or decreed (without compensation), but must inhere in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership. "5 This language concerning background principles of State law was a nod to the body of decisions that had held that government regulation of private property does not effect a taking if the regulation substantially advances legitimate state interests.6 Under this line of cases, a valid exercise of the state's police power to prevent harm and promote the public good could not amount to a taking no matter how onerous the restriction. Then in 2005, in a case out of Hawaii involving rent controls on oil company -owned service stations, the Supreme Court narrowed its apparent prior holding in Agins. The "substantially advances legitimate state interests" language, it now explained, was applicable to a Due Process analysis as to whether a regulation was a valid exercise of the police power. Even a regulation that passes muster under the Due Process Clause may amount to a taking if it "completely deprives an owner of `all economically beneficial use of her property." 7 After enunciating what seems, at first blush, to be a categorical rule, however, the Court went on to endorse the regulatory exception set forth in Lucas. IT]he government must pay just compensation for such `total regulatory takings,' except to the extent that `background principles of nuisance and property law' independently restrict the owner's intended use of the property." 8 A number of courts and commentators have subsequently concluded that "background principles of the State's law of property" that limit an owner's title, include a state's land -use laws and 'Lucas at 1016. 4Id. At 1027. 'Id. At 1029. 6 Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). Accord, Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320 (1990). Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 at 538 (2005). 8 Id. regulations. See, e.g., Michael C. Blumm and Lucus Ritchie, Lucas's Unlikely Legacy: The rise of Background Principles as Categorical Takings Defenses, 29 Harv. Environ. L.Rev., 321 (2005).9 For example, one commentator has concluded that "despite complete elimination of use and/or value, a restriction is not a taking if it merely duplicates what could have been achieved under `background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance' existing when the plaintiff acquired the land. Such background principles limit the rights that the plaintiff acquired in the property. Plainly, there can be no taking when a government restriction eliminates a right the landowner never had."10 In the Applicants' case, it is not at all apparent that, even if in the unlikely event that they had a vested property right to build a house on the known wetland and its buffers, the regulations deprived them of all value. A land swap option seems viable whereby the development of the land could be swapped for development rights on less sensitive property. In addition, Mr. Brown, at the Hearing on this matter on March 14, 2013, indicated his willingness to purchase the property for what the Hillmans paid for it. This would allow them to avoid any loss in value on their rather speculative investment. Both the Court of Federal Claims and Federal Circuit have held that a plaintiff's ability to recoup his cost basis (for unimproved land, purchase price) in the property under the challenged regulation is a valid consideration in a takings claim.11 In a case such as this, when the government interference falls short of completely eliminating use and/or value, the balancing test enunciated in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York Qi1y12 is applied. Unlike the per se rule in Lucas, the Penn Central case identified three factors that are significant in determining whether a regulation effects a taking — the regulation's economic impact on the property owner, the extent to which it interferes with the owner's reasonable investment -backed expectations, and the character of the government action.13 As to the character of the government's actions, the Court explained that a taking is much less likely to be found when a public program simply adjusts "the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the public good." As an example, the Court cited generally applicable zoning laws, which are generally viewed as permissible governmental action even when prohibiting the most beneficial use of the property. 14 9 This helpful article can be accessed at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol29_2/blumm.pdf to Robert Meltz, TAKINGS LAW TODAY: A PRIMER FOR THE PERPLEXED, 34 Ecology L.Q. 307 (2007), at 329. 11 Florida Rock Industries Inc. v. Unite States 791 F.2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Walek v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl 248, 266-67 (2001). 12 438 U.S. 104 (1978). 13 Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124. 14 Id. Prior to 2001, a number of state and Federal courts seemed to hold that a regulatory taking claim would be defeated if the state's land use restrictions contained in laws and regulations were already in place when the claimant acquired title to the land. In a few cases, the court seemed to hold that a takings claim could be defeated if the adoption of such regulations after acquisition was foreseeable. Courts based the rule on either the investment -backed expectations factor of Penn Central or the background principles concept of Lucas. One noted expert stated categorically: "Regardless of whether the land use restriction is judicial or legislative in origin, as long as it takes effect before the purchase of the property interest that has allegedly been taken, the property owner is not entitled to payment for its inability to engage in the restricted use."1 s In 2001, in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,16 the Supreme Court reviewed a decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, in which that court had ruled that a land owner had no right to challenge regulations that predated his acquisition of the property. The majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the per se rule embraced by the Rhode Island Supreme Court and some other lower courts, i.e., that a purchaser is barred from asserting a regulatory takings claim based upon a statutory restriction that existed at the time of his acquisition of the property.17 The Court's Opinion left open the question of whether the fact that land was subject to the regulations in question at the time it was acquired might still be a factor in the takings analysis. In a separate concurrence, Justice O'Connor agreed that the preacquisition enactment of a use restriction should not ipso facto bar a takings claim based upon that restriction. She went on to observe, however, that "the regulatory regime in place at the time the claimant acquires the 1property at issue helps to shape the reasonableness of those [investment -based] expectations." 8 She went on to point out that, "if existing regulations do nothing to inform the analysis, then some property owners may reap windfalls and an important indicium of fairness is lost."19 In contrast to Justice O'Connor's measured approach to the issue, Justice Scalia, perhaps the most powerful advocate of the CATO Institute's absolute, fundamentalist view of property rights, also wrote a scathing, intemperate concurring opinion in which he opined that the timing of a land -use regulation was never relevant in a takings inquiry. During the course of his rather remarkable opinion, he seemed to characterize government land -use regulation as theft and malefaction. Fortunately for land -use regulation, his extreme view has not prevailed. It is noteworthy that the voters of this State have rejected such views, as well. In 2006, they defeated by a 59% vote Initiative 933, an effort by property rights absolutists to require compensation for any government regulation that resulted in any decline in value of the affected property. Instead, Justice O'Connor's common-sense insights have carried the day. Subsequent decisions continue to give substantial weight to the timing of regulatory statutes. If a buyer knew or "Robert L. Glicksman, "Making A Nuisance of Takings Law," 3 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 149, 186 (2000). 16 533 U.S. 606 (2001). 17 Palazzolo at 627. 18 Id., at 633. Because Justice O'Connor was a member of the Five Justice majority, her defection from the Court's Opinion on this issue deprives that opinion of precedential value on the issue. 19 Id. At 635. 0 should have known that the economic prospects of developing the land were problematical because of pre-existing restrictions, that buyer's investment -backed expectations are much less likely to be deemed reasonable. "Examples include a person who acknowledges at the time of purchase that regulatory approvals will be hard to obtain, who is or should be aware at such time of government planning affecting economic prospects, or who pays substantially less for the parcel than its unregulated value."20 The Hillmans paid a modest sum — an amount substantially below the value of adjacent properties that were not similarly restricted -- for the chance to build a house on a piece of property that they knew was severely restricted by wetlands regulations. Given the need for substantial variances before a single family residence could be built, their prospects for success were highly problematic from the onset of their ownership. They had no reasonable investment - backed expectations. Indeed, their purchase of the property has the appearance of speculation. To quote the Superior Court of Rhode Island in the Palazzolo case after remand from the Supreme Court, "Constitutional law does not require the state to guarantee a bad investment," [Palazzolo v. State, 2005 WL 1645974, Superior Ct of R.I., July 5, 2005 (unpublished opinion)]. This case presents to the City Council an important opportunity to bring clarity and finality to the state of the regulation of streams, wetlands and their mandated buffers. Since at least 2000, this City has had on the books comprehensive regulations designed to protect, as part of the public trust, sensitive areas that represent assets of the community as a whole. While reasonable and proportional variances were also provided to protect against unfair or extreme impacts on properties that are unique from similarly -situated lots, those variances were clearly contemplated to be limited to measured and incremental exceptions to avoid unreasonable results. The Decision of the Hearing Examiner in this case goes too far. In allowing a house to be built entirely within protected areas and their buffers, it will set a precedent that will make the future enforcement of the wetlands ordinances difficult, and is likely to subject the City to law suits from landowners and developers, as in the previously cited cases, who subsequently acquire restricted properties and then assert a right to build houses on them. The decision of the Hearing Examiner in this case would amount to an exception that consumes the rule. Given the history of this piece of land, the City Council is urged to find that, having purchased the property knowing that it was subject to wetlands and stream restrictions, the Applicants had no reasonable investment -based expectations. In addition, as the Hearing Examiner found, they have failed to prove that the footprint of their proposed structure constitutes the minimum necessary to grant relief from the City's critical area regulations. The Application for variances in this matter ought to be denied. 20 Meltz, supra note 9, at 340-41, and cases cited (emphasis added). 7 We have read this argument and believe the contents to be true. Dated this 3 ( day of May, 2013, to C. Schroeder Grp Cheryl L. Bei hle Todd Brown Candy Broy City of Edmonds Development Service Department 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Wa 9802.0 RE: May 28, 2013 RE: Appeal AP.L 20130001 RE: Party of record RE: Written O'�% r� -- � �� [`191 2S 2013 DEVEWRIAENT Crime watch report is necessary, Public Safety need area studv (report) past 1 vear. Because of construction citizens safety. Culvert should be re -checked outlet, note: area of City Lake Ballinqer floodinq. Administrative record. CC: File Alvin Rutledqe 7101 Lk Ballinqer Wv Edomds, Wa98026 425-776-7130 P/F ATTACHMENT D REC „ k,'W 3 0 2 0 1 j Dear Jen Machuga, PLANNING F)C. As a party of record I would like to comment on the appellant's argument dated May 7th, 2013. I am in total agreement with the appellant's argument and would hope that the City Council would come to the same conclusion. Since the early 1990's I have followed the public notices in the paper. Many times these do not hold any interest, however I have become involved in many through out the years that have a center theme of land use decisions. Still to this day I must pull out my dictionary and look up words and terms I do not know because land use issues are not my profession. It is important for me to stick my head into the discussion when I feel in my gut that something is not right with a proposal for a variance. As I did with this one, I went to the property and walked around. I read all of the information that was supplied by the City. I try to be fair in my thinking, putting myself in both the applicant's shoes and as a citizen of Edmonds that wants to see the best for the City. I do not live near this site but as I said at the hearing, this case will be a true test for all future rulings. I have been surprised at times in the past on a ruling that a hearing examiner has made but this one will bother me for a long time if the homeowner gets to build a house on this site. Thank you for your time, David Thorpe 21117 Shell Valley Road Edmonds, WA. 98026 ATTACHMENT E DATE: June 7, 2013 PROJECT: HILLMAN RESIDENCE 1139 SIERRA PLACE EDMONDS WA 98020 OWNER/APPLICANT: TOM & LIN HILLMAN 15915 74TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026 425-745-4669 Lini iiiiilian,:ficoiyicast.net SUBJECT: PLN20120033 �013 I)EVELOPIWENT SERVICES CC'W4TER APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF MAY S, 2013 and FURTHER COMMENTS OF MAY 31, 2013 The following is our rebuttal to the arguments presented in the appeal, organized by topic rather than the order presented in the appeal documents. Page number references are to the above two appeal documents unless otherwise noted; four -digit references are to the city's Bates Stamped numbering system per their request. 1. The Shoreline Master Plan (May 31, first page) does not apply to this property. The plan's jurisdiction, per the city's website, only includes properties within 200 feet of the shore, with a focus on places like the Edmonds Marsh and Lake Ballinger. Compliance with this program is therefore not applicable to our lot. That being said, we follow the appellants' reasoning that the city has adopted Hillman Response to Appeal 1 June 7, 2013 ATTACHMENT F environmental protection regulations over the years for the public good. The city staff s approval of our proposal indicates their agreement that we have met their code's requirements in this regard. The appellants seem to ignore the fact that our proposal leaves the great majority of the lot and its critical areas not only undisturbed, but in large part enhanced, to promote the functions of the wetland and stream. 2. There is no arbitrary time limit for vacant lots to be developed. There is no basis in city code to claim that if a lot has not been developed in the last hundred years it cannot be (May 31, middle of p. 2). Attempts by previous owners to develop a lot also do not form any basis for denial of a new application, especially when the previous applications were not denied. 3. We have a clearly reasonable expectation to be able to build a house. We disagree with the appellants' statement that we "simply had no reasonable expectation that [we] would be allowed to develop" (May 31, middle of p. 3) and so should not expect to be able to obtain a variance for this property. The house next door (1111 Sierra Place) was built under a very similar variance (city file PLN199900136) as described in the city's staff report of March 7, 2013 (beginning with 0083: History/Background), as that lot also contains wetland and stream features (0199: Hachler site plan). There was an existing variance (PLN20040008) in place on our lot that was still active (under BLD20100196) at the time we bought it, and under which we Hillman Response to Appeal 2 June 7, 2013 could have built a much larger home based on that prior plan (0205: Site Plan for the Lewis Residence). However, we chose to submit a new variance application with a smaller house plan and greatly reduced critical area disruption (0166: Wetland Resources Inc., hereinafter "WRI" report, table 2 comparison). We expected that a more modest proposal would be approved, and it was. 4. Price paid for a property does not dictate its buildability. The appellants' comparison of our lot to two upslope view lots (May 8, top of p. 12) without similar critical areas exaggerates our lot's value. The hearing examiner considered the issue of lot price in his deliberations, but concluded that it was irrelevant to our minimum reasonable use (0075: March 28, 2013 decision, p. 15, line 5). Considering only the price paid in a lot's value would render all inherited property worthless, as the heirs did not pay anything for it; therefore price paid cannot be the sole metric for property value. The price we paid for our lot reflected other factors, including higher design and development costs than would be needed for a plain, simple, flat, dry, non -stream lot. The price was also affected by the state of the economy at the time, in a global housing depression with property foreclosures and bank failures commonplace. We felt we could invest our time and effort to optimize our design to balance the competing critical area concerns with drainage, setback, tree, neighborhood and economic factors. We believe our proposal is the most Hillman Response to Appeal 3 June 7, 2013 reasonable way to develop this lot with a single-family residence in conformance with its zoning and addressing all of the issues. We have used the code's variance provisions contained in the city's zoning and development regulations that were already in place at the time we purchased our lot, not something adopted afterward. We do not seek "a total abrogation of the laws" as the appellants claim (May 8, middle of p. 10), but rather are working within the framework of existing codes. We are not seeking a maximization of possible economic benefit nor do we stand to "reap a windfall profit" (May 8, middle of p. 12). This .93-acre lot in the RS-12 zone (0109: Whole Site Plan) would normally be allowed 35% maximum lot coverage (ECDC 16.20.030 Table of site development standards), yielding a 14,179 sf (square foot) footprint, a mansion with 6-1/2 times the size of our proposed 2174 sf footprint (0109: Whole Site Plan). 5. "A minimum reasonable use of the subject property is a single-family home." (0017: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated April 24, 2013, p. 17, item 10) The appellants quote in the code's definition of reasonable use (May 8, bottom of p. 8), "For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure" but then go on to say bulk requirements are not defined. The minimum requirements for an RS-12 lot include a 12,000 sf lot area and 80' of lot Hillman Response to Appeal 4 June 7, 2013 width (ECDC 16.20.030 Table of site development standards), which our lot far exceeds. Normally, these requirements would allow our lot to be subdivided into three 12,000+ sf parcels, with a 4200+ sf footprint house on each one (based on the 35% allowable coverage in the table). The code does not, as the appellants suggest, then negate critical areas considerations in development of that legal residential lot. Our consideration of the critical areas led to our drastically smaller one -house proposal with only 5.8% lot coverage (0109: Whole Site Plan). The appellants don't seem to have given any weight to the huge positive of our leaving the remaining 94.2% of the lot undeveloped. 6. Our proposed plan is minimal compared to others in the immediate vicinity. Our proposed 2174 sf footprint (0109: Whole Site Plan), including garage, is smaller than the footprints of all of the homes immediately adjacent to our lot, which average 2936 sf (0167: WRI report, table 3). The appellant (Brown) previously suggested (0271: letter of September 25, 2012, item 6), taking into account the smallest home nearby, the Mallot house across the street built in 1962 (1344 sf floor 1 living space plus 483 sf garage = 1827 sf footprint), which brings that footprint average down to 2798 sf, still way over our 2174 sf. In order to enjoy what most of our closest neighbors do, we would have had to propose a larger footprint resulting in an even larger area of wetland disturbance than the 11 % proposed. Hillman Response to Appeal 5 June 7, 2013 7. One could claim that "minimum" is at least what the neighbors have, but we are not asking for a house that big. We do not contend that we are entitled to build a house that is as big as those of all of our neighbors. As shown in 0167: WRI report table 3, our proposal is significantly more modest than most of the other neighbors' homes. Their average living area 3798 sf (or 3582 sf including Mallot), the largest being 4754 sf, which is over 2000 sf more than our proposal. 8. The previous variance approved for this lot was for a much larger house and driveway. The prior owners' approved variance (city file PLN20040008) was for a 4146 sf footprint (0166: WRI report, table 2, Lewis), and a long access driveway (0205: Site Plan for the Lewis Residence) with much greater wetland and buffer disturbance areas. Though the deck they proposed was denied (as described in May 8, p. 5, top third), the rest of their variance remained approved, and was active (city file BLD20100196) when we purchased the lot. How can we disturb less wetland and buffer than a previously approved variance and not have that be considered minimum? 9. The wetland/stream property next door was granted a similar variance. Our variance does not create a precedent. In claiming our house would set a "dangerous precedent" (May 8, last paragraph of p. 13), the appellants fail to Hillman Response to Appeal 6 June 7, 2013 acknowledge the house next door to us at 1111 Sierra Place (0167: WRI report, table 3, Hachler), on a similar wetland and stream lot, built under a similar variance approval (city file PLN199900136), with a larger footprint. It was built primarily in the wetland buffer, with the house edges intruding into the wetland itself and located only 10' away from the stream (0199: Hachler Site Plan); their driveway crosses both the wetland and the stream. They were not required to design an even smaller house and shrink their rear yard setback to further reduce their wetland disturbance. The appellants' request for further research of other properties by the city staff (May 8, middle of p. 14) has no basis in the record, and appears to be a delay tactic. There is no better comparable property to use as a precedent for our variance approval than the one next door at I I I I Sierra Place. 10. A building staying entirely out of the wetland is not reasonable for this lot. On this lot, a house designed to be located completely out of the wetland would be problematic, from size and configuration standpoints as well as drainage aspects. Our attempts to create such a plan were discarded due to various non - feasibility reasons and were not submitted to the city and therefore not included in the record. As can be seen from the Partial Site Plan (0110) the frontage of a house staying completely out of the wetland would be limited on the east side by the westernmost point of the wetland edge and on the west by the drainage ditch Hillman Response to Appeal 7 June 7, 2013 and storm drain pipe, effectively allowing no more than a 25' front wall, or just enough room for a 2-car garage. This is not reasonable for a single-family home in the RS-12 zone. The 1600 sf footprint inclusive of garage (May 8, bottom of p. 6) discussed by the hearing examiner would reduce the house's first floor living area to about 1000 sf, a limit to which no other neighbors have been held, and is unreasonable for this vicinity. He did not put this size limitation in his conditions of approval (0020: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration, dated April 24, 2103, p. 20). The exact location of where "reasonable" ends and "unreasonable" begins is neither codified nor always obvious, but the hearing examiner did include guidelines for snaking that determination in his conditions of approval (0020). He also recognized the complex engineering challenges involved in the design for this lot, and that sweeping suggestions such as "Why don't you just build entirely out of the wetland?" do not have simple answers, as individual changes have ripple effect ramifications in the overall design. Many preliminary designs we tried simply could not be built due to engineering limitations (like drainage can't run uphill). For example, the drainage design would be infeasible were the driveway catch basin to be placed so low in elevation that downhill drainage would end up below the level of the stream bank where it needs to discharge (0027: item J). Similarly, the driveway apron cannot Hillman Response to Appeal 8 June 7, 2013 be placed at a different elevation than the existing roadway. The hearing examiner recognized there were such limiting factors and left the city staff a certain amount of discretion to verify that a given design is technically possible and appropriate (0020). Our design goal was to strike a balance between all of the competing concerns, the wetland being one of them. Ours is a low -functioning sloped wetland (beginning on 0 15 1: WRI report, p. 5) with minimal ability to affect water flow, water quality, or wildlife habitat. The small portion of it we propose to disturb is its least viable area, and our proposed mitigation plan is expected to result in a net increase of wetland functions (0159: WRI report, p. 13, 5tn paragraph). 11. The wetland biologist's follow-up to the hearing examiner's decision is on file at the city. The appellants state that as of the date of their appeal filing, "no further information has been provided by the City or Wetland Resources, Inc." On April 5, 2013 we forwarded to Jen Machuga of the Planning Department an April 4, 2013 letter from Andrea Bachman of WRI (0054-0055) that addressed wetland versus stream buffer disturbance in response to the hearing examiner's March 28, 2013 decision (0077-0078: condition 1, p. 17 line 18 through p. 18 line 1). While not admissible into the present record under the "no new evidence" rule, it is a matter of public record available to the appellants (city file PLN20120033). Hillman Response to Appeal 9 June 7, 2013 12. There is no justification for disrespectful comments about the wetland biologist's credentials. Although not stated outright, the appellants attempt to discredit the wetland biologist on this project, calling her "paid" and "partisan" (May 8, middle of p. 13), as though her report is somehow unprofessionally biased. Maybe they feel they must do so in order to dispute her approval of the project. However, the city has verified and acknowledged the qualifications of Wetland Resources, Inc., placing the firm on their critical areas consultant roster, and has accepted and agreed with their conclusions. In summary, we believe the appellants' arguments have failed their burden of proof for recommending denial of our variance, and we respectfully request that the council deny their appeal and uphold the hearing examiner's decision. We believe the foregoing to be true. Thank you for your consideration. Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants Hillman Response to Appeal 10 June 7, 2013 Date: June 7, 2013 To: Mayor Earling and Edmonds City Council From: Jeff Taraday and Beth Ford, Lighthouse Law Group PLLC Re: Appeal of Hillman critical areas variance Introduction The city council is acting in its quasi-judicial capacity as it considers the closed record appeal of the Hearing Examiner's findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision with regard to the granting of a variance for the Hillman property. This memo aims to set forth the legal framework for the city council's review by discussing the standard of review and highlighting a couple key points in the hearing examiner's decision. We also discuss some of the case law that addresses reasonable use exceptions to provide the city council with additional legal context for its decision. We also seek to outline some optional courses of action. Appeal Procedures The closed record appeal procedures are set forth in ECDC 20.07.005. Of particular import is subsection H because it sets forth the city council's options for action: is1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com ATTACHMENT G 2 1 P a g e H. The city council shall determine whether the decision by the hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. The city council shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the time periods set forth in RCW 36.7oB.o8o, as allowed by RCW 36.7oB.o80(3), the city council may remand the decision with instructions to the hearing body for additional information. ECDC 20.07.005.H (emphasis added). Standard of Review: what deference is owed to the hearing examiner? As noted above, the city council is sitting in an appellate capacity. Not only is the council expected to act like judges, it is, in particular, supposed to act like a court of appeals. While the hearing examiner's factual findings are subject to the clearly erroneous standard mentioned in the above -referenced code section, the hearing examiner's conclusions of law are reviewable de nouo. See Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325, 336 (2011). Citizens to Pres. Pioneer Park LLC u. City of Mercer Island, has some procedural similarities in that the city council there was also sitting in an appellate capacity on a variance application for a cellular monopole antennae. The city council modified the planning commission's decision by granting a variance of 133 feet instead of only 70 feet like the planning commission. During the LUPA appeal that followed, appellants challenged the city council's decision for having improperly substituted its judgment for that of the hearing examiner. It is true that when an appellate administrative body is governed by provisions directing it not to substitute its discretion for that of the original tribunal, findings of fact made by the original tribunal are not to 3 1 P a g e be disturbed if they are sustained by substantial evidence. Messer, 19 Wash.App. at 787, 578 P.2d 50. But the critical determinations by the planning commission that the residents want to have reinstated cannot properly be characterized as findings of fact. The major areas in which the city council differed from the planning commission revolved around the meaning and application of the variance criteria. Such disputes, as contrasted to disagreement about "raw facts", present either questions of law, or mixed questions offact and law. See Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State Highway Commission, 84 Wash.2d 271, 283, 525 P.2d 774 (1974) (a finding of fact is the assertion that a phenomenon has happened or is or will be happening independent of or anterior to any assertion as to its legal effect). An example of a mixed question of fact and law is whether the visual impact of a monopole is so great as to constitute a material detriment to the public welfare. The city council could properly conclude, based on its own review of the pictures, maps and testimony in the record, as summarized by the planning commission's findings as to underlying facts, that in view of the entire record, there was insufficient evidence that the visibility of the pole constituted a detriment to public welfare. In so deciding, the city council did not step outside the appellate role prescribed for it by the Mercer Island City Code. Citizens to Pres. Pioneer Park LLC v. City of Mercer Island, 1o6 Wash. App. 461, 473, 24 P.3d 1079, 1o86 (2001). Like Citizens to Pres. Pioneer Park, this city council will be presented with the hearing examiner's findings of fact (which should not disturbed if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record) and conclusions of law (which can more easily be disturbed if the city council concludes that the hearing examiner misinterpreted city code). Ultimately, the council must decide whether or not to overturn the Hearing Examiner decision to approve the variance with conditions. The clearly erroneous standard of review of the decision requires that the city council ask this question: "whether we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." City of Fed. Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn. App. 17, 37, 4 1 P a g e 252 P.3d 382, 392 (2011), as corrected (May 10, 2011). Reasonable Economic Use Definition The Council should look to the definitions cited in the ECDC as it reviews the hearing examiner's decision on the variance. One point of contention is whether the imposition of the city's critical area regulations would deny the Hillmans the reasonable economic use of their property. This is one of several factors that the Hillmans must prove in order to receive a variance. The ECDC provides the following definition for "reasonable economic use:" 23.40.32o Definitions pertaining to critical areas. "Reasonable economic use(s)" means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Reasonable economic use" shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure. Determination of "reasonable economic use" shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site. ECDC 23.40.320 (emphasis added). The example provided in the definition, above (see emphasized text), has caused staff to interpret this definition to mean that a property owner should be able to construct a single-family residence on a conforming, single- family lot in order to make reasonable economic use of that single-family lot. The real question, from staffs perspective, and apparently from the hearing examiner's perspective, concerns the footprint and size of that single-family residence. Here, the 1 A lot that meets the minimum dimensional standards (e.g., width, area) for the zoning in which it is located. 5 1 P a g e code does not provide much guidance. Critical Area Variance Criteria The ECDC provides several factors that must be satisfied in order to obtain a critical areas variance. While the staff report to the hearing examiner addressed all of these factors, this memo will focus on two that appear to have been of significance to the hearing examiner. 23.40.210 Variances. A. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant demonstrates that one or more of the following two conditions exist: 1.... [not applicable here] 2. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of "reasonable economic use(s)" in ECDC 23.40.320) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 6 1 P a g e ECDC 23.40.21o.A. (emphasis added). The council must determine whether the hearing examiner erred in concluding that the seven requirements of ECDC 23.40.21o(A)(2) have been met.2 We limit our discussion here to the primary focus of the appeal and to staff s primary concern over the hearing examiner's decision: whether the applicant demonstrated that the proposed impact to the critical areas was the "minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use" as required by ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.c. "Necessary" is not defined in ECDC 23.40.320. Nor is "necessary" defined in Title 21. The Washington Supreme Court, in a case that turned on whether a helistop was "reasonably necessary," provided this analysis: "Necessary" is not defined in the ordinance. However, it is defined in the dictionary as something "that cannot be done without : that must be done or had: absolutely required: ESSENTIAL, INDISPENSABLE...." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1511(3d ed.1986). Development Services ofAmerica v. City of Seattle, 138 Wn.2d 107,118 (1999)• The Development Services court held as follows: [W]e hold that in order to fulfill the "necessary element" criterion, something more than business "convenience," "efficiency," or "reasonable" necessity is required. Under the ordinance, an applicant must show the requested helistop is actually "necessary" to its business services. While we agree with SGA that the helicopter itself is a useful business tool, SGA has failed to show why landing on the roof of its west Seattle headquarters is a "necessary" or "essential" element of its business. Dev. Servs. of Am., Inc. v. City of Seattle, 138 Wn.2d 107, 119, 979 P•2d 387, 393 (1999)• Hearing Examiner's Key Factual Findings The city council should pay particular attention to hearing examiner finding 2 There are additional factors required by ECDC 23.40.210.13, which were addressed by the staff report. 7 1 P a g e number 6, which reads as follows: 6. Minimum Variance. The most challenging issue for this proposal is whether the request constitutes the minimum necessary to grant relief from the City's critical area regulations. It appears that encroachments into the wetland could be almost entirely avoided by limiting the building footprint to 1,600 square feet, inclusive of garage space. The need to encroach into 1,790 square feet of Class III wetland is based upon the applicants' desire to have vaulted ceilings and a driveway that could be larger than necessary to serve the property. Almost of the living space and the garage could be located within the footprint proposed outside of the wetland if the applicantfully built out the second story of the proposed home in lieu of vaulted ceilings. As noted in the staff report, the proposed living area of 2,623 square feet appears to be average, if not smaller than those of existing residences within the vicinity, as demonstrated by the sizes of other homes in the area tabulated by the applicant in Table 3 of Ex. 8. As identified by comments from Todd and Candy Brown, Ex. 23, one outlier not identified in Table 3 is the Mallot home, located across the street with living space of 2,o63 square feet. If only a buffer encroachment were proposed, as opposed to encroachment into the wetland itself, the size of the proposed home would clearly be considered a minimum variance request given the larger sizes of surrounding homes. However, a significant complicating factor in this application is that it appears that the encroachment into the wetland itself could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space. The only reasons for not fully using second floor living space presented by the applicant were that they have a preference for first floor living space as they grow older and they want to avoid a boxy appearance for their home. The author of the wetland report, Andrea Bachman, was not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. These are not sufficient reasons to justify an encroachment into wetlands. Record, at 0013-0014 (emphasis added). The emphasized phrases above are findings of fact in the purest sense. In other words, these phrases do not involve any interpretation of law or any application of law to facts. They represent the examiner's summary of the 8 1 P a g e facts of this case. While the hearing examiner also stated in Finding of Fact 6 that "[t]hese are not sufficient reasons to justify an encroachment into wetlands," (Record, at 0014) this statement is arguably more of a conclusion of law than a finding of fact because the examiner can only make this statement through some application of law to the facts. The examiner here is essentially stating that the applicant has not met its burden of proof with respect to this prong of the analysis. Hearing Examiner's Conclusions of Law regarding ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.c The hearing examiner appears to have struggled in his application of ECDC 23.40.21o.A.2.c. That subsection, which is one of the tests that must be proven by the applicant, requires as follows: "[t]he proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property." Here is the hearing examiner's conclusion of law (Conclusion 12) with respect to this prong of the test: 12. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 and Conclusion of Law No. 11, there is an open question as to whether the home has been designed to minimize impacts to the on -site wetland. The conditions of approval require further staffinvestigation investigation and redesign of the project to the extent necessary to mitigate project impacts. According to the testimony of Mr. Brown, the applicants only had to pay $75,000 for their lot whereas other lots in the vicinity average approximately $500,000. Although Mr. Brown did not provide any hard data to substantiate his cost estimates, his assertions were undisputed by the applicants and it is fair to conclude that the purchase price of the applicants' property was substantially reduced as a result of the wetland and stream. As discussed in the Order on Reconsideration, investment backed expectations are one of the factors involved in assessing reasonable use. If the living space and garage is limited to the footprint identified in Condition No. 1 of this decision, the applicants would still have 2,60o square feet of living space. This would be 1,200 square feet less than the average living space available to other 9 1 P a g e homes that the applicants identified in the vicinity, but given the significantly reduced land value this would still qualify as reasonable use if there was an appreciable environmental benefit to not building within the wetland. Record, at 0017-0018 (emphasis added). By stating that there is an "open question" regarding a mandatory prong of the critical areas variance test, and by conditioning the project on the possibility of a redesign, the hearing examiner has effectively reiterated what he said in Finding of Fact 6: that the applicant has not met its burden with respect to this prong of the analysis for the project that is currently proposed. Hearing Examiner's Condition No. i While the examiner clearly was not convinced that the applicant had met its burden with respect to ECDC 23.40.21o.A.2.c, he still approved the critical areas variance by conditioning it on the grounds that city staff would confirm compliance with ECDC 23.40.21o.A.2.c at a later date: DECISION The street, side yard and critical area reasonable use variance stream and wetland requests are approved, subject to the following conditions and modifications: i. As discussed in FOFNo. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified wetland biologist, who can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether removing the proposed wetland encroachment would appreciably improve upon impacts to wetland functions. If there is any appreciable environmental benefit to avoiding the proposed wetland encroachment, the building footprint for the home, inclusive of the garage, will be limited to the squared building space (including the west bay window) depicted in Ex. 4, Sheet 2, excluding the garage area and the room appended to the north of the garage to the extent it encroaches into the wetland. The southeast wetland encroachment of this living space is authorized. The driveway shall be located outside the wetland. Retaining walls may be built into the wetland 101Page to the extent necessary to support the home and driveway. If the driveway cannot be built to City standards without encroaching more than a foot into the wetland, the applicants may build the home as proposed with the 1,790 square foot encroachment. Record, at 0020 (emphasis added). The hearing examiner does have the authority to approve a variance with conditions. But, having found that the applicant did not meet the burden on at least one prong of the test, we doubt the examiner has the authority to condition a variance approval in such a manner as to essentially delegate to staff the authority to determine whether (after the hearing) the applicant has now satisfied that initially -failed prong of the test, either through a redesigned project or through additional documentation from a wetland biologist. The ECDC delegates this decision to the hearing examiner and the hearing examiner, not staff, should make the determination as to whether the tests in the code have been satisfied. Furthermore, it is unclear how any level of environmental documentation would help the applicant satisfy the "minimum necessary" impact prong of the test. While environmental factors are certainly relevant in analyzing other prongs of the test (ECDC 23.4O.21o.A.2.e and f, for example), the analysis of the "minimum necessary" impact prong should more appropriately focus on architectural, and perhaps economic, considerations that are intended to prevent a regulatory taking. While the code makes it fairly clear that, for reasonable use purposes, one should be able to build a single-family home on a conforming single-family lot, it is silent as to how one should determine whether the "minimum necessary" impact prong has been satisfied. For example, there is no minimum or maximum square footage in the code to help staff or the hearing 111Page examiner determine when a footprint is small enough to be considered the "minimum necessary." Finally, there are procedural concerns with the hearing examiner's condition. It would allow one party (the applicant) to provide additional "evidence" after the hearing is over to demonstrate satisfaction with condition 1 without allowing the opposing party to question or respond to the evidence. And, the appeal possibilities from such a staff decision (for either applicant or neighbor) would be compromised, because there is no administrative appeal from the decision on a building permit. Case law regarding takings Appellants cited several cases that provide a background to the issue of takings. These cases have only marginal relevance to the case pending before the city council because the ECDC appears to state that reasonable use amounts to the ability to construct a single-family home on a conforming single-family lot assuming that it is the "minimum necessary" single-family home. The city council may still be interested in the cases cited by the Appellants to provide a fuller understanding of the broader legal context for these determinations. Therefore, we provide the following summary of the facts and main holdings of these cases. Federal cases (mentioned in Appellants' Argument): Loretto u. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S. Ct. 3164, 73 L. Ed. 2d 868 (1982): A New York City landlord sued a cable television company claiming 121Page that the defendant's installation of its facilities on the plaintiffs property pursuant to New York law requiring a landlord to permit installation of such facilities on rental property constituted a constitutionally compensable taking. The Court held that the physical occupation of the rental property constituted a taking, notwithstanding that the statute might be within the state's police power as having important educational community aspects. Permanent physical occupation authorized by the government is a "taking" without regard to the public interest it may serve. Lucas u. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992): Owner of beachfront property brought an action alleging that application of the South Carolina Beachfront Management Act to his property (which barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his parcels) constituted a taking without just compensation. The Court held that there are two categories of regulatory deprivations that are compensable under Fifth Amendment without case -specific inquiry into public interest advanced in support of restraint; the first encompasses regulations that compel property owner to suffer physical invasion of his property (as in Loretto). The second concerns the situation in which a regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land (as in this case). This case also identifies that governments need not pay compensation when the State's action "makes explicit what already inheres in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance already place upon ownership." 131Page Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). This case further expanded the instances in which a court may find a takings (in addition to a physical taking in Loretto and a regulatory taking that denies all economic and productive use in Lucas). In this case, following the refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal, which had been designated a "landmark," the terminal owner filed suit charging that application of landmarks preservation law constituted a "taking" of the property without just compensation and arbitrarily deprived owners of their property without due process. The regulations did not deny all economically beneficial or productive use in the land (as in Lucas), but did diminish the value of the property to some extent. The court found that whether such action constituted a taking depends largely on the particular circumstances, and held that the relevant considerations in determining whether economic injuries caused by public action is required to be compensated by the government are (1) the economic impact of the regulation, (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment backed expectations, and (3) the character of the governmental action (such as if the action an be characterized as an acquisition of resources to permit or facilitate uniquely public functions, for example when a government water project results in private land flooding). Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 6o6, 121 S. Ct. 2448 (2001): A landowner brought an inverse condemnation action against the Rhode Island Coastal Resources 141Page Management Council (CRMC), alleging that the CRMC's denial of his application to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands and construct beach club constituted a taking for which he was entitled to compensation. A corporation owned by petitioner and his associates purchased the property (at that time a salt marsh) in 1959, and shortly afterwards the petitioner bought out his associates and became the sole shareholder. Applications to develop the property were rejected. In 1971, the State created CRMC to protect the State's coastal properties. CRMC's regulations designated salt marshes like the one at issue as protected coastal wetlands. In 1918 the corporate charter was revoked and title passed to the petitioner as the corporation's sole shareholder. In 1983 petitioner applied for permission to construct a wooden bulkhead and fill his entire marshland area, which was rejected by CRMC. A subsequent application was denied as well. The inverse condemnation action followed. The Rhode Island supreme court ruled in part that because petitioner received title to the property after the wetlands regulations were enacted, he did not have a right to challenge the regulations. The court rejected both claims that the CRMC's actions (1) deprived him of all economic beneficial use of the property (under Lucas) and (2) deprived him of some economic value (under Penn Central). With regard to the Penn Central test, the court also ruled that because the regulation at issue predated his acquisition of title, he could have no reasonable investment -backed expectation to develop the property, and therefore could not recover compensation. The US Supreme Court rejected the Rhode Island court's "sweeping" rule that acquiring title after the regulations' effective date barred a takings claim. Court held that 151Page such a ruling "would absolve the state of its obligation to defend any action restricting land use, no matter how extreme or unreasonable." It remanded the case back to state court, telling the lower court to address the merits of the petitioner's claim under Penn Central, which is not barred by the fact that he acquired title after the effective date of the regulation. The question of whether timing of acquisition may be a factor for consideration was left unclear by this decision. However, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion stating that the timing of the purchase may be a factor in the reasonable "investment - backed expectations" analysis mentioned in Penn Central. She stated that "the regulatory regime in place at the time the claimant acquires the property at issue helps to shape the reasonableness of those expectations." This must be balanced with the other factors in the Penn Central test. O'Connor's opinion can be read in tandem with the majority opinion, because she says: "As I understand it, our decision today does not remove the regulatory backdrop against which an owner takes title to property from the purview of the Penn Central inquiry. It simply restores balance to that inquiry." Appellants cite to Robert Meltz, TAKINGS LAW TODAY: A PRIMER FOR THE PERPLEXED, 34 Ecology L.Q. 307 (2007), for the proposition that cases have followed O'Connor's analysis. Washington cases (mentioned in Appeal): Presbytery of Seattle v. King Cnty., 114 Wn.2d 320, 787 P.2d 907 (1990): The 161Page Presbytery of Seattle challenged the 1986 Wetland Ordinance that prohibits new construction in wetland boundaries under the theory of inverse condemnation. This ordinance prevented the Presbytery from constructing a church on the property it purchased in 1978 that was located in a wetland. The Court held: "Mere regulation on the use of land has never constituted a `taking' or a violation of due process under federal or state law. The problem in any given case is to determine when such a regulation exceeds constitutional bounds." The Court then laid out the tests for takings and substantive due process, in addition to discussing an issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The test for takings is as follows: "The `taking' analysis requires that the court first ask whether the regulation substantially advances legitimate state interests. If it does not, then it constitutes a `taking'. If it does substantially advance a legitimate state interest, then it becomes necessary to look further and see if the challenge to the regulation is a facial challenge or one involving application of the regulation to specific property."... "If the challenge involves an application of the regulation to specific property, then the court should consider: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the property; (2) the extent of the regulation's interference with investment - backed expectations; and (3) the character of the government action" (the same test as used in Penn Central). State v. Lake Lawrence Pub. Lands Prot. Assn, 92 Wn.2d 656, 6o1 P.2d 494 (1979): Lake Lawrence, Inc. appealed the denial of its application for preliminary plat and 171Page shoreline substantial development permit by the County Board of Commissioners. After Lake Lawrence applied for these permits, the County Planning Commissioners gathered evidence and testimony regarding the proposal. A draft EIS was prepared, and it became clear during investigation that bald eagles used the site for perching and feeding. The County Board of Commissioners denied the application for preliminary plat and shoreline development permit based on the eagles' status as endangered birds, the county's comprehensive plan calling for preservation of wildlife and a recommendation by the Department of Game for a 200 foot buffer strip to protect bald eagle habitat. Review was sought before the Shoreline Hearing Board, which reversed the denial. The Court held that the Commissioners were not bound by the Shorelines Hearing Board finding, and found that they had independent authority under SEPA to consider the environmental issue and deny the plat for environmental reasons. The Court also held that denial of the plat in this case does not violate respondents' rights to due process, or constitute a taking of private property for public use without compensation. The determination of whether a regulation is an unconstitutional taking requires a balancing of the nature of the infringement of private property interests against the public interest in imposing the regulation in question. "The strong public policy interest being advanced by this regulation of respondent's use of the leasehold is the preservation of a valuable environmental resource which is identified as such in the County's Master Program. Where, as here, the Commissioners' decision does not deny to respondent all reasonably profitable uses, but only requires that the use be adapted to protect an important environmental resource, we find no 181Page taking in violation of the state and federal constitutions." Possible Decisions by the City Council on Appeal "The city council shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the time periods set forth in RCW 36.7oB.o8o, as allowed by RCW 36.7oB.o8o(3), the city council may remand the decision with instructions to the hearing body for additional information." ECDC 20.07.005.H. The optional actions below are not intended to be exhaustive. AFFIRM: a decision to affirm would essentially amount to the city council agreeing with the hearing examiner that staff can determine whether variance criteria have been satisfied post -hearing. While staff initially recommended approval of the variance based on staff s application of the "minimum necessary" impact standard, the hearing examiner was not convinced and he is the original decision -maker. Because the hearing examiner has now determined that the "minimum necessary" impact has not been satisfied, staff can no longer recommend approval as proposed. MODIFY: the city council could modify the hearing examiner's decision by approving the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. that there be no encroachment into or variance to use the wetland itself (as distinct from the wetland buffer); and 2. that the footprint of the structure inclusive of garage not exceed 160o square feet (see Record, at 0014 where the examiner appears to suggest this size). REVERSE: the city council could reverse the hearing examiner's decision and based upon finding of fact 6, deny the requested critical area variance for failure to satisfy ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.c. REMAND: the city council could remand the matter to the hearing examiner, clarifying that Condition 1 is an unacceptable delegation of his authority and that the variance must either be denied or conditioned in such a manner that the examiner can 191Page determine for himself that the decision criteria have been satisfied. Note that this option would likely require a waiver from the applicant. BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Re: Tom and Lin Hillman PLN20120033 APPEAL FROM FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION, ENTERED BY EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER PHIL A. OLBRECHTS APRIL 241h, 2013 REPLY BRIEF Stephen C. Schroeder and Cheryl L. Beighle, 1142 Vista PI., Edmonds, WA 98020, Telephone # (425) 712-8694; and Todd and Candy Brown, 1135 Sierra Pl., Edmonds, WA 98020, Telephone # (425) 672-4418; Parties of Record, Appellants. RE ED JUN = iJ3 DEVELOPML , _;VICES couf `i C R RiEcave® JUN = `' 2013 DEVEl_OpMW SERWES CCR Appellants' Reply Brief Page 1 ATTACHMENT H We concur with the conclusion of the Lighthouse Law Group PLLC that the Hillmans (Applicants) have failed to meet their burden of proof that the proposed incursion into the wetland itself represents "the minimum necessary [impact] to allow for reasonable economic use of the property" [Lighthouse Law Group Memo to City Council, at p. 8]. As quoted by the Lighthouse Law Group Memo, the Hearing Examiner made clear factual findings on this issue: "6. Minimum Variance. The most challenging issue for this proposal is whether the request constitutes the minimum necessary to grant relieffrom the City's critical area regulations. It appears that encroachments into the wetland could be almost entirely avoided by limiting the building footprint to 1, 600 square feet, inclusive of garage space. The need to encroach into 1, 790 square feet of Class III wetland is based upon the applicants' desire to have vaulted ceilings and a driveway that could be larger than necessary to serve the property.. . These are not sufficient reasons to justify an encroachment into wetlands" [Record at 0013-00141. Despite these clear findings, the Hearing Examiner essentially remanded the matter to city staff with instructions that included the taking of additional evidence from Wetland Resources, Inc. Indeed, he seems to delegate the final decision as to whether to allow the incursion into the wetlands to Wetland Resources, Inc. "As discussed in FOF No. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified wetland biologist, who can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether removing the proposed wetland encroachment would appreciably improve upon impacts to wetland functions. " [0020]. This is improper on several grounds. First, the Hearing Examiner has made a clear finding that the applicants have not met their burden to prove that the wetlands incursion is "necessary" [Lighthouse Memo at 8 and 9]. This should be the end of the matter, and the wetlands incursion portion of the variance request should simply be denied. Second, in remanding (in essence) the matter to staff, the Hearing Examiner improperly re -opened the proceedings instead of making a decision on the record as it existed at the conclusion of the hearing. By means of this remand, the Hearing Examiner would allow the applicants to adduce additional evidence in the form of expert opinion, but in a way that would deny the opposing parties to question or counter that evidence — or, indeed, to appeal it. Third, he did so in a manner that is fundamentally unfair. Wetland Resources, Inc., while a fully qualified wetlands expert, was acting in this matter as an advocate on behalf of its clients, the applicants. Contrary to the suggestion in the Hillmans' Response at page 10, this factual observation is not a disparagement of Ms. Bachman or her qualifications.' Unlike the situation in 2003 when her firm was hired by the City to delineate the sensitive area in question, however, Wetland Resources, Inc. was hired by the Hillmans in 2012 to advance their applications for variances. Their job was to muster all of the principled arguments in favor of their clients' application— not to be an objective and disinterested expert. 1 By way of illustration, it is highly unlikely that the Hillmans (or any other opposing party, for that matter) would be comfortable with allowing a reputable wetlands expert hired by the appellants to oppose the variances sought in this matter, to make such an important decision unilaterally. Appellants' Reply Brief Page 2 This quite normal bias makes the unilateral nature of the delegation of decision -making even more problematical. On the basis of the record as it exists, we are asking the City Council to reverse the granting of the variance to the extent that it allows incursions into the wetland itself. The Hearing Examiner's Condition No. 1 in his original Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision issued on April 1, was stated in the alternative, i.e., whether reducing potential incursion into the wetland by moving some of the square feet of the house to the second floor, thus reducing its footprint; and moving it north further into the buffer, would reduce the ensuing damage to the wetland: 1. As discussed in FOF No. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified wetland biologist, who can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether encroaching into the Category III wetland of the subject property causes significantly more damage to wetland functions than building within its buffer. If that is the case, staff shall displace as much of the wetland encroachment into the second story of the proposed home and further northward into the buffer as much as reasonably possible to reduce the encroachment into the wetland [Record at 0077 (emphasis added)]. In an email dated April 4, 2013, Andrea Bachman of Wetlands Resources, Inc., addressed the question of moving the footprint further north into the buffer, but did not address the alternative question of reducing the footprint to 1600 square feet [Record at 0054-0055]. Although even this limited and somewhat unresponsive opinion cannot properly be considered under the "no new evidence" rule, we feel that this clarifying comment is necessary to avoid misunderstanding on the issue.2 The Lighthouse Law Group's Memo of June 7, 2013, correctly identifies the following ordinance as the source of the Planning Division staff's recommendation and of what we believe to be the wrong result in this matter: ECDC 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. "Reasonable economic use(s) means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Reasonable economic use" shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure. Determination of "reasonable economic use" shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site." 2 This correspondence was not available on the Planning Division's web posting until the Record on appeal was published. Appellants' Reply Brief Page 3 Added by Ordinance 3527 on November 23, 2004, (along with the rest of the code sections dealing with sensitive areas), this section, by its own terms, was intended to implement state and federal constitutional law, and apparently was intended to give simplifying guidance to City staff on this rather abstruse and complex area of the law. It was not, we believe, the intent of the City Council to redefine constitutional law, nor was it the intent to unduly restrict the City from lawfully exercising its police powers to promote the general welfare of the community by, among other things, protecting wetlands and other sensitive areas. Instead, this ordinance must be construed in the context of other Code provisions pertaining to sensitive areas, as well as case law interpreting and applying constitutional principles applicable to land use regulation. For example, in Section 23.40.020 (Relationship to other regulations), enacted as part of the same ordinance (3527) the City Council expressed its legislative intent as follows: A. These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning, site development, building and other regulations adopted by the city of Edmonds. B. Any individual critical area adjoined or overlain by another type of critical area shall have the buffer and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any provision of this title or any existing land use regulation conflicts with this title, that which provides more protection to the critical area shall apply (emphasis added.) In 23.40.160 (Review criteria), the City Council reiterated its intent that the sensitive area code provisions be construed and applied in their entirety, thus: A. Any alteration to a critical area, unless otherwise provided for in this title, shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements; 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values; and Appellants' Reply Brief Page 4 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards (emphasis added). In Section 23.40.210 Variances, the City Council repeated its intention that sections of the code be read and applied as an entity: A. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant demonstrates that one or more of the following two conditions exist: 2. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of "reasonable economic use(s)" in ECDC 23.40.320) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: *** c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; * * * and; g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards (emphasis added). Instead of construing the sensitive area ordinance as a whole, the Lighthouse Law Group memo singles out the definition of reasonable economic use set forth in ECDC 23.40.320 quoted above, and opines that it caused staff to conclude that "a property owner should be able to construct a single-family residence on a conforming single-family lot (a lot that meets minimum dimensional standards) in order to make reasonable economic use of that single-family lot" [Memo at p. 4]. In other words, the City Attorney seems to be saying that the Ordinance defining the minimum reasonable use of a lot as one single-family residential structure trumps the other statutes and the case law. Indeed, at page 12 of their memo, the Lighthouse Law Group characterizes the case law on the issue of regulatory takings as having "marginal relevance" in light of the definition of reasonable economic use,(although they concede that those cases provide a fuller understanding of the broader legal context of the issues). We respectfully disagree with this portion of that opinion. In their Response To Appeal Memo, the Hillmans helpfully illustrate the potential consequences of such an interpretation: "The minimum requirements for an RS-12 lot include a 12,000 sf lot area and 90' of lot width (ECDC 16.20.030 Table of site development standards), which our lot far exceeds. Normally, these requirements would allow our lot to be subdivided into three Appellants' Reply Brief Page 5 12, 000+ sf parcels, with a 4200+ sf footprint house on each one (based on the 35% allowable coverage in the table) [at page 4-5]. " This assertion, a reductio ad absurdum, starkly reveals the extreme consequences of isolating the section of the ordinance defining reasonable economic use, and treating it as if it trumps the balance of the code as well as state and federal Supreme Court decisions on land use regulation. Under a literal application of that isolated section, the Hillman Family Trust (the owner of the property in question) could put the streams in culverts, fill in the entire wetland, totally eliminate the buffers, and utterly destroy the habitat in order to construct three houses on the land. If this were, indeed, the intent of the City Council when it enacted the sensitive area protection ordinances, then it is not at all apparent why those statutes were enacted at all. We strongly believe that this is not what the City Council intended, and that the reasonable economic use section has been taken out of context and, therefore, misinterpreted. It was not, we believe, intended to effectively repeal the balance of the relevant ordinances. In fact, a number of ordinances deal with the issue: One identifies and protects sensitive areas, streams and wetlands [ECDC 23.40.040 and 23.50]; another creates buffers to further protect those areas [ECDC 23.50.030.F]; another contains its own variance standards for sensitive areas, including a provision to reduce buffer by up to fifty percent with mitigation [ECDC 23.40.120]. This entire body of statutory law must be construed in its entirety, in light of the state and federal case law pertaining to land regulation. Little purpose would be served by reiterating the case law and expert commentary set forth in our Argument Brief filed on May 31, 2013, and as commented upon in the Lighthouse Law Group Memo prepared for this body on June 7, 2013. It bears emphasizing, however, that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have consistently held that no regulatory taking occurs when an owner lacks reasonable investment - backed expectations because background principles of the State's law of property have placed restrictions upon ownership. This language has consistently been upheld, and has routinely been construed to include reasonable land -use regulations, especially if those regulations are in place when the owner acquires the land. In the Applicants Response, they assert that they had a reasonable expectation that they would be allowed to build on their land because of two similar variances that had been previously granted in the same area. The first example, the Hachler residence at 1111 Sierra Place, is simply not a precedent. The variance was granted in 1999, five years before the City's current sensitive area ordinance was enacted, and two years before the City "determined that the property potentially contained a number of critical areas" [Record at 0084]. As to the Lewis variance previously partially granted in 2005, we would point out that, except for the rear boundary setback request, it was unopposed, and suggest that it was improvidently approved. In any event, the proposed residence was never built and both the variance and the ensuing building permits (which have a life of one year unless extended) were abandoned and expired as a matter of law. Appellants' Reply Brief Page 6 The reasonableness of the applicants' expectations is reviewable by this body as a mixed question of fact and law. A number of factors combine to establish that any expectation to build on this piece of property was speculative. The Hillmans paid a modest sum — an amount substantially below the value of adjacent properties that were not similarly restricted -- for the chance to build a house on a piece of property that they knew was severely restricted by wetlands regulations. Given the need for substantial variances before a single family residence could be built, their prospects for success were highly problematic from the onset of their ownership. Moreover, this parcel alone among the adjacent properties has gone undeveloped for more than a hundred years. The Applicants' protestations notwithstanding, this was a clear signal that building on this land would be problematical. They simply chose to disregard these conditions and seek a windfall bargain. Such is not the kind of economic expectation that land use law is designed to protect. WHEREFORE, we urge the City Council to Reverse the hearing examiner's decision in this matter due to a failure of proof that the proposed footprint is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use. In addition, the decision should be reversed due to a misinterpretation of the law. By taking the definition of "reasonable economic use" contained in ECDC 23.40.320 out of context and emphasizing it at the expense of the other provisions in the code, the hearing examiner committed reversible error. This body is urged to clarify that the legislative intent behind the enactment of Chapter 23 of the ECDC was to protect environmentally critical areas, and that all of the provisions of that Code should be interpreted and applied together in a manner that promotes that intent — even if that application results in a determination, on rare occasions, that a particular site is not suitable for building a single family residence. Appellants' Reply Brief Page 7 We have read this Reply Brief and believe the contents to be true. Dated this 12th day of June, 2013, Ste hen C.Schroeder c4z Z4 Cheryl L/� eigh e Todd Brown Candy Bro Appellants' Reply Brief Page 8 AM-5850 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Action Information Subiect Title Public Hearing on the Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2014-2019) Recommendation Approve the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program and adopt the Resolution. Previous Council Action On June 11, 2013, the 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program was presented to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee. Narrative The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues for each of the projects included in the TIP. The City practice in preparing the TIP each year has been to keep it financially constrained the first 3 years (2014-2016), but not the last 3 years (2017-2019). RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption of the budget. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington State Department of Transportation, and adjacent jurisdictions. Some of the projects in the TIP are shown as funded through secured or unsecured Federal / State grants, as well as from the local funds. Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, a number of unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed to fund projects beginning in 2017. Most transportation grants are competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in the future will depend on other transportation needs and funding requests in the region. Projects not identified in this document may not be eligible for Federal / State funding. This overview serves as an introduction to the 2014-2019 TIP and a Public Hearing is scheduled for the June 18th City Council meeting. Attachments Six -Year TIP (2014-2019) Resolution Form Review 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: 06/14/2013 Date 06/13/2013 11:59 AM 06/13/2013 04:24 PM 06/13/2013 04:56 PM 06/14/2013 08:54 AM 06/14/2013 09:03 AM Started On: 06/12/2013 02:19 PM City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2014-2019) Grant Opportunity Project (2014-2019) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Preservation/Maintenance Protects: Annual Street Preservation Grind pavement, overlay, chip seal, Engineering $0 (Federal) Program Local Funds Only & $0 (State) slurry seal, and microsurfacing Construction $4,500,000 Local $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 5th Ave S Overlay from Secured grant $8,650 (Federal, secured) $8,650 Elm Way to Walnut St. Grind pavement and overlay & Construction $0 (State) Local Funds $1,350 Local $1,350 Traffic Signal Upgrade traffic signal cabinets, Possible grant, Engineering $650,000 (Federal, unsecured) $650,000 Improvements install pedestrian countdown displays, provide & & $0 (State) maintenance, and im rove technology Local Funds Construction $20,000 Local $10,000 $10,000 238th @ 100th Av. Signal Upgrades Rebuild signal system Engineering $0 (Federal) Possible Grant & $508,000 (State, unsecured) $508,000 with video detection Construction $0 Local TOTAL $10,000 $0 $0 $2,658,000 $1,510,000 $1,510,000 satety i capac¢v Anarvsis: 212th St. SW / 84th Ave. W (5 Corners) ROW $8,650 (Federal, secured) $8,650 Intersection Improvements $0 (State) $1,350 Install roundabout with conversion of overhead utilities Secured Grant Local $1,350 Construction $1,839,000 (Federal, secured) $1,839,000 to underground, water line replacement, and stormwater & upgrades Local Funds $0 (State) $367,000 (Local, Fund 412) $367,000 $288,000 Local, Traffic Impact Fees $288,000 228th St. SW. Corridor Safety Construct missing roadway link on 228th St. SW between Engineering $10,000 (Federal, secured) $10,000 Improvements Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W. Install traffic signals at $0 (State) $0 Hwy. 99 @ 228th St. SW and Local ROW $100,000 (Federal, secured) $100,000 76th Ave. W @ 228th St. SW to improve safety. Bike lanes and sidewalk will be added on Secured Grants $0 (State) $0 both sides of the new stretch. Stormwater improvements & Local Construction $4,049,000 (Federal, secured) $4,049,000 are also being incorporated into this project. Local Funds $0 (State) $55,000 (Local, Fund 412) $55,000 $85,000 Local $85,000 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection $88,000 (Federal, secured) $44,000 $44,000 Improvements Engineering $0 (State) $80,000 Secured grants, (Local, Fund 412) $80,000 Re -design intersection to reduce intersection delay / $12,000 Local, Traffic Impact Fees $6,000 $6,000 $647,000 (Federal, secured) $300,000 $347,000 improve level of service. Utility Possible grants, improvements are included in the project. ROW $227,000 (Federal, unsecured) $227,000 $101,000 Local $47,000 $54,000 & Local Funds Construction $1,989,200 (Federal, unsecured) $1,989,200 $0 (State) $311,000 Local $311,000 SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study Improve vehicular and non -motorized transportation $0 (Federal) safety along SR-104 Local Funds Only Engineering $0 (State) $25,000 Local $25,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety improvements Engineering $0 (Federal) along the SR-99 Corridor. Possible Grant & $10,000,000 (State, unsecured) $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 Construction $0 Local SR-524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W Installation of guardrail on the west side of intersection, $0 (Federal) Guardrail improving intersection safety due to - 12' vertical drop on Local Funds Only Engineering $0 (State) west side of intersection $30,000 Local $30,000 SR 524 (196th St. SW) @ Design intersection improvement Design $0 (Federal) 88th Ave W. Intersection Possible Grant $50,000 (State, unsecured) $50,000 $50,000 Improvements Local, traffic impact fees $50,000 ROW acquisition ROW $0 (Federal) & $81,500 (State, unsecured) $81,500 $81,500 Local $81,500 Construct intersection improvements Construction $533,000 (Federal, unsecured) $533,000 Local Funds $0 (State) $83,000 Local $83,000 Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $200,000 (Federal, unsecured) $20,000 $180,000 Upgrade traffic signal & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $50,000 Local $20,000 $30,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $125,000 (Federal, unsecured) $20,000 $105,000 Upgrade traffic signal & & $0 (State) Page 1 City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2014-2019) Grant Opportunity Project (2014-2019) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Local Funds Construction $125,000 Local $20,000 $105,000 Main St. @ 9th Av. S Restriping of 9th Av. S to (2) northbound Engineering $0 (Federal) (Interim Solution) and southbound lanes (ex conditions: 1 lane Local Funds Only & $0 (State) era roach) Construction $10,000 Local, Traffic Impact Fees $10,000 220th St. SW @ 76th Av. W Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and a Possible Grant Engineering $149,000 (Federal, unsecured) $149,000 Intersection Improvements through lane. Change NB and SB phases to provide & & $0 (State) protected/permissive LT and Right turn overlap for WB. Local Funds Construction $24,000 Local $24,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Coordinate the traffic signals within 1/2 mile of each other Engineering $0 (Federal) Improvements along 76th Av. W, 212th St. SW, and 220th St. SW Local Funds Only & $0 (State) Construction $50,000 Local $50,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Widen 212th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Possible Grant s Engineering, $2,826,000 (Federal, unsecured) $424,000 $793,000 $1,609,000 Intersection Improvements Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both & ROW, & $225,500 (State, unsecured) $33,000 $66,500 $126,000 movements. Local Funds Construction $224,500 Local $33,000 $66,500 $125,000 Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Possible Grant s Engineering, $2,826,000 (Federal, unsecured) $424,000 $793,000 $1,609,000 Intersection Improvements Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both & ROW, & $225,500 (State, unsecured) $33,000 $66,500 $126,000 movements. I Local Funds Construction $224,500 Local $33,000 1 $66,500 $125,000 Protected / permissive traffic Conversion from protected left -turn phasing Engineering $0 (Federal) signal conversion to protective -permissive Local Funds Only & $0 (State) phasing at signalized intersections Construction $20 000 Local $20 000 Type 2 Raised Pavement Install Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers Engineering $96 000 (Federal, unsecured) $98,000 Markers along the centerline of arterials and collectors, improving Possible Grant & $0 (State) roadway safety during night hours and on rainy days Construction $0 Local TOTAL $7 815 000 $5,178,000 $5,000,000 $3 791 200 $2,265,000 $4 546,000 Pedestrian Projects: Sunset Av. from Bell St. to Caspers St. Provide sidewalk on the west side of Sunset Av. Secured Grant, Possible Engineering $73 000 (Federal, secured) $73,000 Grant, & & $389 000 (State, unsecured) $389,000 Local Funds Construction $400 000 Local $11 000 $389 000 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to Provide sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW Engineering $0 (Federal) 1041h Ave. W from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W Secured Grant & $531 000 (State, secured) $531,000 Construction $0 Local 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to Provide sidewalk on the north side of 15th St. SW to Engineering $334 000 (Federal, secured) $334,000 8lh Ave. W improve non -motorized transportation safety Secured grant & $0 (State) for kids attending Sherwood Elementary School Construction $0 Local 236th St. SW Walkway from Madrona Improve non -motorized transportation safety for school Engineering $454,000 (Federal,secured) $454,000 Elementary to Edmonds Way (SR-104) Secured grant & $0 (State) kids along 236th St. SW Construction $0 Local Hwy. 99 Enhancement project Installation of luminaires along SR-99 $584,000 (Federal, secured) $584,000 (Phase 3) from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW, Secured grant Construction $0 (State) improving edestrian / vehicular safe $0 Local SR-104 Pedestrian Install mid -block crossing along SR-104, allowing Engineering $0 (Federal) Midblock crossing pedestrians coming from Pine St to safely cross WSDOT Secured Grant & $230,000 (State, secured) $230,000 SDOT ro-ect SR-104, to access City Park Construction $0 Local ADA Curb Ramp upgrades Upgrade curb ramps along 3rd Ave. S Secured Grant Engineering $50,000 (Federal, secured) $50,000 along 3rd Ave. S between Pine St. and Main St. & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $25,000 Local $25,000 80th Av. W from 188th St. SW to Install sidewalk to provide safe and desirable route to Engineering $0 (Federal) Olympic View Dr. Walkway and Sight Seaview Elementary and parks. Improve sight distance issue Possible Grant & $993,000 (State, unsecured) $30,000 $116,000 $847,000 Distance Improvements near 184th St. SW intersection. Construction $0 Local 2nd Av. S from James St. to Main St. Engineering $0 (Federal) Walkway Provide sidewalk along short missing link. Local Funds Only & $0 (State) Construction $32,000 Local $32,000 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements Construct ADA compliant curb ramps where Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) Citywide (Transition Plan) & & $375,000 (State, unsecured) $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 facilities don't exist nor meet current standards Local Funds Construction $75,000 Local $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Maplewood from Main St. to Install sidewalk, connecting to existing sidewalk Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) 200th St. SW Walkway on 200th St. SW, & & $507,500 (State, unsecured) $95,000 $412,500 linking to Maplewood Elementary School. Local Funds Construction $169,500 (Local) $32,000 1 $137,500 Meadowdale Beach Rd Walkway Install sidewalk along missing link between Possible Grant $0 (Federal) & Engineering $142,500 (State, unsecured) $142,500 76th Av. W and Olympic View Dr. Local Funds $47,500 Local $47,500 Wanut St. from 3rd Av. to 4th Av. Engineering $0 (Federal) Walkway Install sidewalk along short missing link Possible Grant & $220,000 (State, unsecured) $220,000 Construction $0 Local Walnut St. from 6th Av. to 7th Av. Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) Walkway Install sidewalk along short missing link & & $55,000 (State,unsecured) $55,000 Local Funds Construction $55,000 Local $55,000 Page 2 City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2014-2019) Grant Opportunity Project (2014-2019) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 4th Av. Corridor Enhancement Possible Grant Engineering $5,000,000 (Federal, unsecured) $100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,900,000 Walkway Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Av. & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $675,000 Local, Fund 125 $100,000 $150,000 $425,000 Audible Pedestrian Install audible pedestrian signals at all Engineering $25,000 (Federal, unsecured) $25,000 Signals pedestrians heads to improve signalized intersection Possible Grant & $0 (State) $0 safet for eo le with disabilities Construction Local TOTAL $2,492,000 1 $1,150,000 1 $1,425,000 1 $4,135,000 $393,000 $1,847,000 Bicycle projects Citywide Bicycle connections (such as Install bike lanes, sharrows, and signs along Main St., Engineering $233,000 (Federal, unsecured) $233,000 Interurban Trail to Downtown Edmonds...) Bowdoin Way, 84th Ave. W, 212th St. SW, 220th St. SW, Possible grant & $0 (State) and 224th St. SW to create safer connections Construction $0 Local Bicycle Route Signing $0 (Federal) Install signage for (3) bike loops around the City Local Funds Only Construction $0 (State) $30,000 Local $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $243,000 $10,000 $10,000 Traffic Calming ProlecW. Residential Neighborhood Traffic circles, speed cushions, Design $0 (Federal) Traffic Calming "Your Speed" signs, etc. Local Funds only & $0 (State) Construction $105,000 Local $10,000 1 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Traffic Plannina Protects Transportation Plan Update Engineering (Federal) Update Transportation Plan Local Funds Only & $0 (State) Planning $180,000 (Local) $90,000 1 $90,000 Total $46,273,200 $10,417,000 $6 428 000 $6 435 000 $10,852,200 $4 203 000 $7,938,000 Total Federal $7,954,300 $1,618,000 $1,000,000 $6,887,200 $1,711,000 $3,931,000 Total Federal (Secured) $7,854,300 $391,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Federal (Unsecured) $100,000 $1,227,000 $1,000,000 $6,887,200 $1,711,000 $3,931,000 Total State $1,261,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $1,388,000 $550,500 $1,834,000 Total State (Secured) $761,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total State (Unsecured) $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $1,388,000 $550,500 $1,834,000 Total Local Fund $1,201,700 $310,000 $435,000 $2,552,000 $1,941,500 $2,173,000 Total Local (Fund 112) $295,700 $154,000 $10,000 $2,502,000 $1,941,500 $2,173,000 Total Local (Fund 125) $100,000 $150,000 $425,000 $0 $0 $0 Total Fund (Fund 412) $502,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local (Traffic Impact Fees) $304,000 $6,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2014-2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AND DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city and town is required to adopt a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and file a copy of such adopted program with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and WHEREAS, the TIP identifies all planned projects over the next 6 years, along with the appropriate funding source; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Transportation Improvement Program is hereby adopted pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 to be effective on June 19, 2013 and to continue in full force and effect until amended. A copy of such Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2014 to 2019 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby requested and directed to file a certified copy of the Transportation Improvement Program with the Washington State Department of Transportation. -1- RESOLVED this day of , 2013. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVE O. EARLING -2- AM-5873 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Lora Petso, Council President Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Submitted By: Sandy Chase Type: Information Action Subiect Title Ordinance Amending Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.75 - Citizens Economic Development Commission. Recommendation Adopt the proposed ordinance. Previous Council Action The Public Safety and Personnel Committee discussed proposed changes to the Economic Development Commission Ordinance on 5-14-13. A revised ordinance was reviewed by the Public Safety and Personnel Committee on 6-11-13. Minutes from the Committee Meetings are attached. Narrative The attached ordinance includes the following proposed changes to City Code Chapter 10.75 (new language is shown in underline; deleted language is shown in str-ikethfeugh): 10.75.010 B. 4. - Elected government officials shall not be eligible for appointment to the commission; provided, that the city council president may appoint etie up to two of -its council members to serve as nonvoting, ex officio members of the commission;... 10.75.010 B. 5. - Any vacancy on the commission will be advertised, and the new appointee will be selected from the applications received. Attachments Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance Amending ECC Chapter 10.75 Exhibit 2: 05-14-13 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Minutes Exhibit 3: 06-11-13 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 06/14/2013 08:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/14/2013 09:03 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/13/2013 04:58 PM Final Approval Date: 06/14/2013 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND AMENDING CHAPTER 10.75 ECC; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined it appropriate to amend chapter 10.75 of the Edmonds City Code ("ECC") to revise certain provisions regarding appointments to the Citizens Economic Development Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 10.75.010 of the ECC, entitled "Commission created — Membership — Term of appointments" is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is shown in underline; deleted language is shown in stfiek hr-o _ "): 10.75.010 Commission created — Membership — Term of appointments. A. There is hereby created a citizens economic development commission consisting of up to 17 members. The commission shall automatically expire December 31, 2015. B. The members of the commission shall be appointed in the following manner: 1. Each council member may appoint up to two members. 2. The mayor may appoint up to three members. 3. In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings, that position may be deemed vacant by the holder of the office that appointed the commissioner (e.g., mayor or council member) and such office holder may appoint a replacement commissioner for the remainder of the unexpired term for that position. 4. Elected government officials shall not be eligible for appointment to the commission; provided, that the city council president may appoint one up to two efts council members to serve as nonvoting, ex officio members of the commission; and further provided, that the Edmonds port commission may also appoint one of its members to serve as a nonvoting, ex officio member of the commission. 5. Any vacancy on the commission will be advertised, and the new appointee will be selected from the applications received. C. Commissioner terms shall be staggered such that all members of the commission as of December 31, 2011, shall have their terms expire on December 31, 2012. All members appointed during 2012 shall have their terms expire on December 31, 2014. All members appointed during 2013 or later shall have their terms expire on December 31, 2015. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND AMENDING CHAPTER 10.75 ECC; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 145 2013 Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Bloom (Committee Chair) Councilmember Peterson (Committee Member) Mayor Earling Council President Petso (Presenter) City Staff Present: Chief of Police Al Compaan Fire Marshal John Westfall City Attorney Jeff Taraday The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. A. Proposed changes to the Economic Development Commission Ordinance. Council President Petso presented ordinance language to the Committee requesting: (1) Allow for up to two city council members to be appointed as Economic Development Commission liaisons to be appointed by the Council President; and (2) Each commissioner serves at the pleasure of the applicable appointing official, who may remove and replace his or her appointee(s) at any time without cause. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern over the legal implications and whether the deliberation would be required in a public forum, and was also concerned where one appointee might be operating from a position contrary to the positions that the appointing council member desires. City Attorney Jeff Taraday suggested most appointment processes and desired actions related to volunteer appointments by council members could be written into the ordinance. Hypothetical situations were discussed. Councilmember Bloom preferred the oversight by an entity such as an Ethics Board that could address the actions of all boards and commissions and provide recommendations to the City Council for action when activity fell short of criminal behavior. Councilmember Peterson suggested the formation of an Ethics Board would be an additional step ultimately arriving at the end with Council action that would apply by the processes established in this ordinance language. There currently is no Ethics Board established. Edits were made to allow one or two positions in number 1 above. Council President Petso withdrew number 2 above due to lack of consensus at committee. Council President Petso will bring the ordinance to the City Council for discussion. Public Safety & Personnel Committee May 14, 2013 Page 1 of 3 B. 2012 Fire Code Update. Fire Marshal Westfall discussed the upcoming code cycle changes to the Fire and Marina Codes. The most significant change will be that the Building and Fire Departments will no longer maintain a current Board of Appeals, described by the codes. This is an onerous task for the Building Department as volunteer experts in specific fields must be maintained for when Building or Fire determinations are questioned by code applicants. The most recent Board of Appeals activity occurred in 2002. This is not a frequent event and the City currently utilizes an established Hearing Examiner on an ongoing basis for land use issues. A Hearing Examiner is felt to be a good arbiter also for construction issues. The Committee approved the Fire Code update moving forward to public hearing on June 4, or when best scheduled by Council President. The 2013 Fire Code will be in effect in Washington State by July 1. C. Annual renewal of Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force Interlocal Agreement (2013-2014). Chief Compaan presented information regarding this Interlocal Agreement (ILA). The cost for the 2013-2014 fiscal year will be $10,237, half of which is already budgeted in the 2013 approved Police Department budget, with the balance to be included in the 2014 Police Department budget. The Committee approved placing this agreement on the Consent Agenda. D. Interlocal Agreement — North Sound Metro SWAT. Chief Compaan presented information regarding this ILA. The present SWAT ILA was approved by Council in December 2011. The new ILA adds the cities of Mill Creek and Kirkland, plus makes two minor language changes pertaining to team structure/operations. The Committee approved placing this agreement on the Consent Agenda. E. 2013 COPS Hiring Program Grant Solicitation. Mayor Earling and Chief Compaan presented information regarding this grant opportunity — presented this evening to both Public Safety -Personnel and Finance Committees. The proposal is to partner with Edmonds School District (ESD) to hire one police officer under this grant to serve as School Resource Officer. If Edmonds is approved for this grant, an Interlocal Agreement would be required with ESD. The term of the grant is four years. Years one through three are 75% funded (salary and benefits) by the grant, and ESD has indicated willingness to pick-up the remaining 25% for each of the three years. Year four must be 100% locally funded, and ESD has indicated willingness to pick-up 50%, and the city would be obligated to the other 50%. During the term of the grant, the city would be required to maintain its budgeted complement of police officers (51 at present; 52 if approved for COPS grant funding). The application deadline is May 22. No official action is required by City Council at this juncture, other than a consensus that the Police Department move forward with submitting an application. The Public Safety -Personnel Committee was of the consensus to submit the application. Public Safety & Personnel Committee May 14, 2013 Page 2 of 3 F. Public Comments There were no public comments. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Public Safety & Personnel Committee May 14, 2013 Page 3 of 3 MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 115 2013 Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Bloom Councilmember Peterson City Staff Present: Sandy Chase, City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 6:55 p.m. A. Possible action regarding draft Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's new Rules of Procedure. The Committee recommended that the Resolution be forwarded to the full Council after the City Attorney finalizes the Resolution to include the four points referenced by Council President Petso at the May 7, 2013 City Council Meeting. B. Proposed changes to Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.75 — Citizens Economic Development Commission. Councilmember Bloom stated that she is comfortable with forwarding the proposed Ordinance for review and vote by the full Council. Councilmember Peterson stated that he is also comfortable with the proposed ordinance as written, but he would also recommend that the City Council have a discussion concerning whether or not to have the ability to remove an appointee. Councilmember Bloom commented that she sees the removal issue being something to be considered as a larger issue for all boards and commissions. Councilmember Peterson suggested that because Councilmembers have direct appointees to this commission, he sees this as different. Because the Council also makes direct appointments to the Tree Board, it could also apply to that Board. Councilmembers discussed the following points: • Fair and due process • Complaints • Could it be discussed in executive session? • Removal by a majority of the Council • Grievance process • Bigger issue than the EDC • Start with EDC and Tree Board • General conduct issue; professional and courteous conduct • Creating a hostile work environment Public Safety & Personnel Committee June 11, 2013 Page 1 of 2 • Two levels: (1) context of the meeting and (2) commissioners meeting outside of the regular meeting • What form would the complaint take? Councilmember Peterson suggested that he will speak with Human Resources as well as Council President Petso regarding this issue. It was the consensus of the Committee to move the proposed ordinance forward for Council approval and for the City Council to discuss whether or not to have the ability to remove an appointee. C. Public Comments There were no citizen comments. The Committee Meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Public Safety & Personnel Committee June 11, 2013 Page 2 of 2 AM-5866 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/18/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: Review Committee: Type: City Clerk's Office Information Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings of June 11, 2013. Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Committee Action: J, Attached are copies of the meeting minutes for the following City Council Committee Meetings: • 06-11-13 Finance Committee • 06-11-13 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee • 06-11-13 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Attachments 06-11-13 Finance Committee Minutes 06-11-13 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes 06-11-13 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 06/13/2013 11:50 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 01:31 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/13/2013 11:40 AM Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES June 11, 2013 Councilmembers Present Councilmember Yamamoto Councilmember Fraley-Monillas Council President Petso Public Present Ron Wambolt Harry Gatjens Bruce Witenbera Staff Present Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Stephen Clifton, Comm Serv/Econ Dev Dir Carrie Hite, Parks and Recreation Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Jeannie Dines, Recorder Councilmember Yamamoto called the meeting to order at 6:52 p.m. and moved Items G and H to the beginning of agenda. G. Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board's Proposed Bylaws and Work Program/Budget for Year 2013. David Arista introduced the members of the BID Interim Members Advisory Board who were present: Paul Rucker, Saetia; Mary Kay Sneeringer, Edmonds Bookstore; Steve Balas, Waterfront Coffee; Cadence Clyborne, HDR Engineering; and Stephen Clifton, ex-officio member. Per the ordinance, the BID had a 90 day deadline to present a work plan and bylaws to the City Council. The bylaws and a proposed 2013 work plan are contained in the Finance Committee packet. The BID worked with City Attorney Jeff Taraday on the bylaws. The BID has begun collecting assessments; total assessments anticipated for 2013 are $66,000. As required by the ordinance, the Advisory Board will present a 2014 work plan in the last quarter of 2013. Mr. Clifton advised he will email Councilmembers requesting they review the bylaws and work plan in the June 11 Finance Committee packet and provide questions prior to the Council meeting. He will inform the BID Board when the presentation to Council is scheduled. Action: Schedule for full Council, 30 minute presentation by BID Board. H. Ordinance Amendinq Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060 - 100 Relating to the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Members Advisory Board. Mr. Clifton reported Interim Finance Director Ron Cone, who was an ex-officio member of the BID, recommended changes to the language regarding delinquency charges. City Attorney Taraday and Finance Director Neumaier agree with the proposed changes. A brief discussion followed regarding delinquency charges on utilities. Action: Schedule for full Council. A. Authorization to Contract With James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles. Mr. Williams advised the two vehicles to be surplused are a utility service truck and a Crown Victoria. He anticipated the sale would generate approximately $7500 that will be deposited in the B-Fund replacement account. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. B. Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and Proposed Sewer Utility Rate Increases Mr. Williams advised an update to the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan is required every six years. One of the primary focuses in the Plan is the sewer collection system and rehab/replacement 06-11-13 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 of sewer lines that are structurally insufficient, habitually plugged, impacted by roots, have insufficient capacity, etc. Similar to the Water Comprehensive Plan, the Sewer Comprehensive Plan will contain a list of projects and a recommendation for a $2 million/year capital program to rehab/replace sewer lines. Generating $2 million/year for a 6 year capital plan will require borrowing $4 million every other year; the effect on rates will be approximately a 6.5% rate increase most of those years. He distributed photos of the interior of sewer lines taken via video inspection. He noted the Stormwater Plan, which was updated two years ago, did not have a replacement plan for the stormwater conveyance system. That will need to be addressed in the future as well. Mr. English advised the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update will be presented to the Planning Board on June 26. The goal is to present it to the full Council in mid -July followed by a public hearing. Mr. Williams reported the City scored very high on a $4.5 million low interest Public Works Trust Fund loan; however, the most recent House budget zeroed out the trust fund for the next two years. That will increase the amount that needs to be borrowed which will be described in the next agenda item. Mr. Neumaier noted interest rates will continue to increase over time, but not maintaining the City's infrastructure is a very expensive strategy. Action: Schedule for full Council following review by Planning Board. C. Adoption of Revenue Bond Ordinance and Resolution Mr. Williams recalled in 2011 the City closed a bond sale for $11 million plus costs to install new water lines, do some wastewater system collection work and to fund some stormwater projects. At that time, the expectation was to borrow funds every two years. He anticipated this borrowing would be a total of $14.45 million, an increased amount due to the unavailability of the State Trust Fund loan. When presented to full Council, the ordinance will authorize the Finance Director to execute the bond sale at the most appropriate time within an interest rate cap and time period. Mr. Neumaier provided a brief summary of the ordinance. Mr. Williams recalled water rates have been increased 7.5% each year to generate funds for a capital program, the past 3-4 stormwater rate increases have been 8% and there has not been an increase in sewer rates since 2004. He distributed a comparison of 2012 water, sewer, stormwater rate for incorporated cities in King and Snohomish County, pointing out Edmonds' sewer rate is the lowest, Edmonds' water rate is in the lower third and Edmonds' stormwater rate is in the middle. A brief discussion followed regarding the bond term. Action: Schedule for full Council, include presentation by bond counsel. D. Discussion Regarding Future City Utility Rate Adjustments Mr. Williams referred to the Water Comprehensive Plan that anticipates a 7.5% increase every year and borrowing every 2 years to fund the replacement of 1 % of the water lines/year. He suggested the Council evaluate that strategy, explaining continued borrowing and annual rate increases of 7.5% plus inflation will result in high rates and a great deal of debt. Another strategy would be a rate structure that generates sufficient funds for the capital program rather than debt. He suggested evaluating the time period and amount that rates would need to be increased to generate an extra $2 million/year for ongoing water line replacement. Action: Staff analyze the necessary rate increase and the number of years versus borrowing. E. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Acceptance of Additional Coordinated Prevention Grant Funding. Mr. Williams explained Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator, is funded in part by a Coordinated Prevention Grant. He also provides services to Lynnwood, funded via another grant. The remainder of 06-11-13 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3 his salary is paid by the City's Water Utility as he also works on water conservation, water quality, etc. The State has offered to add $7,000 to the grant which will reduce the cost to the Water Utility. Action: Schedule on the Consent Agenda. F. Aoril 2013 Monthly Financial Resort Mr. Neumaier reported there are no big financial surprises in the first four months; General Fund expenditures and revenues are on track. Through April the City has collected 28% of revenue compared with 26% in 2012. REET revenue is 50% over budget and 50% over 2012; he anticipated 2013 REET revenues will be $200,000-$300,000 over budget. Mr. Neumaier reported there is opportunity to enhance the monthly and quarterly budget reports. He plans to survey the Council to ask, 1) what information in the current reports is especially useful, 2) what information is extraneous/not useful, 3) what information could be added to the reports to make them more useful, and 4) what formatting improvements would make the reports more useful. Mr. Neumaier reported his current priority beyond learning about the City's finances is updating the City's strategic financial projection in anticipation of the 2014 budget process. In July he will provide an update to the Council including assumptions. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. Park Impact Fee Study Direction Ms. Hite recalled when Randy Young made a presentation to the Council last month, the Council was generally in favor of Park Impact Fees but divided on three issues: 1. Residential only versus residential and commercial Mr. Young described amounts each could generate and pros and cons. Following discussion, Councilmembers Yamamoto and Fraley-Monillas and Council President Petso supported imposing a Park Impact Fee on residential and commercial. 2. Phasing Mr. Young reviewed pros and cons and examples of phasing. Following discussion, Councilmember Yamamoto supported no phasing, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas supported phasing 50% the first year and 50% the second year, and Council President Petso suggested a compromise of 75% the first year and 25% the second year. 3. Exemption for low income housing Mr. Young explained the City's Transportation Impact Fee does not have an exemption for low income housing. The policies do not have to be the same. If the City exempts low income housing from the Park Impact Fee, the law requires the City fund the impact fee account from the General Fund. There are two ways to exempt, a) non -profits only, or b) low income defined as less than 80% of county's median household income. Following discussion, Councilmember Yamamoto supported no exemption and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wanted an opportunity to consider the issue further. Action: Schedule for full Council, draft an ordinance for Council consideration at next Council meeting, discuss options for each. J. Public Comments Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, explained he reviewed the monthly financial report; the projections still use an improper methodology. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, welcomed Finance Director Roger Neumaier. Adjournment — The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting June 11, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Council Member Kristiana Johnson Council Member Diane Buckshnis The Committee convened at 6:45 p.m. A. Special Event Contract for Bastille Day Staff Present: Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer ACTION: The Bastille Day Contract was forwarded to the City Council consent agenda. B. Park Impact Fee Study direction. A discussion of the following three options for a Park Impact Fee was held: Residential vs. Commercial: if Council chooses to do residential only, the formula would bump those rates up 20%. Both Council members like the idea of having both residential and commercial. 2. Phasing: Is Council interested in phasing this in or not, and at what schedule? Both Council members voiced their interest in 50% for the first year; phase in over two years. 3. Low Income Housing exemption: yes or no? There are some implications if we offer low income housing exemptions: (1) It is not consistent with the transportation impact fees; there is no low income housing exemption. (2) If we exempt low income housing, then the City will have to pay it. (3) Options include for nonprofits only, or nonprofit and for profit (but will require them to keep the prices low). (4) Define low income as 80% of the County's median household income. Both Council members voiced their interest in choosing no exemption. C. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet for channelization plan, right-of-way acquisition, and access management work on the 228t" St. SW Corridor Improvement project. The Committee reviewed the proposed Supplement and did not have questions. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes June 11, 2013 Page 2 D. Briefing on Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2014-2019) Mr. English reviewed changes that were made to the proposed Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program and answered Councilmember questions. Both Council members discussed defining the 104 study to confine it to the Westgate area that would be in conjunction with the Westgate sub -area plan. ACTION: Item scheduled for a public hearing on June 18, 2013. E. FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project Award The Committee reviewed the proposed Supplement and did not have questions. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. F. Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer utility rate increases. Mr. Williams provided a brief summary of the draft 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan. He discussed the capital and maintenance needs for the sewer collection system and the wastewater treatment plant. He also reviewed the City's current sewer rate and how this rate compares with other cities in Snohomish and King Counties. ACTION: A presentation on the proposed Sewer Comprehensive Plan will be made in July. G. Adoption of revenue bond ordinance and resolution. Mr. Williams outlined the remaining schedule in issuing and securing a bond to pay for capital infrastructure improvements for the City's sewer, water and stormwater utilities. ACTION: The item will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. H. Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments. Mr. Williams discussed possible strategies for utility rate adjustments to pay for capital infrastructure improvements for the City's sewer, water and stormwater utilities. ACTION: Staff will develop and present options for future rate adjustments to the City Council. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout Project. Mr. English provided the proposed fee for Supplement #7 and answered Councilmember questions about lighting and the project schedule. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. J. Public Comments None. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm. MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 115 2013 Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Bloom Councilmember Peterson City Staff Present: Sandy Chase, City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 6:55 p.m. A. Possible action regarding draft Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's new Rules of Procedure. The Committee recommended that the Resolution be forwarded to the full Council after the City Attorney finalizes the Resolution to include the four points referenced by Council President Petso at the May 7, 2013 City Council Meeting. B. Proposed changes to Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.75 — Citizens Economic Development Commission. Councilmember Bloom stated that she is comfortable with forwarding the proposed Ordinance for review and vote by the full Council. Councilmember Peterson stated that he is also comfortable with the proposed ordinance as written, but he would also recommend that the City Council have a discussion concerning whether or not to have the ability to remove an appointee. Councilmember Bloom commented that she sees the removal issue being something to be considered as a larger issue for all boards and commissions. Councilmember Peterson suggested that because Councilmembers have direct appointees to this commission, he sees this as different. Because the Council also makes direct appointments to the Tree Board, it could also apply to that Board. Councilmembers discussed the following points: • Fair and due process • Complaints • Could it be discussed in executive session? • Removal by a majority of the Council • Grievance process • Bigger issue than the EDC • Start with EDC and Tree Board • General conduct issue; professional and courteous conduct • Creating a hostile work environment Public Safety & Personnel Committee June 11, 2013 Page 1 of 2 • Two levels: (1) context of the meeting and (2) commissioners meeting outside of the regular meeting • What form would the complaint take? Councilmember Peterson suggested that he will speak with Human Resources as well as Council President Petso regarding this issue. It was the consensus of the Committee to move the proposed ordinance forward for Council approval and for the City Council to discuss whether or not to have the ability to remove an appointee. C. Public Comments There were no citizen comments. The Committee Meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Public Safety & Personnel Committee June 11, 2013 Page 2 of 2