Loading...
2015.01.13 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2015             6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(30 Minutes)Convene in executive session to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a).   STUDY SESSION JANUARY 13, 2015   7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE   2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call   3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.AM-7402 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2015.   B.AM-7405 Approval of claim checks #212286 through #212410 dated January 8, 2015 for $541,643.82.   C.AM-7376 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Philip Christensen ($158.68).   D.AM-7357 Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Lynnwood and the City of Edmonds for joint funding of the Recycling Coordinator.   E.AM-7387 Confirmation of Municipal Court Judge Linda Coburn.   5.(5 Minutes) AM-7400 Swearing in of newly confirmed Municipal Court Judge Linda W. Y. Coburn.         Packet Page 1 of 586 6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   7.(15 Minutes) AM-7406 Growing Transit Communities Program   8.(15 Minutes) AM-7399 Review of Shaw Lane final plat at 8620 218th St. (File # PLN20120043)   9.(10 Minutes) AM-7329 City Hall Exterior ATM Concession Agreement   10.(25 Minutes) AM-7403 Discussion of the Draft Housing Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update   11.(10 Minutes) AM-7396 Review of proposed changes to Edmonds City Code, Chapter 10.16 Cemetery Board   12.(20 Minutes) AM-7404 Discussion on Potential Update of Council Vacancy Interviews and Appointment Process   13.(20 Minutes) AM-7395 Discussion regarding Code of Ethics   14.(20 Minutes) AM-7381 Continued Discussions on the Study Sessions   15.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   16.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   17.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   18.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 2 of 586    AM-7402     4. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2015. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments Attachment 1 - 20150106 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/08/2015 07:02 AM Final Approval Date: 01/08/2015  Packet Page 3 of 586 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 6, 2015 Following a reception for Councilmember Strom Peterson at 6:00 p.m., the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember (arrived 6:40 p.m.) Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Scott James, Finance Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 20 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 Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 6:53p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 5 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 6:58 p.m. 2. MEET WITH SISTER CITY CANDIDATE NORIKO TSENG FOR CONFIRMATION TO THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION At 6:59 p.m., the City Council met with Sister City Candidate Noriko Tseng. The meeting took place in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Councilmembers and Mayor Earling were present. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:05 p.m. and led the flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. Packet Page 4 of 586 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #212021 THROUGH #212168 DATED DECEMBER 18, 2014 FOR $1,400,051.90, #212169 DATED DECEMBER 22, 2014 FOR $8,759.24 AND #212170 THROUGH #212285 DATED DECEMBER 31, 2014 FOR $629,152.24. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61408 THROUGH #61418 FOR 463,333.53, BENEFIT CHECKS #61419 THROUGH #61425 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $440,831.50 FOR THE PAY PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2014 THROUGH DECEMBER 15, 2014. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL REPLACEMENT CHECK #61426 FOR $708.90. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61427 THROUGH #61435 DATED JANUARY 5, 2015 FOR $485,727.78, BENEFIT CHECKS #61436 THROUGH #61446 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $415,215.01 FOR THE PAY PERIOD DECEMBER 16, 2014 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2014 C. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER DIANE BUCKSHNIS FOR HER SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT D. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER STROM PETERSON FOR HIS SERVICE AS A COUNCILMEMBER E. CONFIRMATION OF NORIKO TSENG TO THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION 6. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2015 Mayor Earling reviewed the selection process: The Mayor will call for nominations. No Councilmember may nominate more than one person for a given office until every member wishing to nominate a candidate has had an opportunity to do so. Nominations do not require a second. The Mayor will repeat each nomination until all nominations have been made. When it appears no one else wishes to make a nomination, the Mayor will ask again for nominations. If none are made, the Mayor will declare the nominations closed. After the nominations are closed, the Mayor will call for a vote in the order that the nominations were made. Councilmembers will be asked to signify their vote by raising their hand. As soon as a nominee receives four votes, the Mayor will declare the Council President elected and no votes will be taken on the remaining nominees. The same process will be repeated for the election of the Council President Pro Tem. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DO THE ELECTIONS BY BALLOT RATHER THAN IN ORDER OF NOMINATION. Mayor Earling clarified it would be a written ballot. Councilmember Petso agreed State law does not permit a secret ballot. Packet Page 5 of 586 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling opened nominations for Council President. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON NOMINATED ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT. There were no further nominations. NOMINATION OF ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2015 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2015 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM NOMINATED LORA PETSO FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED KRISTIANA JOHNSON FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON NOMINATED THOMAS MESAROS FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. There were no further nominations. Councilmember Bloom made a statement regarding her nominee; since she has been in on office there has been an ongoing, not so subtle campaign to diminish the status of the legislative branch of Edmonds government. Today Council is considering taking part in diminishing its own status, considering breaking precedent by electing a member, Councilmember Mesaros, who has less than ten months of experience, to a position of authority within the Council. She felt this disrespected the Council’s role in government and also disrespects the voters who place the Council in a position of responsibility. She nominated Councilmember Petso because she has over eight years of experience as a Councilmember and is the most qualified to be Council President Pro Tem. Councilmember Peterson said he proudly nominated Councilmember Mesaros; although he has served on the Council a short time, his work has been exemplary. His ability to work within the community, with staff, and with Councilmembers; his even demeanor; and his view for moving the process forward no matter the outcome says a lot for his legislative stance. His professional work outside the community has been tremendous. He was honored to nominate Councilmember Mesaros for this position. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she nominated Councilmember Johnson who served as Council Pro Tem last year and could have been Council President this year. She served on a number of committees last year, her leadership is well known and she should continue for another year as Council President Pro Tem. City Clerk Scott Passey distributed Roll Call sheets to be used as ballots and read the results of each ballot: Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 1 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Packet Page 6 of 586 Abstain Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification that four votes for one person were required to select the Council President Pro Tem. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 2 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 3 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she abstained from the vote because all three nominees have valuable input and ways to serve the City and she did not want to alienate anyone. If the vote is a 3-3 tie, she will have to break tie but at this point she did not intend to enter into the election. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 4 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 5 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Mayor Earling relayed a question whether the Council wanted to adjourn to executive session for discussion or continue voting. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether adjourning to executive session would be appropriate. Mr. Taraday offered to review the statute; he did believe it would be appropriate because although the Council can adjourn to executive session to discuss the qualification of a candidate for appointment to a vacancy, but did not think it was appropriate in this circumstance. Councilmember Johnson observed it would take four votes to select a Council President Pro Tem not just a simple majority. City Clerk Scott Passey agreed four votes would be required. Mr. Taraday advised four votes is a simple majority of the seven Councilmembers present. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 6 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Packet Page 7 of 586 In response to the earlier question, Mr. Taraday advised in his opinion the exemption for evaluating the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office did not apply. While each Councilmember holds elective office, he did not consider the Council Presidency to be an elective office in the way that the phrase is used in the RCW. He recommended the Council not go into executive session to discuss the qualifications of the candidates. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 7 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Mayor Earling declared a five minute recess. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 8 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 9 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Petso asked whether the candidates could make a statement regarding their interest in the position. Mayor Earling answered that was not in keeping with past protocol. Mr. Taraday advised the Council can alter its own procedure. Councilmember Petso thanked Councilmember Johnson for her work this year and Councilmember Mesaros for his interest in serving in this role. She would be happy to serve in the role of Council President Pro Tem for the coming year, having worked with Council President Fraley-Monillas in the past. She would serve without the expectation of it being a building block toward the future. She expressed the goal of being inclusive of all Councilmembers and trying to ensure everyone is aware of things she is working on and her plans. Councilmember Mesaros was pleased Councilmember Peterson nominated him. He was excited to serve as Council President Pro Tem. He brings new ideas and ways of doing things and a fresh approach to the Council. In response to Councilmember Bloom’s comment about his lack of longevity on the Council, he viewed that as a strength with regard to what he can bring to the table such as his leadership experience working in healthcare and consulting. He was eager to serve the City in this role. Councilmember Johnson said her primary goal was to serve the residents and citizens of Edmonds. She agreed Councilmember Petso has had quite a lot of experience including serving as Council President Pro Tem twice and Council President once. Councilmember Mesaros brings a fresh set of eyes and his lack of experience should not disqualify him. She offered continuity between the old and new Council administration. The Council needs to work together and she found these discussions uncomfortable because they seem so divisive at a time when the Council should be working together. Packet Page 8 of 586 Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council President Pro Tem must be selected tonight. Mr. Taraday read from ECC 1.02.031, Following the initial six month term, the Council President shall be elected for one year terms by the City Council at the first Council meeting of each year and shall serve a one year term until his/her successor is elected. At the same time, the City Council shall elect the Council President Pro Tempore. He summarized according to the City Code it needed to be done at this meeting but there was no State law that required it. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 10 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 11 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Council President Fraley-Monillas offered a list of things she needs from a Council President Pro Tem in order to be efficient and do her job well: • Makes decisions quickly and efficiently • Think outside the box, just because something has been done one way doesn’t mean that has to continue • Help manage special projects that may come up, again thinking outside the box • Ability to be easily reached for discussion Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested if the Councilmember did not fit those qualifications, he/she not be successful in the position in the coming year. As outgoing Council President, Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council started last year and the previous year on a rocky road; she had thought tonight would be a seamless process and suggested the Council work together. The resolution commending her for her service as Council President enumerates all the work the Council accomplished last year as a team. Similar to Councilmember Johnson, she found this process embarrassing and disruptive. She reiterated Councilmember Johnson is the best candidate for the position of Council President to provide continuity. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 12 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 13 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Abstain Fraley-Monillas Packet Page 9 of 586 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO MOVE #7, SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM, TO ITEM 18A. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. 8. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2015 Council President Fraley-Monillas read the appointments: Committee Representative Community Transit Mayor Earling & Councilmember Buckshnis (Alt) Disability Board Councilmember Bloom & Council President Fraley-Monillas Economic Development Commission Councilmembers Mesaros & Petso Highway 99 Task Force Council President Fraley-Monillas & Councilmember Johnson Historic Preservation Advisory Commission Councilmembers Petso & Johnson Lake Ballinger Work Group Councilmember Buckshnis Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Position #2 Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee TBD PFD Oversight Committee Councilmember Petso PFD Task Force Not meeting at present Councilmember Petso if meetings resume Port of Edmonds Councilmembers Bloom & Mesaros Regional Fire Authority Not meeting at present Councilmember Petso and Mayor Earling if meetings resume SeaShore Transportation Forum Councilmember Mesaros Snohomish County Emergency Radio System Governing Board Position #2 SNOCOM Councilmember Mesaros Snohomish Health District Council President Fraley-Monillas Snohomish County Tomorrow Councilmembers Buckshnis & Bloom Salmon Recovery – WRIA-8 Councilmember Buckshnis Transportation Committee Councilmember Johnson Tree Board Liaison Councilmember Bloom COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2015. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1330 APPOINTING COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD. Councilmember Johnson said she had no problem with appointing Council President Fraley-Monillas. She expressed concern with the wording in Section 1 that identifies the appointee for the calendar year 2015 and thereafter until such time as the Council shall make a new appointment. She preferred to make the appointment for the calendar year 2015 and make the appointment annually as has been done in the past. Packet Page 10 of 586 Councilmember Peterson asked whether the resolution reflected the same language that was used in the past. City Clerk Passey advised the same wording was used in the past. He referred to a scrivener’s error at the end of the resolution, the date of January 6, 2016 should be January 6, 2015. Mayor Earling answered the language “until such time as the Council shall make a new appointment” would address a situation where a successor was not named immediately, the previous appointee could continue until a new appointment was made. Council President Fraley-Monillas found the language in the resolution acceptable. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1331, APPOINTING DAVE EARLING AS THE REPRESENTATIVE AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AS THE ALTERNATE TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION. Councilmember Bloom relayed she did not understand why the Mayor was appointed to this position rather than a Councilmember. Instead of voting tonight, she suggested postponing a decision to allow discussion at a work session. She was not opposed but she wanted to understand. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Mayor Earling has a tremendous amount of knowledge related to Snohomish County Public Transportation and she believed he was the best fit for this appointment. Mayor Earling offered to provide some background. Councilmember Bloom reiterated she did not understand why this was not a Council position and she preferred to discuss it at a study session. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the reason she assigned Mayor Earling was there were so many other committee positions to fill, if the Mayor was willing to take on a committee, she was willing because it was one less committee meeting for a Councilmembers to attend. Councilmember Johnson suggested it was appropriate to move a topic to a study session when one Councilmember wanted to discuss it at a study session. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A STUDY SESSION. Councilmember Peterson asked if the motion to postpone was in order. Mr. Taraday offered to research. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised no one on the Council asked to serve on this committee. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether this appointment was time sensitive. She was concerned postponing to a study session and scheduling it on a subsequent business meeting agenda would mean the representative would miss a meeting. Mayor Earling advised postponing a decision would mean the City would not have a representative at Thursday’s board meeting. Councilmember Mesaros suggested voting on the assignment but still have a study session regarding the role of the position and how it benefits the City. Packet Page 11 of 586 Mayor Earling explained the appointment to Community Transit is a position that could be filled by the Mayor or a Councilmember. If he is not appointed, the City will also lose its seat at on the Sound Transit Board because one follows the other. Community Transit has a two year election cycle; elections were held last year. Although there are three larger cities, Lynnwood, Marysville and Edmonds, there are only two seats and which cities fill those seats is decided by those three cities. If he was not the representative, the other two members would have the discretion to appoint the Lynnwood representative who was currently an alternate. He summarized if he is not appointed tonight, the City runs the risk of not having a Community Transit seat and guarantees the City does not having a Sound Transit seat. In response to the earlier question, Mr. Taraday advised the motion to postpone is in order even when another motion is pending. Councilmember Bloom expressed her appreciation for Mayor Earling’s explanation. This has confused her every year for the past three years and this is first she has heard about the connection between the positions. That was the reason she wanted to postpone the appointment to clarify and understand the role of the two positions and the value of appointing the Mayor rather than a Councilmember. She acknowledged they are two very important positions and the Council should consider whether it was better to appoint a Councilmember rather than the Mayor. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support a motion to postpone, reiterating no Councilmember requested this appointment. If the Council made this appointment tonight, Councilmember Petso asked whether Council President Fraley-Monillas planned to schedule this on an upcoming study session. Council President Fraley- Monillas agreed that would be appropriate. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. 11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, requested Council review of the Edmonds sign code be scheduled for March 10, 2015. This date gives the Planning Board ample time to review the sign code and submit revisions. The Planning Board’s February 25, 2015 agenda includes Urban Design Element which fits well with the sign code review since good sign codes seek to maintain the attractiveness that good urban design produces. She explained her appeal of the Planning Department’s decision on an Old Mill Town sign was directed to the Hearing Examiner. She did not believe her complaint was a matter for the Hearing Examiner who decides only whether an action complies with the code. The Planning Department correctly decided that the sign did comply with the code. The sign code section that permitted the sign needs to be changed, one of several sign code sections that need to be revised. Since only the legislative branch enacts and amends ordinances, she requested the Council execute its early 2014 decision to make review of the sign code a priority. The legislative branch sets its own agenda and the date when items are heard. Nathan Proudfoot, Edmonds, a volunteer with Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA), explained ESCA provides volunteers for Edmonds as well as several neighboring communities in South Snohomish County and North King County including Kenmore and Woodinville. He invited community members to get involved in ESCA by visiting their website, ESCA1.com or sign up for a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) or radio class. CERT training is designed to prepare citizens to help Packet Page 12 of 586 themselves, their family and their neighbors in the event of catastrophic disaster. Professional emergency services personnel will not be available to help everyone immediately so citizens can make a difference by using their CERT training to protect and save lives. ESCA began providing CERT classes in 1996 and has graduated 800 citizens from the CERT program. The next class is January 15 – March 5, Thursdays from 7:00 – 10:00 p.m. at Northshore Fire Station 51 in Kenmore. Training is provided in emergency preparedness, fire safety, light urban search and rescue, medical triage and treatment, damage assessment, incident command, disaster psychology and terrorism. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, wished the Council Happy New Year, commenting the Council was off to the usual start as illustrated by the Council President Pro Tem election. He referred to public comments made by bicycle enthusiasts at meetings late last year, noting it was unfortunate they did not speak out when Public Works painted over the bike lane on Sunset Avenue. The bike lane on Sunset worked very efficiently for 20 years; the current situation, bicycles sharing the substandard pathway or larger sidewalk is problematic. He recalled the bike lane was created to reduce the width of Sunset to prevent kids from cruising and parking in the middle of the street. The bike lane has existed since then and there has not been any real controversy on Sunset other than the threat of fence and planting brambles to keep people off the bluff. He suggested the City was assuming liability for injury on a sidewalk with pedestrians and bikes as well as liability for the poor design of the angle parking. He recommended it be corrected now and not allowed to continue for a year. Dave Page, Edmonds, wished the Council Happy New Year. He relayed following the last the Council President Pro Tem vote, he commented to Ron Wambolt that it was democracy in action. Mr. Wambolt’s response was it beats the alternative. Mr. Page agreed, relaying he was grateful to live in a country where citizens can have it out at Council meetings and have an opportunity to make a difference. In response to Mayor Earling’s inquiry about topics for the State of the City address, he suggested talking about the good things that have been happened. The City has been through hell and walked a fine line; some cities have not recovered and are deeply in debt. The Mayor and Council have done a remarkable job in the last 2-3 years. 12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO COUNCILMEMBER DIANE BUCKSHNIS FOR HER SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT IN 2014 Council President Fraley-Monillas read Resolution 1328 thanking Councilmember Buckshnis for her service as Council President beginning January 7, 2014 for a one year term. Council President Fraley- Monillas presented the resolution and a plaque to Councilmember Buckshnis. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she just drove the car last year; she thanked the Council team for all the wonderful accomplishments and the tremendous job everyone did during 2014. 13. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE THANKING COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON FOR HIS SERVICE AS AN EDMONDS CITY COUNCILMEMBER Council President Fraley-Monillas read Resolution 1329 thanking Councilmember Peterson for his service on the City Council since he was appointed January 20, 2009 to fill Position 2 and during his subsequent election to two consecutive terms. Council President Fraley-Monillas presented the resolution and a plaque to Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Peterson thanked the City for the resolution. With regard to the environmental work the City has worked on, when packing for his desk in Olympia he found a jar of disgusting water distributed when Algalita Marine Research Foundation made a presentation to the Council in 2009, the year the plastic gyre was discovered in the Pacific Ocean, his inspiration for the plastic bag ordinance. The community has rallied around environmental issues and has often led the way. He thanked City staff, an Packet Page 13 of 586 incredible group of people, for their dedication which is reflected in the environmental initiatives and awards the City has won. It has been a true honor to work with such dedicated professionals who care about the City and its citizens in everything they do. Councilmember Peterson thanked Mayors Earling, Cooper and Haakenson and current and past Councilmembers. He recognized being a Councilmember was a tough job, one that Councilmembers all relish and appreciate. While Councilmembers may disagree, he assured everyone was serving for the right reason and that’s what makes democracy work. He summarized he was proud to have served the citizens of Edmonds as a Councilmember and looked forward to continuing to serve the citizens of Edmonds and the 21st District in Olympia. 14. WELCOME TO THE NEW EDMONDS LIBRARIAN, CHY ROSS Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the new Edmonds Librarian, Chy Ross, replaces former Librarian Leslie Chaplin who retired. She invited the Council to join her in welcoming Mr. Ross to the community; he has great ideas for the library and the community. Librarian Chy Ross expressed his appreciation for the warm welcome he has received in Edmonds. He is excited about the opportunity to manage the Edmonds Library. He illustrated why he loves working in the library and was excited to be at the Edmonds Library; today in a half hour on the library floor he helped a 4-year old sign up for her first library card, helped a teen select a mystery for a class assignment, helped a patron find a manual online for an electronic item, and helped another patron get set up on a public computer to complete an online job application. The Edmonds Library is busy and vital and the people of Edmonds enjoy and value the library by using in variety of ways. This is illustrated in how much library is used; in 2014 an average of 720 people visited the library each day taking advantage of a variety of resources and checking out an average of 1,000 books and materials. His focus will be to continue that good work as well as to work hard to ensure the library remains relevant and responsive to the community and to provide viable information services that the Edmonds community needs. He wants the library to be engaged with community and be a catalyst for a connected, economically sound community. His goal was that the library be the first place people think of when they have an informational need and that the library continues to be Edmonds’ community doorway to reading, resources, and lifelong learning and a center for people, ideas, and culture. He invited the Council to stop in and say hello. 15. EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ISSUES Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty recalled when the Council last discussed this at a study session, there were three issues raised during consideration of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) 2015 work program and budget, 1) the rate structure, 2) the BID’s boundaries, and 3) collections. He referred to the memo and attachments included in the agenda packet that were reviewed at the study session and requested the Council consider whether to direct the Mayor and staff to study any of the issues and return with alternatives for Council consideration. He described the three issues: • Bid assessment rate structure o Questions have been raised regarding current rate structure. o Information provided indicates there are a variety of rate structures, no trend line to follow. • Delinquent payment collections o Current procedure  Members who do not pay are sent a notice with 30 days to reply.  Staff works with members who reply, even up to a year. Packet Page 14 of 586  Members who not reply, they are sent to collections • Boundary o BID offered to study whether to expand the boundaries o Determined that was a Mayor/staff work item, not a BID task Councilmember Bloom recalled the Council had a very lengthy discussion during the study session. She expressed concern that none of the previous discussions including comments made by BID members during Audience Comments were attached to agenda as is typically done. The Council was essentially starting from ground zero because she was unable to reference what had been stated during previous discussions. She felt the Council needed information regarding previous discussions to be able to discuss this. Main Motion #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO NEXT WEEK’S WORK SESSION. Councilmember Petso suggested discussing this at the Council retreat. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY /COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE COUNCIL RETREAT. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council had decided not to pursue some items and the biggest issue was the rate structure. Councilmember Bloom recalled that as well but the agenda materials did not reflect that discussion. She preferred to discuss the issues at length at a retreat with the attachments. Council President Fraley-Monillas envisioned the retreat as an opportunity to work on goals for the next year, not as an extension of a Council meeting. She preferred to discuss this at a work session. Action on Amendment #1 AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES. Councilmember Peterson commented the Council has had at least two work sessions on this and he was uncertain what a third work session would accomplish. The Council has discussed these issues ad nauseam and he was ready to make a decision. Finding the related information in this electronic era is simple if Councilmembers felt there was not enough information attached to the agenda. The Council has a lot of issues on future agendas including Highway 99, transportation studies, the Comprehensive Plan update, sign code, etc. He felt it was a bad way to start 2015 discussing items that have already been discussed 3-4 times in 2014. He did not support the motion to postpone. Council President Fraley-Monillas preferred to consider the issues tonight and suggested Mr. Doherty could reference any additional information. Mr. Doherty advised this was not an opportunity to decide what to do but to decide whether to direct staff to research and return with options. The information in the minutes from previous meetings are opinions and observations from the public, BID and Council regarding the importance or veracity of the issues; there is no conclusory information in the record. What was discussed at the last study session was the potential of not pursuing two of the items but a definitive decision could not be made because it was study session. The intent at this business meeting was to decide which if any of the issues to direct staff to pursue. Councilmember Bloom reiterated there was no information attached to agenda. Although it is easy to find, it is also easy to attach to the agenda. She did not support proceeding with discussion tonight when all the information was not attached to the agenda for the Council and public’s reference. It should not be Packet Page 15 of 586 the Council’s burden to sort through materials; it should be attached to the agenda for easy reference. It is helpful but also necessary to have that information available. Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Doherty to summarize the Council’s discussion at the study session and indicate whether he has a recommendation. Call for the Question & Action COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Main Motion #1 MAIN MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES. Mr. Doherty recalled several people expressed opinions at previous study sessions. With regard to the rate structure, the BID currently has a two-tiered system whereby open door and by appointment businesses are assessed different rates. Questions have been raised regarding whether the difference between the open door and by appointment assessments rates is appropriate, whether there should a lower rate for by appointment businesses, whether the square footage ranges are too large, and concern by some that the structure is not fair to by appointment businesses and the rate is too high. Staff’s research found other BIDs utilize a variety of rate structures including square footage, size of property, gross income of the business, number of employees, etc. As he stated at the study session, staff’s soft recommendation is it may be early in the life of the BID to make a change. With regard to expanding the boundary, there was discussion at the study session that this may not be the time to raise that issue. With regard to the collection of delinquent payments, Councilmembers expressed concern at the study session with how an assessment program could be operated if members could simply opt out and not pay. As illustrated by the BID’s work program and budget, the BID projects and programs a certain income stream to fund activities in the work plan. If the BID could not count on that income because members could decide whether to pay, it would be difficult to fund a work program. Main Motion #2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REQUEST THE MAYOR AND STAFF RESEARCH ALL THREE AREAS AND RETURN WITH MORE CHOICES. Councilmember Peterson reiterated the Council has had two work sessions specifically about this as well as other study sessions and presentation by the BID and staff. He was unsure what other information staff would provide. With regard to the assessment structure, there is no standard structure and he was doubtful new research would find a standard. With regard to delinquent payments, if BID members do not pay their assessment and are not willing to work with the BID, it is a delinquent payment. Expanding the BID boundaries cannot be studied if there is this much unease about how it is operated. He supported staff’s soft recommendation to allow the BID to proceed and to continue to provide feedback to the Council. Councilmember Petso asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday whether he had had an opportunity to review Washington State case law and appellant court decisions with regard to the equity of fee assessments. Mr. Taraday answered no. Councilmember Petso asked the same of Mr. Doherty. Mr. Doherty said he reviewed one case that was outlined on Municipal Services Research Center (MSRC) regarding assessments. His understanding from that case was the Edmonds Downtown BID’s assessments did not violate the conclusions of the case. That case was related to the use of the fees having some benefit for the members; the question of benefit is ultimately almost schematic and philosophical. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of this agenda item was to determine whether he should do that research. Packet Page 16 of 586 Amendment #1 and Action COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO BREAK IT INTO THE THREE OPTIONS AND VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in more information on how to expand the boundaries. She understood now may not be the right time but research would provide information regarding what to expect. She also expressed interest in how other BIDs do collections. She agreed enough information may have already been provided regarding the rate structure. Councilmember Mesaros agreed enough information has been provided on the assessment structure. It would be interesting to learn how other BIDs collect delinquent collections. He agreed it would be good to know the process for expanding the boundary, recalling the boundary could be expanded up to 10%. Councilmember Petso explained the reason she was concerned about the rate structure was it may be illegal to charge businesses disproportionate to the benefit they receive. If the BID was overcharging by appointment businesses or small businesses relative to the benefit they could arguably be receiving, that was a concern and she preferred to allow Mr. Taraday to research that question. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso, pointing out the rate structure is the most controversial issue. The information Mr. Doherty presented only illustrated the difference in the rates and nothing about fairness. She also recommended the Council consider the comments made at previous Council meetings by BID members Tom Wilks and Brent Malgarin regarding the rate structure. More than the other two issues, she felt it was very important for the Council to consider and get more information regarding the rate structure, particularly the legality. Councilmember Johnson was satisfied with the work that has been done by the Finance Director regarding delinquent payments and staff has also thoroughly described the process for expand the boundaries. The first year a business is part of the BID, they are not assessed. She was satisfied if the Council chose to have further discussion regarding the rate structure but felt the Council did not need any additional information on the other two issues. Main Motion #3 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, THAT THE COUNCIL REQUEST A PRESENTATION AT A STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE RATE STRUCTURE AND SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING A LEGAL REVIEW OF THE GUIDELINES FOR AN APPROPRIATE RATE STRUCTURE. Action on Main Motion #3 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Main Motion #4 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REVIEW THE METHOD OF COLLECTION AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO PURSUE COLLECTIONS AGAINST THE MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PAYING THEIR FEES. Councilmember Petso asked for clarification regarding the motion. Councilmember Bloom explained she was interested in a review of how collections are being done, how many people are not paying and reviewing the appropriateness of pursuing collections. Packet Page 17 of 586 Acton on Main Motion #4 MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES. Main Motion #5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DIRECT THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO RESEARCH THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE POTENTIAL BID BOUNDARY EXPANSION AND WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE. Action on Main Motion #5 MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 16. PRESENTATION UPDATE ON THE WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster advised the City recently received a $157,000 grant to continue the project. Tonight’s presentation will show preliminary route options for the daylighted channel through Marina Beach Park and Ms. Hite will describe the Master Plan process. He acknowledged the City’s partners in this project: Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) who has provided three grants since 2011; Keeley O’Connell, EarthCorps, who has helped the City with this project for past 3 years and has been a great advocate in the community; and Dave Cline, Shannon & Wilson, the primary consultant on the project. David Cline, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. explained tonight’s presentation will provide an overview of the feasibility study, the alignment options and how they dovetail with the Marina Beach Master Plan process, a separate yet parallel process. He provided a lidar image of the study area, the 32-acre marsh under consideration for restoration with SR 104 on the east, Harbor Square and Dayton Street to the north, the Unocal property to the south and the BNSF railway property to the northwest that parallels the daylighted area. The image identified the existing open channel and the proposed daylight route that would need to be excavated that would cross underneath the railroad and onto Marina Beach Park. The stream currently flows along the open channel along the Unocal and BNSF property, turns into stormwater pipes, a portion owned by the Port of Edmonds, through a tidegate on the park property, through City property and discharges to Puget Sound. Mr. Cline displayed a photograph of the existing open channel looking north (Unocal property on the right and BNSF property on the left). The feasibility study looked at using the same channel alignment and the same general configuration but providing enhancements and improvements including riparian treatments such as shrubs, possibly trees, plantings and modifications to the channel to improve fish passage habitat in the form of structure allowing the appropriate velocity with tidal exchange as well as riparian cover, shading and food for fish as they move along the long, straight migration corridor. He displayed a photograph of the existing open channel looking south, identifying the area on the Unocal property that was excavated, cleaned up and filled. He identified the approximate daylight alignment that would be excavated to create a channel similar to the upstream area that would be enhanced with the same riparian wood treatments. He displayed photographs of the existing stormwater pipe outfall and the tidegate (floodgate). The project will replace the tidegate because hydrodynamic modeling in the feasibility study show flooding conditions can be improved with a daylight channel. In the current configuration, the stormwater pipes and tidegates create a chokepoint that backs up water toward SR 104 and Dayton Street. A floodgate is still needed to protect from tidal inflow into low lying interior areas. Packet Page 18 of 586 Mr. Cline reviewed the Willow Creek Daylight Project schedule: • Early Feasibility Study – Completed (May 2013) • Final Feasibility Study – In progress (July 2015) • Marina Beach Park Master Plan – In progress (July 2015) • Will Creek Daylight preliminary design – Starting (summer 2015), complete (fall 2016) Mr. Cline displayed the image of the channel, identifying the location of a pre-fabricated bridge as mitigation for Sound Transit work in the area. He described Marina Beach Preliminary Daylight options: Option A: Southerly Route near Off-Leash Dog Area After the prefabricated bridge Channel turns south of the parking lot in the off-leash dog area. He identified the location of geotechnical borings, test pits, etc. used to inform whether there was any contaminated soils, soil conditions, bank stabilization, etc. He provided photographs with a depiction of the channel alignment through the off-leash dog area, explaining this would be a large excavation, 40-50 feet across, with fairly flat side slopes and 10-foot bottom widths. The size is based on geomorphology of other tidal channels in the area. Option B: Northerly Route along Existing Grass, Parking and Beach area After the prefabricated bridge, channel goes in a northwesterly direction, through the south parking lot, the existing grassy knoll, and out through the woody debris beach area. He provided photographs with a depiction of the alignment through Marina Beach Park and the beach. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the microalgae beds at the off-leash dog area. Mr. Cline answered that is a good food source for fish. The feasibility studies considered the shoreline attractants for migrating fish which include drift, food sources such as the microalgae beds, and the stream flow. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happens at very low tides. Mr. Cline answered there are a lot of coastal creeks and streams that experience similar conditions at very low tide. There may not be fish passage at that time but there will be access to the channel at higher tide. The excavation will extend to the sandy area in front of the woody debris; the elevation of the channel is near the mean tide level. The tide is expected to inundate the area 50% of the time. He anticipated there would continue to be low flow at low tides due to good stream flow plus the marsh will take a long time to drain. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the Marina Beach Master Planning process has begun. The two preferable channels for the creek over Marina Beach will drastically change the landscape. Staff went through an RFP process; following an evaluation panel and reference checks, Walker Macy was hired to lead the public process for the Marina Beach Master Plan and they are in the process of gathering information. A Project Advisory Committee has been formed comprised with representatives of the Planning Board, Off-Leash Area, Friends of the Edmonds March, Marina Beach users, as well as Keely O’Connell and Mr. Shuster who will work with Mr. Cline and his team to match science with the Master Plan and have a robust public process to consider how Marina Beach Park look and feel with daylighting of Willow Creek. She assured there would be several touch points with the Council in the coming months and was hopeful the Master Plan would be adopted by July 2015. Councilmember Mesaros asked about plans for people to traverse the stream. Ms. Hite answered there is no plan yet. As part of the interview process, consultants were asked to provide ideas of how the stream would be incorporated into the park. Walker Macy suggested footbridges as well as adding an educational and environmental component to the park. Councilmember Petso referred to the fee the City pays the Port of Edmonds for the use of the storm pipe and asked if that pipe was connected with this project. Public Works Director Phil Williams identified the Packet Page 19 of 586 section of pipe on the Port’s property that the City’s stormwater flows through and the City pays a quarterly lease for use of the pipe. Councilmember Petso asked whether this project offers an opportunity to relocate that pipe to eliminate that lease. Mr. Williams answered the project offers opportunity to have that conversation with the Port. The pipe could have a use in the after condition as part of an active system to help with flooding problems. The flooding study, which is also a companion to this project, has not been completed. This project will remove the creek flow from that pipe and may provide opportunity to use the pipe for another useful purpose. Councilmember Petso commented the payment is not an insignificant amount and she was hopeful the project would reduce that obligation. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a significant unfunded project, the relocation of the ferry to this general area. She asked whether that was considered in the feasibility studies. Ms. Hite answered yes; Walker Macy is considering the conceptual drawings in the Master Plan of Marina Beach. Councilmember Johnson referred to the alternatives analysis that may include a train trench and asked how that was considered. Mr. Williams answered the alternatives analysis could provide more information than currently exists regarding what a train trench would look like, design options for the trench, etc. There may be ways to make this project and that project compatible but that would need to be studied further. He recalled challenges identified during Tetra Tech’s presentation regarding vertical curves, linear distance required to reach a certain depth, etc. Initial estimates of the length of the train trench would put it in conflict with the current location of the bridge. Further preliminary design would need to be done to provide answers. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the public information process for the Marina Mark Master Plan. Ms. Hite answered the Project Advisory Committee will help guide the process and three public open houses are planned as well as touch points with the Planning Board, Council and public hearings. The process will include public open house, outreach to park users on initial concepts, schematic design process, another public open house to look at alternatives, presentation of alternatives to the Council and final decision on a concept. She summarized this is a Master Plan so it will be a concept design. 17. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DOG DAY AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised this is the same agreement signed last year. The Edmonds City Code allows her and the Mayor to authorize concessions in parks. Because the code addresses seasonal concessions and this is a year-round concession, she brought this to the Council for approval. This concession is appropriate for the park, many people use the ATM before boarding the ferry and it adds to Park Department revenues. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DOG DAY AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how much the City receives from this concession. Ms. Hite answered $200 during the first 6 month; she offered to inform the Council when a full year’s revenue was reported. In total the City receives $10,000 for all park concessions. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 18. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL UPDATE OF COUNCIL VACANCY INTERVIEWS, APPOINTMENT PROCESS, AND APPLICATION FORM QUESTIONS Packet Page 20 of 586 Mayor Earling advised Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Peterson have been working on this. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Attachment 1, Edmonds City Council Candidate Interview and Voting Process. She clarified neither she nor Councilmember Peterson had any vested interest in the process but were presenting options in an effort to make the process smoother than it was the last time. Councilmember Peterson explained he and Council President Fraley-Monillas were tasked with codifying the process. Proposed changes include: • Expanding the application to include some basic questions • Councilmembers submitting interview questions so there was consistency between interviews • In lieu of interviewing all applicants, each Councilmember would identify five to be interviewed Councilmember Peterson explained the addition of basic questions and Councilmembers each identifying five candidates to be interviewed may allow the Council to begin the interview process with some semblance of agreement. He clarified Councilmembers were not required to vote for a candidate they identified to be interviewed. When the process reaches voting, many cities do different things; he felt voting was democracy in action. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember are also encouraged to contact applicants in advance of the interview to get questions answered. She recalled a lot of time had been spent during past interviews asking candidates questions related to Councilmember’s individual interests. Extra Council questions are proposed to be limited to one per Councilmember and the suggested interview timeframe is 40 minutes which is an increase from the current 30 minutes. The proposed process addresses the order of appearance, not allowing candidates in the Council Chambers until they are interviewed, two minute opening statement, formal and informal questions, two minute closing statement, and adjourning to executive session. Due to the late hour, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council address the application tonight and continue discussing the other issues at future meetings. She asked what changes had been made to the application. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised volunteer experience, strengths and weaknesses, and greatest challenge were added. Councilmember Mesaros suggested changing the title to reflect Position 2. Council President Fraley- Monillas suggested eliminating the position number from the application. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that whoever was appointed to Position 2 would run for office in the fall to retain their position. Councilmember Peterson agreed. Council President Fraley- Monillas suggested adding that information at the top of the application. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council also discuss live streaming of the interviews at a future meeting. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED AND SCHEDULE THE REMAINDER OF THE DISCUSSION FOR A WORK SESSION. Councilmember Johnson asked when applications were due. Mr. Taraday advised it is up to Council to make that decision. Councilmember Peterson suggested making the changes to the application, make the application available Monday, January 12, and require applications be submitted by Monday, February 2 which would provide three weeks to apply. The deadline for submitting the application is provided on the last page of the application. Packet Page 21 of 586 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Student Rep Eslami commented when filling out college applications, the question was often asked why this college. He suggested adding a question to the application about why the person wanted to serve. President Fraley-Monillas suggested amending Question 6 to read, “Why do you wish to serve and what do you believe to be the greatest challenge for our council?” Councilmember Johnson pointed out a typo in Question 5, yours should be your. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 18A. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2015 (Continued) Councilmember Petso asked if the meeting could be continued to a date certain, January 13, and therefore comply with the requirement that the Council President Pro Tem be elected at the first meeting. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded that is an interesting idea but raises questions regarding the Open Public Meeting Act Special Meeting notice and seems a little contrived. Councilmember Petso agreed it was contrived but thought the Council had the ability to continue a meeting to a date certain. Mr. Taraday answered the Council can certainly continue hearings but he was not certain how Roberts Rules of Order addressed continuing a meeting. If this matter is not decided tonight, whether the meeting is continued or adjourned, the Council has given itself an argument that they have technically complied with City code. Councilmember Petso relayed her preference to comply with the code. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the language was at the first meeting or could this agenda item be moved to another meeting and the current Council President Pro Tem remain until a new one is elected. Mr. Taraday relayed the language in the code states, “at the same time.” Whether a continued meeting would be at the same time was an interesting question. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 14 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 1 Petso Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 15 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 1 Petso Abstain Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Bloom reiterated her earlier statement that electing Councilmember Mesaros who only has ten months in office was a bad precedent to set and it was disrespectful to citizens. Councilmember Johnson has much more experience than Councilmember Mesaros. She still strongly supports Councilmember Petso and feels she is the best candidate for job but she strongly opposes appointing someone with so little experience and felt it was a disservice to the voters. She commented nothing prepares a person to be a Councilmember except being a Councilmember, not previous leadership, or any previous experience. A Councilmember is a political position and it is not comparable to anything Councilmember Mesaros had done in the past. She could not support someone who had so little experience. Packet Page 22 of 586 Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 16 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 1 Petso Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 17 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 1 Petso Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 18 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Petso 1 Petso COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:35 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 19 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Petso 1 Petso Ballot 20 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Petso 1 Petso COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO TAKE UP THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM NOW AND RETURN TO THIS AFTERWARD. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether Mr. Taraday had determined the Council needed to stay all night voting or could voting be continued at the next meeting. Mr. Taraday answered if each meeting is considered to be a session under Roberts Rules which Edmonds has historically done, each meeting has new agenda. That is the reason reconsideration is appropriate at the same meeting. If the goal is to be as technically correct and compliant with the code as possible, it would not be proper to add to this to the agenda of the next meeting along with other new items that were not on this agenda. To be technically correct, this meeting/session would be continued to a separate meeting. There is a distinction under Roberts Rules of Order between one session and another. The continued part of this session could occur on January 13 at a certain time and the next session could be the regular January 13. The code does not talk about sessions or Roberts Rules; it states the first meeting of year and at the same time. If the Council wants to be true to the code, the decision should be made tonight. He clarified no one is going to sue the City if a decision is not made tonight; there is not a lot of legal risk associated with not making a decision tonight. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO MOVE THIS TO 5:30 ON JANUARY 13. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was to have this meeting on January prior to the study session. Mr. Taraday said he would advise City Clerk Scott Passey to prepare a special meeting notice Packet Page 23 of 586 that states continuation of agenda item 7 from January 6. The regular January 13 meeting would have its own agenda, notice, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained she made this motion because the Council was on ballot 21 and it is 10:30 p.m. Now that the Council knows who is interested in the job, those Councilmember can think about whether they wanted the job of Council President Pro Tem, have discussions with coworkers, etc. and possibly a quicker resolution may be reached on January 13. Councilmember Petso said to the best of her knowledge she is at present the swing vote and she assured this is more likely to be resolved on January 13 than tonight. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out there will be one less Councilmember on January 13. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how much work Mr. Taraday did with the Council Pro Tem last year when she was not around. Mr. Taraday answered he was not sure if the work he did with Councilmember Johnson in her capacity as Council President Pro Tem was materially different than any other Councilmember; it did not seem she asked anything more of him than any other Councilmember asked of him. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not mean to marginalize the Pro Tem position, but clarified the Pro Tem fills in when the Council President is not available. Councilmember Petso clarified if was up to her to choose one of the other candidates, based on the information she has at this time, she was not able to do so. It was not specifically related to the duties of the office or the individual seeking to serve; in at least one instance, other issues were impacted by the choice and she was not able to change her vote tonight. Councilmember Johnson asked if tonight was Councilmember Peterson’s last meeting. Councilmember Peterson said tonight was his last meeting. For that reason, Councilmember Johnson felt it was important to press on. Councilmember Petso suggested if there were only six Councilmembers, the candidate receiving three votes would be elected. Mr. Taraday clarified three is not a majority of six. Council President Fraley- Monillas clarified four votes would still be needed to make a selection even with six Councilmembers. Mr. Taraday said if there was a 3-3 tie with 6 Councilmembers, Mayor Earling could break the tie. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Petso requested a two minute break to confirm her information. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:50 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 21 Councilmember Johnson 2 Johnson, Buckshnis Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 3 Petso, Bloom, Fraley-Monillas Ballot 22 Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas Packet Page 24 of 586 Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Ballot 23 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Fraley-Monillas Ballot 24 Councilmember Johnson 2 Johnson, Buckshnis Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Ballot 25 Councilmember Johnson 2 Johnson, Buckshnis Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 3 Petso, Bloom, Fraley-Monillas Ballot 26 Councilmember Johnson 4 Johnson, Buckshnis, Mesaros, Peterson Councilmember Mesaros 1 Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom Mayor Earling announced Councilmember Johnson was elected Council President Pro Tem. 19. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Due to the late hour, this item was omitted. 20. COUNCIL COMMENTS Due to the late hour, this item was omitted. 21. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 10:47 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately five 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 Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Finance Director Scott James, and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 10:55 p.m. 22. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:55 p.m. 23. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Packet Page 25 of 586    AM-7405     4. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #212286 through #212410 dated January 8, 2015 for $541,643.82. 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 Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:541,643.82 Fiscal Impact: Claims $541,643.82 Attachments Claim cks 01-08-15 Project Numbers 01-08-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 01/08/2015 01:30 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 01/08/2015 01:35 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/08/2015 01:43 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2015 01:50 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 01/08/2015 11:35 AM Packet Page 26 of 586 Final Approval Date: 01/08/2015  Packet Page 27 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212286 1/8/2015 041695 3M XAM3522 TP18175 Traffic - Yellow EG Prismatic Sheeting Traffic - Yellow EG Prismatic Sheeting 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 240.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 22.80 Traffic - White Hi Prismatic SheetingTP18176 Traffic - White Hi Prismatic Sheeting 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 472.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 44.88 Traffic - Black 30"x50YDTP18177 Traffic - Black 30"x50YD 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 367.50 White 30"x50YD 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 183.75 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 52.37 Total :1,383.80 212287 1/8/2015 072627 911 ETC INC 30391 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint - Dec 2014 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total :100.00 212288 1/8/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 343592 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 82.12 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST 1-1343649 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 114.98 Total :197.10 212289 1/8/2015 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 1214204 ADULT BASKETBALL 3 ON 3 FALL 2014 SHIRTS ADULT BASKETBALL 3 ON 3 FALL 2014 SHIRTS 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 44.40 1Page: Packet Page 28 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212289 1/8/2015 (Continued)061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 4.22 ADULT WOMENS & COED VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS FA1214208 ADULT WOMENS & COED VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 152.22 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 14.46 ADULT PICKLEBALL SHIRTS FALL 20141214597 ADULT PICKLEBALL SHIRTS FALL 2014 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 66.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 6.33 Total :288.23 212290 1/8/2015 072189 ACCESS 0832585 COURT SHRED FILES COURT SHRED FILES 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 50.00 Total :50.00 212291 1/8/2015 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 41973818 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING Temporary help week ending 12/19/14 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,729.13 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING42021745 Temporary help week ending 12/26/14 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 587.25 Total :2,316.38 212292 1/8/2015 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND JANUARY 2015 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 1/2015 EDMONDS PD ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 01/2015 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,169.62 Total :2,169.62 212293 1/8/2015 001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC DeLilla.APWA 2015 DELILLA.APWA 2015 RENEWAL DeLilla.APWA 2015 Renewal 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 199.00 2Page: Packet Page 29 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212293 1/8/2015 (Continued)001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC ENGLISH.APWA 2015 RENEWALEnglish.APWA 2015 English.APWA 2015 Renewal 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 199.00 HAUSS.APWA 2015 RENEWALHauss.APWA 2015 Hauss.APWA 2015 Renewal 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 199.00 SHUSTER.APWA 2015 RENEWALShuster.APWA 2015 Shuster.APWA 2015 Renewal 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 199.00 Total :796.00 212294 1/8/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987786477 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.74 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS, & TOWELS1987797769 uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 74.16 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 7.05 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987797770 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.74 Total :160.85 212295 1/8/2015 001441 ASCAP 100004086161 2015 MUSIC LICENSE FEE ACCOUNT 500579369 2015 MUSIC LICENSE FEE 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 335.00 Total :335.00 212296 1/8/2015 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0685463-IN Fleet - Reg 6,000 Gal Fleet - Reg 6,000 Gal 3Page: Packet Page 30 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212296 1/8/2015 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 9,085.20 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 2,329.80 Diesel 2,565 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 4,880.17 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 1,003.49 Bio Diesel 135 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 525.74 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 54.71 WA St Svc Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 4.75 Total :17,933.86 212297 1/8/2015 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE1214 Pre-employment Background checks Pre-employment Background checks 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 30.00 Total :30.00 212298 1/8/2015 002070 BALANCING SERVICE CO INC 16430 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, OPERATIONS shop time and materials 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 233.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 22.20 Total :255.95 212299 1/8/2015 071348 BERGERABAM 309025 Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 30,877.13 Total :30,877.13 212300 1/8/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 3133 Fleet Auto Propane 500.1 Gal 4Page: Packet Page 31 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212300 1/8/2015 (Continued)074307 BLUE STAR GAS Fleet Auto Propane 500.1 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 605.62 Total :605.62 212301 1/8/2015 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 309406 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Sand Supplies Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Sand Supplies 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 902.32 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Sand Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 902.32 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Sand Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 902.32 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Sand Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 902.30 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 85.72 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 85.72 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 85.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 85.72 Total :3,952.14 212302 1/8/2015 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 92312329 Street - Cement Street - Cement 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 164.25 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 15.60 Total :179.85 212303 1/8/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14469331 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 5Page: Packet Page 32 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212303 1/8/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 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 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92 Total :273.74 212304 1/8/2015 074442 CAPITAL ONE 8941 City Holiday Brunch - Food City Holiday Brunch - Food 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 431.85 Total :431.85 212305 1/8/2015 003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 420997 YOST POOL PUMP REPLACEMENT YOST POOL PUMP REPLACEMENT 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 7,955.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 755.73 Total :8,710.73 212306 1/8/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN12141014 WWTP - CYLINDER RENTAL cylinder rental 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 70.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 6.72 Total :77.47 212307 1/8/2015 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2748 E4FD.JOHNSON GROUP 2014 EXPENSES E4FD.Johnson Group 2014 Expenses 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 13,600.00 Total :13,600.00 212308 1/8/2015 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 23K-055596 Traffic - Signal Generator Locks (4) 6Page: Packet Page 33 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212308 1/8/2015 (Continued)073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC Traffic - Signal Generator Locks (4) 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 267.76 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 25.44 City Hall - Smart-Pac III23K-057277 City Hall - Smart-Pac III 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.52 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.42 Total :344.18 212309 1/8/2015 074319 CLASSICAL KING FM 98.1 IN-115013949 PROMOTIONAL AD 12/01-12/07/14 Promotional ad 12/01-12/07/14 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 212310 1/8/2015 073617 CLIFTON, AMBER 122114 E-COURT CONFERENCE TRAVEL REFUND E-COURT CONFERENCE TRAVEL REFUND 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 161.16 Total :161.16 212311 1/8/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2731015 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE office supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 78.06 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 7.42 LINERSGW2731062 LINERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 461.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.87 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICENW2731015 paper towels 7Page: Packet Page 34 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212311 1/8/2015 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 58.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 5.59 BRAWNEY WIPERS & BLEACHNW2731062 BRAWNEY WIPERS & BLEACH 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 170.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.21 Total :842.29 212312 1/8/2015 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC JAN-15 C/A CITYOFED00001 Jan-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.00 Total :406.00 212313 1/8/2015 070323 COMCAST 8498 31 030 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES 820 15TH ST SW CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES 820 15TH ST SW 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 124.05 Total :124.05 212314 1/8/2015 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING DEC 2014 DRY CLEANING NOV/DEC - EDMONDS PD CLEANING/ALUNDRY NOV/DEC 2014 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 658.87 Total :658.87 212315 1/8/2015 005965 CUES INC 423500 Sewer - Connectors Sewer - Connectors 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 228.82 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 21.34 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 23.77 E4FF & ECOLOGY GRANT G1400160 - DUC CAME423769 E4FF.DUC Camera 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 140,610.45 8Page: Packet Page 35 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212315 1/8/2015 (Continued)005965 CUES INC Ecology Grant (Task 2).DUC Camera 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 15,000.00 Total :155,884.38 212316 1/8/2015 074444 DATAQUEST LLC CIEDMONDS-20141231 Background check for Municipal Court Background check for Municipal Court 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 101.95 Total :101.95 212317 1/8/2015 075131 DENNIS & WENDY ANDERSEN 3-19075 #611085072-KK UTILITY REFUND #611085072-KK Utility refund - received 411.000.233.000 270.58 Total :270.58 212318 1/8/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3515 INV#14-3515 - EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA14-007 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 132.00 Total :132.00 212319 1/8/2015 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 14-2394.1 E3JA.TO 14-05.SERVICES THRU 12/28/14 E3JA.TO 14-05.Services thru 12/28/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,441.92 Total :1,441.92 212320 1/8/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2946283 WOOD, PVC, CEMENT, FASTENERS 8TH & ALDER WOOD, PVC, CEMENT, FASTENERS 8TH & 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 225.97 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.47 POSTS 8TH & ALDER PATHWAY2947227 POSTS 8TH & ALDER PATHWAY 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 545.16 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 51.79 Total :844.39 9Page: Packet Page 36 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212321 1/8/2015 075127 DVERSIFIED SPORTS 1305 GYMNASTICS RM SPRUNG FLOOR GYMNASTICS RM SPRUNG FLOOR-PAID FOR 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 1,530.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 145.35 Total :1,675.35 212322 1/8/2015 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2014-EDM-NOV Prof Eng Consult Serv BLD 2014 0949 Prof Eng Consult Serv BLD 2014 0949 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 467.50 Total :467.50 212323 1/8/2015 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 43515 FS 16,17,20 - Supplies FS 16,17,20 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 74.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.06 Total :81.34 212324 1/8/2015 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1269 PROMOTIONAL AWARD FOR 2014 Promotional award by LTAC for 2014 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 2,500.00 Total :2,500.00 212325 1/8/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000537 Sewer - Wall Clock Supplies Sewer - Wall Clock Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 11.48 Total :11.48 212326 1/8/2015 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 19699 CORDOVA 19699 CORDOVA YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 19699 CORDOVA YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 62.00 Total :62.00 212327 1/8/2015 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2015-01-01 01/15 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE 01/15 Recreation Services Contract Fee 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 5,000.00 10Page: Packet Page 37 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :5,000.002123271/8/2015 038500 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 212328 1/8/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST / WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST /2-25175 EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / METE2-28275 PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 18200 OLYMPIC VIEW DR / METER 87942-37180 18200 OLYMPIC VIEW DR / METER 8794 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.92 CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 15TH ST SW /7-05276 CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 15TH ST SW / 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 140.38 Total :292.25 212329 1/8/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 106926 WATER SEWER COPY USE Water Sewer Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.95 Water Sewer Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.94 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.85 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.85 COPIER MAINT107880 COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.523.30.45.00 30.81 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995108439 1 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 25.38 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027108460 1 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027 11Page: Packet Page 38 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212329 1/8/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 40.97 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER108461 Meter charges 11/30/14 - 12/30/14 B&W, 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 39.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 3.76 COPIER CHARGES C1030108611 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 6.76 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 6.76 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 6.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.64 Total :182.22 212330 1/8/2015 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 26903 Plaza Rm - Svc Repair Plaza Rm - Svc Repair 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,503.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 142.79 Total :1,645.79 212331 1/8/2015 064406 FBI LEEDA 8964-15 INV 8964-15 BARKER - EDMONDS PD 2015 MEMBERSHIP DUES - BARKER 001.000.41.521.21.49.00 50.00 Total :50.00 212332 1/8/2015 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 10010594 December Flex Plan Fee December Flex Plan Fee 12Page: Packet Page 39 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212332 1/8/2015 (Continued)070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 78.30 Total :78.30 212333 1/8/2015 071562 FORMA 12/30/14 WAYFINDING 12/30/14 FORMA WAYFINDING 12/30/14 FORMA WAYFINDING 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 881.48 Total :881.48 212334 1/8/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE & PM IP425-745-5055 PM IP 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 21.90 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 99.36 Total :162.93 212335 1/8/2015 073821 GEODESIGN INC 1214-189 E4JA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/14 E4JA.Services thru 12/31/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 604.65 Total :604.65 212336 1/8/2015 072515 GOOGLE INC 2989880453 C/A 4339-4890-5932-7886 Google Apps - December 2014 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 382.52 Total :382.52 212337 1/8/2015 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 155108/1 Sewer - 6" Wedge Mech Plugs Sewer - 6" Wedge Mech Plugs 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 299.20 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 28.42 Water Inv - #0061 W-CLMPCI-06-027155380/1 Water Inv - #0061 W-CLMPCI-06-027 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 245.14 13Page: Packet Page 40 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212337 1/8/2015 (Continued)069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 23.29 Total :596.05 212338 1/8/2015 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 150825 Unit 449 POL - Instrument Cluster Unit 449 POL - Instrument Cluster 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 378.29 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 35.94 Unit 452 - Parts151076 Unit 452 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 59.82 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.68 Unit 136 - RepairsFOCS378264 Unit 136 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 164.25 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 15.60 Total :659.58 212339 1/8/2015 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3813677 Storm - Talbot Rd Storm Repair Parts Storm - Talbot Rd Storm Repair Parts 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 347.97 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 33.06 Storm - Talbot Rd Storm RepairI3813687 Storm - Talbot Rd Storm Repair 422.000.72.531.40.41.00 535.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.41.00 50.83 Total :966.86 212340 1/8/2015 075133 HERRIN, NICOLE BID-123114 ADMIN HOURLY CONTRACTED SERVICES Administration hourly contracted 14Page: Packet Page 41 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212340 1/8/2015 (Continued)075133 HERRIN, NICOLE 627.000.61.558.70.41.00 445.00 Total :445.00 212341 1/8/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2015917 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL siding & hardware 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 113.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 10.79 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL8015124 framing & hardware 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 93.37 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 8.87 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL9093694 sheet goods and nails 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 21.93 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 2.08 Total :250.65 212342 1/8/2015 013677 HORTICULTURE LINDSAY HORTICULTURE LINDSAY HORTICULTURE MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTI LINDSAY HORTICULTURE MAGAZINE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 21.99 Total :21.99 212343 1/8/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2553771 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 202.52 SUPPLIES2563802 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 489.09 SUPPLIES256447 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 92.86 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE2564557 15Page: Packet Page 42 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212343 1/8/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED paper supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 242.94 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 23.08 Total :1,050.49 212344 1/8/2015 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3476 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION Jan-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 47.50 Total :547.50 212345 1/8/2015 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 641975 WWTP - SUPPLIES, HYPOCHLORITE hypochlorite, 4695 gallons 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,598.76 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 246.88 Total :2,845.64 212346 1/8/2015 073780 KAMINS, CHAD E3DC.Pmt 2 E3DC.PMT 2 THRU 11/30/14 E3DC.Pmt 2 thru 11/30/14 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 99,327.30 E3DC.Ret 2 112.200.223.400 -4,966.36 Total :94,360.94 212347 1/8/2015 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3869713 INV#3869713 ACCT#100828 - EDMONDS PD 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 237.30 HANDLING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 55.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 22.54 16Page: Packet Page 43 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :315.042123471/8/2015 072650 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 212348 1/8/2015 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 34324 ESLHA Review Saunders Residence -BLDG ESLHA Review Saunders Residence -BLDG 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 352.75 Profession serv for Bldg Saunders34325 Profession serv for Bldg Saunders 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 1,495.50 Planning - Prof Serv Scheutz34393 Planning - Prof Serv Scheutz 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 3,890.00 Total :5,738.25 212349 1/8/2015 074848 LONG BAY ENTERPRISES INC 2015-301 SAP IMPLEMENTATION CONSULTANT 95.71% COM Strategic Action Plan Implementation 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 656.25 Total :656.25 212350 1/8/2015 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 896694 ELEMENT & SPARK ELEMENT & SPARK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.97 RETURN ELEMENTCM896694 ELEMENT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -17.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -1.62 Total :4.01 212351 1/8/2015 072992 LYNNWOOD ICE CENTER 19124 ICE SKATE 19124 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE 19124 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 238.00 19126 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE19126 ICE SKATE 19126 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 238.00 17Page: Packet Page 44 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :476.002123511/8/2015 072992 072992 LYNNWOOD ICE CENTER 212352 1/8/2015 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1542 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1543 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1561 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 Total :264.96 212353 1/8/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 19827230 WWTP - SUPPLIES, SAFETY AND MECHANICAL safety glasses 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 18.68 gauges and nylon cables 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 330.55 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7.42 Total :356.65 212354 1/8/2015 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 16371 Microfilming/CD's for buildings 2011 Microfilming/CD's for buildings 2011 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 471.63 Total :471.63 212355 1/8/2015 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC 64507 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER - BUILDING SUPPLIE Poplar Plywood 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 192.12 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER - BUILDING SUPPLIE64513 Maple ~ 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,151.46 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER - BUILDING SUPPLIE64544 Hard Rock Maple~ 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 733.10 18Page: Packet Page 45 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,076.682123551/8/2015 020495 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC 212356 1/8/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 203345 GLOVES GLOVES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.85 Total :9.76 212357 1/8/2015 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1590-5 E4GA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/14 E4GA.Services thru 12/31/14 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 38,001.39 Total :38,001.39 212358 1/8/2015 064618 NASCO 6746 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LABORATORY bottom section w/ valve 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 261.60 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 24.91 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 27.22 Total :313.73 212359 1/8/2015 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0395047-IN WWTP - SMALL EQUIPMENT ISC Ventis MX4 multi-gas monitor 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 940.50 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 13.49 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 90.63 Total :1,044.62 212360 1/8/2015 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0539658-IN Unit 66 - Supplies Unit 66 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 209.00 9.5% Sales Tax 19Page: Packet Page 46 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212360 1/8/2015 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.86 Total :228.86 212361 1/8/2015 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S6218501.001 WWTP - OFFSITE FLOW TELEMTRY micrologix 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 1,500.75 Freight 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 12.04 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 143.72 WWTP - OFFSITE FLOW TELEMETRYS6218501.002 micrologix module 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 2,010.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 191.02 Total :3,858.28 212362 1/8/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1094355 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1096304 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET2-1096703 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1098963 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -15.00 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1099263 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 591.18 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1099280 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99 20Page: Packet Page 47 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,339.242123621/8/2015 061013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 212363 1/8/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 050529 WAXPAPER FOR PRESCHOOL PROJECTS WAXPAPER FOR PRESCHOOL PROJECTS 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 3.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 0.31 PAPER PLATES FOR PRESCHOOL PROJECTS050547 PAPER PLATES FOR PRESCHOOL PROJECTS 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 4.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 0.46 PHONE FOR CEMETERY119590 PHONE FOR CEMETERY 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 58.75 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 5.58 HANDSET (RETURNED, SEE CM)751573 HANDSET (RETURNED, SEE CM) 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 39.15 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 3.71 PW Admin - Card Stock and Envelopes807389 PW Admin - Card Stock and Envelopes 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 42.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.03 Office Supplies810147 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 195.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 18.56 CEMETERY-RETURNED HANDSET816060 CEMETERY-RETURNED HANDSET 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 -39.15 9.5% Sales Tax 21Page: Packet Page 48 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212363 1/8/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 -3.71 INV#822871 ACCT#520437 250POL - EDMONDS822871 HANGING FOLDERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 15.66 RETRACTABLE BLACK PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 47.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.98 FLAGS, PAPER CLIPS, CALENDAR826905 FLAGS, PAPERCLIPS 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 4.22 CALENDAR 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 2.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 0.24 P&R-PAPER877455 PAPER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 73.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 7.00 Total :490.73 212364 1/8/2015 074545 OLDS-OLYMPIC INC 000511-1436501 LS 10 - Fuel 88.98 Gal LS 10 - Fuel 88.98 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 238.11 Total :238.11 212365 1/8/2015 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST SW & 84TH AV PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST SW & 84TH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 14.89 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW0001520 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 38.28 22Page: Packet Page 49 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212365 1/8/2015 (Continued)026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH ST SW0001530 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 27.09 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR1040002930 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.48 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER0021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 176.93 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TH PL SW0026390 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TH PL SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.48 Total :290.15 212366 1/8/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 185891 Storm Dump Fees Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees185900 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees185908 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees186003 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees186006 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees186011 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees186024 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 23Page: Packet Page 50 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212366 1/8/2015 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS Storm Dump Fees186027 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Total :960.00 212367 1/8/2015 064070 PALMATIER, LISA CONCERTS SEPT-DEC 14 CONCERTS PALMATIER SEPT-DEC 14 CONCERTS PALMATIER SEPT-DEC 14 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 320.00 Total :320.00 212368 1/8/2015 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20140026.001-4 E2FB & E4FA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/14 E2FB & E4FA.Services thru 12/31/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,702.50 Total :1,702.50 212369 1/8/2015 007800 PETTY CASH 121614-123114 PETTY CASH DEC 2014 Mileage to meeting - Robert Chave 001.000.62.558.60.43.00 21.84 Supplies for Holiday Brunch - Kody 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 11.57 Supplies for Holiday Brunch - Cliff 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 16.24 Parking for Meetings in Seattle 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 31.31 State Attorney General paid cour copy 001.000.369.90.000.00 10.00 Total :90.96 212370 1/8/2015 008350 PETTY CASH PARKS PETTY CASH PATTY STEELE-SMITH: PCC CALENDAR FOR PATTY STEELE-SMITH: PCC CALENDAR FOR 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 8.75 MICHELLE PARKER: JOANN FABRIC & DOWELS 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 7.21 MICHELLE PARKER: 2ND CHANCE THRIFT 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 1.17 24Page: Packet Page 51 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212370 1/8/2015 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH MICHELLE PARKER: FRED MEYER PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 15.23 MICHELLE PARKER: MICHAELS PUFF PAINT 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 6.53 MICHELLE PARKER: WIGHTS NARCISSUS BULB 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 1.08 MICHELLE PARKER: AMAZON PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 3.07 CLIFF EDWARDS: COSTCO WREATH FOR 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 41.60 TAMMY RANKINS: EDMONDS HARDWARE ROCK 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 9.30 TAMMY RANKINS: DOLLAR TREE COTTON BALLS 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 3.29 TAMMY RANKINS: BARTELL GLYCERIN FOR 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 5.46 TAMMY RANKINS: SAFEWAY VINEGAR FOR 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 4.19 Total :106.88 212371 1/8/2015 008400 PETTY CASH 2014 YE PETTY CASH POLICE ADMIN 2014 YEAR END PETTY CASH PARKING WCIA TRAINING - TACOMA - 001.000.41.521.10.43.00 10.00 PARKING WAPRO TRAINING - TACOMA - 001.000.41.521.10.43.00 10.00 PARKING - KC JAIL - TRAINING 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 45.00 FOOD FOR EPD HOSTED SCSPCA MEETING 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 29.96 BUS FARE FOR FEDERAL COURT TESTIMONY - 001.000.41.521.10.43.00 4.00 LUNCH - REQUIRED TO STAY @ FEDERAL 001.000.41.521.10.43.00 13.50 STAPLES FOR RANGE TARGETS 25Page: Packet Page 52 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212371 1/8/2015 (Continued)008400 PETTY CASH 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 3.53 PARKING - SMART MTG - EVERETT - HONNEN 001.000.41.521.21.43.00 9.00 FISHING LINE - IA 14-007 INVESTIGATION 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.53 Total :131.52 212372 1/8/2015 066796 PETTY CASH 123114 SNACKS FOR JURORS SNACKS FOR JURORS 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 42.84 Total :42.84 212373 1/8/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F746939 Fac Maint - Supp;lies Fac Maint - Supp;lies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.77 Unit 21 - Patch King MaterialsF791671 Unit 21 - Patch King Materials 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.17 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.63 Unit 21 - Patch King Generator CableF791683 Unit 21 - Patch King Generator Cable 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 156.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.86 WWTP - SMALL EQUIPMENTF858195 GRE 555DX, Bender 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 5,227.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 496.66 Fac Maint - Small Tool - Solid WireF858209 Fac Maint - Small Tool - Solid Wire 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 22.00 26Page: Packet Page 53 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212373 1/8/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 2.09 Total :5,982.21 212374 1/8/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 214238 WWTP - POSTAGE detection inst. corp. 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 32.38 Total :32.38 212375 1/8/2015 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2445047 ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 220 ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 220 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 116.67 Total :116.67 212376 1/8/2015 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 15-039S Q1-2015 CLEAN AIR ASSESSMENT Q1-15 Clean Air Assessment per RCW 001.000.39.553.70.51.00 7,502.00 Total :7,502.00 212377 1/8/2015 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 20150027 WWTP - PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR 2015 OPERAT 2015 Operating Permit Fee 423.000.76.535.80.51.00 29,456.15 Total :29,456.15 212378 1/8/2015 073644 QUALITY CONTROLS CORP P1504-2 WWTP - C412 CONTROL SYSTEMS Task Order 2.14 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 155.00 task order 4.14 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,240.00 Total :1,395.00 212379 1/8/2015 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000151355 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-WILSON MARKER/INSCRIPTION-WILSON 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 2,824.00 Total :2,824.00 27Page: Packet Page 54 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212380 1/8/2015 070042 RICOH USA INC 93893078 Lease Ricoh MP171SPF Reception Lease Ricoh MP171SPF Reception 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66 Total :30.66 212381 1/8/2015 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 615725 INV#615725 CUST#1733 - EDMONDS PD 40 S&W 180GR GDHP AMMO 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 749.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 71.21 Total :820.79 212382 1/8/2015 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 14-5090 Storm - Vactor Parts Storm - Vactor Parts 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2,548.41 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 242.10 Unit 106 - Vac Tube Flanges and Parts14-5105 Unit 106 - Vac Tube Flanges and Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 375.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 35.65 Unit 106 - Valve Hycon14-5167 Unit 106 - Valve Hycon 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 105.42 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.01 Total :3,316.89 212383 1/8/2015 070298 SESAC INC 3973609 MUSIC LICENS 3973609 MUSIC LICENSE 2015 ACCT 63-46-01 3973609 MUSIC LICENSE 2015 ACCT 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 719.00 Total :719.00 212384 1/8/2015 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 1686-7 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER - PAINT Green Resource Center - Paint 28Page: Packet Page 55 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212384 1/8/2015 (Continued)063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 727.61 Total :727.61 212385 1/8/2015 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0179656-IN Unit EQ95PO - Black Perimeter Lights Unit EQ95PO - Black Perimeter Lights 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 260.00 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.10 Unit 304 - Black Flange0179730-IN Unit 304 - Black Flange 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.65 Total :287.75 212386 1/8/2015 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV / 24467162 Fleet Shop Tools Fleet Shop Tools 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 683.73 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 64.97 Fleet Shop Tool - Cooling System PressARV / 24499800 Fleet Shop Tool - Cooling System Press 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 164.21 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 14.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 17.03 Fleet Shop Tool - Hex SetARV / 24537878 Fleet Shop Tool - Hex Set 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 121.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 11.54 Total :1,077.93 212387 1/8/2015 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000377557 Q3-14 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & TAXES 29Page: Packet Page 56 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212387 1/8/2015 (Continued)037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT Quarterly Liquor Board Profits & Taxes 001.000.39.567.00.51.00 2,164.96 Total :2,164.96 212388 1/8/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0291-9 LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE / LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 155.09 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER2002-7495-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 33.92 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER2004-9315-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 57.47 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER 1000252006-6395-3 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 587.46 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S /2009-1385-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 51.44 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 130.38 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER2011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 37.79 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 212TH PL SW /2015-0127-7 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 212TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 39.89 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER2015-3292-6 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 463.29 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) /2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 1,172.87 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD AV2021-3965-5 30Page: Packet Page 57 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212388 1/8/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 57.73 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW /2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 33.92 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER2023-5673-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 45.45 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER2024-9953-9 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 1,251.01 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) /2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 2,910.42 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) /2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 135.44 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) /2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 382.51 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE2025-7952-0 wwtp energy management service 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.91 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @150W) / NOT2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @150W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 4.38 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) /2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 97.28 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 51.26 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 13.01 31Page: Packet Page 58 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212388 1/8/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) /2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 171.78 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 226122053-0758-0 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 22612 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 439.17 Total :8,332.87 212389 1/8/2015 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES SCC2015 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 2015 MEMBERSHIP 2015 membership in the Association of 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 100.00 Total :100.00 212390 1/8/2015 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 56543 Fleet - Numbers Stamp Fleet - Numbers Stamp 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 50.06 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.75 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.02 Total :57.83 212391 1/8/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S/RECYCLING103584 wwtp 200 2nd Ave S/recycling 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.23 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING103587 32Page: Packet Page 59 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212391 1/8/2015 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 702.23 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89 Total :2,972.45 212392 1/8/2015 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2073208-01 Fac Maint - Work Clothes - 1 Fac Maint - Work Clothes - 1 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 129.02 9.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 11.87 Fac Maint - 5 Jeans - E Matthews4245856-01 Fac Maint - 5 Jeans - E Matthews 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 198.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 18.85 Fac Maint - Coat - P Chin4246334-01 Fac Maint - Coat - P Chin 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 96.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.16 Total :463.72 212393 1/8/2015 074719 SPECIALITY SOILS INC 16318 GROWING MEDIUM FLOWER PROGRAM GROWING MEDIUM FLOWER PROGRAM 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,420.90 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 134.99 Total :1,555.89 212394 1/8/2015 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 865729 E1FH.SERVICES THRU 12/31/14 E1FH.Services thru 12/31/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 67.50 33Page: Packet Page 60 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :67.502123941/8/2015 074990 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 212395 1/8/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11427305 Traffic - Supplies Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 135.98 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 12.92 Fleet Shop Supplies11428854 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 20.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.98 Unit 57 - Air Brake Rubber Hose30616139 Unit 57 - Air Brake Rubber Hose 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.22 Total :197.28 212396 1/8/2015 075134 TED JONES & TRINA NELSON 1-21884 #1-21884 RETURN PYMT CUSTOMER ERROR Customer error on utility Pymt. The 411.000.111.100 14,247.00 Total :14,247.00 212397 1/8/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50868520 E4FB.SERVICES THRU 9/30/14 E4FB.Services thru 9/30/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 3,695.45 Total :3,695.45 212398 1/8/2015 069576 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 111-1635714 EDMLTGO07 Washington Limited Tax General 001.000.39.592.18.89.00 32.75 EDMWATREF11111-1635718 Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding 422.000.72.592.31.89.00 14.96 Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding 34Page: Packet Page 61 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212398 1/8/2015 (Continued)069576 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 421.000.74.592.34.89.00 31.32 Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding 423.000.75.592.35.89.00 5.33 Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding 423.000.76.592.35.89.00 0.69 Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding 423.100.76.592.39.89.00 1.34 EDMWATSEW13111-1635720 Water and Sewer Improvement Bonds 2013 424.000.71.592.38.89.00 53.79 EDMLTGOREF12111-1636118 Limited General Obligation Tax 231.000.31.592.19.89.00 53.79 Total :193.97 212399 1/8/2015 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 395938 YOST POOL SHOWER CAPS & SCREWS YOST POOL SHOWER CAPS & SCREWS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 165.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.68 Total :180.73 212400 1/8/2015 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 3001486159 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 220 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 220 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 250.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 23.81 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HALL 121 5TH3001486393 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HALL 121 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,249.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 118.70 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER3001486549 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 14.95 35Page: Packet Page 62 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212400 1/8/2015 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER3001486655 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 51.31 PS - Annual Safety Inspection6000103210 PS - Annual Safety Inspection 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,240.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 212.81 Total :4,161.84 212401 1/8/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9737643999 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 231.21 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 55.99 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 290.11 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.35.00 799.33 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 131.08 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.12 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 503.30 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 110.20 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 95.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 36Page: Packet Page 63 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212401 1/8/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 286.20 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 68.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 55.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 917.91 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 840.33 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 115.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 80.55 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 80.55 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 205.15 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 245.16 iPad Cell Service Storm 37Page: Packet Page 64 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212401 1/8/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 120.03 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 161.10 C/A 772540262-000019737770736 Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 90.57 Total :5,919.41 212402 1/8/2015 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 15 AGENCY MEMBERSHIP 2015 AGENCY MEMBERSHIP 2015 AGENCY MEMBERSHIP 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 1,000.00 2015 AGENCY MEMBERSHIP 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 1,000.00 2015 AGENCY MEMBERSHIP 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 1,000.00 Total :3,000.00 212403 1/8/2015 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20114421 INV 20114421 COLLISION INVEST - BASIC - SACKVILLE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00 COLLISION INVEST - BASIC - STRUM 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00 INV 20114488 BLEA FOR BORST AND HAUGHIAN20114488 BLEA TUITION - BORST 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 3,063.00 BLEA TUITION - HAUGHIAN 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 3,063.00 Total :6,326.00 212404 1/8/2015 073472 WAPRO 423 EDMONDS PD - 2015 WAPRO DUES - THOMPSON 2015 ACTIVE MEMBER DUES 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 25.00 INV 427 EDMONDS PD - BROMAN 2015 WAPRO D427 2015 WAPRO ACTIVE MEMBER DUES - BROMAN 001.000.41.521.11.49.00 25.00 38Page: Packet Page 65 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :50.002124041/8/2015 073472 073472 WAPRO 212405 1/8/2015 075135 WASHINGTON AEROSPACE PRTNRSHP 1170 WA AEROSPACE INDUSTRY STRATEGY SUPPORT Execution and Maintenace of Washington 001.000.39.513.10.49.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 212406 1/8/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9975 Street - 810 Walnut - Remove 3 damaged Street - 810 Walnut - Remove 3 damaged 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 2,400.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 228.00 street - 17930 69th Ave W - Remove Dead06-9976 street - 17930 69th Ave W - Remove Dead 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 640.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 60.80 Street - 1031 Main St - Remove 2 Trees06-9977 Street - 1031 Main St - Remove 2 Trees 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 430.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 40.85 Total :3,799.65 212407 1/8/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6541 ENVELOPES ENVELOPES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 429.24 Utility Billing - #9 Return Env (5,000)6543 Utility Billing - #9 Return Env (5,000) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 106.67 Utility Billing - #9 Return Env (5,000) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 106.67 Utility Billing - #9 Return Env (5,000) 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 106.66 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.13 39Page: Packet Page 66 of 586 01/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 11:11:37AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212407 1/8/2015 (Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.13 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 10.14 Total :779.64 212408 1/8/2015 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000026753 Traffic Control - (2)Smart Monitors, Traffic Control - (2)Smart Monitors, 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2,634.66 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 250.29 Total :2,884.95 212409 1/8/2015 068798 WESTGATE CHAPEL REFUND DEP & MON REFUND DEPOSIT & UNUSED MONITOR TIME REFUND DEPOSIT & UNUSED MONITOR TIME 001.000.239.200 515.00 Total :515.00 212410 1/8/2015 071104 WIPPEL, TERESA 2015 ADVERTISING 2015 ADVERTISING 2015 ADVERTISING 001.000.64.571.22.41.40 2,400.00 Total :2,400.00 Bank total :541,643.82125 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 541,643.82Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report125 40Page: Packet Page 67 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA 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 Pl/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 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 68 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA 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 STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 69 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN 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 E1FD FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 70 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 71 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals STR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project ENG E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 72 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 73 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR 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 WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 74 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 75 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC c444 E4LA Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR c451 E4CB 2014 Chip Seals STR c452 E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays ENG c453 E4DA Train Trench - Concept STR c454 E4DB SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM c455 E4FE Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR c456 E4GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM c459 E4FF Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR c460 E4JC 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR c461 E4GC Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR c462 E4CD 220th Street Overlay Project STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 76 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 77 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 78 of 586 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA Revised 1/8/2015 Packet Page 79 of 586    AM-7376     4. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Philip Christensen ($158.68). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Philip Christensen 6606 227th Street SW Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 ($158.68) Attachments Christensen Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 01/07/2015 09:44 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2015 10:30 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 12/16/2014 12:20 PM Final Approval Date: 01/08/2015  Packet Page 80 of 586 Packet Page 81 of 586 Packet Page 82 of 586 Packet Page 83 of 586    AM-7357     4. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell Department:Public Works Type: Action  Information Subject Title Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Lynnwood and the City of Edmonds for joint funding of the Recycling Coordinator. Recommendation It is recommended that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement between Lynnwood and Edmonds to jointly fund the Recycling Coordinator position and implement their respective 2015 and 2016 Waste Prevention and Recycling Programs. Previous Council Action Since 1995, the Edmonds City Council and staff have agreed to pursue an interlocal cooperative agreement with the City of Lynnwood to share resources in respect to their waste prevention and recycling programs. The original interlocal agreement between the two municipalities was produced and approved on March 28, 1995. A provision of the original agreement allows its extension upon mutual consent of both the City of Edmonds and the City of Lynnwood and it has been renewed continually ever since. Narrative The waste prevention, recycling, and conservation programs of the City of Edmonds includes providing full-time education and outreach efforts on a wide variety of environmental issues including solid waste handling, hazardous waste disposal, recycling maximization, water conservation, and state and regional policy implementation coordination. The goal of these programs is to ensure the preservation of the health of our community environment and the protection of local watersheds and waterways from environmental pollution through proactive communication and the provision of many incidental and related public services.  The attached updated interlocal cooperative agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorneys of both Edmonds and Lynnwood and covers the next biennial period through 2015 to the end of 2016.  This agreement estimates that the City of Lynnwood will provide approximately 28% of the funding of the Recycling Coordinator position in return for a corresponding portion of time committed to assist in the implementation of Lynnwood's parallel efforts at waste prevention, recycling, and conservation. Considering the important interconnections of neighboring municipalities in operating these type of programs, the joint return on investment for both partners offers an enhanced public value for the citizen stakeholders of both communities. Packet Page 84 of 586 This agreement is anticipated to be funded as follows: 2015 Budget Estimate $21,805 Washington State Department of Ecology Grant $16,860 City of Lynnwood $60,250 Edmonds Water Utility Fund 421 2016 Budget Estimate $21,805 Washington State Department of Ecology Grant $16,860 City of Lynnwood $60,250 Edmonds Water Utility Fund 421 This interlocal cooperative agreement is presently being moved through the approval process in the City of Lynnwood in parallel with the City of Edmonds. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue:37,945 Expenditure:98,915 Fiscal Impact: Estimated revenues are from State of Washington Department of Ecology grant funds and cost reimbursements from the City of Lynnwood. Estimated expenditures of $60,250 are from the City of Edmonds Water Utility Fund 421. There is no fiscal impact on expenditures from the City of Edmonds General Fund.   Fiscal Year:2016 Revenue:37,945 Expenditure:98,915 Fiscal Impact: Estimated revenues are from State of Washington Department of Ecology grant funds and cost reimbursements from the City of Lynnwood. Estimated expenditures of $60,250 are from the City of Edmonds Water Utility Fund 421. There is no fiscal impact on expenditures from the City of Edmonds General Fund. Attachments 2015-2016 Interlocal Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works (Originator)Phil Williams 12/13/2014 11:09 AM Packet Page 85 of 586 Public Works (Originator)Phil Williams 12/13/2014 11:09 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/29/2014 07:06 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/29/2014 08:32 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/29/2014 08:33 AM Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 12/10/2014 09:34 AM Final Approval Date: 12/29/2014  Packet Page 86 of 586 -1- AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT 1 BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD 2 AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR 3 JOINT FUNDING OF A RECYCLING COORDINATOR 4 5 THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) between the City of Lynnwood (“Lynnwood”) and the City 6 of Edmonds (“Edmonds”), each a municipal corporation established under the laws of the State 7 of Washington, is dated this______ day of January 2015. 8 9 WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local government units to 10 make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities 11 on the basis of mutual advantage; and 12 13 WHEREAS, Edmonds and Lynnwood each presently staff and operate a solid waste program 14 partially funded by a Department of Ecology grant; and 15 16 WHEREAS, the Department of Ecology has funds available to partially fund a continuation of 17 the program; and 18 19 WHEREAS both Edmonds and Lynnwood have partially funded their respective programs for 20 2015 and 2016, yet do not have full funding capability; and 21 22 WHEREAS, Edmonds and Lynnwood have concluded that it would be in their best interests for 23 Edmonds and Lynnwood to jointly fund their solid waste efforts as provided herein; 24 25 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 26 27 1. Edmonds employs Steve Fisher as Recycling Coordinator, and Lynnwood has approved 28 service provision by Mr. Fisher. Should the position of Recycling Coordinator become 29 vacant during the term of this Agreement, Edmonds shall employ a Recycling Coordinator 30 with appropriate qualifications. The selection of the replacement Recycling Coordinator 31 shall be subject to the approval of Lynnwood, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 32 33 2. The Recycling Coordinator shall provide Edmonds and Lynnwood with a recycling program 34 during 2015 and 2016 to provide for the activities and services described in Exhibit A, which 35 is incorporated herein by reference. 36 37 3. The Edmonds Recycling Coordinator will document actual activities and contacts in meeting 38 the requirements of the Lynnwood recycling program, and will provide verification of time 39 spent on Lynnwood activities, prior to or at the time of submission of any invoice by 40 Edmonds to Lynnwood for payment under Paragraph 4, below. 41 42 4. For services provided by the Recycling Coordinator, Lynnwood will reimburse Edmonds an 43 amount not to exceed $26,000.00 in the year 2015 and $29,000.00 in the year 2016. 44 Reimbursement shall be paid quarterly at a rate of $61.24 per hour in the year 2015 and 45 $62.46 per hour in the year 2016, plus Lynnwood’s fair share of direct charges of labor, 46 benefits, and material costs, without the inclusion of overhead or general administrative 47 charges, incurred in administering the Lynnwood recycling program. Edmonds shall notify 48 Packet Page 87 of 586 -2- Lynnwood when Edmonds has been reimbursed $20,000.00 in either year at which time the 1 parties shall meet to determine whether to amend the Agreement to provide for further work 2 and compensation. 3 4 5. This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 2015 and will expire December 31, 2016. 5 This Agreement may be extended by mutual written agreement of both parties and upon 6 specific approval of the respective recycling programs for future budget years. 7 8 6. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon sixty (60) days’ notice. 9 Reconciliation of costs, payment, transfer of developed materials, and a current report of 10 completed activities will be completed within the sixty (60) day period following notice by 11 either party. 12 13 7. Lynnwood agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds from any claims 14 arising as a result of the administration of Lynnwood’s program under this Agreement. 15 Lynnwood and Edmonds shall each be responsible for any and all liability resulting from any 16 acts or omissions resulting from its own negligent and/or wrongful acts or omissions, and 17 those of its own agents, employees, contractors, or officials, as the same shall be determined 18 under the laws of the State of Washington or a mutually approved settlement agreement. 19 20 8. This Agreement incorporates the entire understanding between Edmonds and Lynnwood 21 regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may only be modified in a 22 writing signed by the parties hereto. It shall be filed with the Department of Ecology and the 23 Snohomish County Auditor as required by law. 24 25 9. In addition to the provisions previously stated regarding duration, organization and purpose, 26 the following provisions are included pursuant to the requirements of RCW 39.34.030: 27 28 9.1 No joint or cooperative undertaking is required by this Agreement. 29 Therefore, no provision is made for the financing of any joint or cooperative 30 undertaking. 31 32 9.2 No joint property ownership is contemplated under the terms of this 33 Agreement. To the extent title to the right of way exists, it shall remain in the 34 ownership of the party which acquires it. In the event, at the termination of this 35 Agreement, any personal property is jointly owned by the parties, either party 36 may purchase the interest of the other, with the other party’s permission, at fair 37 market value, as such value is determined by the parties. In the event that neither 38 party wishes to retain jointly obtained property, it shall be surplussed and the 39 proceeds divided pro-rata based upon the party’s initial contribution to the 40 purchase of such property. If both parties seek ownership of the property, value 41 shall be determined as herein provided and the right of the parties to purchase the 42 property or properties determined by the drawing of lots. 43 44 9.3 Because no joint or cooperative undertaking is contemplated by this 45 Agreement, no provision has been made for an administrator or joint board. 46 47 Packet Page 88 of 586 -3- 9.4 This Agreement shall be effective when listed by subject on the City of 1 Edmonds’ web site, Lynnwood’s web site or another electronically retrievable 2 public source, whichever shall first occur. 3 4 5 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of this 7 _____ day of ________________, 2015. 8 9 CITY OF LYNNWOOD CITY OF EDMONDS 10 11 12 ___________________________ ___________________________ 13 Nicola Smith, Mayor Dave Earling, Mayor 14 15 ATTEST ATTEST 16 17 18 ___________________________ ___________________________ 19 Art Ceniza, Interim Finance Director Scott Passey, City Clerk 20 21 APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM 22 23 24 ___________________________ ___________________________ 25 Rosemary Larson, City Attorney Sharon Cates, Office of the City Attorney 26 27 Packet Page 89 of 586 -4- EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs 4 Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood 5 6 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL MESSAGES & OUTREACH: 8 City Newsletter articles. 9 Program information section for city Internet web sites. 10 Presentations and assistance to schools and businesses. 11 Educational outreach, plus providing recycling/compost collection at local public events. 12 Maintain Recycle Cart (Edmonds) and Recycle/Compost information racks (Lynnwood). 13 Distribution of brochures and flyers, and creation of educational displays. 14 Publicity, coordination and assistance with local scout troops with Christmas tree recycling. 15 16 ASSISTANCE to MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES with RECYCLING EFFORTS: 17 Continues to supply information and assistance to managers and tenants. 18 Expansion of available recycling to non-participating properties. 19 Contamination issues, illegal dumping, Christmas tree collection, multi-lingual information. 20 21 EXPANSION & MAINTENANCE of SINGLE-FAMILY RECYCLING PROGRAMS: 22 Cooperation with the municipal waste collection companies in identifying non-customers for use in a campaign to 23 increase single family participation. 24 Publicity, information and management for special recycling collection and clean-up events. 25 26 ASSISTANCE to the COMMERCIAL SECTOR with WASTE PREVENTION & RECYCLING EFFORTS 27 and SOLID WASTE ISSUES & MANAGEMENT: 28 Contacts, site visits, waste assessments to retail/office/manufacturers/schools/institutions. 29 Presentations of options and opportunities for businesses such as construction and demolition debris recycling, 30 material exchanges and reuse opportunities, and issues affecting water quality. 31 Continuation of support and maintenance of the Compost Collection Project – involving collecting organics from 32 restaurants and other food service businesses. 33 Small Quantity Generator educational outreach (special & hazardous wastes). 34 35 CONTINUED CITY IN-HOUSE WASTE PREVENTION & RECYCLING PROGRAM: 36 Keep employees updated on recycling information and opportunities. 37 Expand and evaluate recycling, reuse, and solid waste generation and disposal. 38 Coordinate proper recycling of unwanted electronics, cell phones, batteries, and printer cartridges. 39 40 ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES: 41 Grant administration: Quarterly and final reports for Department of Ecology. 42 Program evaluation and ordinance research and writing. 43 Continuation as part of development Services review, specifically for proposed new and remodeled commercial and 44 multi-family properties to help site enclosures and containers for garbage and recycling. 45 Continued liaison with the municipal solid waste collection companies. 46 47 CONTINUED LIAISON with COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT: 48 Meetings and assistance with County programs: 49 -Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off Station. 50 -County solid waste and recycling facilities. 51 -Used oil, oil filters, and antifreeze collection sites. 52 -“Take It Back” Network for proper electronics recycling. 53 Representative on Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) (Edmonds) 54 55 56 Packet Page 90 of 586    AM-7387     4. E.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Confirmation of Municipal Court Judge Linda Coburn. Recommendation Council confirm the Mayor's appointment of Linda Coburn as the City's Municipal Court Judge, term starting January 12, 2015. Previous Council Action Municipal Court Judge appointments are subject to Council approval per EMC 2.15.030. A Resolution of the City Council expressing intent to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Linda Coburn as the City's Municipal Court Judge was passed at the December 16, 2014 City Council Meeting. Narrative The current Municipal Court Judge (the Honorable Judge Doug Fair) will be leaving Edmonds to serve in another elected Judge position in another jurisdiction at the beginning of January 2015. His last day at the City will be 1/11/15. The current term he is serving under started on 1/1/14 and will not end until 12/31/17.  The City sent out a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) for a Municipal Court Judge in November 2014 to fill the unexpired portion of the Municipal Court Judge term with the impending vacancy. There were five qualified candidates interviewed.  The interview panel was comprised of retired judges and a member of the community (the Honorable Judge Joseph Thibodeau -retired Supreme Court Judge), the Honorable Judge Stephen J. Dwyer (Washington State Court of Appeals Judge) and Mark Ericks (Deputy Executive Director for Snohomish County and former Bothell Police Chief) with HR present as well.   Following the interview panel process, the interview panel recommended 3 candidates for a second interview with the Mayor.  After those interviews, the Mayor determined that Linda Coburn is the candidate that he intends to appoint to the Municipal Court Judge position, subject to the successful completion of a background check, reference check, credit history check and educational history check. On December 16, 2014 this candidate was brought forward in order for Council to adopt a resolution of intent to confirm. Ms. Coburn is an Edmonds resident who received her Juris Doctorate in Law (Cum Laude) from Seattle Packet Page 91 of 586 University in 2005. She also has an MS in Journalism from Ohio University and BA in Communications from the University of Washington. She has an extensive background in law and has been a practicing attorney since 2005. Linda is currently a Public Defender with the Snohomish County Public Defender Association and has also served Pro-Tem Judge with the City of Edmonds. She is a member of the Washington State Bar Association, the Snohomish County Bar Association, the Washington Defender Association, the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Asian Bar Association.  Following EMC 2.15.030, a Resolution was brought forward and adopted at the December 16, 2014 council meeting expressing the Council's intent to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Linda Coburn as the Municipal Court Judge.   Attachments Coburn application Res_1327 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Human Resources Scott Passey 01/09/2015 08:55 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 01/09/2015 08:56 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/09/2015 09:50 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/09/2015 09:53 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 12/29/2014 02:10 PM Final Approval Date: 01/09/2015  Packet Page 92 of 586 Packet Page 93 of 586 Packet Page 94 of 586 Packet Page 95 of 586 Packet Page 96 of 586 Packet Page 97 of 586 Packet Page 98 of 586 Packet Page 99 of 586 Packet Page 100 of 586 Packet Page 101 of 586 Packet Page 102 of 586 Packet Page 103 of 586 Packet Page 104 of 586 Packet Page 105 of 586 Packet Page 106 of 586 Packet Page 107 of 586 Packet Page 108 of 586 Packet Page 109 of 586 Packet Page 110 of 586 Packet Page 111 of 586 Packet Page 112 of 586 Packet Page 113 of 586 Packet Page 114 of 586 Packet Page 115 of 586 Packet Page 116 of 586 Packet Page 117 of 586 Packet Page 118 of 586 Packet Page 119 of 586 Packet Page 120 of 586 Packet Page 121 of 586 Packet Page 122 of 586 Packet Page 123 of 586 Packet Page 124 of 586 Packet Page 125 of 586 Packet Page 126 of 586 Packet Page 127 of 586 Packet Page 128 of 586 Packet Page 129 of 586 Packet Page 130 of 586 Packet Page 131 of 586 Packet Page 132 of 586 Packet Page 133 of 586 Packet Page 134 of 586 Packet Page 135 of 586 Packet Page 136 of 586 Packet Page 137 of 586 Packet Page 138 of 586 Packet Page 139 of 586 Packet Page 140 of 586 Packet Page 141 of 586 Packet Page 142 of 586 Packet Page 143 of 586 Packet Page 144 of 586 Packet Page 145 of 586 Packet Page 146 of 586 Packet Page 147 of 586 Packet Page 148 of 586 Packet Page 149 of 586 Packet Page 150 of 586 Packet Page 151 of 586 Packet Page 152 of 586 Packet Page 153 of 586 Packet Page 154 of 586 Packet Page 155 of 586 Packet Page 156 of 586 Packet Page 157 of 586 Packet Page 158 of 586 Packet Page 159 of 586    AM-7400     5.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Information  Information Subject Title Swearing in of newly confirmed Municipal Court Judge Linda W. Y. Coburn. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Newly confirmed Municipal Court Judge Linda W. Y. Coburn will be sworn in by The Honorable Judge Stephen Dwyer of the Court of Appeals. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Court Scott Passey 01/09/2015 08:56 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 01/09/2015 08:56 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/09/2015 09:49 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/09/2015 09:53 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 01/06/2015 02:22 PM Final Approval Date: 01/09/2015  Packet Page 160 of 586    AM-7406     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Growing Transit Communities Program Recommendation Have discussion and provide direction for information to be presented later that would allow the City Council to consider participating in the Growing Transit Communities Program. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative SUMMARY Information about a new regional framework for maximizing transit community opportunities will be presented at the January 13 City Council meeting by a representative from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). After considering the information, the City Council may provide further direction on any next steps involving the City. BACKGROUND Context: The central Puget Sound is expected to grow to 5 million people by the year 2040, a 35% increase from the year 2010.  To help address this, our region's adopted VISION 2040 calls for focusing growth within centers connected by high-capacity transit to create walkable, compact, and transit-oriented communities that maintain local character, while curbing sprawl on rural and resource lands. Transit investments exceeding $25 billion are planned for our region.  This investment will be most effective if development around transit encourages walkable community connections and equitable opportunities for people. 2011-2013: PSRC received a federal grant to lead the development of a multi-jurisdiction strategy and to take certain steps to encourage equitable transit-oriented development—including affordable housing—around existing or planned light rail stations. The first set of partners for this effort were jurisdictions within designated light rail corridors, as well as transit agencies, housing agencies, and various other interested organizations. (Edmonds was not an initial participant.)  The Growing Transit Communities effort was intended in future years to provide opportunities for other locations that had major transit service--but not necessarily a light rail station. Packet Page 161 of 586 After considerable research and discussion, a strategy was adopted with goals and actions for PSRC, local governments, transit agencies, and others. (See Exhibit 1 for the Executive Summary.) Then jurisdictions and organizations signed a compact to indicate their good faith intent to implement appropriate actions, consistent with the strategy. (See Exhibit 2 for the list of signatories.) 2014-2015: Partners in the Growing Transit Communities program work to implement and support actions encouraging appropriate development around transit investments.  (See Exhibit 3 for brochure.)  Representatives meet quarterly as a committee--with support from PSRC--to discuss progress and identify opportunities for action and coordination.  (See Exhibits 4 and 5 regarding the committee.) More Information: For frequently asked questions about the Compact, see Exhibit 6.  For other information, see the PSRC website: http://www.psrc.org/growth/growing-transit-communities. OPTIONS FOR FUTURE CITY INVOLVEMENT The City of Edmonds could become involved in the Growing Transit Communities program by signing onto the compact and participating as a partner.  Alternatively, the City may want to simply be aware of the program and look for lessons that come out of it.  The range of options includes: A.  Direct that more information be brought back to a City Council study session about the Growing Transit Communities partnership so that potential membership may be considered in the future. * B.  Direct that the Growing Transit Communities compact be reviewed by the City Council within the next three months for possible approval to sign. C.  Direct that occasional updates on the Growing Transit Communities program be presented, but without necessarily any interest in Edmonds becoming a partner. D.  Consider the January 13 presentation but provide no specific direction at this time. * Option A is recommended. NEXT STEPS A presentation by a PSRC representative will be made at the January 13 study session.  The City Council may ask questions, have discussion, and provide any direction on future City involvement. Attachments Exhibit 1: GTC Executive Summary Exhibit 2: Signatories Exhibit 3: GTC Brochure Exhibit 4: Committee Framework Exhibit 5: Committee Webpage Exhibit 6: FAQ Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/09/2015 07:10 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/09/2015 07:59 AM Packet Page 162 of 586 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/09/2015 08:27 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 01/08/2015 12:09 PM Final Approval Date: 01/09/2015  Packet Page 163 of 586 The Growing Transit Communities Strategy Executive Summary December 2013 Puget Sound Regional Council Packet Page 164 of 586 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 20132 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 2013 3 Executive Summary Our region has a shared vision for a sustainable future that will benefit our people, our prosperity, and our planet. VISION 2040, the central Puget Sound region’s long-range plan for growth, transportation, and economic development, describes the commitments, actions, and stewardship needed over many decades by many stakeholders to achieve far-reaching goals. As the region grows to 5 million people — a more than 30 percent increase — by the year 2040, a key goal calls for growth within existing urban areas and especially in compact, walkable communities that are linked by transit. The region’s recent commitments to invest over $25 billion in high-capacity transit (light rail, bus rapid transit, express bus, streetcar, and commuter rail) present an once- in-a-lifetime opportunity to locate housing, jobs, and services close to these transit investments, and to do so in a way that benefits surrounding communities. A region- wide coalition of businesses, developers, local governments, transit agencies, and nonprofit organizations — the Growing Transit Communities Partnership — spent three years working together to create solutions that will encourage high-quality, equitable development around rapid transit. The Challenges Growth, as envisioned in VISION 2040, should benefit all people by increasing economic development and access to jobs, expanding housing and transpor- tation choices, promoting neighborhood character and vitality, and improving public health and environmental quality. But, this is easier said than done. In particular, this growth may magnify several challenges currently facing the region: Living in and working in walkable, transit-served communities. Recent market studies show that there is significant unmet demand for housing and jobs located within walking distance of transit. Many people want to live and work in compact, complete, and connected communities, but investments in transit and in transit station areas have fallen behind. Attracting growth to tran- sit communities will require policies to encourage more housing and jobs near transit along with investments in the infrastructure and services for a growing population. Housing choices for low and moderate income households near transit. Forty-three percent of the region’s households make less than 80 percent of the area median income. However, most new market-rate housing that is accessible to transit is unaffordable to these households. With new investment in transit communities, many lower-cost units are at risk of displacement. For the lowest income households, many of whom are transit dependent, the supply of subsidized housing is far short of the need. Building mixed-income communities that meet these needs will require improved strategies to minimize displacement, and preserve and produce diverse housing types affordable to a full range of incomes. Equitable access to opportunity for all the region’s residents. Analysis of indicators across the region reveals that too many people do not have access to education, employment, mobility, health, and neighborhood services and amenities. These community resources are the building blocks that create the opportunity to succeed and thrive in life. Transit communities, with their access to the region’s jobs, institutions, and services are critical focal points for achieving greater equity for the region’s diverse residents. As these communities grow through public and private invest- ment, equitable development will require targeted community improvements and strategies to connect existing and future residents to greater regional resources. Packet Page 165 of 586 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 20134 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 2013 5 Why Now? In the last decade, central Puget Sound voters have approved a series of high-capacity light rail and other transit investments — a commitment of approximately $25 billion — that will serve the region’s most densely populated and diverse communities for decades to come. These investments present an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to support and improve existing communities and meet regional goals through strategies to make great places for people to live and work. In order to do this, the region must: Leverage transit investment to build sustainable communities. Transit investments, such as light rail, streetcars, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit, create value by connecting communities to the larger region. Transit communities are the best opportunity for the region to become more sustainable, prosperous, and equitable. Create new resources and tools. Current resources available to governmental and non-governmental agencies alike are not enough. New tools and funding sources will be necessary to meet infrastructure, economic development, housing, and other community needs. Work together across the region and across sectors. It will take collaboration among a wide spectrum of public, private, and nonprofit agencies and organizations working together to promote thriving and equitable transit communities. There are roles for everyone in this process. The Strategy How will this all be accomplished? The Growing Transit Communities Strategy calls for regional and local actions that respond to the challenges and opportunities in transit communities and represent major steps toward implementing the growth strategy in VISION 2040. The Strategy was developed by the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, an advisory body of various public, private, and nonprofit agencies and organizations working together to promote success- ful transit communities. The Growing Transit Communities Partnership, funded by a three-year grant from the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities and housed at the Puget Sound Regional Council, established three main goals for the Strategy: • Attract more of the region’s residential and employment growth near high-capacity transit. • Provide housing choices affordable to a full range of incomes near high-capacity transit. • Increase access to opportunity for existing and future community members in transit communities. Toolkit of Strategies and Actions Twenty-four strategies, guided by a People + Place Implementation Typology, constitute the “playbook” for the Growing Transit Communities Strategy. From overarching regional approaches to local and individual actions, together these provide a set of coordinated steps toward ensuring a prosperous, sustainable, and equitable future. The Strategy presents 24 strategies recommended by the Growing Transit Communities Partner- ship and includes specific actions for PSRC, transit agencies, local governments, and other regional partners. The recommendations address the three main goals for transit communities. As a whole, the strategies are a call to action for partners across the region to redouble efforts to create great urban places and build equitable communities around transit. Fully recognizing the strong policy foundation embodied in regional and local plans, as well as the innovative work in implementing those plans to date, the Partnership makes these recommendations as a challenge to do more than is being doing today. The Toolkit of Strategies and Actions fall into four groupings: The Foundation Strategies recommend a regional and local framework for ongoing work to support transit communities. Modeled on the rela- tionships and values at the heart of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, these strategies envision an ongoing regional effort involving a variety of partners and community members in decision making and implementation at all levels. 1. Establish a regional program to support thriving and equitable transit communities. 2. Build partnerships and promote collaboration. 3. Engage effectively with community stakeholders. 4. Build capacity for community engagement. 5. Evaluate and monitor impacts and outcomes. The Strategies to Attract Housing and Employment Growth recommend actions to make great urban places that are attractive to households and businesses, remove barriers to development, and support development in emerging markets. 6. Conduct station area planning. 7. Use land efficiently in transit communities. 8. Locate, design, and provide access to transit stations to support TOD. 9. Adopt innovative parking tools. 10. Invest in infrastructure and public realm improvements. Packet Page 166 of 586 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 20136 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 2013 7 Successful implementation will require shared commitment and collaboration among gov- ernments, major stakeholders, and community members. There are roles for many different regional and local partners, each with a distinct jurisdiction, authority, and mission. Consistent with those roles, all are asked to use the Toolkit of Strategies and Actions as a “playbook” for taking action to advance the regional vision of creat- ing thriving and equitable transit communities in a manner that is a best fit to each community. The Strategies to Provide Affordable Housing Choices recommended actions to define and quantify housing needs, preserve existing affordable housing and supply new housing choices, and capitalize on the value cre- ated by the private market — enhanced by transit investments — in order to achieve the broadest range of affordability in transit communities. 11. Assess current and future housing needs in transit communities. 12. Minimize displacement through preservation and replacement. 13. Increase housing support transit-dependent populations. 14. Implement a TOD property acquisition fund. 15. Expand value capture financing as a tool for infrastructure and affordable housing. 16. Make surplus public lands available for affordable housing. 17. Leverage market value through incentives. 18. Implement regional fair housing assessment. The Strategies to Increase Access to Opportunity recommend actions to understand regional disparities in access to opportunity, identify existing and potential new resources and tools to meet community needs, and build support for equitable opportunities through education, coalitions, and leadership. 19. Assess community needs. 20. Invest in environmental and public health. 21. Invest in economic vitality and opportunity. 22. Invest in equitable mobility options. 23. Invest in equitable access to high quality education. 24. Invest in public safety in transit communities. People + Place Implementation Typology No two transit communities are alike. Accordingly, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the strategies that will help a transit community thrive and grow with equitable out- comes for current and future community members. The Strategy presents the People + Place Implementation Typology as a regional framework for local implementation. Working with stakeholders from each of three major light rail corridors, the Growing Transit Communities Partnership analyzed conditions in 74 study areas as a basis for a set of locally tailored recommendations. Based on indica- tors of the physical, economic, and social conditions in each transit com- munity, the results of this typology analysis suggest eight Implementa- tion Approaches. Key strategies and investments address the needs and opportunities in different communities, while also advancing regional and cor- ridor-wide goals. The Implementation Approaches and typology analysis are intended to complement and inform existing regional and, especially, local plans as they are implemented, evalu- ated, and refined in the coming years. The Next Steps The Growing Transit Communities Strategy includes a three-part imple- mentation plan to promote thriving and equitable transit communities in the central Puget Sound region. The Regional Compact affirms the support of a variety of partners from throughout the region for the Partner- ship’s work and a commitment to work toward regional goals by implementing the Strategy. The Toolkit of Strate- gies and Actions and the People + Place Implementation Typology, as described above and detailed in the body of this report, include 24 recom- mended strategies, eight implementa- tion approaches, and corridor specific priorities that will guide an evolving approach to transit com- munities. The Individual Work Plans are local government, agency, or organization specific work plans, to be developed individually and in consultation with PSRC staff, which define short- and medium-term actions that can implement the Strat- egy. The nature and format of the Individual Work Plans will vary to reflect the diversity of public and private partners, legis- lative and decision-making processes, and actions adopted. By working together, the central Puget Sound region can achieve its vision for a sustainable future that advances our people, our prosperity, and our planet. The Growing Transit Communities Strategy lays out essential tools and actions to get us there. THE PLEDGE REGIONAL COMPACT THE PLAYBOOK TOOLKIT & TYPOLOGY THE PLAN INDIVIDUAL WORKPLANS Packet Page 167 of 586 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 20138 Additional copies of this document may be obtained by contacting: Puget Sound Regional Council Information Center 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1035 phone 206-464-7532 fax 206-587-4825 email info@psrc.org website psrc.org American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: Individuals requiring reasonable accom- modations may request written materials in alternate formats, sign language interpret- ers, physical accessibility accommodations, or other reasonable accommodations by contacting the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le at 206-464-6175, with two weeks advance notice. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le through TTY Relay 711. Funding for this document provided in part by member jurisdictions, grants from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation. PSRC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see http://www.psrc.org/about/public/titlevi or call 206-587-4819. Puget Sound Regional Council Packet Page 168 of 586 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 9 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 0 o f 5 8 6 Puget Sound Regional Council Transit Communities Growing What We’ve Accomplished The Growing Transit Communities Partnership created the Growing Transit Communi- ties Strategy, an action framework for partners across the region. The Strategy builds on the many products of the Growing Transit Communities work program, including: Corridor-Based Planning • Growing Transit Communities Compact, with numeric goals for growth and affordability in the region’s transit station areas, and an ongoing commitment to collaboration and action. • Toolkit of Recommended Strategies and Actions with a range of overarching region- al approaches to local and individual actions, providing a set of coordinated steps. • People + Place Implementation Typology to link strategies and investments to transit communities based on current needs and opportunities. • Comprehensive Existing Conditions Report and Transit-Oriented Development Market Study for 74 transit communities across the region. A Regional Equity Network • Cross-sector stakeholder body — the Equity Network — to provide a forum and expertise on equitable development principles and strategies. • Comprehensive regional Opportunity Mapping: “Equity, Opportunity, and Sustainability in the Central Puget Sound Region.” • 54 Capacity-Building Grants totaling $450,000 to 43 community-based organizations to support engagement, outreach, organizing, and research. • Two-day Puget Sound Equity Summit that brought together over 400 community members, activists, and representatives of the public and private sector. Affordable Housing Tools • White paper and business plan for a Regional Equitable Development Initiative (REDI) fund to encourage affordable housing preservation and production near transit. • Regional Fair Housing Equity Assessment to identify barriers to fair housing choice across the central Puget Sound region, and regional strategies to address them. • White paper and draft legislation on an Equitable Value-Capture Financing Tool to fund local infrastructure investments to support growth and affordable housing. • Inventory of Publicly Owned Lands in transit communities and recommendations for use of surplus lands. • Regional Subsidized Housing Database mapping all publicly-supported and owned housing units in the region. Innovative Demonstration Projects • Area-wide Environmental Impact Statement and Subarea Plan for Tacoma’s South Downtown neighborhood. • Urban Design Framework and Healthy Transit Communities Principles for Seattle’s Northgate station area and urban center. • Best Practices and Implementation Support for East Link station areas in Bellevue and Redmond, taking the next steps to implement station area plans. More Transit is Coming! The central Puget Sound region will invest over $25 billion in high-capacity transit in the coming decades. That means more light rail, bus rapid transit, express buses, streetcars and commuter rail. We’re Getting Ready! The Growing Transit Communities Partnership is a region-wide coalition of businesses, developers, local govern- ments, transit agencies, and nonprofit organizations working together to create great communities around rapid transit. What are Equitable Transit Communities? Equitable transit communities are transit-served neighborhoods that provide housing and transportation choices, a mix of services, amenities and businesses, and greater social and economic opportunity for current and future residents. Successful communities are created through inclusive planning and decision-making, resulting in development that accommodates future residents and jobs, increases opportunity for existing communities, and enhances public health. How Can the Region Create Equitable Transit Communities? Three Program Goals: Attract more of the region’s housing and job growth near high- capacity transit. Provide affordable housing near transit. Increase access to opportunity for existing and future members of transit communities. Packet Page 171 of 586 Transit Communities Growing For more information, visit psrc.org/growth/growing-transit-communities Three-Part Framework for Action The Growing Transit Com- munities Strategy includes three steps to promote thriving and equitable transit com- munities in the central Puget Sound region. The Regional Compact affirms the sup- port of a variety of partners from throughout the region for the Partnership’s work and a commitment to work toward regional goals by implementing the Strategy. The Toolkit of Strategies and Actions and the People + Place Implementation Typology include 24 recommended strategies, eight implementation approaches, and corridor specific priorities that will guide an evolving approach to transit communities. Individual Work Plans are local government, agency, or organization specific work plans which define short- and medium-term actions that can implement the Strategy. 1. Establish a regional program to support thriving and equitable transit communities. 2. Build partnerships and promote collaboration. 3. Engage effectively with community stakeholders. 4. Build capacity for community engagement. 5. Evaluate and monitor impacts and outcomes. Implementation Eight Implementation Approaches There is no one-size-fits-all approach for the strategies that will help a transit community thrive and grow. The People + Place Implementation Typology is a regional framework for local action with eight unique approaches that identify appropriate implementation strategies. Big Tent of Partners It will take collaboration among a wide spectrum of public, private, and nonprofit agencies and organizations working to- gether to promote thriving and equitable transit communities. Signing on to the Growing Transit Communities Compact demonstrates a commitment to working collaboratively toward common goals for the region’s transit station areas. By working together, the central Puget Sound region can achieve its vision for a sustainable future that advances our people, our prosperity, and our planet. 6. Conduct station area planning. 7. Use land efficiently in transit communities. 8. Locate, design, and provide access to transit stations to support TOD. 9. Adopt innovative parking tools. 10. Invest in infrastructure and public realm improvements. Everett Seattle Tacoma A Toolkit of TWENTy-FouR Strategies The Toolkit presents 24 strategies with 228 specific actions for agencies, local governments, and other regional partners. As a whole, the Toolkit is a call to action for partners across the region to intensify efforts to create great urban places and build equitable communities around transit. FoundationStrategies HousingChoices Access to OpportunityAttractGrowth Puget Sound Regional Council 1011 Western Ave., Suite 500 • Seattle, WA 98104 206-464-7090 • psrc.org • December 2013 11. Assess current and future housing needs in transit communities. 12. Minimize displacement through affordable housing preservation and replacement. 13. Increase housing resources to support transit-dependent populations. 14. Implement a TOD prop- erty acquisition fund. 15. Expand value capture financing as a tool for infrastructure and affordable housing. 16. Make surplus public lands available for affordable housing. 17. Leverage market value through incentives for affordability. 18. Implement recommen- dations of regional fair housing assessment. 19. Assess community needs. 20. Invest in environmental and public health. 21. Invest in economic vitality and opportunity. 22. Invest in equitable mobility options. 23. Invest in equitable access to high quality education. 24. Invest in public safety in transit communities. Mukilteo Lynnwood Edmonds Mountlake Terrace Kenmore Kirkland Bellevue Redmond Shoreline Issaquah Sammamish Mercer Island Renton Tukwila Burien Des Moines SeaTac Federal Way Fife Kent Packet Page 172 of 586 P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 3 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 4 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 5 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 6 o f 5 8 6 The Growing Transit Communities Strategy Frequently Asked Questions What is the Growing Transit Communities Partnership? The Growing Transit Communities Partnership is an advisory body of diverse public, private, and nonprofit agencies and organizations working together to promote successful transit communities. The Partnership is funded by a three- year grant from the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities and is housed at the Puget Sound Regional Council. The Partnership is developing recommendations for best practices and new tools and resources to address three overarching goals that advance adopted regional policy:  Attract more of the region’s residential and employment growth near high-capacity transit  Provide housing choices affordable to a full range of incomes near high-capacity transit  Increase access to opportunity for existing and future community members in transit communities Why equitable transit communities? Building communities around high-capacity transit is a key strategy to promote a more sustainable, prosperous, and equitable central Puget Sound region. However, if current trends in residential and commercial development continue, the region will fall short of its goals to grow vibrant mixed-use centers. If growth does not address the needs of households and small businesses for affordable housing and commercial space, they will be displaced and excluded from the benefits of regional investment. If public improvements in transit communities do not make employment, education, healthy neighborhoods, and other opportunities more accessible to all households regardless of race, income, or national origin, then the region will have lost a chance for a more equitable future. Why a coordinated regional effort? While the region is already a recognized national leader on planning for sustainable development, the ongoing investment of more than $15 billion in light rail and other forms of transit requires bold, coordinated action to ensure the greatest value from these investments is realized. Success means creating a region that can compete globally for jobs and investment, and is well positioned to attract scarce state and federal funds for transportation and community development. Success also means providing the tools, resources, and public support necessary to achieve a regional vision where compact growth, improved transit connections, and a range of community investments provide benefits fairly to all. What is the Growing Transit Communities Strategy? How will it be implemented? The Growing Transit Communities Strategy is a three-part implementation plan to promote thriving and equitable transit communities in the central Puget Sound region. The Regional Compact affirms support for the Partnership’s work and a commitment to work toward regional goals by implementing the Strategy. The Compact calls for a continuing regional effort involving the region’s diverse partners. The Compact does not obligate partners to implement all recommendations, but rather to consider and adopt tools that fit best with community needs and available resources. The Recommended Strategies and Actions include 24 detailed recommendations that identify actions for public, private, and nonprofit partners. The strategies identify effective transit community development approaches, shaped by input from experts and the Partnership’s corridor task forces and advisory committees. The strategies vary for different types of communities. The Individual Workplans are local government, agency, or organization specific work plans which define short- and medium-term actions that can implement the Strategy. The nature and format of the Workplans will vary to reflect the diversity of public and private partners, legislative and decision making processes, and actions adopted. Packet Page 177 of 586 How do the Growing Transit Communities recommendations relate to state or regional policies and requirements? The recommendations do not create new mandates for partners across the region; rather, they identify tools, resources, and incentives to help partners carry out what is already adopted regional policy in VISION 2040 and Transportation 2040, and in state requirements of the Growth Management Act. The Partnership’s recommendations have been developed for regional and local governments, as well as a range of private, non-profit, and community partners. Adoption of the Partnership’s recommendations will depend on appropriate legislative or board approval. Is this just about light rail stations? By promoting transit ridership, sustainable patterns of development, and equitable social outcomes, the Growing Transit Communities Strategy benefits the entire region. The Partnership has focused on 74 transit communities along the region’s three long-range light rail corridors identified in Transportation 2040. This includes portions of 16 cities (Everett, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Seattle, Mercer Island, Beaux Arts Village, Bellevue, Redmond, Tukwila, SeaTac, Kent, Des Moines, Federal Way, Fife, and Tacoma) and three counties (Snohomish, King, and Pierce). Other important transit nodes also exist throughout the region. Future work will expand the approaches developed by the Partnership to additional transit communities not in the three light rail corridors. What is the Transit Community Typology and how does it guide implementation? From the outset, the Partnership recognized that one set of strategies cannot address the diversity of communities that currently exist or are planned around the region’s high-capacity transit investments. For this reason, the Growing Transit Communities Partnership has developed a People + Place Implementation Typology to link key implementation strategies to transit communities based on characteristics of the existing community. The Typology resulted in eight different types, each with priority strategies, that demonstrate the varying needs and opportunities present in different transit communities across the region. Do the recommendations include updates to VISION 2040, Transportation 2040 or the Regional Economic Strategy? The focus of the Growing Transit Communities Strategy is to develop tools and resources to help carry out existing regional policy. One first step will be integrating regional data and tools developed under this grant with the minor update to Transportation 2040 currently underway. As implementation of the Strategy proceeds in the coming years, PSRC may consider further refining or adding detail to its policies and plans to advance regional goals for transit communities. Any such amendments or policy changes will be subject to PSRC board approval. Will the Growing Transit Communities Strategy affect project funding or plan certification through PSRC? Transportation project funding can be an effective tool to support transit communities in the region. The Partnership has identified key infrastructure needs as well as opportunities to reward implementation of best practices throughout the region. The Strategy suggests adding greater detail or additional points to the current funding criteria used for competitive regionally-managed transportation funds or refinements to the local comprehensive plan certification review criteria. Adoption of changes to project funding or plan certification criteria would be subject to PSRC board approval. What is the timeline for implementation? The Partnership’s Oversight Committee has authorized release of the draft Growing Transit Communities Strategy for public comment in May 2013, with final adoption scheduled for summer 2013. Growing Transit Communities staff will work with Consortium Members and other regional partners on the Regional Compact and the Local Implementation Agreements through the end of 2013. Looking beyond the end of the grant period in early 2014, implementation will continue through regional and local work plans. For more information, please contact Program Manager Ben Bakkenta at 206-971-3286 or bbakkenta@psrc.org. April 29, 2013 Packet Page 178 of 586    AM-7399     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Michael Clugston Department:Planning Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Review of Shaw Lane final plat at 8620 218th St. (File # PLN20120043) Recommendation  Review final plat documents and, since the plat meet the requirements, provide direction to schedule approval of the Shaw Lane Final Plat as a January 20 Consent Calendar item.  Alternatively, the Council may direct it to be on the regular January 20 Council agenda for action. Previous Council Action None Narrative Final plats are Type IV-A decisions made by Council according to Chapters 20.01 and 20.75 ECDC.  If the Council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall sign the statement of city council approval on the final plat.  Council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all dedications shown on the final plat. Echelbarger Investments received preliminary plat approval, with conditions, for the six-lot Shaw Lane plat on March 28, 2013.  The Hearing Examiner's decision and the associated staff report are included as Exhibits 1 and 2.  The approved preliminary plat can be seen at Attachment 2 of Exhibit 2 and the conditions of approval at page 9 of Exhibit 1.  A private cul-de-sac road (86th Place West) was proposed by the applicant along with internal sidewalks, a stormwater detention vault, and frontage improvements at 218th Street.   Following preliminary approval, the applicant received approval of civil subdivision improvement plans on February 24, 2014.  Those plans are attached as Exhibit 3.   The final plat for Shaw Lane is attached as Exhibit 4.  As a condition of preliminary approval, a 10-foot street dedication was required on the south side of 218th Street to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet in that location.  This can be seen on Sheet 2.  In addition, an easement is granted to the City of Edmonds to allow inspection of the stormwater facility on Lot 1.  The private road and other facilities will be maintained by a homeowners association established by the applicant.  A copy of the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions documents is included as Exhibit 5. Echelbarger Investments submitted a cover letter with the final plat indicating they have satisfied all of Packet Page 179 of 586 the requirements of the preliminary plat approval (Exhibit 6).  Staff has verified that most of the construction improvements have been completed, but not all (Exhibit 7).  A performance bond in the amount of $273,722.42 has been posted to ensure completion of all public right-of-way and private stormwater improvements consistent with the approved plans, City codes and standards.  Prior to recording of the plat, all required improvements shall be constructed and accepted by the City or an additional performance bond will need to be posted to reflect the cost of all required improvements.  This performance bond would provide surety that all required improvements would be completed within 12 months of recording of the plat.  Upon completion of the required improvements, maintenance bonds will be posted as required.  At this time, a draft approval resolution is being reviewed by the City Attorney.  The final resolution will be attached to the January 20 agenda memo as will a copy of the final plat documents with the required City approvals.   Attachments Exhibit 1 - Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat decision Exhibit 2 - Preliminary plat staff report and attachments Exhibit 3 - Shaw Lane civils Exhibit 4 - Shaw Lane final plat Exhibit 5 - Shaw Lane CCRs Exhibit 6 - Final cover letter Exhibit 7 - Engineering memo Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/08/2015 07:01 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/08/2015 11:13 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2015 11:18 AM Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 01/06/2015 08:59 AM Final Approval Date: 01/08/2015  Packet Page 180 of 586 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 1 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 2 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 3 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 4 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 5 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 6 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 7 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 8 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 9 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 9 0 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 9 1 o f 5 8 6 CITY OF EDMONDS 121-5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION To: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner 11%~ &vy!54r From: I . Mike Clugston, AICP Associate Planner Report Date: March 6, 2013 File: PLN20120043 (Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat) Hearing Date: March 14, 2013 at 3:00PM Council Chambers, Public Safety Building 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Applicant: Echelbarger Investments, LLC (Todd Echelbarger) I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION 87TH ..J Q. RS-8 ( i2 oni PL The Applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.45 acre lot addressed as 8620 218th Street SW into six lots (Attachment 1). The site is located in a Single-Family Residential (RS -8) zone that allows lots with a minimum area of 8,000 square feet. The proposed lot layout is shown on the preliminary plat map and preliminary development plan (Attachments 2 & 3). The existing house on the parcel will be removed while a short cul-de -sac road is proposed along with related utilities. If preliminary approval is granted, the Applicant must submit for City approval· of civil improvement plans and then final plat · ' I Unincorporated Sno/1omisil County , ' ~' . ,Tt approval prior to obtaining building permits for the new lots. City of Edmonds Zoning Map, Apri/17, 2012 Packet Page 192 of 586 II. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Applicant: Echelbarger Investment, LLC (Todd Echelbarger) B. Site Location: 8620 218th Street SW (Tax ID 27043000202800} Echelbarger' s Shaw Lane Plat File No. PLN20120043 Page 2 of 11 C. Request: To divide one lot with a total area of approximately 1.45 acres {63,440 square feet) into six lots in a Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone. D. Review Process: The Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the decision on preliminary plats as a Type 111-B permit as set forth in ECDC 20.01.003. E. Major Issues: 1. Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan 2. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20, single-family residential zones. 3. Compliance with ECDC Title 18, public works requirements. 4. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.01, development permit review requirements. 5. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15A, environmental review. 6. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.75, subdivision requirements. 7. Compliance with ECDC Chapters 23.40, environmentally critical areas. F. General Site Context: 1. Setting. The subject property at 8620 218th Street SW is located in the Single- Family Residential (RS-8) zone. It is surrounded by similarly zoned and developed lots with the exception of the large church parcel to the south. 2. Topography and Vegetation. The subject site is generally level. Vegetation on the parcel consists of typical residential landscaping, including grass, ornamental trees, and shrubs. There are also a number of larger evergreen and deciduous trees on the parcel which contribute to a mature site appearance. 3. Lot Layout. The proposed lot layout is shown on the preliminary plat map (Attachment 2}. The existing house and appurtenances will be removed from the parcel. Each of the six new lots will access the proposed private plat road (86th Place SW) which will intersect 218th Street SW. Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 1. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following goals and policies for Residential Development which apply to redevelopment of the subject site which is designated Single Family Urban 1: Residential Development B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens Packet Page 193 of 586 Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat File No. PLN20120043 Page 3 of 11 should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. B. 5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: B.S. a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. B.S. b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. B. S.c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. B. S.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B. 6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. 2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies. The proposal involves dividing one large 1.45 acre lot into six single-family residential building lots along with the construction of a road and sidewalks to provide access to the lots. The new parcels will be able to support the construction of six new homes thereby increasing the amount of available housing within the City. At the same time, the natural environment presents few constraints to the redevelopment of this site with the exception of the need to remove trees. In the end, single family redevelopment compatible with that of the surrounding area is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Compliance with ECDC 20.15A, Environmental Review 1. The applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist (Attachment 5) with the preliminary plat application since the project proposes to create six residential building lots (dwelling units). A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City of Edmonds on February 28, 2013 (Attachment 6). The appeal period expires on March 14, 2013; no appeals have been received as of the date of this report. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required for the proposal because the impacts likely to occur due to the specific request were determined not to be so significant and adverse that they could not be adequately mitigated by the application of existing development regulations. Both the applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC 20.15.A. Packet Page 194 of 586 C. Compliance with ECDC 16.20, the Zoning Ordinance 1. Lot and Street Layout Echelbarger's Shaw lane Plat File No. PLN20120043 Page 4 of 11 a. Each proposed lot must meet the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance (ECDC 16.20.030}. The proposed street must meet the requirements found in ECDC 18.80. Compliance with street and associated engineering requirements is further described in Attachments 7-9. b. Lot area. The following table summarizes the minimum required lot area for newly created parcels in the RS-8 zone (in square feet): Required Proposed Proposed lot Area Gross Net lot 1 8,000 9,976 9,976 lot 2 8,000 8,170 8,170 lot 3 8,000 9,909 9,909 lot 4 8,000 9,555 9,555 lot 5 8,000 8,475 8,475 lot 6 8,000 8,257 8,257 Tract 7,070 -- 999 c. Lot width. The following table summarizes the minimum required lot width for parcels in the RS-8 zone (distances in feet): Required Proposed lot Width lot Width lot 1 70 86 lot 2 70 86 lot 3 70 81.5 lot 4 70 81.5 lot 5 70 87 lot 6 70 87 2. Setbacks a. Setbacks are ultimately confirmed at building permit. However, based on the development standards for the RS-8 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows (distances in feet): Packet Page 195 of 586 Lot North Type property line lot 1 Corner 25 lot 2 Interior 7.5 lot 3 Irregular 25' from turnaround; 7.5' for the rest lot 4 Irregular 25' from turnaround; 7.5' for the rest lot 5 Interior 7.5 lot 6 Corner 25 3. Structural Lot Coverage East property line 25 25 25' from turnaround; 7.5' for the rest 7.5 25 7.5 South Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat File No. PLN20120043 Page 5 of 11 West property line property line 7.5 7.5 7.5 15 15 7.5 25' from 15 turnaround; 7.5' for the rest 7.5 15 7.5 25 Since the existing structures on the parcel will be removed as part of this project, the newly created lots will all have zero structural lot coverage prior to development. Any future buildings or structures will be allowed to cover no more than 35% of each lot. According to ECDC 21.15.110, "coverage means the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point 2.5 feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area." This will be verified through building permits. D. Compliance with ECDC 20.75, the Subdivision Ordinance 1. Environmental resources a. The subdivision chapter, ECDC 20.75.085, states that a proposed subdivision should be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts where environmental resources exist (such as trees, streams, ravines, or wildlife habitats). The existing trees on the site are environmental resources. According to ECDC 18.45.050, trees should be retained to the maximum extent feasible and retained trees must be protected during development. b. The site is fairly level but the installation of the plat road, construction of the rockery at the southwest corner of the parcel, and grading for eventual building pads will result in grading of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of cut and an equal amount of fill. c. No potentially hazardous conditions are known to exist at the site. The proposed project is not located in an identified floodplain. d. A stormwater management plan must be submitted to the Engineering Division during the civil improvement phase of the project and then when individual building permits are applied for at this site. Any proposed development on the parcels must be designed to meet current code and minimize off-site stormwater impacts. Packet Page 196 of 586 Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat File No. PLN20120043 Page 6 of 11 e. No views will be impacted by the construction of the proposed plat. 2. Dedications A 10-foot street dedication is required on the south side of 218th Street SW (Attachment 7}. The proposed internal plat road {86th Place West) will be a private road and not dedicated to the City. 3. Improvements Attachment 7 summarizes the civil improvements that are required as part of the proposed plat. Improvements include upgrading the section of 218th Street SW adjacent to the plat with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The proposed plat road and turnaround must be constructed to City standards even though the road and its maintenance will remain private. New water and sewer lines must be installed for each lot along with a stormwater system for the plat. Separate civil improvement plans must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any subdivision-related construction at the site. 4. Safe walk provisions The subject parcel is primarily served by three area public schools: Chase Lake Elementary School, College Place Middle School, and Edmonds-Woodway High School. According to information available on the Edmonds School District website (accessed February 28, 2013}, all three schools are within a 1-mile walking distance of the site. There are no existing sidewalks on the portion of 218th Street between 88th and 84th Avenues West. However, crosswalks are available at 218th and 84th and there are sidewalks on the east side of 84th Street north to Chase Lake and on to Edmonds-Woodway and College Place. E. Compliance with ECDC 23.40, Environmentally Critical Areas 1. Critical Areas File number: CRA20120092 As indicated in the referenced critical area determination, the property does not contain and is not adjacent to any critical areas and thus was granted a /waiver' from further critical area study. F. Public Notice The subject application was submitted on November 27, 2012 (Attachment 1} and determined to be complete on December 26, 2012 (Attachment 10}. On January 9, 2013, a notice of application (Attachment 11} was published in the Everett Herald newspaper and posted at the subject site, as well as the other locations (the Public Safety Building, City Hall, and the Edmonds Library). The notice was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. On February 28, 2013, a SEPA determination and notice of public hearing were published, posted and mailed in the same manner as the original notice (Attachment 12). The City has complied with the noticing provisions in ECDC 20.03. Packet Page 197 of 586 G. Comments 1. Technical Comments Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat File No. PLN20120043 Page 7 of 11 Five groups reviewed and commented on this preliminary plat: the Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments, the Planning and Engineering Divisions, and Fire District #1 (Attachment 13}. The Parks Department had no concerns with the project. The Fire District requested a fire hydrant be located near the entrance to the proposed plat; the requirement is noted in Attachment 7. Public Works submitted joint comments with the Engineering Division, who requested additional information and changes to be shown on the Preliminary Development Plan. Planning also requested clarification regarding the proposed clearing as well as the western rockery (Attachment 10). Updated preliminary plan sheets were submitted by the Applicant on January 9, 2013 and February 8, 2013 which resolved staff concerns (Attachments 2-4). 2. Public Comments Three public comments were received about this proposal. Mary Olson {21704 85th Place W) had concerns regarding traffic and whether 218th Street could safely handle the current number of cars and pedestrians, let alone additional trips generated by the proposed development (Attachment 14). Michael and Jean Connelly {8612 218th Street SW) as well as Pat Hepler {8606 218th Street SW) were concerned about some existing trees on the site (Attachments 15 & 16). While staff's response to the comments is below, the Applicant has also reached out to the neighbors in order to try to address their concerns (Attachment 17). Staff response: Regarding the traffic and pedestrian situation on 218th Street, as Mrs. Olson rightly notes, the road is narrower than ideal and not very pedestrian-friendly due to the lack of sidewalks and the presence of open ditches along the road. That said, speeds on 218th Street are limited to 25 MPH and there is no center striping between 84th and 92nd Avenues which serves to make drivers more cautious when travelling the road due to uncertainty of lane location. With respect to the proposed development, the length of 218th Street adjacent to the plat must be improved with additional paving as well as curb, gutter and sidewalk (proposed Condition of Approval #3). But, by law, the City cannot require additional improvements beyond the extent of the plat. As other lots on 218th Street are redeveloped, however, similar right-of-way improvements will be required by the City. Such areas may also be identified for future upgrade as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The neighbors immediately east of the proposed project (Connelley and Hepler) were concerned about a number of large trees adjacent to their lots within the proposed development which they feel should be removed due to safety and encroachment concerns. According to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 18.45.050.8), "[t]rees shall be retained to the maximum extent Packet Page 198 of 586 Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat File No. PLN20120043 Page 8 of 11 feasible." Attachment 4 shows the Applicant's proposed clearing plan. Usually, those trees located where the road and other utilities are to be located or where grading is proposed may be removed as part of the subdivision process (the final clearing plan is reviewed and approved during the civil improvement phase of the project). Those trees near the eastern property line of the subject site would typically be retained. In this case, however, since Connelly and Hepler have concerns about the location of specific trees in the area and the Applicant has been in contact with them about the trees, additional consideration is warranted. The trees in question can be seen on the photos included as Attachment 18 (view is looking south, Hepler's is just above the number '218', Connelly's is toward the middle of the oblique photo-Hepler's is seen in the street view). The evergreens adjacent to the Hepler's property are mature and encroaching over the property line anywhere from 5 to 20 feet based on the location of the cyclone fence. While Hepler is probably within his rights to maintain the encroaching trees on his side of the property line (approximately the fence), trimming the trees from the fence all the way to their tops would result in seriously disfigured and damaged trees. The trees described by the Connellys are near the southeast corner of the subject site and would appear to have been topped or otherwise poorly maintained over the years. While the City's goal is to maintain as many trees as possible, there are instances where tree retention is not feasible; for example, where trees are encroaching into a neighboring yard or where past maintenance (or lack thereof) has caused a potentially hazardous situation. As a result, those trees described by the Connellys and Mr. Hepler along the eastern property line of the subject site may be shown as 'to be removed' on the clearing plan submitted with the civil improvement documents as noted in proposed Condition #2. IV. RECOMMENDATION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT Based upon the Findings of Fact and Attachments submitted with the application and during the comment period, the following is the recommendation of the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The preliminary plat should be APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. Where located within a required setback, the top of any rockery or retaining wall shall be no more than 3 feet above original grade without an approved variance. This feature shall be shown on the civil improvement plans, with the top of the wall and the original grade noted at 30-foot intervals along the length of the wall. 2. Those trees of concern along the eastern property line of proposed Lots 4-6 may be shown as 'to be removed during plat development' on the civil improvement plans when they are submitted for City review and approval. All retained trees on the site must be protected in accordance with ECDC 18.45.050. Packet Page 199 of 586 Echelbarger's Shaw lane Plat File No. PlN20120043 Page 9 of 11 3. The Applicant must apply for review and approval of civil subdivision improvement plans. In preparing these plans, the Applicant must address the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required as a Condition of Subdivision" on Attachment 7. The required documents and applicable fees may be submitted to the Engineering Division. 4. Prior to final plat recording, the Applicant must complete the following requirements: a. Install any approved civil subdivision improvements or provide a bond for their completion. b. Make the following revisions to the plat: 1} Add to the face of the Plat: "Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final approval for the subdivision located in File No. PLN20120043 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division." 2} Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, staff's approval block, a plat declaration, and dedications and maintenance provisions, as appropriate. 3} If setbacks are to be shown on the final plat, add the following statement to the face of the plat: "Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right." c. Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's requirements for recording. d. Submit two copies of the plat documents to be recorded for the Planning and Engineering Divisions' approval. e. Submit an updated copy of the title report with the documents proposed to be recorded. V. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL A party of record may submit a written statement requesting reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision within 10 days of the date of issuance of the decision in accordance with ECDC 20.06.010. Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to any appeal and shall be limited to errors of procedure, law, fact, or judgment, and/or the discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the decision. A party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type 111-B decision within 14 days of the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal will be heard at a closed record review before the City Council according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.07. VI. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat approval within the five-year period." However, Packet Page 200 of 586 Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat File No. PLN20120043 Page 10 of 11 the State has provided additional time due to the economic downturn as indicated in RCW 58.17.140{3). This subsection extends the validity of preliminary plat approval for seven years if the date of preliminary plat approval is on or before December 31, 2014. VII. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the staff, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. VIII. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land use application and title report 2. Preliminary plat map, revision 1/9/13 .3. Preliminary development plan, revision 2/8/13 4. Preliminary clearing plan, revision 1/9/13 5. Environmental checklist, prepared 11/13/12 6. SEPA DNS, issued 2/26/13 7. Engineering requirements, dated 2/28/13 8. Preliminary drainage assessment, dated November 2012 9. Traffic impact worksheet, received 11/27/12 10. Letter of complete application, 12/26/12 11. Notice of application, 1/9/13 12. Notice of SEPA determination and public hearing, 2/28/13 13. Departmental comment forms 14. Comment from Mary Olson 15. Comment from Michael and Jean Connelly 16. Comment from Pat Hepler 17. Response to comments by Echelbarger Investments, LLC 18. Oblique aerial photo from Bing.com/maps and street view from Google Earth (accessed 3/4/13) 19. Preliminary plat map (large format), revision 1/9/13 20. Preliminary development plan (large format), revision 2/8/13 21. Preliminary clearing plan (large format), revision 1/9/13 IX. PARTIES OF RECORD Jeffrey Treiber Lovell-Sauerland & Assoc. 19217 36th Ave. W, Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Todd Echelbarger Echelbarger Investment, LLC 4001198th St. SW, Suite 2 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Planning Division Engineering Division Mary Olson 21704 85th Place W Edmonds, WA 98026 Packet Page 201 of 586 Michael & Jean Connelly 8612 218th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Pat Hepler 8606 218th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat File No. PLN20120043 Page 11 of 11 Packet Page 202 of 586 c City of Edmonds Land Use Application ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW RECEIVED NOV 27 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER FOR OFFICIAIS USE ONLY c COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT c CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE# 'fl>J del./ t> o '-/3 ZONE --'-'{("-'';)"--.-Cb""----- REC'D BY kl'\l!_v) c HOME OCCUPATION ~ FORMAL SUBDIVISION c SHORT SUBDIVISION DATE ) \-]7 ~lJ­ FEE~~-J.,blS RECEIPT#------- c LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE __________________________ _ c c OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT OHE [l STAFF D PB DADB CCC c STREET VACATION 0 REZONE c SHORELINE PERMIT c VARIANCE I REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION c OTHER: e PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD e PROPERTYADDRESSORLOCATION~8~6=20~2~18~th~S~tre~e~t~S~.W~·~------------------------------------ PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) .....=E.::och.:.:e:::lb::::a::.;rg"e"-r':::.s .:::S'-'ha::..:wc:...:::La,n::::e:.._ __________________________________ _ PROPERTY OWNER Echelbarger Investments, LLC PHONE # 425-673-11 00 ADDRESS 4001 198th Street S.W., Suite 2, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 E-MAIL Todd@Echelbarger.com FAX# 425-673-1109 TAX ACCOUNT# 27043000202800 SEc._lQ__ TWP. _2::.:7 __ RNG. _4 __ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) Instant proposal is a six lot subdivision for the construction of six new homes. The existing residence will be demolished. DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) All new lots will meet the requirements of the RS-8 zone in which the project is located. Access and utilities will be provided for each lot in accordance with adopted City regulations. APPLICANT Echelbarger Investments, LLC PHONE# 425-673-1100 ADDRESS 4001 198th Street S.W., Suite 2, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 E-MAIL ----'-T-"o"-dd'-'@"'-"E""ch"'e"'lb'"'a""rg,_e-'-r'-'.c"'o'"'"m'----------------------------FAX# 425-673-1109 CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Lovell-Sauerland & Assoc., Inc. PHONE# 425-775-1591 ADDRESS 19217 36th Avenue W., Suite 106, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 E-MAIL JeffT@Isaengineering.com FAX# N/A 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 I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT~_-_-ii.-::;:==""=~=-==-=-=-=~-;?=:::::===-------DATE II -ZO... 2D J (.__. Property Owner's Authorization I, tc:x:k\ a~ l 'corcazr I ~.e , 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 inspectio ~ant to this application. Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8/22112 B -Land Use Application Attachment 1 PLN20120043 Packet Page 203 of 586 CrtiCAGO TITLE COMPANY 3002 COLBY AVENUE, EVERETT, WA 98201 PLAT CERTIFICATE Order No.: 5260945C Certificate for Filing Proposed Plat: In the matter of the plat submitted for our approval, this Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County Clerk of SNOHOMISH County, Washington, and the records of the Clerk of the United States Courts holding terms in said County, and from such examination hereby certifies that the title to the following described land situate in said SNOHOMISH County, to-wit: SEE SCHEDULE A (NEXT PAGE) VESTED IN: ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTS, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY EXCEPTIONS: SEE SCHEDULE B ATTACHED CHARGE: TO FOLLOW TAX: Records examined to NOVEMBER 19, 2012 at 8:00 AM CHICAGO TITLE C~ (/ /,/// ~~-) By\:_//~(;.~ ~ JIM CLINE ' Title Officer (425)259-8223 NOV 27 20'12 DEVELOPMENT SERVICFS COUNTER - PIATCRTA/RDA/I"B99 Packet Page 204 of 586 . CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A (Continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Order No.: 5260945C EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 130.9 FEET THEREOF. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Pl.ATCRTL/RDA/0999 Packet Page 205 of 586 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULEB Order No.: 5260945C This certificate does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following exceptions: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. B. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. C. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, and any other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the premises. D. Easements or claims of easements not shown by the public records. E. Any lien, or right to lien, for contributions to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' compensation, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the public records. F. Liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal. H. General taxes not now payable; matters relating to special assessments and special levies, if any, preceding or in the same becoming a lien. I. Reservations or exceptions in patents or inActs authorizing the issuance thereof; Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. J. Water rights, claims, or title to water. K. THIS REPORT IS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED UPON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS($1000.00). PIATCRTB/RDA/0999 Packet Page 206 of 586 l ! iw I~ ~~ ,~ I i i NW 07 r~-~~;y~ ~ ............. . l 14 ·i--- 1 16 -rt ......... . j 05 ;. ......... . i 03 '{' ... """. !04 30 27 4 1-1)14 1-019 1-015 T.Ot2T ·;:a13T ''""'•'"",!.. 1-027 1-070 1-020 This sketch is for the purpose of showing the approximate general location of the premises without actual survey and Chicago Title assumes no liability in connection with the same. Packet Page 207 of 586 WHEN RECORDED REI'URNTO ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTS, LLC 4001 198TH ST SW LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 CHICAGO TITI.,E CO:MP ANY ELECTRONICA' RECORDED . · 201211190666. 2 11/19/2012 03:38PM 73.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON INSURED BY CHICAGO TITLE ~tn 005260945 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED THE GRANTOR SANDRA JOAN. STEWART AND JUDITH ANN SKAUFEL. PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF VERA MAY SHAW for and in consideration of FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 Dollars ($ 520,000.00 in hand paid, bargains, sells, and conveys to ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTS, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY the following described real estate situated in the County of SNOHOMISH State of Washington: EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 130.9 FEET THEREOF. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Abbreviated Legal: POR SE OF N'N 30-27-4 Tax Account Number: 270430-002-028-00 • Dated: OCTOBER 31,2012 .{W.4frl~ -~ BY: SJyJDRAJOAN. :STEWART, PERSONAL REP. 9LPB15 12/2!.()9 KMS ·''· Packet Page 208 of 586 STATE OF WASHINGTON .;s /.)0 tfcH. ( 5 tf ss COUNTY OF I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT SANDRA JOAN. STEW~~T AND JUDITH ANN SKAUFEL ARE THE PERSONS WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME, AND SAID PERSONS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY SIGNED THIS INSTRUMENT, ON OATH STATED THAT THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF VERA NAY SHAW TO BE THE FREE JI.ND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUCH PARTY FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES. MENTIONED IN THE INSTRUMENT. NOTARY' SIGNATURE ( PRINTED NAME: 5u ;sA./,{ J. £N?U JJ(-z NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RESIDING AT ':'~,.V~N":.UD...lAJ,)._.)>""-5""'-;--:::::::--::::-- NY APPOINTNENT EXPIRES __ Lt~-~~·~-~t~3L------------ ~ -:_ ;:~· ::'/~~J Packet Page 209 of 586 ,~---------.., I I I I I I I I eo:iJHIC«l00100 I nc«~ u.~ ~~o 'I?• 9-1>.,~ ow; I 2 t~l S7t~; f'L.<t£ ~ I E! ..... O>.O'it II~S!f·<r.;TOI< ~oSD26 I I I 1 0 '\\-~ ~1 1 (, o, .:-, 0 \ . L~~-t.-9 _____ .J --:-;~~~ ~~0· ·-------,---------, I I I I Co0013100X>0200 \ l.lill3.S.~1~l+~~tl"~~~r "~m: 1 [(11.111'-<DS. f~9-ii'>GTOJ SS<J26 : : 2 : '" I I " I I \J \ NOTES ZONING RS-8 27a .. oc-oo.<al300 OI..YVF"t: a~<>nST Qi!;:;a,--EDVO'.OS B713ZZ11'.hSTRE£TS.1'1. E!"-'o>.D>.. ~~SlP>e;Tuo• se>no 1. NO ~Ill CAl AREAS OR STEEP SlOPES ARE LOCA lED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE. 2. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY v.tll. BE REMOVED. r-----------------------1 I I I I P I ~,.. ... 1 I . I I I I I I I I I I I.,.. L 0 T 1 I r·i s p 4 e (3 -s 2) : ,.-."'L--~-------------------_J 2704JY.ft)N~500 P.U ,1.!.0 BLHOUR eeC<'021Etl1~EETS..\\ EDV:o".llS.. ll"laL'•~TO!; 9&>)<6 ZONING RS-8 _________ j L 0 T 2 s-1oi-D2) L_ L 0 T 1 s-i 0 1--[J 2) 3. LOTS 1 THOUGH 6 Y.I.U. EACH HAVE AN UllD!~,D£0 INTEREST IN TRACT 999 (PRIVATE ROAD) F"OO THE PURPOSE Of INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTIUllES. MAINTENANCE '.\ILL BE BORNE BY lHE OWERS Of LOTS 1 THROUGH 6. 4. THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN DESIGNATED FLOOD PLAIN. 5 THE lOCATION OF EXISTING STRUClURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE APPROXJIJATE. 6. lOT COVERAGE !S UIJ!lm TO 35!t AND '~'!ill BE RE\1EWED AT TliJE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPUCA110NS. 7. SEE PREUUINARY DEVELDPMDIT FOR PROPOSED STREETS, GRADES, DRAINAGE, SE\'orn AND WATER PlANS. R SEE PREUIJINARY CLEARING PLAU FOR TREE PRESERVATION. -~· s SCALE : 1"=30' 0' 15' 30' 45' 60' PARCEL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEl 1 THE v.£ST 8£ FEET Of THE SOUTH 116 FEET OF THE rlORTH 146 FEET Of THE EAST HAlF Of THE NORTH HAlF Of THE SOUTHI'!£ST QUARTER Of THE SOU1HEAST QUARTER Of THE NORTHWEST QUARTER Of SECTION 30, TOV.llSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.IJ., RECORDS Of SNOHOYISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEl 2 THE V.EST 86 FEET OF THE SOUTH 95 FEET OF THE NORTH 241 FEET OF THE EAST HAlF Of THE NOR111 HAlF Of THE SOUTH\'.'EST QUARTER OF THE SOUlHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTH\'t£ST QUARTER OF SECllON 30, TO'hNSH!P 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. WJJ., RECORDS Of SNOHOYISH COUNTY, WASH!NGTOU PARCEl 3 THAT PORTION Of THE EAST HALF Of THE NORTH HA!F OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARlER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Of THE tlORTHI'o£ST QUARTER OF SECTION .3<J, TOv.NSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WJ.!., RECORDS Of SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLL.Oi'I'S: 8EGtNMtiG AT lHE NORTHV.'EST CORNER Of SAJO SUBDI\o1S10N : THENC( S 0"29'16" W, ALOUG THE 'M:ST UI<E Of SAID SUSDIVlSlON, A DISTANC£ OF 241.00 FEET TO lHE 1RU£ POINT Of BEGINWNG; THENC( CONTINUING S 0'29'16" W, A DtSTANC( Of 91.48 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE Of SAID SUBDI\1S10N; THENC( S 89'30'23" E, AlONG SAID SOUTH UNE, A DISTANCE Of 111.00 FEET; lliENC( PI 0"29'16" E, PARAllEL 'MTH THE \\EST UNE Of SAID SUBDIVISION, A DISTANCE OF 81.55 FEET; lHENCE N 89'30'44. W, A DISTACE Of 25.00 FEET TO ruE EAST Wf! OF THE \\EST 86.00 FEET OF SAJO SU801'.1S10N; THEtfCE N 0"29'16" E, ALONG SAfD EAST UUE, A DISTANCE OF 9.98 ffiT TO THE SOUTH UNE OF THE tiORTH 241 FEET OF SAID SUBD!\1SION; THENCE tl 89'32'13" W, AlONG SAID SOUTH UNE A DISTANCE OF 86.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGIWI!NG. PARCEl 4 lHAT PORTION OF THE EAST HAlF Of THE NORTH HAlF Of TiiE SOUTH'.\EST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER Of THE tiORTHWEST QUARTER Of SECllON 30, TOI'INSHJP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHO!.!ISH COUNTY, WASHtNGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOllO'n'S· BEGlNNlNG AT lHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDlVlSWN: THENCE S 0'29'16" W, ALONG THE wt:ST UtlE Of S.A.ID SUBD!VlSION, A DISTANCE Of 312.48 FEET TO THE SOUTH UI<E OF SAJO SUSOIVISIC>.'I; THENCE S 89'3Cf23" E. ALONG SAID SOUTH Uti£, A DISTANCE OF 111.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT Of BEGINh1NG; THDICE N 0'29'16" E, PARAUB.. WITH THE \'.EST UNE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, A DlSTANct OF 81.55 FEET; lliDICE S 89'30'44" S, A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WllH A CURV£ TO THE RIGHT HAV\NG A RADtUS Of 19.00 FEET AND FROM WHICH INTERSECTION POINT ll!E C£NTER BEARS S 89'.3{)'44. E; THENC£ NORTHEASTERLY, AlONG THE ARC Of SAID CURVE AND CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGI..£ OF 9D'OO'OO", AN ARC DISTANC£ Of 29.85 FEET; THENCE N 0"34'14" E, A DISTANCE Of 7.00 FEET TO THE SOUlli UNE Of THE NORlli 225 FEET OF SAID SUBDIV1SION; lliENCE S 89'32'13" E, AlONG SAID SOUTH UNE, A DISTANC£ Of £7.02 FEET TO THE 'O'EST UNE Of THE EAST 130.9 FEET Of SAID SUBDI'.1SION; THENC£ S 0"26'46" W, .AL(»IG SAID WEST UIIE, A DISTANCE OF 107.59 FEET TO TiiE SOUlli UNE Of SAID SU801V1SION; THENCE N 89'30'23" W, ALONG SAID SOUTH UNE, A DISTANCE Of 92.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINIIlNG. PARGa 5 THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HAlf OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Of THE NORJH\\'EST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TO'MISHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOVISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOUO'It'S: BEG1NtWW AT THE NORTH\'.EST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIV1SIOU; THENCE S 89'32'1Y E, ALONG THE NORTH UNE THEREOf, A DiSTANCE OF 20285 FEET TO THE 'O'EST UtiE OF 1Ht EAST 130.9 FEET OF SAID SUBDIV1S!ON; THEHC£ S 0'26'46' W, ALC>.'lG SAJD '.\'EST UNE. A DtSTANCE Of 125.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH 125 FEET Of SAID SUBDIV1SION AND THE TRUE POINT OF SEGINNI.NG; THENCE CONTIIlUING S 0"26'46" W. A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE Of THE NORTH 225 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE N 89'32'13" W, ALONG SAID SOUTH UNE, A DISTANC£ OF 67.02 FEET; THENCE N 0'34'14" E, A DISTANCE OF 7.50 FEET; THENC£ N 89'.30'44" W, A DISTANCE OF 1.51 FEET TO THE POIIH Of CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 18.50 FEET THENCE tiORTHwt:STERlY, ALONG THE ARC Of SAID CUR\t: AND COliSUi.liNG A CEN1RAL ANGlE OF 90'00'00~, AND ARC DtSTAHC£ OF 29.0£ FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY ON THE EAST UNE Of V.'EST 116 FEET Of SAID SUBIX\IlSION; THENCE N 0"29'16. E. ALONG SAID EAST UN"E. A DISTANCE Of 73.99 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE Of THE NORTH 125 FEET OF SAID SUBOI\IlSION; THENCE S 89'32'13. E, ALONG SAID SOUTH UNE A DISTAJICE Of 86.95 F£ET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGIWIING. PARca 6 THE SOUTH 95 FEET or THE NORTH 125 fEET or THE EAST HAlF or THE NORTH HAlf Of THE SOUTiiwt:ST QUARTER Of THE SOUTHEAST OUAATER OF THE NORTH'OtST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.l.l., RECORDS Of SUOHOI.IISH COUNTY, WASHIIIGTC>.'I; EXCEPT THE EAST 1l0.9 FEET THEREOf, AND, EXCEPT THE '0£1 116 fEET THEREOF. PARca TO BE CONVE"l£0 TO THE OTY OF EDMONDS THE NORTH 10 FEET Of THE EAST HAlF Of THE NORTH HAlF OF THE SOUTHV.'EST QUARTER Of THE SOUTiiEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTH'M:ST OUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOI'INSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WJJ., RECORDS Of SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TRACT 999 (PRIVAlE ROAD) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HAlF Of THE NORTH HAlF OF lliE SOUTH\'oEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Of THE NORTHI'.'EST QUARTER OF SECTlON 30, TO'flllSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.IJ .• RECORDS Of SNOHW!SH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRJBEO AS FOllOi'I'S: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBD!VlSlDN: THENCE S 0'29'16" W, AlONG THE '!'!EST UNE OF SAID SUBDI\IlSION, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH JO FEET Of SAID SUBDI\Il90N; THEtfCE S 89'30'23" E. ALONG SAID SOUTH UNE, A DISTANCE Of 86.00 FEET TO THE EAST WIE OF THE \\'EST 86 FEET OF SAID SUBOIV1SlON .WD lRUE POIIH OF BEGINN\IIG; THENCE S 0"29"16" W, ALONG SAID EAST W<E, A DISTANCE OF 220.98 FEET; THENC£ S 89'30'44" E, A DISTANCE Of 30.00 FEET AN I~HERSECTIO!'I l't!TH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HA\1NG A RADiUS Of 19.00 FEET Al'ID FROM YIHlCH INTERSECTION POINT THE CENTER BEARS S 89'.3{)'44~ E; THENCE tlOR-mEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC Of SAID CURV£ AND CONSUI.IJNG A CENTRAL ANGlE Of 90'00'00~, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 29.85 FEET; THENCE N 0'34'14" E. A DISTAtiCE Of 14.50 FEET; THENC( N 89'30'44" W, A DfSTANCE Of 1.51 FEET TO THE PO{NT OF CURVATURE Of A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAV111G A RADIUS OF 18.50 FEET; THENCE NORTHi\'ESTERlY, ALO!'IG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND CONSUIJING A CENTRAl ANGlE OF 90'00'00", AND ARC DISTANCE OF 29J)6 FEET TO THE POOIT Of TANGENCY ON THE EAST UNE Of VttST 116 FEET Of SAID S!JBDIV1SION; THENCE N 0"29'16" E, AlONG SAID EAST UNE, A otSTANCE OF 168.99 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE Of THE NORTH 30 FEET Of SAJO SUBOIV1SlON; THB-ICE N 89'32'13" W, AlONG SAID SOUTH UNE. A O!STANCE OF .3{).00 FEET TO THE TRUE" POINT OF BEGINWIIG VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"~1500' LEGAL DESCRIPTION EAST HAlf Of THE NORTH HAlf Of THE SOUTH'r't'EST QUARTER Of THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Of THE NORlH\\£ST QUARTER Of SECTION 30, TO'MISHtP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS Of SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ROADS; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 130.9 FEET THEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS THE CENTERUIIE OF 218th STREET S.W. AS MONUMENTED PER PLAT OF ESPERANCE COURT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FilE NUMBER 9904015008, SNHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON BENCH MARK TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASING AT THE INlERSECTION Of 86th PLAC£ W. AND 218th STREET S.W. ElEVAllON : 100.00 OAlUM : ASSUMED OWNER/APPLICANT ECHELBARGER INV£STMDHS. Ll.C 4001 198th STREET S.W., SUITE (;2 l YNN\'1000. WASHINGTON 98036 PHONE : 425-67J.-1100 FAX : 425-673-1109 ZONING RS--8 (NO CHANGE) PARCEL NUMBER 27043000202800 PROPERTY AREA 63,440 SQ. FT. OR 1.456 ACRES PROPERTY ADDRESS 8620 218TH STREET S.W POLICE PROTECTION CITY Of ED'-IONDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDMONDS SCHOOl DISTRICT NO. 15 ENGINEER/SURVEYOR CO.'ciTACT: JEFFREY TRElBER lOVELl-SAUERlAND &: ASSOCIATES, INC. 19217-.36TH A'ot:NUE W. SUITE 106 lYNNWOOD, WA. 98036 PH.: 425-775--1591 WATER SERVICE OTY Of EDMONDS TELEPHONE VERIZON ELECTRICITY P.U.O. NO. 1 Of SNDHOI.IISH COUNTY SANITARY SEWER SERVICE QTY OF EDMONDS FIRE PROTECTION CITY OF EDMONDS RECEIVED JAN o 9 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ECHELBARGER'S SHAW LANE IN SE1 /4, NW1 /4 OF SEC. 30, T.27N., R.4E., W.M. 1-7--13 CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON Attachment 2 PLN20120043 Packet Page 210 of 586 / / / ;. ,J>- 12+00 11+00 86th PLACE W. SCALE : 1'=2o' HOR. 1"'=5' \£RT. ::n~30002C%00 G.OffiiSA.'iO.liJ'-DiEK.GRADMl-l.L ESJ\ 2Hith STRffT S.W. EOVCt<QS,'IIA9-l':<!CITON90016 ZONING RS-8 210{3000206100 SCOTI ~N)IIOI.J..!E IIUNCASTUI ES2J 2UHh STR'i:El S.W Em!CNOS. W.O.S.'i:·ll{;TCf~ S&l26 ZONING RS-8 2704J000203300 OL\'\1?1{; 8.1.?TIST ON'!Ol-EDV<l:'<OS 1!71J:UOfrtSTRE£TS-VL EOVOSDS, WASW<GTON S5026 UNPLATTED ~ I 10+00 TYPE A CURB DETAIL '"'""'-' lnoi<Hl1 ST»DAAD CETJJL E2.11 ROLLED CURB DETAIL """"'-' ~STNi:lAADO£TNt.E2.9 OO+OE&!CJ000-400 ..uomJ A. ~UCt~ 21ns e.sth rv.a: w. rovcr;os. WASH8GTcr~ sEale r-----------------------, I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 L 0 T i 1 : s p 4 6 (Q 8 2) l l _______________________ j ZONING RS-8 I I ______________ J I ----------------' --I I : : I I : 270-4Xl0020J.IOO 11"0-tMl.. D. 1-8.0 .V..'~ E. CCh""Ell"l" W 651221o!lthST!<ETIS-\II: £DVCMlS. \rASHNGTON 3!Kl26 : I ~ LoT i s~ioi-o2) L 0 T 2 S-iOi-D2) NOTES THIS PRo..ECT HAS BEEN Cl..ASSIFlED A LARGE PRo..ECT FOR DRAINAGE REQU!REUENTS. REFER TO PREUJ.IINARY DRAINAGE REPORT FOR DETAILS. THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS INlENOED TO DEUONSTRATE SUBOI\"tstON FEASIBIUTY ONLY AND DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FlHAL PRo..ECT ENGINEERING. REFER TO THE PREUJ.IINARY DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE PREUJ.IINARY DRAINAGE ANAL YSS. THE CURRENT DESIGN PR0\"10ES FOR THE lNSTAU.Al10N OF AN UNDERGROUND OElDmON VAULT SZEO tN ACCORDANCE WITH OTY AND STATE REGULAl100S. THE VAULT \'tiLL lHEN DISOiARGE TO THE Y£ST ALONG lHE SOUTH SOE OF 218th SlREET S.W. TO A POINT \\HERE IT CAN BE CONNECTED TO THE EXISllNG STORM WATER SYSlD.I. THE COONECTIOO POI.NT IS APPROXJJ.IATELY 235 FEET YI£ST OF lHE PROPERTY AS SHO\\N HEREON. FlNAL ENGINEERING t.IAY INCLUDE LOW IMPACT OE\'B...OPI.!ENT TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE THE STORI.! WATER DElENTlON VAULT SIZING. AJ.IENOED SOILS TO BE PLACED UPON AU. LOTS AT Tli.!E Of BUILDING C0NSTRUCl100 IN ACCORDANCE WTH EDMONDS REGULATIOOS, POY£R, lELEPHONE AND COJ.IJ.IUNICA TlONS SYSTEJ.I W:U. BE INSTAU£0 UNDERGROUND AS REQUIRED BY OTY REGULAl100S. THESE SYSTDIS 'nlU. GENERALlY BE LOCATED IN THE 10 FOOT UTlUTY EASEJ.IENT PRO._.,DEO AlONG THE STREET AND PRIVATE 0 fRONTAGES. A "'""' VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1500' LEGAL DESCRIPTION EAST HALF OF lHE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHYIEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHYIEST QUARTER OF SECTlON 30, TO\\NSHJP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.t.l., RECORDS Of SNOHOI.IISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ROADS; AND EXCEPT lHE EAST 130.9 FEET THEREOf. BASIS OF BEARINGS THE CEHIDruNE OF 218th SlREET S.W. AS I.IONUJ.IENTED PER PLAT Of ESPERANCE COURT RECORDED UNDER AIJOITOR'S FlU: NUMBER 9904015008, SNHOJ.IlSH COUNTY, WASHINGTON BENCH MARK TOP OF C"ONCRElE t.IONUJ.IENT IN CASING AT THE INTERSECTlON OF 86th PLACE W. AND 21Bth SlREET s_w. EL£VAl1{)f : 100.00 DATUM : ASSUMED OWNER/APPLICANT EOiEI.BA.QGER INVESTJ.IENTS, UC 4001 198".h STREET S.W., SUITE 12 l YNNWOOO, WASHING TOO 98030 PHONE : -4-25-873-1100 FAX : 425-873-1109 t7.$ R/W U' NEW ROUED CURB, PER C.O.E. SID DETAIL E2-9 (BOTH SIDES) ENGINEER/SURVEYOR CONTACT: JEFFREY TREIBER LO\£LL-SAUERL.ANO & ASSOOATES. INC. 19217-36TH AVENUE W. SUilE 108 L "''NNWOOO, WA. 98036 PH.: 425-775-1591 1U'P./W U' •SUBGRADE AS REQUIRED. GRA\ofi.. BORROW MAY BE REQUIRED PENDING SOILS COOOITlOOS. TYPICAL SECllON N 86TH PLACE W. "'""' A H.T " ~ ;;n.s• !f I /ASFW.LTPA\o'HQ IIi I'"""' I ...• ;.,.•·j~·. , ... '"' AOE AS RE A SUBGR QU\REO. GR \U ~---------2 MIN. ASPHALT CONCRETE PA\IEJ.IENT a..ASS 1/2• ACTUAL DEPTH TO MATCH EXISTING. BORROW MAY BE REQUIRED PENDING SOI.LS COO!JITIONS. O\£R 4• ATB• 2 FT. t.IIN. SAWCUT fROU GUTlr:R (TYPICAL I.IINIUUt.l) INSTAll. NEW CURB, CUTlER AND 5' SIDEWALK PER C.O.E. sm DETAILS E2.8 AND E2.13. IN AA£AS OF lRENCH w:>RK OR YIHERE SUBGRADE IS TO BE REBUILT, C.O.E.I[2.J SHALL APPLY. SEE SHT C6. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT SECllON N 218TH STREET S.W. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ECHELBARGER'S SHAW LANE IN SE1 /4, NW1 /4 OF SEC. 30, T.27N., R.4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 2. ADDEO NOTES ON STORM, APPROX. UNDGRNO. LOC. NEW PO'ii'ER, 1EL CATV., GAS, AOOEO EXISTING SEWER, WATER AND POi'I'£R TO HOUSE, SE~ S"TUB LOT 2 2-7-13 JTI 1. ADDED APPROX STORM ELEV FOR OFFStTE:, ADDEO NOTES, OH I DRAJ!I J.T.T. Attachment 3 PLN20120043 Packet Page 211 of 586 I I I UNPLArTED --------~ I t : ' ::hl'Il£;:;7' :~;:;;;~.;£:: I • I I I w I \ _____ j ____________ l_;_-:::-::;-"'-~-~-~-;;;-;;;-;,;;;-~-F~~;;;;l~~~~r;;;::;;;~-~~~~~~~1;;;;;;:;;;;;;~~;;;;;;;;;;;:;;;;~~;;;;;;;;;;;:;;;;~:;;;;;;;::;; _ _.,// 1 ~ , \.,'~---- -\ _, N 218\h STRE~E_T_:-·1'1-·------~~-~=~~-o--'---~r'-_-4--'-> ---- 14 ,-,- 0 -, _______ l _______ _ 27iJ·HOO•:r20Y.JOO ~------, ro~~~~~~;j~\~ms l \ I I I I I I I I r-----------, I I I I I I I I ocio9~t(P.."'0JtOO I fLORA U\.(-'.'-.'tl W. SHI,'I OiJ,'I I :zteqt ~1&. p-c),_C£ 1r1 1 EDYC>'•D1 \UW'.:GTC!'i 950<6 I I I I 0 ~; £;~ I (., 0-\ S () : -L;-\7-~~-----.J ------;~~~ -t,'?1X-~o· ------ cl'(- ZONING RS-8 UNPLATTED b ' L 0 T 1 S-101-02) Jt I I I I I . -----------------l I ...... --0' 15' 30' 45' 60' VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"~1500' LEGAL DESCRIPTION EAST HAlF Of THE NORTH HALf CF THE SOUTHV.EST QUARTER Of THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Of THE !WRlliWEST QUARTER OF SEC110N .30, TO\\NSHIP 27 NORlH, R,t.,NGE 4 EAST, W.l.1., RECORDS Of SNOHOIJISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXC£PT ROADS; MID EXCEPT THE EAST 130.9 FEET THE~EOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS THE CENTERU!lE Of 218th SlREET S.W. AS IJONU!.!ENTED PER PLAT OF ESPERANCE COURT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S ALE NUMBER 99J40l5008, SNHOIJlSH COUNTY, WASHINGTON BENCH MARK TOP Of CONCRETE MONU).IENT IN tASING AT 1HE fiHERSECTlON Of 86th PlACE W. AND 218th STREET s.w. ElEVATION : 100.00 DATUM : ASSUMED TREE LEGEND INDICA lES EXISTING TREE TYPE AND SIZE NO lED ADJACENT UIDICATES DJSTIIfG TREE TO BE REMOVED DURt.'lG PLAT OEVEl.OPfJEtH NOlES TREES SHOWN TO BE REMOVED HER£ ON ARE Ul.liTED TO THOSE THAT ARE lOCA TEO IN ROADWAY AND UTIUT'I' CORRIDORS, 1HE AREA IN i"HE VICINITY Of THE STORMWATER DETENTION VAULT AND IN THE CENTRAL PORllC»lS Of THE BU!LOifiG PADS. OTHER TREES MAY NEED TO BE REMOVED TO FACIUTATE NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION. THE ADDITlO·JAl. TREES TO BE REMOVED 'MU. BE EVALUATED AT THE liVE Of THE BUILDING PERMIT APPUCATION. THE TREES LOCATED NEAR THE PROPOSED 2-4 FOOT HIGH ROCKERY ALONG THE WESTERLY SIDE Of LOT 2 AllD THE wt:STERLY AND SOUTHERLY SIDE Of LOT 3 I'<U BE EVALUATED AT THE TIME Of RNA!. ENGINEERING PlAN PREPARATlON. "THE ROCKERY IS NECESSARY TO PROV1DE USABlE YARD AREA FOR THE NEW HOMES AND TO CONTROl DRAINAGE AND DIRECT IT TO 1HE STORMWAlER DETENTION VAULT. PRELIMINARY CLEARING PLAN FOR ECHELBARGER'S SHAW LANE IN SE1 /4, NW1 /4 OF SEC. 30, T.27N., R.4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON fP1111 Lovell-Sauerland 8 -E:ngineers/Surveyors/Plannen II Ill e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com 19217 36th Avenue W., Suite 106 • Lynnwood, WA 96036 SCAlE 1w=30' Attachment 4 PLN20120043 Packet Page 212 of 586 City of Edmonds ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR: NOV 27 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERV/C~Q COUNTER ~:o Echelbarger Investments, LLC. 8620 218th Street S.W. Edmonds, Washington PREPARED BY: LOVELL-SAUERLAND AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 19217 -36th AVE W. SillTE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 (425) 775-1591 November 13, 2012 LSA # 5383 Attachment 5 PLN20120043 Packet Page 213 of 586 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Echelbarger's Shaw Lane 2. Name of applicant: Echelbarger Investments, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Echelbarger Investments, LLC 4001198th Street S.W. Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Telephone: 425-673-110 Contact: Jeffrey Treiber Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. 19217 -36th Avenue W., Suite 106 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Telephone: (425) 775-1591 4. Date checklist prepared: November 13, 2012 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Plat development spring 2013, home construction fa112013 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No further expansion is anticipated for this proposal. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Topographic Site Survey Preliminary plat application and exhibits. 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. 2 Packet Page 214 of 586 Neither the applicant nor contact person know of any such pending applications, beyond the instant application. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Preliminary and final plat -City of Edmonds Building Demolition Permit -City of Edmonds Site Development Plan Approval -City of Edmonds Clearing and Grading Permit -City of Edmonds Building Permits -City of Edmonds Occupancy Permits -City of Edmonds 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe ce1tain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The instant proposal is for the development of a six lot subdivision, including associated utilities and infrastructure for the construction of six new single family residences. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Site is located at 8620 218th Street S.W., Edmonds, Washington. A legal description is included on the preliminary plat map attached. The property is located in Section 30, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Snohomish County, Washington. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS l. EARTH a. General description of the site (underline): Jl!!b rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The property has an average slope of approximately 2% downward from the northeast corner of the property toward the southwest corner. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 3 Packet Page 215 of 586 The steepest slope of a small run is approximately 15% in a small area in the southwest center portion of the site. The maximum height of the slope is about five feet. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County the soils consist Alderwood- Urband Land Complex, 2-8 Percent Slopes. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No indications of unstable soils have been observed on the site or immediate area. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 5,000 cubic yards cut and 5,000 cubic yards fill will be required to construct the roadway and prepare the building pads for construction. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Increased erosion potential occurs with any clearing, grading, and construction project. Drainage runoff can erode and scour the exposed soils during construction. Limiting soil exposure, implementing construction BMP's until such time as the soils have been permanently stabilized. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Building and impervious surface coverage will be about 44 percent of the total site. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Naturally occurring vegetation will be retained wherever possible and practicable on the site and will be augmented with plantings of trees and shrubs to stabilize exposed soils. Tree removal will be limited to the building areas, diseased and dangerous trees or areas that will require grading prepare building pads and in necessary utility corridors. Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls will be utilized during site disturbance and development, such as sediment fencing at the base of fills, mulching or seeding with grass, protection of slopes with plastic sheeting, diversion of flows away from adjacent property lines and pipe or swale conveyance to temporary holding/sedimentation ponds as necessary. 4 Packet Page 216 of 586 All temporary erosion control measures will be performed under Washington State Best Management Practices. Permanent measures will be implemented within the completed development, pursuant to Town of Woodway Policy. 2. AIR 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 give approximate quantities if known. Dust emissions could result from site preparation and construction during dry weather months. Automobile and construction exhaust will be generated during site construction. Emissions to air once the project is completed will be limited to automobile exhaust and possible residential fireplaces. Dust and air pollution generated by the completed project will be minimal. Air quality in the area is good and will remain so. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Vehicle emissions from traffic using nearby streets constitute the only source of such emissions. These are expected to have no discernible impact on the project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Measures would include watering during site preparation if dust production becomes significant. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No water bodies, streams or wetlands are located on or adjacent to the site. 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. Not Applicable. 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. No streams or wetlands will be filled. 5 Packet Page 217 of 586 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface-water withdrawals or diversions will be needed for this project. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No portion of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. 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. No discharge of waste materials into surface water is proposed. 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. No ground water will be withdrawn as part of this project, nor will water be discharged. 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. No such discharges are proposed. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): l) 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. Storm water will be collected and detained in an underground vault at the northwest corner of the site. The storm water will be released in the existing storm sewer system located on the south side of218th Street S.W. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Typical components of storm water from impervious surfaces such as roads and parking areas and runoff from yards and other open spaces are petrochemicals and automotive waste products. In the completed project, storm water runoff from 6 Packet Page 218 of 586 impervious surfaces on the site will be dispersed in storm drain systems. The systems will be designed to treat and disperse waste. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: During construction, temporary BMPs will be employed to control runoff and water quality. Such BMPs include silt fences, sediment ponds, temporary construction entrances, rock check dams, and hydroseeding/mulching. These BMPs will be monitored by the onsite project manager for performance. The limits of clearing and grading will be posted prior to any land clearing activities. 4. PLANTS a. Underline types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: Birch, Laurel, Willow, Dogwood, .fruit trees x evergreen tree: .fi:!j cedar, pine, other: Spruce x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, miljoil, other: none other types of vegetation: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most trees and shrubs will be removed during plat. development and new home construction. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Trees will be retained where possible. Street frontages and yards will be professionally landscaped utilizing native plants in suitable locations. 5. ANIMALS a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: small typical native birds 7 Packet Page 219 of 586 mammals: deer, bear, elk, beave1~ other: small typical northwest mammals, including squirrels, mice, gophers and other small mammals fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Washington State, west of the Cascade Mountains, is in the Pacific Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Open spaces and landscaping will provide habitat for local wildlife. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What ldnds 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. Electrical energy will be used for lighting, appliances and possibly space and water heating. In addition, natural gas is available for space and water heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No such impacts are anticipated for this project. c. VVhat 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: No measures are proposed beyond current construction practices for energy demand, insulation and infiltration. 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. No such hazards are anticipated, beyond gasoline or diesel fuel in heavy equipment. Some fuel storage in fuel trucks or stationary tanks may occur during initial grading. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 8 Packet Page 220 of 586 Standard police, fire, and emergency medical services in the event of accident, fire or unusual emergency event could require such services. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The proposal will meet all City of Edmonsd provisions for fire and life safety. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)? Nearby street traffic is the only significant source of noise. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-tenn or a long-tenn basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short -term: Construction activity and related traffic schedules will be limited those hours allowed by the City of Edmonds. Long-term: Human activity and related traffic will be expected to generate noise in the completed project. Most noise will occur around peak traffic hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activity and related traffic will be limited by City of Edmonds regulations. Vehicles and heavy equipment will use properly maintained exhaust systems, and engines will be turned off when not in use. Standard energy code construction requirements will provide interior noise attenuation for all residences. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site currently includes a vacant (recently) residence. As shown on the plans submitted with this package, low density single family residences are found to the north, west and east of the site. A church is located south of the site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. This site is not known to have supported commercial agricultural practice. c. Describe any structures on the site. One vacant home is present. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? 9 Packet Page 221 of 586 Yes, the existing house will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is currently zoned RS-8. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The City of Edmonds Single Family Urban 1 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? There are no sites designated by a shoreline master program within 200 feet of the instant proposal. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? At a rate of 3 persons per residence, approximately 18 people will reside in the completed project. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None are considered necessary. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The property will be developed under the RS-8 zoning regulations which is compatible with the existing comprehensive plans for the property. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The existing home will be demolished and six new ones will be constructed. The new homes are anticipated to be for middle income persons. 10 Packet Page 222 of 586 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NIA 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum height will be 25 feet in accordance with City of Edmonds regulations. The principal exterior building material is expected to be wooden siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views would be obstructed. Views of the property from surrounding residences would be essentially the same. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The yard areas will be professionally landscaped. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Glare will be produced by home and grounds lighting and vehicle headlights during non-daylight hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Doubtful c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Glare from motor vehicle headlights associated with traffic along neighboring roads and driveways is the only expected source of such glare. Impacts to the developed project will be minimal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any All building exterior lights will be shielded and directed toward the interior of the site. 11 Packet Page 223 of 586 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Chase Lake Elementary School is located approximately 1/2 mile northeasterly of the property and Yost Park is located approximately % mile northwest of the site. Both sites provide recreational opportunities. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No such uses will be displaced. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No measures are considered necessary. 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. There are no places or objects listed on, or proposed for local, state or federal preservation registers on or near this site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence . of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the .~ite. No landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific, or cultural importance are known to exist on or near the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: No such measures are proposed. In the event that construction activities encounter historic or cultural artifacts, construction will be halted and a qualified archeologist consulted. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The new residences will have access to 218th Street S.W. Both streets are improved public streets. Interstate 5 access is about 1.5 miles to the east. 12 Packet Page 224 of 586 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is not served by public transit. Community Transit has route(s) along 84u1 A venue W. approximately 0.17 miles to the east. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposal will provide no fewer than 4 off-street parking spaces per residence, eliminating none. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). A new private road will be constructed in accordance with City of Edmonds standards to serve all the lots. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project does not depend upon, or occur in the immediate vicinity of water, rail or air transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. There will be five new residences. The new homes should generate 9.57 trips per day per home or 48 new trips The PM peak-hour trip is estimated to be 6 total. This peak- hour generation is expected to occur between 4:00 and 6:00pm. g. Proposed measure to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Traffic Mitigation Fees will be paid for the five new residences. The fee based upon City of Edmonds regulations will be $5,981.65 total. IS. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The project will result in an increased need for such services. The project will utilize existing schools, fire protection, police protection, public water and sewer services available to this area. Health services are available from numerous clinics and medical offices in the vicinity. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 13 Packet Page 225 of 586 Measures include the incremental increase in the tax base toward support of such services. 16. UTILITIES a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: P.U.D. No. 1 of Snohomish County Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy Water: City of Edmonds Sewer: City of Edmonds Telephone: Verizon C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ~-elber, Agent Date Submitted: November 13, 2012 14 Packet Page 226 of 586 CITY F EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Echelbarger's Shaw Lane plat -a_1 six (6) lot subdivision of a 1 .456 acre parcel zoned Single Family Residential (RS-8), minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet An existing single family residence will be removed and a short cul-de-sac road is proposed along with related utilities and improvements. Proponent: Echelbarger Investments, LLC (Todd Echelbarger) Location of proposal, including street address if any: 27043000202800) Lead agency: City of Edmonds 8620 218 1h Street SW (Tax parcel # --~--------------~------~---=---------The lead agency has determined_ that the requirements for environmental analysis'and protection have been adequately addressedln the development regulations andcomprehensiveplan adopted under chapter 36. 70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal Jaws or rules, as providedby RCW 43.21C.240and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitlgating measures have been applied Jhatens_uie no s_ig(li[[~;;mt asJver_s_e imgt:Jcts wi[l 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 XX There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Project Planner: Mike Clugston, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1425-771-0220 Date: _z---l(_z_6___,/_r_3 __ Signature: ~tip XX You may appeal this determination to Rob 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 14. 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 28, 2013, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permits Assistance link. Search for file number PLN20120043. These materials are a!! .. · · '-- SEPA DETERMINATION PLN20120043.DOC 2/25/13.SEPA Page 1 of2 Attachment 6 PLN20120043 Packet Page 227 of 586 viewing at the Planning Division -located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Email: SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov XX COMCAST Outside ~lant Engineer, North Region 1525 75 1 St. SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Washington State Dept. of Commerce 906 Columbia Street SW P.O. Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504-8300 XX DNR SEPA Center P.O. Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 XX Snohomish County Planning & Development Services 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 XX Swedish Hospital 21601 76th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Attachments pc: File No. PLN20120043 SEPA Notebook SEPA DETERMINATION PLN20 !20043.DOC 2/251!3.SEPA XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Page 2 of2 Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn.: Stephanie Hall 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 Community Transit Attn.: Brent Russell 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 Olympic View Water & Sewer District 23725 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Betty Tobin Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-11 07 Snohomish County Health District Attn: Bruce Straughn 3020 Rocker Ave Everett, WA 98201-3900 Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 97034, M/S EST-11W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 Applicant: Todd Echelbarger Echelbar~er Investments, LLC 4001 198 St. SW, Suite 2 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Contact: Jeff Treiber Loveii-SaMerland & Associates, Inc 19217 361 Avenue W, Suite 106 Lynnwood, 1/1/A 98036 Packet Page 228 of 586 Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat 8620 218th St. SW PLN20120043 Zoning and Vicinty Map 1 inch = 200 feet Packet Page 229 of 586 Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM February 28, 2013 · Mike Clugston, Associate Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20120043, 6-lot Plat 8620-218th St SW Engineering has reviewed and approved the preliminary plat application for the Echelbarger property at 8620 218th St SW. Preliminary approval shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans. Final utility system design and locations will be determined at the civil construction plan phase ofthis project. Please find attached the Engineering Requirements for the subject development. The applicant will be required to satisfy these requirements as a condition of short plat approval. Once the Planning Division has approved the preliminary plat, the applicant will be required to submit revised civil engineering plans addressing all plat conditions. Plans are to be submitted to the Engineering Division. A civil plan review fee is to be paid at the time of submittal. At this time, the review fee is $1520. The following comments are intended to assist with a more complete civil plan submittal: 1. Water meters shall be located within the right-of-way at the propery line. 2. The fire hydrant shall be located in a location approved by the Fire Department, on the north side of the street (near side the existing water main). Thank you. City ofEdmonds Attachment 7 PLN20120043 Packet Page 230 of 586 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 ·5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS To: Planning Division File Number: PLN20120043 From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Engineering Division Date: February 28, 2013 Project: Echelbarger 6-lot Short Plat Address: 8620-218th St SW 1: a) 2. a) b) c) d) e) f) 3. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) 4. a) Right~of Way DeCJication for Public Street~: Provide 10 foot street dedication to the City of Edmonds along 218th St sw. Public Street Improvements & Access (Asphalt, curb, gutter and sidewalks): 218th St SW shall be widened along property frontage to provide for a minimum 11-foot wide ACP travel lane in the east bound direction as well as proper alignment of the stormwater system. Maximum street travel lane cross slope shall be 2%. Construct 18" curb and gutter along 218th St SW Construct five-foot wide concrete sidewalk to City standards along property frontage-218th St SW. There shall be 3-feet from property line to back of sidewalk. Construct concrete driveway approach with curb ramps at the entrance to the plat per City standards. Existing driveway cuts on 218th St SW to be removed and replaced with sidewalk, curb and gutter to City standards. Private Access Requirements & Improvements: Proposed plat access road shall be paved 20-feet in width, exclusive of curb and gutter. Maximum street travel lane cross slope shall be 2%. Street grade shall not exceed 12%. Construct 18" curb & gutter along plat access road. Construct 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk to City standards along one side of plat access road. Driveway entrance to each lot shall be provided to City standards. Slope of driveway shall not exceed 14% and shall be noted as such on the civils. Street Turnaround: Construct turnaround at end of proposed street per City standards. pln20120043-Echelbarger-61ot-Engr_Reqmnts.xlsx form revised 07.19.11 Required as a Condition of Subdivision '$ X X X X X X X )'' X X X X X X X X Required as a Condition of Building Permit Requirement Already Satisfied '),, 1 of 3 printed 2/28/2013 Packet Page 231 of 586 5. Easements ~:,, (City utilities, private acce~~. other utilitie$): a) Provide all easements as required -access, utility, etc. b) All lots shall take access off private access road. c) Private access easement shall be 30 (thirty) feet in width 6. Strel:)t ligMs: . j· ' N/A f7; Plimtina strip: ... . N/A I 8. Water System hl)provements: .· a) Install 6" fire hydrant, including 4" storz adapter near entrance to plat. Hydrant spacing as required per ECDC 19.25. b) Provide water service stub to each Lot c) Connect to public water system. 9. Sanitary Sewer System Improvements: a) Provide new 6" lateral from City sewer main in 218th into plat. 6" lateral to be run throughout plat and a stub provided to each lot with 6" clean out at property line. b) Provide new 4" side sewers to individual lots c) Connect to public sewer system. 10. Stormwater System Improvements: a) Provide a Stormwater Management Report and Site Plan. Compliance with ECDC 18.30, Stormwater Supplement and 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual is required. Large Site Projects are required to consider the use of LID techniques and document the decision-making processes used. b) Construct privately owned and maintained stormwater management system sized to provide adequate capacity for proposed future single family dwellings, associated impervious areas and street improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30. Stormwater management system to be located on private property. c) Connect all new impervious surfaces to stormwater management system. d) Provide storm sewer stub to all proposed lots. e) Connect to public storm system or manage stormwater on site if soils allow. f) Storm catch basins shall be installed in gutter flow line in new plat road and 218th St SW as needed . . 11. Underground Wiring (per Ord. 1387): a) Required for all new services. t~2. Excavation and Grading (per IBC) a) b) Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. Submit grading plan for foundations with building permit. pI n20 120043-Echel barg er -61ot-Eng r _ Req mnts. xlsx form revised 07.19.11 Required as a Condition of Subdivision X X X .tt X X X X X X X X X X X X X Required as a Requirement Condition of Already Building Permit Satisfied .~~;'?~) - X "·' X X X X X . ~·· X X 2 of 3 printed 2/28/2013 J; 1 : Packet Page 232 of 586 Required as a Required as a Requirement Condition of Condition of Already Subdivision Building Permit Satisfied 13. Signage and Stripin~ (per City Engineer): a) Provide fire and aid address sign age at entrance to plat. X 14. Survey Monumentation (per Ord., Sect.12.10.120): a) N/A 15. As-built Drawin~s (per City En~ineer): i a) Provide an as-built drawing of all stre!3t and utility improvements both in X X electronic format as well as a hard copy. 16.' Other Reauiremellts: ... . : ., . ! a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information X X b) Legal documents for each lot X c) Field stake lot corners (by professional surveyor) X d) Field stake utility stubs at property lines X e) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster X f) Maintenance agreements X g) Traffic Impact Fee Analysis X 17. Engineering_Fees: .· ·.·. a) Storm system general facility charge (private road) TBD X b) Storm system general facility charge (each new lot) $706.25 * X c) . Sewer general facility charge (each new lot) $3,495.25 * X d) Water general facility charge (each new lot 3/4") $4,014.50 * X e) Water meter fee $550.00 * X f) Traffic mitigation fee per each new SFR $1,196.33 * X g) Plat civil plan review fee $1,520.00 * X h) Right-of-Way Construction Permit TBD X i) Inspection fee (2.2% of improvement costs) TBD X *** Fees provided are an estimate only and reflect rates current at the time of preliminary plat approval. Actual fees to be oaid will be reflective of those in effect at time of oermit issuance. pi n20 120043-Echelbarger -61ot -Engr _Reqm nts.xlsx form revised 07.19.11 3 of 3 printed 2/28/2013 Packet Page 233 of 586 NOV 2? 2012 Preliminary Drainage Assessment DEVELOPMEI\IT SERVICES COUNTER FOR Echelbarger's Shaw Lane A 6-Lot Single-Family Subdivision 1 at 8620 2181 h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 November, 2012 Prepared for: Echelbar~er Investments, LLC 4001 195 Street SW, Suite #2 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Prepared By: John Yuen, PE !!!$ •• ii •• Lovell-Sauerland & Associates 19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 LSA FILE No: 5383 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger I Attachment 8 PLN20120043 Packet Page 234 of 586 Preliminary Drainage Assessment FOR Echelbarger's Shaw Lane A 6-Lot Single-Family Subdivision Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 at 8620 2181h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 November, 2012 Prepared for: Echelbar~er Investments, LLC 4001195 Street SW, Suite #2 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Prepared By: John Yuen, PE !!!!)5. • ii •• Lovell-Sauerland & Associates 19217 361h Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 LSA FILE No: 5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 11 Packet Page 235 of 586 Section 1: Project Information Project Name: Project Site Address: Project Engineer: Project Applicant: Parcel Number: Project Total Area: Number of Lots: Soils Data: City Drainage Watershed: Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC 8620 218th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. 119217 36th Avenue W., Suite I 06 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Phone: (425) 775-1951 Echelbarger Investments, LLC 4001 I 98th Street SW, Suite #2 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Contact: Todd Echelbarger Phone: 425-673-1109 27043000202800 1.456 Acres 6 -single family lot Subdivision A/derwood-Urban land complex #5 Westgate Pond-Basin #6 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 12 Packet Page 236 of 586 -=--fj----=-£~y:: .Main St .. ------·-__ _ r=---::=--=-=DJy;l~-~-~t M<~:ph.·.~t-.:.-.-::-: -~ __ =.-__ -.::-_.Vl:.. ---~Jst-:-:--)L-: ___ i _ ~ ~DOWNTOWN ;::::,_ ·_·.<:~ar,St_.: 1 Spl"\lre)L.1 I •. - i·tentfockSt: · LlurclSt-::- __ : :__ --~L_ ' I' Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Yo.sr .P;loJHc-=-·:..: ·_ :: :.:::2.15tb.S.t_S\'I:: a: -l\~UlSt_~W 1\ ;;;:~~l---::~ 2';;~~;"/ ~ i, Ho;p!UI L~ cccj=cc2;l.KK~ Jl~L- 3 ~ -..c:.:..·_ ;I 1 ' "" -· ~-··· 1: ..: ---~, ~::;::;:::::::; !I cc.-l20!h5r5Wc CHASE JKE i! ;[ • _ II -222l)d St SW:::-:! ' 3 . ~ ~-3: 1(-- -5 ,. ·.-222n~·StS'H 1 • --~-?i ______ .: .~228th St SW ;-: "' "' w ;! a: -----~=--------- E~FfJ:l'!t<J P.11k -------~. · _ 226rh 51 r>N' t ' (:hmti.an Sd;vd ·1: :::::::::.::.'e=Hilil iOne:nL:.l Market 'R :. @J 3 ~ .p "' ' ' r;':-·-:.:~28th.St SW · 230tl~ St·SW:---Bath.-._St::S.W j._J:_:: 3: -----'l1n <• t:\.41 ----~ VICINITY MAP Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 13 Packet Page 237 of 586 -, I 'I ~I i NW 30 27 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 4 $W.tfl.274 ·lr<-.b¢1.</1...,~ ..... .;,;:.... ... ~'-'·'"'·'-···1\.;;.; "I.!Jrr,.,v.,,.,<l'o<,..1tJl,•~: PROPERTY PARCEL MAP "'J ;LL O? ....__. -_,_ IHA 1 I ' 0 !·OM t019 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 14 Packet Page 238 of 586 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 AERIAL PHOTO Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 15 Packet Page 239 of 586 i i Section 2: Existing Site Conditions The site is a rectangular-shaped 1.456-acre, and is currently occupied by a single-family residence, with a garage/carport at the northeast quadrant of the parcel, and a shed. The remaining of the parcel is undeveloped and includes mature trees and tall brush. The site is bordered by residential developed lots to the west and east, an arterial road, 2181h Street S W to the north, and an unplatted lot to the south. Site topography is generally flat upper eastern portion of the site, then slopes from the northeast to southwest in an average grade of about 2% to 8%. The parcel is access, sewer and water service from 218th Street SW. Current zoning is RS-8. The site is not a landslide hazard area (see Appendix 8). Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 16 Packet Page 240 of 586 1 I J Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 r------, I ' I j L ____ _j ,-----------, ' ' ' 1 1 ; ' ' : : ' L ---------,. .. --1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 17 Packet Page 241 of 586 Section 3: Proposed Project The applicant proposes to build a new 6-lot single family subdivision. The existing structures, and all vegetation will be removed during grading activities in the development area of the site. The plat will be accessed from 2181h Street SW by a private road terminating in a turn-around. Rockery is proposed along the west and south property lines, the depressed area adjacent to the southwest corner of the property will be backfilled and graded with suitable materials. A proposed underground wet vault in the northwest corner of the site will provide controlled release of the developed runoff before discharging to the existing public system in 218 1h Street SW. New conveyance system will be installed along the north side of subject property adjacent to 218 1h Street SW. The runoff from the frontage improvements along 2181h Street SW that bypasses the detention system will be collected at the new catch basin structure proposed outside the northwest parcel corner and adjacent to SW 218 1h Street SW. The flow released from the underground vault will be discharge into the same catch basin structure, which will carry the flow downstream to a new storm drainage structure to be installed on existing 12-inch PVC storm drain line. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 18 Packet Page 242 of 586 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 . I rF ; i; I\ I J!li~ LIH~I -H-1----B '! d H 1 r; !--+-tJ DEVELOPED CONDITIONS I I 1~ 'j•• I! i Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page J9 Packet Page 243 of 586 Section 4: Summary of Minimum Requirements Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan The proposed site development consists of disturbing about 1.456 acres of land and creating/replacing about 28,070 sf of impervious surface. Stormwater Site Plan will be provided in final engineering. Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be provided in final engineering. Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution Source control BMPs will be used to the maximum extent possible. A SWPPP will be prepared to provide guidance for source control BMPs. Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls Existing on-site drainage pattern will be converted from overland sheet flow to pipe conveyance system. The onsite runoff will be collected, detained and treated prior to being release at the appropriate discharge rates into the existing pipe storm system along 218 1h Street SW. By controlling the release rate from the onsite runoff, potential increases in downstream drainage system flow rate should be minimized. This site is located in Westgate Pond sub-basin, which is part of the Shell Creek drainage basin. Minimum Requirement #5: Onsite Stormwater Management The site's stormwater control system may utilize Low Impact Development (LID) measures for onsite stormwater management. Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment All new project pollution-generating surfaces will be subjected to Basic Water Quality Treatment. Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control In addition to the flow control requirement (match 2-year and 1 0-year peak discharge rates of the developed to the predeveloped conditions), the flow control is designed to discharge durations from the developed site match those of the predeveloped durations for the range of the redeveloped discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 110 Packet Page 244 of 586 l .J Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection No wetlands are known to exist on or immediately adjacent to the site. Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance An operation and maintenance summary will be provided in final engineering. Minimum Requirement #10: Offsite Analysis and Mitigation See Section 4 and Section 5. Minimum Requirement #11: Financial Liability This requirement will be addressed during final engineering. Section 4: Upstream Analysis This Westgate Pond sub-basin (61-acre) is almost entirely fully developed, primarily with single- family houses. The sub-basin boundary is generally bounded by 216th Street SW on the. north, 85th Place Won the east, 220th Street SW on the south, and 92th Avenue Won the west. The project site represents about less than 2.4% of the sub-basin (Westgate Pond) and about 0.2% of the entire Shell Creek watershed (821-acre). The offsite basin runoff starts about 300' (east) upstream from the site, and the storm water is collected in series of pipes and catch basins along 218th Street SW. With the mitigated stormwater quality and quantity controls proposed on- site, there is believed to be no adverse impacts to the upstream system. Backwater analysis will be provided in final engineering. Section 5: Downstream Analysis The project runoff will be collected in the detention vault, and the detained storm water will be released through the flow control structure and discharged into existing pipe storm system along 218th Street SW. The storm pipe system continues west and empties into Westgate Pond. By controlling the release rate from the onsite runoff, potential increases in downstream drainage system flow rate should be minimized. Capacity of existing pipe storm system and backwater analysis will be provided in final engineering. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 111 Packet Page 245 of 586 Section 6: Drainage Methodology and Applicable Code The proposed detention system was designed in compliance with The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.30. Since the disturbed site area is greater than I-acre, the project site is classificated as Large Site Project, the developed release rate requirement is to maintain the predeveloped condition peak runoff rate for the Yz of the existing 2-year, I 0-year, and I 00-year, 24-hour design storms. Runoff values and detention sizing were calculated using the computer program Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM3). For the existing condition target runoff values, the entire site was modeled .as type C soil (till) with forest vegetation on a flat slope. Section 7: Water Quality Dead storage in the bottom of the proposed vault was provided to allow for basic water quality treatment. Section 8: Temporary Construction Sediment & Erosion Control During construction standard BMPs will be employed to control potential adverse impacts to adjacent properties. These methods will include a temporary construction entrance, silt fencing, existing catch basin protection, dust control, and temporary seeding of disturbed areas as required. If required, a temporary sediment pond/trap can be constructed to reduce runoff turbidity. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 112 Packet Page 246 of 586 :] j ] i I c] Section 9: Storm Drainage Detention Calculations Current City code requires that the project's stormwater control facilities meet the mmtmum requirement #7 in Section 4 of Appendix 1 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. In accordance with the design standards, development projects must provide flow control to reduce the impact of storm water runoff from impervious surfaces and land cover conversions. The flow control standard requires that stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre-developed durations for a range of pre-developed discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. Western Washington Hydrology Model 3 (WWHM3) is the modeling software release by the Department of Ecology that is used to size stormwater control facilities in western Washington. WWHM3 uses the EPA HSPF software program to perform continuous storm modeling of rainfall-runoff and routing computations. WWHM3 models the rainfall-runoff for pre and post development, and sizing for a detention facility to control the developed runoff per the minimum requirement #7. Final engineering may include Low Impact Development (LID) measures to reduce the stormwater detention vault. The pre-developed conditions of the entire 1.456 acres of on-site development area are assumed to be forested. The post-developed area includes 0.644 acres -44.2% impervious and 0.812 acres-55.8% pervious (lawn area). Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 113 Packet Page 247 of 586 .. \ : l Storm Detention Summary Table Total Project Area: Proposed Impervious: Proposed Pervious: Existing Runoff Rate: 2-year 0.0150 cfs 1 0-year 0.0289 cfs 1 00-year 0.0396 cfs Developed Runoff Rate: 2-year 0.1638 cfs 1 0-year 0.2820 cfs 1 00-year 0.4619 cfs 63,440 sf 28.070 sf 35,370 sf Detention System Release Rates: 2-year 0.0065 cfs 1 0-year 0.0138 cfs I 00-year 0.0296 cfs Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 1.456 (Ac.) 0.644 (Ac.) 0.812 (Ac.) Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 114 Packet Page 248 of 586 l I I -' l "" ft .... 2, lOE 0 ~ J lOE-1 lL 01) (> Q 0 ' ' 10E-·~--~~~~+-~·o~o~oo~o~~='~~·-fi~oo~o-o~o~~•o_o_o_o~o~o-o_'~~>-'"~ 1 lll:>''0 '2ii 30 .. 40 50v60 ... 10,,.ao · · ·Sll 99 • ~ctimulatli{9 ·rr~h~bility · Dllalions Row Frequency lwate~Qua!ily I Hydwgaph Analyze datasets I Wetland Fklclua!ion Figure-1 501 -Predeveloped Flow (CFS) 701 -Developed Unmitigated Flow (CFS) 801 -Developed Mitigated Flow (CFS) Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 0.0150 0 < 1638 0.0065 0.0240 0.2323 0.0104 0.0289 0.2620 0.0138 0.0340 0.3499 0.0191 0.0371 0.4043 0.0239 0.0396 0.46B 0.0296 o.ooo8 0.1233 0.0046 0.0192 0.2714 0.0070 0.0132 0.1416 0.0061 0.0080 0.1334 0.0054 0.0090 0.1624 0.0051 o. 0154 0 ;2386 0.0066 o. 0284 0.2198 0.0240 o. 0194 0. 0974 0.0228 0.0234 0.1697 0.0057 o. 0178 0.3363 0.0065 0.0149 0.1467 0.0063 0.0148 0.1183 O.OOM 0.0159 0.4010 0.0068 0. 0078 0.1850 0.0047 o. 0128 0.3028 0. 0054 o. 0149 0.1260 0.0057 0.0138 0. 0886 0.0067 0.0070 0.0902 0.0051 0.0224 0.3538 0.0064 0.0193 0.2196 o. 0066 0.0100 0.3250 0.0062 0.0114 0.1265 0.0059 0. 0187 0.1927 0.0193 0. 0168 0.3430 0.0049 0.1837 0.0062 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page !15 Packet Page 249 of 586 Emergency Overflow Riser Elevation Analysis Design Criteria: Per EDDS Chapter 5, Section 10.G-3, page 91a, requires that 'the emergency overflow elevation shall be at least 0.2-feet above the water surface elevation occurring at the 1 00-year, 15-minute flow rate calculated using a continuous simulation runoff model approved by Snohomish County. The 1 00-year, 15-minute flow rate is estimated flow is estimated by multiplying the 1 00-year, 1-hour rate by a factor of 1.6. Design Methodology: Step 1. Calculate the water surface elevation required by both the emergency overflow riser and Restrictor riser to accommodate the 1 00-year, 1-hour rate for the developed unmitigated flow (070 1) per WWHM3 as shown in figure-1. From Figure-1 the 1 00-year, 1-hour flow for (070 1) = 0.4619 cfs Step 2: Estimate the 15-minute flow rate by multiplying the above by a factor of 1.6, as follows: 0.4619 cfs x 1.6= 0.74 cfs Step 3: Use 2010 Snohomish County Drainage Manual Volume III Figure 3.14 to calculate the required head for each riser, as follows: Primary Riser diameter= 18" Emergency Overflow riser diameter= 18" 100-year, 15-minute flow per above= 0.74 cfs (Use 1.0 cfs) From Figure 3.14 (on the next page of this report), here are the results: Head for 18" Restrictor riser= 0.18' Head for 18" Emergency Overflow Riser= 0.18' Step 4: Per EDDS, the emergency overflow riser shall be at least 0.2 feet above the head required (0.18 feet) for the restrictor riser to accommodate the 1 00-year, 15-minute flow (0.74 cfs). Using the above data, calculate the Top Elevation of the 12" emergency overflow rise above the 12" Restrictor riser top, as follows: Emergency overflow riser top= 0.20' + 0.18'= 0.38' above the Restrictor riser top. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 116 Packet Page 250 of 586 l i WATER QUALITY CALCULATION Per the Section 4 of Appendix 1 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (minimum requirement #6), water quality treatment to remove pollutants shall be provided for storm water runoff from the development. The minimum treatment flow shall be the 91 st percentile of the 24-hour runoff (0.0668 cfs) indicated by the WWHM3 continuous runoff model. The wet vault will provide basic water quality treatment. ,~ WYI'HM3 ifAi': file ];dit Yiew !:!elp 6-~ ~ I ;j I .~, ~l ~, .. ·-·-· -----------·---·---- ~~~ uru~~ II Analysis ····· .. "} .. ,••:·:· ·1 A ,' ~ Water Quality R .I On-line BNP Off-line BNP un .Analysis 24 hour Volume !0.0668 I !acre feetl Standard Flow Rate (cfs) j0.0731 I Standard Flow Rate (cfs) !0.0406 I 15 Minute Flow Rate 1o.om I 15 Minute Flow rate jo.o429 · I "' Durations J Flow Frequency Water Quality I Hydrograph I Wetland Fluctuation I Analyze datasets 1 PUYALLUP DAILY EVAPW/JENSEN·HAISE 2 EVERETT HOURLY 501 POC 1 Predevel;;pedflo\'1 801 POC 1 Mitigated flow 1000VauR 1 ALL OUTLETS Mitigated 1001 Vault 1 STAGE Mitigated All Datasets §.;'J~£ii'i):fu!J@ ' Flood Frequency Method \o log Pearson Type 111178 r Weibull ~ c < Ill ~ 111/15/2012 la.Aam Figure-2 Convert the 24 hour volume (acre-feet) from Figure-2 to cubic feet, as follows: 0.0668 acre-feet x (43,560 cf/acre) = 2,910 cf This is the required 'dead storage' volume. Storage provided= 70' x 42' x 1' = 2,940 cf Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 117 Packet Page 251 of 586 Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT Project Name: 5383 Site Address: City Report Date Gage 8620 218th Street SW Edmonds Data Start Data End Precip Scale: WWHM3 Version: 11/16/2012 Everett 1948/10/01 1997/09/30 0.80 PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use c, Forest, Flat Impervious Land Use Element Flows To: Acres 1.456 Acres Surface Interflow Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use C, Lawn, Mod Impervious Land Use ROADS FLAT DRIVEWAYS FLAT Element Flows To: Acres .812 Acres 0.162 0.482 Surface Interflow Vault 1, Vault 1, Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Groundwater Groundwater Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 118 Packet Page 252 of 586 Name Width Length : Depth: Vault 1 42 ft. 70 ft. 9.5ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height: 8.5 ft. Riser Diameter: 18 in. Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.3333 in. Elevation: 0 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.8333 in. Elevation: 7.5 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1. Outlet 2 Vault Hydraulic Table Stag:e (ft) Area(acr) Volume (acr-ft) Dschrg:(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.106 0.067 0.007 0.001 0.000 0.211 0.067 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.317 0.067 0.021 . 0 0 002 0.000 0.422 0.067 0.028 0.002 0.000 0.528 0.067 0.036 0.002 0.000 0.633 0.067 0.043 0.002 0.000 0.739 0.067 0.050 0.003 0.000 0.844 0.067 0.057 0.003 0.000 0.950 0.067 0.064 0.003 0.000 1. 056 0.067 0.071 0.003 0.000 1.161 0.067 0.078 0.003 0.000 1. 267 0.067 0.085 0.003 0.000 1.372 0.067 0.093 0.003 0.000 1. 478 0.067 0.100 0.004 0.000 1. 583 0.067 0.107 0.004 0.000 1. 689 0.067 0.114 0.004 0.000 1. 794 0.067 0.121 0.004 0.000 1.900 0.067 0.128 0.004 0.000 2.006 0.067 0.135 0.004 0.000 2.111 0.067 0.142 0.004 0.000 2.217 0.067 0.150 0.004 0.000 2.322 0.067 0.157 0.004 0.000 2.428 0.067 0.164 0.005 0.000 2.533 0.067 0.171 0.005 0.000 2.639 0.067 0.178 0.005 0.000 2.744 0.067 0.185 0.005 0.000 2.850 0.067 0.192 0.005 0.000 2.956 0.067 0.199 0.005 0.000 3.061 0.067 0.207 0.005 0.000 3.167 0.067 0.214 0.005 0.000 3.272 0.067 0.221 0.005 0.000 3.378 0.067 0.228 0.005 0.000 3.483 0.067 0.235 0.005 0.000 3.589 0.067 0.242 0.006 0.000 3.694 0.067 0.249 0.006 0.000 3.800 0.067 0.256 0.006 0.000 3.906 0.067 0.264 0.006 0.000 4.011 0.067 0.271 0.006 0.000 4.117 0.067 0.278 0.006 0.000 4.222 0.067 0.285 0.006 0.000 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page J19 Packet Page 253 of 586 4.328 0.067 4.433 0.067 4.539 0.067 4.644 0.067 4.750 0.067 4.856 0.067 4.961 0.067 5.067 0.067 5.172 0.067 5.278 0.067 5.383 0.067 5.489 0.067 5.594 0.067 5.700 0.067 5.806 0.067 5. 911 0.067 6.017 0.067 6.122 0.067 6.228 0.067 6.333 0.067 6.439 0.067 6.544 0.067 6.650 0.067 6.756 0.067 6.861 0.067 6.967 0.067 7. 072 0.067 7.178 0.067 7.283 0.067 7.389 0.067 7.494 0.067 7.600 0.067 7.706 0.067 7.811 0.067 7.917 0.067 8.022 0.067 8.128 0.067 8.233 0.067 8.339 0.067 8.444 0.067 8.550 0.067 8.656 0.067 8.761 0.067 8. 867 0.067 8. 972 0.067 9.078 0.067 9.183 0.067 9.289 0.067 9.394 0.067 9.500 0.067 9.606 0.067 9. 711 0.000 MITIGATED LAND USE Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 0.292 0.006 0.299 0.006 0.306 0.006 0.313 0.006 0.321 0.006 0.328 0.006 0.335 0.006 0.342 0.007 0.349 0.007 0.356 0.007 0.363 0.007 0.370 0.007 0.378 0.007 0.385 0.007 0.392 0.007 0.399 0.007 0. 406 0.007 0.413 0.007 0.420 0.007 0.427 0.007 0.435 0.007 0.442 0.007 0.449 0.008 0. 456 0.008 0. 4 63 0.008 0. 4 70 0.008 0.477 0.008 0.484 0.008 0. 492 0.008 0. 499 0.008 0.506 0.008 0.513 0.014 0.520 0.016 0.527 0.018 0.534 0.020 0.541 0.021 0.549 0.023 0.556 0.024 0.563 0.025 0.570 0.026 0.577 0.191 0.584 0.924 0.591 1.978 0.598 3.273 0.606 4.771 0.613 6.447 0.620 8.284 0.627 10.27 0.634 12.39 0.641 14.64 0.648 17.02 0.000 19.51 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 120 Packet Page 254 of 586 ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.015001 5 year 0.023973 10 year 0.028937 25 year 0.034039 50 year 0.037094 100 year 0.039616 Flow Frequency Return Return Period 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Periods for ~tigated. Flow(cfs) 0.006524 0.010399 0.01375 0.019051 0.023893 0.02961 POC #1 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and ~tigated. POC #1 Year 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Predeveloped 0.001 0.019 0.013 0.008 0.009 0.015 0.028 0.019 0.023 0.018 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.008 0.013 0.015 0.014 0.007 0.022 0.019 0.010 0.011 0.019 0.017 0.008 0.014 0.012 0.012 0.003 0.010 0.026 0. 011 0.011 0.018 0.012 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 ~tigated 0.005 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.024 0.023 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.019 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.007 0.007 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page J21 Packet Page 255 of 586 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Ranked Rank 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 0.015 0.023 0.061 0.020 0.012 0.010 0.013 0.016 0.011 0.007 0.006 0.013 0.035 0.070 (' I Year~y Peaks for Predeve~oped 0.0704 0. 0611 0.0352 0.0284 0.0263 0.0234 0.0229 0.0224 0.0198 0.0194 0.0193 0.0192 0.0187 0.0178 0.0175 0.0168 0.0160 0.0159 0.0154 0.0150 0.0149 0.0149 0.0148 0.0138 0.0137 0.0134 0.0132 0.0128 0.0128 0.0124 0.0124 0.0124 0.0118 0. 0114 0. 0113 0.0106 0.0106 0.0100 0.0100 0.0095 0.0090 0.0080 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 0.007 0.018 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.007 0. 076 Predeve~oped and Mitigated. Mitigated 0.0756 0.0240 0.0228 0.0193 0. 0181 0.0077 0.0075 0.0074 0.0074 0.0072 0.0070 0.0070 0.0070 0.0069 0.0068 0.0068 0.0067 0.0066 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.0064 0.0063 0.0062 0.0062 0.0061 0.0061 0.0060 0.0059 0.0058 0.0057 0.0057 0.0057 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0053 0.0053 0.0051 0.0051 0.0051 POC #1 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 122 Packet Page 256 of 586 43 0.0078 0.0051 44 0.0078 0.0049 45 0.0071 0.0047 46 0.0070 0.0046 47 0.0056 0.0045 48 0.0031 0.0045 49 0.0008 0.0045 POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0075 4096 2115 51 Pass 0.0078 3790 923 24 Pass 0.0081 3503 531 15 Pass 0.0084 3239 525 16 Pass 0.0087 2971 521 17 Pass 0.0090 2751 516 18 Pass 0.0093 2547 509 19 Pass 0.0096 2358 504 21 Pass 0.0099 2183 498 22 Pass 0.0102 2040 494 24 Pass 0.0105 1893 489 25 Pass 0.0108 1766 484 27 Pass 0. 0111 1647 481 29 Pass 0. 0114 1529 477 31 Pass 0. 0117 1411 471 33 Pass 0.0120 1303 468 35 Pass 0.0123 1207 462 38 Pass 0.0126 1118 458 40 Pass 0.0129 1045 455 43 Pass 0.0132 966 448 46 Pass 0.0135 904 445 49 Pass 0.0138 839 440 52 Pass 0.0141 780 434 55 Pass 0.0144 739 429 58 Pass 0.0147 697 422 60 Pass 0.0150 652 416 63 Pass 0.0153 622 409 65 Pass 0.0156 587 402 68 Pass 0.0159 553 394 71 Pass 0.0162 525 388 73 Pass 0.0165 501 374 74 Pass 0.0168 466 360 77 Pass 0.0171 438 344 78 Pass 0.0174 418 330 78 Pass 0.0177 397 320 80 Pass 0.0180 380 299 78 Pass 0.0183 362 263 72 Pass 0.0186 345 253 73 Pass 0.0189 320 241 75 Pass 0.0192 305 226 74 Pass 0.0195 289 209 72 Pass 0.0198 281 201 71 Pass 0.0201 269 194 72 Pass 0.0204 260 187 71 Pass Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Echelbarger Investments, LLC Preliminary Drainage Assessment November 2012 LSA#5383 Page 123 Packet Page 257 of 586 0. 0207 251 180 0.0210 241 169 0. 0213 236 165 0.0215 231 158 0.0218 224 147 0.0221 217 136 0.0224 209 121 0.0227 196 106 0.0230 190 89 0.0233 181 81 0.0236 173 74 0.0239 169 63 0.0242 158 60 0.0245 153 57 0.0248 149 55 0.0251 145 52 0.0254 144 49 0.0257 140 46 0.0260 138 41 0.0263 136 36 0.0266 132 34 0.0269 128 32 0.0272 126 . 32 0.0275 121 32 0.0278 119 31 0.0281 116 30 0.0284 115 29 0.0287 114 29 0.0290 111 29 0.0293 111 29 0.0296 111 29 0.0299 108 29 0.0302 107 28 0.0305 106 28 0.0308 103 27 0. 0311 101 27 0.0314 100 27 0.0317 97 27 0.0320 96 27 0.0323 95 27 0.0326 93 27 0.0329 90 26 0.0332 88 25 0.0335 86 23 0.0338 84 22 0.0341 84 22 0.0344 82 22 0.0347 79 22 0.0350 77 21 0.0353 76 21 0.0356 75 21 0.0359 74 21 0.0362 74 21 0.0365 73 21 0.0368 72 21 0. 0371 72 20 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 71 70 69 68 65 62 57 54 46 44 42 37 37 37 36 35 34 32 29 26 25 25 25 26 26 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 28 28 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 29 27 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 124 Packet Page 258 of 586 Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.0668 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0773 cfs. Qff-line facility target flow: 0.0406 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0429 cfs. Perlnd and Implnd Changes No changes have been made. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' "i thout 1~arranty of any kind. The entire·risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all "arranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied "arranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages "hatsoever (including "ithout limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 125 Packet Page 259 of 586 SECTION 10 Appendix I. Determining Applicability of Storm water Management Code ECDC Chapter 18.30 2. Project Classification 3. What Qualifies as Replaced Impervious Surface? 4. Regulation of NEW Impervious Areas for Determining Site Classification 5. Flow Chart for Determining Whether the Permittee Must Regulate the Project 6. Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development 7. City of Edmonds Watersheds 8. City of Edmonds Slopes Greater than 15 percent and North Edmonds Earth Subsidence & Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) 9. City of Edmonds Soil Map Units (SCS 1983) 10. Custom Soil Resource Report for Snohomish County Area, Washington Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Preliminary Drainage Assessment LSA#5383 Echelbarger Investments, LLC November 2012 Page 126 Packet Page 260 of 586 Figure-A Determining Applicability of Stormwater Management Code ECDC Chapter 18.30 If any of the descriptions in the Blue Boxes apply to your project or project site, the Stormwater Management Code applies. Does your Project Site require the issuance of a City permit under any of the following: ECDC Title 18-Engineering Division ECDC Title 19 -Building Division A Stormwater Permie No Are you submitting a Subdivision application per ECDC Chapter 20.75? No Does your Project site involve any of the following: 500 square feet or more of land-disturbing activity, new impervious surface, or replaced impervious surface? A utility or other construction project consisting of 500 lineal feet or more of trench excavation? Is located in, adjacent to, or drains into (currently or as a result of the project) a Critical Area or a Critical Area Buffer? No Stormwater Management requirements of ECDC Chapter 18.30 are not applicable to your Project or Site 1 Yes Yes Yes .. Storm water Management requirements of ECDC Chapter 18.30 ill:!: applicable to your Project or Site. Note: The definitions of the terms in italics are found in ECDC Chapter 18.30.010 and the Stormwater Code Supplement. 1 This chart provides an initial screening for determining the applicability of ECDC Chapter 18.30. The results from using this chart do not substitute for a determination of applicability by the Public Works Director or Designee per ECDC Chapter 18.30.030 and the relevant portions of the Supplement. 2 If ECDC Chapter 18.30 is applicable to the proposed project and it does not require any other City-issued permit, a Stormwater Permit and associated fees will be required. Revised on 4/21111 E72-SWM_Erosion_Control-Draft-04.21.11-F1NAL Page3 of 13 Appendix 1 Packet Page 261 of 586 1 i Notes: Figure-B Project Classification If you have determined that the Storm water Management Code am2lies to your project (Figure-A), follow the Blue boxes in the chart below to determine the Classification of your project. + Does the project involve 1-Yes acre or more of land- disturbing activit/ ? Large Site Project: +No See Stormwater Supplement Yes Chapter 4 for specific Is the project part of a larger requirements. common plan of development or sale where the total disturbed area for the entire plan will total 1-acre Does the project create or add 5,000 square feet or or more of land-disturbing activity? more of new impervious surface, regulated replaced impervious surface or new plus ~No regulated replaced impervious swface? Does the Project involve one or more of the OR following: Convert % acre or more of native vegetation to 2,000 square feet (sf) or more of new Yes lawn or landscaped area impervious surface, regulated replaced OR impervious surface or new plus regulated Through a combination of creating effective replaced impervious surface? impervious surface and converted pervious OR surfaces, causes an increase of 0.1 cubic feet per 7,000 sf or more of land-disturbing activity? second in the 100-year flow frequency from a OR threshold discharge area as estimated using an 50 cubic yards or more of either grading, fill, or approved model? excavation as defined in Chapter 18.40.000 ECDC? ~No No Yes Minor Site Project: Category 1 Small Site Project: Category 2 Small Site Project: See Stormwater Supplement See Stormwater Supplement See Stormwater Supplement Chapter 6 for specific Chapter 5 or specific Chapter 5 for specific requirements requirements requirements Terms in bold italics are described in the Glossary on pages 10-11. The definitions of the all terms in italics are found in ECDC Chapter 18.30.010 and the Stormwater Code Supplement The Classification flowchart assumes the project in question meets the applicability requirements ofECDC18.30.030. 1 Land-disturbing Activity: Any activity that results in the movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to grading, filling, excavation, and compaction associated with stabilization of structures and/or road construction. Revised on 4121111 E72-SWM_Erosion_Control-Draft-04.21.11-FINAL Page4 of 13 Appendix 2 Packet Page 262 of 586 Figure-D What Qualifies as Replaced Impervious Surface? Is the Impervious Area being removed and replaced with new Nn impermeable suriace in the same footprint? Was the existing impervious area created prior to 717/1977 .Qt. prior to the date the parcel was annexed from Snohomish County? Nn Is parcel zoned Single-Family Residential? Nn Area is considered REGULATED REPLACED Impervious surface area ~ Area is NOT considered REPLACED impervious sUJiace area Refer to Figure E for regulation of New /mpef\lious Surface Areas Area is considered EXEMPT REPLACED impervious surface area Does the replaced impervious area replace an existing driveway, walkway or patio in the same footprint AND wilf it remain the same use after replacement? No Revised on 4/21111 E72-SWM_Erosion_Control-Draft-04.21.11-FINAL Page 8 of 13 Appendix 3 Packet Page 263 of 586 -... ·. \ Figure-E Regulation of NEW Impervious Surface Areas for Determining Site Classification Does the site have any existing impervious surlace areas that were created on or after after July 7, 19771? Have City-approved stormwater controlsa been applied to all of the existing Impervious areas? For example, does the site have an existing stonnwater management system t11at collects stormwater runoff from all of tile existing impervious surfaces? No Does the existing impervious area (not managed by an existing stormwater system) exceed 2,000sf? Nn All impervious suriace areas created on or after July 7, 19772 plus All impervious surface areas proposed with the project will be regulated as New Impervious Suriace Area Yes Were the existing impervious areas constructed prior to the parcel being annexed into the City? Nn Only those areas proposed with the project that are to be converted from pervious surlaces (native vegetation, etc) to impervious surlaces and permeable pavements will be regulated as New Impervious SUiiace Yes Was a waiver from the requirement to Install a storrnwater management system granted for the existing impervious area? Yes - No Note: For the purpose of this flowchart, it is assumed that all existing impervious surface will remain after the proposed project is complete. If any existing impervious surface will be demolished for this project, the project may contain a combination of new and replaced impervious surface. See Glossary, p. 10-11. 1 Mitigation requirements are based on the total cumulative impervious area created on a project site since July 6, 1977, the effective date of the City's first drainage control ordinance. 2 For parcels that were annexed into the City after this date, the date of annexation shall substitute for the effective date of the City's first drainage control ordinance. For annexed parcels, a functioning Snohomish County-approved stormwater management facility can substitute for a City-approved facility. Revised on 4/21111 E72-SWM_Erosion_Control-Draft-04.21.11-F1NAL Page 9 of 13 Appendix 4 Packet Page 264 of 586 JVcstem JYoshingtun Phusc If A1unicipul Stornm·uter Permit START Will the project site discharge stormwater either directly or indirectly into an MS4 owned or operated by the Permittee? No ,.----Yes-'----~es Is the project site exempt according to Section 1 ofthis Appendix? No Permittee is not required to apply the Minimum Requirements to the project. Will the project disturb 1 acre or more? Or If the project disturbs less than 1 acre, is it part of a larger common plan of development or sale? No Prior to the issuance of this penn it did the Permittee regulate stormwater from project sites disturbing less than 1 acre? Yes Yes Continue to regulate stormwater from the project site under local stonnwater requirements in effect at the time of pennit issuance. Or Apply the minimum requirements for new development and redevelopment as outlined in Figures 3.2 and 3.3. I Continue with Figures 3.2 and 3.3 I No This permit does not require the Permittee to regulate stormwater from the site. Figure 3.1 Flow Chart for Determining Whether the Permittee Must Regulate the Project Appendix 1-Minimum Technical Requirements Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit-September 1, 2012 Page 7 Appendix 5 Packet Page 265 of 586 vVestem Washington Phose II J\1unicipu/ Stonmmter Penni! Start Here Does the site have 35% or more of existing impervious coverage? No Yes Does the project convert 3/4 acres or more of native vegetation to lawn or See Redevelopment Minimum Requirements and Flow Chart (Figure 3.3) Does the project add No landscaped areas, or 5,000 square feet or convert 2.5 acres or more . mo.re of new " of native veaetation to unpervtous surfaces? o ? Yes 1 pasture. Does the project have 2,000 square feet or more of new, replaced, or new plus replaced impervious surfaces? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new impervious surfaces and converted pervious surfaces. Yes / No r----M-i-n-im_u_m----,.~ Does the ~roject have Requirements #1 land-disturbing through #5 apply to ,.... activities of7,000 the new and replaced Yes square feet or more? impervious surfaces and the land disturbed. No See Minimum Requirement #2, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Figure 3.2 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development Appendix 1-Minimum Technical Requirements Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit-September 1, 2012 Page 8 Appendix 6 Packet Page 266 of 586 J l J " FIGURE B-1 CITY OF EDMONDS WATERSHEDS Deer Creek Perrinville Edmonds Marsh Puget Sound Edmonds Way Puget Sound Piped · Fruitdale Shell Creek Good Hope Pond Shellabarger Halls Creek Southwest Edmonds A Hindley Creek Southwest Edmonds B · lake Ballinger Stilthouse Creek Lund's Gulch Talbot Park A ' Meadowdale A Talbot Park B Meadowdale B Terrace Creek Northstream Westgate Pond Outfall Creek Willow Creek 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 ~"""'~....--- 1 in= 2,000ft No warranty of any sort, including accur<~cy, fitness, or merchantdbility accompany this product. Mt~rch 30, 2010 N A I Feet N A Packet Page 267 of 586 Figure B-3 city of Edmond s Slopes Greater th an 15 percent North Edmonds Earth Subsidence & landslide Hazard A rea LEGEND C2l North Edmonds Earth Subsidence & Landslide Hazard Area ___ City of Edmonds Boundary 1S3JSiope >15% Note: For the ESLHAsee ECDC 23.80.020 8.1. and ECDC 19.10. 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 8,000 f""'l~~-~-~-iiil.....,~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~~~~~!Jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~'Feet 1 in= 2,000fl No warranty or any sort, Inducing accuracy, fitness, or merchant ablrrty accompany this product (ESLHA) and Packet Page 268 of 586 Figure B-2 City of Edmonds Soil Map Units {SCS 1983) LEGEND ---City of Edmonds Boundary Soil Map Units SOIL_NAME Alderwood Gravelly sandy loam, 2-8% slopes Alderwood Gravelly sandy loam, 8-15 %~slopes Alderwood Gravelly sandy loam, 15-25% slopes Alderwood Urban land complex, 2-8% slopes Alderwood Urban land complex, 8-15% slopes Alderwood-Everetl Gravelly sandy loams, 25-70 Custer fine sandy loam Everett gravelly sand loam, 0-8% slopes Everett gravelly sand loam, 8-15% slopes Everett gravelly sand loam, 15-25% slopes Fluvaquents, tidal Kitsap silt loam, 0-B% slopes Kitsap silt loam, 8-25% slopes T~~, McKenna gravelly silt loam, 0-8% slopes Mukilteo muck !'~Pits U!ban land 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 ~M~---~~-iiiiil-~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~~~~~~-----~1 Feet 1 in= 2,000ft No warranty of any sort, including accuracy, fitness, or merchant aWity accompany this product Packet Page 269 of 586 USDA United States ~ Department of Agriculture NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Snohomish County Area, ashington November 9, 2012 Packet Page 270 of 586 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restriCtions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app? agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://soils.usda.gov/contact! state_ offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 Packet Page 271 of 586 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TOO). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TOO). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Packet Page 272 of 586 Custom Soil Resource Report Snohomish County Area, Washington 5-Aiderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 50 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 to 220 days Map Unit Composition A/derwood and similar soils: 60 percent Urban land: 25 percent Minor components: 6 percent Description of Alderwood Setting Landform: Till plains Parent material: Basal till Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to densic material Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low (about 3.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Gravelly ashy sandy loam 7 to 35 inches: Very gravelly ashy sandy loam 35 to 60 inches: Gravelly sandy loam Minor Components Mckenna Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions Norma Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions Terrie medisaprists Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions 12 Packet Page 273 of 586 Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Packet Page 274 of 586 J References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 1Oth edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:l/soils.usda.gov/ Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://soils.usda.gov/ 14 Packet Page 275 of 586 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. 15 Packet Page 276 of 586 Contents Preface .................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made .................................................................................. 5 Soil Map .................................................................................................................. 7 Soil Map ................................................................................................................ 8 Legend .................................................................................................................. 9 Map Unit Legend ................................................................................................ 10 Map Unit Descriptions ........................................................................................ 1 0 Snohomish County Area, Washington ............................................................ 12 5-Aiderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes ......................... 12 References ............................................................................................................. 14 4 Packet Page 277 of 586 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 Packet Page 278 of 586 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measuremehts of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6 Packet Page 279 of 586 Soil ap The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7 Packet Page 280 of 586 47' 48' 13" 47' 47' 53" N A Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map Map Scale: 1:3,000 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. ---==:=::~~lllll!iilllll!iilllllliilllll!iiiiii:::====Meters 0 25 50 100 150 ~-llll!lli<::==::::JIIIIIIII!IIIIIIiilllllliilllllliilllllliiiiiii::====~Feet 0 100 200 400 600 47' 48' 13" 47' 47' 53" Packet Page 281 of 586 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) 0) Very Stony Spot D Area of Interest (AOI) t Wet Spot Soils Other ... Soil Map Units Special Line Features Special Point Features ~ ...... Gully 1.!) Blowout .,•. Short Steep Slape 181 Borrow Pit ,..., Other * Clay Spot Political Features t Closed Depression 0 Cities X Gravel Pit Water Features •·. Gravelly Spot Streams and Canals @ Landfill Transportation A Lava Flow +++ Rails ~ Marsh or swamp -Interstate Highways ~ Mine or Quarry .. -.,...., .. ..,.,. US Routes @ Miscellaneous Water ·-Major Roads ® Perennial Water ~ Local Roads v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot ". Sandy Spot -Severely Eroded Spot <> Sinkhole p Slide or Slip .fZi Sadie Spot '= Spoil Area (): Stony Spot MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1 :3,000 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Survey Area Data: Snohomish County Area, Washington Version 7, Jun 29, 2012 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Packet Page 282 of 586 5 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Snohomish County Area, Washington (WA661) Map Unit Symbol I Map Unit Name I Acres in AOI I IAiderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes --------~--~ ---··--·----· --· 1.5 Percent of AOI 100.0%1 i :Totals for Area of Interest ----------~----------------] 1.5 100.0% i Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant s.oil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. 10 Packet Page 283 of 586 Custom Soil Resource Report An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or rnore geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11 Packet Page 284 of 586 City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet 1fle. 1 "'q\) ~------------------------------------------~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER N arne of Proposed Project: --=E=ch.:.:e.:.:lb::::a.:..;;rgt.::e:...:r's:...:S=.:h.:.:a:.:..:w-=L=-=a::..:.ne=-------------------- Owner/ Applicant Echelbarger Investments, LLC Name 4001 198th Street S.W., Suite 2 Street/Mailing Address Lynnwood, City Telephone: 425-673-1100 Wa. 98036 State Zip Applicant Contact Person: Lovell-Sauerland & Assoc., Inc Name 19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Street/Mailing Address Lynnwood, Wa. City State Telephone: 425-775-1591 Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable): Firm Name Contact Name 98036 Zip Telephone: ____________ _ E-mail: _____________ _ THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ANALYSIS Project Traffic Levels Sections to Complete I. Less than 25 peak-hour trips generated 1 and 7 only (Worksheet/Checklist) II. More than 25 peak-hour trips generated All sections 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. Location -Street address: ~86::.=2~0--=2~1~8t::..:.h..::::S~tr.::::ee~t..::S:.:c.W:...:..:_. ----------------- _____________________ (Attach a vicinity map and site plan.) b. Specify existing land use: One existing single family residence c. Specify proposed type and size of development: _S=.:i:..:.x.:.:lo-=-t .::..:su:::b::::d:..:.iv:.:.is:.:.io.:.::n·:___ _________ _ --------------(#of residential units and/or square footage of building) Revised on 6/24110 £82-Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Attachment 9 PLN20120043 Packet Page 285 of 586 d. Date construction will begin and be completed: Begin spring 2013, complete summer 2013 e. Define proposed access locations: The south side of 218th Street S.W., 247 feet west of 85th Place W. f. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: Greater than 250 feet east and west on 218th Street S.W. 2. TRIP GENERATION Source shall be the Eighth Edition ofthe Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual. For independent fee calculations, the current edition of the ITE manual may be used. ADT = Average Daily Traffic PM Peak-hour trips (AM, noon or school peak may also apply as directed by the City Engineer) a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table: PM Peak-Hour Trips Land Use Daily (ADT) IN OUT b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table: PM Peak-Hour Trips Land Use Daily (ADT) IN OUT c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table: PM Peak-Hour Trips Land Use Daily (ADT) IN OUT d. State assumptions and methodology for internal, link-diverted or passby trips: Revised on 6124110 £82-Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 2 of5 Packet Page 286 of 586 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. For developments that generate over 75 peak-hour trips, the City Engineer reserves the right to require trip distribution to be determined through use of the City traffic model. 1 4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements? b. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis: Intersections to be evaluated shall be determined by the City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer Existing Conditions LOS Delays Year of Opening LOS Delays Five Years Beyond Change of LOS Delays Land Use c. Describe channelization warrants: (Attach striping plan.) d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95% queuing lengths): 50% 95% Existing Conditions Year of Opening Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use e. If appropriate, state traffic control warrants (e.g. stop sign warrants, signal warrants): f. Summarize local accident history 2 (only required for access to principal and minor arterials): 1 Available upon request at City ofEdmonds Development Services Department 2 Available upon request at City ofEdmonds Police Department Revised on 6124/10 £82-Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 3 of5 Packet Page 287 of 586 5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Provide the following and other planned development traffic within the city. 1 a. Describe existing ADT and peak-hour counts (less than two years old), including turning movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the project. b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak-hour counts, including turning movements, the year the project is fully open (with and without project traffic). c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak-hour counts, including turning movements, five years after the project has been fully open (with and without project traffic). d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source: 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS a. Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation. Provide the following documentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by ten or more peak-hour trips. Other City-planned developments 1 must also be factored into the LOS calculations. LOS LOS Existing Conditions Existing Delays Year of Opening With Project Without Project Five Years Beyond Change of With Project Without Project Land Use b. Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications: 1 A list of planned developments are available at the City upon request for public records Revised on 6124110 £82-Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page4 of5 Packet Page 288 of 586 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. ~ CHANGE IN USE Fee for prior use shall be based on fee established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the previous use was permitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3 516 (effective date: 09/12/04 ), the 2004 ECDC 18.82.120 impact fee shall be used. Units in ITE Land Use Category Per Unit Fee Rate square feet, # of dwelling, Fee vfp, etc. New Use 210 $ 1,196.33 X 6 $ 7,177.98 Prior Use 210 $ 1 '196.33 X 1 $ 1,196.33 .___N_e_w_u_s_e_F_e_e_: _$_7_,1_7_7._9_8 __ _.1-1 Prior Use Fee: $ 1,196.33 I =I$ 5981.65 I I 0 NEW DEVELOPMENT ITE Land Use Category Per Unit Fee Rate Units in square feet, #of dwelling, vfp, etc. Fee I NewUse $ X = $ 0 OTHER MITIGATION FEE RECOMMENDATION: $ INDEPENDENT FEE CALCULATION: $200.00 (+consultant fee) $ TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE $ City of Edmonds, Engineering Division Approval Date 1 No impact fees will be due, nor will a credit be given, for an impact fee calculation resulting in a net negative. Revised on 6124110 £82-Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page5 of5 Packet Page 289 of 586 2009 -Impact Fee Rate Table TI\BLE t1 lMI'ACT FEE BATES (4) (6) f$) l Trip ITE. ITE land Use Trip % ~levv Length Net t'!ew Trips per I Impact Fcc Pur Unit @l {1) {2) (3) Cccla Catl}gOr" Rate~ T rw}sl Far. tor' Unit of MeastJr<i $1 ,O<i9A 1. per Tri£l 11 o Light lndustri;ql 0.97 l 00% 1.47 1.43 1,000 sq ft j i .SO per square root 140 Manufar;turing 0.73 100% 1.47 1,07 1,000sqft, UZ persquardoot 15 I Mmi·wamhouso 0.26 I 00% i A7 0.38 1 ,000 sq ft i 0.40 per sg~nre foQ!. __ ? 1 0 ShlfJI~; farnily House 1. 01 I ! 00% i .1 3 1 .14 dwelling ll, 1 96.33 per dwe!linn unit 220 1\purtt'!lont 0.62 100% 1.20 0,{-1 dwelling ?7(·i.Sf5 p(Jrdwoiiing unll: ?30 Comlnrn,nitlfll 0.52 100% i, 15 0.60 dwel!•nq I 62~U)5 per dwe!lir.ill_ unit 240 Mob:le Horne 0.59 100%! 1.09 0.64 dwelling 67 L6c per dwelling unit 7$1 Serlor llous•n~] 0.16 100% 0.93 0.1 5 dwoliing I 57.41 per dwo!Hng unit -~Kg_.,~..l:-lt~L-·-~---·"---1--· 0.4 7 100% 1.27 0.60 roorn 629:65 per room 420 Manna 0.19 100% 0.97 O.Hl berth 138.89 perboat bmth 444 Movie Theater 3.80 85% 0.73 2.36 1,000 sq rt 2.48 P<1r S(llial(! foot :1J:L?JL<:Qlth/Fil:t'19S Club 3.53 75% 1.00 2.65 1 ,000 ~;n ft 2.78 fl~_S9!>«r~j'~ot 530 lhgh School 0.971 80% ·1.00 0.78 I ,000 sq ft 0,!32 per ;.qt.:uf! i£wt S60 Church 0.55 1 00'% 1.20 0.£6 1 ,000 sq ft 0.69 pt'r ~;quilr(J foot ..!i§.~.Q~-<;;,~cu::m1tc1r 12.46 75% 0.67 6.26 1,000 !'!1 ft 6SI per sqt;are loot G20 Nc.t~lll;llfomc 1 0.22 100% 0.87 0.19 bed 199.39 per bed '/1 0 Genewl Offtcc 1.49 90% 1 A! 1.91 1,000 &q ft 2.07 per square foot J.~Q H<l.Q~~!!Q!!!ft;l_~-~ ~& ---~..J.40 ~ 3.63 _ _!~1 S~JJL --·-· 3&.!_~~1'2..~.:_~~~~~-- 814 Specinlty Rctcl•l 2.71 55% 0.60 0.89 1,000 ::;q it 0.93 per !;quam foot l\20 Shopp·ng CelltHr 3.13 65% 0.53 1.28 1,000 sq ft 1.34 per SQLI<Jrc ft>ot 850 Supermarket _.lQ.SO __ g;ji> _9.:r.!!L 4.57 1.000 !!fllL ~~~_;;g~~J_g-~-- 852 ConvctWmco rnkt 34.57 40% 0.40 1 5"'1 (i hour:; 91 2 Drive-in btllik 932 Hestaurant: sit- 25.82 11.15 55% 0.47 55% 0.73 5.53 6.67 4,48 1,000 sq ft 5.80 pilr squ;:;re foot 1,000 sq ft ·;.oo per souare foot 1,000 sq ft 4.70 per square foot ______ (l_'!•Yt.L.. ···!·--··--····-·--+ -·----···-··-··-·---·-·--· -·------------------------·-··-······-··-------- 933 hlSI food, no dnve-up 934 Fast food, w/ drive-up 936 Coffoo/Donut Shop, no drive-up 938 Coffee/Donut Shop, drive·up, no indoor seating 945 Gas station w I convenience 26.1 s 50% 0.67 33.84 51% 0.62 tl0,75 20<~t 0.~)7 75.00 20% 0.67 l:;L38 4S% 0.5'3 8.76 .1,000 sq H 9.19 p;Jf squ;m; foot 10.1'0 1,000 sq n 11.23 par square foot 5.46 1,000 sq fl 5.73 per sc,uare foot 10.05 1,000 sq ft 10.5S per squnn; 1\)0t 5.19 vf-p 3,347.62 per vfp" ~ m: lrfp Gr:norahon (8th Edttlon)~ 4··6 Pfll1 Pea~ Hom Trip Ends '~ Excludes poss-by t;lps~ see 'Trip Generotlon Hondbook: An fiE ?toposed Hecomrnonded Proci!C!?' ( 1988) ~ RoHo to ovorogo trip longth. , vfp: 'IGhiclo 1\Je~ng position H~:JndGrson, Young & Cornpony Revised on 6/24/10 EFFECTIVE 5/1/2010 £82 -Traffic Impact Analysis City of Edmonds. Wcsnlnoton October 29, 2009 Pone 21 Page 3 of 4 Packet Page 290 of 586 2004 -Impact Fee Rate Table ---.··~---" ... . . IMf't,(T L~~ .. H:!:T~~------· ····--··· ..... I 1) (2) (:l} I (4) {S} ~ (G) Trip .... 1 . ill: !IE L<md U::;e Trip % Nr.:w, Lengt1·1 Net New T1lps per 1 lrrmact Fee Per Unit ·1~ $ Cod<} Cn~~C:!L~~ HaU:1 T~~·lEctor" l!nit of M<!asurr. ' 7G3.6b per Trip '110 Uuhtlndustria! 0.98 100% 1.59 1.56 1,000 sq ft 1.19 r:er square foot 14[) MJnufactwirJi_l 0.74 '100% 1.59 1 .. 16 1,000 sq ft 0.90 f¥!1' squarf! fuu\ .. l2.L..M!.:~i_:'l'i~l1gl)_s,,;__ __Q_?J.i .... lQ.QS~ _ _1.:52. ____ .. Q:..'L!.U,J.QO ~q ft O.J_2_f,"3r_~(1~1~1~_e foo' 2 In Sinulu famlly ~ .0 l 1 00% 1 .09 1.1 0 dwelling 640.12 per dw•JIIifl~l Ut!it Hou~c no Apw!.m~:nt (),(.;> 100% L1S .. .?22. ~fl!l-~C>rOi[~Um ______ 9.'5'!_ 100% 1.15 ?40 l·bt~h~ Home O.'JG 100% L09 0.71 dwelling O.GZ dwcllinn 0.61 dwellinfl 5.!14.49 per dwdli11L1 unit 474.2•!..fc:r dwe!linu...<:~:lt:_ 4 515.14 per dwe!tin~J unit 310 flo1el 0.\\1 100% 1.25 0.75 ronm Sli?:.?9 pc:r morn 31'0 Motel 0.4l ·100% 1.25 O.S::i room .• ~.'HB.GS r;cr room 420 Mnrina 0.18 I OO'lil 0.81 0.1 f3 berth 140.7 4 jX:r bn;:1t buth '130 Golf course 0.30 1 00% 1.00 0.30 acre LC:8.1 0 (:cr ucre 444 Mo,•i!J Tll.;al.m 3.80 ·1 00% 0.72 2.7-4 1,{100 (;q ft 1.36 fXlr .s~.s:."t:L?.l~ •192 fi<K!lU•~t dub 1.831 I 00% 0.97 1.7!'1 1,000 ~q ft :L58 r;.cr squ<Jn: foot 530 Hlvh School 1.02, 100% 0.62 0.63 1,000 ~q ft 0.48 pr squ:'lr'' foo1 SGO p~u!fh ..... ----~~l:§.,6J~!JlQ,~t J 1 •. _Jr:.~ -~~.0.76_1 ,O_Q.O sq ft ___ .. 9..:?f" .. rersqu,art: f.0:'.L. 610 Ho:;plt<cll 0.92 I 100% ~" 1 A'l 1,000 sq ft 1 ,1 0 }.·er ~:qu<l!'' foot 6ZU l·lursin~! horne 0.20 100% O.B7 0.17 bed 132,88 per bed 710GilnBr;;d0ffk:e ·1.4~1 100% 1.59 Z.37t,000sqft 1.B1r•m'sqil<H<:foot 720 MN:;cai uf!ic'.: 3.fifi 100% 1.50 .:>.49 1 ,000 sq fl 4.19 per squ;;rc toot 8t'O .Sro::Jping Center 3J"i B 1'.\·& 0.40 1.21 1,000 sq ft 0.93 per squ11H: foot l:\3!:' Restnurnnt: sit 1 O.!lG S6% 1.06 fi.4S l ,000 :'iq ft 4.92 per ~,quan; ro-ot ~-do·,\n ·~---~·-·--+·~-~~+~~~--r-~~~--~--+----·---------t 33:\ fn~t fond, no 26. ·1 5 I 5?% 0.62 B.43 'I ,000 sq H 1).44 pr!r 5qunre toot dri·~e-up 83•1 faY foud, w/ 33.48 51% (U)2 1 0.59 1,000 sq ft 8,08 per square foot dri-.e-up 84'U~:.".st~'.ti<_:>~~------14.:~_2Q~ ~2:..~~ ___ 4_.6 __ 3:.... .... P_u_n·J..IP __ ~f--'-3,~?5.~_p_e!_~JQ ___ _ B4S G115 station 13.38 >17% 0.53 3.33 pump 2,515.ZG per vfp' ~,1 /convenienco 850 S\ip,~rrnarket li.S1 851 Comcnience 53,73 55t.}{) 0.65 3~1% 0.'10 4.11 1,000 sq ft 8.38 1,000 sq ft 3. ·1 4 pm :;quare foot 6AO per squ<'n' fon\ m<Hket-24 hr 91? Od•.·e-in Bank S·i.77 51% 0.47 13.13 1,000 sq ft I 10.03 per squ::ue foot 1 1TE Trip Generation (W1 Edltior.): 4·6 PM Peak Hour 1rlp Enm ·' E;<clucles pos:;-by "trips; see "ftip Generat\Qn Hondbook: An liE P1oposed Rec:ornr'lf:·ndocl Practice·• (1988) 1 Rotio ltJ CNEHO[Ie irlp length. ·!· vfp; vericle tuellri<;.J posHion Henderson, Youn{; & Corn pony Revised on 6!24110 EFFECTIVE 9/12/2004 E82 -Traffic Impact Analysis Clly of Edm~;nd~. 'Nmhlnglon Ap1lll5, 2003 Page 18 Page4 of 4 Packet Page 291 of 586 Clu ston, Michael From: Sent: To: Cc: Clugston, Michael Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:25 AM 'todd@echelbarger.com' 'Jeff Treiber' Subject: Complete application, clarification requested for PLN20120043 Good morning, Please find attached my comments on behalf of the Planning Division for the 6-lot preliminary plat at 8620 218th St. SW. While the application is technically complete, additional clarification is requested. Also attached are comments from the Engineering Division. Please address our comments at your earliest convenience so we can move the project forward and schedule a date for the Hearing Examiner. In the meantime, I will continue to process the application by issuing a SEP A determination and providing public notice within the next couple weeks. If you have any questions about that, please let me know. If you have questions specific to Engineering, please contact Jeanie McConnell for further assistance. Have a good day. Michael D. Clugston, AICP Associate Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department P: 425-771-0220 I F: 425-771-0221 michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov PLN20120043 pln20120043-Echel :omplete, need cia.. barger-61ot-P ... 1 Attachment 10 PLN20120043 Packet Page 292 of 586 CITY OF EDMONDS 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION December 26, 2012 Todd Echelbarger Echelbarger Investments, LLC 4001198th Street SW, Suite 2 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Subject: Dear Todd, COMPLETE APPLICATION, CLARIFICATION REQUESTED-ECHEL8ARGER'S SHAW LANE PLAT AT 8620 218TH ST SW (PLN20120043) Thank you for submitting the required documentation and application fees for the above- referenced permit; your application is complete according to ECDC 20.02.003. However, while the application is technically complete, additional clarification is required. Please address all comments in a written response and by providing updated plans, as appropriate: 1. Tree retention. ECDC 18.45.050.8 states: "Trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible." The Preliminary Clearing Plan shows nearly every tree on the site is proposed to be removed. At the same time, the few trees shown to be retained on the Clearing Plan near the southwest corner of the site (three willows) appear to be located near the proposed rockery which is shown on the associated Preliminary Development Plan. It is understood that many of the trees on the site are smaller landscaping and fruit trees or are located in ar~as that will be disturbed for the street, sidewalks, utilities, and the like; however, there are largefirs proposed to be removed from the southern portion of Lot 4, in particular, which would otherwise seem to be good candidates for retention. Please clarify and explain how the requirement in ECDC 18.45.050.8 is being met. Several of the trees proposed to be removed appear to straddle the site's exterior property line (cherry on Lot 1, pine on Lot 2, willow on Lot 3, cherry and 'DEC 16' on Lot 5). Please confirm ownership of these trees. If the trees are on the property line and are to be removed, provide written permission from the neighboring landowners in that regard. Retained trees must be protected during development in accordance with ECDC 18.45.050.H. 2. Rockery. A 2'-4' rockery is shown near and along a portion of the west and south property lines on the Preliminary Development Plan. The top of a rockery may only Packet Page 293 of 586 extend three (3') above original grade if it is to be located within a setback area such as the one proposed. A condition to this effect will be included in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner and the height of the rockery will be verified during civil improvement plan review. 3. Engineering comments. Please address the comments from the Engineering Division dated December 20, 2012 (attached). The City will proceed with the associated SEPA determination and public notice requirements. However, 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 20.02.003.0). If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, f;Uvitf<~ Mike Clugston, AICP Associate Planner Cc: Jeff Treiber Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. 19217 36th Ave. W, Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Packet Page 294 of 586 NAME OF APPLICANT: DATE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF COMPLETENESS: DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: PROJECT LOCATION: Notice of Application File # PLN20120043 Echelbarger Investments, LLC (Todd Echelbarger) November 27, 2012 December 26,2012 January 9, 2013 8620 218th Street SW, Edmonds WA Tax Parcel Number 27043000202800 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Echelbarger's Shaw Lane plat-a six (6) lot subdivision of a 1.456 acre parcel zoned Single Family Residential (RS-8), minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. An existing single family residence will be removed . and a short cul-de-sac road is proposed along with related utilities and improvements. REQUESTED PERMITS: Preliminary formal plat (Type III-B decision by the Hearing Examiner) OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA review and determination REQUIRED STUDIES: Preliminary drainage assessment, traffic impact worksheet EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE: SEP A checklist, critical area determination January 23,2013 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 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 administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Planning Division between the hours of 8:00a.m. and 4:30p.m. Monday through Friday or online through the city's website at www.edmondswa.gov through Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20120043; all materials for the three permits have been associated with this permit number. City of Edmonds Development Services Department . Planning Division . 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, \Y:'\98020 · Project Planner: Mike Clugston michael. clugston®edmondswa. gov · 425.771.0220 WARNING: The removtt, mutilation, destruction,,:or conc:ealment. of posted noti<:~~~b:;ore th~ir~m:d~al / . date is amisdemeano~punishable by fine and imprisonment •. Thisnoticewgs mailedtoownersWit1Jin3_()_()_l feet of the site, posteqpnsite, posted atthe Pllblic Safety Complex, .Library, and at Cit. Published in the Ever:ett Herald, · · · · .· ·.·· .-· .· · · ·· · Attachment 11 PLN20120043 Packet Page 295 of 586 Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat 8620 218th St. SW PLN20120043 Zoning and Vicinty Map 1 inch = 200 feet Packet Page 296 of 586 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. NOV 27 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CO!Jf'HER On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11 fit. day of '12J-t."I{.'Jrd'ti/ Revised on 9/30/11 ~otary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at_[...:... C&.:::......:_w~-'-·~t...c::&;G_::_/___,7;.<--..:::....:&:::._~-_&__·_. _____ _ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON CYNTHIA A. HALCOMB My Appointment Expires JUNE 15, 2016 P2-Adjacent Property Owners List , Jt)!Ol/. Page2 of2 Packet Page 297 of 586 00893100000200 00893100000300 00893100000400 GREGORY L & MELISSA A BRYAN GAIL L MELDRUM JOHN & LISA FESTA 21803 87TH PL W 21805 87TH PL W 21807 87TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00893100000500 00893100000600 00893100000700 KYLE E ROQUET WALTER & SUZANNE COOK PATRICK B ROGAN 21809 87TH PL W 21808 87TH PL W 21806 87TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000203000 27043000203100 27043000203100 MICHAEL~T SCOTT D BARLOW SCOTT D BARLOW 87~ STSW 8610 218TH ST SW 8706 218TH ST SW ED ONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000203300 27043000203400 27043000203600 OLYMPIC BAPTIST CHURCH-EDMONDS MICHEAL D & JEANE CONNELLY JAMES R STALKER 8713 220TH ST SW 8612 218TH ST SW 8526 218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000203800 27043000206400 27043000206500 A& YRYAN FERN J SHEETS FERN J SHEE S 8516 218TH ST SW 8721 218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000206600 27043000206600 27043000206700 HANBURY$ 3 LLC HANBURY$ 3 LLC SCOT & MOLLIE MUNCASTER 8729 218TH ST SW 23910 107TH PL W 8623 218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000206800 27043000207600 27043000207800 G CHRIS & JULENE K GRADWHOHL LEE S & MARGARET HOOVER JAMES W & LOIS J SUTER 8631218TH ST SW 8518 218TH ST SW 8528 218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000207900 27043000208500 27043000208900 DAN J BROOK P M & B L HEPLER NATHAN & LISA RUSH 8530 218TH ST SW 8606 218TH ST SW 8704 182ND PL SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000208900 27043000209000 27043000209400 NATHAN & LISA RUSH WOON PYEO SUSANNK~,._j 8520 218TH ST SW 8522 218TH ST SW 87~)!STSW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000209400 27043000209500 27043000209600 SUSAN N KONDO ROBERT J MILLER JONATHAN N SACKETT 12645 SE 125TH AVE 21802 87TH AVE W 8718 218TH ST SW HAPPY VALLEY, OR 97086 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 Packet Page 298 of 586 00408800000100 00408800000200 00408800000300 VERN & MARY OLSON GARY L SOUTHWICK ARDSLEY H ES LLC 21704 85TH PL W 21712 85TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00408800000300 00408800000400 00408800000501 ARDSLEY HOMES LLC JEFFERYS/JUDITH A MILTON PHILIP V & ROBIN M LOPRESTI 16108 ASH WAY 21726 85TH PL W 21725 85TH PL W LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00408800000502 00408800000502 00408800000503 JACKIE S & DAN E DEAN DUSTIN RUFFNER JACKIE S DEAN 8511 218TH ST SW 8511218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00408800000503 00408800000600 00408800000700 DUSTIN RUFFNER BENJAMIN C & LAURA H DANNER EARL V & NANN B PREBEZAC 8511 218TH ST SW 21717 85TH PL W 21711 85TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS,'WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00419300000100 00419300000200 00419300000300 MICHELLE ECKHART LAWRENCE & MELINDA GIZZI JAMES INGRAM 21920 86TH PL W 21916 86TH PL W 21912 86TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00419300000400 00419300000400 00419300000500 CARlAAZ CARLAATUMA GORDON E FISH 219~ PLW 21911 86TH PL W 21915 86TH PL W EDM NDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00505200000100 00505200000200 00505200000300 MARY AI<ERS PAT SHARPE PAUL SAMIONE 21919 88TH AVE W 2191188TH AVE W 21903 88TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00535700000800 00535700000800 00535700000900 THOMAS D YESBERGER THOMAS D YESBERGER JOHN BISSELL 8806 218TH ST SW 21707 88TH AVE W 8630 217TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00535700001000 00535700001000 00535700001100 RICHARD J & WENDY L NESS RICHARD J & WENDY L NESS JILL E BAKER 1827 DULL PL 8626 217TH AVE SW 8620 217TH ST SW EVERETI, WA 98203 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00535700001200 00893100000100 00893100000100 HANNAO RISA FLORA YIN SHAN CHAN LIU TURNKEY BUILDERS INC 8614 217TH ST SW 21801 87TH PL W 1691215TH AVE NE EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 SHORELINE, WA 98155 Packet Page 299 of 586 FILE NO.: PLN20120043 Applicant: ECHELBARGER DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 9th day of January, 2013, the attached Notice of Application and Comment Period 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. 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 9th day of January, 2013 at Edmonds, Washington. ' signed:_Dl;...:L._L ~00-=--nv-=---G.>.<.>.. ",t..>,LA ~~"--.L'L&'-"'-"· ~~t,.u..>.£4"-\LL111~_.L-) _ {BFP747887.DOC;l\00006.900000\} Packet Page 300 of 586 File No.: PLN20120043 Applicant: Echelbarger Investments, LLC DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 9th day of January, 2013, the attached Notice of Application and Comment Period was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9th day of January, 2013, at Edmonds, Washington. Packet Page 301 of 586 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION NA_ ME OF APPLICANT: Echelbarger Investments, LLC ·. (Todd Echelbarger) DATE OF APPLICATION: November 27, 2012 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: December 26, 2012 . DATE OF NOTICE: january 9, 2013 FILE NO.: PLN20120043 PROJECT LOCATION: 8620 2181h Street SW, Edmonds, WA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Echelbarge(s Shaw Lane plat -a si>r •· (6) lot subdivision of a 1.456 acre parcel zoned Single Family Residenlial (RS-8), minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. An existing single family residence will be removed and a short cul-de-sac road . is proposed along with related utilities and · improvements. · · REQUESTED PERMITS: Preliminary formal plat (Type 111-B decision by the Hearing Examiner) OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA review and determination REQUIRED STUDIES:. Preliminary drainage assessment, ·traffic impact worksheet EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SEPA checklist, critical area DO.CUMENTS: determination COMMENTS DUE: January 23, 2013 . Any person has the right to comment on .this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearin~s, and request a copy of the decision on the application. 1 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 lh() decision on .the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standin!) to initiate an· administrative appeal. lnformati9n on th1s development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds ·Development Services_ Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between .the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Mon online through the. City's website at gh the Online P.ermits link onJI:Ie Perm for permit PLN20120043. CIT'II.)::ONTACT: iate Planner . edmondswa. ov Account Name: City of Edmonds Affidavit of Publication } 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 Echelbarger's Shaw Lane plat File No.: PLN20120043 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: January 09, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. ~~_[.Lut~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this January, 2013 Notary Public in and for the State o County. Account Number: 101416 Principal Clerk 9th ohomish 0001806619 Packet Page 302 of 586 Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination File # PLN20120043 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Echelbarger' s Shaw Lane plat-a six (6).1ot subdivision of a 1.456 acre parcel zoned Single Family Residential (RS-8), minimum. lot size is 8,000 square feet. An existing single family residence will be removed with a short cul-de-sac road being proposed along with related utilities and improvements. A preliminary formal plat is a Type III-B decision by the Hearing Examiner. · NAME OF APPLICANT: PROJECT LOCATION: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: Echelbarger Investments, LLC (Todd Echelbarger) 8620 218th Street, Edmonds, W A Tax Parcel Number 27043.000202800 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 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 administrative appeal. Information 'on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Planning Division betwee):l the hours of 8:00a.m. and 4:30p.m. Monday through Friday or online through the 'city's website at www.edmondswa.gov through • the Permit Assistance linlc Search for permit PLN20120043. · PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearingwillbe held, beforethe Hearing.Examiner~n March 14, / 2013 .at 3 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250-,Sth Ave North, Edmonds, WA 9B020 .··. · · · SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is hereby given that the City ofEdmonds has issued a Determination ofNonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. · PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project requires SEP A review because it involves the creation of six residential building lots. DATE OF ISSUANCE: February 28, 2013 SEPA COMMENTS DUE: March 14,2013 SEP A APPEAL: This SEP A 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 14, 2013. City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, W A 98020 Project Planner: Mike Clugston, AICP clugston®edmondswa.gov · 425.771.0220 . www .edmondswa. gov WARN lNG: The removal, mutilation,. destrudionJor. concealm~nt of. posted ~otid~s hefor¢ th~ re[Tloval· ... . date is a misdemeanor. punishable. by fine and. imprisonm~nt. This notice was .mailed to ..: ... :;.~~,;.,~~Hhin ·~nn 1feet of the site, posted on site,·posted at the Public Safety Complex, Library, and at CW Published in the Everett Herald. · · · 1 Attachment 12 PLN20120043 Packet Page 303 of 586 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. ~\lED NOV 27 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER . On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11 fit day of /1J-<l'I:Jtd't-}./ Revised on 9130111 .¢lotary Public in and for the State of Washington NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON CYNTHIA A. HALCOMB My Appointment Expires JUNE 15, 2016 P2 -Adjacent Property Owners List , Jt)/~· . Page 2 of2 Packet Page 304 of 586 00893100000200 00893100000300 00893100000400 GREGORY L & MELISSA A BRYAN GAIL L MELDRUM JOHN &.LISA FESTA 21803 87TH PL W 21805 87TH PL W 21807 87TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00893100000500 00893100000600 00893100000700 KYLE E ROQUET WALTER & SUZANNE COOK PATRICK B ROGAN 21809 87TH PL W 21808 87TH PL W 21806 87TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000203000 27043000203100 27043000203100 MICHAEL~T SCOTT D BARLOW SCOTT D BARLOW 87t~ STSW 8610 218TH ST SW 8706 218TH ST SW ED ONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000203300 27043000203400 27043000203600 . OlYMPIC BAP~~~DMDNDS MICHEAL D & JEANE CONNELLY JAMES R STALKER 8713220T~ 8612 218TH ST SW 8526 218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000203800 27043000206400 27043000206500 A& YRYAN FERN J SHEETS FERN J SHEE S 8516 218TH ST SW 8721 218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 ED ONDS, WA 98026 27043000206600 27043000206600 27043000206700 HANBURYS 3 LLC HANBURYS 3 LLC SCOT & MOLLIE MUNCASTER 8729 218TH ST SW 23910 107TH PL W 8623 218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000206800 27043000207600 27043000207800 G CHRIS & JULENE K GRADWHOHL LEES & MARGARET HOOVER JAMES W & LOIS J SUTER 8631 218TH ST SW 8518 218TH ST SW 8528 218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000207900 27043000208500 27043000208900 DANJBROOK P M & B L HEPLER NATHAN & LISA RUSH 8530 218TH ST SW 8606 218TH ST SW 8704 182ND PL SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000208900 27043000209000 27043000209400 NATHAN& LISA RUSH WOON PYEO SUSANNK~ 8520 218TH ST SW 8522 218TH ST SW 87~~STSW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 27043000209400 27043000209500 27043000209600 SUSAN N KONDO ROBERT J MILLER JONATHAN N SACKETT 12645 SE 125TH AVE 21802 87TH AVE W 8718 218TH ST SW HAPPY VALLEY, OR 97086 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 Packet Page 305 of 586 00408800000100 00408800000200 00408800000300 VERN & MARY OLSON GARY L SOUTHWICK ARDSLEY H " ES LLC 21704 85TH PL W 21712 85TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00408800000300 00408800000400 00408800000501 ARDSLEY HOMES LLC JEFFERYS/JUDITH A MILTON PHILIP V & ROBIN M LOPRESTI 16108 ASH WAY 21726 85TH PL W 21725 85TH PL W LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00408800000502 00408800000502 00408800000503 JACKIE S & DAN E DEAN DUSTIN RUFFNER JACKIE S DEAN 8511 218TH ST SW 8511 218TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 E 00408800000503 00408800000600 00408800000700 DUSTIN RUFFNER BENJAMIN C & LAURA H DANNER EARL V & NANN B PREBEZAC 8511 218TH ST SW 21717 85TH PL W 2171185TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00419300000100 00419300000200 00419300000300 MICHELLE ECKHART LAWRENCE & MELINDA GIZZI JAMES INGRAM 21920 86TH PL W 21916 86TH PL W 21912 86TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00419300000400 00419300000400 00419300000500 CARLA AT~ CARLAATUMA GORDON E FISH 219~ PLW 21911 86TH PL W 21915 86TH PL W EDM NOS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00505200000100 00505200000200 00505200000300 MARY AKERS PAT SHARPE PAUL SAM lONE 21919 88TH AVE W 21911 88TH AVE W 21903 88TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00535700000800 0053~700000800 00535700000900 THOMAS D YESBERGER THOMAS D YESBERGER JOHN BISSELL 8806 218TH ST SW 21707 88TH AVE W 8630 217TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00535700001000 00535700001000 00535700001100 RICHARD J & WENDY L NESS RICHARD J & WENDY L NESS JILL E BAKER 1827 DULL PL 8626 217TH AVE SW 8620 217TH ST SW EVERETT, WA 98203 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00535700001200 00893100000100 00893100000100 HANNAO RISA FLORA YIN SHAN CHAN LIU TURNKEY BUILDERS INC 8614 217TH ST SW 21801 87TH PL W 16912 15TH AVE NE EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 SHORELINE, WA 98155 Packet Page 306 of 586 FILE NO.: PLN20120043 APPLICANT: ECHELBARGER DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 27th day of February 2013, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property o~ers within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above-referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. 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 27th day of February, 2013 at Edmonds, Washington. · {BFP747887.DOC;l\00006.900000\} Packet Page 307 of 586 File No.: PLN20120043 Applicant: Echelbarger Investments, LLC DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 28th day of February, 2013, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 28th day of February, 2013, at Edmonds, Washington. Packet Page 308 of 586 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA :' DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE :PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION:,A public hearing will be held before .the Hearing Examiner on March 14, 2013 at3 p.m. in the ~g8~81l phambers located at 250 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA PROJECT DES.C.RII?TION: Echelbarger's .Shaw Lane plat -a six (6) lot subdiVISIOn of a 1.456 acre parcel zoned Single Family Residential (RS-8), minimum lot size is 8 000 square feet An existing single family residence. will be removed and a snort ~ul-de-sac road is proposed. along with related utilities and Improvements. . · PROJECT LOCATION: 8620 21 8th Street SW, Edmonds, WA , Tax Parcel Number 27043000202800 , · NAME OF PROPONENT: Echelbarger Investments LLC (Todd Echelbarger) ' , :NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thafthe City of Edmonds has issued: a Determination of Nonsignifican,ce pursuant to WAC 197-11· 340(2) ·forlhe above project: · . ; . DATE DNS ISSUED: February 28, 2013 • ' SEPA MATERIALS:. Th_e SEPA checkli .. pr!'ject plans, and DNS. are available for v1ewmg at the Plannmg Division. located on the second floor of Edmonas City Hall, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday thmugh Friday or online through the City's website at : www.edmon<fswa.gov through the Online Perm1ts link on the : Permit Assistance page. Search for permit PLN20120043. i APPEAL PERIOD: You may appeal this determination by filing a · ' written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal wilh the 1 required appeal fee no later ttjan March 14,2013 by 4:00PM. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, Associate Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov .425-771-0220 Published: February 28, 2013. Account Name: City of Edmonds Affidavit of Publication } 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 Public Hearing and SEPA Determination ofNonsignificance Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Plat 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. ~~(2bD~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County. Account Number: 101416 Principal Clerk 28th Order Number: 0001811983 Packet Page 309 of 586 oF E~!Aco;!~~tt~~:~BIX~~~~Y~~--::~3 :_ ··o PW·--~~lntenance?. _.··o ·Pa.rksM~i~tenan~e Project Number: PLN20120043 Applicant's Name: ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTES, LLC Property Location: 8620 218TH ST. SW Date of Application:__,1'-'-1-'-'/2=7~/=2-=-01..:...:2=-_____ Date Form Routed:_-'1'-'-l..L/2,_9'-L/-"'2""'0-'-'12!!::...._ ____ _ Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) Project Description:_-=-6---=-L=-=0=-=T'-'P'--=L"-A,_,_N,__ ______________________ _ If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 ************************************************************************************************************** Name of Individual Submitting Comments: __ C=~----'v_r_· _l...::r:'----+tfr--~-'-. .....:..f---"'-e"""~==---------­ Title: f ;IZ Dt re cf-cC? !!· 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. D 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): Date:_f2--f---T!!A/v{i~r.........,t--· ___ _ ' 77 I , .--. --.___ Signature: ___ --~;::b::::.-~=o;,.."--.,o-""--------------------- Phone/E-mail: _________________________ _ Attachment 13 PLN20120043 Packet Page 310 of 586 :·-CITY OF EDMONDS-PLANNING DIVISiuN ~>o: .. - -.-_coMMENT_ FORM '-~:~~¥i-'}i~~~~--;-~-T -~ :}1!r-;:~-~_i\_~ ;;;:~ __ ..; .-~ -. --. Project Number: __ ...:.P-=L_,_,N=20~1-'-"2=0=0-"43"'----------------------­ Applicant' s Name:_-=E=C=H=E=LB=A-!.!R.!.:G"-'E=R,_,_I_,_,N-"-V=ES=T.!..!M_,_,E,_,_N:..!..T=ES::.L,_,L=LC=---------------- Property Location: 8620 218TH ST. SW Date of Application:_,l,_,_l.l-'/2=7'-L/=2=0 1_,_,2,___ _____ Date Form Routed: _ _,l,_,_l~/2,_9'-L/~2~0..!...:12=-------- Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) Project Description:_-=-6_,-L=-=0=-=T-'P_,L,_,_A,_,_N=-------------------------- If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 ************************************************************************************************************** Name of Individual Submitting Comments: ____________________ _ Title: __________________________________ _ D 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. D 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): £7f::e v<[) E n ~ ftl1JJ/2?fV[ (P ufj L-i c. ) /IT ~~ f2 vlf:T= {) uE =TD fis_r 5D tV7. YfltQfi,/C.. £y c C1S11 ~ The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compli, requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional s ace is need i. ~ l t(}[" V,Sv c... · t)~ -~ f2-DvtD l Date: _____ ~-~~-~--7t~--~r;~~~~~--------- Signature: __________ ---tfl-----_:_r--=-=--+~'--------- Phone/E-mail:. ________ -tL---------11--------- _____ 'fD SNOHOMISH CO. FIRE DISTR John J. Westfall Fire Marshal jwestfall@fireclistriot1. org 12425 Meridian Ave. Everett WA 98208 phone: 425-551-1200 fax: 425-551-1249 www. firedistrict 1.org Packet Page 311 of 586 -CITr OF. EDMONDS~ PLANNING DIVISivN . --~Y._ COMMENT FQRMNI~:/·~--;·c ·._·_ ~-.::. --·~ . -~ -~:' '-:-~.,- Project Number: PLN20120043 Applicant's Name: ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTES LLC Property Location: 8620 218TH ST. SW Date of Application:._l~l..L-/=27,_,/-=2=0_.._1 =2 ______ Date Form Routed: _ _,_,--'-""-.!...L!!=~-~:e:--- Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) Project Description:_-=-6__,-L=-=O""'T'--'P'-"L,__A=N.,___ ___________________ -4--- :'('~-~.~ EC:D.C.tO.CJ2.Q05ALL_C:OMM~~TS J\A~~T ~E §~~MITT~D-~IJ~!~_.]5_01!S.()F.T~EpA_TE~,:_· -THIS FORMWASROUTED: DUE BY 12/21/2012 -; :-::. :, •;' ··-" ''--'-:~ -··· . '------.··' '" '' ' ' ' . ' If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Exf. 1330 ************************************************************************************************************** Name of Individual Submitting Comments: ____________________ _ Title: __________________________________ _ D I have reviewed this /and 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. D 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): ~~~~~-------------------------------- U)/5 jlll.r .SLc ~.cU/k/!£xfts: a,-u ;o~~T 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: __________________________________________ ___ Signature: ________________________________ _ Phone/E-mail: ______________________________ _ Packet Page 312 of 586 -~~:j;~~ -.~::~ .. ~!~--~_:_ ~-:~ .•. ·:"~ITY,~rE-~~Co~~~~~itd~~~~-~tYJ~_IvN·2·­ *'w.~E~gine~rlng "[] F;ie [Jrw-M~int~nci~Ce 'R Parks -· -D Ec~riomic'bev: ··:·o:fia'rk:s'Mai~ten~:nce'• Project Number: PLN20120043 Applicant's Name: ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTES LLC Property Location: 8620 218TH ST. SW Date of Application :_,l_,_l.L..!/2=7_,_/=20=-1!..!:2,__ _____ Date Form Routed : _ _,1'-'1-'-'/2,_9!_!/_.,2""0_,_,12""-------- Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) Project Description:._-=-6-:·l=-=O~T'-'P'--'l,_A_,_,_N_,__ ______________________ _ ?"*PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL __ COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTEDWITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE, .. • THifro''RM.'wA.s-Ro~rEp: :DlJe·sv Yi!21'!io12. •:::'•;_{ >.: .• ~ ;.: .. --\~,~? ~:>>_..;:. c,::-:,:~~ •• -·•-:;·.•·:.• .. · ·.• .• ·;: • If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 ************************************************************************************************************** -til~ /,., "lll1 t1 "} Name of lndivid_ uat1submitting Comments:_-=--_1:-:r-;l'~-'-'''''""-'(---"("""";V-"-"--' vf\=-~-' .. ""'.f ;'-"\ __________ _ / .! . ~ h i -•J " Title: "{IJlli/X\( V"G'kYu\JiiA hl\b{ . . \' u ' . ~-) . \.J D 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. ' I '[J 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): \iVHJ H 1/11/ 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): ! 1 Date: ___ \_tv_1 7\~1·~~~(~~/~~~t~1+.·-·------~~----------------------------------------- Signature:__,"---' ---+;-/--'4(_''-,0 ..... ~ ·_···~_"."-t;:··-'-}'ll'-'"~-/'-'-v-'-{"'-)-"-\ "-)-'--\ ______ --:--:------------------- '· V _.~. ':} r &7 1~7 _I .,yj ,~, ,..,) ,/ 1 ":1 ;;;~ c~~ Phone /E-mail : _______ L .. _,_\-'-; '-j ~~----·'----"-'~'--'--' '-/_/.::::../_·/ 1'--/-'-l-"-i ___,'-1 \"-'I'--'-"J"'"', ~--' """</_1 _____________ _ Packet Page 313 of 586 Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM December 20, 2012 Mike Clugston, Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20120043, Echelbarger - 6 lot Plat . 8620-218th St SW The comments provided below are based upon review of the preliminary documents for the subject plat. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time in order to continue review of the application and provide preliminary approval of the short plat. Please ask the applicant to revise and resubmit plans addressing each of the comments below. Please also note, after receiving preliminary short plat approval from the Planning Division, the applicant will be required to submit a complete set of civil engineering plans to the City Engineering Division for review and approval. 1. Show the location of existing and proposed overhead and underground utility lines, sanitary sewer systems (including stubs to all lots), water mains and water service lines adjacent to and/or within the proposed subdivision. 2. On the preliminary drainage plan please provide invert elevations to· the extent necessary to confirm discharge to the City storm system is possible. If discharge to the City system is not possible, then an alternate drainage proposal will need to be provided for review and approval. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Page 314 of 586 Mr. Michael Clugston, AICP Edmonds Planning Department 121 5TH Avenue N. Edmonds, Washington 98020 ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PlANNERS I DEVElOPMENT CONSUlTANTS January 7, 2013 File No. 5383-0-12 Re: Echelbarger's Shaw Lane PLN 20120043 IUiCEIVI'D JAN o 9 2013 DEWI.OPM~Ni S~RVIC~S Dear Mike, In response to your letter of December 26, 2012 I have modified the preliminary plans as follows: Planning Comments ReMo..ted 1. I have ~the remove tree designation on many of the trees on the site. I have essentially left the trees that are outside the building setback areas. The large evergreen trees in the south portion of the Lot 4 and the north portion of Lot 6 building envelopes are still designated to be removed as the critical root zone severely impacts the building envelope for the future residence. Encroaching any significant distance into the root zone will impact the trees long term viability and perhaps create a dangerous situation. I have shown the other large trees in the southern setback being retained. The property owner believes that the clearing as shown on the revised plan shows the maximum tree retention feasible to reasonably develop the property and construct new homes. 2. The rockery located in the vicinity of the west property line will not exceed the 3 foot height above existing grade as required by Edmonds regulation. The rockery serves a dual purpose. It will help create useable back yard space as well as provide for the directing the surface water to the proposed storm water detention vault. It has also been noted that the location will be further evaluated at time of final engineering plan preparation to minimize tree removal. Engineering Comments 1. The overhead power lines have been added to the plan, they are located on the north side of 2181h Street S.W. The water, sewer and drainage lines were shown on the original submittal. Power, telephone and communications utilities will be underground as required and will generally be located in the 10 foot frontage easements along the public and private street frontages. (a note was added to the plan). 2. The approximate inverts of the storm sewer outfall were added to the plan. The storm water vault will be connected to the existing public storm drainage line about 235 feet west of the property. If you should need any information, please let me know. Sincerely, Y!!Ja~dkt Jeffrey Treiber Lovell-Sauerland &. Associates, Inc. 19217 36th Ave. W., Suite 106, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-775-1591 LSAengineering.com Packet Page 315 of 586 MEMORANDUM January 31, 2012 To: Mike Clugston, Planner RECE\'\fe,t) fEB Ol 1m3 From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Subject: PLN20120043, Echelbarger-6 lot Plat 8620 -218 1h St SW The comments provided below are based upon review of the preliminary documents for the subject plat. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time in order to continue review of the application and provide preliminary approval of the short plat. Please ask the applicant to revise and resubmit plans addressing each of the comments below. Please also note, after receiving preliminary plat approval from the Planning Division, the applicant will be required to subniit a complete set of civil engineering plans to the City Engineering Division for review and approval. 1. 1/31/2013-A sanitary sewer stub has not been shown to Lot 2, please add a stub. Please ,lf show existing utility services for the existing home. d IL/' 12/20/2012 -Show the location of existing and proposed overhead and underground U ' · · utility lines, sanitary sewer systems (including stubs to all lots), water mains and water service lines adjacent to and/or within the proposed subdivision. 2. 1/3112013-Thank you for adding invert elevations to the plans. With the information provided it looks as tho~gh ~he out~all conn.ection t? the City system is lower than ~hat _ 1;! would be allowed to mamtam grav1ty flow m the C1ty storm system. The proposed 1.e. at {_)1/..K.._.-,/. the point of connection is shown to be 81.0. The upstream i.e. is shown to be 92.57 and the downstream i.e. is shown to be 85 .22. Please verify invert elevations are accurate and propose an alternate drainage plan as necessary. ~ 12/20/2012 -On the preliminary drainage plan please provide invert elevations to the . extent necessary to confirm discharge to the City storm system is possible. If discharge to the City system is not possible, then an alternate drainage proposal will need to be provided for review and approval. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Page 316 of 586 !. 4/1~ ~~be_ ~·-~~ ~-x__-~&; ct c;ll~<; 0, ~~~'!~~~~ ·~ tP-<-~~~;/'· d-12 ~6--.~~~~ ~ (LA_Q_ ~ ~ ~A~ ~~1._; ~ ~ ~ 0 ~)f' /J~· ~ J2-f~ ~J_Jiz; ~/ ~ ~. ~ 4_~ '+ OvJL-.:1-~ ~~ ~~ ~L-/tj_e_ ~ ~~ f :fJu;;J LA) ~ Packet Page 317 of 586 Mr. Michael Clugston, AICP Edmonds Planning Department 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Problem with PLN 20120043 Dear Mr. Clugston: January 11, 2013 This is response to the Notice of Application on File PLN 2012003; the six lot subdivision of Echelbarger's Shaw Lane plat. Our home (8612 218th ST SW} in located immediately adjacent to the proposed lot 4. The large fir trees on the back southeast side of lot 4 are an extreme hazard to our house. These trees have been topped and now have multiple trunks at the top. The south side of our house and the proposed lot 4 are subject to high winds due to the open field owned by the church. We have had damage to our home because of tree limbs falling from trees. We expressed our concerns with the property owners last year and they had a tree service come out and remove some limbs and thin the trees, but this did not resolve the problem. The trees on the south side of lot 4 must be removed. Your prompt attention to this request would be appreciated. Sincere~~~ . I! ~~~ ~~ Micheal and Jean Connelly 8612 218th ST SW Edmonds, Wa 98026 425-771-1974 mj_connelly@frontier.com Attachment 15 PLN20120043 Packet Page 318 of 586 Clugston, Michael From: mj_ connelly@frontier. com Sent: To: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:48 AM . Clugston, Michael Subject: PLN 20120043 -PROBLEM Mr. Michael Clugston, AICP Edmonds Planning Department 121 sth Avenue N Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Problem with PLN 20120043 Dear Mr. Clugston: This is resppnse to the Notice of Application on File PLN 2012003; the six lot subdivision of Echelbarger's Shaw Lane plat. Our home (8612 218th ST SW) in located immediately adjacent to the proposed lot 4. The large fir trees on the back southeast side of lot 4 are an extreme hazard to our house. These trees have been topped and now have multiple trunks at the top. The south side of our house and the proposed lot 4 are subject to high winds due to the open field owned by the church. We have had damage to our home because of tree limbs falling from .trees. We expressed our concerns with the property owners last year and they had a tree service come out and remove some limbs and thin the trees, but this did not resolve the problem. The trees on the south side of lot 4 must be removed. Your prompt attention to this request would be appreciated. Sincerely, Micheal and Jean Connelly 8612 218th ST SW Edmonds, Wa 98026 425-771-1974 1 Packet Page 319 of 586 ! ! I UU!"LA~TUr ~~~ . ...~:\\ +-t."·~··-··-· .. ··-··---1 '«·~ I 0:.0..-""-" " .,.)~~--) ==------~~~~~~~=----_/ ~ -"""'"i"-=""'-~· =-·-·--···· ·-'; ii .. .,..._ ---·--;1 .. ::::.-::.!.-'7':~:-it lON!IIcrn-e ,..---···--, : : .:5:~- J ~ : ....,,_ I ~?-...1:Jt= ! ! ~q.~.l l .0 .o I I i ' '. (·.::.f~!ii:' llltCHGR~ ...-~7§:~ ! (, ----- + lle.AI.t'r r .. lO' \>lCINITY MAP SCAU:: 1-·1~00' LEGAl DESCRJP110N ltt.Uii<W'~ M::NCIIfH liAU' l:lf''MtlllUIHIUT«W!ftll ~MIWIKfAtfO\I.>IUV!Of' 111(~Cl<l,l;t'll'lr;F1ZC1101t)Q..W"'~V-....1Wf«.4t.o.U,«"'·~ l;r~ecu<rr.-: ""'" ..... _ r::a:D"r'II«U#UO.•'IItTliii'IIIU, BASIS OF BE:ARlNGS 111C~rl'2-tllltDS.•.I.S~Klli'V.TOI~COU.'U'~ \II'Ql'l~tu:HW:Illl'~"*'-~~.~ ~ ~OI'cowenC'ItW~>'ICAWIQ~T~IIIro'lttl:l\(lttFaf:II>H.A(:tW..l>O:nltl>!nN't'l' 'fREE LECEND f:W MICA'IQ Dllln'C lNli"'Pl ~ = ~ ~ ~-11Ge.t1UCJII'II~lmtlOW~~-'I' jf.l'.. ''"''"''"" ~ tiW:IIIU-.!tolllmiiMtJKl'l(j)ljmlllllftOo'fO'IliCit"~T<IIIttoe.o.lliDINWI)ID'IIII.Y»f> ~.;.~~~,..:t=l'~~~~=~-rr:u~T:I~~~~-n:n:wo; IQ:ItOCI1R"'IIC:1101L111C~I.L-.rn1occlltMO'Cil"'U.otc:v..uu.mr ... t""'~~ooc:trmc: ~I'ClflliiHIJO,bll'l, llu;'...a:I.I,DCUilllltAII:"'II(~,_.JI)Ofi!OI~~M~'fllllt.Of'Wf '-l*'IU'ftlii.'I'IH>5QIIICI&.y_.fl/fi,O'I'l \\lll.Ul'l.l\.IMlrll l>l twl'mli:O#'JI!W. DIIIIICDIII!tft.or<"""'""'1'1QH..11C•~II~t11111101'C11>Qtii$AIIU~-.oltlelo-M J<Qfll014:$~'tO«*~-M;CAAIJIX!ilC'tnW1!1C~lm~1lCJ!IWM.l. RECEIVE f. JAN 09 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERv •.. COUNTER PRELIMINARY CLEARING PLAN FOR ECHELBARGER'S SHAW LANE IN SE1/4, NW1/4 OF SEC. 30, T.27N., R.4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON Packet Page 320 of 586 Clu ston, Michael From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Mike, Cruz, Cindi Friday, January 11, 2013 3:31 PM Clugston, Michael FW: New submission from 'Citizen Feedback'! This came in through the citizen feedback e-mail. aiHdl al'l-f'Z City of Edmonds-Executive Assistant for Community Services and Economic Development 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 425-775-7724 Cindi.cruz@edmondswa.gov "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead Please do not print this email unless necessary. From: NoReply Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:29 PM To: Cruz, Cindi Subject: New submission from 'Citizen Feedback'! You have new Citizen Feedback. Your Name: Street Address: City: State: Phone: Email: Date Visited: Dept. Visited Employee Name Responsiveness Timeliness Cooperative Courteous Your Feedback Mike-Concerning #PLN20120043: Pat Hepler 8606 218 ST SW Edmonds WA 425.776.4579 phepler@comcast. net 01/11/2013 Building Dept. Mike Clugston We live in the home just east of the new proposed development at 8620 218 ST SW, where Mr. Echelbarger will be building 6 new homes. In the proposed clearing plan, they do not intend to remove any trees that border our west ·property line with them. We would very much like all of them removed. They encroach onto our property, by hanging over into our property, blocking the sun, and creating a large maintenance load for us, due to the falling of the leaves, branches and needles from the trees, onto our yard, and roof, and into our gutters. Also, the western portion of the 8620 property bordering our property is very 1 Attachment 16 PLN20120043 Packet Page 321 of 586 wet, even with the catch basin in the current drive way. This location will be back yards to the new easternly homes on the new development. We strongly hope that the drainage plan takes that into account. Thank you arid Mr. Echelbar'ger, for your consideration. Pat Hepler Manage Submission 2 Packet Page 322 of 586 January 28, 2013 Ms Mary Olson 21704 85th PL. W Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Comments Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Dear Ms Olson, !JAN 28 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER In reviewing the City file on our new neighborhood, we came across your comments concerned with traffic and pedestrian issues. We agree that currently the Shaw property does impede both traffic and especially pedestrian access on 217th. We wanted you to know that as a part of our project we will be installing not only a full 5 foot wide sidewalk fronting the entire length of our property on 217th, but also adding a curb and some additional widing of 217th as well. This will be in addition to the sidewalk we are proposing on the west side of our new plat road. I am sure this will not answer all the concerns you may have on other portions of 217th, but I wanted to asure you that our section of the street will be much safer once our improvements are completed. Should you have any additional questions, please give me a call at 425 673-1100. \~in~~~ ~. ~e Echelbarger President 4001 198th St SW Lynnwood, WA 98036 16108 Ash Way, Suite 203 • Lynnwood, WA 98087 • (425) 741-3535 • Fax (425: Attachment 17 PLN20120043 Packet Page 323 of 586 January 28, 2013 Michael and Jean Connelly 8612 218th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Comments Echelbarger's Shaw Lane Dear Mr and Mrs Connelly, JAN 28 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER In reviewing the City file, I came across your concerns about the 34" Fir tree adjacent to your home and on the East side of our proposed lot 4. Generally, we cut most of the trees within the set-back area (building area) of each lot and leave the surrounding trees. While Fir trees are aesthetically pleasing and closely protected by the City, our opinion is that when they get large they become a potential life-threatening hazard. The perfect sized Fir tree is 20' tall and shaped like a Christmas tree. This one is too tall and we would prefer to cut it rather than chance leaving it. While this tree is mostly on our property, It appears it may be partially on your property as well. We will need your written permission to take it down. We will also need concurrence from the City which we will try to achieve. Should you have an estions, please give me a call at 425-(373-11 00. ~:l-u"""s.:;-~ ..... ;;~~;:>'=::::=::::=""'"'-----"".:) Mike Echelbarger President 4001 198th St SW Lynnwood 98036 16108 Ash Way, Suite 203 • Lynnwood, WA 98087 • (425) 741-3535 • Fax (425) 745-9115 Packet Page 324 of 586 Clu ston, Michael From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: mike echelbarger [mike@echelbarger.com] Monday, February 04, 2013 10:31 AM Clugston, Michael Todd Echelbarger; mi_ connelly@frontier.com Echelbarger"s Shaw Lane 6 lot plat-Connelly Concerns Collnely tree removal req 2.jpeg After reviewing the comments in the city file, we reached out to determine the specifics of the Connelly's concerns. They would like the three trees removed as shown below. We support their position and would ask for permission to include the removal of the subject trees with our plat plan. mike echelbarger I 1 Packet Page 325 of 586 ~~:...... ~.: 1 ! l .... 1-e--·-----"' \ \ \ Janllilry 31, 201:;! Mike :Ec:helbaf5er Echelbaiger Investment., UC 400119!f0 ST SW !.ynnwoori, WA ~8036 z RE: Tree RemoV<~f on Pro!U)Sed lot 4, Echelb:arger's Shaw Lane plat (P!.N20120043f we r~~ecl '{mirl~mci~~28;ig13tetfeiieq~n~\\(i~fi'Pe.~~~th~TSe-ri~~;i FI>tree, ._-'·-· adjacent to o1,1r home on-tlle Eas'ts!de of your propo~a [cjt4; J~i~ ~e a[oogwitfl. s'~1fer<ll bttler mature Fir trees, do present potentialllf~thfea«!nirig lr.lia.rds to ui. Jhes:e Firs h~ve been •- We<Jkened by years ofmism<Uiagement and neglect by the previ~us ·property o<tiner.S. TM prevailing south winds tllat ~me acrog; thE! v~cant lot own£d by the church an~ extremely strong <~114 ii' m~se be~ <lrEl ;;omprorruse>.d more by earth movemoot do to building project'; their h.:J~n;! to us doubles. We are: enclosing a copy of your original tree removaE requ-est to th--e City of :Eomond~-We havE! highlightad th~ trees we consider ;m extreme h"zard to our h-ome and request they be tal<ing down. PI~~ q;~m;ider this letter :as our authorization to remove sald tree:>. Slnccrcly, . Edmonds, WA. S~Ol~ 425-771~19-74 ' . ' ' . L----~-vi""""""J L:O.T .: ~~Etr-;;r L r:r> ~ ~·-1, -..-::os· I I I j l Packet Page 326 of 586 Attachment 18 PLN20120043 Packet Page 327 of 586 ~ . ' Packet Page 328 of 586 r ---~--~~/ <-:-.--.I .. 27043000:1,05800 G CnRiS AND ,JULENF 1<. GRADWUiil 86J1 2;8tn STREET S_W t:DMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 J' F D ZONING RS-8 2704300C:t0fl7CJO SCCTI A!'D !1-0LC.IE l_.,iA->CASTFR 8623 218tn S'RFtT S.W O:DMONOS. V•'ASHiNG fON 98026 __ ·_ -~-~~------------=--------~-------""_.:::::_ ____ _ · \ -N 89'3213n W -'\ ,--- I 0G·FJ88U00004CO ,JJ0~1H A. MUO~; 21//5 85h ;:>Lf\C 'N. lDMO~~)S, WN>HI~~GIOt" 95026 0 N -~---~ ~-~ ---. -~__c.--7---... '\.. I -7- 2D2.85' ' ,_ =----92"_:__" -c:*-·-·+-· ----·-----~-------------------------- \, 1 147.20' fi ~".. \ -~~-~~\----------~ ~::.. 0 "' Ld u <:: _j o__ -~----~~----~~-~----r~--T-- \ \ J 27043000203000 M:CHAEL ,i_ AR"<OT 6706 218lh S:RFEr S.W. EDMONDS, WASIIINC-ION 98026 ,-------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l ______ __j ~----~------- \ ZONING RS-8 ,------------, I I I I I I I "I l LtJ oda931ooooo1oo I () FLORA LIU! AND YlN SHAN CHAN I :5 EDM0~1~~1 ::~~~:5¢~~ :8026 I ll ' 1 I .c I I -\ I ..._. \ \)'7--()01 I'-~ I ,0 1 0 I co j V~\:) I -~ ~ _ L;---0-S:_~O _____ ...J ------0 ) <) ' 0-1'-~ __ //' / ;:;~:""0o ;----~~-=-~~ ' I I ' /"" OOB~5100000200 I -------, ' MELISSA A. lj.ND GREGORY BRYAN 1 1 21803 ,1u87tl"l PLACE W. ~ fDMONDS, (SHINGT;N 98026 :I I - I I I I I I I I ~ \ \ \----~ \ 3 \ \ \ ~--·_\___ __ _ I I f I I .2 8,1j0 Sq Ft NOTES I 25'1 . I \--~ -~g·/;"' ZONING RS-8 ?70130002G3i:::J OL YMP:C BAPTIST CHURCH -LDMOND3 (l:'13 220;n STr,Er:·r S.W. CDMOiDS, WASHING'ON 98026 I I I I / 5 / / ' 8,475 Sq Ft 4 9,555 Sq Ft 1. NO CRITICAL AREAS OR STEEP SLOPES ARE LOCATED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE. 2. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WILL BE REMOVED. -r------------------------1 I I I 1,, . u I s p .Ly s (J ~ 8 2) I I _______________________ j 270430007.08500 i-'.f.'. /1ND B.L HE.f'!...f-:R E:i60G 218h S~REET S.Yi. ~')1,10\i;:JS, WAS!',NGTOt--: 98026 ZONI~IG RS-8 - ---- ----------------··---- ' ~---------, ---I ~ i ! 2/0~J00020:040:J !.11(:.-:.o~,c:; --;_ AND JEA~ E. :::oN NELL':' I.W 8512 218!.!1 SrREET S.W CJJ\/QNDS, WASI-·iiC:GTOH 98~1:::'5 ·I J j I I L.-~--------_____ _! _;_or 2 s---Ju-~~0.2) i ----_L___ -----------j 3. LOTS 1 THOUGH 6 WILL EACH HAVE AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN TRACT 999 (PRIVATE ROAD) FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS, EGRESS ANil UTILITIES. MAINTENANCE WILL BE BORI'E BY THE OWNERS OF LO rs 1 THROUGH 6, 4. THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN DESIGNATED FLOOD PLAIN. 5. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES A.RE APPROXIMATE. 6. LOT COVERAGE IS LIMITED TO 35% AND W!i.L BE REV1EWED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS. 7. SEE PRELiMINARY DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED STREETS, GRADES, Dr<MIAGE, SEWER AND WATER PLANS. 8. SEE PRELIMINARY CLEARING PLAN FOR TREE PRESERVATION. i ' I I I I I I I I I I I ! \ \ \ ' _]j N I '-, __ ------ w~-E s SCALE : 1'' ~ 30' __)------··---~--------------·; a· 15' 30' 60' PARCEL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL 1 THE WEST 86 FEET OF THE SOUTH 116 FEET OF THE NORTH 146 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH H1\LF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTij, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEL 2 THE WEST 86 FEET OF THE SOUTH 95 FEET OF THE NORTH 241 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF TITE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF 'llTE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTtl, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEL 3 THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORllT, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST COI<NER OF SAID Sl\RDIV1SION : THENCE S 0"29'16" W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, A DISTANCE OF 241.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE CONTINUING S 0'29'16" W, A DISTANCE OF 91.48 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE S 89'30'23" E, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTP.NCE OF 111.00 FEET: THE,ICE N 0'29'16'' E, PARALLEL ~TH THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, A DISTANCE OF 81.55 FEET; THENCE N 89'30' 44" W, A DISTACE OF 25.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE CF THE WEST 86.0D FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE N 0'29'16" E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 9.98 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 241 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE N 89'32'13" W, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE Of 86.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 4 THAT PORTION OF T~E EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUAR1ER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE S 0'29'16" W, ALONG THE WEST UNE :IF SAID SUBDIVISION, ,h.. DISTANCE OF 312..48 FECT TO THE SOUTH L!NE OF" SAlD SUBDIVlSION; THENCE S 89"30'?.:.." E, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 111.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 0"29'16" E, PARALLEL WITH 11-IE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIV1SION, A DISTANCE OF 81.55 FEET: THENCE S 89"30'44" S, A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE TO 11-IE RIGHT HAV1NG A RADIUS OF 19.00 FEET AND FROM WHICH INTERSECTION POINT THE CENTER BEARS S 89'3D'44" E; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9D"OO"DO", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 29.85 FEET: THENCE N 0"34'14" E, A DiSTANCE OF 7.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 225 FEET OF SAID SUBDIV1SION: THENCE S 89"32'13" E, ALONG SAID SOUT1-I LINE, A DISTANCE OF 67.02 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 130.9 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE S 0'26'46" W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 107.59 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION: 11-IENCE N 89'3D'23" W, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 92.1D FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGI~INING. PARCEL 5 THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Of THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTIT, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIV1SION; THENCE S 89"32'13" E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, A DISTANCE OF 202.85 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 130.9 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE S 0"26'46' W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 125.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 125 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 11-IENCE CONTINUING S 0"26'46" W, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 225 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE N 89.32'13" W, ALONG SAID SOUTH UNE, A DISTANCE OF 67.02 FEET; THENCE N 0"34'14" E, A DISTANCE OF 7.50 FEET: THENCE N 89'30'44" W, A DISTANCE OF 1.51 FEET TO THE POiNT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 18.50 FEET THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90"00'00", AND ARC DISTANCE OF 29.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGEfiCY ON THE EAST LINE OF WEST 116 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE N 0'29'16" E, ALONG SAID EAST Llt~E. A DISTANCE OF 73.99 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF 11-IE NORTH 125 FEET OF SAID SUBDIV1SION; THENCE S 89'32'13" E, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 86.95 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 6 THE SOUTH 95 FEET OF THE NORTH 125 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTtiEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECllON 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 130.9 FEET THEREOF, AND, EXCEPT THE WET 116 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL TO BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS THE NORTI' 10 FEET OF T1-IE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOU Ttl WEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TRACT 999 (PRIVATE ROAD) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGI,INING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIV1SION; THENCE S 0"29'16" W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIV1SION, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF SAID SUBDIV1SION; THENCE S 89"30'23" E, ALONG SAID SOUm LINE, A DISTANCE OF 86.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 86 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION AMD TRUE POINT OF BEGiNNING: THENCE S 0"29'16" W, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 220.98 FEET: THENCE S 89'30'44" E, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET AN INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 19.DO FEET AND FROM WHICH INTERSECTION POINT THE CENTER BEARS S 89'30"44" E: THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'00'00", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 29.85 FEET: THENCE N 0'34'14" E, A DISTANCE OF 14,50 FEET: 11-IENCE N 89'30'44" W, A DISTANCE OF 1.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVP.TURE OF A. CURVE TO rHE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 18.50 FEET; THENCE NORT1-IWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'00'00", AND ARC DISTANCE OF 29.06 FEET TO THE POiNT OF TANGENCY ON THE EAST LiNE OF WEST 116 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION: THENCE N 0"29'16" E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 168.99 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF 11-IE NORTH 30 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION: THENCE N 89'32'13" W, ALONG SAID SOUm LINE, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 "=1500' LEGAL DESCRIPTION EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THL SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION .10, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON: EXCEPT ROADS: AND EXCEPT THE EAST 130.9 FEET THEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS .,HE CENTEHUNE OF 218\h STREET S.W. AS MONUMENTED PER PLAT Of ESPERANCE COURT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 9904015008, SNHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON BENCH MARK TOP Of CONCRETE MONUMENT :N CASING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 86th PLACE W. AND 21Bth STREET s.w . ELEVATION : 10D.OO DATUM : />.SSUMED OWNER/APPLICANT ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTS, LLC 4001 198\h STREET S.W., SUITE #2 LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 FHONt:: : 425-673--1100 FAX : 425-673-1109 ZONING RS-8 (NO CHANGE) PARCEL NUMBER 2704300D202800 PROPERTY AREA 6,3,440 SQ, FT. OR 1.456 ACRES PROPERTY ADDRESS 8620 218TH STREET S.W. POLICE PROTECTION CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDMONDS SCHOOL DiSTRICT NO. 15 ENGINEER/SURVEYOR CONTACT: JEFFREY TREIBER LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19217-36TH AVENUE W. SUITE 106 LYNNWOOD, WA. 98036 PH.: 425-775-1591 WATER SERVICE GITY OF EDMONDS TELEPHONE VERIZON ELECTRICITY P.U.D. NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CITY OF EDMONDS FIRE PROTECTION CITY OF EDMONDS RECEIVEO PRELl M I NARY PLAT JANos £013 F 0 R DEVElOPMENT SERVICES ECHELBARGER'S SHAW LANE IN SE1/4, NW1/4 OF SEC. 30, T.27N., RAE., W.M. 1-7-13 CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I L II 19217 86lh Avenue DRAWN J.T.T CHECKED J.T.T. ' Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants • e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com W., Suite 106 • Lynnwood, WA 98036 DI<TE F.B. SCALE 11-19-12 527, P.54 1"=30' FILE NO. Attachment 19 53( Pl.N20120043 Packet Page 329 of 586 -----~~~-- F-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------------·-------------------------------------------------------~~~·---------------------------- ~ w u -<( -' D.. EX. CBMH rOP~oo.s1 ?7C43COG2C580·:J C CHF-W:O /\Nll ,IIJI ~rl[ K_ CRAOWO·!L 8531 71fU· S iR!:E:.·r S'N ":DMDNUS, W.".Sri:'\GTO~I 98020: ZONING RS-8 2704300020b?Oii 3CGF A'·-iD \.-lOLL IF: iAUNU.::i I'::R ss:_l 218~h s~."it.::r s.w. ::_::;1-AO~JIJS. '>'1'/•SHI~IG -0\ 98026 OlJ~otkWUCCD40C J()Di:i" A_ MIL':UCI ;::· /2(; lbt~ ='I AC.T 'I•' ':.Uf.;;)Ml':;, '•11'1'.::,'--'. ;,;G:m< S6J26 I I I I I I I ~ --------------------~-+----+------;c___ ------~-----1------------------1------~ [":.:-?~-----,_,~ "~ """ // :5 IN ..... 7S.B8-N 11-!V-71:1.116-E INYwl1).92-W EX. CB -ror~s1.79 ltMo79,BQN[: fi!'{M79-e!l---W w u -<( -' 0.. I I I I I I I I / ___ _:_· __ -=~-,~-~---~ --?~-. ~---/r--\: ___ L_~~ _/_~----~ ==i--~::::::~:;;;:;,;;:;:;;;:;_;_;;;_~,c_~-~j;~:!:t"~.·~~.~;l~[:·; .•. ;_=-~•-•-----·= --~-c~-.-,-~.;-__ :<c:=c~1~ --_-·:::.·:----------------------:£ Ll i /;;_.~-~- ~-=t(==::::.:: ~---\z~\":===~~===.::-::·::::::::.~==-=$===•;;.2'I::::::::=~~t::::::::::·:::::;::~=-=-====~---+2~---~====.:::-:-::-§ .i--t:..:·=-:x==·i~~[=====~~§]I]~~.: ---~-~~-~---~---~·~:-SJ ~--~~-----~-~:-·~ -----=~=----;_::-~:_;·=-----~t~ -~-· -------------ss ---- - - -SS _Ji INV-E!B.38 ~ .... / -.,.,, ~, 2oz.ss' -· ·-' ----·,1 --147~20 · ------------------ i:E';il!::~ 1 'AB•<~HDC>N CB ~~:::~ 8/RAINAGE CBMH --------.T-E:-:-CB -=t-: 1 ---:- UNLESS CURRENTt Y COLLECTED FROM T~Y~9+.~3 TOP~9B.4-, --I USED AS AREA fAST AND ROUTED TO • -_-.--J!<V-i~.51··< INV-\17.;!5-E DRAIN -· TO 8E NEW STORM UNE f-1 : INI'-92.5:>-w INV~96.45-0. ' _, ' 2 DETE:RMINED AT u.v~w_3...,w FlNAL ENGINEERING NEW CS MAY BE REQUIRED INV .. BD.-}:1; 27043QC02030·JO ~IOiALL J. ARNDT 8706 21Bth smcr: s.'l'l EC·UCNDS, 'NASIIINGTOc.i 9i:U26 ~--------, I I I I L. ' 'r I >, ill m ·:-'I \, i O!:TE~T.-0:\/WA \"OL.Al.ITY VA:j~ T il·.F'f-,ROX. ~rll'x72'x'c' DEEr I ..----~-·----·--~'.---.. ------"'~ ' ' ' ,-------------------~-~~ I ' SP \ \----___ ,\ \\ ' \ \ -·-t----. --------------------------------- N ZONING RS-8 I L c: -~~ L~f)(2·F_l I L---------------------~-----I 2 /:;430002JB~,oo w E s SCALE : 1"=30' o· 15' 60' B / I ~---~- \ I L__/ I 3 \ \ 4 w u -<( -' D.. r·------------1 I I I I ock931 :JO:iC01 CO FLCR.Il. !_:~Ji JIND Ylr1 SHI\!>J CHI\;,; 7"·Bq~ 8h1 P;_A:::t W DMOc.DSI WASI-11'-:C--:-or--t 98025 Lr"""'---_______ _ \ ;, ' "' II ·~ ', \ \ .. ,. ---__ '"'--"'----'"·--L ____________ _j ~,.., tl \ N \ ''-., 1 ' ' L_ \ 2--4' MAXIMUM ROC:KERY -~-~H .-~--'-'",----/! ... ~ (IAAXIMUM 3' AEOVE \ EXISTiNG GRADE) ROCKERY 'l.OCAT10N \ljlU. SE C STRUCllON TO Ml IZE TREE IMPAC-t \ \ ·----- ' \ ' ----.._I I I ,, ' I' ' ' " /: "'.:vi. >\ND 0.L HLI':..[I~ 8606 71Bt:, STRFFT S.'N ELW.O.\DS, WAS?·""C i'CN 98026 -~---------·--_j ~----~------'1 I I ~---·----------·· J ! I I L. C T s~--lo D2) R/W ··- VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 "= 1 500' LEGAL DESCRIPTION EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Of THE NORTHWEST QUAR ltR OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ROADS; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 130.9 FEET THEREOF. "-~' . ; ,_, BASIS OF BEARINGS THE CENTERLINE OF 218th STREETS "1. AS MONUMENTED PER PLAT OF ESPERANCE COURT RECORDED UNDER AUDilDR'S FILE NUMBER 9904015008, SNHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON BENCH MARK TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 86th PLACE W. AND 218th STREET s.w. ELEVATION : 100.00 DATUM : ASSUMED OWNER/APPLICANT ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTS, LLC 4001 198th STREET S.W,, SUITE #2 LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 PHONE : 425-673-1100 FAX : 425-673-~1109 - 17.5' R/W - ENGINEER/SURVEYOR CONTACT: JEFFREY TREIBER LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19217-.3611-1 AVENUE W. SUITE 106 LYNNWOOD, WA. 98036 PH.: 425-~ 775-1591 30' - 12.5' R/W -f--11' 11' ~ . I 12' 12" 5' R/W 6' \ \ i:VALLJA TED DLJRlJ-lG Fli4Al. E~NEERING AND HOME / 3 \ \ ·--------------Lf~~-~;;;;;· ·.;;;;;;;;" ~ 'ASPHALT PA'ANG :.:_;~lOlA ,ggq;g;zpg i..i u t> Q OtikA A A A ASY MP P P 4 4Q;pg;g;~ ,, 8'.;;1] / 94 w z ::J \ \ -----__ l_ __________ , _____ \_ __ f--z i5 "' ':J '-' z <( ;o ... .+. ~ - / \ >- ""' "' iS I-- I S21 oc: + 0 ZONING RS-8 27043000203300 OLY"-PIC 8APTIS7 ;"::,dRC~ -fD,,tC,\·0S fl71:5 22Dth SI'C.:lf.. S.l'i. :..JMOr>JLlS, 'i•IASHII'-:::;-o:--: 98025 L N PI. ~~ ~~ > '" 0. w 0 0 w "' " 0 + 0 I"' I~ o! o o "' g 94 m + () ~I txJ ~ I EXISTING GROUND "' "' :~ ~~~~---~---~--~---~--~---~-~~-~-=-;~~.-.. = ... -.. = .. _LL~~o~:%~,:~:~-_:;-;·:---=-~=-~L·~~--~~1t-=-=~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~:-~ __ =: .. ~--~------~~--=--~-t~.5~o%~-~~~-=-·~-~--=-_.~ .. =-= __ -.= .. ~.~~--~~~,~-=1 -=~~,~~~:~:--~ FINISHED GRADE '" ~ --92 90 88 86 84 82 12+00 + ·'" o;cri OJ . . , .. 1HOO 86th PLACE W. SCALE 1'~20' HOR. 1"=5' VERT. 88 86 84 82 ----------------·-----··~--· _.:.._ ______ f ___ l I I a,l ~~ ffil ffij 10+00 TYPE ,6, CURB DETA.IL. NC' SC,\LE EDMONDS ~.'fAMJ/\KD 0E:IAii. E2.3 ROI U'D CURB DETAIL NO SCALE EDMONDS STP.NIJARD IJETA!l E2.9 l_. 0 T 2 c~-JCI·C:2) ~j___ - - --~--- -~---.. ---j NOTES THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED A LARGE PROJECT FOR DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS. REFER TO PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT FOR DETAILS. TillS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS INTENDED TO DEMONSTRATE SUBDIVISION FEP.SIBILITY ONLY AND DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL PROJECT ENGINEERING. REFER TO THE PRELIMINARY DRAifiAGE REPORT FOR THE PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE ANALYSIS. THE CURRENT DESIGN PROVIDES FOR 11-1E INSTALLATION OF AN UNDERGROUND DETENTIOfl VAULT SIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY AND STATE REGULATIONS. THE VAULT WILL THEN DISCHARGE TO THE WEST ALONG THE SOUTI-1 SIDE OF 218th STREET S. W. TO A POINT WHERE IT CAN BE CONNECTED TO THE EXIST!NG STORM WATER SYSTEM. THE CONNECTION POINT IS APPROXIMATELY 235 FEET WEST OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN HEREON. mw ENGINEERING MAY INCLUDE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE THE STOilM WATER DETENTION VAULT SIZING . AMENDED SOILS TO BE PLACED UPON ALL LOTS AT TIME OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH EDMONDS REGULATIONS, POWER, TELEPHONE AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLED U~IDERGROUND AS REQUIRED BY CITY REGULATIONS. THESE SYSTEMS WILL GENERALLY BE LOCATED IN THE 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT PROVIDED ALONG THE STREET AND PRIVATE D FRONTAGES. I f-2D' R/H . "~~NEW ROLLED CURB, PER C.O.E . STD DETAIL E2-9 (BOTH SIDES) ~~ 'PAVEMENT SECTION --- PER C.O.E.#E-2.1.3. *SUBGRADE AS REQUIRED. GRAVEL BORROW MAY BE REQUIRED PENDING SOILS CONDITIONS. TYPICAL SECTION ~ 86TH PLACE W~ NO SCALE 30' R/W J ----.---- ±7.7' 12' -1 ~--------------· ~ r-0.5' § 5' 12.5' ~ ~ SIDEWALK ~ ASPHALT PAVING ~ ~ rEX ~ ~ ~ ~ -·:-:.--~,_(~:_:·L--L·f;:'·· -_.t:i .:] _______ .. ---~ ' 7 ! I I 'SUBGRADE AS REQUIRED. GRAVEL BORROW MAY BE REQUIRED PENDING SOILS CONDITIONS 2" MIN. ASPHALT CONCRETE------ PAVEMENT CLASS 1/2" ACTUAL DEPTH TO MATCH EXiSTING. \L INSTALL NEW CURB, GUTTER AND 5' SIDEWALK PER C.O.c:. STD DETAILS E2.B AND OVER 4" ATB' 2 IT. MiN. SAWCUT FROM GUTTER (TYPiCAL MINIMUM) E2.13. IN AREAS OF TRENCH WORK OR WHERE SUBGRADE IS TO BE REBUILT, C,O.E.#£2.3 SHALL APPLY. SEE SH T C6. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT SECTION ~ 218TH STREET S.W, ·--·- IN NO SCALE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ECHELBARGER'S SHAW LANE SE'I/4, NW1/4 OF SEC. 30, T.27N., R.4E., CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON W.M. 2 . .ADDED NOTES ON STORM, APPROX. UNDGRND. LOC. NEW POVIJER, TEL. CATV., GAS, ADDC:D EXISTING SEWER, WATER AND POWER TO HOUSE, SEWER STUB LOT 2 2-~7-13 JTT I. ADDED .~PPROX STORM ELEV tOR OFFSITE, ADDED NOTES, OH POWER ON 218th 1~7~~13 .ITT ' L Ill 19217 36\.h Avenue DRAWN J.T.T. CHECKED J.T.T. ' Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants • e-mail: info®lsaengi.neering.co~ ----;~-b:--l~aengineering.com W., Suite 106 · Lynnwood, WA 98036 DATE F.B. SCALE 11-19-12 527, p 54 1"=30' FILE NO. Attachment 20 PLN20·I20043 Packet Page 330 of 586 ___ _j_ __ ---~-~---- 2704300020680C G. CHRIS AND JULENE K. GRAOWOHl 8631 2113\h STREET S.W. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 '• •J ~--~~-----~-----··----------------------~""---··-~-~ c ':,\ (->,--..:\ \» 'V' ' . ~-----------------------,:c.t/::+~--__::.y_S)~---------------------------1 , '0' \ -~' I ZONING RS-S 2704C.ODOL06"/0U SCOT: Af.;C:: MO ... LI[ MUNCAS;Eii. 8523 218th STREEI S.W. EDMONDS, WASHI~iGfON 980/'5 (~V I 0040880000:).:!-00 JUDi fH A. q1L :·oN 217?6 85:1'1 -'L,\CE '/1' IJ)MON~S. WAS,.,'NGTON 98026 I I I I I I I :i ____ j __________ l_~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~-~----------/// w u <( __] tL \ 1 .. I ~ .... I \ , --· . :-o: \ \ J \ \ 27043000203000 MIChAEL J. ARNDT 8706 2i8th SBfET S.W. ~-----~ I I I I FDMO~DS, WASHINGlQN 98026 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L ________ l ZONING RS--8 ,---------, I I I I oos\:131 oooc-o2oo I MWSSA A. fj.ND GREGORY BRYAN ] 2180.3 87th PLACC W. 1 ~DMONDS, ~IASHINGTON 98026 I I 7 I I -I I I " I I " I I \ -___ j 3 \ \ _\__ __ _ I I I I I I I 12 8,1~0 Sq Ft ' \ I I \ I 25'1 I I I I I 0 :i w u <( ,J fl. \ --~----"\~-­i(J i ', \ \ 2lC1J0~'020330-J I ___ _j N ~- ' ' li ' ' ' OLWP~C BA?TiST ~fiURCH -EOMJ~DS 5713 2201~' STRE ,-S.''ll' tof1:0t<.·JS. ·,~A:Oc•ii.G-IO~J 98U26 U~PLl-iTTZ.D I I 8,25~9~q Ft ; ' ,, ,, 1 r ,,, .. ,,,,-_,.,,,\---~--------1 125' ---,..\ 5 8,4'/5 Sq Ft UTILITY •I / -·----_:_j I I \ \ I 4 9,555 Sq Ft I 151 ' ' ' /I ' ' ---------------r---r- r-----------------------1 I I . 0 T S J--l ~l B <2 · 2 2) _______________________ j ?7D4300020850:J P.h1. ANJ 8.\. 1--'':.Pli::R 86C6 ?18th S!r-TF-;-S.W. EDMO~GS, W.A.s~.!l-4(; ~o:-.; 88023 ZONING RS-·8 .. ---,.-.. --.--.. J 27043CCO?J34CC M;CHALI_ ::;·_ AND ,JCAN ~-CCJ'-INt::_:_y W 86'? 2~1:Jti1 SNEEl S.W. EDl~O:,:~S. W/,5'-INGTOI\ 'J3U21:i 1. 0 T 1 I s~ o ;-u2) I I , I l-·---------------- LOT ,. L I ' ' ---~ N w E s SCALE 1"=30' a' 15' 60' I _, _ _/ I 1 I ' ' -~-_L_~-~_L __ _L_~--"" - I ' "'I ""l • I fl'-i :i:i 1 2:!-lST i ! ' ' VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 "~~1500' LEGAL DESCRIPTION EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUAFTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ROADS; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 130.9 FEET THEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS THE CENTERLINE OF 218\h SffiEET S.W. AS MONUMENTED PER PLAT OF ESPERANCE COURT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 9904015008, SNHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON BENCH MARK TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 86th PLACE W. AND 218\h SffiEET S.W. ELEVATION 100.00 DATUM ; ASSUMED TREE LEGEND INDICATES EXISTING TREE TYPE A~m SIZE NO.TED ADJACENT INDiCATES EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED DURING PLAT DEVELOPMENT NOTES ffiEES SHOWN TO BE REMOVED HEREON AP.E LIMITED TO THOSE THAT ARE LOCATED IN ROADWAY AND UTILITY CORRiDORS, THE ARE.<\ IN THE VICINITY OF THE STORMWATER DETENTION VAULT AND IN THE CENTRAL PORTIOI'S OF THE BUILDING PADS. OTHER ffiEES MAY NEED TO BE REMOVED TO FACILITATE NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION. THE ADDITIONAL TREES TO BE REMOVED WILL BE EVALUATED AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING PERM\T APPLIC!\TION. THE TREES LOCATED NEAR THE PROPOSED 2-4 FOOT HIGH ROCKERY ALONG THE WESTERLY SIDE OF LOT 2 AND THE WESTERLY AND SOUTfiEI1LY SIDE OF LOT 3 WILL BE EVALUATED AT THE TIME OF FINAL ENGINEERING PLAN PREPARATION. THE ROCKERY IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE USABLE YARD AREA FOR THE NEW HOMES AND TO CONTROL DRAINAGE AND DIRECT IT TO THE STORMWATER DETENTiON VAULT. PRELIMINARY CLEARING PLAN FOR ECHELBARGER'S SHAW LANE IN SE1/4, NW1/4 OF SEC. 30, T.27N., R.4E., W.M. CiTY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1. REDUCED TREE REMOVAL PER CITY COMMENTS 1-7-13 JTT L 1921? 3£th Avenue DRAWN J.T.T CHECKED J.T.T. ' Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants II e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com W., Suite 106 · Lynnwood, WA 98036 DATE F.B. SCAtE "1-19-12 527, P.54 ~----- web: ]saengineering. com /_;!')h_\r:;tr;th 1t:..I"H !'ILE NO. 53E Attachment 21 L---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L-----~------L-------~PLN20120043 Packet Page 331 of 586 27043000206800 G. CHRIS AND JULENE K. GRA.OWQHL 8531 218th STREET S.W. fDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 ZONiNG RS-8 27043000206700 SCOTT AND MOLLIE MUNCASTER 8523 218th STREET S. W. EDMOND::. WASHINGTO'J 98026 00408800000400 JUDITH A. MIL TON 21726 85th PLACE W E.DMONDS, WASHINGTOi~ 08026 SECTIO~~ 30, T.27N., ________________ j_ ... _______ . ____ l_-.L..E~oW _______________ _ ,----1 I I I I I I I I ------- 1-------1 I ZONING RS-8 I I j I Ods93100000100 I FLORA uul AND YIN SHAN CHAN I 21Sdl 87th PLACE w. EDMONDSI WASH!NGTON 98026 I .\ I \.\ 'i' () '" I I ( 0 '" 0 I L 0 "0'1 I ------f7-L t,-: ___ -l ____ ... '" v" () () 1>'~ ~ r" "-______ ,)~(), ~- -;' ~-" -v 1. U'" OOBd31 00000200 MElISSA A. i't-ND GREGORY BRYAN 21803 i87th PLACE W. EDMONDS, fASHINGTON 95026 ~ 2 I 1 I I 1 I I \---- \ \ , '" -m 1'; o z , ~ \ I \ \ \ '-, \ 1--...... \ \ ) I "- \ \ \ \ "... \ \ 1 I I I \ -' "- \ .\ \ \ I I I I / I 1\ 2 I i i \ \ I / I I 1-.", () ~ '- J . I ! '-., / I \ \ I ! I t : . ' \ . "; l~ / j / I . I ( ~-..:..:.' I ( 5 I ", . \ J I I / r ---.--------. -. 1 I i I 1 I I I SoP 1_, G -r -J iJ, t3 (8 -8 2) L ______ . -.--------... 270~ jOQ(J2!J3S0() P.M. AND 13.l HEPLER 8506 718ih S'TRE:::T S W. EDMONDS, \'iASHI~jG roN 9':\026 ZONING RS-8 N I w-fif7E , S SCALE: 1"=30' O' 15' 30' 4·5' 60' -----_._-,,--- '\ 2704300020:3400 \ MICHAE.L D. AND ,IENI E._ COt--!Nf:."UJ W 8612 718th :?TREET S, W. \ EDMONDS, WASI-I!NGH.lN 98025 r-------------------~~~ ~ \ q-------, 1"1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ( --. '--' - ---'9.?~ /1 ! \ -L ______ ~ \ \ \ 4 '------- \ \ \ LOT 2 L s -, - -~ ----::::-=1 ---'--->L-:-::-__ -:--::::-_-:7:--:-:-:-_\_::-:=::;--'-----------·-.'...:..-:-____ '-_-..:9.:,:2,;.-_J< lJ?B-CI~ \Nby~;:rI('jtJ~l1"'-6ll S~IigL IW6reC1)oN 2,1e,HltJ(; A6e"2k\ I\,\~____ ""sa ------.. ------" -- ___ ~O!'<I> tVt)C:,!2,4Df, 'Pi,..-!\C8\Yie:NT '1 .. (OI1rPm::r16},.\ . . , ,_~: > -'1JGi f5l\T1bW VN,j l;r -it CNS,' IN PiAtCr:; () Ni.:ll.t5n3 If-;'{l[ i.-S r. Of 'c· {i_ij,-\l)!"tvv V~oJ~Ntk~~~' 1iA-' --G ~l)qot\1 1: SeD! 'tI1uN'C (f)I'JTrLCl". ?704.30002()3300 OLYMPIC BAPTiST CHURCH --EDMOI~DS 8713 220th smEET S,W. LOT IMPERVIOUS AREAS (SF) --:\'l/Ac.t~ I,\\:;N'T of-f,n~ltX1,,1i'_ffL }: IU- ---.. _-'--------.. ~ /t'bSoC-i A-_\_F-_"O_R_6l'_9~ EDMONDS, WA$HiNS,ON 98026 l.QI 1 2 3 4 5 __ ')~;i?JVt\)!2./Ht;A0S Kej:>c)i2-,1-?\l.r;'flrR£b By L£A,re.li-C:=-;(v)e"';{ [tLV\cl g ),<£;Oo,'0,4CI71)r\T",;)!-) ':'l:;'W li fj4:.j ---:;>roe-,\~\ VJ/tfE:;g 'l)e'lB~ilof~ \i'f.;v:..:ri1<\Of?M.GD sy S ITS f::rK~n1.JR6'7 tlll1t:D I;z. --27-I ZDlct 6 TOTAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ROADS; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 130.9 FEET lliEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS THE CENTERLINE OF 218th STREET S. W. AS MONUMENTED PER PLAT OF ESPERANCE COURT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FilE NUMBER 9904015008, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON BENCH MARK TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASING AT THE INTERSEC110N OF 86th PLACE W. AND 21 Bth STREET S.W. ELEVATION: 100.00 DATLM : ASSUMED PROPERTY ADDRESS 8620 218TH STREET S. W. ZONING RS-8 (NO CHANGE) PARCEL NUMBER 27043000202800 PROPERTY AREA 63044Q SQ. FT. OR 1.456 ACRES OWNER! APPLICANT ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTS. LLC 4001 198th STREET S.W .• SUITE #2 LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 PHONE: 425-673-1100 FAX: 425-673-1109 ENGINEER/SURVEYOR CONTACT: JEFFREY TREIBER LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES. 19217-36TH AVENUE W. SUITE 106 LYNNWOOD, WA. 98036 PH.: 425-775-1591 2,750 2,750 2,500 2,500 2,750 2,750 16,000 INC. DRIVEWAY 750 750 1,000 1,000 750 750 5,000 -----------_._----, IMPERVIOUS AREAS ON-SITE ROADWAY 0.143 Ac. S!DEWALK LOTS TOTAL 0.025 Ac. 0.482 Ac. 0.650 Ac. OFF·--SITE WIDENING 0.011 Ac. I _~g~:A_LK -'---~:6~i ~~~- l_ ._ .. _ .... ___ _ TELEPHONE VERIZON ELECTRICITY P.U.D. NO.1 OF SNOHOMISH COUN1Y POLICE PROTECTION CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT ND. 15 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CITY OF EDMONDS FIRE PROTECTION CITY OF EDMONDS WATER SERVICE CITY OF EDMONDS RAE., W.M. GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL MATERIALS AND WORK SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO lliE CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD PLANS AND DETAILS. THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICAllONS AND COJES. AND ALL OlliER APPLICABLE LOCAL MUNICIPAL. STATE. AND FEDERAL CODES. RULES AND REGULATIONS: -CURRENT INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (:8C) -2010 WSDOT/APWA STANDARD SPECIFiCA110NS FOR ROAD. BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION -WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR TI-IE PUGET SOUND BASIN (CURRENT EDITION) 2. STANDARD PLAN AND TYPE NUMBERS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS REFER TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAILS. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWiSE 3. A COPY OF lliESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOBSiTE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 4. DEVIATIONS FROM THESE PLANS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD ALL APPROVED DEI,1A TIONS FROM THESE PLANS ON A SET OF "AS-BUILT" DRAWINGS AND SHALL SUMMARIZE ALL AS-BUILT CONDITIONS ON ONE SET OF REPRODUCIBLE DRAV~NGS FOR SUBMITIAL TO THE OWNER PRIOR PROJECT COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. A SET OF AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMiTTED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE BUILDiNG OCCUPANCY/FINAL PROJECT APPROVAl. 6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET. SEE SURVEY FOR BE~,CHMARK INFORMATION. 7. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTiliTIES ilND SiTE FEATLRES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY OlliERS BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTIL Y VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOW~J AND TO FURTHER DISCOVER A~D PROTECT ANY OTHER UTILITIES NOT SHOWN HEREON WHICH MAY 8E AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTA110N OF THIS PLAN. CON-,RACTOf, SHALL VERIFY LOCATION. DEPTH, S'ZE, TYPE AND CONDITION OF EXISTING UTIliTY LINES AT CONNECTION OR CROSSING POINTS BEFDRE TRENCHING FOR NEW UTILITIES. ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBiliTY FOR THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND SITE FEATURES PRESENTED ON THESE DRAWINGS. ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTiFiED IMMEDIATELY OF CONFLICTS THAT ARISE, 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND PIlOTECT ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND UTILIllES LOCATION SERVICE (1·--80D-424-5555) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE BEFORE STARllNG WORK AND SHALL NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 10. PIPE LENGTHS WHERE SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY CHA~JGE DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHERE APPLICABLE) AND SHALL THOROUGHl Y FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH lliE CONTENTS THEREOF. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF llilS REPORT. 12. STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT SHALL CONFDrlM TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 13. MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, UTILITIES AND PAVEMENT SHALL BEAR ON MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE NATIVE SOIL OR COMPACTED SmUCTLRAL FILL. IF SOIL IS DISnJRBED, SOFT, LOOSE. WET OR IF ORGANIC MATERIAL IS PRESENT AT SU8GRADE ELEVATION. REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED STRUCTIJRAL FILL PER GEOTECHNiCAL REPORT. 14. SEE SURVEY AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF BUILDINGS. LANDSCAPED AREAS AND OTHf:R PROPOSED OR EXISTING SITE FEATURES. 15. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR PERIMETER FOUNDATION DRAINS. FOUNDAmlN DRAINS SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF OlliER SITE DRAIN LINES AND SHALL BE TIGHTUNED TO 111E STORM DRAIN SYSTEM WHERE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. 16. ALL REQUIRED STORMWATER FACILITiES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERW1SE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 17. ALL ROOF DRAINS, PERIMETER FOUNDATION DRAINS, CATCH BASINS AND OTHER EXTERNAL DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UNLESS NOTED OlliERWISE. 18, CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. 19. AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, ALL DISTURBED AREAS ON AND OFF SITE SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE EQUIVALENT OF lliEIR PRECONSTRUCTION CONDITION iN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. 2.0. ALL DISnJRBED SOIL AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR STABILIZED BY OTHER ACCEPTABLE METHODS FOR THE PREVENTION Of ON·-SITL EROSION AFTER n;[ COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. SEE EROSION CONTROL PLANS FOR SPECIFIC GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. 21. lliE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP OFF-SITE STREETS CLEAN AT ALL TIMES BY SWEEPI~G. WASHING OF THESE STREETS WILL NOT BE ALI.OWED 'MTIlOuT Pf<lOR APPROVAL. 22. llilS PROJECT IS NOT A BALANCED EARTHWORK PROJECT, BOTH EXPORT AND IMPORT OF SOIL AND ROCK MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED. 23. SLOPE OF FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE CONSTANT BETWEEN FINiSHED CONTOURS OR SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN. 24. FINISHED GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING WALLS AT MINiMUM 5% SLOPE FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 10 FEET. 25. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SHALL INSTALL ANO MAINTAIN SHORING AND BRACING AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT WORKERS, EXISTiNG BUilDiNGS. STREETS, WALKWAYS, UTIliTIES AND OTHER EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND EXCAVATIONS AGAINST LOSS OF GROUND OR CAViNG E~.BANKMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF SHORING AND BRACING, AS REQUIRED. 26. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY AND FOLLOW CITY PROCEDURES FOR ALL WATER SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS. HYDRANT SHUTOFFS. STREET CLOSURES OR OlliER ACCESS RESTRICTIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT RELOCATE OR EliMINATE ANY HYDRANTS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING lliRiTIEN APPROVAL nWM THE FI~E MARS~AL. 27. COORDINATE AND ARRANGE FOR ALL UTILITY CONNECTIONS, Ul1L1TY RELOCATIONS AND/OR SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS WITH THE AFFECTED OWNERS AND APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES. CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE MADE ONLY WITH ADVANCE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE AUlliORITIFS GOVERNING SA!D UTILITIES. 28. EXISTING UTILITY LINES IN SERVICE WHICH ARE DAMAGED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE AND INSPECTED AND ACCEPTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS AND OWNER'S REPRESENTAl1VE PRIOR TO BACKF!lLlNG. 29. NEW UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE GENERALLY SHOWN BY DIMENSION. WHERE NO DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, LOCATIONS MAY BE SCALED FROM DRAWINGS, FIELD ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE APPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE I\ND CITY. 30. WH·ERE NEW PIPE CLEARS AN EXISTING OR NEW UTiliTY BY 6" OR LESS, PLACE POL YElliYlENE PLASTIC FOAM AS A CUSHiON BETWEEN THE UTILITIES. 31. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FO~ CONTINUATION OF SITE UTILITIES WITHIN THE BUILDING. 32. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FOR EXTi:RIOR ELECTRICAL WORK. 33. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FOR SITE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 34. TRENCH BACKFILL OF UTILITIES LOCATED W1lliiN THE CITY ROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95%. COMPACTION TEST REPORTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO rrlE CITY PRIOR TO PAVING. 35. PIPE MATERIAL AND SIGNAGE SU8MITIALS SHALL 8E PRO~DED TO CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATiON. i1.-ow 11;((. (\/nf': ENG. UI4 DO"!'(\' MAILBOX APPROVAL APPROVED LOCATION PEl< TODD MERRIMAN (EDMONDS POSTMASTER) SEE SHEET C11 FOR LOCA110N OF C8U W/ PARCEL LOCKER SEE SHEET C8 FOR DETAILS \ VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1500' UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL UTILITIES SHALL Bf: UNDERGROUND. 2. REQUIRED SEPARft.TION OF UTILITIES SHALL BE MET PER CITY OF EDMONDS AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS. CONSTRUCTION NOTE 1. ALL MATERIALS AND WORK SHQWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD CONSTR 'CTION SHALL CONFORM TO lliE L."TEST CITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2. CITY OF EDMONDS DOES NOT ISSUE PERMITS FOR ROCKERIES. ROCK ERIES CAN BE CONSTRUCTED, BUT MUST BE DONE SO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE THE PROHIBITIONS STATED iN THE CODE. NOTES: 1. NO CRITICAL AREAS OR STEEP SLOPES ARE LOCATED ON OR ADJACENT TO lliE SITE. 2. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WILL BE REMOVED. 3. LOTS 1 THOUGH 6 WILL EACH HAVE AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN TRACT 999 (PRIVATE ROAD) FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES. MAINTENANCE WILL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF LOTS 1 111ROUGH 6. 4. THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED iN DESIGNATED FLOOD PLAIN. 5. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE APPROXIMATE. 6. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE MET AND CAN BE FOUND IN lliE FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN FILE NO. PLN20120Q43 IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION. 7. SETBACKS SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND VEST NO RIGHT. 8. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTlnJTE APPROVAL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED SETBACKS. A SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE SiNGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCES. 9. A SEPARATE RIGhT-·OF-WAY CONSTRUCllON PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALIL WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. A ROW PERMiT APPLICATION WITH CONTRACTOR'S SIGNATLRE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CI1]'. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1. SCHEDULE A PR£·CONSTRUC110N MEETING ~TH CITY ENGINEERING DIViSION AT 425-771-0220 EXT.1326. TWO DAYS (48 HR.) NOTICE IS REQUIRED. 2. REVIEW TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES. 3. CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. 4. INSTALL TESC MEASURES AND MAiNTAIN DUST CONTROL WHILE PREVENTING DISnJRBANCE OF ANY AREAS OF VEGETATION OUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE. 5. HAVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INSPECTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST 'j ,,,,,,._ e' ,. ... BE IN PLACE AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SITE CLEARING. EROSION ';(!"i!i'~l~ iiWli\p,h AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PRACTICES AND/OR DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL::1,) it ~,~t)l{·ij\! 11 PERMANENT VEGETATION IS ESTABliSHED, -. .., (.1,., , 6. DEMOLISH EXIS'i'ING STRUCTURES. 7. ROUGH GRADE S!TE AS REQU!RED TO INSTALL DRAINAGE FEATLRES. 8. CLEAR, GRUB & ROUGH GHADE S;TE. REVEGETATE DISTURBED AREAS NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL SURFACE DISTLRBANCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER ROUGH GRADING. (OTHER EXPOSED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED PER EROSION CONTROL NOTES BELOW). 9. INSTALL UTILIllES AND OTHER SiTE IMPROVEMENTS. INCLUDING FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS. 10. STABILIZED AND COMPOST AMEND ALL EXPOSED SOILS PRIOR TO REVEGETATION OF ENTIRE SITE. 11. ESTABLISH LANDSCAPING AND PERMANENT VEGETATION. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED UPON FINAL SITE STABILIZATION AND APPROVAL BE CITY INSPECTOR. CIVIL SHEET INDEX C1 COVER SHEET C2 EXISTING CONDITiONS PLAN C3 STORM WATER POLLUTION AND PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) C4 SWPPP NOTES AND DETAILS C5 ROAD AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN C6 ROAD. STORM DRAINAGE AND SANITARY SEWER PROFILES C7 DETENTION VAULT DETAILS C8 CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND DETAILS C9 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER PLAN 01D WATER AND SANITARY SEWER NOTES AND DETAILS C11 FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS & SIGNAGE PLAN C12 TRAFFIC CONTROL & HAUL ROUTE PLAN FEB f' 0 2014 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GOUN1Hl STRUCTURAL PLAN ~ !;iJ.J~ed.b'l 1>0).)1(\ &!£l.lu-.~~.:.Jl:u S1 STRUCTURAL NOTES & TYPICAL DETAILS S2 VAULT L10 & FOUNDATION PLANS -WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS /,;.:N(;. WI4D,O_9c...'l'--; _____ _ .1 m.w<:-"",1'~~, ___ .-<~~"'., __ ~."L.~ ............ Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground Location Center (lD.MT,ND,OR,wA) APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS /r~i" V\ \ Ii 7 L\ .. /,~.) lei. DAlE: ~ t (' ... ffl t. ... tfJ-J \':} <.----0 -I ~_.><.. 1 ~-,-/;1 \-'\ \'\ '. ';/"-\1 0 " \ BY: f")t ,'~~'.-...-AJ'b"\ 'cu:\( E~GINEERING IJI\J@Jol L = "'IIIIII! _III II Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Plan:·:.rs Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info®lsaengineering.com web: lsaengineering,com I- W W I if) n:::: w > o u SCALE n:::: o LL ~ · W '<;f- n:::: • · I- w z w if) z O'J./I'J./14 >-I- o z o I- (9 Z I if) 2 o I o Z if) AS SHOWN DRAWN CHECKED RCA JWY DATE F.B. 5-24-13 PFN PLN20120043 18A FILE NO. 5383 SHEET C1 OF 12 FEB 192014 Packet Page 332 of 586 \ SECTION 30, T.27N., R.4E., W.M. 27043CQ0206800 G. CHRIS AND ,IULENE K. GRADWOHL 8631 218tll STREET S,W. EDMONDS, WASHINGTOI·J 98026 U .1\1 P L A -r T £ D ZONiNG R5-8 27043000706700 SCOTT ANi) MOLLIE MUNCASTER 8623 2iBth SlREET S.W. EDMONDS, WASHIN:;TON 98026 G040BSOC00040Q JUDITH A. Mi!"TOI~ 21726 e::,i.h PLACe w. ED~ONDS, WA9-{:NGTOI~ SaG26 J l EX. ROW / O'Y£mIIW) Fe'll[!!: U~r'l / ----------.... -, .---------~----.--------. 1.--.. ·-,--.E-.-.-. --------- , .' , ',' . §fI=·······o .-.. . .. . ,., N I I I I I J / / I I I I I I I I \ \ 55 I l' ==:..'s:s.,s ====t=-.'--. ____ ._ r 3 \ .-.~ I I I I ,\ ___ . ___ J \ \ \ ,/ / \ \ , " \ / I ! I I \ \ \ \ \ ! \ \ \ J \ \ \ REMOVE EXIST. CONCRETE AREA~.... .• •.. ii>", •• \' ~ " > • .(,~" \. m';\it'"<"~ r'-""· .. · ........ ~:\,:>(0 C~, ~~ '-1 ' .--.. -.... ,,-. : \ , • \ . __ 9~ \_ ~ ---. __ . ..../, ~; : \ " .. REMOVE EXIST. STRUCTURE~ . <rl Z' REMOVE EXIST. GARAGE AND CARPORT Y··) '- '- ZONING RS-8 27043000203300 OLYMPIC PAPTIST CHURCH -EDMONDS 8713 220th STREET S.W. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 UNPLATTED ( I / -. / " m j \ so -----'------. SD ___ I'" ·-.. ·-----'-:::E;.-;;OW ----i-1- REMOVE EXIST. DRIVEWAY r---------------~ I I I LOT S P 4 6 (3 ~ 8 2) . _____ . ~ _______________ ..J 27043000208500 P.M. AND B,L HEPLER 8606 218\11 STREET S.W. EDMONDS. WA.SHINGTON 98026 ZONING RS-8 .... _ .. _._._-- ~-. 27043QD020~14Qij IA!CHAEL D, AND JF AN E, CONNEU_Y W 361:'< 21Sth STREEl S.W. in \ :-t \ ~ EDMOW)S, WASHINGTON 98026 " \ '1"··---· .. ·--1 I I I I '" , ___ ... __ ...J LOT LOT '1 S~iO'I-82) ~ I I I N W E S SCALE : "'~30' 0' 15' I_S~I 30' 45' 60' " '--------_. DEMOLITION NOTE 1. SEPARATE DEMOLITION PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT~ FILL~ IMPORT ~ 3,520 CY 4,700 CY 1,800 CY UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON IS APPROXIMATE ONLY. 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 TH~ PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR '-0 CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY CONFLICTS ,~RE IDENTIFIED CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY. NOTE 1. WHERE TREES ARE TO BE MAINTAINED, BARRIER FENCING SHALL BE PLACED AT THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ROOT SYSTEM. 2. ALL UTILITIES TO BE ABANDONED/REMOVED, INCLUDING THE OVERHEAD POWER FEEDS. EXISTING WATER SERVICES LINES II1LL NEED TO BE CUT AND CAPPED AT THE MAIN. SANITARY SIDE SEWERS WELL NEED TO BE CAPPED AT THE PROPERTY LINE. 3. ORANGE BARRIER FENCE AND/OR ORANGE SILT FENCE SHALL BE ADDED ALONG THE EDGES OF THE PROJECT TO CLEARLY DELINEATE CLEARING LIMITS DURING CONSTRUCTION. 4. CITY OF EDMONDS DOES NOT ISSUE PERMITS FOR ROCKERIES. ROCKERIES CAN BE CONSTRUCTED BUT MUST BE DONE SO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROHIBITIONS STATED IN THE CODE. ., ~~j"'_"""~..-v,,_,'-./V'~--...I''''''''''''-~v\ __ '' Call 2 Working Days Sefore You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground Location Center (lD,MT,ND,OR,WAl APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com web: lsaengineering.com '" " -I I N '" -0 I I z « -.J (L Ui Z o I- o Z o U C) Z I- Ui X W SCALE o n:::: o LL DRAWN RCA DATE 5-24-13 ~ . W '¢ n:::: • I- ~Ui 00 nz z o I- C) Z I Ui « :5: >-I- o Z2 00 I-W U Z LL::::) W 0 0 Ui W Z W Ui z U >-I-I UUi 2 o I o Z Ui 1"=30' CHECKED JWY F.B. SHEET C2 PFN PLN20120043 LSA F1LE NO. 5383 OF 12 FEB 1 9 2!]l4 Packet Page 333 of 586 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. , 270430002\)6800 G, CHRIS AND JULENf K. GRADWOHL 8631 21611'1 STREET S.W. EDMO~DS. WASf-1!NGTON 9g0~!6 SECTION 30, T.27N., RAE., W.M. ZONING RS-8 r--'-- I EQUATION: 27043000206700 00408B00000400 ------. -----' scon AND MOLLIE MUNCASTt:R JUDITrl A. MILTON I 8623 218th STREET S.W. 21726 85th PLACE w_ I EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98026 CDMONDS, WASHING ION 98026 / _'-, __ ,..,_------__________ 1______________ ~ ~~6'i~;~3 ___ j __________ .f_---.J.. .. :I_:.. .-C._~_E;~~~~_m_EN1R_c_~_CE _________________ -//1 2 \ -- 3 i----l I I I 1--------1 I ZONING RS-8 j I.J..I ock9310oooo10o ! () FLORA '-lUI A!I;O 'rlN SHAN CHAN r « 21801 87th PLACE W. -.I EDMONDSI WASHINmON 98076 I CL I' "\ I :5 I . 'i\ 01 ,....... I ...... '0 ('\ 0 , ro I o~Sv I ~ ,~\ ~ 1:\ v \". -J>.' ('\~ .-/ .... '=' ';:\ IJ ' ",s''o ~-. /'" ~ 1, -___ --I I \,P-' r· --- --_. --_. ! ..... ____ • ___ .• ___ --/",/ ~ , OC;d::51UDOOiJ200 II _ ___ ___ ~-MELISSA A, 4-ND GREGQr?'( BRYAN 21803 167th P:"'ACE W. \ \ -------~ ~ EDMONDS, fASHINGTON 98026 I I I I I I '" L ____ ._..l \\ . --._._------ ,----\----- I I I 11 1 " /. ,~: ! / / I /~/ / ,j I I , . \ ! I 2 I I I \ \ \ \, '\ \ I I \ \ 'l> \ \ \ \ \ "- \ '. ,. \ ,.. . I ,L _____ ' ~,,,, . \ 3 "-.... .... -... f--+--1Q' UTILITY EASEMENT (TYPICAL) __ . .1 , I , /' ---I I I I I I , ------' 5 ( --.----'-----~ \ / \ \ I Ii Ii \ \ r---------------~ I I 1 I I I I LOT '1 I S P 4 [j (3 ~ f3 2) I L ______________ ~~ 27043000208500 P.M. AND 8.L HEPLER 5606 218th STREET S.W. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 ZONING RS-8 ,=""",. UUITS (1'l'P.) SEE Non: 5 11<15 SHEET ------------•.. - 27Q43000203400 MICHAEL D. AND JEAN E. CONNELLY 8612 21Bth STREET S,W. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 II "-0-.--- ----,--I I 1 1 I I I I L ••• ___ • ___ ...J L 0 I 2 S~'IOj-D2) Lor '1 S--JDJ~£)2) , I __ ----__ --'-----j NOTES TREES SHOWN TO BE REMOVED HEREON ARE LIMITED TO THOSE THAT ARE LOCATED IN ROADWAY AND UTILITY CORRIDORS, THE AREA IN THE VICINITY OF THE STORMWATER DETENTION VAULT AND IN THE CENTRAL PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING PADS. OTHER TREES MAY NEED TO BE REMOVED TO FACILITATE NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION. THE ADDIllONAL TREES TO BE REMOVED WILL BE EVALUATED AT THE TIME OF TIiE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. THE TREES LOCATED NEAR THE PROPOSED ROCKERY (3 FEET HEIGHT LIMIT) ALONG THE WESTERLY SIDE OF LOT 2 AND THE WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY SIDE OF LOT 3 WILL BE EVALUATED AT THE TIME OF FlNAL ENGINEERING PLAN PREPARATION. THE ROCKERY IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE USABLE YARD AREA FOR THE NEW HOMES AND TO CONTROL DRAINAGE AND DIRECT IT TO THE STORM WATER DETENTION VAULT. ALL RETAINED lREES ON THE SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 18.45.050 SEPARATE DEMOLITION PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES. ORANGE BARRIER FENCE AND/OR ORANGE SILT FENCE SHALL BE ADDED ALONG THE EDGES OF THE PROJECT TO CLEARLY DELINEAlE CLEARING LIMiTS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ZONING RS-8 27043000203300 OLYMPIC BAPTIST CHURCH -EDMON[)S 8713 220th STREET S,W. EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 9802G UNPLATTLD TREE LEGEND INDICATES "XISTING TREE TO REMAIN INDICATES EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED DURING PLAT DEVELOPMENT INDICATES EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED DURING ROADWAY AND UTILITY DEVELOPMENT , N W S SCALE : 1"·~30' O' 15' 60' EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) 1. GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TIMED AND CONDUCTED IN STAGES TO MINIMIZE SOIL EXPOSURE. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE OR PREVENT THE TRANSPORT OE SEDIMENT ONTO PAVED SURFACE DURING CONSTRUCTION. IF SEDIMENT IS TRANSPORTED ONTO A PAVED SURFACE IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEAN IT AT THE END OF EACH DAY. 3. SUFFICIENT TESC BMP MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES TO PROTECT THE ENTIRE SITE SHALL 8E STOCKPILED ON-SITE PRIOR TO ANY SITE ACTIVITY. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S TO ASSURE THEIR CONTINUED PERFORMANCE. 5. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF TESC FACILITIES AND STRUCnJRES SHALL BE CONDUCTED IMMEDIATELY UPON RECOGNITION OF A PROBLEM OR WHEN THE TESC MEASURES BECOME DAMAGED. 6. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ALL lEMPORARY DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND STRUCnJRES UPON REACHING A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. 7. SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS. WHEN ACTIVELY WORKING WITH THE SOIL STOCKPILE, STABILIZATION SHALL OCCUR AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. 8. SILTATION BARRIERS AND ALL OTHER TEse MEASURES SHALL SE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.1" RAINFALL, AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL EVENTS. 9. INLETS OF THE PERMANENT DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHALL BE PROTEC'TED FROM SEDIMENT INFLUX BY USE OF FILTER FABRIC, ~ICROPORE BAGS, OR SIMILAR ElL TERING MATERIALS AND ~El]-!ODS. 10. JURING A STORM EVENT, NO CONSTRUCTION AC"ilViTY SHALL OCCUR ON SITE EXCEPT FOR WORK ON EROSION CONTROL °ACILITIES. THE CONSTRUCTION SWPPP 12 ELEMENTS THE 12 ELEMENTS THAT ARE PART OF A CONSTRUCTION SWPPP ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. MARK CLEARING LIMITS: PRIOR TO CLEARING OR DISTURBING ,HE LIMITS MUST BE MARKED. THIS ELEMENT IS PART OF MOST NORMAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS AS ONE OF THE FIRST STEPS. 2. ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION ACCESS: ALL EROSION CONTROl PLANS SHALL INSTALL A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENlRANCE (OR OTHER METHOD OF PREVENTING SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ONTO THE ROADS). IF A STANDARD GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS PROPOSED, USE GEO-TEXTILE FABRIC UNDER THE ROCK. NOTE: A WHEEL WASH IS REQUIRED FOR PLANS THA T PROPOSE \\1NTER GRADING. 3. DETAIN FLOWS: BASED ON A DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO DETAIN RUNOFF FROM A SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND USE A DETENTION POND TO CONTROL FLOWS DURING CONSTRUCTION. 4. INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROLS: IF THERE IS RUNOFF FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE WATER. NOTE THAT ll1E WAlER QUALITY STANDARDS MUST BE MET. S. STABILIZE SOILS: ALL EXPOSED AND NON-WORKED SOIL SHALL BE STABILIZED BY USE OF BMP'S. NOTE THERE ARE TIME PERIODS OF ALLOWED EXPOSURE THAT DEPEND ON THE SEASOfl. GROUND COVER 80TH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT NEED TO BE PART OF THE CONSlRUCTION PLANS. 6. PROTECT SLOPESI CUT AND FilL SLOPES NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM EROSIVE FLOWS AND CONCENTRATED FLOWS UNTIL PERMANENT COVER AND DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS ARE IN PLACE. 7. PROTECT DRAIN INLETS: ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS REQUIRE PROTECTION FROM SEDIMENT AND SILT LADEN WATER. 8. STABILIZE CHANNELS AND OUILETS: TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS SHALL BE STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCllON. CULVERT OUTLETS REQUIRE PROTECTION. 9. CCNlROL POLLUTANTS: THE PLAN SHALL SHOW HOIV ALL POLL.UTANTS. INCLUDING WAS,E MAlERIALS AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS, WILL BE HANDLED. THIS INCLUDES MAINTENANCE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, FERTILIZERS, APPLICATION OF CHEMICALS, AND WAlER TREATMENT SYSTEMS. 10. CONTROL DE-WATERING: THE WATER FROM DE-WATERING SYSTEMS FOR TRENCHES, VAULTS AND FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE DISCHARGED INTO A CONTROLLED SYSTEM. 11. MAINTAIN BMPS: THE PLAN SHALL PROIi1DE FOR INSPEcnOfI AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANNED AND INSTALLED CONSTRUCTION BMPS AS WELL AS ll1EIR REMOVAL AT THE END OF THE PROJECT. 12. MANAGE THE PROJECT: THE PLAN SHALL OUTliNE HOW THE SITE SHALl. BE MANAGED FOR EROSION CONTROL AND IDENTIFY THE MANAGEMENT TEAM, INCLUDING A CERnFIED EROSION CONTROL SPECIALIST. IT NEEDS TO COVER PHASING, TRAINING, PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE, COORDINATION WITH UTILITIES AND CONlRACTORS, MONITORING AND REPORTING. IT SHALL PROVIDE FOR NOTICE OF PROBLEMS, REVISIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND CONTINGENCY PLANNING. ONE OF mE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT IS PLANNING FOR CONTINGENCIES BASED ON THE RISK OF EXPOSURE DURING PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT PLANNING IS ONGOING THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT CERTIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LEAD (CESCLl NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ARE ROBERT EDWARDS, (206) 22.6·-5'177. ~I ~.,\~'--_"I.~..--""..-'V', ........ JV'Y'''-''''','-S-'',A~ Call 2 Working Day" Belore You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground location Center (JD,MT,ND,OR,wA) APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: -f;')t"YIl It' AA.I ?J...\ I ZO L Y C"'-, /'-) r~\ \1 BY: !\, <" __ , " \/DvV.'"-A \Jcl'fY}ENGINEERINC IeIVISION v L Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Development. Consultants 19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood, IVA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info@isaengineering.com web: lsaengineering.com "' .,. --I I N ;g I I z « ---l 0... z o I- Z W > W 0::: 0... o Z « 0::: W I-« :s: 2 0::: o I- (j) SCALE 5 0::: o LL DRAWN RCA • I- ~(j) 00 nz z o I- (') Z I (j) « :s: ->-I- o Z2 00 I-W U W (j) Z LL:::J 00 U w z W (j) z 1 "=30' CHECKED JWY >-I-I U(j) 2 o I o Z (j) SHEET DATE F.B. C3 5-24-13 PPM PLN20120043 LSA FILE NO. 5383 FEB 1. 9 2014 Packet Page 334 of 586 -'-'I 25' MIN. RADIUS QUARRY SPALLS 2-4" MIN DIA 8"-;2' MIN. DfP,H PRDVlDE FULL VIDTH Jf' INGRESS! EGRESS AREA CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, I CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROU ~EASURES BEFORE 'WORK CAN BEGIN. : • , ··C·,··I:-ty· "" "0 F .' ··E·····O···I\AO····N····.Tjc::;. " : ·1'· , -, I" -,'. ". • . '. 1 ,V, i ", . "',.. ~ ~ REVISIONS D. GEBERT 10/6/03 1-___ -+ ____ OATE .... ' .. ..;. STANDARD DETAIL 7/24/01 .. • • ..... ~. ~--.\ \ I ,---------~-, II FIL TER SOCK IJITH OVER FL,D\'! I-IDLES l'::MCH BASIN .! STRAIJ BALES MAY BE USED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE DETAIL E1.1.D. THIS I\PPLlCAITDN SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES DURING CDNSTRUCITDN PERIOD, CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL 1 MEASURES BEFORE 'WORK CAN BEGIN. I 1=:::;""'iffiil"v",~[S,E"'!iV:::1 S=F'I o::N~s~",,~=+--___ -=S::.'.T AND A ROD ET "",I_~~_, __ _ D, GEBERT 10/06/03 D. GEBERT 05/19/05 '--r.;;::;:----.--.,,------- iDWG NO" NTS j E1.3 I--"D;.... G",-E",BE",R",T-t--"O",S/",OS""I",,06,--DA" 7/24/01 SECTION 30, T.27N., R.4E" W.M, PLACE 3/4'-1.5' \lASHED GRAVEL IN THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES Of FILTER ~ABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE. fIL TER F ABRIe MATERIAL IN ( CONTINDUS ROLLS. USE STAPLES ~OR \lIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FAERIC TO wIRE. ---------n- , I I , I I OJ I I ru SUPPORT FIl TER FA~RIC I I I 1 'i' I I&EIRE MESH SUPPORT FE~tE t-~~ 1f~-''''''--I I ~ , ! : :i]l"""'~Kill~lT!J@~Jlm1i1lllr~!c ~ I --: T Z -;;URY-BDT m; OF -;-'lLTER --n'- I I MATERIAL 8' TO 12' I I L ~--6' MAX ,.-~J 2" X 2' "'DOD POSTS DR EQUIVALENT CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE STRAw BALES TO INSU~E PROPER EROSION CONTROL, CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE OTHER 'WORK CAN BEGIN. .f"'I·:-t<".·· "'0·' .•. p .... ··1='0···· ·M· .. · .. ·O· ···N····· ···D···· ·S· '. ._ -\,~. ·',I'·f -'. ,,' .,'.:. ,"L-:..' .:. ", .. ,"'.", ", ",', -- .' -, 1=]i'PFR~DV~§t]~!:',v=ls1=IO=N:'j~~."c:=+ __ ---..:?_T_A_N_D_A_~_D ___ D_E_T_A __ I~_, ____ .. ------1-- ~------lsC.i" -------r.;""G 00. E1.1---1-.-----+----7/24/01 i NTS _~~~~~~._../V'"~ __ J.i"V'_<__"""_"-''''__' Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground Location Center (lD,MT,ND,OR.WA) !f"lA~,~", .. j"··V r:: ,~:",,~ "::;' ~'\~J \'l.~ ~~ (i:;}k~ I~ 1 Ftl3 ? 0 21:\\ \ . . E~\I £,\,:\<)I\C( Df.\l£LG~UNIEI'" APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS 7c\,+ Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc, Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com web: lsaengineering.com 02-/1:z./14 '" " -I I N '" -0 I I -8 - <: ~ II '" ~ w 00 ~ ~ c 0 ~ w E E E E 0 0 u '-' ~ ~ w ,~ ., v v 0:: '" >. ,. ~ -u u -" w C N b b ~ V 0. Q. U 'C ~ 0 ill w w .;: .;: §l ID • 0: 0: :;: '" N ll:l ~ • 5: ~ , ~ W '<t , 0:::: ~ Z 0 r.n -.J z I- -.l f'.. G -~ N Z « , l-I-I W ~ ~(f) (f) 0 ~ 0 0 « I") z 5: 0 0 Z Z ~ ~ >-« 0:::: .. v) 0 0 I- 0 I-W Z (f) LL ~ U :=; W W LL 0 I-(f) 0 0 ~ U Z LL >-ct: 0 l-I -(f) (L ~ U (L -'<t ~ (L Q:) "-0 5: cj ..--I (f) W 0 G z z (f) ~ '<t lLJ "-,.- W (f) Z SCALE NO SCALE DRAWN CHECKED SHEET RCA JWY DATE F.E. C4 5-24-13 PFN PLN20120043 lBA FILE NO. 5383 OF 12 FE.B 1 9 201ff Packet Page 335 of 586 INV~7g060~E (TO BE INV~79065~W CONNECT TO EXISTo CB INV=79060-N (TO BE FIELD VERIFIED) iNV=75.96 ....... E iNV=75.92"'W WjSOLID LOCKING LID TOP = 8L7± INV = 79062 REPLACE DRIVEWAY IN KINI), I ---------~-- / ~- , 6 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 7 10 FOOTiNG DRAINS SHALL NOT CONNECT TO DETENTION SYSTEMo FOOTING DRAINS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND DETENTION VAULT SHALL CONNECT TO CB #50 20 PIPE MATERIAL: / UNLESS CALLED OUT OTHERWISE ON THIS PLAN, ALL STORM DRAIN PIPE MATERIAL SHALL BE PER CoOE APPROVED MATERIALS LISTS MM-l, MM-2 & MM-30 UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON IS APPROXIMATE ONLYo THE OWNER SHOULD CONTACT THE PURVEYORS OF ALL UTILITIES IN ll-IE AREA TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES ON AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTYo CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONo IF ANY CONFLICTS ARE IDENTIFIED CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIA TEL Yo I [ 2 ------ \ -~- 3 SECTION 30, T.27N., R.4E., W.M. UNPL.J-\TTED WjSOUD LOCI(I~G TOP=8407± INV=82066-S INV=80025-E&\II 2704300020tl800 G. CHR:S AND JULE-NE K. GRADWOHL 8531 218th STREET S.W. ZONING RS-8 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 \\ "\ WITH OVERFLOW \ ' W/SOL:D LOCKING LID \\ STA 10+4 402, 98$ RI. \ TOP = 91J± ,,', ___ .'_ INV = 81,36 roo ZONING I s: I , oda931DOJ00100 FIJlRp. UUj ,~ND W1 SHAtj C!~AN 21801 57th PLACE W. EiJ~ONDSI WASH!NGTON 950;':6 1-' -- OOSd,31 00000200 MlL'SS;\ A. A.ND GREGur~Y BRYAN 21803107\1", PLACE V{ EDMQNDS, ~iASHiNGTON 98026 2 27043000206700 SCOTT AND MOLliE MU"l~ASTE"( 8623 2TBth STR[[' S.W. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 913026 FTC DRAIN Lf...\2·~ PVC 4) 0.00% ! 'I' "DETENTION VAUL 1" [ : i PRIVA1EL'(, OWNED AND MAINTAINBO II :1 ,I (SEE Sf\EET C7 FOR DET':k~ I : II il I II 1 \=~~-~'-lill 9,976 SF ~TA 10~'7]1,11"RE+.>;:liI! r-" -lOP = Oil ,I, ", .... \ INV = 64. 78 LF"'12'~ PVCO: :U!+i\{"io-+';:',;;-\ I "";;,,a Lf~12~ PVC I '\ 3 "", L __ ------~ , • ROCKERY (MAX. HEIGHT = 3') ROCKERY LOCATION WILL 8E EVALIJAT~ DURING INAL ENGINEERING AND HOME CONST~~~TION to MINIMIZE TREE iMPACTo WHEN ROCKER'\> WILL I o~ ~,I 1:1 I ,,:c_, __ o __ o_l'rC'L'C~lJcl iii I ~ J <I " .-"r.I"''' I \ 984ft SF \ , " '-..... ~-___ .::::-:..'""' __ .J • '-...... I BE INSTALLED, FINAL TaPOS WILL BE I A\DINGLY FOR PLAT I \ _-.l __ I I ) \ : \~_/ \ I 1/ ,I I 5' DRAINAGE I 'I EASEMENT (TYP) I I t _ .. I 7,5' 'il L . '----------~------,----- I ROCKERY /WALL (DESIGNED BY OTHERS) ~o -0 270~3000L03.300 OLYMPIC 8APTIST CHURCH -ED\,WNDS 8713 220th snnu s.w. EDMO'-iDS, WASH:;~GlO:..J 98026 PROPOSED M()I'U,.tN (TYPICAL) SET MONUMENT IN CONC. CASE ENCASED ON CONCRETE , " I __ ,I " : \ 00408800000400 JUDITH A. MILTON 21726 B5th PLACE W, WMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 I I I I I I r-~,AVI CUT (TYP) I / / -I~ I!:JY: jl2.,.'_1::::'!J.. --./' L 0 l' S P ~4 6 (g _. :3 2) L _____ ~ ____ . ______ ._ ---'-'-__ ..J 27043D00208:;'QO P.M. AND ELL HEPLER 8605 218th STREET S.W EDMONDS, WASHINGTQ:-J 98025 ZONING RS-8 ---------- 2.7043000203400 MICHAEL D. AND JEAN E. CONNELLY uJ 5612. 218th STREET S. W. 000_' \ "" = EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 ~t-__ ~~~~~~o ____ ~~.,~ \ '" \ &--_____ 0 __ , "f I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I i L ________ J L 0 -J' 2 So-10-!-82) LOT S~~JD-J~O.2) PAVEMENT SECTION PER C.O.E. # E-201,2 STANDARD DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE PER C.OoEo # E2.26 IIMPE~~~~~AREAS ON-SITE i ROADWAY OJ 43 Aco NOTES: 10 THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS LARGE SiTE PROJECT FOR DRAINAGE REQUiREMENTS. REFER TO DRAINAGE REPORT FQR DETAILSo 20 FINAL ENGINEERING MAY INCLUDE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE THE STORM WATER DETENTION VAULT SIZING. ROOF DRAIN TIGHTLINE TABLE LOT NO. IE @ C.Oo IE @ STUB 1 1--_86 .7 _0 8609 _o_ r-87.2 2 8700 ,_ 3 8900 89.2 . 4 89.6 8908 5 8709 8801 6 89.9 90.3 -- I S!DEWAlK 0.02.5 Ac. I LOTS 00482 Aco I TOTAL 00650 Aco LOT IMPERVIOUS AREAS (SF) 3. AMENDED SOILS TO BE PLACED UPON ALL LOTS AT TiME OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH EDMONDS REGULA 1l0NS, l.QI 1 2 3 4 5 6 2.750 2,750 2,500 2,500 2,750 2,750 TOTAL 16,000 DRIVEWAY 750 750 1,000 1,000 750 750 5,000 'll~g~~1~r-SI;6~~ ~~. TOTAL 0.034 Aco ---_.- 4. POWER, TELEPHONE AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLED UNDERGRCUND AS REQUIRED BY CITY REGULATIONSo THESE SY'STEMS WILL GEI,ERALL Y BE LOCATED IN THE 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT PROVIDED ALONG THE STREET AND PRIVATE FRONTAGESo 5. FOOTING DRAINAGE FROM VAULT WILL BE CONNECTED TO OB #5. 6. EXISTiNG SD BETWEEN PflOPOSED OB#10 AND C8#12 SHALL BE REMOVEDo I~~ CI~; Ed::I;:~;~~'; ~.~·::;i:.;Vi~¥, awrov;, btu'\} pi)l'mb fur. ~)f in~~C"i ~,;',-"J.'/~-r!~$ .. Approval of th~so I>I:l!l$ Of :ntpec\i.Pft ;~f".l /.oF:::tIfai of tho w'oril; inmuded it] thBM p~¢.y;-£ d:tl'_~)'. l"':i1t c(mftt!bnG C!tl t2p-prov.:::1 of ror.Kfi-r1q.!', Ct.r:~'!\trHGtion of rocl('eOOfJ 13 pro-hJblt~d vAth)l\ t~,'7! City d Edmt:!nda unr.hn' ce·rt!-}.in cirwmsttJllce$ -noo In l cei~!~~::f.~!.!,'~:~C:~~~;~~~:_02_a_: __ .....i Call 2 Working DllYs Belere You Dig 1-800-424-5555 UtilHies Underground Location Center (lD,MT,ND,OR,WAl N w E S SCALE: 1"=30' 0' 15' 60' APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS L -II II Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue Wo Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info@lsaengineeringocom web: lsaengineering.com '" " o¢ ), i I ., '" N o I I I ;: (3 ~ ~ 0:::: o f- (J) o z « o « o 0:::: SCALE 0:::: o LL DRAWN RCA DATE 5-24-13 Z I'- N • f- ~(J) 00 nz z o f- G Z I (J) « 5: ->-f- o Z~ 00 f-W U W (J) Z LL:::J 00 U W Z W (J) z >-f-I U(J) ~ o I o Z (J) 1 "=30' CHECKED JWY F.R SHEET C5 PFN PLN20120043 !.SA FILE NOo 5383 FEB 1 H 2014 Packet Page 336 of 586 SECTION 30, T.27N" RAE" W.M. L , , 90: 88 86 .. ,' , . . -. _. .. : . . . ., . · .. . . EXISllNG GROUND ~ .• · ........'\ .. .. ,' ...... ...... : .. , :-~-'\.--' --. - 84 .. " __ ._....: --~-I. ~ . ' 80 78:· 76 74 72 · . ~~.:.:..:.i-"-"~:;--;-;;::':;";;';;~~-,;-;;r~-~ ... ~~=== .113 LFNj2"(!l: .PVC @ 0.50% CB l' . ~ . T;:;'0~P~=~8"'1-'C. 7",±:4' : ~"'i" . INV=79.62 : 1'0 · .. . .. :~@, ;LO§!': EX .. CB.. :,IJ.. · TOP-81.79 INV~ 78.60:"-( (TO BE PLUGGED) · INV'-'"79.65""'vr '. CONNECT· TO :EXIST. CB .' INV"".79.60~N: .. . .... · (TO BE FIELD' VERIFIED) I :31 m 106+00 . '" m -l CB 2: . TOP=8f7±~' lNV=82:66NS' INV=BO:25 N E&W ,', .. .- 0: ;;; 107+00 :.--<-~"..,. , -. . ,', , .... : EX. CB: TOP'=85.37 'INV=83:46 N E' . .INV=83 .. 21NW . . . .. ," .... '. ;< en .. ~. Ul", 'N .. ', . '" '" . 1 • '. o· " ,,: ••• ~ --'-i , I -"' .. __ .,-.'-"----~.-------- 108+00 94 92 EXISTING' GROUND .' .•.• FINISHED GROUND. ~ ;.. • . !I! 94 rr~~~~=-=:-=-="'=:s:''=_ \_~ .. -::::-;:::: .... ~. 'r-F' .~-92 94 LEXISTING GROUND 92 £0 OJ", N lI. .J G'w 92 94 •••• FINISHED. GROUND\ 90 8S: 86 84: .. 82 · 80 · . 78 .~ -:.--:--90 ,,~-.-:., ..... . -~ INV.=85:3 . .. CONNECTION OF ROOF DRAIN·· (6"\6 PVC). TIGH;rUNE.TO VAULT .. DETE;NTION VAULT. INV;=84.40 (SEE SHEET C7) INV;=BL'36' .. .. · .. , ,', · · '" · 86 80 -"'--. -----90 • -----.--- 84, 82 80 • . " .. .... ·44:·lfN12"11 PVC .. :@ 0.50% ····t··· ...... .... EX. s;s; 12 LF"'12·~PVC '0 2;50%"" I-,-,,-,.J . 'ir~[o6PpVC . ... ~ .............. . CB 7; TYPE 2 78 : J.;T=OP"'="'g""o..-'::. g':!()=--"---""e...J.. . INV;=84.70 CB .3 TYPE 2 ... ';:T"'OP';="'9;;-;0".""2±-!=--'''-\.=~~ . ., '." .' CBB . ..'N 0. CB 5, TYPE 2 ~ 0 (SEE PROFILE . . . ~ @ SHEETC7) .... INV.=81.14 .. _. ! .. LL ..J ,J i I I I .. , I 90 , .'--'-'-" 88 .86 DETENTION VAULT . (SEE SHEET C7l S4 11 LF "'12"(11 PVC 1If----I • . @:0.00%82 Ill'--L: ... YAu!"L~ .• " .. ~ (SEE DETAIL SHEETC7) . 80 78 ..... ... ,' . .. " . -- CB;4 ": ~ a> 218th STREET S, W. SCALE: 1'=20' HOR. 1"=5' VERT. .' W, '1" ... ,. ~ :"'" 94 92 . 90 88 I 86 I 84 , ". . o . . Ii : 821. I. I · CB6;TYPE '2 . . . TOP=91. 7 ± . CB'2 .. "'. ... B:SEe.E~A=O""""........le'! .: .. .' PROFILE TOP=91.7± . ·INV.=81.36(N S) . .. INV.7~2.0~(E) ...• ~--,'-' ·--':':"'5lF~12·!Ii PVC CB 6, TYPE 2 @ 0.00% TOP=91.7 ± I J oil . INV.=81.36 J---------o.------------~"·--·--- ~I g : ~___ _--'-____________ .1 _____ _ CB 7 TO CB 6 PROFILE SCALE: 1'=20' HOR. 1"=5' VERr. INV.-=8i .• 36 .. "' N o 0> ________ .L.... ____ . ___ .. ____ .. _ CB 3 TO VAULT PROFILE SCALE: 1'=20' HOR. 1"=5' VERT. UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE THE LOCAll0N OF UNDERGROUND UTILIllES SHOWN HEREON IS APPRQXIMAIT ONl.Y. THE OWNER SHOULD CONTACT 11,E PURVEYORS OF ALL UTILIllES IN THE AREA TO DEITRMINE THE LOCA 110N AND DEPTH OF ALL UIILlllES ON AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR TO 'IERIFY UTILITY LOCA 110NS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY CONFLICTS ARE IDENTIFIED CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIAITLY. , i i . __ ._ ... _..J I 34 .LfN1.2"0 . PVC, 0 1.71% (8 10 i I TOP=90.D± INV=87.98 .. ,.,. '", . '" '" 109+00 147LP"'S"PVC . . . @ 2.00% '" ;;; I C8 9 ..... 1 ••• TOp=8\1,73 11 6l ... .... INV'=B6.48J~g . . '1· .......•.... !::l; .. CB B··· .~. ... TOP=.B9 .• 73 : ... INV.=86.26 ","'" ..... ' .... :. : ". ',' ., ..... , ... ,; .... ; .... , ':'. . .. KEXISTINCSANITARY SEWER . en 0; 110+00 78 IF'''. .. -; .. . N12 III PVC 0.2.00% SSCO .·RIM=$1.00 . ···INV.=84.06 . , .• t. .' .' ._---- .... CB.12 TOP=93.3± ·INV'=91.38 . I I .. : 98 .. ..: 96 . .' ..... .' 94 --: ------: .92 ..... 90 .. ' ··.88 . 111+00 :88 :86 II II Lovell -Sa uer land & Associates, Inc. EngineerS/Surveyors/Planners Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue W . Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com web: lsaengineering.com "' ..,. ... ~ 1, I i '" ~ N I I I o ~ (f) W -1 LL o 0::: D- O::: W 5: W (f) >- 0::: « I- Z « (f) o z « W e..? « Z « 0::: o 0::: o LL I . 2 Z f'.. N . I- _(f) 00 nz o Z2 00 I-W U LL ~O W Z >-I- U z o l- e..? Z ::r:: (f) « 5: ~ >-I- Z :=J o U ::r:: (f) 2 o ::r:: o z (f) 12+00------·----.... -·--.. ---1" --'------_._ .. _--------. ___ . __ • _______ ......... ---l 2 0::: o I- 86th P~ACE W. SCALE: 1'=20' HOR. 1"-5' VERT. 11+00 .1 ~r.--u,~~"'-"'v-""-""'''-''~}''''v'''~~''''.'\J'-v.-. Call 2 Working Da.ys 8efore You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground Location Cenler (ID,MT,ND,OR.WA) 10+00 ,",,,,,,,,,, '?~~, (f) ._ ," :; ',,-1:,,-, . #1!i> '}$> .~, 'f:!i ",# "'" \' ...\1, ~\.''''Ot;"..!f\'''''' ~"'\l~ AUV~} .... '(t.'i> 7JJ, \,~.N;r .. ~ W (f) ""N'·tt',,\ .~, llt::Jt.\.\i\:;GU~\\t.F' 0 Z APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS ... ,;:: I '7 I Z'" I DA IT: • i ~e.)6J)\ 10-A..J"j {-'=l 1 -v \ ~, / 0::: SCALE 1 "=20'H, 1"= 5'V. DRAWN CHECKED RCA JWY DATE F.B. 5-24-13 PFN PLN 20120043 LSA FILE NO. 5383 SHEET C6 OF 12 FEB 1 9 2014 Packet Page 337 of 586 SECTION 30 , T.27N., RAE., W.M. TO CB #5 ~ CONNECTION AND CONTROL DEVICE (SEE DETAIL A) 60" DIAM"TYPE 2~ ,,',' " , " ~ 11-~":, , , MANHOLE COVER I 't--1' \ , \ bd I , '.~~// ",t---"I\ ' 12"0 PVC ')-FROM PLAN ( MANHOLE RING & COVER MARKED "DRAIN" WITH LOCKING BOLTS TOP 91,7± j -""--"="'--J""-~ it. Lir= TOP 91. 7± ih , I 'J o • p VAULT " TOP 87,76 " ,~SIDE TOP OF VAULT (18DV) 88,26 =, PIPE SUPPORT --------\.~.::. •. H==9 SEE DETAIL B . , , '= r .... FLOW CO"-ROL Jf.' 'k ~ -STRUCTURE I" ,:~ , • • ]~.'_) ~, NON-SHRINK GROUT--~ f .... , ". ~ ----py" PIPE COU;LlNG 1'-0" MAX 'f~:·-'-::', . _ ~CONTROL DEVIC[ (opbonol)----, _ ",;; I --/ !'5SE~ElLY TO EE !\ 1:I:PvC PIPE sn:Bl-~r'};"')~ vJ"li I ~~~g~A~i ~~~M \J i sn SCREW TO _ PRE.YENr ROTAriON '-. JL. I [ 81.36 / F,;',' .:','~ '.', i ! GASKET (TYP)I--~ ~ _ ,,----.r-PVC PIPE CROSS I PVC ADAPTER wI . ~.' ; V--~RIF'ICF,;. " ':-9: MI\I i ~~~Bi6H~~a '.~~. i!~ DIAMETc.R(1!2}1 ~':1'I"AX BONDED SAND FINISH • I -----DRILLED ORIFICE ON EXTERIOR, MIN 7~ LONG-~:', ,_ :.~ ____! '-L IN PVC INS!DE ~ IV. c,)J) PWG CAULK SPACE 8ETWEEN PVC ADAPTER AND PIPE STUB----.J DETENTION/WATER QUALITY VAULT ~ 1 EL 87.26 I ! i-r-=---: PIPE I II [SPOOL II ELBOW ,L---.---...lf I i~l-.J 3/}J:~~!j!)~-" - 'j PVC INSIDE CAP PLUG I 2'MIN, PIPE SUPPORT DETAIL B -FLOW TO CB #5 h 12"¢ PVC = 12"¢ PVC 'L-_____ --,"""'"...---~ INV, 81.36 INV, 81.36 ---;:--J = " PIPE SUPPORT _.JC2!.,LKEA~Nt!,!O@!URT~=:::::::::-/.i"I=l==~ 1'-0 MIN, SEE DETAIL 8 W/CAP: _1'-6", MAX, =, ;,' 7"' 2'-0" =" CONTROL DEVICE 'J I Ie. I '," 60" DiA, SEE DETAIL A-,j 'L,~._._,~-"~J...-, .. __ ,,.,~.~,~, ,,~-TYPE 2 CATCH BASIN ~--~,~~,~,~,~,~,~~ CATCH BASIN #6. TYPE 2. 60" DIA. wi CONTROL DEVICE DETENTION/WATER QUALITY VAULT NO SCALE CATCH BAS;N FRAME AND VAN1?[1 Gr{ATI: OR MANHOL"' RING ANO COVEl RCCTANGULAR ADJUSTMENT $!;;CT!ON OR CIRCULAR ADJUSTME;NT SECTION ~-~''--FLA~SlArnOp i, ':- 1.2' DEAD STORAGE FOR WATER QUALITY , .• ' NOTES 1. No steps are required when heJght is 4' or less. 2. The bollom of the precast catch basin may be slDped to f<'!cilitato cieanir,g 3, The rectangular frame and grate may be Installed with the lIarge up or down. The frame may be cast into the adjustment section. 4. Knoqtou.ts. shall have a wall thickness of 2" minim:.;m 10 2S maximum. Provide a 1.5 mlnlf!1um gap between the .kn~kout wall !'lnd ele ot.:tside of the pipe .. A.ftBr the plEe Is Installed. fill the gap With 10lnt mortar In accordante with Standard Spocification 9-04.3. • 1----"---~';:;;TCH BASIN DIMENSIONS 'I: CATCH Ir----M!N.--r-MIN~--l---MAXIMUM-'-M~I~NI~M~UM--j BASIN WALL BASE. KNOCKOUT DISTANCE DIAMETER THICKNESS THICKNES!i I SIZE BETVVEEN ---i'~ I KNOCKOUTS 1-~'48"r 4" 6'" 36" 8" t.. 54~ ! 4Ji" B~ 42" 8" 92.1 FG I i ACCESS LID TOP 92,O± I I i I I, ,i :! ! I i I I I I I I, I ·j·+r1.J~r+~c~~ I ,i 'I I I i I I II i' I ! T I Ii I I i I I I ! I I i I I ,.k'==,===~==!I==~1 ==~=~~=_"''::, ~==l=:d:=ch==kl =A~1ESS LtDDER -1 ~ , __ 91,5 FG -,-"' 4" PERF, PVC DRAIN (TYP,) " LID rlNTERIOR WALL OPENING (2) ACCESS LID TOP 92,O± r-----l DEAD STORAGE r----"--, 91,7 FINISH GRADE (FG) 91,10 FG CB #7 ITOV 88,26 l-i;;--1=~-=-=+.-" ::: :~~- 84" i 8" 12" 72' 12" , , :.f-.~ __ -"",EETABLE = .' -. MQRTAR (TYP) INV. 82.90 I I /WATER SURFACE :: __ ,_,___ 1 I 81.36 I I -,,---""-,---"""------~~---L~;;;;;:;;;;~,:=Ji:;;;;-~'~'"'~-~;;;,;:;:-~==;;;;;:;;;;;:;-:;;;;::==;;;;;::":;;;;:;;;;=='~' ':;;;;:;;;;;;;':;;;;'~-"":"'==~' ;;;-:;;;;-:;;;;;l;':;;;;~' ~~:;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;jlr'Bov 80,16 ~ LADDER -I ... ~r= ,." .. b ~I[: ,':.: '''',i oi,'! ~I~ , '-i,f". r:k ~~"'D'C'NG, ',T',""""; ';. ('.0 ;...~ ':' ~.~ .• • _~ ~,'.: 1:2" GRAVEl BACKl'll.l "OR ~,;' . -.-• .'.: • -_b,'·~': :--.l~.AI" "1//----PIPEZONEBEDDIf\G "O'RING./"'·"""·"--o f "I~= "I SEPARATE BASE PRECAST INTEGRAL BASE PRECAST WITH RISER (413" -72" Ot.L Y) I 96:--i 3" 12" 84" 12" , I ' -----1__---1----'.--1 l~:~Jn_:~: _~_:~: ±"-:~:8~""-1---;~~~~ I PIPE ALLOWANCES !--~-;;~-H--lp,pT-MA-~WITH-~~~X'C'IM-cU'-MC'C"IN~SI~D~E ~D~' A~M~ET~E--1R Ii BASIN ! CONCReTE ALL ! CPSSP SOLID PROFILE DIAMETER I METAL I WALL WALL I _ _ ~_~ .J~_ _ __ __ -------l----G) PVC® PVC ® L 48" -+ 24" --30" I 24' 30B 30" l-'--54" -: ~ -36' I 30' -36" 36" I 60~ I 36" 42"! 36' 42" 42' l ;:~-=+-:~~-~;:.: ::: ::: :::: 1_ 96" 1 60" 72' 60" 48" 48" ! ·120' 1 66" --T 84~60' 46" 48:- r---1-4-;:--·: 78" 96" I 60' 48" 48 ft ® Corrugated Polyethylene Stann Sewer Pipe (Standard Specification 9-05.20) @~Standal'd Specification 9··-05.12(1)) @I,Stondard Spcc:ific.Jtion 9-05.12(2)) CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 NO SCALE (WSDOT STANDARD PLAN 8-10,20,-01) DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT CONNECT TO DETENTION SYSTEM, FOOTING DRAINS FOR INDIViDUAL LOTS AND DETENTION VAULT SHALL CONNECT TO CS #5, 2, PIPE MA lERIAL: UNLESS CALLED OUT OTHERWISE ON THIS PLAN, ALL STORM DRAIN PIPE MATERIAL SHALL BE PER C.O,E, APPROVED MATERIALS LISTS MM-l, MM-2 & MM-3, SECTION A-A ,--=============~~~===-=-=-=-=-~=======-~-I~TO~V~8~8,2~6 _.1:"",PERF, pvc DRAIN (TYP,) "'-/~~~~RS~2~mE l[' ,-, ! INV. 82.90 ~-~" =0' ,~8:;:1~,3~~:;;;;;;;~, '=0' ;;;;;;;:;';;L~~I S-;s-P' :,,_===;;;;:;;:;::,,:;::,~:;::~ .. :;::_=o_=,:;::, :;::-;;;;;;;~ ,-,IJ ,'J!18~Or:!.VJBl,Q0:!!.16 SECTION 8-8 Rv.l\~ 1 :J)w(d DETENTION/WATER QUALITY VAULT ISEE STRUCTURAL PLANS BY SITE STRUCTURES FOR ALL VAULT DIMENSIONS AND FOOTING LOCATIONS ~" , " W-....<-f\..-"' ................. ~~ __ ""'?--'.~.-.'"-____ .... Jvy..,,~ Call 2 Working Day. Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground Location Center (ID,MT,ND,OR,wA) APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS L p, II II Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Development Consult.ants -------,--- 19217 36th Avenue W, Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com web: lsaengineering,com I") -q' "<.l- I I I f'.( ~ ~ I I I ;::: 0 ~ (j") -.J « I- W o I- -.J ::=)0::: «0 >LL Z o I- Z W I- W o SCALE -...... -• W """ • Z f'. N , I- ~(j") 00 nz o Z2 00 I-W U LL ~O W Z W (f) Z >--I- U AS SHOWN z o l- e:> Z I (j") « :s: ~ >--I- Z ::=) o u I (j") 2 o I o Z (j") SHEET DRAWN CHECKED RCA JWY C7 DATE F,R 5-24-13 PFN PLN20120043 !SA FILE NO, 5383 OF 12 fEB 192014 Packet Page 338 of 586 ( 30' MIN, R.O,VI, 10' MIN. CTYP) III; 2" r-'11N AC PA .. ICMrldT 20' -5/W 4"-1-114' CSEC APPROVED SUBGRADE PAVEMENT CDMPACTIDN-91:1. RICE DENSITY SIJBGRADE,BASE,TDP COURSE Cm~PACTlDN 95% (ASTM 1557> ****MIfHHUM REQUIREMENT wITHIN PLAI- ONE' SIDE 2,1 SHOULDER <TYPICAl) * STREET If,NDlNG, STANDARD 18' CURB/GUTTER (REFER HI E2.8) CUl -DE -SAC ONLY, ROI_LED CURB (REFER TIJ [2,9) TURN-ARDUND IS REQUIRED Al ALL DEAD END CDNDTIONS r r:JCC£SS Gf<ADt.,-S" MAx' or 12X , 'w'RP"T£N W'AIVEJ? [<[QUEST REQUIRED FOR GRAD[S 12-1S/.. .I . . . , ..... GITY·.····OF ··E· ···O'M·········O·IN •. ·:r .. jC • " " '. /1 ," ~·0,. ~PPRovtD BY DATf -------- D, GEBERT 4/2/07 DATE STANDARD DETAIL RESIDENTIAL STREET ACCESS (RS20, 12, S, 6) (5 -9 LOTS) SCALE ow;; NO. 7/24/01 NTS E-2.1.2 / I ell Y INSPEcnON REQUIRED ON ~yJ~~'1 YORK PRIOR TO POUR / I l---~---~-------,c'-' --' ,// / // ;/ -~=-";:------i-.---!I--'--- I Nr:JN-DRIVE\JA;iD~.TIDNS \ / \ \.c 5/8' . '- MINUS CSTC // " NOTES, I \\, 1. r-rJRt~S SHALL BE TRUE TO LINE AND GJDE ' AND SECURELY STAKED. / \ 2. EXPANSlDN JOINTS SHALL BE P~C::ED ADJACENT \ TO CATCH BASINS. I 3. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE/tVERY 10 FEET AND DUMMY (CDNSTRUTCTIDN) JOlNTS EVERY 5'. 4. EXPANSION JOINTS SH~LI_ ' AVE 112" TO 5/S' \o.'1]E PREMOLDED JOINT FJLL_ER, 5. CnNCRETE SHALL BE CL SS 3~ 3000PSL 5, FINISH SHAI_l BE LIG BROOM. 7, CURB SHALL BE SPRrXYED 'WITH CLEAR CURING COMPOUND DR SHAl_L BEl CDVERED AND KEPT MOIST r-DR 72 HOURS. / 8, ALL. SIDE'WALKS !.'~~RED BE~IND ROll_ED CURB IN DRlVEI.{AY P..REp.S SfiALL BE 6~ THICK oveR 2' m- eSTC 'WITH SUBG!JADE COMPACT[D TO 95% MAXIMUM DENSITY. ! //// l' FOR CUL-DE-SAC AREAS & TO REPAIR Lli<E CU~EING Dr~~~_ \ , \ \ \ \ CITY' ED ivlO NO's·. r I,EVISIONS STAi'-IDARD DETAiL \ 1f---C=:M"""",,"CV,!EKc l!"=i='jjMCij"==+________ ___ ____ _ _____ ~---- D. GEBERT 4/27/05 ROLLED CIJRB/GUTIER DETAIL \ D. GEBERT 04/2/07 ioAn:.--------'-'S""C".·"E ------TcID;;;w~c· -:;,,;:---:::::--'"';,:--'111 -+------1 7/24/01 NTS I E2.9 \, \" SECTION 30, T.27N., R.4E" W,M. Y BATTER I k , .. l] 4 18' STANDARD ---- _ 2 4 ' AR:1TRffL NI:lTES' 1. FIJRMS SHALL BE TRUE TO LINE AND GRADE AND SECURELY STAKED. 2. EXPANSHJN J[!NTS SHALL BE PLACED ADJACENT TO CATCH BASINS 3, E>~PAl~smN JCINT$ SHALL BE EVERY 10 FEET AND DUMI-1Y (CONSTRUCTION) JOINTS EVERY 5 FEET, CITY INSPECTION R[QUIRED O~ cCf?~1 IJDR~~ PRlD~ TO POU~1 0.05 n/FT 6' 4. EXPANSION JCINTS SHALL HAVE 112; TO 5/8' 'WIDE PR[MOLDED JOINT FILLER. 5. CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 3-3000PSI, 6, FINISH Si--IflL.L BE LIGHT BROOM, 7, CURB SHALL BE SPRAYED IJITH CLEAR CUR1NG CDMPDW~D DR SHALL BE COVERED AND KEPT HD[ST FOR 72 HOURS. 8 p,LL SIDE\{ALKS POURED BEHIND CURB IN DRIVEWAY AREAS SHALL BE 6~ THICK DVER 2; OF eSTC wITH SUBCif'ADE COMPACTED TO 951. MAXIMUM Dt;;:NSITY, C I .Ty'··· . "0 .. • •. 'p". .... .' 'E' .. [ •... :,. ~\/1 'Cl 1"" i. ',' "c.' .'. . "-,, ·1 .... ". .' .. ' '-'-'.' -c',.,,v, .. ,.'~ ~.) .~.J" STAND.ARD DET;',li REVISIONS DATE ""P'!<[JVED BY D, GEBERT 4/27/05 4/2/07 STANDARD TYPE "A" CURBIGUTIER DETAil D. GEBERT [JATE '1/24/01 St.:E DeTAIL ~ ABOVE " ~ NOiE: -=-'~~Jr .,: ;. . ~-ADD 2' CSTC L ____ I~~"3s:;-'" I .. WIDTH OF _ SIDEWALK • I BELOW' CONCr~[TE 12' ~~ 5' 10' SECTION A A :!I SLOPE MAY BE REVERSED TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO GRADE TO SHE. [lWG NO. 1. If-DRIVE',,'I'" 'WIDTH EXCEEDES 15', INSTALL A FULL DEPT H EXlo."NSID~ JDl~i1. E2.8 2 T!IE ACCeSS APRON SHALL BE A MINIMUM DE 6" THICK AND SHeLL Be: PL.ACED ON 2" OF %/ CSTC AND COMPACTED GRADE. 3, I~ATERjALS CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 3-3000 PST. 4 cITY ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE APPLICABLE CDMMERCII,L TY~E ENTRI\NCE BASED ON L DCATIDN AND OTHFR SITE CONDITIONS. ~ ··.CITy····OF E[) ~vI01~f-) S < REVISIO~ APNOVED BY DATE ~~ \IT~ --- tsl. m9() • NO DOMES R[QUIRED STA~IDAF,D DET/\IL MULTI·FAMILY! COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE E 2.27.2 NOTES: L FORMS SHALL BE TRUE TO LINE ANTI CRATIE AND SECURELY STAKED, 2. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED fiDJ~CENT TO CATCH BASINS. 3, EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL EE EVERY' 10 FEET (~ND DUMMY (CDNSlT'{UTCTIDN) JOINTS [VERY 5', 4, EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL HAVE 1/2' TO :J/8" \JIlJ[ PREMCJLDED JOINT FILLER, 5, CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 3-3000PS1, 6. FINISH SHr'lLL EE LIGHT BROOM. 7. CURB SHALL BE SPRAYED 'WITH CLEAR CURING COMPOUND OR SHALL BE COVERED AND KEPT MQIST mR 72 HOURS. 8. ALL SIDEIJALKS PlJURED BEIHND ROLLCD CUi,:B ;rJ DRIVE'w'AY AREAS SHALL BE 6" THICK OVER 2' [JF C:STC \.lITH SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% t-1t',XJMUH DENSITY. lei f"( e'l F- _./ I. REVISIONS 'I' CiTY mSP[ClIm~ REQUIRE.D \l::JR~ PRICJR TO POIjR L __ . _______ ~ _ ___" j-FORCUL ~-T;~: -SAC-ARE-;S------~-~--~--i i 1. HI Rf~.PAIR UK£: CURBING !1NL_ Y J ~-----.-,------------_._---- orJ..!,\ ',j EC) i\A () f"I' 0 S ST!\~jDARD DETi"IL APPROVED BY ]ATE--j----------_._--------11 D. GEBFRT I 4/27/05 ROLLED CURB/GUTTER DETAil 04/2/07 ~---------.~"~"~"~.----~D\~"~. "~O~.-E~2~9~---I -7124/01 i' ~-NTS ' D, GEBERT CONe. S!DEWALK '2' MIN. t 10' [J,[, .. 5' D,C ... ! .. \ SA'W CUT ACP A MIN . --DF 2' FRDM EDGE OF GUTTER . FULL DEPTH 1/2" EXPANSION JDlNT MA TERIp,l P !ON . L" 5' TO 10' . ---"--------1 2% .. , ~ ,« ... ' ... .. . '-:\1 \, II II I \ :-1\ \ I I ! . \ II;' Ii \ "I \ ."l-I SECTION " UNDISTURBED EARTH DR ~COMPACTED NATIVF MATERIAL UNLESS OTHER'WISE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER 2' MIN. SA'W CUT NOT [, ,v_ 5/ry MINUS CSIC 1. CONCRfTE SHALl_ BE CI_ASS :].-:JOOOPSI 2. CONCRETE SHALL BE BRI1DH "INISHED 3. SIDE\NAI __ K THICi(NESS SHALL. BE 5-1I2R, 4 SIDE',,'ALK THICKclFSS AT DRiVE 'WAYS SHAU_ BE 6" THICK, 5. CURB AND C;UTTER SHALI_ BE POURED SEPARATELY FRllH SIDE'WALK 6. CONCRETE SHI,L.L ~E SPRAYED 'WITH C[.EAR CURING COMPOUND OR SHALL BE COVERED AND KEPT MOIST FOR 72 i-lOURS. 7. SA'W CUT AND RE~,[JVE A.CP ~AV[MENT A MIN. OF 2' FROM GUTTER FACE TO INSURE ADEQUATE COMPACTION OF ACP AND GUTTER SUBGRADE I .' ..... r"1 "'---"". ' ,,/. " I . O ~ " r-...:'. .' I .. j • . ···E··O········· M····· '0"· ·'·N··. '0" ·S·· , '. L . . ", .'., '. '--, '. [sl. 1390 CBU TO FACE THE STREET Rf::VISIONS --=-..:ti:l'B9VEiiyr -~:::~==~=_li!;i[---STANDARD DETAIL D. GU1ER-r ! 4/27/05 D. GEBER I I 04/2/07 """"'---------._+-----------DAn: 7/24/01 CONCRETE SIDEWALK --_·-·--SCALE --------·---'OWccG NO. NTS NOTES: 1. CLUSTER BOX UNITS (CBU'S) MUST BE POSTMASTER APPROVED WITH A UNIFORM BOX STYLE AND METHOD OF ADDRESS IDENTlFICA llON. .2.13 ----'=--"----2. LOCATIONS OF CLUSTER BOX UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE D!RECTOR FOR ACCESS AND SIGHT DiSTANCE REQUIREMENTS. ---CURB CBU CLUSIEB BOX UNITS (CBU'S) -LOCKED BOXES NO SCAlE 3. CONSTRUCTION OF CLUSTER BOX UNITS INCLUDING PEDESTAL, BASE PLATE, BREAKAWAY BOLTS AND ASSOCIATED CONCRETE SLAB SHALL BE COORDINATED v.1TH THE U,S. POSTAL SERlnCE. CONTACT TODD MERRIMAN (EDMONDS POSTMASTER) AT (425) 672-4437 FOR SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO SIDEW~.LK CONSTRUCTION. 4. MAINTAIN 12" MIN. CLEARANCE FROM FACE OF VERTICAL CURB TO EDGE OF CBU'S (ACTUAL DISTANCE MAY BE MORE, COORDINATE WITH P.O,), .1 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS ~ .. A.~.~.v.~~,____..JV'0-I---~oJ\.f___l"'___ Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground Location Center (ID.MT,ND,OFl,WAl '------ 201 1+ L Lovell ~Sauerland & Associates, Inc. EngineerS/Surveyors/Planners Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue VI. Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info®lsaenginecring.com web: lsaengineering.com o Z <t U1 W I-o Z Z o I- U =:> 0::: I- fJ) Z o U SCALE Z i"- N • z o l- e.? Z I-I ~ fJ) fJ) OO<t z o I- U W fJ) LL o w fJ) Z Zs: o 2 -0>-W~ LL=:> 0 0 u >-I-I UfJ) 2 o I o Z fJ) NO SCALE DRAWN RCA DATI' 5-24-13 CHECKED JW'i F.B. PFN PLN20120043 LSA FILE NO. 5383 SHEET C8 fEB 1 9 ZG1~ Packet Page 339 of 586 SECTION 30, T.27N., R.4E., W.M. 27043000206800 G, CHRIS AND JULENE K. GRADWOHL 8531 218th STREET S.W EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 ZONING r<S-8 270L]]OaC2013700 SCOTT A~D MOLLif: MUNCASTER 11 86:2,~ 21.'Jth ST~F:FT S.W. fll~,*,,....-1;,,,,,.-...-_-\EGMONDC:', Wf-ISr"'.:S"r.:;)N 980;':6 RIM=90.83 INV=B2.B9 SEE SHEET N 101'.5643 SEE UllUTY":·I~:..!.'"'~.Y~ E 650.1803 EQUATION: ,-"." FlRE HYDRANT SEE DETAil, SHT C10 00408800000400 JUDITH A. MIl.TON 21 726 35th PLACE W. EDMONDS, WASH!NGTON 98026 . oIt. ---,~-. SD---p~_~",": __ .i':iK,~RO~W.! ~E!E!i~.9~ __ ;-__ ,._ -_____ , __ .. , _______ l[ __ , _ "-EX. FlOW /! I i--·-l I I I I I I I I L ___ J --.. ---.--.. ----I -I OdS931 000001 00 A UU! ANQ YlN SHAN CHAN 21 Bd1 87th PLf,CE W. C>NDSj WASHINGTON 9[l026 r------------, I I 008~310000020D SSA A. liND GREGORY BRYAN 21803187th PLACE W. MONDS, \IIASHINGTON 98026 , I I , ) \, \ \ ---1--.-----, I II I II : I I I I ' , I I , I ' I I I I I I," WATER I:'~~.oi--(t? 1SERVICE L _________ ,.~ .. ----~--... II \ -j+---'II- , , " I "Y'---'-- i Iii . / , I V : / WATER STUB , I~' /.j I ". . .. , ): /. / ! II! :/// I II ( ! I I I \ I' III I : I ,: ill , I : "II ',I I Ii!! '111: ',I I ' ' , 11:1 I , II V ( , II :" \ i: II:" \ : I i I EX, CB I i TOP=98.41 i !NV=97.25 ..... E I !r~V:::: 96. -15'" S r---------_. --------I I SF 40("2,-82) , L _________________ · ----- 2.704.3001)208500 P.M. AND B.L HEPLCR Elfi06 218th STREET S.W EDMONDS. WAS-Hlt~GTON 98025 ZONING RS-8 27043000203400 MICHAEL D. AND ,JEAN E, CmJNELl Y W 8612 218th STREEr S,W. ~ EDMONDS, WASHINGlml 98028 iI-"t----------+--f ~ 2 I I I I I " I'" , Z i: I L _____ -\ _____ \. ___ " I I----_ \, \ io f'J I &-------.-, I I \-----~ \ , 'i I , ,I , , , I , rl , I \ \, \ I I I TER STUB I I r---'I I! ;i /: I , ( I \ \ : I II --, -.-----',9.2,._ ~ I , I I I \ [ .. : I '--.-~-~ : f \ +,.; i .,. I L _______________ , _____ ~-___ -~~ .~ ,."' \ lO~>JING RS-8 270.13000703300 OLn.1p:c Sf.PTIST CHURCH "-EDMONDS 871J 2201h STREET SoW [:JMONUS, \\IAS'-jiNGTO'; 9S0:.:!6 U N .r L A _oj" -r £ Li "I I I I I I LOT -1 S-~ID-:~D2) I L _______ ... J LOT 2 5--JO-J-82) _ J ____ _ \ N W E S SCALE: 1"=30' O' 15' POWER VAULT LOCATION UTILITY NOTES: STA 11+24.9 12+20.3 12+41.0 1. ALL UTILIllES SHALL BE UNDERGROUND, OFFSET 19.3' LT 42.4' L T 23.2' RT 2. REQUIRED SEPARATION OF UTIUl1ES SHALL BE MET PER CITY OF EDMONDS AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS. 3, IN ORDER TO REUSE THE EXISllNG SEWER LATERAL. THE CONDITION MUST BE VERIFIED BY CITY OF EDMONDS SEWER DIVISION OPERATIONS CREW. IF CGNDIllON IS NOT SATISFACTORY, A NEW LATERAL SHALL BE EXTENDED TO THE MAIN. loia\V Wlfi3!l.1\t. ii'lST'J\o\.(.~ G:N''-Zoil ,?o'f7 4. EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE TO SE DECOMMISSIONED. COORDINATE WITH ELEG. NOTE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORATION OF TRENCHES REQUIRED FOR INSTALLAllON OF WATER LINES. 60' r-----------------------, .1 ""~'~d,-"~~V~"~0~_J'v"vv'~ Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground Location Cenler (lD,MT,ND,OR,WAl APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com web: lsaengineering.com ..., ... '" I I I '" "' N -0 I I I z « ---l 0.. 0::: W S w (f) >- 0::: « I- Z « (f) o z « 0::: W I-« S SCALE 5 ~ 0::: o LL DRAWN RCA DATE 5-24-13 • W .q- • Z f'. N • I- w z w (f) z 1"=30' ClIECKED JWY F.R PFN PLN20120043 LSA FILS NO. 5383 :2 o I o Z (f) SHEET C9 fEB 1 92014 Packet Page 340 of 586 4" OR 6" COI'C. RISERS (4" MIN.-MAX. HGT-18") GROUT AND PROVIDE SMOOTH m~ISH iNSIDE AND OUT . . 25" LOCKING LID WITH THE WORD "SEWER" ON IT (EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS CO.) (fAODEL #: 00370084) POL YPROPYi_ENE SAFETY STICP i:Z" O,C, (TYP) .. .' ECCEIHRIC PRECAST CONE // [L )- 1- ." ,/ PRECAST SEC !"IONS 4" MiN. THICKNESS NOT E: FRAME AND COVER 1. [OeA TE MH LID OUTSIDE THE WHEEL PATH OF THE TRAVEL LANE, 2. BASE REINFORCING SHALL BE #4 REBAR AT 12" O.C. BOTH WAYS 3, LARGER MH TO B[ RE~lWED ON A CASE BY BY CASE BASIS USII'iG APWA STANDA.RDS. 4. JOiNTS SHALL BE RUBBER GASKETEO ONLY. 48" or 54" ~:. MH PER W.S.D.O.T. APWA STANDARD PLAN B--230. REBAR fAIN 2-' CLEARANC/ 'CITY'C)F" ',' ' .. : ;.. . ' -. ". •. ~. 'O"M" 0"· ·N··· ··0·····<::::" ..• • f-.:. .... . •. . ..... ' • . i . " '.' '.~:". _."',': -"'. ~ .. -. " >".~,,- REVISIONS STANDARD DETAII_ TYPE I MH (SANITARY) ,m 7 /2-4-/-0-1-·-rie'Li--N-TS---T'-c. -"o---ES.; RD.\"!. PROPERTY --LINE ------ L,L CITJ'-. ro CDMETER ],ISTALLED BY '" D // I- ® FINISHED NOTE' , GRADt BACK SIDE OF METER BOX I ~L SHALL BE sET AT THE I PROPERTY LINE, METER Q I BQXES SHALL NOT BE BALL VALvEeI:..------~ I r:'LACED IN DRIVE:\JAY (\REAS, il CD 1 II - ! I I II _® I ' ® I I \\. 1..----- U 1 ® J -D_ j I -,!.--_\ -" Ie_ (d '0~ IJIRECTlml // ~fLDVJ /'" I CD / Q)/ MAIN ©/ ~ I ~ , 0 MATERIAL LIST (A) ALL 1" SERVICES TO BE TYPE 'K· SOF-T COPPER TUBING, ® l' BALL CORP, STOP VITH CC THREAD INLET AND COPPER (CTS) GRIP ::JUTU::T. (FORD DR t~UELLER). © DUAL PUf<POSE UNION, ® MIPT X CTS GI:'(lP BALL VALVE CURB STOP EQUAL TO FORD ]84-444[~ mR l' © NEW 1" SERVICIE~ ANGLE BALL METER VALVE BY SINGI_E CHE-..CK, 15' HIGH \.ilTH DUAL PURPOSE UNIONS ON INI_ET AND OUTLET. HORIZONTAL IN I-IORIZONTAL_ []UTL E"I, EQUAL TO FORD VBH94-151,1-11-44. EXISTING 1'" SERVICE: USE SAME AS ABOVE 'WITH ND SINGLE CHECK, EQUAL TO FORD VB94--15\o1-11-44, 0 1" CC TAP SERVICE SADDLE EQUAL TO ROMAC 10E @ MID-STATES PLASTIC METER BOX 1324-12 FOR l' SERVICE MS 13x24 DUCTILE LID 'WITH 7li!'x4W READER FOR lB SERVICE @ FDt< VACANT LOT <FUTURE usn LOCATION MARKED \JITH PAINTF:D 2' X 4" STAkE 'WITH 'idA fEW STENCILED ON IT, CD 1.4G4, VINYL COATED 'WIRE TRAC!::R (TAPED TO PLASTIC PIPE EVERY to') TO BE GROUND!:_D AT METER AND HDUSE, CD SCHEDUI_E 40 3/4' DR t' PLUG, REMOVE wHEN CONNETTIDN IS KADE TO CUSTOMER LINE, ® I,./ATER SERVICE TO HOUSE, INSTALLED BY Ol,./NER/CDNTRACTDR. CD PROPERTY O'w'NrR RESPONSIBLE FOR PURCHASING 3/4" OR l' METER THROUGH THE CITY CI TY 'WILL INSTALL METER AFTER PURCHASE. IF USING 3/4" METER, CITY Will PROVIDE RUJUCERS. /~ CI.TY 01-C' EDM ONoc:::; .. ~~ . ,", --_. ,-"---,,,. REVISIONS STf\.NDARD DETAIL_ "'PPR,lV~:O ~y DATE , _.- \j -D. GEBt::RT 6/19/03 1" WATER SERVICE. FCiR 3/4" OR " HeTER INSTALLATION D, GEBERT 4/2/01 l'NG NO. --[;Gii9a r-----CATE _lSCALE i 10/04/11 7/24/01 NIS E7.6 R, ENGUSH SECTION 30, T.27N., RAE., W.M. w z 1 ~ I RESIDENCE ~ tV-!',,' L ~CLEANDUT WITH 45° & BEND AND CAP ! -----~ I G-------------~----~---1 i..-NOT [0 EXC[W-l00' BETWEEN I CLEf\N OUTS '14xI4"x6" CONCRETE COl.L.Af' CLEANDUT (IJYE IJITH CAP AND LOCKING LAMPHDLE C[ VER) g. CONCRETE LEVELING COLLAR LEVELING COLLAR 12N I-/~ I ~~~~H--''-----ll ---· ] 'I '-IJATER TIGHT CAP L RTSF:R ~T ... _· __ \_ 4' OR 6" SIDE SEIJER -1 GENERAL CLEArvOUT DETAIL 12" PVC SLEEVE 6" RISER 6" Ci-;Y STUB '-~]---'-'--:-- 4' DR 6' SIDE SE·\.iER 6~ RISER PVC SLEEVE CAP CLEAN OUT DU!\IL A TOROP[RTY LINE 12" LOC!<H'-JG Ij\MPHOLE CO\/[R (CAS, JoRDN', IRDN WOR';, CO.) (MODEL_ /;'-: 0036610S) TYPiCAL OUT UNDER ASPHAL T NOTE: SIDE SE_wr:R JO'NTS SHALL BE G/,SKETED Of? CONCRETE ·····0·····1 T. ,Y······· '0' F·' "Pi, .~ .• ,~ ryi',j"[' ce-........... ·1.··· ......... , ....... '.' '.' 'CL/iVI \j I ,) :--, REVISIONS STAND/'-,RD DE-TI',IL_ APPRIJVED ~y DATE D GEBERT 6/16/03 SEWER ClEANOUT DETAilS D GEBERT 01106/05 -------,-------------------I-----+-----j DATE SCALE 7/24/01 NTS JWG tiO E6,2 ~~~., .. ~--.:; " --- "- 18 90'::19 90 D. ::;EBERT APP~!lVED BY 4/2/07 iJl!CDF SHALL m: :J.. SN':::i< ,'lIX D::::SIGN PER 'w'SDOT ST A;,mARDS (FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT) SEWER STUB SHAlL BE LOCATED 10' ,NSIDE PROPERTY LINE &: STAKED. PLACE 2x4 AT FND or-SIDE. SEW[R STUB Ai\jD CUT TO LENGTH "10 ENSURE 3 FEET EXTrbJ[)S ABOVE GRt1D[. PAiNT TOP 18 INCHES WHITE. iN J !NCH HIGH LETTERS, STENCil THE NUMBC:r~ OF" FVFf'J r·-E[-! FROM GROUND ELEVMION TO THE SEWER STUB INVERT. 8 CAUGE WiRE TO BE DOUBLE WRAI::lpED Af-<OU~D PiPE !~ND 2x4 STAKE .AT OR ,~BOVE Flr~ISHED GRADE, CASTIRON LOC!<ING UD LAMPHOl.l. COVER r (EAST, JORDNl ;RO~I ;YDC<KS (MODEL #: 003061v8; I 5" TEE RUBBER JOINT BISCUIT PLUG OR OTHER APPROVED WATERTiGHT PLUG SONNECTION A 1 MAi~J SHALL BE A.-I 45" ANGI_E OR GREATER NOT E: I. WHEN TAPPING INTO EXiSTING MAIN AN INSERTA-TEE SHALL BE USED. PLACEMEN T OF TEE SHALL DEPEND ON DEPTH OF SEWER MAIN. AS A MINIMUM, THE TEE SHALL BE .PLACED A T A 45 DEGREE ANGLE. 2. If CONNECTING SIDE SEWER TO EXIST CONCRETE LATERAL, A CONCR[]E/PVC ADAPTE'< SHALL BE USED AND SECURED pm M'-GR'S :NSTRIJCTIONS. REVISIONS I DF:TAL !-:APPRDvtD H !)ATE I _D GEll~ -"~",,/O:':_! TYPICAL SEWER LATERAL _:_',_~_":_:_~_:_:---t_o:_:~:~~5 1MIT--l/2~'~~1-'~'--I SCALS~~--~;;-----~'-----rDW-'G-"-'.--E6-.4 ----II I t. KIJUNi HYDRANT PLUMB PROVIDE 3' MINIMUM CLEARANCE AROUND HYDRANT ---I 1-_"'" GO BEHIND BACK DF SIDEIJALK DOUBLE SIDED BLUr.: RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS -- i I 4' MII<.J -G' Mf\X +-+-+-, LJ liJ :::TORZ ADAPTER ALIGN VALVE BOX EARS e~,':",L;~L: \,lITH THE \.lATER . IT SERVES TEE vrTH rLANGED CONNECTION FOR HYDRANT VALVE 3' x 3' x 3,Y TI, "ICK-, > q CONCRETE PAD ~-,-,.-:-g7:f.:~,~~'J5lt~~~ _____ ~,-,~L=.'c":':';H GRADE AROUND HYDRANT \ I , <I: lCl 1 CY 1-112' 'JA"HED-, ROCK. i' MIN ABOVE DRAIN HOLES AND AROUND HYDRANT TO BOTTOM OF DITCH UNE COVER TOP AND SIDES \-lITH MIRAf--I 160N [IR APPROVED EQUAL UNDISTURBED E,!-'RT! I , ELK. HYDRANT CDNNECTlDH PIPE TC!--j Bl DUCTILE IRON CLASS 52, ANY INTERMEDIATE JOINTS Trl BE RESTRAINED 12'x12'x4' --'-__ -.J CONe. ELK. 1. HYDRANTS fI_ND ALI.. ~(" rf:RIALS ro PE Ii'J ACCORDANCE WITH CIT" OF [DNOi'mS APPROVED MATERIAL MDDrFICATm~jS LJSTP~GS, 2. CONSTRUCT 3' X 3' X 3.5" THICK CDi'iCRCTE P{>,D AROUND HYDRANT PIPE. 10 MIL PLASTIC BET\JEEN BLOCK & TEE * __ ",,1--THRUST BLOCK MIN CLEARANC[ BETW'EEN BLOCKING AND BOL , . ~ ,/.... ,,:~ , .' T!-;RUS::r '. , BLd-CK ',.: .; c' .~ .:'. ' , '4' ' ... ' HYDRANTS SE T IN CONCRETE I~FQUIR;::S AN EXPANSION S-I RIP AROUND HYDRANT BARREL, IN ADDITION, THE. INSTALLATION UF' THE HYDRAt-lT ON PRIVrllTE PROPERTY SHALL EQUAL OR EXCEED STANDARDS SET FORTH FOR THe: iJETALLATIDN I]F PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANTS IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, 3, ALL HYDRANTS SHALL i-;p,VE A e f,'kl 3AS[. TI;1AFnC MODEL PROVIDED VITH (2) 2-1/2' HOSE NOZZLES AND m 4-1/2~ NST PUMPfR NOZZI.I \.IFH 4' ~:TORZ QUICK COUPLING ADAPTER, 4, PUMPER PORT SHALl-.-FP.,CE Th!:: SHEr:T GR PL1AD\JAY FOR FIRE ENGINE. ACCESS. 5, THRrT FOm MINIMUM LEV['L CU':':("RANCE Sfl/ll_!_ BE ~AINl AlblEJJ AROUND HYDRANI 'WHEN PLACING l_ANDS-CAP1NG, 6. FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL B~ Pt;J~H[D SAtTi Y Y:::LLO'w' BRANDI KEllY MOORE (1700-63 SUNBURSl YElLDV) 7, RAISED PAVEMENT ~{,RKt:R TL B[ PU,\CED 4" F-RDM PAVEMENT Gil DR PAINTED LlNE ON HYDRANT SIDE OF ROAD. Est, 1890 (~' i-r V · •. ·0···. "·1:-' ·h"0 ~ iI '0": ·N·· ·.Fy C< ',~ I' " '·:1 .': ."~. ~._ ,. ",j','·V~I:'" .'.'-':.' .. '.,L'J..,,·:.0" -APP~\'-E~::r =~~ll.QNS DA-I ~ S TAN DAR DOE T AiL D GFBeRT IG-I'~';-;;;---------FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY D, GEBERT I 4/;:'/IJ7 SIITE ----~-------7/24/01 SCALE NTS !DWG NO, E7.1 R, ENGLISH ! 10/04/11 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS L. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc, Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail.info@lsaengineering.com web: lsaengineering.com "' ... ~ I I '" '" o I I (f) ....J « I- W o o Z « 5 • W ..,q- ~ , Z o l- e...? Z (f) W I- I-I (J) o Z ~ W sO:::: w O (f)LL >- ~ « I- Z « (f) o Z « SCALE ~(J) 00 nz « S ~ >-I- o Z::;::: 00 I-W U W (J) Z LL:J 00 U W Z w (J) Z >-J-I U(J) ::;::: o I o Z (J) NO SCALE DRAWN CHECKED RCA JWY SHEET DATE F.B. 5-24-13 C10 PFN PLN20120043 I.'lA FlLE NO. 5383 OF 12 Packet Page 341 of 586 SECTION 30, T.27N., RAE., W.M, \\ w> L/~Is~~~+~;C~lfg'ill)LT' 27043000206800 '," i G GoRIS A'W JULENE K GRADWOnL Z I U CB 1 TOP=84.7± 86,")1 2'81h SmEET S IV ONING RS--8 oj <{ , , -INV=82.66 ..... S EDMONOS, WASHINGTO'J 98026 =' I STA 106+00.8, 15,5 ll. INV=80.25""E&W j 2704300020571J() 00408800000400 I ~ I W/SOUD LOCKING LID "2'8T,0 STR-iET, S \11' SCOTT AND MOlIJE VU:-';CASTER JUDITH A. MILTON ~ TOP S ' 7' EX CB I . ; I . ~ II 8623 218th SlRFTT S.\'I. 21726 85th PLACE W. I i """ L::::: • _~__ STA 108+96 5 R~ EDMONDS, WASH!I\JG~ON [)8026 /r-NEW FIRE HYDRAI>JT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 \ CO IN =8 . 3"" I I ! 2WTH STREET S.W. STf\ 1W+94.1 RT. J \ I INV~83 32~W (TO BE PLUGGED) LT, / END SID, CURB AND GU ITe" , I I I I \ \ "- ro I / INV "'" 79.62 1 TOVP=8248A9 E I sr (;1;\' SiD. CL~8 N.JD GU-T[R·, SEE SHEET C'1O FOR DETAII_S" " T • \ " INV~82,83-N 1 A5 D HN T THI~KENED EDGE W/SOLiD' LOCKING LID. I \l / /113 LF-12 " PER CI ,y, 0' EDMOr'DS TOP~9~, ± 'TREET " / ,.",eHALT THICKENED EDGe I -I-~ -:.~ pIJe@0.51%,STANL)ARdJ:fAll c ?,1INV=81.1 _______ "_. ___ ' JL EX ROW PER CITY OF EDMmms / L-_L ___ -'/~!C"'i:ct,~.=~7!$;;q~---. -=-~ -~ :":::=-=-~~~12"¢ 1'VC[~~~O~~,_~ -m •• mm~ L' ~7~1 =T-2, ::.Q;p~5~v;O~~~""~@:.-.. :c-~-~~' ~~=~~:;:1:-1-{r--'-;-;:;;-;-;: .:;;~t~(A~-P~P:~R~o~x.~.~~A'~.-' ~,~,,-;~~":i;~;~~-.. ---"-,-.... ~--;7-/ _-__ --~-~ .. ~ .. -.... -.-----f-_i __ S_T_AN_D_A:_~_,I;T:I_~C_[:_'_:_64_% ---,/' I ,-----_. J-----\~--.---. {_~ i ~ -.----.-.. -'0'&",. 11,IV~9257.mW----~-"·-------·------<~~-------·------ --l-q-,-""~-/7-'------:"":---.-j~-----.------/ "'( ...., , .... ---,,-17-/ ~mE:' R·6W:-·_-~_··"~_" . ..,,!-"PROPOSED RAMP (SEE OETAle 8E~~:)-·-_7i-' -I I -----------·-------EYCEi '-'-. --'-EX~B---r ST'OIAp-:,o8S·'S.9± RL ~~~~;;;;:~~;~o;;;0:---~'~----A;' I roP~B5,37 , TOP=B6,77 Co; -.-----.--.--"\-'----,.----r--',---'--INV~B3A6~E ,INV~85,Ol.~E INV ~ 87.40 PLACE . 12 ~[X, ROW /' mms 'WAY / II ~-\Jt--'-rll"1rLL.l.'!!L I HAUL ROUTE MAP SCALE: 1" = 1500' rINAL JOINT SHALL Bt A NEAT STRAIGHT LINE AND ALL EXPOSED EDGES SHALL BE TACKED NEARY \lITH ,/5DOT STANDARD HflA CLASS 1/2' PG 58-22 (SEE NOTE 5) 1\ EXISTING ~~~k~ SPECIFICA TlONS 5-04,3CS)A APPROVED TACK DR APPROVED EQUAL SI.OPE EXCAVATION TO AVOID UflDERMINING EXISTING .:~: ~~ ~~, . ',,: " ,. " .~' ", .. ~ , ~ ". .', ... . " ~-:. -'. ',~', . '. "... . ,,~. . " EXISTING flATERIAL L 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1-11,' MINUS '--____ . _______ . TRENC H \l!DT H --+-.----.--1 (SEC PER \.jsmn I 9-03,9(3) IMPORT OR NATIVE MATERIAL (SEE NDl ES 3&4) BACI<FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TD 95% MAXIMUM DENSITY (SEE NOTE 2) SEE CITY OF Em'1DNDS MODIFICATIONS TO DIVISION '9 OF THE' CURRENT \-/SDer Sl ANDARD SPECIFIC A TIONS FDR BACKFILLING REQUIREMENTS, SUBMIT PROCTUR ,~ND DENSI TY TESTS fROM CERTIFIED TESTING COMPANIES DOCUMEflTIr,G THAT THE BACKFILL HEETS ,6, rvlINIMUM OF 95% DENSITY PER ASTM D 1557, CSBC DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM 6' DR MMCH EXISTlNG \lHICHEVER IS GREATER \lHE,1 MATCHING EXISTING CSEC DEPTH GREATER THEI'! 6', THEN CSEC SHALL BE INSIALi_ED IN MUL TIPLC EQUAL THICKflESS LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 6', IF TRENCH \JIDTH EXCEEDS 6 FEET IN VIDTH, THE TOP 2" OF CSBC SHALL BE REPl.ACED \lITH A SEPARATE 2' LIFT OF 5/8' MINUS CSIC PER \lSDm 9-03,9(3), HHA DEPTH SHALL BE A MINH-lUM OF 4~ THICK. UNLESS APPROVED BY THE: ENGINELR .. ANY DEPTH GREATER THAN 4" SHALL MATCI-l [XISTING. UNI_ESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINE[R, THE HMA SHAI._L BE INSTALLED IN MULTIPLE EQUAI._ THICKNESS UFTS NOT EXCEEDING 2', FINAL PAVE,~ENT JOINTS SHALL BE NEATLY AND UNIFDRMILY SEALED VITH \lSDDT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS APPROVED JOINT SEALANT OR AfJPRDVED EQUAL, ·.CITY·. EDMONDS· , .,,', . REVISIONS ---:--II!"PRINE] BY _ F-DATC-- D. GEBERT 7/29/05 STANDARD ------------.-----~ DETAI!_ TYPICAL HMA AND UTILITY PATCH INV-~83 21,...,W ~,-PROPOSn) RAMP (SEE m:TA!L C::TA 'IO+2'? 0 GUTTER < ~~~ifo:~s.2;11YRl'-/ -" INV~8p,22~W 1 Cl ' ; END sm 'CU'R8 'AND GUHER .' , " 11.1' fX~..,CB --- . TOP~93,3± roP~98Al NOTE: TOP=90,O± INV~B7,98 ANY SIGN AGE MATERIALS SU8MITTAL SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLAll0N OF ANY SIGN AGE. SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF 14 GAUGE ALUMINUM AND THE MINIMUM WIDTH SHilLL BE 12", THE ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE 3" HIGH REFLECTIVE WHITE, SET ON ,6, GReEN BACKGROUND, ADDRESS SIGNS ARE REQUIRED WHEN THE ADDRESSES CANNOT Bt: SEEN FROM THe SIRUT, SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED ON 4"X4" TR[ATED WOOD POST, HEIGHT TG BOTTOM OF SIGN SHALl. 8F X)" SIGNS SHALL DC COt'~STFWC rC:D OF 12 GU/"GE A.L~HvIINUM FOR ARTn~!M_ AND COIL[CTOR STf<iET SIGNS, MINIMUM SIZE SfIAL.L BE 9" X 40" WITH LETTERING 6" TAIL rOR LOC/II. RESIDEt\JT!AL STRFCTS, SiGNS SHALl.. BE 6" X 30", WI rI-i LETTERS A" TALL IN BOTH CASES LETTERINC Wil.l. HE HIGH REFLECTIVE WdifE S[T ON A GREEN BACKGROUND 2" X 2" X 10' TALL UNI~;TRUT POSTS SHALL [it: srT IN A 2 ' UNISTRUT S' [cve / -OI'rR~TE L __ ' .• VL_ l, \j,-, t. I FOUNDATION, \ FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN "~\ """ SPEED LIMIT 25 ''-, ' .... '\.,. MPH 2' Mnl~ SCALE: 1"=30" 'C'TY" I I.· "8inH PLACE vi" STA 10~30,O,' LL END rWIUD CUI18 INSTALLATION INV=91.38 iNV=,97,25, .... E INV~96_45,,,S iNV=96.34~-·W NOTE' IF A THICKENED EDGE rs ADDED TO E:i<ISTING PAVEMEN! OR APPLIED ArTER NEW' PAvrJ-1ENT ]5 PLACED, THE ASPiiAL T SURFACE' SHAU_ BE TI-iCROUGHLY TACKED 0' N w E S SCALE ; 1'~30' 15' 18' EXIST PAVEMENT THICKNESS REVISIONS STAi'JDARD REV!SIONS STANDARD DETAIL APPR[lvtJ'~ __ ~"_P'U:E~"_." D. GEBE~T i 04/2/C7 --------r-_om ___ •• ASPHALTTH~KENEDEDGE 60' \ D. GEEERl 04/2/07 I--':c...===-f-.:-~--j DATE ~---·-·T'---·--·- I SCALE NTS DW':; NO. E2,3 r,D~'IT~---------Cs~~~~~-------..'~.~'~NO~=--------1 NTS . ~11 R. ENGLISH 10/04/11 7/24101 7/24/01 ""xisr R/W -PRO~j R/W / _____ CONe, SIDEWALK-;r< . '''-. A 20' R/W 30' R/W ~ . 20' eM :=ir t I' ±7.7' 12' w " 10' z ~DE;ALK I ~ I _{EX. ASPHALT PAVING ~ ~ I I ;\1 _. -~"";" ,T, "",", ":~.--I' .', "-' I -, / SUBGRADE AS REQUIRED, GRAVEL MATCH EXISTING ~ INSTALL NEW CURB, GU BORROW MAY BE REQUIRED PENDiNG SOILS CONDITIONS. 1-1/4" MINUS eS8C --~ AND 5' SIDEW . .<\LK PER IMPORT OR NA nVE MATERIAL SID DETAILS E2,8 AND E2,13. BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% MAX. DENSITY FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT SECTION 218TH STREET S.W. NO SCALE TTER O.O,E, s' ell ,'" 5' SIDEWALK ~. .,,' " .. ', :' " --: ,. :'.: , "-- '0' 17.5' f' 12.5' -.---~--.. -,--.-,.--- 11' i 11' f 12" I '2" I I IIASPHALT PAVlNG ....l!!-.1!!- 0 NEW ROLLED CURB, ' ER C.O.C STD DETAIL E2-9 (80TH SIDES) ,. , PA IEMENT SECll0N PER C,OE;\'E-2.1.2, ~ .... SU8GRADE AS REQUIRED, GRAVEL BORROW MAY BE REQUIRED PENDING SOILS CONDITIONS. TYPICAL SECTION ~ 86TH PLACE W. NO SCALf: PIL .1 5" I ./ '---'''--.. .. ~-::......... .~ ,-~, ~~ CONC. VERllCAL../ "'-'.I U'",ON.. CURfl & GUITEH TRANSITION RAMP / CURB & TAPER--" PAVED LEVEL LANDING -/ RAMP DETAIL SCALE: ,.'=10' CONG, SIDf'WAI.K, 12 -=:::]1 TCH EXISTING SURFACE SECTION A-A .,,; I ~rL"M~'~~N __ .'~~~~'"'~ Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground location Cenler (ID,MT,ND,OR,WA) APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS Loven -Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue W, Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com web: lsaengineering,com "' " ... I I I N ~ ;;: I I I o r3 Z <t --.l CL w G <t Z G VI W G « f- Z o 0:::: LL SCALE DRAWN RCA DATE 5-24-13 • • W >t 0::: Z i" N " I- w z w VI z 1"=30' CHECKED JWY F,B, PFN PLN20120043 ISA FILE NO, 5383 SHEET C11 Packet Page 342 of 586 SECTIOI\j 30, T.27N., RAE., W.M. I I 27043000206S00 G. CHRIS AND ,IULENF: K. GRADWOHL 86.31 218th 51 REEl'S, W. EDMON:)S, WASHiNGTON gaQ~6 UNPLATTED CONSTRUCTION WORK~_ REQUIRE SHOULDER CLOSURE (TYPICAL) ZONING RS-8 270~3000206700 SCOTT AND MOLUE MUNCASTER 8623 218th STRfn S.W. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 -I (J041}5BUOOOQ400 JUDITH ,'\, MIl.TON COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION TO KEEP STREET OPEN 21725 85th PLACE w. ED~'O:~DS. WASHiNGTON 98026 I I ) I I I I I I w N E s I SCALE: 1"=30' \ --. I I I I COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION 1 TO KEEP STREET OPEN ~------------~~-------------------ZZZ; ____ . ________ J ____________ l_1 E:!:OW ----------------_// I / \ O' 15' '-,----------/ / / I ····· .. ·····c· / / <' I I I 218th STREET --==---fA4--,-:" ... !=---::, ---~--------------------- I -~-----------------.---------~ SIGN SPACING = X (i) MINIMUM SHOULDER TAPER LENGTH =: U3 (feet:) RURAL ROADS Ii URBAN ARTERIALS 35/40 MPH '''' , Posted Speed (mph) SHOULDER -I RURAL ROADS, URBAN ARTERIALS, 25/30 MPH 200' :I: (2) WIDTH 451 65 70 I RESIDENTIAL .... BUSINESS DI§T!!ICTS (feet) 25 " 35 -Ill 50 " so 2~ MPH OR 1..1::36 100' .H2) ... _-_.--------URBAN STREETS " I ,. 40 40 '" ---- (1) ALL SPACING MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE 10' 40 80 00 SO ~ i. . . --INTERSECTIONS AND DRIVEWAYS (2) THIS SPACING MAY BE REDUCED IN URBAN AREAS TO FIT )---~-~-USE A:3 DEVICES TAPER FOR SHOULDERS lESS THEN S' ROADWAY CONDrnONS. ------ -;, a 0 " " " " " " , I X I X I U:I B , ./,,@" ~HOULDE~ WORK /' /@" ""'·5 LEGEND ","," ~ ~-L:EX. ROW '.c...::,. 1-----, "')--- COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION TO KEEP STREET OPEN \ ) ! " -----.--.--.~---.~--.-------··----l I CHANNELIZATION DE\IICE ~_._. _____ ~AClNG {feet} MPI-I TAPER lANGENT l-35/40 I 251:30 ~i ~ -~"--" 60 40 c " " BUFFER DATA LONGITUDINAL BUFFER SPACE'" 8 ~~ED(MPH) " " 35 '" '" f.O " -------f----------- LENGTH (fest) 155 200 2150 305 BUFFER VEHICLE ROLL AHEAD DISTANCE'" R __ -------------------- TRANSPORTABLE A TIENUATOR MINIMUM HQSTVEHICLE WEIGHT 1ti,00Q L8S. THE MAXIMUM VliElGfrr 8'1All BE IN ACCORDANCE wmt THE MANUfACTUR"R;S RECOMMENDAT10~J. ----.----------------.--.-~.- PROTECTIVE V!"'HICLE MAY BE A WORK VEHiClE STAATEI;3ICAJ.lY LQCATlD fO -SHIEL" THE'NOFiKAREA -.... __ .. --- - 7 I: H3 T ~V£ffiZ~£~ ;;: "'0 o ~ ;;;; I I R I I so' i • • NOTES: , , 00 ., " ------------.-- --_.-, _.------.. _--- 30 r:EETMI~ TO 100 FEET MAX -------------_._ .. NO SPECIFiED DISTANCE REQUIRED , I L •.. _. ______ ._ kl TEMPORARY SiGN 1..0CATION [! CHANNEL.IZING DEVICES SHOULDER CLOSURE" LOW SPEED (40 MPH OR LESS) 1. DEVICE SPACING FOR 1111: DOWNSTREAIiIJ lAPEf-t SKALL BE 20', 2. All SIGNS ARE BLACK ON ORANGE. c:::E8 PROTECTIVE VEHICLE BASIS OF BEARINGS THE CENTERUNE OF 21810 STREET S.W. AS MONUMENTED PER PLAT OF ESPERANCE COURT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 9904015008, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON BENCH MARK TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 86th PLACE W. AND 218th STREET S.W. ELEVATION: 100.00 PI. TUM : ASSUMED NOTTOSCAlE 3. NO FlAGGERS OR SPOrrERS. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN NOTES 1. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) STANDARDS. 2. FLAGGER(S). BARRICADES AND SIGNS SHALL CONFORM TO THE STIINDAf!DS ESTABLISHED IN THE LATEST EDlllON OF THE "MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES" (MUTeD). 3. ALL FLAGGERS ARE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH ORANGE SAFETY VESTS AND HEAD GEAR APPROPRIA1E FOR FLAGGING TRAFFIC WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SHALL HAVE VALID Fl.AGCING CARDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LA80R AND INDUSTRIES. 4. AFTER WOR~. WITHIN THE TRAVELED ROADWAY IS COMPLETED AT THE END OF EACH DAY, THE ROAD SHALL BE COMPLETELY OPEN TO TRAFFIC AND ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE OUT OF THE TRAVELED ROADWAY. ALL NONAPPLICABLE SIGNS SHALL BE REMOVED. TURNED OR COVERED DAILY WHEN CONDITION NO LONGER EXISTS. 5. ACCESS BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL l1MES. 6. CONSTRUCTION SIGNS AND DELINEATORS SHALL BE PROViDED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 7. APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AND MARKINGS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL BE PROVIDED, INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. S. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 9. ADDITIONAL SIGNING AND FLAGGING MAY BE REQUIRED AS COfmlflONS WARRANT. 10. SHOULD A PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION FALL WITHIN A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. CONTRACTOR TO ADJUST LOCATION OF SIGN TO FALL 5'+ BEYOND EDGE OF DRIVEWAY IN DIREC'CClN OF ROAD TRAFFIC. (10' MAX. FROM PLAN LOCATION). DRIVEWAY ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAiNED AT ALL TIMES. 11. ALL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALl. BE FURNiSHED, INSTALLED ~ND MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO Il-iE SAT!SFACTiON OF THE CI1Y INSPECTOR OR ENGINEER. j / '. " "I j / I" VI ~:z;,-------JIOo- WORK AREA ------~------ EX. ROW -1-~ TEMP. CONST. ENTRANCE I--~--.~ ------,------~----: ,---------------~---------------------: BUFFER DATA t------------LONGITUDINAL BUFFER sPAC"E=s--------------: SPEED (MPH) BUFFER VEHICLE ROLL AHEAD DISTANCE;; R TRANSFORTABlE AITENUATOR MINIMUM HOST VEHICLE MIGHT 15-.COC LBS. mE MAXIMUM ~'lEIGHT SHAlL 6E IN ACCOROANc:E wrrn mE; MANUFACTVRERS RECOMMENDATION. PROTECTIVE: VEHICLE MAY BE!\ w:JRK VEHICLE STRATEGICALLY LOCATED TO Sf-IlELD TJ--IE WORK AREA LEGEND ~ FLAGGING STATION iQ TEMPORARY SIGN LOCATION C CHANNELIZING DEVICES c:E8 PROTECTIVE VEHICLE I so FE:IEJ MIN. I 10(; FEET MAX. I NO SPEC!fIED J' DISTANCE R~QUiRED (i) ALL SPACING MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE INTERSECTIONS AND DRWEWAYS. (2) THIS SPACING MAY BE REDUCED IN URBAN AREAS TO FI r ROArMiAY CONDITiONS. 50' TO 100' 6 DEVICE R , , , , , >-' ~! <, 0, no, '" z, >0, ~I w' ,,, WI >;, -I I I I , , I I , ~ i / , , 50' TO 100' 5 DEVICE 8 MIN. f.--O--+--x + i W20-7B (OPTIONAL !F40MPHORLESS) W20~7B (OPllONAI.. IF 40 MPH OR U::SS) NOTES: 11/20·1 1. ALL SIGNS ARE BLACK ON ORANGE 2, EXTENDING lHE CHANNEUZING DEVICE TAPER ACROSS SHOULDER IS RECOMMENDED. ONE-LANE, TWO-WAY TRAFFIC CONTROL WITH FLAGGERS 3. NIGHT OORK REQUIRES ADDITIONAl ROADWAY LIGHTING AT 1 FLAGGING STATIONS. SEE THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS F ADDITIONAL DETAILS. 4. SEE SPECIAL PRO\"SIONS FOR 'lII'ORK HOUR RESTRICTIONS. NOT TO SCALE ---------- ~-- D !IS 'JAY VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1500' Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 Utilities Underground Location Center (lD,MT,ND,OR,WAl '------~- -- APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS L Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Development Consultants 19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood. WA 98036 phone: (425)775-1591 e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com web: isaengineering.com W f- =:J o 0::: -1 o 0::: f- Z o U u Z I""'-- N . f- z o I-- U W (f) lL.. o -.:;j- "'-.. w z w (f) z SCALE 1 "=30' DRAWN CHECKED RCA JW'I DATE F.B. 5-24-13 PFN PLN20120043 (f) o z o 2 o W lL.. o >-f- U z o f- C) Z I (f) <{ 3= ->-f- Z =:J o U I (f) :2 o I o Z (f) SHEET C12 LSA I1LE NO. 5383 OF 1 2 fEB 1 9 2014 Packet Page 343 of 586 DESIGN CRITERIA VERTICAL LOADS ON VAULT LID: DESCRIPTION: LIVE LOAD DEAD LOAD: UNIFORM LIVE LOAD TRUCK WHEEL LOADS 150PS" * NA c ______ • HS20-44 * -------- SOIL COVER DEPTH VARIES FROM 1,8FT MiN TO 2,8FT MAX * UNIfORM LIVE LOAD AND TRUCK :'OAD NEED NOT BE APPLIED COljCURRENTL y, FOUNDA TlON DESIGN: FOUNDA TlON DESIGN IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING VALUES: ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE: 5,000 PSF LATERA:. EARTH PRESSURES ON VAULT-DRAINED LEVEL BACKFILL AT R~ST CONDITION 50 PCF EFW ACTIVE CONDITION: 35 PCF EFW SEISMIC PRESSURE COMPONENT: E" 10H PSF UNIFORM [ASSUMED VALUEi SATURATED SOIL DENSITY: 125 PCF CONCRETE CONCRETE REQUIREMENTS: LOCATION STRENGTH MAX W Ie RATIO VAULT WALLS 4000PSI @ 28 DAYS 0,50 FTGS & GRADE SLAB PLANK VOID FILL PLANK JOINT GROUT AIR COI~TENT: 4000PS[ @ 28 DAYS 0.50 :;'OOOP51 TO MEET PLANK MFGR'S RQMT'S JOOOPSI TO MEET PLANK MFGR'S ROMT'S CONCRETE EXPOSED TO WEATHER SHALL CONTAIN 5% '1-1% ENTRA.INED A.!R. MIX DE5IG~~ SHALL BE BASED ON FIELO EXPERIENCE OR TRIAL MIXTURES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SPECIFICA TlONS, MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS: CEMENT: A5TM e150, ADMIXTURES: ACI ~Oi. AGGREGATES: ASTM C~;" WATER: A5TM C94, PLACING REQUIREMENTS: PLACING: PLACE CONCRETE AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE TO ITS FINAL POSITION TO AVOID SEGREGATION, THE FREE UNCONFINED FALL OF THE CONCRETE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 FEET, DEBRIS: REMOVE ALL DEBRIS FROM FORMS PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE, CONSDllDA TlON CDNSOLIDA,TE CONCRETE BY SUITABLE MEA.NS, THOROUGHLY WORK CONCRETE AROUND EMBEDDED ITEMS AND INTO CORNERS OF FORMS, CURING REQUIREMENTS: CURiNG: CONCRETE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A MOIST CONDITION FOR A SUITABLE PERIOD OF TIME AFTER PLACEMENT, WEATHER CONDITIONS: ADEOUATE PRECAUTIONS S~ALL BE TAKEN DURING HOT AND COLD WEATHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, tID PLANK PLACEMENT, IN NO CASE SHALL THE eID PLANKS BE PLACED BEFORE THE WALLS HAVE: BEEN ALLOWED A MINIMUM OF J DAYS OF CURE, WHEN AVERAGE AMBIENT TEMPERATURES ARE LESS THAN 50 DEGREES FAhRENHEIT, THE CONTR/l,CTOR MUST AL~OW A MINIMUM CURE TIME 01= 7 DAYS OR PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL SET OF CYLINDERS TO BE BROKEN AT THE TIME OF LID PLACEMENT DEMONSTRATING A MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH OF 1,000 PSI HAS BEEN REACHED, REINFORCING BAR MATERIAL REQUIREMENT, REINFORCING BARS: USE DEFORMED BARS CONFORMING TO ASTM A615, GRADE 60, EXCEpT AS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS, FABRICATION AND PLACING REQUIREMENTS: BENDING, BARS SHALL BE BENT COLD, BARS PARTlALL Y EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE FIELD BENT UNLESS NOTED OR SHOWN OTHERWISE OR AUTHORIZED BY THE ENGINEER, PLACING: REINFORCEMENT SHAH BE SUPPORTED AND TIED TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT BY CONSTRUCTION LOADS OR BY PLACING OF CONCRETE, MAXIMUM SPACING OF SUPPORTS SHALL BE 3'-6", CONCRETE COVER: MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER FOR REINF, SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS, UN:..ESS NOTED OTHERWISE: CONCRETE CAST AGAINST EARTH :J1i CONCRETE CAST AGAINST FORMS AND EXPOSED TO EARTH __ ... _____ ._.. 2" WET SETTINGS: REINFORCEMENT ANCHOR BOLTS, OR ANY EMBEDDED ITEM WITHIN THE CONCRETE, MAY NOT BE SET INTO THE CONCRETE AfTER IT HAS BEEN POURED WITHiN THE FORMS, LAP SPLICES: LAP ALL BARS 24" MIN UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE ON THESE DRAWINGS, GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES CODE: VAULT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTiON SHALL CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 2012 IBC, ACI,·31B & ACI-:l50 AS ADOPTED BY CITY OF ED'AONDS, WASHINGTON, GENERAL DETAILS; TYPICAL OR GENERAL NOTES MW DETA!LS ON THESE SHEETS SHALL APPLY TO ALL CON5HUCTION UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OR SHOW~ OTHE,~WlSE. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS NOT FLLL Y SHOWN OR NOTED SHALL BE SIMILAR TO DETAILS SHOWN FOR SIMILAR CONDITIONS. DISCREPANCIES: THE CONTRt,CTOR SHALL PROV:DE THE ENGINEER WITH A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION UPON FINDING /,NY DISCREPANCY OR OMISSION IN THE DRAWINGS OR SP::CIFICAT!ONS. SHORING & EXCAVATION: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SeLEY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EXCAVATiON PROCEDURES, INCLUDiNG LAGGING, SHORING AND PROTECTlD:~ OF ADJ.ACENT PROPERTY, STRUCTURES, STREETS AND UTlLITIES, WALL BACKFILL, PRIOR TO BACKFILLING VAULT WALLS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE PLACED THE LlJ PLANKS AND PROVIDED A MINIMUM OF 5 DAYS OF CURE ON THE PLANK VOID FILe. BACKFILL SOIL: WALL BACKFILL SHALL BE WE~L GRADED FREE DRAINING SOIL FREE OF ORGANIC MATERiAL, MCn'lLL SHALL BE PLACED IN LIFTS OF NO MORE THMI 8 INCHES MD COMPACTED TO WITHIN 90r. OF THE SOILS MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY. ALl. COMPACTJON OCCURING WITHIN 5' OF THE WALL SHALL BE COMPeETED USING HAND OPERATED MACHINERY, SPECIAL INSPECTION PLAN ,-----------_. __ ._._------_._----------- GENERAL, SPECIAL INSPECTION BY A QUALIFIED INSPECTOR IS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1012 lBC QUALlFICA nON: THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL BE A QUALIFIED PERSON WHO SHALL DEMONSTRATE COMPETENCE, TO FiE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. REQUIRED VERIFICATION & INSPECTION: TrlE SPECIAL IN5PECTOf: SHALL PERFORM THE VERIFICA TlONS I:. INSPECTIONS NOTED IN THE SCHEDULE BELOW INSPECTION Sa TESTING SCHEDULE TYPES OF WORK FREQ, 2012 IEIC SECTION ItiANlN; L,'''·'.' ' ... , ... F •••.• ,·.',.!.···,.····>·,,·, REINFORCING STEEL, PLACEMENT. ? 1910,4 INSTALLATION & FASTENING OF PRECAST P ACI~18, CH 6 PANELS PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE C 1910.10 VERIFYING USE OF REQUIRED DESIGN MIX P 1904,2 TESTING OF THE CONCRETE FOR SPECIFIED C 1910.10 STRENGTH, AIR CONTENT AND SLUMP ~ c"" ', •• !' Jjj VERifICATION OF SOlL·BEARING CAPACITY: C 1705,6 INSTALLATION Of DRAINAGE SYSTEM: PLACEMENT & COMPACTION OF WALL BACKFILL: FREQUENCY LEGEND C" CONTINUOUS P, PERiODIC SEE REFERENCES AND 5T ,\NDARDS LISTED WITHIN -HE SCHEDULE FOR MEANING OF PERIODIC AND CONm:UDUS lNSPECTIOe5, SUBMITTAL OF REPORTS: ALL SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORTS A,ND TESTING REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER, "FE STRUCTURES AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AT CrTY Of EDMONDS BY THE AGENCY PERFORMING THE INSPECTION OR TESTING, DE FE R RED SU BMl::....:...TT.:..:.A..::=L-=-.5 ____ _ THE FOLLOWiNG AREAS OF WORK SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS "DEFERRED SUBMITTALS" AS DEfl~ED IN THE 2012 iBC a, PREC,A,5T PRESTRESSED HOLLOW CORE PLANK ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS SHALL BEAR THE STA~P AND SIGNATURE OF A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER UCENSED TO PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WHO HAS CUR,~ENT DESiGN EXPERIENCE IN THE TYPE OF WORK REViEWED, THE DEFERRED SL5MITTAL ITEMS SHALL NOT BE I~STALLED UNTIL THEIR DESIGN A.ND SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS ~AVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEER Of ,~ECORD, HOLLOW CORE PLANK SCOPE OF WORK, THE WORK INCLUDED IS THE DESIG,~, MANUFACTURE AND DELIVERY OF PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE UNITS, DESlGN PLANK FOR THE MOST CRlTlCAL OF THE LOADING CONDITIONS AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DESIGN CRITERiA NOT::, THE MANUFACnRER SHt,LL SUBMIT STRUCTURAL C.lILCULA TlONS AND PLACEMENT DRAWINGS 5IG~IED BY A WASHINGTON STATE REGISTERED STRUCTURAl ENGINEER "'OR REVIEW PRIOR TO FABRICATION, THE MANUFACTURER SHALL INSTAl.L ALL BLOCK OUTS REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL CONNECTlor~6 AS INOICA TED ON THESE DRAWINGS, NO OTHER PE~ETRATlONS ARE ALLOWED WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PLANK MANUFACTURER ALL HOL-LOW CORE JCINTS SHALL BE GROUTED IN ~,CCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMEND,I,TlONS, I #5@12"o/c HORZ & VERT ON BACK fACE OF WALL, DOWELS TO FOOTINGS ARE NOT REQUJR::D AT THESE VERT BARS, 124 " ,-"------" ~--·1 #5 X 30" TO MATCH HORZ. ALT. HOOK .c./ ~51i112"()/c HORZ & VERT ON BACK FACE OF WALL DOWELS TO FOOTINGS ARE NOT REQUIRED AT THESE VERT BARS, #5 x24"x24" CORNER BARS TO MATCH HORZ WALL REINF TYP 4',0" .. _ .. ___ . __ c_ .. __ . ___ ._. ___ ._-.1' (])I==I~cL=~ ~3~~,,~~,.~,~~C~OR~N=E=R =R~E I=""N= FO=R=C=I N=G 1'-6" 6" ,"-----_.,-----_ .. --_ .. 2'·0" < ------_., I LID REINF @ MANHOLE wI KNEE-WALL , +) • , , #5@12"0/0 EA WAY CONC DOBIE OR CHAJR AS REQUIRED +: -~---. , TYP GRADE SLAB SECTION --~. ADD 111-'5 VERT FULL , HEIGHT EACH SIDE OF BLOCK OUT WALL REINF @ PIPE PENETRATION SCALE NlA -~-.--- SUBDIVISION FILE NO. PLN20120043 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS ... <:) ;::: c <.> U> :::i ... !fi ~ ... < I "" l-I I u w (.) ,..: ~ i :Ii! ~ ~ t (.) 5 ~ ~ >-... ... ... g III ... ... 11:1 t.:> w "" "'" :::> <:) 0 m U (.) e ;; ;; ..... ...J W :;) Z C C > ...J Z I: 0 -C ..... :c z UJ W UJ ..... W ... C IX W IX CJ W IX ..... C C m ;,: ...J W :& :c 0 IX W 0 ..... UJ • 81 OF 2 5-13-012 Packet Page 344 of 586 ~.-~-- '" I ~I~, 0: -d..i ,.,i ;:;1 I i I _1' I' " i ! II III 'III! , EXT. WALL SECTION WALL SECTION GENERAL KEYNOTES 101. PROVIDE CONmwous 4" PVC WATERSTOP .. RIBBED WITH CENTERBULB AT THE BASE OF AU PERIMETER WAcLS INSTALL WATERSTOP Ifl ACCORDANCE WITH ALL MANUFACTURER'S iNSTRUCTIONS. PLACE AT THE CENTER OF THE WALL 102, 12-112" THICK PRECAST HOLcOW CORE PLANK, 10~. FlmSHED GRADE, ELEVATION VARIES. SEE DESIGN CRITERIA ON SHEET 51 FOR APPROXIMATE SOIL DEPTHS OVER THE VAULT LID IN ADDITION TO THE CIVIL DWGS FOR FINAL GRADE ELEVATIONS, 104, 4"~ PERFORATED PVC FTG DRAIN MIN IE,82.90. WRAPPED IN 12"xI2" MINIMUM DRAJN ROCK BEDDING & FILTER FABRIC, ROUTE DRAIN TO DISCHARGE POINT AS SHOWN ON THI: CIVIL DWGS, 105. APPLY PRE,"ABRICATED DRAINAGE PANEL IMIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENTI TO ALL PERIMETER VAULT WALLS, EXTEND DRAINAGE PANEL OVER THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE WALe ABOVE FTG DRAIN I.E, A 12" THICK LAYER OF FREE·DRAINING GRANULAR FILL MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF THE DRAINAGE PANEL. lOll. PLANK TO BEAR ~" MINIMUM ONTO THE TOP OF THE CONCRETE WALL. SEE PLANK MANUFACTURER'S DRAWINGS FOR FINAL BEARING LENGTH. INSTALL NEOPRENE BEARING PAD AS DETAiLED ON THE PRECAST PLANK PLACEMENT DRAWINGS, 107. TOP REINF WITHIN FT G AT 4FT WIDE OPNG. SEE FND PLA~, ,---'--' ) IO( .---~ ( Il ( ( ~ • • • • , , , • / • , , ", , , ,-, 05);" • , " • , , " , , , • , • / , • ,-, , • , " , , , , POUR SLOTS . ,",.' .... .' ", . ,' ..... . . . .~. '. . " "." ..... I ' I '114"\ --""-,ltL II--\ -0':; EXT. WALL SECTION ) , WALL SECTION REINFORCING KEY.~NO~T=E5 ____ _ 201. 8" THICK CONCRETE WALL REiNF wi *6@II"oiG HORZ " *5@10"olc VERT, PLACE VERT REINF NEAR THE INSIDE FACe OF THE WALL. ' .• AP Al.L HO,Z BARS 24" MIN @ SPLICE LOCATIONS, PROVIDE 111'16 CONT HORZ BARS @ THE TOP OF THE WALL, 202, 8" THICK CONCRETE WALL RE!NF wi '6@'I"oic HORZ & #S@15"o/c VERT, PLACE VERT REINF @ THE CENTER OF THE WALL, LAP ALL HORZ MRS W MIN @ SPllCE LOCA TrONS, PROVIDE !1I"#6 CONT HORZ MRS @ THE TOP OF THE WALL. 20:;, 15 FTG TO WALL DOVlEe @ EA VERT. PROVIDE STD HOOK @ END OF BAR CAST INTO FOOTING, DOWELS SHALL BE EMBEDDED A MIN. 0,= 9" '1' 112" INTO THE "TG ! SHALL EXTEND INTO THE WALL 28" MIN. 24" 204. #5x ----,@ 24"010 (#5x4"0" @ INTERIQR eRG WALLI PLACED 5UC~ THAT EACH 48" WIDE PLANK RECEIVES 12) BARS. LOCATE MRS IN VOWS vnTH POUR SLOTS ,IS SHOWN ON THE PRECAST PLANK PLACEMENT DWG5. PROVtDE ADDJT:ONAL BARS @ EACH PcANK IF REQ'D AND SHOWN ON THE PRECAST ?,AN~ SHOP Dwes. 205. #5 HAIRPIN wi 14" WIOTH & 18" LONG ~,,\ILS @ EACH VOID "'IOCKOLIT. 206. #5 CONT WITHIN EDGE VOID OF Pl.ANK. 207, #6 x 2',6" @ 20"0/0. BAR TO EXTEND 11" ABOVE ,op OF WALL, PLACE BAR @ THE CENTER OF THE WALe. 208. #4@18"o/c TRANS & 12)"#5 LONG. 209, #5@lB"olc TRANS ~ 1~I"f5 cONGo 210, 12H/5 CONT, 211, 1~1'#6 CONT. 11, CLOSURE POUR. 0 C • , • , ~y • , II , • II • • • • • , • • • • • • • • .1 11~10" '1 ~----.. ~ • • , .-, , , , ' . . " II ~Ha~N~".D~R~.~~~ II •• • •• 111111 • •• ••• ••• III .. ..}~~ ••••• H.~~m=m -1ll1'iI!1I. Ii II iii II II l!iI!"tlllllllR1I1!ll III lilll! ••• 111l1li111 II o. ••• _lUI! III .. . 1II.1ll11f1i1li.!lIIIIlIi!!~IiIII •• /': ~ .. "'t. .... · " . "f)", i , iOlJ I : 'l..... ~o ' , , ~# #" I ! , , I I... .. ... #"~ ,j-I" i t M I" .. ~ I' I t I , I I .. ~ .. ..-'" I';l' :: , ~ I ... .. .. i I I .... .. /1' + :: ~ ~ ......'1. , , I I "?f..... ..,#" ~/) i i , 7 SPACES i ! : : .... ... .. , .. ". ; : " " , · ' ~OI 121'#6,8',0" @ 2"010 HORZ HEADER REINF, EXTEND 24" MIN BEYOND EDGE DC-OPENING. :;02. 303 ,,04, 305. 306. 12)·+5 CO NT @ TOP OF WALL. PROVIDE 121'#5 VERT EACH JAMB OF OPENING, #4 @ 6"0/0 VERT. PLACED @ THE CENTER OF THE WALL TYP WALL HORZ. R[!NF 121'#5 x 4',0" DiAGONAL MRS EACH CORNER WALL HEADER DETAIL .-~~-~.~ .. ======= [~H6 CONT I~ CLOSURE PC JR. i i #5 HAIRPIN @ 48 1i n/c w/ WI WIDTH &. 121! LOW; TAILS @ EACH VOID KNOCKOUT FILL VOID SOLID. #5 CaNT WITHIN EDGE VOlD OF PLANK. SEE A/52 FOR BALANCE OF REINF. ' .. ' VAULT LID PLAN SCALE 118", 1"0" rj i ~~ , I I70V,8826 }-, TYP THROUGH \ OUT VAUl.T ' 71'-2 r; --~ ~--~-------.. ~~ ... ~.--. -~-.. ---'-'-"----~ .. -.. ~~~-.-.... ~.~-~~~ 691-~O~ ~~ ~-~-~ ... ~~---~-----~ I 1 ------~-.--_ .. -----.. ~--~-... -~-.-~.~-. -~.~~ ---'~""'-'--------.. ~ .. ----.~~--... --.. B" F24x12 VAULT fOUNDATION PLAN 2' 0' --~'iv ~ I I t:=~:~-:::=:==~~_~_~ .. "'i I 4!1!11i1, ----16' @ '< -. 4, 5. 6. 7. a. 9. PLAN KEYNOTES -----.- 12-jl2" THICK PRECAST HOLLOW CORE PLANK, SEE DESIGN CRITERIA NOTES ON SHEET 51 FOR PLANK LOADING REQUIREMENTS, POUR SLOTS IN TOP OF PLANK, MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 2 SLOTS @ EACH END OF EACH PLANK, PLANK MANUFACTURER MAY REQUIRE GROUTING OF ADDlTlONAL CELLS BEYOND THE MINIMUM OF 2. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE GROUTING OF THESE ADDITIONAL CELLS IN HIS BiD. PROVIDE BLOCK OUTS IN THE EDGE CELL Of THE PLANK PARALLEL TO THE PERIMETER VAULT WALLS. LOCATE BLOC(OUTS APPROXIMATELY AS SHOWN ON THJ5 PLAN. 24" DIAMETER OPeNING TO ACCEPT RISERS, LADDER, RING AND LOCKING MANHOLE COVER PE, CIVIL DRAWINGS. SEE 3151. PIPE INLET OR OUTLET TO VAULT, SEE CIVIL DWGS FOR PIPE DIAM, LOCATION & iNVERT ELEV. SEE 5151 fOR WALL REINF @ PENETRATION. ADDITIONAL REINF, NOT REQUIRED AT PIPE PENETRATiONS LESS THAN 8" •. ,\9D 141 #6xI0'·0" TOP @ THE 4',0" WIDE OPNG, 8" THCK CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE REINF w/+S@12"o/c EA WAY PLACED AT THE CENTER OF THE SLAB. CAST GRADE SLAB IN A SiNGLE POUR. SEE 4/51. C.LP, CONCRETE WALLS AT THE PERIMETER & iNTERIOR OF THE VAULT, SEE WALL SCHEDULE ON THIS SHEET FOR THICKNESS & REINFORCING. THiCKENED SLAB FOOTINGS TO BE CAST WITH THE GRADE SLAB, SEE FOOTlNG ,EOTlONS FOR SIZE & REINF UNO, 10, ACCESS HATCH ABOVE WITH APPROVED LADDER TO FLOOR. 4FT WlDc x 6FT TALL OPENING WITH THE CELL DIVIDER WALL. SEe 1/52 FOR WALL REINF AT OPENING, CUT PLANK SEE 2152 FOR DET AIl.S. LEGEND ITOV !50Y F24x12 F40x12 INSIDE TOP OF VAULT LID ITOP OF CONC. WALLS) INSIDE BOTTOM OF VAULT ITOP OF GRADE SLABi elP CONCRETE WALe CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTING 24" WIDE x :2" DEEP FrG SEE A&BIS2 40" WIDE x 12" DEEP FTG SEE CIS2 ,-----------------------~------- DIMENSIONS & ELEVATIONS THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS sueCONTRAGTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL OlMENSION5 AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS WITH THE cu.~RENT PERMITTED SET OF CIVIL DRAW!NGS, AND SHALL NOTIFY BOTH THE CIVIL ~ STURGTURAL eNGINEERS IN WRiTING OF ALL DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE CIVIL DWGS AND TheSE DWGS PRIOR TO CONSTR~CTIDN. 'I C-O-NS-T-R-UC-T-IO-N-LO-A-D-5---~~'--- 'I THE VAULT LID HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO CARRY THE "DESIGN LOADS" ONLY AFTER , VAULT CONSTRUCTION 15 COMPLETE, ALL DESIGN CONCRETE AND GROUT STRENGTHS I HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED, AND All COVER HAS BEEN PLACED OVER THE VAULT WITHIN I THE LIMITS SPECIFIeD ON THIS DRAWING, "BOBCAT" OR OTHER LIGHT EQUIPMENT I SHALL BE USED FOR PLACEMENT OF MATERIALS OVER THE VAULT LID, Al.TERNATlVEL"I, ALLOWABLE UNIFORM LOADS ON THE BARE SLAB CAN BE OBTAINED I FROM TIiE PLANK MFGR, 19""1 i;:lIlA,;d ~ J tlAvl tr. R€>sct;.'oJ!J-, SUBDIVISION FILE NO. PlN20120043 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUC~ON CITY OF EDMONDS .~:-, " \ ~ " DATE: _J:;::f:~",A.t:Y1 J, l(~·I.A J '; C,Jof ) _ ,/0 i I.I' J w z e -I it e :z: UJ UJ ... a: w e" a: e m -I W :z: o w I- -I :) e > z o ...... I- Z W I- W C a: W l-e it :I a: o I- UJ SHEET: S20F2 13-13-072 Packet Page 345 of 586 Packet Page 346 of 586 Packet Page 347 of 586 Packet Page 348 of 586 Packet Page 349 of 586 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 0 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 1 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 2 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 3 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 4 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 5 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 6 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 7 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 8 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 9 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 0 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 1 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 2 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 3 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 4 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 5 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 6 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 7 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 8 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 6 9 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 7 0 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 7 1 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 7 2 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 7 3 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 7 4 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 7 5 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 7 6 o f 5 8 6 P a c k e t P a g e 3 7 7 o f 5 8 6    AM-7329     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Jim Stevens Department:Public Works Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Finance Type: Potential Action Information Subject Title City Hall Exterior ATM Concession Agreement Recommendation Staff recommends forwarding this agenda item and its draft agreement and attachments to the full Council for public hearing and action at its next regular meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative In late 2014, Bruce Barstow of Dog Day Afternoon, Inc., approached staff about the possibility to enter into an agreement to locate an ATM machine adjacent to the front entrance of City Hall.  Such an installation would conveniently serve the public, especially during the Saturday Market, Taste of Edmonds, and other events for which an individual might need to obtain cash for immediate use.  Section 4.04 of the Edmonds City Code deals with concession agreements as this installation would require, and staff worked with the City Attorney to create the document attached here for the Council to review and amend/approve.  Once the Council has determined the final format for this document, it will ultimately be signed by the mayor and vendor before it takes effect.  For any vendor agreements concerning the use of City property other than that in a park, a public hearing is a required part of the process as well.  The pieces of the attached draft agreement that are highlighted indicate where the boilerplate document provided by the City Attorney was completed with specific information for this ATM installation. The interested vendor currently operates and maintains an ATM machine at the City's Mini Park, adjacent to the ferry holding lanes.  If this proposed installation is agreeable to all parties, the new machine would be installed in plenty of time for what is envisioned as its peak use period. Attachments Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D DDA Agreement Packet Page 378 of 586 Exhibit D DDA Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 12/23/2014 11:21 AM Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 12/23/2014 11:33 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/29/2014 07:06 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/29/2014 08:33 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/29/2014 08:33 AM Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 11/26/2014 01:24 PM Final Approval Date: 12/29/2014  Packet Page 379 of 586 Packet Page 380 of 586 Packet Page 381 of 586 Packet Page 382 of 586 Packet Page 383 of 586 Packet Page 384 of 586 Packet Page 385 of 586 Packet Page 386 of 586 CONCESSION AGREEMENT COMES NOW, the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”) and Dog Day Afternoon, Inc., (hereinafter “Concessionaire”) under the terms and conditions set forth herein: 1. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this Concession Agreement is to authorize the temporary use as described herein of approximately 20 square feet of the under-soffit area at the south side of the City Hall front doors at 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020 [description of location]. This Concession Agreement is a legislative action of the Edmonds City Council, and as provided herein, may be terminated by the Council at any time. The Concessionaire is authorized to use the location to install and maintain an ATM machine for public use. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to relieve the Concessionaire of obtaining the approval of any necessary state or local entity, including requirements to obtain any necessary business and street use permits as referenced in this Agreement. 2. Premises. This Concession Agreement authorizes the use of approximately 20 square feet of the under-soffit area at the south side of the City Hall front doors at 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020 (hereinafter the “Premises”) by Concessionaire. This location is shown on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 3. Undertakings of Concessionaire. In consideration of the benefits of this Agreement, the Concessionaire promises and agrees to: 3.1 Utilize the leased Premises for the maintenance of an ATM machine, shown on the attached Exhibits B and C, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 3.2 Pay to the City a sum equal to ten percent (10%) of Concessionaire’s gross receipts per month. Such sum shall be paid on or before the first day of each month. Any payment not received by the fifth (5th) business day of each month shall be subject to a twenty-five dollar ($25) service charge, and an additional service charge of twenty-five dollars ($25) shall be added for every period of five (5) business days thereafter. Failure to remit this payment by the 15th day of each month shall be grounds for immediate termination of this Concession Agreement. 3.3 Obtain a business license from the City for this location in accordance with the Edmonds City Code. 3.4 Provide as part of the street use permit process a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional named insured. The policy shall provide public liability protection in the minimum amount of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in aggregate. The insurance policy shall be primary as to any other policy of Packet Page 387 of 586 insurance. It shall provide that the policy may not be cancelled except upon the provision of thirty (30) days written notice to the City. 3.5 Refrain from sales of retail goods or services other than the goods or services covered by this Agreement. 3.6 Indemnify and hold harmless, on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs and assigns, the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, loss or liability of any kind or nature arising from or out of the use of the Premises and/or the terms and conditions of this Agreement. To the extent necessary to enforce this promise, the Concessionaire as a part of the negotiation of the provisions of this Agreement, waives the immunities of Title 51 RCW to, but only to, the limited extent necessary to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees. 3.7 Concessionaire may terminate this Agreement on the provision of thirty (30) days written notice to the City. 3.8 In the event of termination, Concessionaire shall restore the site to its original condition and remove all structures, temporary or permanent, by the date of termination. The City may, at its option, seize any personal property, temporary structure or other object or item left on the site and sell it in the event that it is not removed by the date of termination set in the notice from Concessionaire. The City may, at its option, restore the site and bill Concessionaire for the reasonable cost of restoration of the site to its original condition. If Concessionaire fails to pay the sum within thirty (30) days, the parties agree that the City may forward the sum to a collection agency for recovery. Concessionaire shall be responsible for any costs associated with such recovery, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and the charges of the collection agency. 4. Obligations of the City. The City agrees that it will: 4.1 Make available the Premises for the purpose of public use of an ATM machine; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to authorize the sale of other retail goods or services. 4.2 The City Council, in its sole legislative discretion, reserves the right under this Agreement to terminate its provisions at any time upon the provision of forty-eight (48) hours written notice. In addition, the City Council reserves the right to seek proposals for the leased Premises or any other property or unopened right of way of the City for competitive bids from other vendors at such time and through such a process as in its sole discretion shall determine appropriate. The Concessionaire shall be provided an opportunity in any such future process to make a proposal on the same terms as other proposals, but shall have no competitive advantage in the process. The lease payments provided in paragraph 3.2 above are specifically set at a lower rate than market rates to acknowledge that this Concession Agreement is terminable at will. In the event of termination by the City, the City shall return a pro-rata portion of any prepaid rent. Packet Page 388 of 586 5. No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned without the express approval of the Edmonds City Council, which may be withheld for any lawful reason or purpose. 6. Term. This Agreement, unless earlier terminated as herein provided, shall expire on December 31, 2020. The City may allow a holdover period to permit processing an application for renewal where, due to no fault of the applicant, the City is unable to complete its review, including a required public hearing, before the expiration date. 7. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties. It shall not be amended except in writing with the express written consent of the parties hereto. DONE this __________ day of ____________________, 2014. Dog Day Afternoon, Inc. ___________________________ Its: ___________________ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ______________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath and stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the ____________________ of _________________________, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: ______________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Printed Name: _______________________ My commission expires: Packet Page 389 of 586 CITY OF EDMONDS ______________________ Dave Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: _______________________ Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 390 of 586    AM-7403     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:25 Minutes   Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion of the Draft Housing Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update Recommendation Provide any questions, comments or direction on the draft updated Housing Element.   (Note:  No final action may occur until the entire draft updated Comprehensive Plan is ready.) Previous Council Action On August 26, 2014, the City Council heard and discussed a presentation on affordable housing needs, as provided by the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett.  (See Exhibit 5.) On October 28, 2014, the City Council heard and discussed a presentation on the Edmonds' Housing Profile, as provided by the Alliance for Housing Affordability to inform the Comprehensive Plan update.  (See Exhibit 6.) On December 2, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft Housing Element that had been recommended by the Planning Board. Narrative GENERAL BACKGROUND A major review and update of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-2015. Previously, the City conducted an analysis, based on state guidance, and found that the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan was mostly in compliance with Growth Management requirements. The biggest need is to substitute current data for the old data (some of which is 10-15 years old). Because of the short timeline, the Planning Board and City Council have concurred that the update can be basic in nature, focusing primarily on: (a) refreshing the data and supporting materials; (b) considering modest changes to reflect new information and expectations through the year 2035, as well as state guidance; and (c) adding performance measures and, as appropriate, action steps--generally one of each for each major Plan element.  Each major element is being considered for updating on a schedule previously reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council. While preliminary direction can be provided by the Board and Council after reviewing each draft updated element, a final decision on the entire Comprehensive Plan update is expected in mid-2015. Public hearings and other public information will be part of the process. Packet Page 391 of 586 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND The Growth Management Act (GMA) includes a broad goal for housing:   --"Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock."   Also, the GMA identifies certain things each housing element of a Comprehensive Plan must contain.  More state guidance is provided in the Washington Administrative Code.  Furthermore, the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies provide direction for city and county approaches to housing.  In addition, Puget Sound Regional Council (our regional planning organization) addresses housing in VISION 2040 (our regional plan), and as technical assistance, has developed a "tool kit" of housing information and ideas.  (Note:  The GMA requires city and county comprehensive plans to be consistent with countywide and regional plans.)    On August 26, the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett made a presentation to the City Council about countywide housing needs, especially related to affordability and our region’s growing population. (See the attached slide presentation—Exhibit 5.) This includes important countywide data related to the need for affordable housing. Our city is also partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through AHA, an” affordable housing profile” has been prepared for each participating jurisdiction.  A presentation on the profile for Edmonds was made to the City Council on October 28 and is attached as Exhibit 6.  The full Edmonds Housing Profile (Exhibit 7, attached) has extensive data on housing in Edmonds. (NOTE: The Profile looks at housing affordability mostly from the perspective of the entire metropolitan region, which includes Seattle, while the information in Exhibit 5 from the Housing Coalition looks at housing affordability based just on the Snohomish County area--not including Seattle.)  Some of the Housing Profile data is incorporated directly into the new draft Housing Element. The key take-away from both reports is that Edmonds--like other cities in our region--needs more housing units over the next 20 years AND more affordable housing that will serve a broad spectrum of future needs. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE “Housing” comprises a major element of the Comprehensive Plan. The city's existing Housing Element covers a timeframe to 2025 and features data from the 2000 Census, with some comparisons to 1990. It also includes goals and policies.  Based on 2010 Census data, Housing Profile data, and other information, a new draft Housing Element update has been prepared. (See Exhibit 1 for the draft updated Housing Element, showing tracked changes from the existing version. See Exhibit 2 for the same draft updated Housing Element--but as a "clean" document, not showing the difference between old and new.)  The draft Housing Element extends the timeframe out another ten years--to 2035, incorporates new data, and simplifies some language in the goals and policies.  It also adds one performance measure and one year-specific implementation action.  The proposed housing performance measure--the number of permitted housing units per year--was chosen, based on it being meaningful to the topic and easy to measure and report each year.  Because housing is a complex topic, with many options for city involvement and policy direction, the draft Housing Element does not go into detail about how housing goals can be achieved.  Rather, an "implementation action step" has been proposed for a strategy with more details to be developed and Packet Page 392 of 586 considered in the near future.  This proposed action step is:   --"Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs." The Planning Board had three public meetings in 2014 (September 24, October 22, and November 12) related to updating the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element.  Minutes from the first two meetings are attached as Exhibit 3.  Minutes from the third meeting are attached as Exhibit 4.  The third meeting included a recommendation to move forward the draft updated Housing Element to the City Council. A public hearing on the draft updated Housing Element was held at the December 2, 2014 City Council meeting.  No one from the public testified. NEXT STEPS --City Council discussion at a Study Session (January 13, 2015) and any additional direction on the Housing Element; --Continuing preparation of draft 2015 updates to the Comprehensive Plan on other subjects (such as land use and transportation); --More opportunities for public information and input, for example,an open house on the entire 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update process to be held in February 2015; --A Planning Board public hearing and a City Council public hearing on the full draft Comprehensive Plan update in the spring of 2015; A recommendation by the Planning Board and a final decision by the City Council on adopting the full draft Comprehensive Plan update by mid-2015. Attachments Exhibit 1: Housing Element with Tracked Changes Exhibit 2: Draft Housing Element, "Clean Version" with Edits Included Exhibit 3: Planning Approved Minutes Exhibit 4: Planning Approved Minutes of 11.12.14 Exhibit 5: Housing Coalition Presentation Exhibit 6: AHA Housing Presentation Exhibit 7: Housing Profile Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/08/2015 12:03 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/08/2015 01:22 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2015 01:23 PM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 01/08/2015 08:59 AM Final Approval Date: 01/08/2015  Packet Page 393 of 586 Housing Element Introduction. This section looks at the character and diversity of housing in the City of Edmonds. Part of this process includes looking at housing types and affordability. The goal of this section is to provide the necessary information to anticipate housing needs. A. General Background Housing Stock and Type According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 13,05418,378 housing units within the City of Edmonds in 19942010. This represents an increase of less than one percent5% in the city's housing stock since 19902000, when there were 12,94517,508 dwelling housing units (1990 2000 US Census). In comparison, over the period 1980-19901990-2000, the city's housing stock grew 21 percent35.2%, or approximately 1.9 percent3.5% per year. Housing stock declined (less than 1%) between 1990 and 1992, but grew (approximately 1%) between 1992 and 1994.This increase can largely be explained by annexations occurring during the 1990s in the south and southwest portions of the city. Table 79 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for the City of Edmonds. Of the total stock of housing in 19942010, 8,67511,685 (66 percent63.6%) were single family units, 4,2296,664 (32 percent36.3%) were multi-family units, and 150 29 (2 percent0.2%) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of single-family homes (63.6% vs. 66.9%, respectively) and mobile homes (0.2% vs. 6.8%, respectively) and a higher proportion of multi-family homes (36.3% vs. 26.4%, respectively). a higher percentage of single-family homes and a lower proportion of multi-family and mobile homes/trailers. Much of the existing housing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 as Edmonds expanded up Main Street, through Five Corners, over to the west side of Lake Ballinger. As part of the greater Seattle metropolitan area, Edmonds experienced growth earlier than most in Snohomish County. Table 8 City of Edmonds Housing Growth Housing Units Increase Percentage Increase Average Annual Increase Census: 1980 10,702 1990 12,945 2,243 21.0% 1.9% 2000 17,508 4,563 35.2% 3.1% Growth Target: 2025 20,587 3,079 17.6% 0.7% Source: US Census; OFM, Snohomish County Tomorrow. Table 7 City of Edmonds Housing Growth Housing Units Increase Percentage Increase Average Annual Increase Census: 1980 10,702 1990 12,945 2,243 21.0% 1.9% 2000 17,508 4,563 35.2% 3.1% Growth Target: 2010 2035 18,378 21,168 870 2,790 5.0% 15.2% 0.5% 0.6% Source: US Census; OFM; Snohomish County Tomorrow Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Intro, Indent: Left: 0" Formatted: Lead-in Emphasis Packet Page 394 of 586 4 Source: City of Edmonds Figure 155: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey Between 1990 and 1994, the City annexed three parcels of land totaling approximately .059 square miles. The parcels included 64 housing units and 146 residents. These units accounted for most of the growth (57%) in the city's housing stock since 1990. Household Characteristics In 2000, there were 17,508 housing units in Edmonds. This was an increase of over 35% in the number of housing units in the city compared to 1990 (12,945). As noted earlier, this increase can largely be explained by annexations. Over the same period, the average number of persons per housing unit declined from 2.59 persons in 1980 to 2.37 persons in 1990, with a further decline to 2.26 persons in 2000 (US Census). The average household size showed a similar trend, falling to 2.32 persons per household by 2000. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds had fewer people per household in 1990 (2.37 vs. 2.68, respectively) and in 2000 (2.32 vs. 2.65). Average household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.26 people by 2025 (City of Edmonds, 2004). Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish County, taken as a whole. In 1990, the median age of Edmonds residents was 38.3 years, compared with 32.2 years Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: 9 pt, Bold Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 9 pt Formatted: Centered Packet Page 395 of 586 countywide. By 2000, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 42.0 years. Within the city, a large percentage of retired and elderly persons 62-years old and over reside in the downtown area (census tracts 504 and 505). At the time of the 2010 Census, the total number of occupied homes in the City of Edmonds was 17,381. The average household size has declined since 1990, when it was 2.37 persons. In 2000, the persons per household declined to 2.32 persons, and in 2010, to 2.26 persons. The average household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.20 people by 2035 (Snohomish County Tomorrow, 2013). Understanding how the City’s population is changing offers insight for planning housing types that will be in demand (fig. 16). Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years, compared with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3 years, compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, population growth of Edmonds residents 14 years of age and younger shrank in each age category (fig. 17). A natural increase in population is likely to decline as an aging female population ages beyond childbearing age. These trends are consistent with national trends. Figure 165: Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 75 - 79 80 - 84 85 - 89 90 + 2010 2000 Male Female Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Packet Page 396 of 586 Figure 17: Population Growth, Children 14 Years of Age and Younger Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of Snohomish County as a whole. Median 1990 2000 household income in Edmonds was $40,51553,552, nearly 10 percent higher thanequivalent to the county's median level of $36,84753,060 for the same period (1990 2000 US Census). By the 2000 2010 census, Edmonds’ median household income had increased to $53,55273,072, but this was nearly equivalent to7% higher than the County median of $53,06068,338 (Edmonds was less than 136.5%% higher). This is in contrast to per capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish County ($30,07643,598 vs. $23,41731,310, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds’ relatively smaller household sizes. Housing Ownership: According to the 1990 2000 Census, 65.3 percent68.1% of the housing units within the city were owner-occupied and 32.1 percent31.9% were renter-occupied. This represented a declinean increase in owner-occupancy from the 67.1 percent65.3% reported in the 1980 1990 Census. By 20002010, this trend had reversedcontinued, with 68.169% percent of the City’s housing occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing occupancy is similar for Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were slightly lowerhigher in 19902010, at 66 percent67%. Within Edmonds, ownership patterns vary significantly between neighborhoods; between 85 and 92 percent of homes along the waterfront were owner-occupied in 1990, compared with just over 50 percent east of Highway 99. Housing Values: According to the 1990 Census, housing values are considerably higher in the City of Edmonds than in Snohomish County as a whole. In 1990,2012 ACS 3-year data, the median value of owner-occupied units in Edmonds was $160,100, approximately 26 percent higher than the countywide median of $127,200. By 2000, the median value of owner-occupied housing had increased to $238,200 in Edmonds and $196,500 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds approximately Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: Left: 0.25", Space Before: 12 pt, No page break before, Keep with next Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Bold Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Bold Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Bold Packet Page 397 of 586 21 percent higher than the countywide median. had increased to $394,400 in Edmonds and $311,600 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds approximately 26.6% higher than the countywide medien. Within Edmonds, median housing values vary considerably between neighborhoods; the highest valued homes are found along the waterfront, while the lowest values are found within interior neighborhoods and east of Highway 99. Housing Affordability: For the purposes of calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this document uses the median income for the Seattle-Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) instead of the Snohomish County Area Median Income (AMI). The Seattle-Bellevue AMI will be used as Edmonds is considered a suburb of Seattle, not Everett. The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle- Bellevue is $88,000, which is higher than Snohomish County’s 2012 AMI of $68,338. The 2012 median household income for Edmonds is $73,072. AMI is an important calculation used by many agencies to measure housing affordability. Standard income levels are as follows: • Extremely low income: <30% AMI • Very Low Income: between 30 and 50% AMI • Low Income: between 50 and 80% AMI • Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI • Middle Income: between 95 and 120% AMI Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), table 8 provides a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect to pay for rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units. Housing sizes and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the home are listed. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on average $1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an annual income of $67,160. Table 87: Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities) Formatted: Intro Formatted: Intro, Indent: Left: 0", Space Before: 0 pt Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Packet Page 398 of 586 Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014 Table 9 shows the distribution of rent affordability at different income levels using the Seattle- Bellevue AMI. “Yes” means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level, adjusting for size, “Limited” means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end affordable units, and “No” means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four bedroom home is not affordable for persons with a household income at 80% or below of the HFMA AMI. Table 98: Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds Number of Bedrooms Income Level Studio 1 2 3 4+ Extremely Low No No No No No Very Low Limited limited Limited Limited No Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013 Between 2008 and 2012, 85% of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size according to County records. According to tax assessor data, the 2012 median sales price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20% down payment and using average rates of interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income. Figure 189 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has changed between 2008 and 2012. Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.25", Space Before: 12 pt Packet Page 399 of 586 Figure 189: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013 State Housing Policy Act – In 1993, Washington State enacted a Housing Policy Act (SB 5584) which is directed toward developing an adequate and affordable supply of housing for all economic segments of the population. The Act establishes an affordable housing advisory board that, together with the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (DCTED), is required to prepare a five-year housing advisory plan. The plan must document the need for affordable housing in the state; identify the extent to which the needs are being met through public and private programs; facilitate development of plans to meet affordable housing needs; and develop strategies and programs for affordable housing. DCTED is directed to provide technical assistance and information to local governments to assist in the identification and removal of regulatory barriers to the development of affordable housing. The Act also requires that by December 31, 1994, all local governments of communities with populations over 20,000 must adopt regulations that permit accessory units in residential zones. The Act also requires that communities treat special needs populations in the same manner as other households living in single family units. Edmonds has updated its development regulations to comply with both of these requirements. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy – Jurisdictions receiving financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are required to prepare a Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan. The plan must identify the community’s housing, social service and community development needs for the next five years. The plan describes how HUD funds will be used to address the identified needs. In addition, the plan must be updated annually to include the most recent spending program and demonstrate that funding decisions respond to the strategies and objectives cited in the five-year plan. The Snohomish County Consortium, which includes Edmonds and 18 other cities and towns along with unincorporated Snohomish County, is responsible for the plan, and through Snohomish County’s Department of Housing and Community Development, also prepares a yearly report called the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). This catalogs and analyzes the status of Consolidated Plan goals and is published for public review on a yearly basis. Key goals of the consolidated housing plan include: 1) Provide decent housing, including • assisting homeless persons to obtain affordable housing; Formatted: Intro, Centered Formatted: Intro, Centered Packet Page 400 of 586 • retaining affordable housing stock; • increasing the availability of permanent housing that is affordable and available without discrimination; and • increasing supportive housing that includes structural features and services to enable persons with special needs to live in dignity. 2) Provide a suitable living environment, including • improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods; • increasing access to quality facilities and services; • reducing the isolation of income groups within areas by deconcentrating housing opportunities and revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods; • restoring and preserving natural and physical features of special value for historic, architectural, or aesthetic reasons; and • conserving energy resources. 3) Expand economic opportunities, including • creating jobs for low income persons; • providing access to credit for community development that promotes long-term economic an social viability; and • assisting residents of federally assisted and public housing achieve self-sufficiency. The main purpose of the Consolidated Plan is to develop strategies to meet the identified housing needs. These strategies are implemented through funding decisions which distribute HUD funds to local housing programs. Strategies to achieve the goals and needs identified in the Consolidated Plan include: • Increase the number of subsidized rental apartments affordable to households with incomes of up to 50% of area median income through (1) new construction, (2) acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing units, (3) provision of rent subsidies, and (4) preservation of HUD Section 8 or similar subsidized housing in non-profit ownership where there is the risk of converting these units to market-rate housing. • Provide support for operation of existing homeless shelters and construction of needed shelters in under-served areas and for under-served populations. Increase the inventory of transitional housing for households needing assistance to move from homelessness to self-sufficiency. • Provide support for the operation and development of transitional and permanent housing and service programs for people with special needs. Packet Page 401 of 586 • Help low-income people to stay in their homes and maintain current housing stock through home repair, rehabilitation, and weatherization services. • Increase the incidence of home ownership using self-help construction, manufactured housing, homebuyer education, and mortgage assistance programs. • Improve the processes for utilizing grant funds allocated to the county. • Enhance the resources that can be used for housing production. • Utilized the expertise of housing providers who will create a stable and well- maintained low-income housing stock to expand the subsidized housing inventory in the community. • Address the unmet public facility needs of low-income households and neighborhoods. • Address the unmet basic infrastructure needs of low-income households and neighborhoods. • Support programs that provide for the well-being of youth by providing services such as case management, life-skills training, health care and recreation. • Support programs that assist low-income elderly citizens, where appropriate and cost- effective, to remain in their homes by providing housing repairs and reasonable modifications to accommodate disabilities and by supporting provision of supportive services. • Support services which address the most urgent needs of low-income and moderate- income populations and neighborhoods. • Support eligible local planning and administration costs incident to operation of HUD grant programs. Housing Needs: Edmonds is projected to grow from a 2010 population of 39,709 to 45,550 by 2035. This translates to an increase of 2,790 housing units in the city. The Buildable Lands Report for Snohomish County indicates that the majority of this increase will be in redevelopment occurring on multifamily properties, including mixed use projects. Because the City of Edmonds does not construct housing itself, the housing targets are helpful in assessing needs and providing a sense of the policy challenges that exist. Future housing needs will be met by a combination of the housing market, housing authorities, and governmental housing agencies. However, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing needs, such as adjusting zoning and land use regulations. The City may also be able to assist in supporting the quality of housing through progressive building codes and programs for healthy living. Forecasting future housing needs for specific populations and income ranges is difficult. One method to arrive at an initial estimate of housing needs is to take the Edmonds’ housing target (2,790) and apply the countywide breakdown for each income group. Data shown in table 10 is based on Packet Page 402 of 586 household income from the 5-year American Community Survey in 2007-2011. The City of Edmonds will take into account local population and housing characteristics when determining housing targets. Table 10: Projected Housing Need, City of EdmondsSnohomish County calculates housing needs based on households earning less than 95 percent of the county median income and paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for gross housing costs. Gross housing costs include rent and utility costs for renters and principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and any homeowner-fees for owners. Countywide, in 1990, 36,888 households countywide met the criteria for households in need; by 2000, this had increased to 55,361 households. There are expected to be an additional 28,557 low- and moderate-income households with housing needs by 2025 throughout the County. There were 2,601 households with need in Edmonds in 1990, and this had increased to 3,951 by 2000. It is anticipated that this will increase to 4,395 by 2025. The following chart shows how segments of the household population – and the relative cost burden of housing – are changing over time. Low- and moderate-income households have increased in number, and are a slightly higher proportion of Edmonds’ households compared to 1990. The implication is that affordable housing will continue to be an important issue throughout the planning horizon. Jurisdiction Total Housing Unit Growth Need Under 30% AMI Housing Need (11% of Total) 30-50% AMI Housing Need (11% of Total) 50-80% AMI Housing Need (17% of Total) Edmonds 2,790 307 307 474 Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County,” 2014 As previously mentioned, the median age of Edmonds residents is the highest in Snohomish County at 46.3 years compared to 37.1 years countywide (2010 Census). In 2011, the Baby Boom generation started turning 65 years of age and represents what demographers project as the fastest growing age group over the next 20 years. An older population will require specific needs if they are to “age in place.” In Edmonds, the effects may be particularly strong. Developing healthy, walkable communities with nearby retail and transit options will help an aging population retain their independence. Formatted: Normal Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.75", First line: 0.25", Space Before: 18 pt, After: 12 pt, Keep with next, Keep lines together Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Normal Formatted Table Formatted: Normal Packet Page 403 of 586 Source: 2004 Supplement to Technical Report Fair Share Housing Allocation, Snohomish County Tomorrow Snohomish County and its cities, through countywide planning policies, has used an allocation model to elaborate on the indicated level of need for affordable housing in the county. The county applies two factors to the number of households in need to give areas credit for their existing stock of low- cost housing and assign them responsibility to house a portion of low-wage employees in the jurisdiction. The purpose of these factors is to provide indicators of the relative housing need for jurisdictions based on the model’s assumptions. In 2000, Edmonds' adjusted number of households in need was 5,322 households; this is projected to increase to 5,885 by 2025 – an increase of 564 households. Therefore, Edmonds has a continuing need to provide affordable, low-cost housing within the city. Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD-assisted developments providing a total of 87 units for low-income, elderly senior residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than doubled by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted care living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs. Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002. The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for 187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66 residents in 1995. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Space Before: 12 pt, After: 0 pt Packet Page 404 of 586 Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage availability of resources to insure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation; preservation of light (including direct sunlight), privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution; and; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies encourage strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more active and vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of significant public and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and preservation of historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and reservation of sufficient sites suited for a variety of commercial uses. Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock; maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing for elderly, disabled and low-income householdsfor special needs populations, such as senior, disabled and low-income households. These goals are supported by policies which include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and affirmative measures to support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion of the types of housing available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi-family housing; flexible development standards; and review and revision of development regulations, including assessing the feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting; implementing administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings. B. Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong monitoring program with mid-course correction features (see the discussion below). C. Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing. In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include: Land Use Strategies • Upzoning. The City has upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+ square foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The City has also approved changes from single family to multi family zoning in designated corridor areas to provide more housing units at reduced cost to consumers.to its zoning codes to encourage more multifamilydevelopment in mixed use areas, especially in corridors served by transit (e.g. Highway 99 along the Swift high capacity transit corridor). Formatted: Intro, Indent: Left: 0" Formatted: Intro, Indent: Left: 0" Formatted: Font: Italic Packet Page 405 of 586 • Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type, making the density obtainable at lower site development cost. • Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same approval process as that of a subdivision. • Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also now be used to encourage infill development and flexible housing types. • Infill Development. The City’s principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall plan direction has been termed “designed infill” and can be seen in the City’s emphasis and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods. • Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a new historic preservation program intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, especially in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the updated plans and regulations for the Downtown/ Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that can help businesses move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or mixed use spaces. An example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places to get an exception for parking for projects that retain the historic character of the site. Administrative Procedures • Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting timelines and providing some an increased degree of certainty to the process. The City continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2003 2011 was 39 36 days, less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State’s Regulatory Reform act. • Use-by-Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards, potentially allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing Examiner hearing process. Packet Page 406 of 586 • Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City’s traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing “carrying costs” of financing. Development Standards • Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City’s zones have no front or side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard setbacks. • Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City’s PRD process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision. • Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a ‘complete streets’ policy. Street standards are reviewed and updated on a consistent basisperiodically, taking advantage of new technologies whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city’s codes is underway. • Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use of these in both mixed use and residential developments. • Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multi family development and in some mixed use areas, thereby reducing housing costs and encouraging more housing in areas that are walkable or served by transit. • . The City also simplified and streamlined its parking requirements for the downtown mixed use area, thereby encouraging housing downtown. • Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Low-Cost Housing Types • Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations, providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any single family lot. • Cottage housing developments. The City is exploring this option, although it would be expected to have limited application. • Mixed-use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap, and this – combined other regulatory changes – has resulted in residential floor space drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area. Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use development regulations have been updated and intensified in are being prepared for application in the Hospital/Highway 99 Activity Center as well as along Highway 99. Packet Page 407 of 586 • Mobile/manufactured housing. The City’s regulation of manufactured homes has been revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones. Housing Production & Preservation Programs • Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes, intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community. Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) in Snohomish County, which is a consortium of cities pooling resources to collectively address housing needs in the county. • • For-profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are aimed at the for-profit building market. The City’s budget restrictions limit its ability to directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is intended to collaborate on housing strategies countywide. Housing Financing Strategies • State / Federal resourcesFederal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important inter-jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs. Jurisdictions face challenges inThere will be difficulty meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current affordable housing deficit. The cityEdmonds is a mature community with limited opportunities for new development nearly fully developed and has limited powers and resources to produce subsidized housing on its own. However, , it is hoped that Edmonds’ participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such as the Alliance for Affordable Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future. funding projects (such as non-profit organizations funded by the cities of Kirkland, Redmond and Bellevue) would help to mitigate these impacts. GOALS AND POLICIES Goal - Housing Goal AI. - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 1. There should beEncourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Formatted: Normal Formatted: Heading 2 Formatted: Font: Bold Packet Page 408 of 586 D. Housing Goal B.Goal - Housing I - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 2. EInsure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing. in accordance with the following policy: E. Housing Goal C. Provide for special needs populations – such as low income, disabled, or senior residents – Goal - Housing II - Low Income, Elderly and Disabled Housing. to have aA decent home in a heathly and suitable living, including through environment for each household in accordance with the following policies: E.1. C.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for the special needs populations, such as low income, elderly and disabled, or senior citizensresidents. E.2. C.2. The City should wWork with the Washington Housing ServiceAlliance for Housing Affordability and other agencies to: E.2.a. C.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources; E.2.b. C.2.b. Determine the programs which will work best for the community. E.2.c. C.2.c. Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all forms of individual and group housing within the community. F. Housing Goal D. Goal - Housing III - Housing Rehabilitation. Preserve and rehabilitate the stock ofMaintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community in order to maintain a valuable housing resource in accordance with through the following policies: F.1. D.1. Program should be developed which Support programs that offers free or low cost minor home maintenance service toassistance to households in need, such as units with low income, elderly or handicapped or senior personshouseholders. F.2. D.2. Building code enforcement should be utilizedEnforce building codes, as appropriate, to conserve healthy neighborhoods and encourage rehabilitation of those housing that show signs of deterioration. F.3. D.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households that are displaced as a result of any community action. F.4. D.4. Evaluate CCity ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings. G. Housing Goal E. Goal. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized housing, if need be) for elderlyspecial needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, and low income, and senior residents in proportion to the population of Edmonds in accordance with through the following policies: Formatted: Intro Packet Page 409 of 586 E.1. The City should aAggressively pursue support efforts to funds to the construction of housing for elderlyseniors, disabled and low income, and other special needs populations, while recognizing that u. Units should blend into the neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to to the area and create pride for inhabitants. G.1. [Ord. 2527 §3, 1985.] G.2. E.2. Aim for cCity zoning regulations should to expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all special needs populations. H. Housing Goal F. Goal: Provide for a variety of housing for all segments of the city that is consistent and compatible withrespects the established character of the community. H.1. F.1. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities. H.1.a. F.1.a. Provide for mixed use, multi family and single family housing that is targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in the land use element. H.2. F.2. Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of the surrounding neighborhood. H.2.a. F.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by considering innovative single family development patterns such as Planned Residential Developments (PRDs). H.2.b. F.2.b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods that to addresses the needs of extended families and encourages housing affordability. H.2.c. F.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as non-conforming lots, when development in these situations will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to provide affordable single family housing. I. Housing Goal G. Goal: Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. I.1. G.1. Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers’ economic activities and transit service. I.1.a. G.1.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers. I.1.b. G.1.b. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities. I.1.c. G.1.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers to provide incentives for lower-cost housing when justified by available transit service. Packet Page 410 of 586 J. Housing Goal H. Goal: Government should rReview and monitor its permitting processes and regulatory structures systems to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing. J.1. H.1. Provide the maximum amount of certainty efficiency and predictability in government permitting processes. J.1.a. H.1.a. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve this objectivepredictability and efficiency, including such ideas as: ..establishing time limits for permitting processes; ..developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes; ..implementing administrative permitting procedures; ..using pre-application processes to highlight problems early. J.2. H.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes. J.2.a. H.2.a. Monitoring programs should be established to review the types and effectiveness of government regulations and incentives, in order to assess whether they are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted to meet new challenges. Housing Goal I. Goal: Opportunities for increasing the affordability ofIncrease affordable housing opportunities in have the best chance for success if they are coordinated with programs that seek to achieve other community goals as well. K. I.1. Research housing affordability and program options that address Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.Housing affordability should be researched and programs developed that address multiple Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. K.1. I.2. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals. K.1.a. I.2.a. New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated with programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and transit-friendly development, and that encourage economic development. L. Housing Goal J. Goal: Recognize that iIn addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing. L.1. J.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood. L.1.a. J.1.a. Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood conservation should be researched and established to continue the character of Edmonds’ residential and mixed use neighborhoods. Packet Page 411 of 586 J.1.b. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses. Implementation Actions and Performance Measures. Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address high priority sustainability goals. Performance measures are specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that can be reported on an annual basis. These are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of this element. The actions and measures identified here are specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or measures that may be used by the City. Action 1: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Performance Measure 1: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling units per year. L.1.b. Formatted: Intro Formatted: Policy 2 Packet Page 412 of 586 Housing Element Introduction. This section looks at the character and diversity of housing in the City of Edmonds. Part of this process includes looking at housing types and affordability. The goal of this section is to provide the necessary information to anticipate housing needs. General Background According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 18,378 housing units within the City of Edmonds in 2010. This represents an increase of 5% in the city's housing stock since 2000, when there were 17,508 housing units (2000 US Census). In comparison, over the period 1990-2000, the city's housing stock grew 35.2%, or approximately 3.5% per year. This increase can largely be explained by annexations occurring during the 1990s in the south and southwest portions of the city. Table 7 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for the City of Edmonds. Of the total stock of housing in 2010, 11,685 (63.6%) were single family units, 6,664 (36.3%) were multi-family units, and 29 (0.2%) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of single-family homes (63.6% vs. 66.9%, respectively) and mobile homes (0.2% vs. 6.8%, respectively) and a higher proportion of multi-family homes (36.3% vs. 26.4%, respectively). Much of the existing housing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 as Edmonds expanded up Main Street, through Five Corners, over to the west side of Lake Ballinger. As part of the greater Seattle metropolitan area, Edmonds experienced growth earlier than most in Snohomish County. Table 7 City of Edmonds Housing Growth Housing Units Increase Percentage Increase Average Annual Increase Census: 1980 10,702 1990 12,945 2,243 21.0% 1.9% 2000 17,508 4,563 35.2% 3.1% Growth Target: 2010 2035 18,378 21,168 870 2,790 5.0% 15.2% 0.5% 0.6% Source: US Census; OFM; Snohomish County Tomorrow Packet Page 413 of 586 Figure 15: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey Household Characteristics At the time of the 2010 Census, the total number of occupied homes in the City of Edmonds was 17,381. The average household size has declined since 1990, when it was 2.37 persons. In 2000, the persons per household declined to 2.32 persons, and in 2010, to 2.26 persons. The average household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.20 people by 2035 (Snohomish County Tomorrow, 2013). Understanding how the City’s population is changing offers insight for planning housing types that will be in demand (fig. 16). Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years, compared with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3 years, compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, population growth of Edmonds residents 14 years of age and younger shrank in each age category (fig. 17). A natural increase in population is likely to decline as an aging female population ages beyond childbearing age. These trends are consistent with national trends. Packet Page 414 of 586 Figure 16: Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Figure 17: Population Growth, Children 14 Years of Age and Younger Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 75 - 79 80 - 84 85 - 89 90 + 2010 2000 Male Female Packet Page 415 of 586 Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of Snohomish County as a whole. Median 2000 household income in Edmonds was $53,552, nearly equivalent to the county's median level of $53,060 for the same period (2000 US Census). By the 2010 census, Edmonds’ median household income had increased to $73,072, nearly 7% higher than the County median of $68,338 (Edmonds was 36.5%% higher). This is in contrast to per capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish County ($43,598 vs. $31,310, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds’ relatively smaller household sizes. Housing Ownership: According to the 2000 Census, 68.1% of the housing units within the city were owner-occupied and 31.9% were renter-occupied. This represented an increase in owner-occupancy from the 65.3% reported in the 1990 Census. By 2010, this trend continued, with 69% of the City’s housing occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing occupancy is similar for Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were slightly lower in 2010, at 67%. Housing Values: According to the 2012 ACS 3-year data, the median value of owner-occupied units had increased to $394,400 in Edmonds and $311,600 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds approximately 26.6% higher than the countywide medien. Within Edmonds, median housing values vary considerably between neighborhoods; the highest valued homes are found along the waterfront, while the lowest values are found within interior neighborhoods and east of Highway 99. Housing Affordability: For the purposes of calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this document uses the median income for the Seattle-Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) instead of the Snohomish County Area Median Income (AMI). The Seattle-Bellevue AMI will be used as Edmonds is considered a suburb of Seattle, not Everett. The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle- Bellevue is $88,000, which is higher than Snohomish County’s 2012 AMI of $68,338. The 2012 median household income for Edmonds is $73,072. AMI is an important calculation used by many agencies to measure housing affordability. Standard income levels are as follows: • Extremely low income: <30% AMI • Very Low Income: between 30 and 50% AMI • Low Income: between 50 and 80% AMI • Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI • Middle Income: between 95 and 120% AMI Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), table 8 provides a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect to pay for rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units. Housing sizes and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the home are listed. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on average $1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an annual income of $67,160. Packet Page 416 of 586 Table 8: Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities) Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014 Table 9 shows the distribution of rent affordability at different income levels using the Seattle- Bellevue AMI. “Yes” means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level, adjusting for size, “Limited” means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end affordable units, and “No” means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four bedroom home is not affordable for persons with a household income at 80% or below of the HFMA AMI. Table 9: Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds Number of Bedrooms Income Level Studio 1 2 3 4+ Extremely Low No No No No No Very Low Limited limited Limited Limited No Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013 Between 2008 and 2012, 85% of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size according to County records. According to tax assessor data, the 2012 median sales price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20% down payment and using average rates of interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income. Figure 18 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has changed between 2008 and 2012. Packet Page 417 of 586 Figure 18: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013 Housing Needs: Edmonds is projected to grow from a 2010 population of 39,709 to 45,550 by 2035. This translates to an increase of 2,790 housing units in the city. The Buildable Lands Report for Snohomish County indicates that the majority of this increase will be in redevelopment occurring on multifamily properties, including mixed use projects. Because the City of Edmonds does not construct housing itself, the housing targets are helpful in assessing needs and providing a sense of the policy challenges that exist. Future housing needs will be met by a combination of the housing market, housing authorities, and governmental housing agencies. However, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing needs, such as adjusting zoning and land use regulations. The City may also be able to assist in supporting the quality of housing through progressive building codes and programs for healthy living. Forecasting future housing needs for specific populations and income ranges is difficult. One method to arrive at an initial estimate of housing needs is to take the Edmonds’ housing target (2,790) and apply the countywide breakdown for each income group. Data shown in table 10 is based on household income from the 5-year American Community Survey in 2007-2011. The City of Edmonds will take into account local population and housing characteristics when determining housing targets. Table 10: Projected Housing Need, City of Edmonds Jurisdiction Total Housing Unit Growth Need Under 30% AMI Housing Need (11% of Total) 30-50% AMI Housing Need (11% of Total) 50-80% AMI Housing Need (17% of Total) Edmonds 2,790 307 307 474 Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County,” 2014 Packet Page 418 of 586 As previously mentioned, the median age of Edmonds residents is the highest in Snohomish County at 46.3 years compared to 37.1 years countywide (2010 Census). In 2011, the Baby Boom generation started turning 65 years of age and represents what demographers project as the fastest growing age group over the next 20 years. An older population will require specific needs if they are to “age in place.” In Edmonds, the effects may be particularly strong. Developing healthy, walkable communities with nearby retail and transit options will help an aging population retain their independence. Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD-assisted developments providing a total of 87 units for low-income, senior residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than doubled by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted care living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs. Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002. The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for 187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66 residents in 1995. Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage availability of resources to insure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation of light (including direct sunlight), privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies encourage strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more active and vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of significant public and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and preservation of historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and reservation of sufficient sites suited for a variety of commercial uses. Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock; maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing for special needs populations, such as senior, disabled and low-income households. These goals are supported by policies which include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and affirmative measures to support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion of the types of housing available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi-family housing; flexible development standards; and review and revision of development regulations, including assessing the feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting; implementing administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings. Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong monitoring program with mid-course correction features (see the discussion below). Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing. Packet Page 419 of 586 In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include: Land Use Strategies • Upzoning. The City upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+ square foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The City has also approved changes to its zoning codes to encourage more multifamilydevelopment in mixed use areas, especially in corridors served by transit (e.g. Highway 99 along the Swift high capacity transit corridor). • Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type, making the density obtainable at lower site development cost. • Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same approval process as that of a subdivision. • Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also be used to encourage infill development and flexible housing types. • Infill Development. The City’s principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall plan direction has been termed “designed infill” and can be seen in the City’s emphasis and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods. • Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a historic preservation program intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, especially in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the plans and regulations for the Downtown/Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that can help businesses move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or mixed use spaces. An example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places to get an exception for parking for projects that retain the historic character of the site. Administrative Procedures • Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting timelines and providing an increased degree of certainty to the process. The City continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established Packet Page 420 of 586 standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2011 was 36 days, less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State’s Regulatory Reform act. • Use-by-Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards, allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing Examiner hearing process. • Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City’s traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing “carrying costs” of financing. Development Standards • Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City’s zones have no front or side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard setbacks. • Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City’s PRD process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision. • Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a ‘complete streets’ policy. Street standards are reviewed and updated periodically, taking advantage of new technologies whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city’s codes is underway. • Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use of these in both mixed use and residential developments. • Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multi family development and in some mixed use areas, thereby reducing housing costs and encouraging more housing in areas that are walkable or served by transit. • Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Low-Cost Housing Types • Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations, providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any single family lot. • Mixed-use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap, and this – combined other regulatory changes – has resulted in residential floor space Packet Page 421 of 586 drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area. Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use development regulations have been updated and intensified in the Hospital/Highway 99 Activity Center as well as along Highway 99. • Mobile/manufactured housing. The City’s regulation of manufactured homes has been revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones. Housing Production & Preservation Programs • Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes, intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community. • Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) in Snohomish County, which is a consortium of cities pooling resources to collectively address housing needs in the county. • For-profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are aimed at the for-profit building market. The City’s budget restrictions limit its ability to directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is intended to collaborate on housing strategies countywide. Housing Financing Strategies • State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important inter-jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs. Jurisdictions face challenges in meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current affordable housing deficit. Edmonds is a mature community with limited opportunities for new development and has limited powers and resources to produce subsidized housing on its own. However, it is hoped that Edmonds’ participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such as the Alliance for Affordable Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future. GOALS AND POLICIES Housing Goal A. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances. Packet Page 422 of 586 Housing Goal B. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing. Housing Goal C. Provide for special needs populations – such as low income, disabled, or senior residents – to have a decent home in a heathly and suitable living, including through the following policies: C.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for special needs populations, such as low income, disabled, or senior residents. C.2. Work with the Alliance for Housing Affordability and other agencies to: C.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources; C.2.b. Determine the programs which will work best for the community. C.2.c. Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all forms of individual and group housing within the community. Housing Goal D. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community through the following policies: D.1. Support programs that offer assistance to households in need, such as units with low income or senior householders. D.2. Enforce building codes, as appropriate, to conserve healthy neighborhoods and encourage rehabilitation of housing that show signs of deterioration. D.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households that are displaced as a result of any community action. D.4. Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings. Housing Goal E. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if need be) for special needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents through the following policies: E.1. Aggressively support efforts to fund the construction of housing for seniors, low income, and other special needs populations, while recognizing that units should blend into the neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to the area and create pride for inhabitants. E.2. Aim for city zoning regulations to expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all special needs populations. Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community. Packet Page 423 of 586 F.1. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities. F.1.a. Provide for mixed use, multi family and single family housing that is targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in the land use element. F.2. Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of the surrounding neighborhood. F.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by considering innovative single family development patterns such as Planned Residential Developments (PRDs). F.2.b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods to address the needs of extended families and encourages housing affordability. F.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as non-conforming lots, when development in these situations will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to provide affordable single family housing. Housing Goal G. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. G.1. Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers’ economic activities and transit service. G.1.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers. G.1.b. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities. G.1.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers to provide incentives for lower-cost housing when justified by available transit service. Housing Goal H. Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing. H.1. Provide the maximum amount of efficiency and predictability in government permitting processes. H.1.a. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve predictability and efficiency, including such ideas as: ..establishing time limits for permitting processes; ..developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes; ..implementing administrative permitting procedures; ..using pre-application processes to highlight problems early. H.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes. H.2.a. Monitoring programs should review the types and effectiveness of government regulations and incentives, in order to assess whether they Packet Page 424 of 586 are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted to meet new challenges. Housing Goal I. Increase affordable housing opportunities in with programs that seek to achieve other community goals as well. I.1. Research housing affordability and program options that address Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. I.2. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals. I.2.a. New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated with programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and transit-friendly development, and that encourage economic development. Housing Goal J. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing. J.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood. J.1.a. Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood conservation should be researched and established to continue the character of Edmonds’ residential and mixed use neighborhoods. J.1.b. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses. Implementation Actions and Performance Measures. Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address high priority sustainability goals. Performance measures are specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that can be reported on an annual basis. These are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of this element. The actions and measures identified here are specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or measures that may be used by the City. Action 1: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Performance Measure 1: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling units per year. Packet Page 425 of 586 APPROVED NOVEMBER 12TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 22, 2014 Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Todd Cloutier, Chair Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Daniel Robles Careen Rubenkonig Valerie Stewart Mike Nelson STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIERCTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cloutier referred the Board to the written Director’s Report. Mr. Chave noted that, since the report was written, the City Council agreed to support the Draft Shoreline Master Update, and the document will come back for final approval on their consent agenda in mid November. He also noted that the City Council is scheduled to potentially take action on the Westgate Plan at their November 3rd meeting. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT Mr. Chave referred to the draft Comprehensive Plan Housing Element update. He advised that the majority of the proposed changes in the first half of the element are intended to update data and integrate material from the Alliance for Affordable Housing (AAH) report that was previously presented to the Board. The “Strategies” section (starting on Page 11) was also updated to incorporate a goal found in the Countywide Planning Policies that talks about jurisdictions having strategies in place to address housing affordability. In addition, formatting changes have been proposed in the “Goals and Policies” section (beginning on Page 14) to make the format of the Housing Element consistent with the format used for the adopted Packet Page 426 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 22, 2014 Page 2 Sustainability Element and other recently updated elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The goal is for all of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan to have consistent formatting. Mr. Chave advised that a new “Implementation Actions and Performance Measures” section was added at the end of the Housing Element. He reminded the Board of the City’s goal to incorporate implementation actions and at least one performance measure into each of the Comprehensive Plan Elements as they are updated. Staff is proposing the following Implementation Action and Performance Measure:  Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs.  Performance Measure: Number of residential units permitted each year. Mr. Chave explained that the City does not currently have a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing. However, having a strategy in place is one of the policies established by the Snohomish County Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA). The goal is to collaborate countywide to address the problem, and the idea of the proposed action is to work with the AHA to figure out the best way to implement the policy locally. This could entail zoning requirements and/or incentives for affordable housing that are triggered at a certain level of development. However, Edmonds does not have an administrative mechanism in place to enforce, monitor and track affordable housing, and City staff does not have the ability to take on this task. Working collaboratively with the AHA could provide an opportunity for the City to contract with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County for this service. In addition to discussing zoning requirements and incentives for affordable housing, the strategy could address other housing options, as well as an implementation mechanism. Mr. Chave said the proposed performance measure would involve identifying the number of residential units permitted each year. This can be easily tracked and would enable the City to identify whether or not it is providing more housing in general. The intent of the performance measure is to identify increases in the housing supply, but also potentially measure the City’s success at meeting other housing goals such as maintaining capacity for growth within the City. Mr. Chave invited the Board to provide feedback regarding the Housing Element so the document can be updated before the Board’s next meeting in November. He noted that both he and Ms. Hope worked on the draft language, with assistance from a planner working on contract with the City. Board Member Lovell observed that the changes proposed in the first several pages represent a statistical update. It basically compares statistics from last time the element was updated with the new data, but it does not provide a lot of commentary as to whether the City is better or worse off than it was ten years ago. For example, the average household size in Edmonds decreased by nearly half a person and is at near 2 people per household. He asked if this is considered better or worse. Mr. Chave said some of the statistical changes are consistent with national trends, and others are county and local trends. It is difficult to place a judgment on the changes in data, most of which came from the AAH report. Board Member Lovell referred to Page 8, which makes references to the need for local jurisdictions to have a Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan in place in order to obtain federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He asked if Edmonds has a program in place or encourages the use HUD funding for projects in the City. Mr. Chave answered that the City does not have its own HUD program. However, they are currently in a consortium with Snohomish County, which serves as the agency for community development programs for federal HUD grants. The Snohomish County agency drafted and regularly updates the required Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan; and every few years, there is a competitive process for funding allocations to jurisdictions in Snohomish County. With the exception of Everett, all other jurisdictions in the County participate in the joint program. Board Member Lovell requested information about the process for applying for HUD grant funding for projects in Edmonds. Mr. Chave explained that, typically, HUD projects are aimed at low income people; and as a general rule, the City does not have the right demographics to qualify for HUD funding. However, there are opportunities for block grants to fund social projects, many related to seniors. For example, the City successfully obtained block grant funding for American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk ramps. Many of the social programs are based in Everett, but they serve a countywide population. Packet Page 427 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 22, 2014 Page 3 Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes how the Housing Element is laid out, and it is clear that the City is endeavoring to meet the local, regional and federal goals for housing. She asked if it would be possible to provide a chart to illustrate the relationship between the City’s goals and the regional and federal goals. She expressed her belief that the regional and federal goals tend to shape the local policy. Mr. Chave agreed to consider the best way to provide this information. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that various agencies and groups influence local policies on housing, and the vocabularies used can be very different. She said she would like the terms to be as consistent as possible throughout the Housing Element. For example, the various documents use terms such as “disabled”, “physically challenged” and “handicapped person.” She noted that “handicapped person” is no longer an acceptable term and should be thrown out, and the Housing Element should consistently use either “physically challenged” or “disabled.” Also, there is reference to both “seniors” and “elderly,” and she would prefer to use the term “seniors.” She questioned what population is being referenced by the term “special needs population.” Also, the terms “economically challenged” versus “low income.” She noted that a person may not be considered “low-income,” but could be “economically challenged” when it comes to finding affordable housing in Edmonds. Lastly, she asked where “mentally and emotionally challenged” individuals would fit into the housing goals. She questioned if “housing for the disadvantaged” would cover all of the situations listed above. She summarized that the terms need to be clarified and consistent so it is clear who the City is trying to assist in meeting housing goals. Board Member Stewart commended staff for preparing updates to a comprehensive document. She referred to the third bulleted item from the bottom on Page 9, which talks about increasing the incidence of home ownership. She said she assumes this strategy is aimed at people who want to own their homes. However, the City must recognize that the current trend is towards rentals. She expressed the need for the strategy to address all housing needs, both owned and rental. Mr. Chave said the language was taken directly from the AHA Report. Board Member Stewart referred to the “Housing Needs” section, starting on Page 10. She noted that the need to provide healthy indoor air quality is missing from the language. This can be addressed through the types of materials used in construction and by making sure no mold is occurring in the units. She suggested that the need for healthy living should be addressed somewhere in the Housing Element. Board Member Stewart said she supports using the concept of “designed infill,” but she questioned how the City would ensure that infill development is designed in a way that is consistent with existing development in the neighborhood. She suggested that perhaps the City could require design review for infill residential development. She observed that a lot of indiscriminate infill development has occurred that is neither consistent nor in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the concept of requiring design review for infill residential development to ensure that it is keeping with the neighborhood character, but design review should not apply citywide to all single-family residential development. Mr. Chave explained that “designed infill” was intended to be a general conceptual term used when the Comprehensive Plan was initially adopted in 1995 as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The principle intent of the “designed infill” concept is to encourage development to occur within the overall fabric of the City without doing wholesale zoning changes that allow multi-family residential uses to creep into single-family residential neighborhoods. It was never the intent of the City’s decision makers to require design review for single-family residential homes, and it is not currently required. The City regulates single-family residential development via the bulk standards, and it would be very difficult to come up with design guidelines that identify the character of each neighborhood on a street-by-street basis. It is very rare to find a citywide single-family design review requirement in any jurisdiction. However, there are exemptions for “historic districts” and “planned developments” where the City has an opportunity to require a specific style and/or design. Chair Cloutier agreed that “designed infill” is a conceptual term. The idea was rather than expanding the commercial and/or multi-family residential boundaries, the City would target the codes to encourage infill development in residential zones and higher-density redevelopment on Highway 99, at Westgate, etc. Regardless of what alternatives the City chooses to use, it must accommodate its allocated growth targets. He noted that jurisdictions in the region have used a number of approaches for accomplishing this goal such as skinny houses and cottage homes that intensify the density in residential zones. Many also have liberal requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that essentially allow a second dwelling on a residential lot. Packet Page 428 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 22, 2014 Page 4 Board Member Stewart questioned why the City should have a policy for encouraging infill development to be consistent with the neighborhood and community character if there is no way to implement it. She commented that developers tend to do whatever they can to build the largest structures possible on the available land, and they do not necessarily care if it is keeping with the neighborhood character. Mr. Chave said developers are not necessarily more likely to build homes that do not fit in with the neighborhood. The City has received permit applications from individual property owners who are proposing crazy designs that do not fit in. Board Member Stewart pointed out that the proposed amendments would eliminate the concept of “cottage housing” altogether. She felt it should be put back in, perhaps on Page 15 under the goals and policies, as a potential affordable housing option, especially for people who own larger lots and do not want to subdivide and redevelop their property with larger homes. She said she would like to build a cottage on her property, but it is not allowed under the current code. Mr. Chave explained that, at the time the current Housing Element was written, the City was exploring the option of cottage housing. The intent of this section is to summarize what the City is actually doing and what has been done. Because the City is no longer exploring the concept, staff is recommending that it be removed. However, the goals and policies section could specifically mention the need to explore the concept of cottage housing. Vice Chair Tibbott suggested that Board Member Stewart is describing an ADU or guest house as opposed to a cottage development. Mr. Chave pointed out that the current code only allows guest houses on large lot, and accessory dwelling units must be attached to the main structure. However, the City of Seattle allows detached ADU’s that are set back on the lot so the property appears as a single-family residence home from the street. Board Member Stewart expressed her desire for the City to reevaluate its ADU regulations and make them more flexible. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that cottage housing projects typically consist of a number of units on a few acres of land. Board Member Stewart agreed and suggested this is an attractive option for the City to consider because it allows developers to position buildings in a way that protects the existing natural features. Mr. Chave recalled that some jurisdictions have experimented with the concept in recent years, but many no longer allow the use. In Edmonds, the Council specifically decided against implementing the option. However, the City offers the “planned residential development” concept as a way to cluster lots and homes to protect existing natural features without increasing the overall density of the property. Cottage housing, on the other hand, allows smaller homes on smaller lots, and a density bonus is traditionally offered. If the Board wants to study the concept further, they could add it into the policy section of the element. Board Member Lovell noted that the second bulleted item under “Low–Cost Housing Types” on Page 13 indicates that mixed-use zoning has been applied in the Westgate Corridor. Other places in the Housing Element mentions pursuing revised development regulations to allow more opportunities for affordable housing at Westgate. The language is written in the context that the Westgate Plan has already been adopted, but that is not yet the case. Mr. Chave said the language anticipates that the plan will be adopted, and it is scheduled on the City Council’s extended agenda for action on November 3rd. The Housing Element will not be adopted until sometime after that, and any changes related to the City Council’s action can be incorporated. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Item 1.2 on Page 17 and suggested that the specific “activity centers” be called out in the paragraph. Mr. Chave noted that the activity centers are called out specifically in the Land-Use Element, with a large section talking about each one. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Land-Use Map specifically identifies the activity centers (Medical Use/Highway 99 and Downtown). The intent is that a person would read the Comprehensive Plan as an entire document, and it would be a little out of context if you look only at the Housing Element. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested it would help the reader understand the areas referred to as “activity centers” if they are specifically identified in the Housing Element. Mr. Chave suggested that a footnote could be added to direct the reader to the Land-Use Element for more information about activity centers. Board Member Robles commented that Board Member Stewart’s comments about ADUs and cottage housing fall within the spectrum of affordable housing options that seem to be under discussed. Allowing detached cottages or ADUs could benefit groups such as seniors who want to stay in their homes, seniors who need assisted living, children who return to live at home, etc. He expressed his belief that residential property owners should be given the same wherewithal as developers to develop their properties. He suggested that the ADU concept needs more than a mere mention; perhaps it could be an additional category. Mr. Chave referred to the proposed Implementation Action on Page 17, which calls for developing a strategy for Packet Page 429 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 22, 2014 Page 5 increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. ADUs could be part of this discussion as one option for providing affordable housing. Ideally, a housing strategy will identify a number of different options, and not just low-income housing. Board Member Lovell observed that, for years, it has been discussed that Edmonds is largely a residential community that is 95% built out. However, he questioned if the community, and particularly the City Council, would support a policy for allowing people to hold on to their lots by building ADUs or cottages or subdividing their properties into two lots for smaller units. He did not believe this concept would be supported, given the current demographics of the City, which is largely single-family residential homeowners with higher incomes. Board Member Stewart pointed out that older residents cannot always afford to keep their larger homes, and allowing ADUs and cottages could be a desirable option for these people. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that, as per the AHA Report, the City of Edmonds (36%) has a higher percentage of people living in multi-family housing compared to the rest of the County (31%). However, the report does not provide a breakdown of how much of the 36% is owner-occupied. Conceivably, as they continue on the path they are on where they are looking at available land as the place for multi-family housing, the ratio would continue to increase in the City. This causes him to wonder what direction they may be setting in motion by not considering ADUs and other options for infill development in the single-family zones. Chair Cloutier referred to the proposed implementation action and performance measure. Given that the City has a goal to increase affordable housing and their action is to increase the supply of affordable housing, the performance measure should relate specific to affordable housing rather than just number of units. For example, the performance measure could be attached to the census or when information from other agencies is available. Mr. Chave advised that the goal is to report on the performance measures on a yearly basis, and it would not be possible to obtain information related specifically to affordable housing that frequently. Chair Cloutier suggested that perhaps there are other, indirect indicators that would help the City find the needed information. Chair Cloutier commented that using a performance measure that is based on the number of units would be good, but the Board discussed trying to identify the total number of bedrooms available in the City. He acknowledged that this data would be difficult to find, but it is available through the census and in the County’s records. Board Member Lovell expressed his belief that it would be virtually impossible to establish how many bedrooms there are in the City. It would also be difficult to equate the number of bedrooms with the number of people. No matter how many bedrooms are identified on a title, many of them are overbooked and others are not used at all. Chair Cloutier commented that the performance measure is supposed to be related to how much available room the City has, and identifying the number of units is less direct. If the number doesn’t tell you what you need to know, there is no purpose for the measurement. He suggested that both numbers should be considered. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that the proposed performance measure would measure new housing stock, and not existing bedrooms or units. Information regarding the number of bedrooms could be found on the construction plans. Mr. Chave agreed that the City could measure the number of new bedrooms that are constructed in the City. Chair Cloutier felt it would be appropriate to measure both the number of new units and the number of new bedrooms each year to evaluate whether or not the City is moving in a healthy direction. Mr. Chave questioned whether tracking the number of additional bedrooms would really tell the City anything. The better data would be changes in the number of units and the size of the average household. While the number of new units could be collected on an annual basis, the data related to the average household size would only be available every few years. Based on building permit data, the City can report details about the types of housing constructed, the number of bedrooms, and the value of the units. Board Member Lovell stressed that the most visible strategy the City needs to achieve is creating more opportunities for multi-family residential development in the City. If they are doing that, the City, as a whole, is striving to accommodate increased population. He cautioned against adding affordable housing, size of the units and number of bedrooms to the equation, since these are unpredictable and outside of the City’s control. He said he supports the vernacular that says the City is doing certain things to increase opportunities for mixed-use development and encourage multi-family housing. They need to continue strategies that support this goal. Packet Page 430 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 22, 2014 Page 6 Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the section related to “Assisted Housing Availability” on Page 10, and suggested that this paragraph is very important to address when considering potential performance measures. She questioned if the Housing Element, as currently proposed, would adequately encourage more senior housing, more assisted living, and more affordable housing. Mr. Chave clarified that assisted care is very different than assisted housing. This paragraph is intended to report information on different kinds of housing that receives some type of assistance, whether through Section 8 or another type of subsidy. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the language adequately addressees whether the City needs more assisted housing capacity. Mr. Chave referred to the note just prior to the paragraph, which indicates that City staff is in the process of updating this section. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the language should clarify how assisted housing fits into the diagram of affordable housing. Board Member Lovell said Board Member Rubenkonig appears to be asking if this section would include a provision for the City to pursue more government assisted housing. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that she is interested in increasing the capacity over what currently exists. Mr. Chave said the AHA Report identifies the City’s current needs, and this data can be added to the section. However, it is important to note that the City does not have control over HUD, but it can provide information about what currently exists and what the needs are. The future housing strategy could discuss how the City could work with HUD to address its needs. Board Member Robles commented that if the City were to take a lot of possibilities out of the extra legal sector so someone could report current situations such as accessory dwelling units, mother-in-law apartments, etc. as permitted uses without the threat of being shut down, the City would be able to obtain a more accurate count of the number of bedrooms and units available in the City. INTRODUCTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND LAND USE ELEMENT Mr. Chave advised that the General Introduction and Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are being presented to the Board for feedback, but changes have not yet been drafted. At this time, the City’s contract planner, Mr. Shipley, is pouring through reports and finding data to update the Land Use Element, which contains a substantial amount of background information and numbers. Mr. Chave reviewed that, as part of the update, the City is required to update its capacity numbers. The overall planned capacity they must address moves from 2025 in the current plan to 2035 in the new plan. Snohomish County, working with jurisdictions through Snohomish County Tomorrow, has established initial planning targets for this time frame, including both population and employment. Consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council’s 2040 Plan, the population numbers must be translated into number of units. The City must match up the existing capacity with existing zoning to figure out if they have enough future capacity to meet the population and job targets of if zoning changes are needed. Mr. Chave commented that the City is in a better place than many jurisdictions. For example, a tremendous amount of growth is targeted in Everett, and they have nowhere near the capacity. Lynnwood and Bothell are having capacity issues, as well. Because the City of Edmonds is designated as a “large city,” its growth projections are more moderate, but they do have to analyze and show their work in terms of capacity. While Highway 99 may have more capacity than has been considered in the past, not a lot of residential development has occurred in the area to justify the higher capacity number. If the City indicates that more population going forward will be handled along Highway 99, it must provide justification for this increased capacity. One example is the Planning Board’s recent recommendation on zoning changes along Highway 99 to open more of the General Commercial zoning for residential development. This could be a significant factor when looking at capacity. Mr. Chave advised that, from a quick preliminary look, it appears the capacity numbers the County counts in the Buildable Lands Report consider that residential development would occur at Harbor Square. Because the City Council took action that eliminated this potential, the City’s capacity to accommodate growth decreased. By the same token, the Building Lands report did not take into account additional capacity for residential uses at Westgate. He summarized that he does not believe that wholesale policy changes will be needed at this point. The updates to the Land Use Element will be primarily related to updating the data. Board Member Lovell said it appears the intent behind updating the Land Use element is to investigate and measure the City’s projections into the future to ascertain whether it can meet the GMA goals. Mr. Chave concurred. If the City finds Packet Page 431 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 8 Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the motion, but questioned if it would be appropriate to also include the changes she requested earlier regarding the project descriptions. Mr. English indicated that staff would add additional information to the project descriptions wherever possible, recognizing that some of the details are not yet available. The Board agreed that the issue did not need to be addressed in the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Ms. Hope said the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to talk more about the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, and specifically the Housing Element. She recalled that, at the Board’s last meeting, staff reported that the City is partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating jurisdictions. She introduced Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, who was present to walk the Board through the findings of the Edmonds’ Affordable Housing Profile. Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, provided a brief overview of the AHA, which consists of 13 cities in Snohomish County, Snohomish County, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. She reminded the Board that there is a Growth Management Act (GMA) mandate for cities to plan for housing to accommodate all segments of the population. The purpose of the AHA is to allow participating cities to share resources and get the help they need in a cost- effective way. The AHA was formed in November of 2013, and since that time she has been working to assess existing conditions and prepare profiles for each of the participating cities. Ms. Gallant explained that, when talking about affordable housing, people typically think about heavily subsidized housing, which is an important element, but not everything. If housing is affordable, but not appropriate for the community, it does not work. It is important to address the different needs and preferences of each community such as adequacy of safety, proximity to transportation, jobs, and affordability. Ms. Gallant provided an overview of the Edmonds Housing Profile, particularly emphasizing the following key elements:  There are currently 39,950 residents living in the City, and Edmonds is projected to accommodate nearly 5,000 new residents by 2035. This is a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has seen over the past 20 years. The increase would require 2,790 additional housing units, which is near the City’s estimated capacity of 2,646 units.  The 2012 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3 people compared to 2.6 for the County. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8 compared to 3.12 for the County.  Housing in Edmonds is mostly comprised of single-family homes, but most growth will need to be accommodated in multi-family development. About 31% of Edmonds residents and 33% of County residents currently live in rented homes, and the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010, increasing slightly from 68% to 69%. About 36% of Edmonds population lives in multi-family homes compared with 31% across the County.  The City’s median income ($73,072) is relative high compared to other cities in the region, and home values are general higher, as well.  A significant number of the homes in Edmonds were built between 1950 and 1959 compared to the County overall.  Currently, 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, which means they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs.  According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds rental housing market is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% Average Median Income (AMI). Households earning between 50% and 80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable, as well.  A limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI, but market rents are not affordable to extremely low-income households. Packet Page 432 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 9  A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low-income households is very common. Some kind of financial assistance is typically required in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today’s housing market.  Assistance can be ongoing to make up the difference between 30% of tenants’ income and market rents. Other options include capital funding that reduces the overall project costs (considered workforce housing), making it possible to keep rent levels down.  Edmonds currently has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources. It also has 201 units of workforce housing distributed across three properties. These units received some form of one-time subsidy (i.e. low-income tax credit, grants, etc.) in exchange for rent restrictions, but they do not involve rental assistance and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing. However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase the supply.  In 2012, the median sale price for a single-family home in Edmonds was $339,975. This would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income ($73,072).  Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising as the housing market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating.  Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home values in Snohomish County ($351,100), which represents a 10.7% increase over 2013.  Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among Snohomish County cities; 25% of the households have individuals 65 years or older. In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing and services if they desire to age in place. Ms. Gallant advised that the City has already taken a number of steps to promote affordable housing, and there is a range of options it can consider to respond to the continuing needs of the community. In addition to promoting, adjusting and providing incentives for housing policies where appropriate, the City should continue to monitor and evaluate its policies to make sure there are no unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. The Housing Profile is meant to be a resource for the City as it moves through its Comprehensive Plan update. The AHA’s goal is to continue to work with participating cities from a technical advisory standpoint, researching what is needed to help establish goals for housing, identifying potential methods for implementation, and identifying funding sources that are available to support infrastructure related to housing. Board Member Robles asked what can be done to promote house-sharing opportunities in Edmonds. He suggested that this opportunity is not always about making money; it is about people trying to hang on to their homes. Ms. Gallant replied that many cities have ordinances in place that allow accessory dwelling units, but they vary significantly. It is important for cities to review their provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to make sure they are easy to understand and that the requirements and processes are not so onerous as to be cost prohibitive. The AHA’s goal is to work with participating cities to develop better policies and make sure there are no unnecessary barriers. At the same time, they must be cognizant to balance the new policies with the other needs of the City. Board Member Robles pointed out that ADUs were not addressed in the AHA’s report. Ms. Gallant agreed that data related to accessory dwelling units was not included in her report, and she would definitely like to research this opportunity more. Board Member Stewart complimented Ms. Gallant for a great report and a good start for metrics. However, she agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that, at some point, the City must include ADUs in the metrics. She also suggested the City consider expanding its ADU provisions as a type of housing option to help the City meet its growth targets. She expressed concern that the numbers provided in the report is based on the number of bedrooms and size is not factored into the variables. Ms. Gallant agreed that the data is not as detailed as it could be, but it is intended to start the conversation. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the AHA has studied whether or not it is less costly to develop high-density residential versus low-density residential units. He said it would be helpful to have information about the average cost of producing the various types of affordable housing compared to the outcome. Ms. Gallant said she would like to study per unit development costs at some point in the future. In general, the housing costs are reflected through the rent and home sales, and there is a lot of debate about whether high density produces more affordable units. Increasing the supply over the long term is what needs to happen. When there is a choke point in the supply, housing prices will rise. Packet Page 433 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 10 Vice Chair Tibbott recalled the Board’s previous discussion point to the fact that just building small units does not mean they will be affordable. He noted that using lower cost finishes is one approach that can reduce the cost of the units, but he questioned if it would be possible to produce enough of these units in Edmonds to make a difference. He asked if any thought has been given to lowering development costs or allowing different types of development so developers can produce more affordable units. For example, the City could consider reduced permit fees or tax incentives. Ms. Gallant said the AHA is interested in researching this issue. Ms. Hope explained that the next step is for staff to review the current Housing Element and come back to the Board with a revised version that incorporates the new information contained in the Housing Profile and other census data. She explained that one aspect of updating each Comprehensive Plan element is to identify a performance measure that will be meaningful, yet easy for the City to replicate with data annually. In addition, an action (implementation) step may be identified to help achieve progress on certain issues. Staff is recommending that the performance measure for the Housing Element be a set number of residential units permitted each year. The exact number could be filled in later in the year when data is ready. This information would enable the City track its progress in allowing housing that will accommodate expected growth. Staff is also proposing that the action item for the Housing Element be to develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. She explained that there are many different ways to address affordability and several tools can be utilized to encourage affordable housing while looking at the overall housing needs. The proposed performance measure can get at the overall supply of housing units in Edmonds, but it is more difficult to measure affordability. Chair Cloutier expressed his belief that counting the number of bedrooms is the appropriate approach since the goal is to provide “beds for the heads.” The City could easily collect data for this metric. However, the affordability aspect is more market driven than the City can control and it would be very difficult to measure. Board Member Robles suggested that one option would be to offer a micro-tax incentive to encourage developers to report correctly. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Growth Management Act deals with affordable housing as more population based. However, population translates into housing, and that is why it is a good proxy for population. You have to have housing for people to live in. The Growth Management does not define affordable housing, and it does not provide specific policies on how to encourage more affordable housing. Board Member Robles asked if the City can track ADUs. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively, as long as they have a valid permit. However, it would be very difficult to track rooms for rent. Board Member Stewart asked if a three-bedroom unit would be considered three units. Ms. Hope answered that it would only count as one unit. Board Member Stewart pointed out that household size has decreased in Edmonds in recent years, but the size of the units has increased. Board Member Lovell recalled that the City has fairly stringent building restrictions with respect to ADUs. If they are serious about meeting the Growth Management Act (GMA) targets and accommodating an increased population, this issue will have to be addressed. He noted that the Board has been talking about the growth targets and opportunities for affordable housing for a number of years, but the City Council has a history of not taking action to accommodate mixed-use development with higher densities. While it is fine for the Board to discuss the issue again and put forth plans, he is not convinced anything will change in the near future unless the makeup of the City Council changes dramatically. Mr. Chave clarified that ADUs are not considered multi-family apartments or second dwellings. The definition remains single-family. Extended family members and/or parents could live in a permitted ADU, as long as all the occupants in both units are related. It gets more complicated when unrelated people live in the units. The definition of "family" says that up to five unrelated people can live on a single-family property. For example, a family of four could rent to a single person or a family of three could rent to two people. In addition, ADUs must be attached to the main unit, and there are size limitations. There has been a steady uptick of ADUs in the City, particularly involving large, older homes. He noted that no permit would be required to rent a room to someone. The key distinction is whether or not there are separate living units. Ms. Hope added that the City has made the choice not to count ADUs as separate housing units. She suggested this is a lesser issue compared to the policies that guide the use. Mr. Chave explained that if ADUs are counted as separate units, Packet Page 434 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 11 requirements such as impact fees would come into plan. Chair Cloutier suggested that ADUs could be counted differently for the metrics versus the code. The Board expressed general support for the proposed Housing Element performance measure and action step. However, they expressed a desire to forward with developing a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs sooner than 2019 if resources are available. Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes the term “housing options” rather than “lower-income housing.” She wants to know that people can remain in the community of Edmonds at different stages of their lives. Although sometimes they can afford larger houses, they need smaller units. Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the older homes in Edmonds are being torn down and redeveloped into units that are three times more costly than the prior home. She would like the City to offer incentives to property owners to retain their existing homes. The City must offer a variety of housing options to serve the citizens. Ms. Hope agreed and said the issue would be addressed as part of the strategy. Board Member Lovell referred to an article in THE SEATTLE TIMES titled, “Builders Say Land in Short Supply.” This article applies directly to the Board’s current discussion. Until cities find ways to accommodate more multi-family housing, the demand will remain high in the future, and the prices will continue to increase. Right now, the City does not have a great track record for accommodating this kind of development. The City is already built out, and the only way to accommodate more people is to allow more density. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave made a brief presentation on development projects and activities. Ms. Hope noted that the same presentation was made to the City Council on September 23rd. The purpose of the presentation is to recreate the story of everything that has happened related to development in the City over the past several years, particularly highlighting the present activity. She advised that the Development Services Department is comprised of the Engineering Division, the Building Division and the Planning Division. Its goal is to provide assistance to people interested in improving or developing their property via discussions, data, handouts, permitting and inspections. She reported that she has received number compliments on the quality of service that staff provides. While not everyone is always happy, staff tries hard to be courteous, respectful and helpful. Staff members work in different ways to serve the community. For example:  Field inspections are performed by building inspectors, engineering inspectors and planning staff. Not counting site visits, more than 6,000 inspections have been performed over the last year.  Staff members meet together in teams to coordinate on different projects and activities.  Staff also meets with applicants and developers to provide pre-application assistance for development projects that are being planned. Ms. Hope advised that the Planning Division is responsible for a number of different types of permits, including short plats, variances, and other permits related to planning and land-use codes. A number of different planning permits were approved over the past seven months. She provided a graph to illustrate the number of permits and revenue generated from January through August in 2001 through 2014. She noted that the data reflects the economic climate over the last several years. There as a big jump in development permits in 2006 through 2008, but permitting dropped off quickly after that. As the economy improves, the City is once again seeing an increase in the number of permits. Ms. Hope said the Building Division is responsible for certain types of permits, as well, some of which are reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Divisions, as well. These projects added $38,000 to the City of Edmonds in terms of values and buildings. It is anticipated that upcoming key projects will double that number in just a few months. Mr. Chave noted that Swedish Edmonds Hospital’s project was not factored into those numbers yet, and it should add $28,000 in value. Ms. Hope reported that the City issued significantly more solar panel permits in 2014 compared to 2012 and 2013, and most of those permits were applied for on line. Mr. Chave advised that the City’s Building Official has been working with other cities, including Seattle, Bellevue and Ellensburg, on a program to encourage solar installations using grant funding from the Packet Page 435 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 5 as it relates to climate change. Board Member Stewart pointed out that certain species of native plants should be present in riparian areas along streams. Native plants have been bread in the community and support wildlife. If the City simply requires natural vegetation rather than native vegetation, the ecosystem could be altered. Mr. Chave agreed but pointed out that the concern is addressed in Item A.2, which calls for the retention and enhancement of wildlife habitat areas. Introducing native species might not accomplish this goal. He said he views “natural” as a much broader term that will allow the City to implement appropriate development codes to protect and enhance wildlife habitat areas. The Board agreed not to change “natural” to “native.” Board Member Ellis asked how the City would determine which species are native and which are not. Board Member Stewart answered that there are lists available to make this determination. Non-native species are usually invasive and compete against the native species. Board Member Ellis stressed the importance of educating property owners about the difference between non-native and native species. Mr. Chave said most people know the obvious invasive, non-native species, and there are lists available from various agencies.  Environmental Quality Goal A on Page 30. Board Member Stewart advised that Ms. Tipton suggested that Item A.1 be amended to include private residential properties as potential wildlife habitat in addition to urban forests, wetlands, etc. Board Member Stewart pointed out that wildlife habitat is not just in public spaces, but in private yards, too. The City’s goal should be to increase wildlife habitat. Once again, Mr. Chave pointed out that the word “city” is not capitalized, which means it is intended to apply to all wildlife habitat areas and not just those owned by the City. He advised that urban forests include more private lands than public lands, and the goal is intended to be very broad to encompass all wildlife habitat areas. The Board agreed that the goal was broad enough as written. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mr. Chave referred to the current Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit 1) and invited the Board members to share their comments and questions in preparation for their September 24th review and discussion on the draft Housing Element update. He reported that the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett made a presentation (Exhibit 2) to the City Council on August 26th about countywide housing needs, especially related to affordability and the region’s growing population. The presentation also included important countywide data related to the need for affordable housing. Mr. Chave also reported that the City is partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating jurisdictions. A copy of the draft Edmonds Affordable Housing Profile was attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit 3. The final profile should be very similar and ready for the Board’s September 24th meeting, and Kristina Gallant from the AHA will be present at that time to walk the Board through the details. He explained that the profile contains extensive data on housing in Edmonds and looks at housing affordability mostly from the perspective of the entire metropolitan region, including Seattle. On the other hand, Exhibit 2 from the Housing Coalition looks at housing affordability based just on the Snohomish County area, not including Seattle. Both documents will be useful when updating the Housing Element. Board Member Stewart asked when the Board would discuss potential performance measures and action items. Mr. Chave said this topic would be part of the Board’s September 24th discussion. He encouraged Board Members to forward their thoughts and additional comments to him via email. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave reviewed that in addition to the Board’s continued discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, the September 24th meeting would include a public hearing on proposed updates to the Capital Facilities and Capital Improvement Plans for 2015-2020. The Development Services Director would also provide an overview of the development projects and activities that are currently taking place in the City, as well as data and statistics on how the City is doing in terms of valuation of construction. He said he anticipates the Board will need one more opportunity to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element on October 8th. The October 8th agenda would also include a discussion on the Packet Page 436 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2014 Page 4 one small piece of a larger effort to consolidate the Development Code requirements. Board Member Lovell agreed that this is one example of the kinds of change that can be made to the code to make it better and easier to understand. Board Member Robles asked if anyone in the City would be worse off as a result of the proposed amendment. Ms. Hope answered no. She explained that the proposed changes will be of particular benefit to animals and their owners. The way the current ordinance is structured, voluntary compliance is not an option for animal owners. The only tool the Animal Control Officer has to address a problem is to issue a criminal citation. The proposed amendment represents a tiered approach that allows for three infractions before a criminal citation is issued. The goal is to obtain voluntary compliance first, recognizing there are extreme cases where more drastic enforcement measures will be necessary. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.35 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. AS PROPOSED THE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT THE KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS WOULD BE REMOVED FROM CHAPTER 17.35 AND CONSOLIDATED WITH CHAPTER 5.05 (ANIMAL CONTROL) OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RECOMMENDATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT Mr. Chave referred the Board to Attachment 1, which is a clean version of the draft Housing Element, and Attachment 2, which shows the edits from the current adopted Housing Element. He explained that Attachment 1 is similar to the draft language the Board reviewed at their October 22nd meeting. However, some changes were made to update the background data, update material on housing needs, update terminology, and include broader housing issues. In addition, the section on the County’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy was eliminated as it is out of date and not useable in its current form. Mr. Chave invited the Board Members to identify additional changes and then forward the document to the City Council for review. He noted that the Board would conduct a public hearing later in the process when they have completed their work on all of the Comprehensive Plan elements. As the Board completes its review of each of the elements, they will be presented to the City Council for review. Board Member Nelson referred to the performance measure on Page 18 and pointed out a possible discrepancy in the number of additional dwelling units each year. Mr. Chave explained that the City’s goal is to add approximately 2,800 units by 2035, which equates to 112 units per year between 2010 and 2035. Rather than identifying the total number of dwelling units in the City by 2035, Board Member Nelson suggested the performance measure could be to identify the number of additional 2,790 dwelling units by 2035. Mr. Chave agreed that change would be appropriate, but the Development Services Director has recommended that the performance measure also identify the number of additional units per year. Future reports will provide numbers for both the yearly growth and the cumulative growth since 2010. Board Member Robles said he supports the changes that have been made to clarify that accessory structures and other forms of infill can be utilized to meet the needs of families. He specifically referred to Housing Goal F.2.b, which calls for providing accessory housing in single-family neighborhoods that address the needs of extended families and encourage housing affordability. This type of housing is particularly suitable for seniors, children, and co-living situations. Board Member Stewart asked if co-housing development would be consistent with the language proposed in the Housing Element related to multi-family housing. Board Member Robles commented that there are co-housing developments in other cities where kitchens and bathrooms are shared, and there are proponents of this type of housing in Edmonds, as well. He noted that the housing type is not specifically called out in the Housing Element, but it does not appear the proposed language would preclude it, either. Board Member Lovell pointed out the legal problems associated with co-housing development in Seattle and cautioned against venturing into this realm in Edmonds at this time. His understanding is that the proposed language in the Housing Element encourages more multi-family residential units. He said it will be interesting to see what development occurs now that the City Council has approved the Planning Board’s recommendation to allow residential development on all floors in the General Commercial (CG) and CG2 zones on Highway 99. He suggested that more investigation is needed before the Board pushes forward a co-housing concept in Edmonds. Board Member Robles agreed Packet Page 437 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2014 Page 5 that co-housing should not be specifically mentioned in the Housing Element, but the language should not set up barriers that impede the use, either. Vice Chair Tibbott questioned how co-housing development would be different than single-family development that has two master bedrooms. In either case, bedrooms can be rented out or co-owned and residents share kitchen facilities. Chair Cloutier asked staff to respond to whether or not the proposed Housing Element would create a barrier to co-housing opportunities. Mr. Chave answered that the proposed Housing Element is very open ended and encompasses a variety of housing options. It will take some effort to conduct research and match the needs of the residents versus what the codes do and do not allow and decide what direction the City wants to go. Chair Cloutier summarized that there is nothing in the Housing Element about specific kinds of development. The Housing Element clearly indicates that infill development is desirable and this policy will guide the Board and City Council when updating the Development Code in the future. Board Member Lovell said he reviewed the red-lined draft of the Housing Element (Attachment 2) and observed that instead of trying to develop one program to deal with affordable housing, the City will work in partnership with the Alliance for Affordable Housing (AAH) to help achieve its goals. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides specific policies for the various activity centers in the City, and the activity centers will become the nucleus for various forms of development in the future. In addition, the Housing Element encourages more multi-family residential housing in the City. Board Member Stewart said she would like the word “healthy” to be inserted into the Housing Element wherever possible. For example, Housing Goal C could be changed by inserting the words “healthy and” before “suitable.” She expressed her belief that it is important to emphasize the need for healthy living environments for all people. This would be consistent with language found in the Sustainability Element. Board Member Rubenkonig indicated support for the draft Housing Element (Attachment 1). However, she questioned if the phrases “accessory dwelling unit,” “accessory uses,” and “accessory units” are interchangeable or should one term be used throughout the document. She specifically referred to Housing Goal F.2.b, which calls for providing accessory housing in single-family neighborhoods. Mr. Chave explained that “accessory dwelling unit” refers to a specific use, whereas “accessory uses” refers to a classification of uses. The two are not interchangeable in this section. The term “accessory uses” is broader and includes more than just accessory dwelling units. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would prefer to use one phrase that everyone can catch on to, and hear the same thing in their minds. She asked staff to consider whether all three terms are necessary or if one term should be used consistently throughout the document. Chair Cloutier referred to the proposed implementation action and performance measure. Rather than simply measuring the number of new units permitted each year, he questioned if it would be possible to obtain a meaningful estimate of the number of units that are affordable. Mr. Chave pointed out that the implementation action calls for developing a strategy to measure both the supply of affordable housing and the City’s progress in meeting diverse housing needs. He explained that “affordability” is very difficult to assess and measure on an annual basis because data is scarce. In addition, affordable housing can change significantly, and this change can have little to do with housing stock and more to do with the economy in general. However, he agreed that “affordability” is not something the City should lose track of. Vice Chair Tibbott observed that the entire introductory section is a study of the affordability of housing in Edmonds, so there are clearly metrics available to measure affordable housing. He agreed that the City should have some method in place to keep track of affordability. Board Member Lovell suggested that this issue could be addressed in the future in collaboration with the AAH. Chair Cloutier suggested that perhaps there could be two implementation actions: one related to a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs and another related to a metric for accessing affordability. He acknowledged that the Board is not the correct body for solving this issue, but an action item that says someone needs to solve the issue would be appropriate. Mr. Chave explained that affordable housing data is generally easier to come by as you scale up. Regional data is easy to obtain, but as you drill down to local data, it becomes more difficult to assess. Typically local jurisdictions must deal with multiple sets of data and figure out how it all fits together. Packet Page 438 of 586 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2014 Page 6 BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AS DRAFTED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GENERAL INTRODUCTION SECTION AND LAND USE ELEMENT Mr. Chave reviewed the attachments provided in the Staff Report as follows: Attachment 1 is the proposed Land Use Element Outline, Attachment 2 provides examples of what the updated data will look like, Attachment 3 is the current adopted Land Use Element, and Attachment 4 is Board Member Stewart’s comments dated October 30, 2014. He explained that the intent of the Land Use Element is to update planning data and improve the overall organization of the element to be consistent with the more recently adopted Sustainability Element. Staff does not anticipate changes to the general policy direction. Mr. Chave referred to the Downtown Plan, which is included in the current Land Use Element and discusses a variety of design guidelines. Staff is proposing that these guidelines be moved to the Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that it makes more sense to group all of the design guidelines into one section and then clean up and reorganize the material. He invited the Board Members to share their additional comments and ideas related to the Land Use Element. He particularly asked for comments on the proposed outline for the Land Use Element as presented in Attachment 1. Board Member Stewart said she supports the outline presented by staff in Attachment 1. However, she suggested that the reference to “nomadic bands of Native Americans” on Page 10 of Attachment 3 is somewhat derogatory. While it is likely that the tribes moved around depending on the season and in their search for food and shelter, the term “nomadic” is not truly indicative of the way Native Americans in the area lived. She noted that the history portion of the Shoreline Master Plan has a better accounting of local tribes living on the land. She also noted that mention of “participatory tribes” on Page 15 of Attachment 3 may not reflect the true history of occupation back then. Mr. Chave explained that some of the descriptive language that was included in the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was transferred to the Comprehensive Plan. Some of this language is still in the plan, and he invited the Board Members to highlight specific language they would like staff to consider changing and/or eliminating. Board Member Lovell observed that the Land Use Element did not get specific about areas in the City until 1995, when the Downtown Plan was added. Again, Mr. Chave pointed out that the Urban Design Elements contained in the Downtown Plan will be transferred to the Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan where all of the other design related goals and policies are located. Board Member Lovell said it would be helpful if each of the sections in the Land Use Element that pertain to specific areas of the City could be organized the same way. This will make it easier to identify the differences in terms of what currently exists and what strategies are in place to guide future development. He noted that there are different opportunities in each of the areas that should be heralded in the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Lovell questioned if it would be appropriate to identify more specific strategies and policies in the Comprehensive Plan for each of the areas. Mr. Chave cautioned that developing more specific strategies and policies for each of the areas would be akin to creating a neighborhood or subarea plan for each section of the City. He explained that the goals and policies in the Land Use Element focus on two activity centers: downtown and Highway 99. There are also individual sections that talk about the neighborhood commercial areas such as Five Corners and Westgate. Indirectly, the Land Use Element discusses the different parts of town, but it does not talk at any length to the surrounding neighborhoods associated with these areas. This would require a significant outreach effort, which is beyond what the City is able to do with this update. Board Member Robles asked if the language in the Land Use Element would allow opportunities for new technologies to be implemented. For example, the Land Use Element should not exclude decentralized businesses such as drones, Airbnb, etc. He anticipates these uses will come to the City one day. While he does not advocate that the Land Use Element specifically identify these opportunities, it should not exclude them, either. Mr. Chave said he cannot think of anything in the current Land Use Element that would preclude or limit these future opportunities. Chair Cloutier reminded the Board that they are discussing the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and not the Development Code. The Land Use Element is intended to outline the City’s vision statement for how land in Edmonds will be used. He cautioned the Board to avoid Packet Page 439 of 586 22,000 by 2035 Affordable Housing in Snohomish County Presentation to Edmonds City Council August 26, 2014 Packet Page 440 of 586 What is “Affordable” No more that 30% of income goes to the cost of housing, including utilities. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: In general, housing for which the occupant(s) is/are paying no more than 30 percent of his or her income for gross housing costs, including utilities. Please note that some jurisdictions may define affordable housing based on other, locally determined criteria, and that this definition is intended solely as an approximate guideline or general rule of thumb.1 1http://www.huduser.org/portal/glossary/glossary_a.html Packet Page 441 of 586 Calculations for Affordable Housing Snohomish County Area Median Income for all households = $67,777 (2011)1 Affordable housing for households at 100 percent AMI $67,777 x 100 percent = $67,777 / 12 months = $5648/mo. x 30 percent = $1694/mo. max. housing cost Affordable housing for households at 80 percent AMI $67,777 x 80 percent = $54,221 / 12 months = $4518/mo. x 30 percent = $1356/mo. max. housing cost Affordable Housing for households at 50 percent AMI: $67,777 x 50 percent = $33,888 / 12 months = $2824/mo. x 30 percent = $847/mo. max. housing cost Affordable Housing for households at 30 percent AMI: $67,777 x 30 percent = $20,333 / 12 months = $1694/mo. x 30 percent = $508/mo. max. housing cost 1 Source: American Communities Survey, 2011 5-year estimate Packet Page 442 of 586 Income in Snohomish County Income Levels1 Income Ranges Percent of Total Households 30% and below AMI (extremely low income) $20,333 and less 11% 30-50% of AMI (very low income) $20,334 - $33,888 11% 50-80% of AMI (low income) $33,889 - $54,221 17% Snohomish County Household Area Median Income (AMI) = $67,777 Estimate Percent Total households 17,396 100.00% Less than $10,000 671 3.90% $10,000 to $14,999 488 2.80% $15,000 to $24,999 1,326 7.60% $25,000 to $34,999 1,419 8.20% Total 3,904 22.50% Subject Edmonds, Washington 2 INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) 1 Source: ACS, 2011 5-year estimates 2 Source: ACS, 2012 5-year estimates Packet Page 443 of 586 22,000 by 2035 Housing needed by 2035 to accommodate projected population growth Jurisdiction Total Housing Need (Units) 30% and less AMI Housing Need (11% of Total) 30-50% AMI Housing Need (11% of Total) 51-80% AMI Housing Need (17% of Total) Sno Co1 97,128 10,684 10,684 16,512 Edmonds1 2,790 307 307 474 1 Source: 2013 Housing Characteristics & Needs in Snohomish County Report, p59 Packet Page 444 of 586 22,000 by 2035 How Do We Get There? Reduce Poverty •Better Education Outcomes for More Students •Job Training •Address Income Inequality Packet Page 445 of 586 22,000 by 2035 How Do We Get There Create More Affordable Housing (New/Acquisition & Rehab) •2015 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Updates - Strategies, goals & policies to meet housing need at 30% AMI, 30-50% AMI & 50-80% AMI •Incentivize Affordable Housing - Density bonuses, multi-family tax exemption, fee waivers, reduced parking requirements, etc •Support Policies that Increase Public Funding - WA State Housing Trust Fund - Local Housing Levy Packet Page 446 of 586 22,000 by 2035 Why? •Quality of Life in Our Communities - Our communities and neighborhoods are better when our people are housed - Higher density, attractive and affordable housing promotes community •Economic Advantages - Each dollar of public funds invested in affordable housing generally attracts/leverages an additional 5 dollars of private equity - People who are in housing they can afford have more disposable income to spend in the community - Safe, stable, affordable housing for special needs populations significantly reduces contact with and cost to cities public safety services and emergency medical services •Common Humanity Packet Page 447 of 586 Pay Attention to Design! Packet Page 448 of 586 Pay Attention to Design Mercy Housing’s Eliza McCabe Townhomes, Tacoma, WA Packet Page 449 of 586 Pay Attention to Design King County Housing Authority, Greenbridge Apts, Seattle Artspace Everett Lofts, Everett, WA Packet Page 450 of 586 Resources •Alliance for Housing Affordability Kristina Gallant, kgallant@hasco.org, 425-293- 0601 •Municipal Research Services Council, http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/housing/ords.aspx#waivers •Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County Report, http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1585/Housing-Characteristics-Needs-Report •Snohomish County Demographic Trends & Initial Growth Targets, http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/PDS/Planning_Commis ion/DemogTrends_PlngCommission_Feb-25-2014.pdf •Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County Mark Smith, Executive Director 425-339-1015 mark@housingsnohomish.org Packet Page 451 of 586 ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY UPDATE Edmonds City Council October 28, 2012 Packet Page 452 of 586 WHAT’S THE ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY? •Background and purpose of the Alliance •Work to date •Where we’re headed Packet Page 453 of 586 HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS •Diverse needs and preferences •Adequacy and safety •Proximity to transportation, jobs, and services •Affordability Packet Page 454 of 586 HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS •2013 HUD regional median household income: $86,700 •Extremely Low: <30% AMI •Very Low: 30-50% AMI •Low: 50-80% AMI •Moderate: 80-95% AMI •Middle: 95-120% AMI Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Middle Above Middle Share of Population by HUD Income Level, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Edmonds Snohomish County Packet Page 455 of 586 INCOME LEVELS IN CONTEXT Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Middle Food Service Employees - Line Cooks, Servers, Dishwashers, Baristas Teachers Social Workers Accountants Engineers Medical & Dental Assistants, Home Health Aides Real Estate Agents & Brokers Police Officers & Firefighters Veterinarians Security Guards Graphic Designers Architects Web Developers Manicurists Hairdressers EMTs & Paramedics Electricians Construction Managers Childcare Workers Receptionists Paralegals Registered Nurses Physical Therapists Minimum Wage Workers Construction Workers Car Mechanics Loan Officers Financial Advisors Edmonds households in these income brackets: 82% cost burdened 63% cost burdened 47% cost burdened 38% cost burdened 22% cost burdened Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013 Income-Based Rent Below-Market Rent Home Ownership Packet Page 456 of 586 WHAT’S IN THE PROFILE? •Project status •Intended use and audience •Content and presentation •Data sources Packet Page 457 of 586 POPULATION AND COMMUNITY •Stable population with modest growth •Accommodating growth may still be a challenge •Median income - $73,072 •Smaller households compared to County overall •69% of households 1-2 people vs. 58% across County •48% of renters and 34% of homeowners are cost burdened Source: US Census Bureau, 2000, 2010 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 75 - 79 80 - 84 85 - 89 90 + Population Pyramid, City of Edmonds, 2000-2010 2010 2000 Male Female Packet Page 458 of 586 COST BURDEN BY INCOME LEVEL AND HOUSING TENURE, CITY OF EDMONDS Renters Owners All Extremely Low 79% 82% 82% Very Low 81% 86% 63% Low 29% 46% 47% Moderate 13% 43% 38% Middle 7% 26% 22% Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Packet Page 459 of 586 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK •Construction concentrated between 1950 and 1989 •67% single family homes •29% renter-occupied •42% of homes two bedrooms or less in size, 69% of households one to two people •2012 median home sale - $339,975 •Third highest average assessed value in 2014 - $351,100 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or Later Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Edmonds Snohomish County Packet Page 460 of 586 ASSISTED HOUSING •Subsidized Units: •178 Section 8 Vouchers •125 other units in 6 properties •Workforce Units: •201 units in 3 properties Assisted Units by Income Level Served Extremely Low 233 Very Low 79 Low 194 Moderate 2 Total 508 Packet Page 461 of 586 MARKET RENTAL HOUSING Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013 Average Rent (With Utilities) Minimum Income Required Minimum Hourly Wage Minimum Annual Wage 1 Bed $887 $17.06 $35,480 2 Bed $1,097 $21.10 $43,880 3 Bed $1,679 $32.29 $67,160 4 Bed $2,545 $48.94 $101,800 5 Bed $2,844 $54.69 $113,760 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4+ Bed Extremely Low No No No No Very Low Limited Limited Limited No Low Yes Yes Limited No Moderate Yes Yes Yes Limited Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Packet Page 462 of 586 WHAT CAN WE DO? •How the planning process can support affordability •Working with community partners •Exploring new opportunities with AHA Packet Page 463 of 586 THANK YOU Packet Page 464 of 586 Housing Profile: City of Edmonds Prepared for the City of Edmonds by the Alliance for Housing Affordability September 2014 Packet Page 465 of 586 ii Special thanks to all those who helped prepare this profile. City Staff Shane Hope, Development Services Director Alliance for Housing Affordability Kristina Gallant, Analyst Will Hallett, Intern Acknowledgements Packet Page 466 of 586 iii Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................iv Maps, Figures, & Tables .................................................vi Introduction .............................................................................1 Population and Community ............................................3 Household Profiles ..................................................................................................................8 Existing Housing Stock .................................................10 Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional .............................................12 Market Rate Rental Units ....................................................................................................13 Shared Rental Housing ........................................................................................................19 Current Challenges and Opportunities ..........................20 Maps ........................................................................................22 Appendices ....................................................................40 Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds ..........A1 Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds ...........................................B1 Appendix C: Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012 ......................................................C1 Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary ....................................................................D1 Appendix E: Methodology .....................................................................................................1 Packet Page 467 of 586 iv Executive Summary The City of Edmonds, currently home to 39,950 people, is projected to accommodate nearly 6,000 new residents by 2035, a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has seen over the past 20 years. Housing in Edmonds is currently mostly comprised of single family homes, though most growth will have to be accommodated in multifamily development. The City’s median income is relatively high compared to other cities in the region, and home values are generally higher as well. Homes are diverse in age, with a significant concentration of units built between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County overall. Currently 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs. Cost burden is most challenging for those with low incomes, who may have to sacrifice other essential needs in order to afford housing. Other summary statistics are provided below. A Summary of Edmonds by the Numbers Population 39,9501 Total Households 17,3962 Family Households with Minor Children 4,054 Cost-Burdened Households 6,672 Households Earning Less than 50% AMI3 5,322 2012 Median Household Income $73,072 Minimum Income to Afford 2012 Median Home $75,796 Total Homes 17,396 Single Family Homes, Detached or Attached 12,047 Multifamily Homes 6,471 Manufactured Homes 126 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 195 Other Dedicated Subsidized Housing 125 Transitional Units 16 Workforce Housing 201 Total Renter-Occupied Housing Units 5,000 Total Owner-Occupied Housing Units 12,396 Total Vacant Housing Units 1,248 According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds’ rental housing market is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI. Households earning between 50 and 80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable as well. A limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI (Area Median Income for the Seattle-Bellevue metropolitan area). Market rents are not affordable to Packet Page 468 of 586 v extremely low income households, though this is expected in almost all communities, due to the costs of construction and maintenance in today’s market. Shared rental housing is a market rate option for these households, though it will not work for all households, particularly families. A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low income households is very common, as, in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today’s housing market, some kind of financial assistance is typically required. Assistance can be ongoing, to make up the difference between 30% of tenants’ income and market rents (such units are considered ‘subsidized’ in this report), or be provided as capital funding, reducing overall project costs and making it possible to keep rent levels down (considered ‘workforce’ units). Edmonds currently has 320 units of subsidized housing and 201 units of workforce housing. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing. However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase this supply. The City is pursuing a number of strategies to address this challenge. In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The estimated monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service, insurance, taxes, and utilities. For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income.1 Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising as the housing market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating. Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County behind Woodway and Mukilteo respectively, at $351,100, which represented a 10.7% increase over 2013. 2 1 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 2 Snohomish County Assessor, “Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2014 Taxes”, 2014. Packet Page 469 of 586 vi Maps, Figures, & Tables Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013 .................................................................................3 Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County ....................4 Table 1.1. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County .......5 Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County ....................5 Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing & Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County ....................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds ..........................................................................7 Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County ......................10 Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds ............................................................10 Figure 2.3. Net Newly-Permitted Units, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County .....................................11 Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City of Edmonds ........................................................................11 Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income Level Served, City of Edmonds ...........................................................12 Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds ........................................12 Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds .................................................................13 Table 2.4. Renter-Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities) ..........14 Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities) ....................14 Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds .......................................................15 Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, SIngle- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds ...........................................15 Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012 ...............................................................16 Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds .................................................................17 Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds ...............................................................17 Table 2.9. 2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds...................................................................19 Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing units, City of Edmonds ..................................20 Map 1.1. Total Population (Block Groups) .............................................................................................................23 Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups) ......................................................................................................24 Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups)..............................................................................................25 Map 1.4. Renter-Occupied Housing Units .............................................................................................................26 Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups) ...................................................................................................27 Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages ................................................................................................................28 Map 1.7. Very Low-Income Households .................................................................................................................29 Map 1.8. Cost-Burdened Renters ..............................................................................................................................30 Map 1.9. Cost-Burdened Owners ..............................................................................................................................31 Map 1.10. Housing & Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income ...............................................................32 Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access ....................................................................................................33 Map 2.2. Age of Housing Stock .................................................................................................................................34 Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock .....................................................................................................................35 Map 2.4. Housing Density ...........................................................................................................................................36 Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011 ...........................................................................37 Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011 ...............................................................................38 Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size..............................................................................................................39 Table E.1. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle-Bellevue HMFA 2012 ...1 Packet Page 470 of 586 1 Introduction In Snohomish County’s Countywide Planning Policies, Housing Goal 5 states that “the cities and the county shall collaborate to report housing characteristics and needs in a timely manner for jurisdictions to conduct major comprehensive plan updates and to assess progress toward achieving CPPs on housing”. Building on the County’s efforts in preparing the countywide HO-5 Report, this profile furthers this goal by providing detailed, local information on existing conditions for housing in Edmonds so the City can plan more effectively to promote affordable housing and collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions. This profile will present the full spectrum of its subsidized and market rate housing stock. Permanent settlement in present day Edmonds dates back to 1890, making Edmonds the oldest incorporated city in Snohomish County. Edmonds was born out of homesteading and logging operations in the late 1800’s and, through the years, built economic foundations on a host of platforms including milling, shingle splitting, and manufacturing, among others. Today, Edmonds has almost 40,000 residents and over 17,000 households. Edmonds’ growth has been modest in recent years (less than 1% annually), and this trend is expected to continue. The majority of the City’s neighborhoods are composed of single family homes, though future growth is likely to follow recent trends emphasizing more multifamily development. Existing multifamily residential developments are focused on major arterials, downtown, and near Highway 99. The Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 corridor areas are considered the primary commercial centers of Edmonds, with one smaller but significant center at Westgate (located at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West). Smaller neighborhood commercial centers are located in several neighborhoods, such as Five Corners, Firdale, and Perrinville. Several affordable housing-specific terms and concepts will be used throughout the profile. Income levels will be defined by their share of “Area Median Income”, or AMI. For this report, median income for the Seattle-Bellevue HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) will be used for AMI because it is the measure HUD uses to administer its programs. Housing agencies typically define income levels as they relate to AMI. These are: •Extremely Low Income - up to 30% AMI •Very Low Income - up to 50% AMI •Low Income - up to 80% AMI •Moderate Income - up to 95% AMI •Middle Income - up to 120% AMI When a household spends more than 30% of their income on housing, it is considered to be “cost burdened”, and, if lower income, will likely have to sacrifice spending on other essentials like food and medical care. “Costvburden” is used as a benchmark to evaluate housing affordability. Packet Page 471 of 586 2 Packet Page 472 of 586 3 Population and Community In 2013, Edmonds was home to an estimated 39,950 people, only slightly higher than its 2000 population of 39,544.3 The City’s population has been stable since the mid-1990s, when there were several large jumps due to annexations in south and southwest Edmonds. The City is projected to grow at a modest rate moving forward, accommodating an estimated 5,841 additional residents by 2035. This increase would require 2,790 additional housing units, which is near its estimated capacity of 2,646 additional units. Of the current capacity, the vast majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion through redevelopment.4 Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 19 9 0 19 9 1 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013 The 20125 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3 people, compared to 2.6 for the County. Of these, 10,997, or 63%, are family6 households. Overall, 23.3% of households have children. In Snohomish County overall, 68% of households are families, and 32.5% of households have children. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8, compared to 3.12 for the county. The average Edmonds renter household is smaller than the average owner household – 2 people per renter household versus 2.4 per owner household.7 The share of foreign born residents in Edmonds is similar to the County overall - 13.9% 3 Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013 4 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County”, 2014 5 2012 data is used as, at time of writing, it is the most recent ACS 5-year data available 6 Based on the US Census Bureau’s definition of family, which “consists of two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit.” 7 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Packet Page 473 of 586 4 versus 14.1% for the County. The population of foreign born residents who are not U.S. citizens is lower in Edmonds than the County - 44% of foreign born residents versus 51% of foreign born County residents. Residents born in Asia constitute 47% of the foreign born Edmonds population while European residents make up 20% of foreign born residents. 16% of Edmonds residents speak a language other than English in the home and 6% of residents speak English “less than very well”, both proportions are lower than the County’s numbers.8 The share of the population living in rented homes is similar to the share Countywide. 31% of Edmonds residents and 33% of Snohomish County residents currently live in rented homes. As shown in Figure 1.2, the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010, increasing slightly from 68% to about 69%.9 36% of Edmonds’ population lives in multifamily homes, compared to 31% across the County (renters and owners combined). The City’s vacancy rate is 6.7% compared to 6.4% for the County as a whole.10 Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Source: US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010 The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle-Bellevue, which is referenced in this report as a standard for AMI, is $88,000, higher than the County’s overall 2012 median income of $68,338. Edmonds 2012 median income is higher than the County AMI at $73,072. However, some economic segments of the City’s population could be at risk of being housing burdened. Compared to HUD HMFA AMI and based on 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates: •2,638 households, or 15% of Edmonds’ total, are considered to be extremely low income, earning less than 30% of area median income (AMI), •2,684, or 15%, are considered very low income, earning between 30 and 50% of AMI, •2,604, or 15%, are considered low income, earning between 50 and 80% of AMI, and •1,773, or 10%, are considered moderate income, earning between 80 and 90% of AMI 8 Ibid. 9 US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010 10 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Packet Page 474 of 586 5 A comparison of income distribution in the City and County is presented graphically in Figure 1.3. As shown, Edmonds has a higher percentage of very low income households and households earning higher than middle income than the County as a whole, but lower percentages of every other income group. The combined percentage of extremely low, very low, and low income households is approximately 46%, compared to about 21% moderate and middle income and 33% above middle income. Note that these percentages are not adjusted for household size due to data constraints. Here, a household consisting of two adults with an income level equal to another household consisting of two adults and three children would both be placed at the same percentage of AMI, even though the larger family would likely be more constrained financially. HUD’s AMI calculations include ranges for households sized 1-8 people, and, in this report, sensitivity for household size is used wherever possible, as detailed in Appendix E. Maps 1.8 and 1.9 show the percentages of renter and owner households in each census tract that are cost burdened, meaning that they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Overall, 38% of households in Edmonds are cost burdened, renters and owners combined. Table 1.1 shows the percentage of each income group that is cost burdened in Edmonds and Snohomish County by housing tenure. According to this data, the City’s renters are all less likely to be cost burdened compared to renters Countywide, except low income renters. While owners earning less than 50% AMI in the City are more likely to be cost burdened, this relationship reverses above that income level. For both renters and owners, there is a significant drop in cost burden above 50% AMI. This table does not address differences in degrees of cost burden – for example, a household that spends 31% of its income on housing would be considered cost burdened along with a household that spends 80% of its income on housing.11 Table 1.1. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Income Level Renters Owners All Edmonds Snohomish County Edmonds Snohomish County Edmonds Snohomish County Extremely Low 79%80%82%73%82%78% Very Low 81%85%86%80%63%64% Low 29%28%46%72%47%65% Moderate 13%18%43%48%38%40% 11 Ibid Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Packet Page 475 of 586 6 Middle 7%5%26%32%22%25% Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 – 2012 HUD’s Location Affordability Index uses a number of variables to estimate the affordability of a location including both housing and transportation costs. According to the index, a “regional typical household12” could expect to spend 49% of its income on housing and transportation if renting or owning in Edmonds. 45% is proposed as a targeted maximum percentage of income to be spent on housing and transportation combined to be affordable according to HUD standards. A low income household,13 however, could expend to spend 71% of their income on housing and transportation. A regional moderate family may have to devote up to 57% of their income on housing and transportation.14 Housing and transportation affordability estimates for a number of different household types are presented in Figure 1.4. In general, estimates for Edmonds residents are very close to those for the County overall. In either case, it is estimated that owners will generally spend more on housing and transportation than renters, regardless of jurisdiction or household type. The 2012 unemployment rate was 4.2% in Edmonds, compared to 5.9% for the County. For employed Edmonds residents, the mean commute time is 27 minutes, compared with 29 for the County. 71% of City residents drive to work alone compared with 74% of all County workers. The most common occupations for Edmonds residents are in management, business, science and arts occupations, at 12 Defined as a household with average household size, median income, and average number of commuters in Seattle-Bellevue HUD HMFA 13 Defined as a household with 3 individuals, one commuter, and income equal to 50% AMI 14 US Department of Housing & Urban Development; Location Affordability Portal, 2013 Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing & Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Source: US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development; Location Affordability Portal, 2013 Packet Page 476 of 586 7 49% of the employed population, followed by sales and office occupations, with 25% of the employed population. The two most dominant industry groups employing City residents are educational services, healthcare and assistance industries with 23% of workers, and the professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste industries, with 13% of workers.15 According to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Edmonds is home to 12,449 jobs. The majority of these jobs are in the services sector, with 8,540 jobs. 4,918 of those jobs are in health care and social assistance and 1,369 jobs are in the accommodation and food service fields.16 Edmonds has 0.7 jobs for every occupied home compared to 1.2 employed people per home. Even assuming all of these people only have one job and only local people are employed locally, this means that a significant portion of the population must commute to work. In actuality, 80% of employed Edmonds residents work outside the City. More than half of these commuters work outside Snohomish County, most likely in King County. Across Snohomish County, there are only .9 jobs per occupied home compared to 1.3 employed people per home.17 The shape of the City’s population pyramid, shown in Figure 1.5, offers additional insight into its housing needs and how they may be changing. As shown, between 2000 and 2010 the population of older residents grew and the population of younger residents shrank. As the baby boomer generation continues to retire, every community will see an increase in the share of elderly people, but in Edmonds the effects may be particularly strong – the City’s 2012 median age was 46, compared to 15 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 16 Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment Estimates, 2012 17 US Census; American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment Estimates, 2012 Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds Source: US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010 Packet Page 477 of 586 8 37 across the County. Out of all age groups, the greatest increases from 2000-2010 was in residents between the ages of 55 and 65, while the greatest decrease was in residents between 35 and 40. The number of young children is also decreasing. Household Profiles These are the stories of several actual Edmonds households who receive some kind of housing assistance from the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. All names and many nonessential details have been changed to respect their privacy. Beth Beth lives in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds with her two children. She works full time at a grocery store and makes a total annual income of $21,079, or about $1,757 per month. This translates to an hourly wage just under $11 per hour. With Assistance With her voucher administered through the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO), Beth pays $462 in rent and $163 in utilities for her two bedroom apartment. After rent and utilities are paid, Beth has $1,132 left over per month to support her family. Without Assistance Without a voucher, Beth’s monthly rent obligation would be $1,088, including utilities, more than 60% of her total monthly income. The average rent for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,066, so finding a significantly more affordable unit could be challenging. Beth could look for a shared living arrangement as a cheaper alternative, however, it would be difficult to find a living situation that would accommodate her and her children. Having two children, downsizing from a two bedroom unit is not a feasible option either. In order to afford her current apartment, Beth would need to find a job that pays more than double her current income—about $43,520 a year, or $21 per hour. Jamie Jamie is an elderly disabled woman living in a one bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Jamie’s sole source of income is Social Security payments that provide $8,672 a year, or about $723 a month. With Assistance Jamie receives a voucher through HASCO for $550 toward her monthly rent. The market rent for her one bedroom apartment is $705 per month plus $62 in utilities. After her voucher is applied to her rent, Jamie pays $155 plus $62 in utilities per month. This leaves Jamie with $506 per month to support herself. Without Assistance The market rent for Jamie’s home is $767 including utilities, more than her monthly income. If Jamie had to look for an apartment she could afford without a voucher, the most affordable studio apartment she could expect to find would rent for around $550, including utilities, which would still be 76% of her income. Without the means to acquire a job or family or friends who could help, Jamie would have few options without a housing voucher. Dave Packet Page 478 of 586 9 Dave and his wife live in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Dave works in a local warehouse and his wife receives income from Social Security payments due to a disability. Together, they receive employment and Social Security income totaling $18,044 per year, or $1,504 per month. With Assistance With his voucher, Dave and his wife pay $581 in rent plus $193 in utilities per month. This leaves Dave and his wife with $730 left over for the month. Without Assistance If Dave did not receive a Section 8 Voucher, he would have to pay $1,068 per month for rent and utilities. This would leave the couple with only $436 per month to spend on food and other essentials. At this rate, Dave would be spending about 70% of his family’s income on rent alone. The average rent for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,097, so finding a market rate apartment of the same size but at a cheaper price than his current apartment could be challenging. At the time of this report, two bedroom apartments for rent in the area range from $777 to $1,916 per month. If Dave were able to rent the cheapest two bedroom apartment in Edmonds, without a voucher he and his wife would still be paying 52% of their monthly income on rent, making them significantly cost burdened. As the most they could afford with their current income would be $450, there are not even any studio units that would be affordable. Packet Page 479 of 586 10 Existing Housing Stock The City of Edmonds is located in southwest Snohomish County, bounded to the west by the Puget Sound, east by the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, south by King County, and north by Mukilteo. Edmonds’ primary commercial centers are the Highway 99 corridor and the Downtown/Waterfront area. The southern portion of the Waterfront area houses a concentration of businesses as well as the Port of Edmonds, where the Washington State Ferry provides service to the Kitsap Peninsula. The City’s neighborhoods are mostly composed of single family homes, which make up 66% of the total housing stock. Multifamily residential developments are located just south and north of the downtown area. As shown in Figure 2.1, the City has a high concentration of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County, and fewer constructed after 1990. 18 The number of units projected to accommodate population growth over the next 20 years is just over the City’s current capacity. The majority of this potential will be in multifamily properties, and nearly half of all potential is in redevelopable parcels.19 Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of renters and owners among different types of housing, with owners in the inner ring and renters in the outer ring. As shown, 85% of homeowners live in single family homes. While 24% of renters also live in single family homes, the next largest group of renters, 22% of the total, live in properties with 20 to 49 units.20 Figures 2.3 and 2.4 provide information on newly permitted units in the City in recent years. Figure 2.3 shows the total number of net newly permitted residential units per year from 2001 to 2012 for both the City and County, with the City on the left axis and the County on the right. Figure 2.4 shows the share of the City’s new units composed of single- and multifamily units. 18 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 19 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County”, 2014 20 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey 2008-2012 Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey 2008-2012 Packet Page 480 of 586 11 As shown, newly permitted units peaked in 2004 in the City, just before the County did, and crashed during the recession. While newly-permitted units began to recover across the County in 2010, as of 2012 Edmonds had not yet begun to recover at the same pace. As shown in Figure 2.4, newly permitted units in Edmonds since 2001 have primarily consisted of multifamily units.21 For the purposes of this report, Edmonds’ housing stock is divided into subsidized rental units, workforce rental units, market rate rental units (both single- and multi-family), and home ownership. Subsidized rental units are targeted toward households with the lowest incomes, typically less than 30% AMI. Populations targeted for subsidized rental units often include the disabled, elderly, and other populations living on fixed incomes with special needs. A subsidized property is one that receives funding, perhaps rental assistance or an operating subsidy, to insure that its residents pay rents that are affordable for their income level. Some properties only apply their subsidy to select units. It is also common for subsidized units to be restricted to certain groups like families, the elderly, or homeless. A subsidized property may have also benefited from workforce-type housing subsidies, and it is also common for just a portion of a property’s units to receive an ongoing subsidy. Workforce rental units are targeted to working households that still cannot afford market rents. Workforce rental units and subsidized rental units are both considered “assisted”, but differ in several areas. The key difference between subsidized and workforce units is that workforce units have a subsidy “built in” through the use of special financing methods and other tools, allowing (and typically requiring) the landlord to charge less for rent. An example of this would be when a private investor benefits from low income housing tax credits when building a new residential development. In exchange for the tax credit savings, the property owner would have to restrict a certain number of units to a certain income level for a certain period of time. When the owner is a for-profit entity, this often means that rents on restricted units will become market rate units when the period of restriction has ended. While nonprofit owners may also utilize workforce tools for capital funding, they are more likely to preserve restrictions 21 Puget Sound Regional Council, Residential Building Permit Summaries 2012 Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City of Edmonds Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2012 Figure 2.3. Net Newly-Permitted Units, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Source: Puget Sound Regional Council Packet Page 481 of 586 12 on units longer than required. The distribution of Edmonds’ assisted units by income level served, both subsidized and workforce, is presented in Table 2.1. Market rate rental units are the stock of all housing units available for rent in the open market. These are units that are privately owned and whose rents are determined by market supply and demand pressures. A market rate rental unit can also be a subsidized rental unit, as is the case with the Federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Section 8 vouchers can be used to rent any unit, as detailed below. Home ownership units include all single family homes for sale – detached and attached single family homes, condominiums, and manufactured homes. Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional Edmonds has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources including Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), HUD Supportive Housing Program, Section 8 Project- Based Vouchers, and the Sound Families Initiative. As of July 2014, there were 195 HCVs in use in Edmonds administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA).22 All assisted units and buildings are listed in Appendix B. Table 2.2 shows the distribution of permanent subsidized units by funding source. Families making up to 50% of AMI are eligible for Section 8 housing vouchers; however, 75% of these vouchers are limited to those making no more than 30% of AMI. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) receive federal funds from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer the HCV program. HUD sets Fair Market Rents (FMRs) annually and PHAs determine their individual payment standards (a percentage of FMR) by unit bedroom size. The tenant identifies a unit, then the PHA inspects the unit to make sure it meets federal Housing Quality Standards and determines if the asked rent is reasonable. If the unit is approved, the tenant pays rent equal to 30-40% of their income, and the PHA pays the difference directly to the landlord. While the voucher amount is set up so that a family does not need to spend more than 30% of their income on housing, including an allowance for utilities, a family may choose to spend up to 40% of their income on housing. This happens most often when the family chooses a home that is larger than the size approved for their voucher. The two PHAs that administer the HCV program in Snohomish County are HASCO and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA). Vouchers issued by both PHAs can be used in Edmonds. Because the number of vouchers a PHA can distribute is limited by the amount of federal funding they receive, the wait for a new applicant to receive an HCV can be extremely long and is usually 22 Housing Authority of Snohomish County, 2014; Everett Housing Authority, 2014 Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income Level Served, City of Edmonds Extremely Low 233 Very Low 79 Low 194 Moderate 2 Total 508 Sources: HASCO, 2014; EHA, 2014 Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 195 Section 8 Project-Based Voucher 98 HUD Supportive Housing Program 10 Sound Families Initiative 12 Source: HASCO, 2014 Packet Page 482 of 586 13 dependent on existing voucher holders leaving the program. Until recently, the wait to receive an HCV from HASCO had been about 6 years. Federal funding for the HCV program was frozen during the 2013 budget sequester, at which time HASCO had to close its waitlist. Workforce Housing Edmonds is home to 201 units of workforce housing distributed across 3 properties, all listed in Appendix B. Assisted workforce housing units are defined by the fact that they received some form of one-time subsidy in exchange for rent restrictions. Workforce funding types do not involve ongoing rental assistance, and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. These subsidies can include: •Capital Financing - Low-interest-rate mortgages, mortgage insurance, tax-exempt bond financing, loan guarantees, and pre-development cost reduction financing. •Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) – Tax credits provided to developers that can be sold for the purposes of up front debt reduction. •Federal, State, and County Grant Programs – Grants provided to local governments from the federal government for construction or renovation of below-market-rate units. Community Development Block Grants and HOME grants are two popular examples Workforce housing in Edmonds has been funded through a variety of sources, including low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC), tax-exempt bonds, and State and County Housing Trust Fund dollars. While the name may suggest otherwise, it is common for developers to use workforce funding sources to funding housing for populations like seniors. Table 2.3 shows the number of workforce units funded per major source in Edmonds, with full information provided in Appendix B. Table 2.3 only includes units that do not have additional rental assistance (Considered ‘subsidized’ in this report), which often also use workforce subsidies as part of their financing. As most workforce properties use more than one funding source, there are units counted multiple times in the different funding categories listed in Table 2.3. Financing for any affordable housing project is often very complicated and can involve an array of public, nonprofit, and private entities. While not currently the case in Edmonds’ workforce properties, many workforce housing properties only dedicate a portion of their units for lower income tenants. This is typical of properties developed or rehabilitated by private entities using tax credits or tax-exempt bond financing in exchange for income restrictions on the properties. In those cases, affordable housing requirements are limited to a certain period of time, typically 20 to 30 years, after which time the property owners can increase rents to market rates. Some properties feature both subsidized and workforce units. Market Rate Rental Units There are an estimated 5,000 rental units in Edmonds of every type, from single family homes to large Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds Tax Credit 92 Bond 200 Housing Trust Fund (State and County)1 Source: HASCO, 2014 Packet Page 483 of 586 14 apartment buildings. According to American Community Survey estimates, 3,739 out of 5,000 renter- occupied housing units are in multifamily properties. This compares to 1,904 multifamily units out of 12,396 owner-occupied homes.23 Table 2.4 summarizes ACS data on the number of units available at certain rent levels by bedroom size in Edmonds. No evidence was found of any market rents below $500, despite ACS data to the contrary. This could be because the ACS Sample may include subsidized units and less formal rent arrangements, such as renting rooms or mother-in-law suites in single family homes or renting from family members that could be more affordable. ACS rent data also does not include utility allowances. To provide a better idea of what a household looking for a home today could expect to pay in rent and utilities in Edmonds, rent data was obtained from Dupre and Scott. This data, which includes both multifamily and single family rental units, is summarized in Table 2.5 and presented in full in Appendix A. Table 2.5 lists the minimum full time wage to afford each average rent in hourly and annual terms as well as the number of hours one would have to work per week earning Washington State’s minimum wage to afford the unit. Table 2.6, on the following page, shows the affordability distribution of average rents in Edmonds by size. In this table, “Yes” means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level, adjusting for household size, “Limited” means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end affordable units, and “No” means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As shown, the City’s rental housing is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI – the moderate 23 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Table 2.4. Renter-Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities) No Bedrooms 1 Bedroom Units 2 Bedroom Units 3+ Bedroom UnitsLess than $200 0 18 0 0$200 to $299 0 52 10 0$300 to $499 0 104 0 27$500 to $749 101 237 110 79$750 to $999 103 786 652 45$1,000 or more 0 186 1486 853 Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities) Average Rent (w/ Utilities) Minimum Income Required Lowest Rent Highest RentPer Hour Annual Studio $833 $ 16.02 $33,320 $ 546 $ 1,187 1 Bedroom $887 $ 17.06 $35,480 $ 662 $ 1,521 2 Bedroom $1,097 $ 21.10 $43,880 $ 777 $ 1,916 3 Bedroom $1,679 $ 32.29 $67,160 $ 1,094 $ 4,215 4 Bedroom $2,545 $ 48.94 $101,800 $ 1,947 $ 4,347 5 Bedroom $ 2,844 $ 54.69 $113,760 $ 2,276 $ 3,771 Source: Dupre & Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014 Packet Page 484 of 586 15 income level and above. Average units two bedrooms or less in size are also affordable to low income renters, with a limited supply affordable to very low income renters. There is also a limited supply of three bedroom units affordable to this group. The difference in minimum required income by size between single- and multifamily units is shown in Table 2.7. As shown, multifamily units tend to be more affordable than single family homes. As multifamily units also tend to be smaller than single family homes, there is a lack of larger affordable units. Even after accounting for the fact that utility allowances are not included in ACS data, the range of rents available in the conventional market is generally higher than that reported in the ACS. Again, this could be explained by the ACS sample including subsidized units and informal rent arrangements. While ACS data is important as it shows what Edmonds renters are actually paying, it does not give an accurate indication of what a typical renter searching for a market rate unit can expect to pay. Home Ownership Between 2008 and 2012, 61% of single family homes sold in Edmonds were three bedrooms in size. 24% of homes sold were four bedrooms in size, meaning that three and four bedroom homes together represented 85% of sales. 9% were two bedrooms and 6% were five bedrooms or larger. This includes freestanding single family homes, common wall single family homes (townhouses), manufactured homes, and condominiums24. 24 Snohomish County property use codes 111, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 141, 142, 143 Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, SIngle- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds Multifamily Ave. Rent Minimum Income Single Family Ave. Rent Minimum Income Studio $833 Low n/a n/a 1 Bedroom $887 Low $1,521 Moderate 2 Bedroom $1,070 Low $1,548 Moderate 3 Bedroom $1,336 Low $1,992 Moderate 4 Bedroom n/a n/a $2,545 Middle 5 Bedroom n/a n/a $2,844 Middle Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013 Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds Number of Bedrooms Income Level Studio 1 2 3 4+ Extremely Low No No No No No Very Low Limited Limited Limited Limited No Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013 Packet Page 485 of 586 16 In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20% down payment and using average rates of interest, property taxes, utilities and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income.25 Appendix C provides statistics on sales of single family homes from 2008-2012, as well the minimum income necessary to afford the median sale home by year. During that time period, median home sales prices declined by 17%. In 2012 dollars this translates to a difference of more than $33,000 in minimum income required to afford the median home.26 The housing market across the region has since begun to recover from the recession. While home sale affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, Edmonds currently has the County’s third highest average assessed residential value. The 2014 average assessed value of $351,100 represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.27 Table 2.8 lists the percentage of 2012 sales of homes of different sizes that are affordable to each income level by home size. “Not affordable” means that the minimum income required is higher than the middle income upper cutoff. All of the percentages specify the portion of homes of that size that someone in the particular income group could afford, adjusting for household size as detailed in Appendix E. As shown, there is decreasing affordability as size increases, though moderate and middle income households could theoretically afford the monthly cost of most of the homes sold in 2012. Moderate income is recommended as the minimum ideal household income for home ownership to be a reasonable option. Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012 Bedrooms Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Middle Not Affordable Total Sales 1-2 12%17%57%73%85%15%60 2 0%7%46%74%87%13%405 3 0%4%21%54%78%22%165 5+0%3%23%49%69%31%35 Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 The “affordability gap” describes situations where there are more households at a given income level than there are housing options affordable to those households. Figure 2.5 displays the percentage of households in Edmonds at each income level compared with the percentage of all home sales in 2012 that each income level could afford. As Figure 2.5 compares the overall income distribution of the City with the affordability distribution of one year, this is a rough approximation, and other factors should be considered in examining home ownership affordability. As shown, there were plenty of sales theoretically affordable for households earning at least 80% AMI in 2012, which is the minimum income required for home ownership. (Moderate income and above) This analysis does not consider 25 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 26 Ibid 27 Snohomish County Assessor, “Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2014 Taxes”, 2014 Packet Page 486 of 586 17 whether or not these income groups are able to access financing, including a down payment, or other barriers to home ownership. There is also sufficient supply for the City’s low income households, though home ownership may only be a good choice for certain households in this group. Further, this does not include competition from households above middle income, which comprise 33% of the City’s total. Figure 2.6 shows how the percentage of sales affordable to each income level has changed from 2008 to 2012. As shown, affordability improved dramatically for moderate income households during this period, and all other income groups as well. As the housing market continues to improve following the recession, affordability for this group may retreat again. While there are affordable options for low income households, and ownership may be a good option for certain low income households (those earning between 50 and 80% AMI), these households are considered the exception rather than the rule. Many of the most affordable sales were likely only so affordable because they were foreclosed homes sold by banks. 517 Paradise Lane, for example, is a three bedroom home that Wells Fargo Bank sold for $240,000 in 2012. At that price, a household with a minimum income of $46,216 could afford the monthly debt service of around $1,155. This same home sold for $378,000 in 2004, which is well out of reach to the household with the minimum income necessary to afford it in 2012. While low priced foreclosed homes can put home ownership within reach for more households, this is accomplished at the expense of previously displaced homeowners. Additionally, these sales contribute to ongoing uncertainty about market home values. Low income home buyers could also become cost burdened by higher property taxes on these “bargain” homes. Figure 2.7, on the following page, shows how sales have been divided between single family homes, condominiums, and manufactured homes between 2008 and 2012. In Edmonds, condominiums Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 Packet Page 487 of 586 18 represent a larger portion of the market than in other cities in Snohomish County. Table 2.9 shows how many sales of each of these three types were affordable to each income level in 2012. Manufactured homes were most likely to be affordable to lower income households, with a dramatically lower median sale price, though there was still a significant number of single family and condominium sales affordable to very low and low income households. The median home sale prices for single family homes and condominiums were also very close to each other in 2012. Table 2.10 shows how many homes were sold in 2012 by type and number of bedrooms. Table 2.9. 2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds Single Family Manufactured Home Condo Extremely Low 1 6 0 Very Low 37 0 2 Low 208 0 9 Moderate 171 0 17 Middle 104 0 3 Not Affordable 108 0 0 Median Sale Price $ 339,975 $8,150 $341,705 Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 Figure 2.7. Home Sales by Type, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 Packet Page 488 of 586 19 Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds Bedrooms Single Family Mobile Home Condo 1-2 54 6 0 3 381 0 24 4 158 0 7 5+35 0 0 Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 Shared Rental Housing A popular market rate affordable housing option is to split housing costs with other roommates. These arrangements include renting a room, suite, or accessory dwelling unit (ADU) from a homeowner living on site. For 8 shared rooms advertised on Craigslist in the City, the monthly cost ranged from $500 to $650, including utilities. While they were more rooms advertised, they did not include an address or cross streets, so it could not be verified that they were actually located within the City. Their rents were generally not outside this range, however. Rents in this range are easily within reach for very low income single individuals, and possibly even extremely low income couples. Individuals seeking roommates are able to discriminate in who they choose to share their housing, however, and often stipulate a preferred gender or bar couples from sharing a room. It may be difficult for families with children and households with disabilities or other special needs to find a suitable shared housing situation. In these cases, a household’s ability to find shared housing will likely depend on whether or not they have local connections to help them find understanding roommates. Packet Page 489 of 586 20 Current Challenges and Opportunities The City of Edmonds is faced with the challenge of accommodating greater growth over the next 20 years than it has seen in the past, requiring an additional 2,790 additional housing units, when the current capacity is only 2,646 additional units. Of the current capacity, the vast majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion to come through redevelopment.28 In general, the City will see a shift toward more multifamily housing if growth continues as predicted. Edmonds enjoys a higher median income compared to other areas in the County. All the same, assuming that the City’s income mix stays constant, it is estimated that 1,257 units, or 55% of the total projected increase, will serve households at or below 50% AMI. The share of projected units by income level is shown in Figure 3.1. According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds’ rental housing market is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI. Households earning between 50 and 80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable as well. There is a limited supply of small units affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI. Market rents are not affordable to extremely low income households, though this is expected in almost all communities, due to the costs of construction and maintenance in today’s market. Cost burden data supports these conclusions, with a significant reduction in cost burden for both renters and owners at income levels above 50% AMI. Overall, 38% of Edmonds households are cost burdened. Renters and owners earning less than middle income are all less likely to be cost burdened in Edmonds when compared to the County, with the exception of homeowners below 50% AMI who are more likely to be cost burdened.29 In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The estimated monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service, insurance, taxes, and utilities. For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just 28 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County”, 2014 29 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing units, City of Edmonds Packet Page 490 of 586 21 above the City’s median income.30 Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising and affordability is retreating. At $351,100, Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County after Woodway and Mukilteo, and it represented a 10.7% increase over 2013. 31 The age of units in Edmonds is a possible contributing factor to affordability, as the City features a significant stock of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969. As properties are redeveloped to build the denser housing the City needs to accommodate growth, it is likely that a portion of these naturally affordable older units will be replaced with higher priced new units. While preservation of older housing is an effective strategy for affordability, preservation must be balanced with the need to accommodate growth. In addition, the higher priced new units of today will be the quality affordable older units of tomorrow. Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among all Snohomish County cities. According to the ACS estimates, almost 25% of households in Edmonds have individuals 65 years or older.32 In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing and services if they desire to age in place. Additionally, as the “baby boomer” generation continues to move into retirement, there will be an increase in the number of people with disabilities as well. To respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has undertaken a series of measures and strategies to promote affordable housing including: • Land Use Strategies: upzoning from single family to multifamily zoning, offering density bonuses for low income and senior housing provision, clustering subdivisions, planned residential developments to protect the environment, encouraging infill developments, and promoting conversion/adaptive reuse programs. • Administrative Procedures: streamlined approval processes, updated use-by-right policies, and updated impact mitigation payment deferral. • Development Standards: installed front and side yard setback requirements, zero lot line development, improved street design and construction, off-street parking requirements, and innovative sanitary, sewer, water and storm water systems. • Low-Cost Housing Types: encourage the use of accessory dwellings, cottage houses, mixed-use developments and mobile/manufactured housing. In addition to promoting, adjusting, and providing incentives for these policies where appropriate, the City should continue to monitor their use and evaluate policies to make sure there are not unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Additionally, the City could consider adopting a multifamily tax abatement program for certain locations and, when opportunities arise, the City could partner with nonprofit organizations developing housing for households earning below 30% AMI, the income group generally not served by the traditional housing market. 30 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 31 Snohomish County Assessor, “Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2014 Taxes”, 2014 32 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Packet Page 491 of 586 22 Maps Packet Page 492 of 586 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y Population (Block Groups) MUGA City Limits 0 - 464 465 - 958 959 - 1284 1285 - 1553 1554 - 2040 ¡ 0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles Map 1.1. Total Population (Block Groups) Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 Packet Page 493 of 586 24 196th St SW 196th St SW9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y Puget Drive ¡ 0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles Family Size 0.00 0.01 - 2.15 2.16 - 2.95 2.96 - 3.34 3.35 - 4.12 City Limits MUGA Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups) Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Household Size 0.00 - 1.70 1.71 - 2.30 2.31 - 2.77 2.78 - 3.42 City Limits MUGA Packet Page 494 of 586 25 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Household Size 0.00 - 1.70 1.71 - 2.30 2.31 - 2.77 2.78 - 3.42 City Limits MUGA Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups) Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 Packet Page 495 of 586 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Renter-Occupied Homes (By Block Group) 0% - 7% 8% - 17% 18% - 27% 28% - 41% 42% - 72% City Limits MUGA 26 Map 1.4. Renter-Occupied Housing Units Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 Packet Page 496 of 586 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Vacant Homes (By Block Group) 0% - 2% 3% - 7% 8% - 10% 11% - 19% 20% - 25% City Limits MUGA 27 Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups) Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 Packet Page 497 of 586 28 Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Mortgaged Homes 0% 1% - 64% 65% - 73% 74% - 79% 80% - 95% City Limits MUGA Packet Page 498 of 586 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles Households <50%AMI 0% - 12% 13% - 20% 21% - 33% 34% - 46% 47% - 68% City Limits MUGA 29 Map 1.7. Very Low-Income Households Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 Packet Page 499 of 586 30 Map 1.8. Cost-Burdened Renters Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Cost-Burdened Renters 0% 1% - 35% 36% - 52% 53% - 78% 79% - 100% City Limits MUGA Packet Page 500 of 586 31 Map 1.9. Cost-Burdened Owners Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Cost-Burdened Owners 0% - 10% 11% - 28% 29% - 36% 37% - 48% 49% - 65% City Limits MUGA Packet Page 501 of 586 32 Map 1.10. Housing & Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income Sources: US Housing & Urban Developme nt, 2013; Snohomish County Information Services, 2012 196th St SW 196th St SW9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y Puget Drive ¡ 0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles Percent of Income 51% - 58% 59% - 65% 66% - 73% 74% - 81% 82% - 100% City Limits MUGA Packet Page 502 of 586 33 Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access Sources: HASCO 2014; Snohomish County Community Transit, 2014; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Year Built Voucher Bus Stop Range (1/4 mile walk) City Limits MUGA Packet Page 503 of 586 34 Map 2.2. Age of Housing Stock Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2012 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Year Built 1872 - 1904 1905 - 1918 1919 - 1934 1935 - 1948 1949 - 1957 1958 - 1964 1965 - 1972 1973 - 1983 1984 - 1997 1998 - 2013 City Limits MUGA Packet Page 504 of 586 35 Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 196th St SW 196th St SW9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pa c i f i c H w y Puget Drive ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Condition (For Age) Excellent Very Good Above Normal Normal Below Normal Poor Very Poor City Limits MUGA Packet Page 505 of 586 36 Map 2.4. Housing Density Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Housing Units/Acre (By Block Group) 0.0 - 1.4 1.5 - 3.0 3.1 - 4.3 4.4 - 6.6 6.7 - 11.7 City Limits MUGA Packet Page 506 of 586 37 Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011 Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011 37 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Net Newly- Permitted Units by -6 -5 - 0 1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 8 City Limits MUGA Packet Page 507 of 586 38 Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011 Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Net Newly- Permitted Units by Tract -4 -3 - 0 1 2 - 8 City Limits MUGA Packet Page 508 of 586 39 Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 196th St SW 196th St SW 196th S t S W 9t h A v e N 9t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Main Street Pac i f i c H w y ¡ 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Average HH Size - Renters 0.00 - 1.65 1.66 - 2.18 2.19 - 2.68 2.69 - 3.73 3.74 - 7.42 City Limits MUGA Packet Page 509 of 586 40 Appendices Packet Page 510 of 586 Units in Building Age Studio Rent Utilities Total Minimum Income Units in Building Age 1Bd-Rent Utilities Total Minimum Income Units in Building Age 2/1-Rent Utilities Total Minimum Income Units in Building Age 2/2-Rent Utilities Total Minimum Income Units in Building Age 3/1-Rent Utilities Total Minimum Income Units in Building Age 3/2-Rent Utilities Total Minimum Income Units in Building Age 4Bed-Rent Utilities Total Minimum Income Units in Building Age 5Bed-Rent Utilities Total Minimum Income 4:20+ 1945 $500 46$ $546 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $725 171$ $896 Low 4:20+ 1965 $830 191$ $1,021 Low 3:4-19 1975 $866 $77 $943 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $953 220$ $1,173 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,200 220$ $1,420 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,895 247$ $2,142 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $2,400 276$ $2,676 Middle 4:20+ 2010 $1,035 152$ $1,187 Low 4:20+ 1965 $689 171$ $860 Low 4:20+ 1965 $770 191$ $961 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $870 $191 $1,061 Low 4:20+ 1965 $985 220$ $1,205 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,066 220$ $1,286 Low 1:SF 1945 $2,200 247$ $2,447 Middle 1:SF 1945 $2,000 276$ $2,276 Moderate 4:20+ 1975 $682 152$ $834 Low 4:20+ 1965 $850 62$ $912 Low 4:20+ 1965 $950 77$ $1,027 Low 4:20+ 1965 $875 $77 $952 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,050 94$ $1,144 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,050 94$ $1,144 Low 1:SF 1965 $1,700 247$ $1,947 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $3,495 276$ $3,771 Not Affordable 4:20+ 1975 $690 152$ $842 Low 4:20+ 1965 $785 171$ $956 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,050 191$ $1,241 Low 3:4-19 1985 $1,015 $77 $1,092 Low 4:20+ 1945 $1,000 94$ $1,094 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,200 220$ $1,420 Low 1:SF 2000 $2,100 247$ $2,347 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $2,395 276$ $2,671 Middle 4:20+ 1975 $685 152$ $837 Low 4:20+ 1945 $810 171$ $981 Low 4:20+ 1945 $795 191$ $986 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $925 $77 $1,002 Low 4:20+ 1975 $976 220$ $1,196 Low 3:4-19 1985 $1,100 94$ $1,194 Low 1:SF 1975 $1,995 247$ $2,242 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $2,550 276$ $2,826 Middle 4:20+ 1965 $425 152$ $577 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $775 62$ $837 Low 4:20+ 1945 $725 77$ $802 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,025 $191 $1,216 Low 4:20+ 1965 $875 220$ $1,095 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $910 220$ $1,130 Very Low 1:SF 1975 $2,295 247$ $2,542 Middle 4:20+ 1985 $793 152$ $945 Low 4:20+ 1945 $650 62$ $712 Very Low 4:20+ 1945 $845 77$ $922 Very Low 4:20+ 2010 $1,431 $191 $1,622 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $1,400 220$ $1,620 Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,293 220$ $1,513 Low 1:SF 1975 $2,000 247$ $2,247 Moderate 3:4-19 1975 $850 46$ $896 Low 4:20+ 1945 $619 62$ $681 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $810 77$ $887 Very Low 3:4-19 1965 $895 $77 $972 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,895 220$ $2,115 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $2,200 220$ $2,420 Middle 1:SF 1990 $1,895 247$ $2,142 Moderate 4:20+ 1965 $670 62$ $732 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $955 191$ $1,146 Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,050 $191 $1,241 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,595 220$ $1,815 Moderate 1:SF 1965 $1,695 220$ $1,915 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $4,100 247$ $4,347 Not Affordable 4:20+ 1985 $800 171$ $971 Low 3:4-19 1975 $925 77$ $1,002 Low 4:20+ 1985 $925 $77 $1,002 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,650 220$ $1,870 Moderate 1:SF 1965 $1,800 220$ $2,020 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $2,800 247$ $3,047 Middle 3:4-19 1985 $725 62$ $787 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $820 191$ $1,011 Low 4:20+ 1985 $875 $77 $952 Very Low 1:SF 1965 $1,375 220$ $1,595 Low 1:SF 1945 $3,995 220$ $4,215 Not Affordable 4:20+ 1975 $760 171$ $931 Low 4:20+ 2010 $1,325 191$ $1,516 Moderate 4:20+ 1975 $950 $77 $1,027 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,250 220$ $1,470 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,495 220$ $1,715 Moderate 4:20+ 2010 $1,207 171$ $1,378 Moderate 4:20+ 1985 $770 191$ $961 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $880 $77 $957 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 220$ $1,615 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 220$ $1,615 Low 4:20+ 1985 $710 171$ $881 Low 4:20+ 1975 $932 191$ $1,123 Low 4:20+ 1975 $992 $191 $1,183 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,250 220$ $1,470 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,595 220$ $1,815 Moderate 4:20+ 1985 $825 62$ $887 Low 4:20+ 1975 $891 191$ $1,082 Low 4:20+ 1975 $975 $191 $1,166 Low 3:4-19 1945 $1,400 94$ $1,494 Low 1:SF 1945 $2,400 220$ $2,620 Middle 4:20+ 1975 $744 171$ $915 Low 4:20+ 1975 $750 191$ $941 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $840 $191 $1,031 Low 3:4-19 1945 $1,100 94$ $1,194 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 220$ $1,615 Low 4:20+ 1965 $695 62$ $757 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $795 191$ $986 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $850 $77 $927 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $1,000 94$ $1,094 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $786 171$ $957 Low 4:20+ 1975 $885 77$ $962 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,028 $191 $1,219 Low 3:4-19 1975 $2,195 94$ $2,289 Middle 4:20+ 1975 $700 171$ $871 Low 4:20+ 1965 $795 191$ $986 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,725 $191 $1,916 Middle 3:4-19 1965 $1,200 94$ $1,294 Low 4:20+ 1975 $715 171$ $886 Low 4:20+ 1985 $957 191$ $1,148 Low 3:4-19 1975 $700 $77 $777 Very Low 2:2-3 2000 $1,425 220$ $1,645 Low 4:20+ 1975 $705 171$ $876 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,150 191$ $1,341 Low 1:SF 1900 $1,195 $191 $1,386 Low 2:2-3 2000 $1,425 220$ $1,645 Low 4:20+ 1975 $735 62$ $797 Very Low 3:4-19 1945 $850 77$ $927 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $850 $77 $927 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,295 94$ $1,389 Low 4:20+ 1965 $710 171$ $881 Low 3:4-19 1965 $840 77$ $917 Very Low 2:2-3 1965 $1,475 $77 $1,552 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $2,250 220$ $2,470 Middle 4:20+ 1985 $860 171$ $1,031 Low 3:4-19 1945 $985 77$ $1,062 Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,495 $191 $1,686 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $1,675 220$ $1,895 Moderate 1:SF 1900 $1,350 171$ $1,521 Moderate 3:4-19 1945 $900 77$ $977 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,200 $191 $1,391 Low 1:SF 1975 $1,975 220$ $2,195 Middle 3:4-19 1975 $755 62$ $817 Very Low 3:4-19 1945 $839 77$ $916 Very Low 1:SF 1975 $1,995 220$ $2,215 Middle 3:4-19 1945 $750 62$ $812 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $925 77$ $1,002 Low 1:SF 1985 $1,400 220$ $1,620 Low 3:4-19 1965 $710 62$ $772 Very Low 1:SF 1985 $1,670 220$ $1,890 Moderate 3:4-19 1945 $800 62$ $862 Low 3:4-19 1945 $631 62$ $693 Very Low 3:4-19 1945 $600 62$ $662 Very Low 4 Bedroom 5 BedroomStudio1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom, 1 Bath 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath 3 Bedroom, 1 Bath 3 Bedroom, 2 Bath A1 Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds Packet Page 511 of 586 B1 PROPERTY NAME STREET ADDRESS PARCEL ID Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate SUBSIDIZED UNITS WORKFORCE UNITS TRANSITIONAL UNITS OWNER POPULATION SERVED FUNDING SOURCES Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HASCO)Various Various 122 33 21 2 178 Public (HASCO)Vaious HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (EHA)Various Various 14 2 1 17 Public (EHA)Various HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Aurora House 20903 70th Ave W 27042000302700 16 16 Public (HASCO)Mentally Ill Bond Ballinger Court Apts.22707 76th Ave. W 27042900308400 28 64 92 Private Nonprofit (SHAG)Seniors Tax Credit, Bond Edmonds Highlands 23326 Edmonds Way 00555300100300 108 12 108 Public (HASCO)Family Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers, Bond, Sound Families McKinney House 19515 73rd Ave W 27041700303300 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass Health)Mentally Ill HUD Supportive Housing Program Olympic View Apartments 303 Howell Way 27032600100300 43 43 Public (HASCO)Seniors Section 8 Project-Based Voucher, Tax Credit, Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing Trust Fund Sound View Apartments 417 Third Ave S 27032600100500 43 43 Public (HASCO)Seniors Section 8 Project-Based Voucher, Tax Credit, Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing Trust Fund Tri-level House 8629 196th St SW 27041800309900 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass Health)Mentally Ill HUD Supportive Housing Program Zeigen House 20208 73rd Ave W 00400600001400 1 1 Private Nonprofit (Compass Health)Mentally Ill State Housing Trust Fund, County Housing Trust Fund ASSISTED UNITS BY INCOME LEVEL Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Sales 416 517 577 586 666 Average Sale Price 465,736$ 409,870$ 404,634$ 359,465$ 383,157$ Median Sale Price 411,000$ 355,000$ 346,500$ 315,000$ 339,975$ Median Sale Price Home Affordability 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mortgage Amount 328,800$ 284,000$ 277,200$ 252,000$ 271,980$ Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66% Monthly PITI Principal + Interest 1,990$ 1,535$ 1,459$ 1,289$ 1,246$ Property Taxes 343$ 296$ 289$ 263$ 283$ Insurance 130$ 112$ 110$ 100$ 108$ Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$ TOTAL 2,463$ 1,943$ 1,858$ 1,651$ 1,637$ Minimum Annual Income 98,522$ 77,730$ 74,315$ 66,044$ 65,468$ in 2012 Dollars 105,061$ 83,186$ 78,247$ 67,411$ First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mortgage Amount 264,000$ 240,000$ 218,305$ 192,000$ 200,000$ Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66% Monthly PITI Principal + Interest 1,598$ 1,297$ 1,149$ 982$ 916$ Property Taxes 275$ 250$ 227$ 200$ 208$ Insurance 105$ 95$ 86$ 76$ 79$ Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$ TOTAL 2,247$ 1,911$ 1,739$ 1,539$ 1,462$ Minimum Annual Income 89,867$ 76,444$ 69,566$ 61,557$ 58,470$ in 2012 Dollars 95,832$ 81,810$ 73,247$ 62,831$ Packet Page 512 of 586 C1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Sales 416 517 577 586 666 Average Sale Price 465,736$ 409,870$ 404,634$ 359,465$ 383,157$ Median Sale Price 411,000$ 355,000$ 346,500$ 315,000$ 339,975$ Median Sale Price Home Affordability 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mortgage Amount 328,800$ 284,000$ 277,200$ 252,000$ 271,980$ Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66% Monthly PITI Principal + Interest 1,990$ 1,535$ 1,459$ 1,289$ 1,246$ Property Taxes 343$ 296$ 289$ 263$ 283$ Insurance 130$ 112$ 110$ 100$ 108$ Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$ TOTAL 2,463$ 1,943$ 1,858$ 1,651$ 1,637$ Minimum Annual Income 98,522$ 77,730$ 74,315$ 66,044$ 65,468$ in 2012 Dollars 105,061$ 83,186$ 78,247$ 67,411$ First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mortgage Amount 264,000$ 240,000$ 218,305$ 192,000$ 200,000$ Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66% Monthly PITI Principal + Interest 1,598$ 1,297$ 1,149$ 982$ 916$ Property Taxes 275$ 250$ 227$ 200$ 208$ Insurance 105$ 95$ 86$ 76$ 79$ Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$ TOTAL 2,247$ 1,911$ 1,739$ 1,539$ 1,462$ Minimum Annual Income 89,867$ 76,444$ 69,566$ 61,557$ 58,470$ in 2012 Dollars 95,832$ 81,810$ 73,247$ 62,831$ Appendix C: Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012 Packet Page 513 of 586 D1 Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary Affordable Housing: For housing to be considered affordable, a household should not pay more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. This includes all costs related to housing - rent, mortgage payments, utilities, etc. AMI: Area Median Income. The measure of median income used in this report is that of the Seattle-Bellevue HMFA. This measure is used in administering the Section 8 voucher program in Snohomish County. Cost-Burdened: Households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Extremely Low Income: Households that make up to 30 percent of AMI. Fair Market Rent: HUD determines what a reasonable rent level should be for a geographic area, and sets this as the area’s fair market rent. Section 8 voucher holders are limited to selecting units that do not rent for more than fair market rent. HMFA: HUD Metro FMR Area Low Income: Households that make up to 80 percent of AMI. Median Income: The median income for a community is the annual income at which half the households earn less and half earn more. Middle Income: Households that make up to 120 percent of AMI. Moderate Income: Households that make up to 95 percent of AMI. PHA: Public Housing Agency Section 8: HUD’s Section 8 Housing Choice voucher program. Qualifying households can take their voucher to any housing unit which meets HUD safety and market rent standards. HUD funds are administered by PHAs. Severely Cost-Burdened: Households that spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Subsidized Rental Unit: A unit which benefits from a direct, monthly rent subsidy. This subsidy will vary to ensure that a household does not spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers are an example of a direct rent subsidy. Very Low Income: Households that make up to 50 percent of AMI. Workforce Rental Housing: Workforce rental units have rents which are set in order to be affordable to households at certain income levels. While a household may need to have income below a certain level to apply for a workforce rental unit, the rent level does not adjust to their actual income. A property may feature units with rents affordable to households with 50% AMI, Packet Page 514 of 586 D2 but a household earning 30% AMI would still have to pay the same rent Packet Page 515 of 586 1 Appendix E: Methodology Affordability - Adjustment for Household Size Where it is indicated that housing cost affordability is assessed adjusting for household size, several factors are considered. First, using HUD standards, the appropriate size range that could inhabit the housing unit in question is determined. For example, the appropriate range for a 2 bedroom unit would be 2-4 people. Next, the cutoff income levels are averaged across the household size range, and this average is used for comparison. To assess whether or not a 2 bedroom unit is affordable to extremely low income households using this method, one would first average the extremely low cutoff levels for 2-, 3-, and 4-person households. For 2012, these levels were $21,150, $23,800, and $26,400. Their average is $23,783. A household with this income can afford to spend no more than $595 per month on housing. If the unit in question rents for less than this amount, then one can say that, on average, it is affordable to extremely low income households, adjusting for household size. Table E.1, below, shows the maximum a household at each income level can afford to spend on housing per month by household size. Home ownership affordability Home ownership affordability was calculated using similar techniques to the California Association of Realtor’s Housing Affordability Index. First, property sale data was acquired from the Snohomish County Assessor, and single family home sales in Everett were separated. Next, the monthly payment for these homes was calculated using several assumptions: • Assuming a 20% down payment, the loan amount is then 80% of the total sale price • Mortgage term is 30 years • Interest rate is the national average effective composite rate for previously occupied homes as reported by the Federal Housing Finance Board • Monthly property taxes are assumed to be 1% of the sale price divided by 12 • Monthly insurance payments are assumed to be 0.38% of the sale price divided by 12 Table E.1. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle-Bellevue HMFA 2012 Number of Persons Per Household HMFA Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Extremely Low $455 $520 $585 $650 $703 $755 $806 $859 $650 Very Low $759 $868 $976 $1,084 $1,171 $1,258 $1,345 $1,431 $1,084 Low $1,128 $1,289 $1,450 $1,610 $1,740 $1,869 $1,998 $2,126 $1,734 Moderate $1,442 $1,648 $1,855 $2,059 $2,225 $2,389 $2,556 $2,719 $2,059 Middle $1,821 $2,082 $2,343 $2,601 $2,811 $3,018 $3,228 $3,435 $2,601 Source: US Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2012 Packet Page 516 of 586 2 Using all of these assumptions, the monthly payment is t he sum of principal and interest; taxes; and insurance. Household Income Levels Area Median Income, or AMI, is an important part of many housing affordability calculations. In Snohomish County, HUD uses the Seattle-Bellevue HMFA median income as AMI. This is recalculated every year, both as an overall average and by household size up to 8 individuals. Standard income levels are as follows: •Extremely low income: <30% AMI •Very low income: between 30 and 50% AMI •Low income: between 50 and 80% AMI •Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI •Middle income: between 95 and 120% AMI Household Profiles Information on households was gathered from Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher data from both the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority (EHA). All names have been changed as well as many other nonessential details to protect privacy. Packet Page 517 of 586    AM-7396     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Renee McRae Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Review of proposed changes to Edmonds City Code, Chapter 10.16 Cemetery Board Recommendation Forward the proposed changes to the January 20th City Council consent agenda. Previous Council Action Narrative The proposed changes add language that is consistent with the City code for other boards/commissions, as well as housekeeping changes.   The changes also alter the membership to provide the Cemetery Board with the ability to conduct business on a monthly basis.  For several years the Cemetery Board has experienced difficulty with having a full board, 7 members and 2 alternates.  10.16.010 Changes the makeup of the board to up to seven community members and eliminates the two alternates, and adds appointment by the Mayor and confirmation by City Council. 10.16.020 Eliminates references to alternates. 10.16.030 Officers, Meeting, Quorum is new language that mirrors other boards/commissions. 10.16.040 Powers of board - revised so that it is relative to the functions of the Cemetery Board. 10.16.050 Revised to annual report. 10.16.070 Cemetery Board Alternates deleted.  Attachments Cemetery Board redlined Cemetery Board code revised Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/07/2015 09:17 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/07/2015 09:42 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2015 10:30 AM Packet Page 518 of 586 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2015 10:30 AM Form Started By: Renee McRae Started On: 01/05/2015 02:03 PM Final Approval Date: 01/08/2015  Packet Page 519 of 586 Chapter 10.16 CEMETERY BOARD Sections: 10.16.010 Cemetery board – Members and their terms. 10.16.020 Vacancy – Removal. 10.16.030 Officers, Meetings, Quorum 10.16.030 040 Powers of board. 10.16.040 050 Meetings – Annual report. 10.16.050 060 Funds for improvement and maintenance of the cemetery. 10.16.060 070 Board subordinate to council. 10.16.070 Cemetery board alternates. 10.16.200 Severability. 10.16.010 Cemetery board – Members and their terms. The cemetery board shall be composed of up to seven community members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. , plus two additional persons to serve as alternates, as provided under ECC 10.16.070. Board members Members and the alternates shall be appointed for four-year terms terminating on December 31st. [Ord. 3095 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2839 § 1, 1991; Ord. 2570, 1986; Ord. 2306, 1982]. 10.16.020 Vacancy – Removal. Vacancies occurring other than through the expiration of terms may be filled for the unexpired terms. , and the persons serving as the cemetery board alternates shall be given priority in filling a vacancy. Members may be removed by the mayor, with approval of the city council, after a public hearing before the city council for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Members shall also be removed for failure to maintain attendance as required by provisions of the Edmonds City Code. The persons serving as the cemetery board alternates shall be subject to the same provisions for removal as for members. [Ord. 3095 § 2, 1996; Ord. 2839 § 2, 1991; Ord. 2306, 1982]. 10.16.030 Officers, Meeting, Quorum Members of the board shall meet and organize by electing officers from the members of the board a chair and a vice-chair, and such other officers as may be determined by the board. It shall be the duty of the chair to preside at all meetings. The vice-chair shall perform this duty in the absence of the chair. A majority of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The board shall set its own meeting dates and shall give notice of such meeting in compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act of the State of Washington, as it now exists and as it may be amended from time to time. Staff assistance will be provided at the discretion of the mayor. 10.16.030040 Powers of board. The cemetery board shall have full power to manage the operation of the municipal cemetery and to that end shall have powerswork with the Parks Department to: A. To eEstablish rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter. B. To regulate the sale and location of burial lots and/or to contract with persons to provide such services. CB. To provide Make recommendations for the improvement and maintenance of the cemetery. To that end the board shall submit proposed maintenance and capital improvement budgets to the city council in conjunction with the budget process for the city. D. To determine the types of plantings, monuments and markers that will be permitted for the proper and most attractive development of the cemetery. EC. To aAccept any gift of money or property on behalf of the cemetery. F. In carrying out duties and responsibilities, the board shall have such staff assistance as authorized by the mayor. Packet Page 520 of 586 Provided that, the person serving as a cemetery board alternate shall not possess any of the preceding powers until such person becomes a cemetery board member. [Ord. 3095 § 3, 1996; Ord. 2839 § 3, 1991; Ord. 2306, 1982]. 10.16.040050 Meetings – Annual report. The board shall hold such meetings as are necessary to perform the functions set forth herein and as set forth in its rules and regulations. The board shall report at least quarterlyannually to the council concerning the operations of the cemetery, the short and long term goals of the board concerning the cemetery and a report on the activities of the board. [Ord. 2306, 1982]. 10.16.050060 Funds for improvement and maintenance of the cemetery. A. There are hereby created two special funds of the city to be known as the cemetery improvement fund and the cemetery maintenance trust fund. The city council shall, each year as a part of the budget process, allocate revenue from lot sales, burial fees, and all bequests, gifts and donations received with respect to the cemetery on a percentage basis to said funds. 1. The cemetery improvement and annual maintenance fund shall be used for special projects, special events, capital improvements and other recurring and nonrecurring needs of the cemetery. Expenditures of this fund may be made both from principal and income and the entire amount of such fund may be expended in any year when such expenditures are within the annual budget approved by the city council. 2. The cemetery maintenance trust fund shall be held in trust for future expenditure solely for the purpose of maintaining the cemetery and any capital improvements or facilities located therein in the foreseeable future. Expenditures from this fund shall be limited to the income earned by said funds along with any additional funds appropriated to this fund by the council or donated by any party for the purpose of annual maintenance. To the extent permitted by law, the city council hereby impresses the current fund balance of this fund, as well as any private donations made in trust in favor of the estate of any person buried therein by the descendaents of such persons, the Hubbard Family Foundation and any other persons or entities donating funds to the cemetery maintenance trust fund for the sole purpose of maintenance of the cemetery and its capital improvements. 3. The city council shall consider the number of unsold lots, the future market value of unsold lots, and the probable earnings of the trust fund when fully funded by the sale of all lots when allocating revenue. The goal shall be to actuarially fund the cemetery and maintenance fund with sufficient monies so that it may become and remain a self-sufficient source of funding for all recurring maintenance of the cemetery. B. Any monies in said funds, surplus and available for investment, shall be managed in accordance with RCW 68.12.060. This section shall be considered approval of investments in accordance with RCW 68.12.065 subject to the annual review of the city council in the budget process. All investments shall be reviewed and approved by the finance director. C. Monies shall be paid out of said funds only upon warrants drawn by the cemetery board and approved in the manner set forth in Chapter 2.25 ECC. All warrants shall be endorsed by the mayor and attested by the city finance director. In no event shall any monies be expended from the cemetery maintenance trust fund in excess of the annual income earned nor shall any money be diverted from such trust fund to any purpose other than provided in this chapter. To the extent permitted by law, the council hereby prohibits itself and future councils from diverting funds for the cemetery maintenance trust fund, while reserving its right to budget monies to or approve expenditures from the cemetery maintenance trust funding future budget years as it, in its sole discretion, shall deem appropriate in order to actuarially provide for the establishment of a fund which will generate sufficient income to meet the future foreseeable maintenance needs of the cemetery. Expenditures of monies from the cemetery improvement fund and the cemetery maintenance trust fund shall be provided for in the annual budget by the council subject to the recommendation of the cemetery board. [Ord. 3797 § 1, 2010; Ord. 2827 § 3, 1991; Ord. 2596, § 1, 1986]. 10.16.060070 Board subordinate to council. The cemetery board shall, at all times, be deemed subordinate to the city council and the city council shall have power to settle all disputes and regulate, modify and supervise the exercise of the powers herein granted. [Ord. 2306, 1982]. Packet Page 521 of 586 10.16.070 Cemetery board alternates. In addition to the seven board members, two alternate persons shall be appointed to the cemetery board and shall serve subject to the following provisions: A. In the absence of a regularly appointed board member, an alternate shall exercise the powers attributed to board members in ECC 10.16.030 and shall be subject to the same requirements regarding attendance and other attributes of the position. Between the two alternate members, the alternate member who has served upon the cemetery board for the longest period of time shall be the first to serve in a vacant regularly appointed board member position. B. When a vacancy upon the cemetery board arises, the replacement member shall be appointed to the open position, and in the event that an alternate is appointed to the board as a board member, a new person shall be appointed to serve as the board alternate. [Ord. 3095 § 4, 1996; Ord. 2839 § 4, 1991]. 10.16.200 Severability. If any word, clause, phrase or other portion of this chapter is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining words, clauses, phrases and other portions of this chapter shall not be affected. [Ord. 2306, 1982]. Packet Page 522 of 586 Chapter 10.16 CEMETERY BOARD Sections: 10.16.010 Cemetery board – Members and their terms 10.16.020 Vacancy – Removal 10.16.030 Officers, Meetings, Quorum 10.16.040 Powers of board 10.16.050 Meetings – Annual report 10.16.060 Funds for improvement and maintenance of the cemetery 10.16.070 Board subordinate to council 10.16.200 Severability 10.16.010 Cemetery board – Members and their terms. The cemetery board shall be composed of up to seven community members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. . Members shall be appointed for four-year terms terminating on December 31st. [Ord. 3095 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2839 § 1, 1991; Ord. 2570, 1986; Ord. 2306, 1982]. 10.16.020 Vacancy – Removal. Vacancies occurring other than through the expiration of terms may be filled for the unexpired terms. Members may be removed by the mayor, with approval of the city council, after a public hearing before the city council for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Members shall also be removed for failure to maintain attendance as required by provisions of the Edmonds City Code. [Ord. 3095 § 2, 1996; Ord. 2839 § 2, 1991; Ord. 2306, 1982]. 10.16.030 Officers, Meeting, Quorum Members of the board shall meet and organize by electing officers from the members of the board a chair and a vice-chair, and such other officers as may be determined by the board. It shall be the duty of the chair to preside at all meetings. The vice-chair shall perform this duty in the absence of the chair. A majority of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The board shall set its own meeting dates and shall give notice of such meeting in compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act of the State of Washington, as it now exists and as it may be amended from time to time. Staff assistance will be provided at the discretion of the mayor. 10.16.040 Powers of board. The cemetery board shall work with the Parks Department to: A. Establish rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter. B. Make recommendations for the improvement and maintenance of the cemetery. C. Accept any gift of money or property on behalf of the cemetery. C. Accept any gift of money or property on behalf of the cemetery. 10.16.050 Annual report. The board shall report annually to the council concerning the operations of the cemetery, the short and long term goals of the board concerning the cemetery and a report on the activities of the board. [Ord. 2306, 1982]. 10.16.060 Funds for improvement and maintenance of the cemetery. A. There are hereby created two special funds of the city to be known as the cemetery improvement fund and the cemetery maintenance trust fund. The city council shall, each year as a part of the budget process, allocate revenue from lot sales, burial fees, and all bequests, gifts and donations received with respect to the cemetery on a percentage basis to said funds. 1. The cemetery improvement and annual maintenance fund shall be used for special projects, special events, capital improvements and other recurring and nonrecurring needs of the cemetery. Expenditures of this fund may Packet Page 523 of 586 be made both from principal and income and the entire amount of such fund may be expended in any year when such expenditures are within the annual budget approved by the city council. 2. The cemetery maintenance trust fund shall be held in trust for future expenditure solely for the purpose of maintaining the cemetery and any capital improvements or facilities located therein in the foreseeable future. Expenditures from this fund shall be limited to the income earned by said funds along with any additional funds appropriated to this fund by the council or donated by any party for the purpose of annual maintenance. To the extent permitted by law, the city council hereby impresses the current fund balance of this fund, as well as any private donations made in trust in favor of the estate of any person buried therein by the descendants of such persons, the Hubbard Family Foundation and any other persons or entities donating funds to the cemetery maintenance trust fund for the sole purpose of maintenance of the cemetery and its capital improvements. 3. The city council shall consider the number of unsold lots, the future market value of unsold lots, and the probable earnings of the trust fund when fully funded by the sale of all lots when allocating revenue. The goal shall be to actuarially fund the cemetery and maintenance fund with sufficient monies so that it may become and remain a self-sufficient source of funding for all recurring maintenance of the cemetery. B. Any monies in said funds, surplus and available for investment, shall be managed in accordance with RCW 68.12.060. This section shall be considered approval of investments in accordance with RCW 68.12.065 subject to the annual review of the city council in the budget process. All investments shall be reviewed and approved by the finance director. C. Monies shall be paid out of said funds only upon warrants drawn by the cemetery board and approved in the manner set forth in Chapter 2.25 ECC. All warrants shall be endorsed by the mayor and attested by the city finance director. In no event shall any monies be expended from the cemetery maintenance trust fund in excess of the annual income earned nor shall any money be diverted from such trust fund to any purpose other than provided in this chapter. To the extent permitted by law, the council hereby prohibits itself and future councils from diverting funds for the cemetery maintenance trust fund, while reserving its right to budget monies to or approve expenditures from the cemetery maintenance trust funding future budget years as it, in its sole discretion, shall deem appropriate in order to actuarially provide for the establishment of a fund which will generate sufficient income to meet the future foreseeable maintenance needs of the cemetery. Expenditures of monies from the cemetery improvement fund and the cemetery maintenance trust fund shall be provided for in the annual budget by the council subject to the recommendation of the cemetery board. [Ord. 3797 § 1, 2010; Ord. 2827 § 3, 1991; Ord. 2596, § 1, 1986]. 10.16.070 Board subordinate to council. The cemetery board shall, at all times, be deemed subordinate to the city council and the city council shall have power to settle all disputes and regulate, modify and supervise the exercise of the powers herein granted. [Ord. 2306, 1982]. 10.16.200 Severability. If any word, clause, phrase or other portion of this chapter is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining words, clauses, phrases and other portions of this chapter shall not be affected. [Ord. 2306, 1982]. Packet Page 524 of 586    AM-7404     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Council President Fraley-Monillas Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion on Potential Update of Council Vacancy Interviews and Appointment Process Recommendation Previous Council Action January 6, 2015 Council Meeting:  The Council rescheduled the discussion of the Council vacancy interviews and appointment  process to the January 13, 2015 Council Meeting.  The application form was discussed, a few changes were made, and it was approved (see Attachment 3).  Former Councilmember Peterson was present during this meeting and was able to vote regarding the questionnaire.  Although he is not longer a member of the Council, it should be noted that he worked very hard, along with Council President Fraley-Monillas on this process. Narrative Discussion on Potential Update of Council Vacancy Interviews and Appointment Process. Attachments Attachment 1 - Edmonds City Council Candidate Interview and Voting Process 1-1-15 Attachment 2 Edmonds City Code Chapter 1.02.035 Filling vacant council positions  Attachment 3 - 20150106 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/08/2015 09:49 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/08/2015 11:05 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2015 11:05 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 01/08/2015 09:34 AM Final Approval Date: 01/08/2015  Packet Page 525 of 586 Edmonds City Council Candidate Interview and Voting Process Prior to the Interview Meeting: Staff will provide either a paper or electronic copy of all application materials for each candidate, along with a list of candidates and their interview times, and a Composite Scoring Sheet. At least 2 business days prior to the scheduled interview meeting, Councilmembers will submit one question each to the Council President, who may also submit a question for a total of 7 questions. Council may call applicants with independent questions prior to interview Open Public Interview Meeting: For fair and open process the interviews will not be live streamed but will be played after interviews are completed. Interviews for a vacant City Council position will be conducted in an open public meeting. Each interview of an applicant/candidate will be no longer than 40 minutes in length as follows: 1. The applicants’ order of appearance is determined by the order in which their applications were received. 2. Only the applicant being interviewed will be allowed in Council chambers; the other applicants will be waiting in an area to be determined by the City Clerk. After completing their interview, each applicant may remain in Council chambers. 3. The applicant will have an opening statement to the City Council. (2 minutes) 4. The City Council will ask a predetermined set of questions which must be responded to by the applicant. Each applicant will be asked and will answer the same set of questions, and will have 2 minutes to answer each question. (15 minutes) 5. Councilmembers may engage in an informal question and answer period in which they may ask and receive answers to miscellaneous questions. (each councilmember will have 1 minute for a question and applicant will have 2 minutes for response) 6. Applicant will have the opportunity for a 2 minute closing statement 7. Councilmembers should score each applicant during the interview. 8. The City Council may reduce the 40 minute interview time if the number of applicants exceeds six (6) candidates, or alternatively, the Council may elect not to interview all of the applicants if the number exceeds six (6) candidates. The decision as to which applicants to interview will be based on the information contained in the application and/or supporting materials, which may include endorsements, letters of reference, etc. 9. At the conclusion of the interviews, the City Council may adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss the qualifications of the applicants. However, all interviews, deliberations, nominations and votes taken by the City Council shall be in an open public session. Executive Session The City Attorney should facilitate the discussion of determining each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses to determine qualifications. Councilmembers may share their individual rankings of candidates. The Council shall not conduct any straw polls or voting during the Executive Session. At the completion of the discussion, Council adjourns the Executive Session and reconvenes the public meeting. Attachment 1 Packet Page 526 of 586 Reconvening the Public Open Meeting for Voting: 1. Each Councilmember shall submit a signed written ballot nominating their top three candidates to the City Clerk. Once all ballots are submitted, the Clerk will read aloud the Councilmember’s name and their selections. The Council will, by consensus, agree to eliminate 5 candidates receiving the fewest votes. 2. After this, and each round of voting, Councilmembers may deliberate on such matters as criteria for selection and the nominated group of candidates. Following that discussion, the Mayor shall poll Councilmembers to ascertain that Councilmembers are prepared to vote. 3. Repeat Step One using the new list of candidates, but Councilmembers select only their top three candidates. The Council will again, by consensus, eliminate candidates receiving the fewest votes. 4. Repeat Step Three using the new list of candidates, but Councilmembers select only their top two candidates. The Council will again, by consensus, eliminate candidates receiving the fewest votes. 5. The Council may compress any of the steps above by beginning with a top three selection, or skipping to a top two, for instance. A motion and majority vote may amend these rules to do so. 6. In a final step, the Council can choose by majority vote to select their single top candidate by written ballot or roll call. 7. The Mayor shall proceed with a roll-call vote (or written ballot) with each Councilmember expressing his or her preference for the appointed Councilmember. If no applicant receives four or more votes after the roll call, then a second roll call is conducted, but with the nominee who received the fewest votes on the first roll call removed from consideration. 8. Elections will continue until a nominee receives a majority vote of the remaining Councilmembers; 9. At any time during the election process, the Council may postpone elections until a later date or regular meeting if a majority vote has not been received. 10. Nothing in this policy shall prevent the City Council from reconvening into Executive Session to further discuss the applicant/candidate qualifications. 11. The Mayor shall declare the nominee receiving the majority vote as the new Councilmember and he or she shall be sworn into office by the City Clerk at the earliest opportunity or no later than the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting and will complete the unexpired term for the Position. 12. If the City Council does not appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy within 90 days of the declared vacancy, the Revised Code of Washington delegates appointment powers to Snohomish County. (RCW 42.12.070(4)) ALTERNATIVES: Identify a different process to determine the interview order of candidates. 1. The City Clerk selects the names of the applicants at random to determine the order of the interviews. 2. Identify a different process for the candidate’s appointment. Packet Page 527 of 586 Alternate Option A for steps 1-6 of voting: 1. The Mayor shall ask for nominations from Councilmembers for the purpose of creating a group of candidates to consider. Each Councilmember nominates only one candidate. No second is needed. 2. Nominations are closed by a motion, second and majority vote of the Council. 3. Councilmembers may deliberate on such matters as criteria for selection and the nominated group of candidates. 4. The Mayor shall poll Councilmembers to ascertain that Councilmembers are prepared to vote. 5. Proceed to step 7 above. Alternate Option B for steps 1-6 of voting: Rules For Nomination/Election To Fill Council Vacancy (current rules) Nominations Each Councilmember may nominate one candidate from the list of applicants by placing an “X” beside the name of the applicant of his or her choice on the form supplied for that purpose by the City Clerk, and by signing the nomination form. The City Clerk will announce and maintain a permanent record of the nominations and of the Councilmember nominating each candidate. The Election Each Councilmember may vote for one candidate by placing an “X” beside the name of the candidate of his or her choice on the ballot supplied for that purpose by the City Clerk, and by signing the ballot. The City Clerk will announce and maintain a permanent record of each ballot and who voted for each candidate. A Deadlock A deadlock occurs after each Councilmember votes the same way on three consecutive ballots. In the event the City Council should deadlock, then previous nominations are declared null and void and the Council may begin a new round of nominations. Packet Page 528 of 586 1.02.035 Filling vacant council positions. A. In the event a vacancy or vacancies shall occur on the city council, such position(s) shall be filled until a successor to such position(s) can be elected for the remainder of the unexpired term(s) at the next municipal election. Such election process shall comply with the requirements of RCW 35A.12.050 and Chapter 42.12 RCW. In addition the city council shall establish a process commensurate with the time available which includes, at a minimum, public notification by posting and publication in the city’s legal newspaper, the establishment of an application process with a clearly stated deadline for the submission of letters of interest, the development of questionnaires to assist the city council in its process, a public interview process conducted by the city council and nominations and selection by the city council during an open public meeting. All portions of this process shall be open to the public unless the city council in its discretion elects to discuss the qualifications of a candidate for public office in executive session as provided for by RCW 42.30.110(h). B. In the event that a council member shall resign or otherwise become ineligible to hold office after the date when the council position has been filled by election but prior to the date on which the newly elected council member is eligible to take office, the city council may in its sole discretion elect to dispense with the procedures established in subsection A of this section and appoint the newly elected successor to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term. [Ord. 3382 § 1, 2001; Ord. 3005 § 1, 1995; Ord. 1841 § 2, 1976]. Attachment 2 Packet Page 529 of 586 section of pipe on the Port’s property that the City’s stormwater flows through and the City pays a quarterly lease for use of the pipe. Councilmember Petso asked whether this project offers an opportunity to relocate that pipe to eliminate that lease. Mr. Williams answered the project offers opportunity to have that conversation with the Port. The pipe could have a use in the after condition as part of an active system to help with flooding problems. The flooding study, which is also a companion to this project, has not been completed. This project will remove the creek flow from that pipe and may provide opportunity to use the pipe for another useful purpose. Councilmember Petso commented the payment is not an insignificant amount and she was hopeful the project would reduce that obligation. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a significant unfunded project, the relocation of the ferry to this general area. She asked whether that was considered in the feasibility studies. Ms. Hite answered yes; Walker Macy is considering the conceptual drawings in the Master Plan of Marina Beach. Councilmember Johnson referred to the alternatives analysis that may include a train trench and asked how that was considered. Mr. Williams answered the alternatives analysis could provide more information than currently exists regarding what a train trench would look like, design options for the trench, etc. There may be ways to make this project and that project compatible but that would need to be studied further. He recalled challenges identified during Tetra Tech’s presentation regarding vertical curves, linear distance required to reach a certain depth, etc. Initial estimates of the length of the train trench would put it in conflict with the current location of the bridge. Further preliminary design would need to be done to provide answers. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the public information process for the Marina Mark Master Plan. Ms. Hite answered the Project Advisory Committee will help guide the process and three public open houses are planned as well as touch points with the Planning Board, Council and public hearings. The process will include public open house, outreach to park users on initial concepts, schematic design process, another public open house to look at alternatives, presentation of alternatives to the Council and final decision on a concept. She summarized this is a Master Plan so it will be a concept design. 17. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DOG DAY AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised this is the same agreement signed last year. The Edmonds City Code allows her and the Mayor to authorize concessions in parks. Because the code addresses seasonal concessions and this is a year-round concession, she brought this to the Council for approval. This concession is appropriate for the park, many people use the ATM before boarding the ferry and it adds to Park Department revenues. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DOG DAY AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how much the City receives from this concession. Ms. Hite answered $200 during the first 6 month; she offered to inform the Council when a full year’s revenue was reported. In total the City receives $10,000 for all park concessions. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 18. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL UPDATE OF COUNCIL VACANCY INTERVIEWS, APPOINTMENT PROCESS, AND APPLICATION FORM QUESTIONS Packet Page 530 of 586 Mayor Earling advised Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Peterson have been working on this. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Attachment 1, Edmonds City Council Candidate Interview and Voting Process. She clarified neither she nor Councilmember Peterson had any vested interest in the process but were presenting options in an effort to make the process smoother than it was the last time. Councilmember Peterson explained he and Council President Fraley-Monillas were tasked with codifying the process. Proposed changes include: • Expanding the application to include some basic questions • Councilmembers submitting interview questions so there was consistency between interviews • In lieu of interviewing all applicants, each Councilmember would identify five to be interviewed Councilmember Peterson explained the addition of basic questions and Councilmembers each identifying five candidates to be interviewed may allow the Council to begin the interview process with some semblance of agreement. He clarified Councilmembers were not required to vote for a candidate they identified to be interviewed. When the process reaches voting, many cities do different things; he felt voting was democracy in action. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember are also encouraged to contact applicants in advance of the interview to get questions answered. She recalled a lot of time had been spent during past interviews asking candidates questions related to Councilmember’s individual interests. Extra Council questions are proposed to be limited to one per Councilmember and the suggested interview timeframe is 40 minutes which is an increase from the current 30 minutes. The proposed process addresses the order of appearance, not allowing candidates in the Council Chambers until they are interviewed, two minute opening statement, formal and informal questions, two minute closing statement, and adjourning to executive session. Due to the late hour, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council address the application tonight and continue discussing the other issues at future meetings. She asked what changes had been made to the application. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised volunteer experience, strengths and weaknesses, and greatest challenge were added. Councilmember Mesaros suggested changing the title to reflect Position 2. Council President Fraley- Monillas suggested eliminating the position number from the application. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that whoever was appointed to Position 2 would run for office in the fall to retain their position. Councilmember Peterson agreed. Council President Fraley- Monillas suggested adding that information at the top of the application. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council also discuss live streaming of the interviews at a future meeting. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED AND SCHEDULE THE REMAINDER OF THE DISCUSSION FOR A WORK SESSION. Councilmember Johnson asked when applications were due. Mr. Taraday advised it is up to Council to make that decision. Councilmember Peterson suggested making the changes to the application, make the application available Monday, January 12, and require applications be submitted by Monday, February 2 which would provide three weeks to apply. The deadline for submitting the application is provided on the last page of the application. Packet Page 531 of 586 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Student Rep Eslami commented when filling out college applications, the question was often asked why this college. He suggested adding a question to the application about why the person wanted to serve. President Fraley-Monillas suggested amending Question 6 to read, “Why do you wish to serve and what do you believe to be the greatest challenge for our council?” Councilmember Johnson pointed out a typo in Question 5, yours should be your. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 18A. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2015 (Continued) Councilmember Petso asked if the meeting could be continued to a date certain, January 13, and therefore comply with the requirement that the Council President Pro Tem be elected at the first meeting. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded that is an interesting idea but raises questions regarding the Open Public Meeting Act Special Meeting notice and seems a little contrived. Councilmember Petso agreed it was contrived but thought the Council had the ability to continue a meeting to a date certain. Mr. Taraday answered the Council can certainly continue hearings but he was not certain how Roberts Rules of Order addressed continuing a meeting. If this matter is not decided tonight, whether the meeting is continued or adjourned, the Council has given itself an argument that they have technically complied with City code. Councilmember Petso relayed her preference to comply with the code. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the language was at the first meeting or could this agenda item be moved to another meeting and the current Council President Pro Tem remain until a new one is elected. Mr. Taraday relayed the language in the code states, “at the same time.” Whether a continued meeting would be at the same time was an interesting question. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 14 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 1 Petso Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 15 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 1 Petso Abstain Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Bloom reiterated her earlier statement that electing Councilmember Mesaros who only has ten months in office was a bad precedent to set and it was disrespectful to citizens. Councilmember Johnson has much more experience than Councilmember Mesaros. She still strongly supports Councilmember Petso and feels she is the best candidate for job but she strongly opposes appointing someone with so little experience and felt it was a disservice to the voters. She commented nothing prepares a person to be a Councilmember except being a Councilmember, not previous leadership, or any previous experience. A Councilmember is a political position and it is not comparable to anything Councilmember Mesaros had done in the past. She could not support someone who had so little experience. Packet Page 532 of 586    AM-7395     13.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Bloom Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding Code of Ethics Recommendation Previous Council Action 2012 Council Retreat: Council made this subject a priority for 2012 (minutes attached) April 10, 2012 Public Safety and Personal Committee :  This agenda items was discussed (minutes attached). 2013 Council Retreat:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). March 12, 2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 9, 2013 PS/P Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 30, 2013 Council Meeting:  This item was put on the August 20, 2013 Council Agenda. See excerpt from July 30, 2013 minutes below: "DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS This item was moved to the August 20, 2013 Council meeting via action taken under Agenda Item 2." August 20, 2013 Council Meeting: Council President Petso suggested due to the late hour and remaining items on the agenda items that this item be postponed to a future meeting. August 27, 2013 Council Meeting: This item was discussed (minutes attached). September 9, 2014 PS/P Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). December 9, 2014 Council Meeting:  Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was rescheduled for the December 16, 2014 Council Meeting. December 16, 2014 Council Meeting:  See attached minutes. Narrative Packet Page 533 of 586 Discussion regarding a Code of Ethics has been ongoing since 2013.  A Code of Ethics document has been placed on this agenda for discussion. Attachments Attach 1: 2012 Council Retreat Minutes  Attach 2 April-10-12 Minutes Public Safety, Personnel Committee Attach 3 - Exerpt from 2012 FINAL Edmonds Personnel Policies Attach 4 - Ord 3689 Conflict of Interest Attach 5: Excerpt from 2013 Council Retreat Minutes Attach 6: Minutes 3/12/13 PS/P Committee Attach 7: Minutes 7/9/13 PS/P Committee  Attach 8 - 8/27/13 Council Minutes Attach - 9 - 09-09-14 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Attach 10 - Code of Ethics 11-21-14 Attach 11 - Shoreline Code of Ethics Attach 12 - Dec. 16 2014 Approved Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/08/2015 09:24 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/08/2015 11:05 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2015 11:06 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 01/02/2015 10:43 AM Final Approval Date: 01/08/2015  Packet Page 534 of 586 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2011 Page 17 before the Council is first a committee meeting or work session. Issues that have a financial impact will be discussed at a work session rather than just by the Finance Committee. It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Community Services/Development Services Committee to the Public Works, Parks and Planning Committees. • Mission Statements Committees will determine whether to develop a mission statement. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto will develop a mission statement for the Finance Committee. • Clarify the Public Safety/Human Resources Committee It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Public Safety/Human Resources to Committee to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. • Community Outreach, Tree Board Council President Peterson explained there has been a proposal to restart the Community Outreach Committee. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Community Outreach Committee was discontinued after 3 years; no new methods of communicating were identified. Mayor Earling commented on the potential for an electronic newsletter. Discussion followed regarding whether to form a code rewrite committee so that the code rewrite is Council and citizen driven, technical expertise required for the code rewrite, having staff make periodic presentations at Council work sessions regarding the rewrite, the proposal by staff to restructure the code, providing opportunity for citizen comment but having professionals assemble the changes, citizen knowledge that could benefit the process, concern with citizens participating for their own benefit or at least that perception, proposal to have user groups test the model, ability for any citizen to identify code conflicts regardless of whether there is a committee structure, and asking staff whether forming a committee in the future could be helpful. The Council agreed to seek feedback from Planning Manager Rob Chave and Building Official Leonard Yarberry regarding forming a code rewrite committee and schedule further discussion on a work session agenda. Council President Peterson suggested enhancing the Council portion of the website with more updates, etc. and working with the Mayor on an electronic newsletter and then consider whether a Community Outreach Committee is needed. It was the consensus of the Council to add a Council liaison to the Tree Board and to make it a paid committee position. • Ethics Council President Peterson recalled there has been discussion about developing a code of ethics for Councilmembers. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Bloom and Petso offered to serve on an ad hoc committee that would review other cities’ codes and present a draft to the Council. • Miscellaneous Mr. Taraday explained a special meeting notice must be issued for Tuesday committee meetings that begin at 6:00 p.m. If the Council wished to continue holding committee meetings at 6:00 p.m., he suggested revising the code to reflect that start time. Packet Page 535 of 586 1 PUBLIC SAFETY/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 10, 2012 Committee members present: Council Member K. Michael Plunkett Council Member Joan Bloom Others present: HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie Citizen Don Hall Council Member Plunkett called the meeting to order at 7:19 pm. DISCUSSION ON CODE OF ETHICS (RELATING TO COUNCIL MEMBERS) Council Member Michael Plunkett opened the discussion by stating it was unclear as to what action/direction should be taken at this point with regard to this as Council had not given any specific direction regarding this topic although one or some council member(s) may have wanted to discuss this further. Council Member Joan Bloom stated that she had reviewed the City of Kirkland’s Code of Ethics and the Mountlake Terrace Code of Ethics and there were some concerns that she had with using a code of ethics similar to theirs. Council Member Bloom further stated that she was not aware that there was a code of ethics for Council Members. HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie affirmed this. Council Member Bloom stated that she would like to build a policy regarding a code of ethics and that this process needs to move forward. Council Member Plunkett stated that he was willing to discuss this topic since it was on the agenda, but that that he may not be interested in moving this forward [for Council consideration]. Ms. Hardie stated that she had discussed this HR Committee subject with Carrie Hite (Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director) prior to the meeting and that they both agreed that HR would likely not be the best (nor most appropriate) committee for this forum. Additionally, while HR had provided samples of codes of ethics from other cities it would seem that the City Attorney and/or the City Clerk’s Office [or Council] may be more appropriate for this process. Ms. Hardie also emphasized that HR was willing to continue to provide information as needed to the committee to assist with the process, but that this was not a [specific to] HR function since it did not pertain to employee related policies. There was some discussion that followed by the committee about what the process would be to create a code of ethics policy for Council members, creating a committee for this and whether or not the HR Committee was the appropriate committee for the discussion. Council Member Plunkett emphasized his concern about the subjectivity of some of the other policies from other cities and that [while the City may not have a specific code of ethics for Council Members] there are state laws that Council Members must follow. Council Member Bloom stated that she understood Council Member Plunkett’s concerns but that due to the expressed interest/concern from the citizens about the possible need for this policy, she felt it was important for: 1) The City of Edmonds to have this policy; 2) this information to be available to citizens (as well as being part of transparency of information and citizen participation); and 3) there to be continued work toward the creation of such a policy. Council Member Plunkett stated that he would like to make this information easier for citizens to access. Council Member Bloom stated that since there does not usually appear to be a large agenda for the HR Committee, that the work on this code of ethics policy could be done at this committee and that the Cities of Kirkland, Mountlake Terrace and another city may be reviewed for further policy consideration. Council Member Plunkett agreed that this could be kept on the HR Committee Meeting agenda and that further review of the policy will occur at the next meeting. Packet Page 536 of 586 2 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Citizen Don Hall stated that he agreed with Council Member Plunkett that some of the code of ethics policies from other cities that he had come across did appear to be too subjective. Citizen Hall further stated that he became more interested in this topic of discussion after it was discovered that Council Members were not considered to be employees of the City and are not held to the same City Personnel Policy standards although [perhaps] they should be. This process will likely require a lot of “hands on” work and will be a difficult process. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 pm Packet Page 537 of 586 53 CHAPTER X EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CODE OF ETHICS 10.1 GENERAL CODE OF CONDUCT The City’s primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds. To achieve that goal, all employees are expected to treat the public as their most valued customer. All employees are expected to serve the public in a professional manner, which is courteous, efficient and helpful. Employees must maintain a clean and neat appearance appropriate to their work assignment, as determined by their position and department head. Since the proper working relationship between employees and the City depends on each employee's on-going job performance, professional conduct and behavior, the City has established certain minimum standards of personal and professional conduct. Among the City's expectations are: tact and courtesy towards the public and fellow employees; adherence to City policies, procedures, safety rules and safe work practices; compliance with directions from supervisors; preserving and protecting the City's equipment, grounds, facilities and resources; and providing orderly and cost efficient services to its citizens. In addition, all persons representing the City of Edmonds are expected to conduct business in the following manner: All persons, representing the City of Edmonds, shall conduct business in a professional manner, respecting all citizens’ rights, and showing courtesy to all. Their actions shall be conducted within compliance of the laws and regulations governing the City’s actions, including but not limited to RCW Title 42. City representatives are expected to conduct business in an open manner. They shall not engage in any conduct which would reflect unfavorably upon City government or any of the services it provides. They must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using their position for private gain, giving preferential treatment or privileged information to any person, or losing impartiality in conducting the City’s business. 10.2 OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Employees shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any outside employment or financial interest which may conflict, in the City's opinion, with the best interests of the City or interfere with the employee's ability to perform his/her assigned City job. Examples include, but are not limited to, outside employment which: Packet Page 538 of 586 54 (1) prevents the employee from being available for work beyond normal working hours, such as emergencies or peak work periods, when such availability is a regular part of the employee's job; (2) is conducted during the employee's work hours; (3) utilizes City telephones, computers, supplies, credit, or any other resources, facilities or equipment; (4) is employed with a firm which has contracts with or does business with the City; or (5) may reasonably be perceived by members of the public as a conflict of interest or otherwise discredits public service. 10.3 REPORTING IMPROPER GOVERNMENT ACTION In compliance with the Local Government Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, RCW 42.41.050, this policy is created to encourage employees to disclose any improper governmental action taken by city officials or employees without fear of retaliation. This policy also safeguards legitimate employer interests by encouraging complaints to be made first to the City, with a process provided for speedy dispute resolution. Key Definitions: Improper Governmental Action is any action by a city officer or employee that is: (1) undertaken in the performance of the official's or employee's official duties, whether or not the action is within the scope of the employee's employment, and (2) in violation of any federal, state or local law or rule, is an abuse of authority, is of substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or is a gross waste of public funds. (3) "improper governmental action" does not include personnel actions (hiring, firing, complaints, promotions, reassignment, for example). In addition, employees are not free to disclose matters that would affect a person's right to legally protected confidential communications. City employees who become aware of improper governmental action should follow this procedure: Bring the matter to the attention of his/her supervisor, if non-involved, in writing, stating in detail the basis for the employee's belief that an improper action has occurred. This should be done as soon as the employee becomes aware of the improper action. Packet Page 539 of 586 55 Where the employee believes the improper action involves their supervisor, the employee may raise the issue directly with Human Resources, their Department Director or the Mayor. Where the employee believes the improper action involves the Mayor, the employee may raise the issue with Human Resources or the City Attorney. The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall promptly investigate the report of improper government action. After the investigation is completed (within thirty (30) days of the employee's report), the employee shall be advised of the results of the investigation, except that personnel actions taken as a result of the investigation may be kept confidential. An employee who fails to make a good faith effort to follow this policy shall not be entitled to the protection of this policy against retaliation, pursuant to RCW 42.41.030. In the case of an emergency, where the employee believes that damage to persons or property may result if action is not taken immediately, the employee may bypass the above procedure and report the improper action directly to the appropriate government agency responsible for investigating the improper action. For the purposes of this section, an emergency is a circumstance that if not immediately changed may cause damage to persons or property. Employees may report information about improper governmental action directly to an outside agency if the employee reasonably believes that an adequate investigation was not undertaken by the City to determine whether an improper government action occurred, or that insufficient action was taken by the City to address the improper action or that for other reasons the improper action is likely to recur. Outside agencies to which reports may be directed include: Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Washington State Auditor M/S 504 Capital Campus Everett, WA 98201 P.O. Box 40021 (425)388-3333 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)902-0370 Washington State Attorney General 1125 Washington Street SE P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)753-6200 If the above-listed agencies do not appear to appropriate in light of the nature of the improper action to be reported, contact information for other state and county agencies may be obtained via the following link: http://access.wa.gov/agency/agency.aspx. It is unlawful for a local government to take retaliatory action because an employee, in good faith, provided information that improper government action occurred. Retaliatory Packet Page 540 of 586 56 Action is any material adverse change in the terms and conditions of an employee's employment. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for reporting an improper government action should follow this procedure: Procedure for Seeking Relief against Retaliation : (1) Employees must provide a written complaint to the supervisor within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of the alleged retaliatory action. If the supervisor is involved, the notice should go to the Mayor. If the Mayor is involved, the notice should go to the City Attorney. The written charge shall specify the alleged retaliatory action and the relief requested. (2) The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall investigate the complaint and respond in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written charge. Additional time to respond may be necessary depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint. (3) After receiving the City's response, the employee may request a hearing before a state administrative law judges (ALJ) to establish that a retaliatory action occurred and to obtain appropriate relief under the law. The request for hearing must be delivered within the earlier of either fifteen (15) days of receipt of the City's response to the charge of retaliatory action or forty-five (45) days of receipt of the charge of retaliation to the Mayor for response. (4) Within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing the City shall apply to the State Office of Administrative Hearing's for an adjudicative proceeding before an administrative law judge. Office of Administrative Hearings PO Box 42488 Olympia, WA 98504-2488 360.407.2700 800.558.4857 360.664.8721 Fax (5) At the hearing, the employee must prove that a retaliatory action occurred by a preponderance of the evidence in the hearing. The ALJ will issue a final decision not later than forty-five (45) days after the date of the request for hearing, unless an extension is granted. The Mayor or designee is responsible for implementing these policies and procedures. This includes posting the policy on the City bulletin board, making the policy available to any employee upon request, and providing the policy to all newly hired employees. Officers, managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring the procedures are fully implemented within their areas of responsibility. Packet Page 541 of 586 57 Violations of this policy and these procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. 10.4 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES City employees may participate in political or partisan activities of their choosing provided that City resources and property are not utilized, and the activity does not adversely affect the responsibilities of the employees in their positions. Employees may not campaign on City time or in a City uniform or while representing the City in any way. Employees may not allow others to use City facilities or funds for political activities without a paid rental agreement. Any City employee who meets with or may be observed by the public or otherwise represents the City to the public, while performing his/her regular duties, may not wear or display any button, badge or sticker relevant to any candidate or ballot issue during working hours. Employees shall not solicit, on City property or City time, for a contribution for a partisan political cause. Except as noted in this policy, City employees are otherwise free to fully exercise their constitutional First Amendment rights. 10.5 NO SMOKING POLICY The City maintains a smoke-free workplace. No smoking of tobacco products or electronic smoking devices is permitted anywhere in the City’s buildings or vehicles, and offices or other facilities rented or leased by the City. If an employee chooses to smoke, it must be done outside at least 25 feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation air intakes. 10.6 PERSONAL POSSESSIONS AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS The City cannot assume responsibility for any theft or damage to the personal belongings of City employees. Therefore, the City requests that employees avoid bringing valuable personal articles to work. Employees are solely responsible for ensuring that their personal belongings are secure while at work. Employees should have no expectation of privacy as to any items or information generated/stored on City systems. Employees are advised that work-related searches of an employee’s work area, workspace, computer and electronic mail on the City’s property may be conducted without advance notice. The City reserves the right to search employee desks, lockers and personal belongings brought onto City premises if necessary. Employees who do not consent to inspections may be subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination. Please see Attachment A - INFORMATION SERVICES - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY - for guidelines on use of City computers. 10.7 USE OF TELEPHONES AND CITY VEHICLES Use of City phones and City cellular phones for local personal phone calls and text messaging should be kept to a minimum; long distance personal use is prohibited. Other City equipment, including vehicles, should be used by employees for City business only, unless otherwise Packet Page 542 of 586 58 approved by the Department Director. Employees' misuse of City services, telephones, vehicles, equipment or supplies can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. The City reminds employees that Washington state law restricts the use of cell phones and PDA’s while driving. Employees must comply with applicable laws while engaging in work for the City. 10.8 BULLETIN BOARDS Information of special interest to all employees is posted regularly on the City bulletin boards. Employees may not post any information on these bulletin boards without the authorization of the Department Head. 10.9 MEDIA RELATIONS The Mayor or designated department heads shall be responsible for all official contacts with the news media during working hours, including answering of questions from the media. The Mayor or department head may designate specific employees to give out procedural, factual or historical information on particular subjects. 10.10 USE OF SAFETY BELTS Per Washington law, anyone operating or riding in City vehicles must wear seat belts at all times. 10.11 DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIREMENTS As part of the requirements for certain specific City positions, an employee may be required to hold a valid Washington State Driver's license and/or a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). If an employee fails his or her CDL physical examination or the license is revoked, suspended or lost, or is in any other way not current, valid, and in the employee's possession, the employee shall promptly notify his/her department head and will be immediately suspended from driving duties. The employee may not resume driving until proof of a valid, current license is provided to his/her department head. Depending on the duration of license suspension, revocation or other inability to drive, an employee may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Failure on the part of an employee to notify their department director of the revocation, suspension, or loss of driving privileges may subject the employee to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 10.12 SOLICITATIONS Most forms of selling and solicitations are inappropriate in the workplace. They can be an intrusion on employees and citizens and may present a risk to employee safety or to the security of City or employee property. The following limitations apply: Persons not employed by the City may not solicit, survey, petition, or distribute literature on our premises at any time. This includes persons soliciting for charities, salespersons, questionnaire surveyors, labor union organizers, or any other solicitor or distributor. Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances where the City determines that an exception would serve the best interests of the organization and our employees. An example of an exception might be the United Way campaign or a similar, community-based fund raising effort. Packet Page 543 of 586 59 Employees may not solicit for any purpose during work time. Reasonable forms of solicitation are permitted during non-work time, such as before or after work or during meal or break periods. Soliciting employees who are on non-work time may not solicit other employees who are on work time. Employees may not distribute literature for any purpose during work time or in work areas, or through the City’s electronic systems. The employee lunchroom is considered a non-work area under this policy. 10.13 USE OF CITY CREDIT Unless otherwise authorized by City policy or specifically authorized by the Mayor, no City employee is authorized to commit the City to any contractual agreement, especially an agreement that lends the City’s credit in any way. Employees are prohibited from conducting personal business with companies in any way which improperly implies the employee is acting as an agent of the City. 10.14 SUBSTANCE ABUSE The City's philosophy on substance abuse has two focuses: (1) a concern for the well being of the employee and (2) a concern for the safety of other employees and members of the public. As part of our employee assistance program, we encourage employees who are concerned about their alcohol or drug use to seek counseling, treatment and rehabilitation. Although the decision to seek diagnosis and accept treatment is completely voluntary, the City is fully committed to helping employees who voluntarily seek assistance to overcome substance abuse problems. In most cases, the expense of treatment may be fully or partially covered by the City's benefit program. Please see the EAP counselor for more information. In recognition of the sensitive nature of these matters, all discussions will be kept confidential. Employers who seek advice or treatment will not be subject to retaliation or discrimination. Although the City is concerned with rehabilitation, it must be understood that disciplinary action may be taken when an employee's job performance is impaired because he/she is under the influence of drugs or alcohol on the job. The City may discipline or terminate an employee possessing, consuming, selling or using alcohol, or controlled substances (other than legally prescribed) during work hours or on City premises, including break times and meal periods. The City may also discipline or terminate an employee who reports for duty or works under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. Employees may also not report for work when their performance is impaired by the use of prescribed or over-the-counter medications. The City reserves the right to search employee work areas, offices, desks, filing cabinets etc. to ensure compliance with this policy. Employees shall have no expectation of privacy in such areas. Any employee who is convicted of a criminal drug violation in the workplace must notify the organization in writing within five calendar days of the conviction. The organization will take appropriate action within 30 days of notification. Federal contracting agencies will be notified when appropriate. Packet Page 544 of 586 60 Testing: Certain employees of the City, including those who must possess CDLs or who have safety sensitive positions, are subject to random d rug and alcohol testing. Any employee may also be required to submit to alcohol or controlled substance testing when the City has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of controlled substances or alcohol. Refusal to submit to testing, when requested, may result in immediate disciplinary action, including termination. The City may also choose to pursue criminal charges, if violations of law are suspected. The City has adopted Drug and Alcohol Testing Policies and Procedures, which more specifically describe the City’s substance abuse policy, and these are incorporated herein by reference as Appendix B. Packet Page 545 of 586 Packet Page 546 of 586 Packet Page 547 of 586 Packet Page 548 of 586 Packet Page 549 of 586 Packet Page 550 of 586 Packet Page 551 of 586 Packet Page 552 of 586 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 21 to watch the January 23 joint meeting with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and the consultant. With regard to student volunteers, he recalled his son was a student volunteer on the skate park and worked three years to design and build it. He used that experience in college. If the Council pursues a parks levy, he recommended including a project for students in order to engage them in campaigning for the levy. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s suggestion for the Council to appoint a representative to the School District and also suggested Councilmembers attend the Superintendent’s monthly roundtable meetings. 9. ETHICS BOARD AND CODE OF ETHICS Councilmember Bloom explained she wanted the Council to adopt an ethics policy that addresses board/commission, elected officials and staff. There are many policies in Washington could be adapted for Edmonds. The next step is to form an ethics committee; if a citizen has a question about something such as a conflict of interest, they can go to the ethics committee and determine whether something is potentially an ethics violation. She recommended the Council, 1) adopt an ethics policy, and 2) form an ethics committee. She sought Council approval for the Public Safety & Personnel Committee to pursue this. Ms. Hite explained the recently adopted personnel policy has an extensive ethics policy for employees; that is the best place for policies regarding employees. She encouraged the Council to develop an ethics policy for boards/commissions and elected officials but not to include employees. Discussion followed regarding other cities’ ethics policies, past unsuccessful efforts to develop a code of ethics policy, developing a policy with enough examples to provide direction, and the difference between a code of conduct and code of ethics. Summary: Refer development of code of ethics to Public Safety and Personnel Committee. 11. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION No action. 10. MISCELLANEOUS Based on yesterday’s discussion regarding public comment at committee meetings, Council President Petso distributed language for committee meeting notices and asked Councilmember to submit comments/concerns to Ms. Chase. The retreat was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Packet Page 553 of 586 Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Action: Take item to full Council for further discussion after draft discussion points and possible ordinance language received from Officer Dawson. C. Discussion and potential action regarding possible amendment of City Code 8.48, Parking, Paragraph 8.48.215 B.2. Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator, explained she attended a Parking Committee Meeting to bring to their attention the difficulty the Municipal Court is experiencing with the section of the City Code that allows citizens who receive a parking ticket to pay a reduced fine if the individual pays the fine by the end of the next business day after the issuance of the parking ticket. Generally, the Court does not have the tickets in their system that quickly. Therefore, the individuals can become very angry and upset when they come to the Municipal Court and are not able to pay. Ms. Ferebee stated that the Parking Committee recommended removing the section of the Code that allows for a reduced fine if it is paid by the end of the next business day. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was in agreement with eliminating the reduced fine. He stated that he would work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance to place on the consent agenda. Councilmember Bloom was in agreement. Action: Councilmember Peterson will work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance eliminating the reduced fine. The Ordinance is to be placed on a future Consent Agenda for approval. D. Student and Senior Volunteers Councilmember Bloom stated she would like to support the Boards and Commissions in obtaining student volunteers. She suggested that a senior volunteer could assist Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Assistant, in getting the word out to the various schools. Councilmember Peterson suggested Ms. Spellman could email the school board or a volunteer coordinator in the school system to determine if there are students interested in volunteering. Councilmember Bloom suggested a senior volunteer could work with Jana to develop a framework for contacting all of the schools with the appropriate person to contact and to advertise. Councilmember Peterson cautioned that managing a volunteer can take more time. He suggested talking with the Council President as she is in charge of Ms. Spellman’s schedule. Councilmember Bloom also recalled that at the Council Retreat, Councilmember Johnson suggested an event be held to recognize city volunteers. Councilmember Bloom stated she will discuss with the Mayor the idea of scheduling a yearly event. E. Ethics Board and Code of Ethics Councilmember Bloom suggested narrowing down the list of sample policies from other cities for the City Attorney to work with in developing the policy for Edmonds. She suggested using the policies from the cities of Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Monroe. Packet Page 554 of 586 Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Councilmember Bloom stated that she would like the policy to include appointed officials (directors) in addition to elected officials and members of boards and commissions. Councilmember Peterson stated that he did not think the policy needed to address appointed officials (directors) as they answer to the Mayor. The Committee concluded that a further discussion on a Code of Ethics policy would be scheduled for the April Committee Meeting to determine which policy will be sent to the City Attorney. F. Discussion regarding taking minutes during Council Committee Meetings. Councilmember Peterson stated that if detailed/complete minutes are desired it would be necessary to pay someone to attend the meetings for this purpose. If action minutes are prepared (which is the way it has generally always been done), then he did not think councilmembers should take the minutes as it is difficult to participate in the discussion and take minutes. Councilmember Bloom agreed that councilmembers should not take minutes. After discussion, Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson agreed on the following recommendation: • Action minutes for committee meetings, prepared by staff members in attendance. • If a controversial item is scheduled, arrangements for more detailed minutes will be made. • Summary comments made by citizens should be included. Committee members will summarize citizen comments if no staff is available. • Work with Council President related to agenda items to make sure a staff member is available for each item discussed at the committee meeting. • Committee minutes are to be forwarded to committee chairs for review (as time allows). G. Public Comments There were no public comments. The committee meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Packet Page 555 of 586 Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Councilmember Peterson suggested dropping reference to 2.10.050 in this section of the code. Councilmember Bloom next pointed out that 2.10.050 refers to both finance director and community services director, however the title of the section does not reflect this. Further, Councilmember Bloom believes the positions of Executive Assistant to the Council and the Mayor’s Executive Assistant should not be part of this chapter as they are not City Officers. Committee members agreed to request the City Attorney to determine if these positions should be in a different section of the code. D. Discussion regarding Code of Ethics. Committee members discussed ethics policies from Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Kirkland. Councilmember Bloom referred to the policy from Bainbridge Island and would like to include the requirement for members to “disclose a conflict of interest” as a standing requirement at all city meetings for all officials. Councilmember Peterson commented that he believes the Council does a good job at this disclosure; however, having it on each agenda is a good reminder. Further discussion occurred related to policies, including the possible consideration of a Code of Ethics Officer. After discussion the committee agreed to forward to the next work session of the City Council the Bellevue and Kirkland ethics policies and the Kirkland Code of Conduct for discussion. The committee also recommended including the statement from Bainbridge Island related to disclosure of conflict of interest for all officials. After full Council discussion, direction can then be given to the City Attorney on how to proceed. Ms. Hite indicated she would bring back information on a Code of Ethics Officer. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Packet Page 556 of 586 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 12 Councilmember Johnson said longevity compensation makes sense for employees who are at the top of their scale and have no opportunity for further advancement. She expressed interest in further information about the fiscal impact of longevity compensation retroactive to 2013 as well as the fiscal impact for outlying years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the pay scale for nonrepresented employees is a separate issue and should be addressed separately rather than piecemealed via longevity pay. She noted longevity pay would not motivate employees to seek promotion or to remain in the City’s employment. Longevity pay is part of a compensation package that was negotiated with the other groups. She preferred to consider longevity pay for nonrepresented employees as part of a compensation package. Ms. Hite pointed out longevity compensation was part of a package for nonrepresented employees that the compensation consultant presented to the Council. The Council asked to have it pulled out for continued discussion. Councilmember Peterson agreed the Council was provided a compensation package for nonrepresented that was similar to represented employees. It was the Council’s decision to separate out some items. He suggested the next agenda memo include the complete compensation package that was presented by the compensation consultant. Ms. Hite summarized the information the Council was requesting in addition to the original compensation package includes, 1) the fiscal impact for retroactivity in 2013, 2) fiscal impact for outlying years, 3) a flat rate approach and the fiscal impact. Due to the absence of 3 Councilmembers from the September 17 and 24 meetings, Mayor Earling suggested information be provided at next week’s meeting or a full Council meeting be held on September 10. Council President Petso suggested either staff return with the information soon or it be addressed as a decision package in the 2014 budget. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite explained the Personnel Committee has been comparing and contrasting Codes of Ethics for cities throughout the Puget Sound region. Two documents the committee has been considering include Kirkland and Bellevue’s Code of Ethics. The committee has also discussed Bainbridge Island’s code. Kirkland adopted a Code of Conduct in addition to a Code of Ethics. She explained a Code of Conduct describes professional responsibilities; a Code of Ethics describes legal responsibilities. A Code of Ethics would apply to the Council, boards and commissions; staff is guided by a Code of Conduct in the City’s personnel policies. The Personnel Committee has also expressed interest in identifying an Ethics Officer. Some of the comparable models reviewed by the Personnel Committee identify an Ethics Officer outside the organization in order to have an objective, non-vested perspective in researching a Code of Ethics issues. For example Kirkland and Bellevue contract with an Ethics Officer on an as needed basis who is only paid when a Code of Ethics issue needs to be investigated. Neither Kirkland nor Bellevue had incurred any expenses for outside review of a Code of Ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted the attachments are in the August 20, 2013 packet. She clarified in addition to Councilmembers, boards and commissions, the Code of Ethics would cover all elected officials including the Mayor. Kirkland and Bellevue’s Codes of Ethics do not include a Mayor because they have a City Manager form of government. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with including the requirement in 3.14.040 of Kirkland’s policy related to financial disclosure for all officials. Officials are defined as all members of boards and commissions. Kirkland’s policy excludes the Mayor and Council because elected officials must present Packet Page 557 of 586 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 13 all financial information on a yearly basis. She did not support requiring all members of boards and commissions to disclose their financial information and suggested that be excluded that from Edmonds’ Code of Ethics; Bellevue’s Code of Ethics does not have that requirement. She also suggested consideration be given to the complaint process and who handles complaints. For example Kirkland involves the Hearing Examiner and the City Council in the event of a complaint regarding a Councilmember. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s concern about requiring members of boards and commissions to disclose financial information. He agreed with the Council considering a Code of Ethics in a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. He supported the City having a Code of Ethics for elected officials and boards and commissions, anticipating a Code of Ethics would make the Council’s work easier if an ethical issue arose. As Councilmember Buckshnis indicated, a Code of Ethics can be subjective, but responding to an ethical complaint would be even more subjective without a Code of Ethics. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised Snohomish County adopted a Code of Conduct for all boards and commissions and every commission and board member must acknowledge they have read and understand the Code of Conduct. She encouraged Councilmembers to review Snohomish County’s Code of Conduct for elected and appointed officials. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Snohomish County’s Code of Conduct was similar to Kirkland’s. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded Snohomish County may be more thorough and straightforward. Council President Petso said she was pleased to see Kirkland’s Code of Conduct in the packet and was interested in pursuing a Code of Conduct. She was concerned about the Code of Ethics and Ethics Officer and complaint enforcement. She feared a person who did not agree with an official’s position on an issue could file an ethics complaint. She indicated she was unlikely to support a Code of Ethics that included a complaint process, an Ethics Officer and enforcement. She found Bellevue’s Code of Ethics less objectionable; the statement of intent is to not to limit people who could serve on boards and commissions and elected officials. She agreed the financial disclosure in Kirkland’s Code of Ethics would likely deter citizens from volunteering for a board or commission. Council President Petso noted there are other aspects, particularly in Kirkland’s Code of Ethics that would deter citizens from volunteering to serve on a board or commission. There are events that do not constitute an ethics issue but might under a poorly drafted policy. For example when she was appointed to Council, a relative was serving on the Sister City Commission; that did not create an issue for her or him. It would have been unfortunate if the Code of Ethics forced one of them to resign their position. One of Kirkland’s policies indicated it would be a conflict if a person serving on a board of commission lived in your household. In the example she provided, the person did live in her household for a period of time but it had no impact on his ability to serve on the Sister City Commission. Council President Petso relayed the City Attorney wanted the Council to discuss whether they were interested in developing a Code of Ethics for Edmonds because it will take him a great deal of time to develop it. Less legal time would be involved in drafting a Code of Conduct. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred the Bainbridge Island Code of Ethics. She agreed with not requiring boards and commissions to disclose financial information, commenting Councilmembers file with the Public Disclosure Commission. She liked the Code of Conduct although she feared it could be subjective. She recalled recent emotionally charged conversations with a fellow Councilmember that could have been interpreted as an argument. She preferred to start with a Code of Conduct using Snohomish County as an example. Packet Page 558 of 586 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 14 Councilmember Bloom also liked Bainbridge Island’s Code of Ethics policy the best. She recalled Councilmember Peterson’s concern with Bainbridge Island’s creation of an Ethics Board and the need for staff support for such a board. She supported adopting a Code of Ethics for the Council, boards and commissions. She explained an ethics violation was not related to conduct but rather conflicts of interest. She asked the City Attorney to describe an ethics violation. City Attorney Sharon Cates answered Code of Ethics are related to conflict of interest issues, not interpersonal interaction. Councilmember Bloom commented Bainbridge Island’s policy allows citizens to ask questions about potential ethics violations and the Ethics Board decides whether to pursue a complaint. Bainbridge Island’s policy also has consequences for bringing a frivolous or unsubstantiated complaint. She asked if that was typical of ethics policies. Ms. Cates answered a solid ethics code includes a process for determining whether a complaint is an ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted an ethics complaint is required to be notarized and to include information about the violation. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the Personnel Committee working on a Code of Conduct similar to Kirkland’s. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with the Committee continuing to consider a Code of Conduct and a Code of Ethics. He encouraged Councilmembers to submit suggestions/comments/concerns to the committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested scheduling further discussion on either the September 17 or 24 Council meetings. Council President Petso agreed it could be scheduled with the understanding it would be discussion only due to the absence of three Councilmembers. Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers review Bainbridge Island’s ethics policy on their website. He agreed there were good ideas in the policy; he was opposed to creating an Ethics Board. Councilmember Bloom agreed with first establishing a Code of Conduct but did not want to abandon the idea of a Code of Ethics. The Personnel Committee has discussed it at length and the community would like the City to have an ethics policy. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Peterson’s concern with creating an Ethics Board. She preferred to use a professional Ethics Officer. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Johnson reported on her participation on the review of arts and cultural aspects of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She described efforts to gather input from the public including a survey at the recent concert in the park. There is also an online survey available. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed definitions in the Tree Code including hazardous trees, nuisance trees and trees. Councilmember Bloom reported the Council interviewed a new member for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee tonight. Councilmember Bloom reported on her first meeting as the Council liaison to the Port of Edmonds liaison. The Commission discussed budget issues and promotional efforts. The Commission was also provided a project update including expansion of Anthony’s Beach Café as well as the roof on Harbor Square building 2 which is $30,000 under budget and will last 20-30 years. Packet Page 559 of 586 Minutes PUBLIC SAFETY & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING September 9, 2014 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Strom Peterson The meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. A. Discussion Regarding Code of Ethics Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the proposed code of ethics was a simplified version and was intended to cover staff, elected officials, volunteers, etc. She reviewed the bulleted items in the proposed code and suggested that enforcement be a separate policy. Committee members discussed minor amendments to the wording of the code of ethics. Action: Councilmember Fraley-Monillas will edit the code and email to Councilmember Peterson. Schedule for full Council in the future. B. Public Comment – None The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Packet Page 560 of 586 CODE OF ETHICS The purpose of the Edmonds Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principals principles which shall govern the conduct of elected and appointed officials, and employees We shall: • Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic government • Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a sense of social responsibility • Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships • Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interest of all the people • Keep the community informed on municipal affairs encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to public and each other, seek to improve the quality and image of public service • Seek no favor; believe that do not personally benefit or profit secured by confidential information or by misuse of public time to be dishonest • Conduct business of the city in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but also in appearance. • Not knowingly violate any Washington statutes, city ordinances or regulations in the course of performing duties Packet Page 561 of 586 Be dedicated to the concepts of eective and democratic local government. Democratic Leadership. Ocials and sta shall honor and respect the principles and spirit of representative democracy and set a positive example of good citizenship by scrupulously observing the letter and spirit of laws, rules and regulations. Arm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant. Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships. Public Condence. Ocials and sta shall conduct themselves so as to maintain public condence in city government and in the performance of the public trust. Impression of Inuence. Ocials and sta shall conduct their ocial and personal aairs in such a manner as to give the clear impression that they cannot be improperly inuenced in the performance of their ocial duties. Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interests of all the people. Public Interest. Ocials and sta shall treat their oce as a public trust, only using the power and resources of public oce to advance public interests, and not to attain personal benet or pursue any other private interest incompatible with the public good. Keep the community informedon municipal aairs; encourage communication between the citizens and all municipal ocers; emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public; and seek to improve the quality and image of public service. Accountability. Ocials and sta shall assure that government is conducted openly, eciently, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and hold city ocials accountable. Respectability. Ocials and sta shall safeguard public condence in the integrity of city government by being honest, fair, caring and respectful and by avoiding conduct creating the appearance of impropriety or which is otherwise unbetting a public ocial. Seek no favor; believe that personal benet or prot secured by condential information or by misuse of public time is dishonest. Business Interests. Ocials and sta shall have no benecial interest in any contract which may be made by, through or under his or her supervision, or for the benet of his or her oce, or accept directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract unless allowed under State law. Private Employment. Ocials and sta shall not engage in, solicit, negotiate for, or promise to accept private employment or render services for private interests or conduct a private business when such employment, service or business creates a conict with or impairs the proper discharge of their ocial duties. Condential Information. Ocials and sta shall not disclose to others, or use to further their personal interest, condential information acquired by them in the course of their ocial duties. Gifts. Ocials and employees shall not directly or indirectly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift whether it be money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise, or any other form - under the following circumstances: (a) it could be reasonably inferred or expected that the gift was intended to inuence the performance of ocial duties; or (b) the gift was intended to serve as a reward for any ocial action on the ocial’s or employee’s part. Investments in Conict with Ocial Duties. Ocials and employees shall not invest or hold any investment, directly or indirectly, in any nancial business, commercial or other private transaction that creates a conict with their ocial duties. Personal Relationships. Personal relationships shall be disclosed in any instance where there could be the appearance of a conict of interest. Business Relationships. Ocials and sta shall not use sta time, equipment, or facilities for marketing or soliciting for private business activities. Reference Checking. Reference checking and responding to agency requests are a normal function of municipal business and is not prohibited if it does not adversely eect the operation of the City. Conduct business of the City in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but also in appearance. Personal Relationships. In quasi-judicial proceedings elected ocials shall abide by the directives of RCW 42.36 which requires full disclosure of contacts by proponents and opponents of land use projects which are before the City Council. Boards and Commissions are also subject to these fairness rules when they conduct quasi-judicial hearings. Not knowingly violate any Washington statutes, City ordinance or regulation in the course of performing their duties. Adopted by Council - Resolution No. 170 Code of Ethics The purpose of the City of Shoreline Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conduct of the City’s elected and appointed ocals, and employees, who shall: Packet Page 562 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 16, 2014 Page 25 Councilmember Peterson relayed the ECA/EPFD has been looking for different funding sources. The roof is a key element of the structure. If the roof fails the City will still own the building in the future. It seems logical to add that capital project to the City’s capital budget request. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS. CALL FOR THE QUESTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, PETSO AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to delay a vote until her questions were answered. She was concerned about the Frances Anderson Center versus the ECA. Mayor Earling relayed his conversation with staff; the Frances Anderson Center needs attention but Mr. Stevens indicated it can last a while longer whereas the failure of the ECA roof is affecting rentals. Mr. Williams felt the Frances Anderson Center roof could be delayed a year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred speak to Mr. Stevens and determine how he prioritized projects and why funding for the Frances Anderson Center roof was moved from 2015 to 2016. Councilmember Petso relayed the ECA/EPFD has undertaken a small project to stop the leaks for now but she did not know the longevity of that project. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINING. 13. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Mayor Earling advised this item will be rescheduled to a January meeting. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling announced all the Giving Tree requests at City Hall and Frances Anderson Center have been picked up. He announced Kernen Lien was selected as Employee of the Year. He wished the Community and the Council Happy Holidays. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Student Representative Eslami wished everyone Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year. Councilmember Mesaros reported on his December 4 tour of the Police Department. He thanked Officer Barker for the visit to the Prism Range and Officer Sutton for the ridealong. He attended the Seashore Forum on December 5 and was the only non-King County person at the Climate and Clean Energy Meeting on Mercer Island on December 9. The meeting was very informative and included discussion regarding climate issues that will be before the legislature this session. On December 11 he attended the SnoCom Board meeting; the New World system will be launched soon. Councilmember Mesaros announced his reappointment of John Rubenkonig to the Economic Development Commission (EDC). Councilmember Peterson wished everyone a Happy Holiday and looked forward to the New Year. Councilmember Bloom announced her reappointment of Douglas Swartz to the EDC and her appointment of Jenny Antilla to the EDC. Packet Page 563 of 586    AM-7381     14.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:01/13/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilmember Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Continued Discussions on the Study Sessions Recommendation Previous Council Action August 26, 2014 Council Meeting:  Minutes attached. September 2, 2014 Council Meeting:  Minutes attached. September 23, 2014 Council Meeting:   Minutes Attached Council held its first study session on October 14, 2014 (minutes attached). October 28, 2014 Council Meeting:   Due to the lateness of the hour the Continued Discussion on Study Sessions was rescheduled as an item for this agenda. November 10, 2014 Council Meeting:  See attached minutes. Narrative During the November 10, 2014 Council Meeting, it was announced that this agenda item would be rescheduled to a future meeting. At the City Council Meeting on September 23, 2014, a Study Session example format was tested. This discussion is to set a policy on the format of these types of meetings. Items to consider now will be:  1) Start time of meetings – consistent with Business Meetings or change meeting time altogether? Study Meeting dates set at 6PM unless executive session and if executive session, meeting will start after 6PM executive session. Regular Meetings to start at 7PM. Compromise? Does Council want all meetings to start at 6:30? 2) Configuration of tables, some Council Members do not want their back to the audience and others want to have an informal set-up where discussion can easily occur which means having Council Members face each other.  3) SPEAKING into the microphone. This needs to happen. Many complaints as some Council Members were not heard. 4) All presentations need to be available for the public to see. As an example, the insurance switch was Packet Page 564 of 586 handled at the table with Council but no overhead was shown for the public. 5) Round-robin – Doesn’t have to be round robin per se but Council Members are allowed one or two questions and then another Council Member is allowed to answer questions. 6) Timing for discussions – with Westgate, there was maybe 15 minutes afforded for questions; do we want to have at least one-half hour set aside for discussions? 7) Understood that all items that are moved, are moved onto Consent for the next week, unless specified.   Attachments Attachment 1 - Special Meeting Format Test Attachment 2 - 8-26-14 Approved CM  Attachment 3 - 9-2-14 Approved CM  Attachment 4 - 9-23-14 Approved CM  Attachment 5 - Oct 14 2014 Approved CM Attachment 6 - 11-10-14 Approved Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/08/2015 09:49 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/08/2015 11:05 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2015 11:05 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/18/2014 11:20 AM Final Approval Date: 01/08/2015  Packet Page 565 of 586 SPECIAL MEETING FORMAT TEST Tonight is a testing of a popular format and we will discuss at the next Special Session, if this is sufficient or if changes need to occur. 1) Sit on floor in u-shape with presenters also sitting in top of u unless presenting 2) Presentation by staff 3) After presentation, round-robin scenario with each Council Member allowed three questions. 4) Round-robin continues until all questions have been answered 5) After all questions and answers and time permits, Council discussions can follow. Other Suggested Formats not being done tonight: • Round-robin with time limits. • No time limits but round-robin. • Regular question and answer with no round-robin formatting. Packet Page 566 of 586 9. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT Development Services Director Hope explained at a Council retreat in May there was discussion about ways to make Council meetings more efficient and effective and allowing more dialogue between Councilmembers prior to voting on an item. One idea that was briefly discussed was the possibility of two study sessions per month alternating with two business meetings per month. At business meetings, the Council would take official action. Study sessions would be an opportunity for Councilmembers to have dialogue, ask questions, etc.; votes would not be taken at study sessions. Under the proposal both business meetings and study sessions would be recorded and televised. Typically at a study session the Council would be seated around a table instead of seated at the dais. Many other cities in this area have a similar format; it works well to get things done and provides an opportunity for conversation. Ms. Hope explained by including all Councilmembers in the conversation, separate community meetings would not be needed as all information can be presented to the Council in a transparent, public process. An exception could be made for the Finance Committee to address routine business as the Council may choose. She summarized alternating study sessions and business meetings would be a more efficient way for the Council to have dialogue. Although the exact details do not have to be included in the code, if the Council chooses this format, some minor amendments to the code will be necessary. If the Council is interested in this format, she suggested providing direction to the City Attorney to craft an ordinance for consideration at a future meeting. Councilmember Mesaros observed under this proposal, the Finance Committee would meet before one of the study sessions. He felt the committee meetings were quite efficient and typically lasted only an hour. He suggested holding the other two committee meetings at the same time as the Finance Committee meeting. For example, start at the committee meetings at 6:30 p.m. and begin the study session at 7:30 p.m. That would allow the committees to discuss some items that would be scheduled on the consent agenda. Ms. Hope agreed that was an option. One of the rationales behind not having committee meetings was it was difficult to be fully functional for another, longer meeting after a committee meeting. Secondly, committee meetings are often discussion on items that still need to be discussed by the full Council, resulting in repetition. Councilmember Mesaros commented that was an agenda management issues; items that require discussion by the full Council would not go to committee. The committees could review items that were typically scheduled on the consent agenda. If an item needed to be reviewed by the full Council, it could be discussed at a study session. He acknowledged sometimes the full Council will discuss an item that could have been on the Consent Agenda. Councilmembers can always request an item be moved from the Consent Agenda to the full agenda. Council President Buckshnis expressed support for the proposed format. She noted there are items that some Councilmembers want discussed by the full Council. To ensure transparency, she preferred to have the Council’s discussions televised. A determination can be made by the Council President, Council President Pro Tem and the Mayor regarding items to be placed on the Consent Agenda. She suggested trying this format; if it doesn’t work, the format can be changed back. She referred to last week’s agenda as an example of how many items ended up on the agenda, several that Councilmembers did not want moved to the Consent Agenda. She summarized eliminating committee meetings will minimize repetition. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she liked this idea because the Council was able to have a full discussion. Sometimes when things are discussed by a committee, by the time it comes to Council, the other Councilmembers may not know the reason the committee supported or did not support an item. Having two study sessions and two work sessions and eliminating two committees will make the Packet Page 567 of 586 Council’s job easier. She did not find the Public Safety & Personnel (PSP) or the Planning & Public Works (PPP) Committees very effective as often staff gives a full report to the committee and then give it again to the full Council. She was uncertain how items would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda as there are different opinions regarding what should be on the Consent Agenda and what should be presented to the full Council. Ms. Hope said the Q&A in the Council packet includes criteria for items that would be on the Consent Agenda although she understood that could differ between Councilmembers. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Mesaros, stating she found the committee structure incredibly efficient. If two committee members listen to a presentation such as regarding a lift station and determine it can be on the Consent Agenda, that saves the Council time and does not damage transparency. Councilmembers also have 10-12 days’ notice before an item appears on the Consent Agenda and can pull it for further questions if necessary. She was also very concerned with splitting the committees; if the motivation was to include all Councilmember to improve transparency, clearly the one committee that should no long exist is Finance. It is important Finance Committee items be done in the open and in the public and not by a small group of Councilmembers behind closed doors and placing items on the Consent Agenda. She recalled an example of that in the past with the contingent loan agreement with the Public Facilities District, a $4 million guarantee by the City, that was placed on the Consent Agenda and did not want to risk that again. If the Finance Committee morphs into a Long Range Financial Task Force she felt that needed to be done in the public. Long Range Financial Task Forces inevitably conclude a levy will be needed in the future and a levy requires the participation and endorsement of all seven Councilmembers. She preferred to retain the current committees or eliminate all of them. Her preference was study sessions and the current committees; the committees could regulate what needs a study session. Councilmember Johnson was an advocate of this proposal, advising she has seen work effectively in other jurisdictions. One of the big advantages is the format; having the Council seated at the table allows conversation amongst Councilmembers and staff presenting information and it will be easier to see the screen. This is an effective way to do business; change is difficult and there is a tendency to do things the way they have always been done. She supported having study sessions, acknowledging there will be a transition period to sort things out but in the end it was worth trying. Councilmember Peterson commented one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language is we’ve always done things that way. He supported the proposal, finding it an excellent idea. The proposed criteria will determine what is scheduled on the Consent Agenda. In his early years on the Council, many items were on the Consent Agenda that had not been reviewed by committee. That changed after some surprise items on the Consent Agenda; the proposal will address that without the unnecessary minutia in committee meetings. The Council can add additional guidelines and Councilmembers have the ability to pull items from the Consent Agenda. The proposed format allows Councilmembers to ask questions of staff, adds transparency and assists staff, the public and councilmembers. It will provide greater opportunity for the public to see more of what is going on and gives Councilmember a better understanding of the details. Councilmember Bloom said she emailed Councilmembers a proposed hybrid approach but was unable to find it now. She suggested Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman find the email with her suggested approach. Councilmember Bloom explained she averaged the number of committee items and found an average of 17.2 total items per month. The PSP Committee has a lot fewer agenda items, Finance and PPP Committees have the highest number of agenda items. Her analysis also considered public comments at committee meetings. She found that public comment at committees was more intimate and allowed conversation. Packet Page 568 of 586 Councilmember Bloom suggested holding committee meetings before meetings and two work sessions to discuss all the items the Council typically considers and are most likely not to be scheduled on Consent Agenda. She also suggested holding committee meetings following one Council meeting per month to discuss items that seem to be Consent Agenda items. This approach would cover all the bases. She was concerned with eliminating the PPP Committee as reviewing the volume of agenda items would be an enormous burden on the full Council. She preferred to have the PPP Committee screen those items. Councilmember Bloom was also concerned the proposal to continue the Finance Committee, comprised of the Council President and two other Councilmembers, places an additional responsibility on the Council President. An option would be to eliminate the PSP Committee since most of the items are on Consent and those that are not, require discussion by the full Council such as the ethics policy and code of conduct. If the PSP Committee were eliminated, Councilmembers with the exception of the Council President, could be divided among the two remaining committees. She requested the Council consider this hybrid approach and for the information in her email to be provided the next time the Council discusses this topic. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support having committee meetings following Council meetings. Often the Council meets as early as 6 p.m. for an executive session; having a committee meeting following a Council meeting would be very difficult. She suggested dissolving the PSP and PPP Committees and holding the Finance Committee meeting prior to a Council meeting and filming it. Councilmember Mesaros clarified his proposal was also a hybrid; the committees would be retained and meet at the same time as the Finance Committee. To avoid repetition, the committees can consider items that will be scheduled on the Consent Agenda, items the full Council should discuss will not be reviewed by a committee. Councilmember Petso endorsed Councilmember Mesaros’ approach which would retain the committees. Another option is to shift park-related items to the PSP Committee to better distribute agenda items, noting Ms. Hite already attends the PSP meetings to present items related to personnel. Council President Buckshnis assured it was not her intent to have Finance Committee meetings that were secret or behind closed doors. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ suggestion to have Finance Committee meetings filmed. She suggested retaining the Finance Committee because of the four cities listed, three kept their Finance Committee. She felt it was more effective to discuss long range financing, budget forecasting and policy discussions in a smaller group setting and then forward it to the full Council. She included the Council President in the Finance Committee to add a third member. She supported trying the alternating study session with only the Finance Committee and if a Councilmember had an issue with a Consent Agenda item, it could be pulled. Council President Buckshnis said in Council Presidents, Councilmembers and Mayors in other cities agree this is a more efficient method; it avoids duplication of work and information and allows for better communication between Councilmembers and with the public. If the public is uncomfortable with being filmed during a Council during study sessions, their comments can be audio recorded rather than filmed. Councilmember Peterson said he was initially undecided about keeping the Finance Committee; it makes sense as it is the basis of a lot of decisions. With only the Finance Committee, it can be televised and additional Councilmembers can attend the Finance Committee meeting if they wish because the meetings are noticed as open public meeting. Televising the Finance Committee meetings also allows the public to see the steps in the process. If all three committees are retained, there is no way to televise all three. Packet Page 569 of 586 Councilmember Bloom asked how the Finance Committee meeting could be televised. Councilmember Peterson explained their meeting would be held before the work session. If all Councilmembers can attend the Finance Committee meeting and it is televised, Councilmember Bloom pointed out the items could just be discussed at a full Council meeting. She supported having two work sessions per month. However, during the budget process it was her understanding the Council President found it difficult to schedule agenda items and she anticipated it would be even more difficult if action would not be taken at two meetings per month. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s comment regarding scheduling in the final quarter of year. She experienced that last year and recalled Councilmember Peterson chastising the Council with the phrase, “we’re running out of Tuesdays in this calendar year.” If the Council chooses to change the format, she suggested beginning in January. Council President Buckshnis recalled last year there was a closed record review that consumed a great deal of the Council’s time. She has worked with Mayor and Directors on the extended agenda and preferred to try the proposed process beginning in October. She reiterated her support for retaining the Finance Committee, pointing out three of four cities have a Finance Committee and it is important to have policy discussion and long term planning in a committee meeting. Mayor Earling advised the discussion will continue next week. Council President Buckshnis relayed the agenda item next week will include action. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 10. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES RELATED TO WESTGATE Planning Manager Rob Chave provided background on the Westgate code discussion: • Public hearing on August 4, 2014 • Staff has reviewed the hearing record and follow-up discussion on the draft code. As part of that review, staff suggested: o Make sure that the code is consistent with the expressed intent o Remove inconsistencies • Approximately a dozen issues were combined into seven discussion topics: 1. Commercial requirements • Clarifying the various building types to include commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial mixed use types Building Type Residential Uses Office Uses Retail 1. Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed 2. Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 3. Stacked dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 4. Live-work Not ground floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 5. Loft mixed use Not ground floor Any floor Any floor 6. Side Court Mixed use Not ground floor Any floor Ground floor only 7. Commercial Mixed use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor 8. Assuring commercial space • Adjusted the building type location diagram (page 8) to be more consistent with the overall intended commercial mixed use chapter of Westgate. (The old diagram is included on page 9 for reference, but will be deleted if the new diagram on page 8 is preferable. Packet Page 570 of 586 is considering, it is the intensity of adjacent land uses. Ecology suggested the interim designation to allow the City and the Port to determine reach agreement on development in Urban Mixed Use IV environment. The Port has expressed support for a 50-foot buffer. Ecology’s letter recommends the Council consider changing the proposed marsh buffer to a 50-foot minimum width with an interim designation and add additional language that recognizes the final buffer and setback will be determined within the Harbor Square redevelopment process. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the setback had to be 50 feet or 150 feet or could it be 75 feet. Mr. Lien answered it can be whatever the Council sets. The 50-foot setback recommended by the Planning Board was considered to be consistent with the no net loss requirement. The 150-foot setback originally came from Small Jurisdiction Wetlands Guidance where Category 1 wetlands such as the Edmonds Marsh have a 150-foot buffer. Ecology noted through their SMP handbook that a setback alone without a buffer requirement would meet the SMA requirement. Setting the setback at 50 feet is wider than the current 25-foot open space requirement in the current contract rezone. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out this proposal doubles the existing requirement. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern with the 150-foot setback particularly with the redevelopment that is occurring at the Antique Mall property. He asked whether the Port could do any stormwater mitigation in the Antique Mall parking lot with a 150-foot setback. Mr. Lien answered that would be considered a restoration project and would be allowed with the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson commented if a restaurant moved in, a view of the marsh would be advantageous. He asked whether a deck could be constructed on the back of one of the buildings. Mr. Lien answered not within the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson referred to one of the building where 3/4th of the buildings was in the setback and asked whether a roof penetration could be done to install a hood. Mr. Lien answered improvements can be made within the existing building footprint but the nonconformity cannot be expanded by adding anything in the setback area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to language in the letter from Ecology that states within this designation the Council has approved a 50-foot buffer with a 100-foot setback. The purpose of the interim designation is to give the Port and the City time to negotiate development plans for the Harbor Square property. Ecology agrees with the concept of an interim designation for this property. Ecology is available to help reach agreement on this important decision. Mr. Lien responded that was the reason for his concern with the interim designation; Ecology suggested the interim designation assuming the City and the Port are working together. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the City and Port have not been working together. Ecology’s offer to help reach an agreement is an important step in determining the best setback and buffer. Mr. Lien agreed that could be worked on during the next two years. Council President Pro Tem Johnson raised an issue that was discussed at the Planning Board; an area of the 25-foot open space area between Harbor Square and the marsh that has been graveled and used for temporary parking. She asked what steps have been/will be taken to restore that to open space and remove the temporary parking. Mr. Lien answered no steps have been taken to remove the gravel parking next to Harbor Square Athletic Club. Councilmember Petso observed the letter from Ecology was dated spring 2014, the decision on the Port plan was fall 2013. Mr. Lien answered the decision on the Port Master Plan was the end of 2013; he acknowledged it has been awhile since this was discussed. Mr. Lien advised a public hearing is scheduled on September 16. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT Packet Page 571 of 586 Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council’s discussion last week as a follow up to discussion at a retreat regarding ways for the Council to work together better and options for dialogue without voting. The proposal is to alternate study sessions and business meetings and not have committees other than a Finance Committee to address routine or designated business. Not having committee meetings would allow all Councilmembers to hear presentations and Q&A and not have it done twice, once at a committee meeting and again at a Council meeting. Councilmember Mesaros reiterated he was in favor of this format. However, if the Finance Committee continued to meet, he recommended the other two committees also continue to meet. If the purpose is to allow the full Council to discuss items, he recommended not having any committee meetings. If finance is such an important topic, the full Council should be provided the information at a study session that would have been provided at a Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Mesaros’ suggestion. If the intent was for the Finance Committee to meet at 6 p.m. and have the regular Council meeting start at 7 p.m., the Council meeting could simply start early and all Councilmembers could attend. Her primary concern with eliminating all the committees is her research found an average of 17.2 committee meeting agenda items per month. The committees screen items that come to the Council on a regular basis and schedule them on the Consent Agenda which she felt was very efficient; Councilmembers have the option of pulling an item from Consent. Some items reviewed by committee should go to the Council such as the Public Works Quarterly Report. Rather than eliminating all the committees, she suggested the Council decide what items should regularly come to the Council to prevent them from being reviewed in committee and by the full Council. She was inclined not to change the Council meeting format unless all the committees were eliminated. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE TO BRING BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE STUDY SESSIONS FOR THE COUNCIL’S FUTURE FORMAT SO THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO BUSINESS SESSIONS AND TWO STUDY SESSIONS PER MONTH. Councilmember Petso asked for clarification regarding what would happen with the committees under Council President Pro Tem Johnson’s motion. Council President Pro Tem Johnson answered time will tell what works best. She wanted the Council to have better dialogue with staff in the study session. She recalled Finance Director Scott James said the Finance Committee meeting does not necessarily have to be held Tuesday at 6 p.m.; it could be held at any time. Mr. James’ interest in retaining the Finance Committee was not to do the regular work the committee is doing now but to have a long term strategy. That could include all or some of the Council. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE ALL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested starting without committee meetings and add them if necessary. With regard to the Finance Committee, she felt it would be beneficial for all Councilmembers to hear what occurs in the Finance Committee meetings. She suggested 15-30 minutes could be spent during a study session to discuss Finance Committee meeting topics. She supported the study session/business meeting format because she liked to hear why items were scheduled on the Consent Agenda or the full agenda, noting it seemed to differ based on the Councilmembers on the committee or even staff assigned to the committee; there was no consistency. She anticipated the Council may be able to review agenda items more quickly with this format. Councilmember Peterson suggested the first half hour of the first study session of the month consider Finance Committee meeting topics. Packet Page 572 of 586 In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ concern with why some items are scheduled on the Consent Agenda and others are schedule for full Council, Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that items that would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda would not be presented to the full Council. The Council President would determine which items would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested that could be worked out, perhaps by a smaller subgroup; she supported abolishing the committees. Councilmember Bloom referred to the average of 17.2 items per month discussed by committee which equated to 8 items per study session in addition to regular agenda items. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented there are some routine things that are always scheduled on Consent. Each meeting will have an agenda that includes a Consent Agenda each meeting. Councilmembers can pull items from the Consent Agenda. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. For Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained the motion directed him to prepare an ordinance. The Council did not need to wait until the effective date of the ordinance to implement the new process. Under the current code, the Council has four meetings per month; the Council can decide to the two of the meetings be study sessions and two be business meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested the first study session be held on October 14. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 12, 2014 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken: A. Liquor/Recreational Marijuana License Review Process – Full Council B. Lead Court Clerk job description – Full Council C. No public comment Finance Committee Council President Pro Tem Johnson reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken: A. 2014 June Quarterly Budgetary Financial Report – Consent Agenda B. Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursements Policy – Discussion only C. IT Update – Discussion only D. PFD Quarterly Report – Consent Agenda E. Business License Fees Discussion – Consent Agenda F. Public comment from Judge Fair regarding the salary which was discussed on tonight’s agenda, and from Port Commissioner David Preston regarding the Port’s tiered late fee Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Mesaros reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken: A. Public Works Quarterly Project Report – Full Council B. Report and Project Close Out for the WWTP Switchgear Upgrade Project – Full Council C. Phase 4 - Energy Improvement Project – Consent Agenda D. Proof-of-Concept Proposal for the Sunset Avenue Sidewalk Project – Full Council E. Authorization to Award a Construction Contract for the 2014 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvement Project to D&G Backhoe, Inc. in the Amount of $337,759.43 – Consent Agenda Packet Page 573 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 10 For Council President Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained there is a difference between applying for and accepting a grant. The City is not under any obligation to accept grant funds once it a grant is awarded although the City would look bad to the granting agencies and potentially lose credibility if it rejected grants on a regular basis. He has noticed the Council and administration may not be on the same page about how to pursue grant funds and that a great deal of the frustration and tension regarding projects often stems from a grant application. It is a chicken and egg problem, what authority if any should the administration have to pursue grants; whether a project needs to be on a particular list in order to pursue a grant. There is legitimate policy debate the Council needs to have regarding these questions. Mr. Taraday commented another issue is prioritization of projects and who should prioritize projects, the Council or administration, and can the administration pursue a grant for any project in the CFP. In reality, administration has a better handle on what projects they can obtain funds for. The Council may have its prioritized list but there needs to be better dialogue between the Council and the administration regarding projects administration thinks funding can be obtained for which may not necessarily match the Council’s prioritized list. Council President Buckshnis commented using $10,000 to leverage $320,000 was a no brainer. She agreed there may need to be a policy because this issue keeps coming up. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Council President Buckshnis’ question and asked about the current policy with regard to this set of facts. Mr. Taraday answered the Council currently adopts the budget at the fund level which gives the administration the authority to reallocate funds as long as it does not overspend the appropriation for a given fund. For example, the crosswalk, he supposed the fund language was lenient to enough allow for some reallocation within the fund. Councilmember Mesaros relayed his understanding that the City did not receive a grant from the State for the crosswalk. Mr. Williams agreed, adding the City did not apply for a grant. Councilmember Mesaros summarized therefore the project did not have to be on the CFP or CIP because it was not a City project. Councilmember Petso said she understood that staff can reallocate within the fund but she was not aware that staff could reallocate money to projects that are not on CFP, CIP or TIP. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on how the documents are drafted; he has not been asked to analyze whether the way the current budget is adopted gives the administration flexibility to reallocate funds to projects that are not otherwise on the list. If the Council approves a project such as a walkway and realistically funding is easier to obtain if the project is converted into a multiuse pathway, Councilmember Petso asked whether that decision should come back to Council or does approval of a walkway also approve a change in a project to cater to a grant opportunity. Mr. Taraday answered there was a policy question and a legal question. Legally it depends on how detailed the description of the project is. For example if the capital budget says in 2014 the City will spend money on these and only these capital projects and those capital projects are very carefully detailed in a manner that do not allow a change such as from a walkway to a multiuse path, it could not be done without a budget amendment. He did not know if that had been done in the past. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Council President Buckshnis distributed a suggested format for the study session. 10. STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO WESTGATE Council President Buckshnis relayed tonight is a trial run; there will be a format in place for the next study session on October 14. She described tonight’s format: a presentation from staff, followed by a Packet Page 574 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 11 round robin of questions where each Councilmember is allowed three questions, and continuing until all questions have been answered. If time permits after all the questions have been answered, the Council can have a global discussion. Planning Manager Rob Chave commented on the process to date including a Council public hearing on August 4, 2014. He provided examples of recent changes/adjustments: • Clarified standards for amenity space and open space, for example clarified 15% minimum for each, clarified where these can be located • Additional design standards for buildings • Incentives for large retail spaces With regard to traffic and setbacks: • Traffic study shows no overall impact on level of service. Any future development will be analyzed for detailed traffic impacts (e.g. turning movements, access points) • 12-foot setback preserves options; SR-104 study in last 2014/early 2015 will identify any additional recommendations for ROW improvements • Setback requirements can be revised if needed With regard to parking: • Parking standards are minimums • Added an increased parking standard (1.75 spaces per unit) for residential units that exceed 900 square feet. Achieves two goals: o More residential parking for larger units (that may accommodate more residents per unit) o Provides an added incentive for smaller units • Proposed overall blended parking rate for commercial space is 1/500 square foot • Existing grocery stores have a range 1 space per 350-370 square feet. Peak use is PM peak hour; much less during other parts of day • Current usage assumes a shared parking area, not just provided onsite (e.g. QFC property has 1 space per 475 square foot) • Comparisons with other cities show blended parking rates vary widely many at 1/500 (Mountlake Terrace, Bothell, Issaquah, Redmond, Kent), others at 1/400 (Bothell, Kent) or more. Some have no commercial requirement (Everett, Renton). Rates also vary by location within jurisdictions • Residential parking generally varies from 0.75 or 1.0 per unit to sometimes more for larger units Regarding lots and setbacks: • Commercial areas provide street and residential setbacks, but not other setbacks • Provides flexibility for locating and linking businesses Mr. Chave displayed and described an aerial photograph of the existing QFC and PCC buildings on lot lines. He explained commercial areas provide setback in two ways, 1) from residential areas, and 2) from streets. There are no side setbacks or minimum lot sizes in commercial areas. He noted the QFC and PCC buildings were set on several of their lot lines. QFC owns their property; PCC leases their property. He displayed an aerial photograph of the McDonalds site and described the amenity/open space versus setbacks. He provided details regarding the McDonald’s property: • 190 feet deep • 400 feet wide • Approx. 50 foot old front setback (actual - which includes 5-foot landscaping strip) • Approx. 50 foot non-developed slope area • 76,000 total lot area Packet Page 575 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 12 • 11,400 - 15% amenity space required • 11,400 - 15% open space • 20,000 protected slope area 26.3% of total site • 4,800 front 12-foot setback 6.3% of total site • 8,000 front 20-foot setback 10.5% of total site • Development scenarios Existing Code New Code o Minimum landscape/open/amenity area 8,000 31,400 o Are available for building 62,000 44,600 o Total potential floor area 124,000 133,800 With regard to amenity vs. open space: • Clarified the intent to provide both amenity and open space within the area, with a 15% independent requirement for each • Amenity space must be public, while open space can be public or private. In either case, each has its own requirement • Note: No other zone in the City has anything like these requirements With regard to commercial requirements: • Clarified the various building types to indicate commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial mixed use types: Building Type Residential Office Uses Retail 1. Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed 2. Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 3. Stacked Dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 4. Live-Work Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 5. Loft Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Any floor 6. Side Court Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Ground floor only 7. Commercial Mixed Use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor He displayed the original and a revised building type map. With regard to building design, he explained: • A series of design standards have been added, addressing such things as massing and articulation, orientation to the street, ground level details, pedestrian facades, blank walls and ground floor ceiling heights. • Note that any 4th story “must be stepped back 10 feet from a building façade facing SR-104 or 100th Avenue West” (page 27) Mr. Chave displayed illustrations in the plan, largely taken from the commercial building standards for downtown. With regard to large format retail, he explained: • Incentives have been added for large-format retail uses (e.g. groceries, drug stores) 1) Adding bonus points for large-format retail in the height bonus table (p. 38) 2) A potential for 5 more feet of building height to accommodate the need for higher ceiling space in a large format retailers (the extra 5 feet is only available when a large format retail space is provided in building (page 6/7) • Intent is for large format retail to be retained; note existing leases/ownership and Bartell’s interest in expanding their investment Mr. Chave displayed a Height Bonus Score Sheet that identified amenities already required and items that qualified for height bonus. Packet Page 576 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 13 Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Chave’s statement that parking requirements are minimums. In the example of Bartell’s, if they feel they need more parking to redevelop they will provide it to enhance their business. Mr. Chave identified a lot behind Bartells that was provided in anticipation of a new building. Bartells provided more parking than they needed in anticipation of that additional development which did not occur due to the economy. Councilmember Peterson commented there is a certain point in development where the developer makes their decision; if the City does not overly restrict, the market will dictate what is required. Mr. Chave answered one aspect of the market is the developer’s experience or the store’s experience with the type of parking they need. A second factor is the bank/investor looks closely at the market, access and parking. The final phase is ensuring the proposal meets the City’s parking standards. If the parking standards are too tight, it can halt the process at the beginning particularly with infill in existing areas. In Bartell’s case, they have a well-defined site and parking; they have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking for their store. Mr. Chase commented another significant issue is the existing investments and ownership patterns. Bartells is in the process acquiring the entire corner; they currently only own store. QFC owns their property and have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking. QFC did a significant interior remodel approximately five years ago and is a very successful store even with PCC across the street. He did not fore see any of the main anchors, PCC, QFC or Bartells, moving out any time soon because they very successful. Councilmember Petso asked if there was any requirement that the entire first floor of the Type 7 buildings be commercial versus tuck-under or semi-underground parking. Mr. Chave did not recall any specific numbers. Councilmember Petso asked why amenity space was allowed to be in the setback area or six feet underground or six feet above ground. If the amenity space was in the setback area, she feared it may be close to the road. If the amenity space is underground or above ground, it may be nearly inaccessible and potentially invisible to passersby. She asked why that type of the amenity would be desired. Mr. Chave answered the reason for the six-foot requirement was to bring it down, close to the ground. In areas that have this type of amenity space such as plazas, there are frequently multiple levels, integrated seating, or a multi-functional plaza that serves as an outdoor amphitheater. The intent of the six feet was to make it pedestrian scale but also provide flexibility with regard to how the space was arranged. A requirement for ground floor would not provide for that type of varied areas. With regard to the setback, in the McDonald’s example, Mr. Chave explained if there is a 12-foot front setback there is already a reserved area behind near the slope; adding the amenity space leaves very little site area. The area cannot be used for parking and a McDonald’s is not going to have parking under the building which may rule out a use like a McDonald’s. Many sites will be hard pressed to satisfy the amenity space requirement even if the amenity space is in the front. If a walkway is provided near the right-of-way, for example the new landscaping/walkway area in front of Walgreens, the walkway is wider than the usual 4-5 feet. Near Walgreens there is a 5-foot planting area and a 7-foot wide walkway. The right-of-way was only 10 feet; in order to construct the additional walkway, an easement was obtained from the property owner to expand the walkway. The sidewalk does not count as amenity space; they still have to provide the 15%. Councilmember Petso asked why language was added during this latest update that the buildings may not stand in isolation (page 193), noting it would seem to contribute to the side-lot to side-lot corridor effect down SR-104 and along 100th. Mr. Chave recalled that language was added to clarify that buildings need to be connected to the other buildings, sidewalks and walkways and not standing in isolation. Mr. Taraday Packet Page 577 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 14 recalled that was added to clarify other language. Councilmember Petso asked why that was desirable, to have buildings connected along the stretch. Mr. Chave clarified it was not buildings physically connected wall to wall, the intent was connectivity between the buildings such as walkways, pathways, connected drives, etc. He suggested clarifying the language if that was not clear. Council President Buckshnis said having the amenity space stratified is great, referring to downtown Lake Oswego. She asked whether there was an art aspect to the amenity space. Mr. Chave answered language could be included that encourages art as part of the amenity space or added to the score sheet. Council President Buckshnis relayed she understood the concept of not having buildings stand in isolation. Mr. Chave commented the concept will fail if there is a building in a large parking and no way to get to from that building to buildings nearby. Council President Buckshnis commented PCC was very successful, they have a 30 year lease but their building is isolated. Mr. Chave agreed it was somewhat isolated but they have areas in front. The intent with redevelopment is things like changes in the paving and trees planted along walkways to identify the location of the walkway. Businesses like PCC may be willing to partner with the City. Council President Buckshnis referred to the old fashioned sidewalks along SR-104. She asked whether the plan includes streetscapes with trees between the roadway and sidewalk to separate pedestrians from the traffic. Mr. Chave agreed yes, referring to the newer scheme in front of Walgreens and the multifamily development near Compass that separates pedestrians from the roadway. Councilmember Johnson commented last week the Council authorized the SR-104 which has a Westgate emphasis. She asked how the results of the Westgate Transportation Study will be incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the SR-104 study will occur late 2014/early 2015. By that time she assumed the code would be adopted along with the minor changes to the 2014 Comprehensive Plan. The analysis will then come back for review by the Planning Board, Transportation Committee and City Council and elements will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan via the Transportation Element or other plans such as the Streetscape Plan. Any potential code changes could also be adopted at that time. Councilmember Johnson commented it was important for the public to understand the two will eventually be connected. Councilmember Johnson commented the purpose and intent of the Westgate code calls for designing a landscape emphasis at the primary intersection of SR-104 & 100th/9th. Regardless of whether the existing 20-foot setback is retained or the proposed 12-foot setback adopted, she asked how the landscape emphasis will be achieved at the intersection. Mr. Chave commented the additional stepback which will result in the buildings being quite low. It may be worthwhile to add language regarding signature plaza spaces and water features in addition to landscaping. He agreed that was an important concept, visitors should have a feeling that they have arrived somewhere. Councilmember Johnson observed SR-104 has a natural environment notable for tall stands of evergreen trees. She asked how the green factors score sheet could be modified if there was a desire for greater emphasis on native trees. Mr. Chave responded one of the reasons for the protected slopes was due to the location of the large evergreens. An option would be to increase the points in the table for native vegetation. There is a significant bonus for protecting existing trees. Councilmember Johnson observed the bonus is 1 for bio-retention, .8 for protecting large existing trees and .1 for native. She suggested increasing the bonus for native trees. Mr. Chave commented on the interaction between the protected slopes and the emphasis on protecting trees in general; the bonus could be increased for protecting native species. Packet Page 578 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 15 Councilmember Bloom observed the proposal was to allow 4 stories on the Bartell property with a 12- foot setback and an additional 5 feet in height would be allowed for 15,000 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Bloom observed the building could not subdivided below 15,000 square feet of retail space for the life of building. She asked how that would be enforced. Mr. Chave said it would need to be provided upfront and the City sees all tenant improvements; any tenant improvement that would divide the space below 15,000 square feet would be denied. Mr. Taraday advised there would likely be something recorded against the title of any property taking advantage of the 15,000 square foot height bonus to create a permanent record on the title that so all future permit applications would be reviewed in light of that restriction. Councilmember Bloom observed commercial mixed use was allowed on all properties, other uses are sprinkled throughout and some quadrants only allow a portion of commercial mixed use for example QFC. There was concern expressed at her Town Hall meeting about a tunnel effect if every property were developed commercial mixed use and located 12 feet from the road. Mr. Chave said the idea of tunnel was the vertical space relative to the horizontal space. He referred to downtown where there is a 60-foot right-of-way, an average of 30 foot building on both sides with no setbacks. At Westgate there is an 80- foot right-of-way, 12-foot setback and 35 foot buildings with the potential of an additional l0-15 feet of height. He summarized in terms of scale to the right-of-way, the buildings in Westgate were similar to the overall proportion of downtown. He did not see that as having a tunnel effect. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was a reason for allowing commercial mixed use on every property when QFC and PCC were not likely to redevelop. Mr. Chave commented there was a misconception about what that means, pointing out QFC, PCC, McDonalds are commercial buildings although they are different shapes and sizes and if they had residential, they would be commercial mixed use. The idea is not one size fits all; commercial mixed use buildings will each look different, especially at the intersection where a stepback is required on a 4-story building. That combined with the design standards that require differentiating the ground floor from the upper floors, the appearance of separate sections even in a larger building, etc. that will interact to mitigate the fear of a tunnel look to the development. Councilmember Bloom commented Mr. Barber, who owns Bartells, was at the Town Hall meeting and was very concerned about the parking. Recalling a conversation she and Councilmember Petso had with Mr. Doherty, Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave, she asked whether the plan could start with the Bartells quadrant, work on that quadrant with Bartells, and do the other quadrants later once the SR-104 transportation study is completed since they are unlikely to redevelop. Ms. Hope responded anything is possible. Her understanding was there has been a deliberative process over 3-4 years to look at all 4 quadrants and how they affect each other. Although each quadrant could be considered separately, there is value in having a plan that works reasonably for all four quadrants and fine-tune it based on development that occurs in one of the quadrants. Councilmember Bloom relayed concerns expressed at the Town Hall meeting included traffic patterns, crossing SR-104 and 100th, parking, ingress and egress, existing parking difficulties at QFC, and driving from QFC to PCC. She summarized pedestrian crossing is not convenient and that is something the SR- 104 study will consider. Ms. Hope responded some of the traffic issues have been studied and it may be that perception is not the same as what is actually proposed. The SR-104 analysis will be done within a few months and a lot of the concerns will be addressed. Councilmember Mesaros observed QFC’s existing parking is 1/475 square feet. He inquired about PCC’s parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is approximately 1/350 square feet in the area immediately in front. Most commercial areas have blended/spill over parking. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about Goodwill’s parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is shared parking. Packet Page 579 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 16 Councilmember Mesaros said he has heard canyon-effect mentioned and appreciated Mr. Chave’s comparison of the right-of-way and buildings in Westgate to downtown. He asked whether the proposed zoning allow would allow 4-story buildings all along the corridor. Mr. Chave identified areas where 4, 3, and 2 story buildings would be allowed, noting it is not a uniform 4 stories. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed heights up to 4 stories would be allowed at the cross of the quadrants at Edmonds Way and 100th/9th. Mr. Chave identified 2 sides where 4-story buildings would be allowed and 2 sides where 3-story buildings would be allowed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed it could potentially feel like canyon or tunnel in the center. Mr. Chave did not think so, particularly with the stepback at the intersection. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she liked the walkability of University Village, recalling the series of roads through University Village in the past. She asked the timeframe for making a decision on this plan. Mr. Chave envisioned Thanksgiving. He feared if a decision was delayed too long, it would take a backseat to the budget. Councilmember Peterson agreed it is not comfortable walk on the sidewalk on SR-104 but the concept via redevelopment in 20-30 years is to create internal walkability and a pedestrian friendly shopping and living experience. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the raised sidewalks in U-Village clearly identify the pedestrian areas. To Councilmember Bloom suggestion to do one quadrant at a time, Councilmember Peterson asked whether that would be a radical change to the Planning Board’s recommendation and require restarting the public process and holding another public hearing. Mr. Taraday answered worst case scenario another public hearing would need to be held to ensure the GMA requirement for public participation was met. As a practical matter, because the other properties are unlikely to redevelop it may not matter whether a plan for the entire area is adopted and tweaked later or only a plan for the quadrant that is likely to develop sooner. Mr. Chave explained it was within the Council discretion to do a phased approach; however, it is unknown what the property owners outside the SR-104 & 100th/9th intersection are considering. The City is limited in what it can do to improve the flow and access until some redevelopment occurs. Council President Buckshnis asked whether there were grant funds available for overpasses between the quadrants. She referred to overpasses in Charlotte. Ms. Hope answered there are no grants available in Washington for that at this time. She agreed connectivity between the quadrants was an important element. Mr. Taraday suggested an overpass could be added to the amenity score sheet for a height bonus; it was more likely to occur that way rather than via grant funding. Council President Buckshnis asked if there was a percentage of residential in the plan. Ms. Hope answered for example residential cannot be on the first floor. Some property owners may prefer office space to commercial. Council President Buckshnis asked how Councilmembers should inform staff of additional incentives. Ms. Hope suggested sending information to staff to allow further research. Council President Buckshnis suggested adding art. Councilmember Johnson observed properties in the Westgate area have varied height limits depending on the location and topography. She asked the Planning Board’s rationale for four stories in the QFC quadrant where there is flat topography. Mr. Chave displayed the height map, explaining there are no slopes in the QFC area but the cemetery separates the site from the surrounding area. Four stories were not allowed in the northeast due to its small size. Councilmember Johnson referred to the intersection analysis done by Jennifer Barnes in June 2013 for the SR-104/100th intersection. She asked Mr. Chave to contrast that analysis with the new transportation Packet Page 580 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 17 study of Westgate with regard to the forecast years, land use assumptions and the scope of work. Mr. Chave answered Ms. Barnes supplemented the analysis in the Transportation Plan where the planning horizon is 2025, analyzing overall volumes, turning movements, levels of service, signalization, etc. The 2015 update will expand the horizon to 2035. The UW’s analysis assumed 4-5 stories; the impact of the current 2-4 story plan will be substantially less. Councilmember Johnson observed Ms. Barnes’ analysis was of the intersection; the transportation study will consider other components. Mr. Chave agreed, especially the SR-104 study. Councilmember Bloom referred page 7c regarding building not standing in isolation, specifically the last sentence that states, will achieve these connectivity and space-shaping goals more effectively by allowing such an exception in light of the established building and circulation pattern, provided that vehicle parking shall not be located between the building and the public street in any instance. She asked whether the eventual goal was no parking in front of QFC or PCC and for buildings to be located up to the street. Mr. Chave answered the intent is to form the spaces for parking and pedestrian circulation in the area internal to the quadrant by the placement of the buildings. The old strip mall model is parking lot in front with buildings set back with a sign identifying the tenants. When buildings are closer to the sidewalk, they provide a presence at the street front. Councilmember Bloom observed the goal of the plan was for all buildings to be close to the street. Mr. Chave answered all the buildings would not be at the street because the property configuration of some would not allow the buildings to be placed at the street. The general principle is to have the buildings at the street. If the buildings are not at the street, there will be limited ability to create interconnected spaces, aisles and driveways behind the buildings. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there was any accommodation made for bike trails. Mr. Chave answered they are not precluded, they could be provided as part of the connections but would be limited by space. The emphasis is along 9th because it is a challenge to provide a bike trail to the east. The north and east connectors in the City’s existing bike plans are further north. The language regarding internal circulation could be expanded to emphasize bikes. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the plan regarding units less than 900 square feet, a percentage allowed to be over 1600 square and encouraging affordable housing. She emphasize that was not affordable housing; affordable housing was when a person paid no more than 1/3 of their income for housing. As it appeared there was interest in providing affordable housing at Westgate, she asked why actual affordable housing was not included in the plan. Mr. Chave explained the City did not have an affordable housing program; there was no zoning regulation to require affordable housing in a development. He and Ms. Hope have discussed developing that type of program but it would take a couple years including working with the Housing Authority and the new Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) of Snohomish County. If such a program were developed, it could be added to the Westgate plan; another potential location is nodes on Hwy 99 that are close to transit. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson referred to the proposal to maintain 15,000 square feet for the life of a building and observed that would preclude the old Albertsons from being dividing to provide space for a pet store as well as prohibit the former Safeway from being developed as Salish Crossing. She questioned whether that was a good idea. Mr. Chave answered the developer would have to be seeking the fourth story for that requirement to be imposed. Second, it would only require 15,000 square feet; for example if the old Albertsons had 20,000 square feet, they could designate 15,000 for PCC and the remainder for other stores. Mayor Earling suggested for future study session discussions, staff be seated at the table. Packet Page 581 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 18 Councilmember Petso advised she would email staff with a number of requests for future presentations. She suggested deleting the provision that allow using a portion of the sidewalk in the public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays, etc. Although currently allowed downtown, it would not make sense on SR-104. Council President Buckshnis commented it may not be appropriate on SR-104 but it could be appropriate in other areas in Westgate. Councilmember Petso suggested a requirement that the first floor be devoted to retail and not parking. As examples she referred to the Compass Apartments where parking is provided in back under the units and a building in Shoreline near Costco where there most of the ground floor is parking. She feared turning a vibrant business district into parking holding up residential. Council President Buckshnis referred to the parking configuration allowed downtown. Councilmember Petso answered there is already a walkable pedestrian area downtown. She relayed comments about why the City wants to create a second walkable pedestrian area. She wanted to ensure Westgate retained legitimate commercial uses on the first floor. Councilmember Johnson inquired about parking on 9th in front of the cemetery, assuming it was employee parking. She asked whether consideration had been given to offsite parking for employees to better accommodate customer parking. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it is also commuter parking for people taking the bus because there are no time limits on the parking in that area. Council President Buckshnis clarified smaller units can be affordable housing. She envisioned a walkable neighborhood with residential away from SR-104. Councilmember Bloom pointed out affordable housing has a specific definition, there is no guarantee a 900 square foot unit is affordable. She agreed with Council President Buckshnis’ suggestion to have residential setback from SR-104 but that was not what this plan proposed. The plan allows commercial mixed use everywhere and only one of the residential uses, rowhouses, was strictly residential; everything else is mixed use including the live-work. She preferred to designate where residential is allowed and that it be setback and private. This plan allows buildings up to 4 stories of mixed use at the Bartell and QFC mixed use with 3 stories of residential and 1 floor of commercial and parking to accommodate the uses. Council President Buckshnis did not support designating where specific building types could be located. Councilmember Peterson referred to the presentation by Mark Smith, AHA, who pointed out there are a number of striations to affordable housing including what the private sector provides and what the City could provide via an affordable housing program. Mr. Smith indicated Edmonds is woefully inadequate in both regards; the affordable housing the private sector provides is typically smaller units. Encouraging smaller units in Westgate and throughout the City is an excellent way for the private sector to provide affordable housing. If housing was restricted to specific areas such as rowhouses that are private, it automatically increases the footprint and the price and would eliminate the sector of affordable housing that can be provided by the private sector. The more the location of housing is restricted, the worse the opportunity for providing any type of affordable housing. This type of development is needed throughout the City; there are opportunities in Westgate, downtown, Hwy 99 and Five Corners. Councilmember Petso agreed small units are not affordable housing and recalled Mr. Smith saying that. There may be less construction costs but the smaller size does not make them affordable housing particularly for families who cannot live in a small unit. She relayed the public wants to identify the places at Westgate where they are willing to accept taller building and residential units and not interfere with other areas at Westgate; that is not what this plan does. 11. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. Packet Page 582 of 586 He provided the following comparison: Benefit Standard Cigna Life and AD&D $0.195 and $0.045 $0.18 and $0.022 Cigna matching rate of $0.29 per unit for dependents MEBT Life $13.50 ($75k benefit) $13.94 (100k benefit) Cigna matching rate of $0.54 for disabled lives Long Term Disability $0.595 $0.49 Total Cost Differential -11.9% ($15,713) Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that the Cigna plan provides greater benefits, less cost and a three year rate guarantee; there are no hidden fees or fine print. Mr. Robertson agreed it seemed too good to be true. Typically when a firm has a monopoly and no competition, their fees are higher. The person who designed and programmed the policy that most municipalities in Washington participate in at Standard, left Standard and went to Cigna. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO FORWARD THE ITEM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED (4-0). (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.) 5. PROCLAMATION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH ~ YWCA WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October 2014 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and the third week of October as YWCA Week Without Violence. Mary Ann Dillon, Senior Regional Director, YWCA Snohomish County, on behalf of the YWCA, thanked the City Council and Mayor Earling for raising awareness about domestic violence via the proclamation. She noted there were several members of the YWCA in the audience as well as Dr. Suzanne Poppema, President, Zonta Club of Everett. Zonta is a women’s organization that works on many women’s issues including eliminating human trafficking locally, nationally and internationally. Ms. Dillon explained recent incidents involving NFL players and domestic violence has put the spotlight on the problem and has men and women participating in important dialogue about domestic violence. There are great opportunities to keep the conversation going and make systemic changes. She commented a week without violence would be 7 days, 168 hours, 10,080 minutes free of domestic violence, sexual assault, early childhood enforced marriages, etc. She thanked the Council and Mayor for their commitment to ending violence and the making community safer for all. 12. DISCUSSION REGARDING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Council President Buckshnis recalled in a test of the study session format a couple weeks ago the Council used a round robin, three question format. She asked for Councilmembers’ input regarding how study sessions should be run, the configuration, whether to have a time limit on questions, a round robin with a limit on the number of questions, etc., noting the microphones needed to be improved. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmembers take turns asking questions to ensure everyone is able to participate. She noted typically the first person asks multiple questions. She preferred Councilmembers ask one question at a time unless there was a follow-up or clarification question. Councilmember Petso disagreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. Her understanding of a study session format was to promote interactive discussions in a less structured atmosphere. At the study Packet Page 583 of 586 session regarding Westgate, the meeting included questions in a much more structured format than when Councilmembers are seated at the dais and there no discussion. She envisioned a less formal study session would provide opportunity for more dialogue and discussion. Council President Buckshnis commented there was discussion at the end of the study session regarding Westgate. The length of the agenda that evening also limited the amount of discussion regarding Westgate. She favored the round robin format because it allowed each person to speak. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she liked the more informal setting with Councilmembers seated at the table; her preference was to allow all Councilmembers to ask questions and participate in the process versus one Councilmember with a lot of questions monopolizing the subject matter. Councilmember Peterson said he also likes the informal nature of sitting at a table but he has heard from citizens who watch the Council meetings that they are not able to engage due to the poor sound quality and the camera angles. The Council needs to balance what makes them comfortable with the public’s ability to engage in the discussion. The technology is not currently set up to accommodate the format with Councilmembers seated at the table. He suggested gathering feedback from people who watch the Council meetings. Councilmember Johnson said it was beneficial to have rules for study sessions; the Council can make them up as they go or rely on Roberts Rules of Order although Roberts Rules may be too restrictive. She suggested either establishing a time limit or a number of questions. She suggested playing with the table layout, recalling the original configuration did not have Councilmembers in a line and allowed them to see each other. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the problem with the current configuration is some Councilmembers have their backs to the audience. Councilmember Johnson said she can see the screen better from the table; it is nearly impossible to see the screen when seated at the dais. She noted it would be helpful to provide Councilmembers with presentation materials. Councilmember Petso noted she could see the screen better from the dais than from the table. Council President Buckshnis summarized for future study sessions: • Work on a different table configuration • Round robin with 1-2 questions each Council President Buckshnis asked whether Councilmembers wanted discussion after each question. Councilmember Petso commented it depends on the issue. For Westgate, it may have been more productive to allow discussion after each question was raised. For items on tonight’s agenda that previously would have been handled by committee, few questions arose. She summarized less formality would be preferable. Councilmember Johnson asked whether Councilmembers wanted to start meetings at 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. She preferred all the meetings start at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said either 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. was acceptable. With regard to the number of questions, she said to drive democracy the number of questions cannot be limited. She suggested a Councilmember who had a number of questions could continue to ask questions after other Councilmember’s questions had been answered. Council President Buckshnis commented she was surprised by the 6:30 p.m. start time tonight. She preferred to start meeting at 7:00 p.m. because that was what citizens are used to. Unless there were Packet Page 584 of 586 objections, she will continue with a 7:00 p.m. start time and, when necessary, hold executive sessions prior to Council meetings. Mayor Earling commented staff’s understanding was study sessions would start at 6:00 p.m., if there was an executive session, the meeting would start at 6:00 p.m., followed by the executive session and convene the study session at the conclusion of the executive session. There may be an advantage to starting the study session earlier; for example, tonight’s agenda was a 4-hour meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested all Council meetings could start at 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. to avoid confusion. Mayor Earling summarized Council President Buckshnis will take the Council’s comments and present a recommendation at the next study session. 13. PRESENTATION REGARDING FIRE DISTRICT 1 Mayor Earling explained the invoice was provided at an initial meeting with Fire District 1 (FD1) on August 21. Several subsequent meetings have been held including a meeting with Brier’s Mayor, Mountlake Terrace’s City Manager and himself where it was agreed the three cities’ Finance Directors would meet to discuss concerns with the billing. Following that meeting the Finance Directors met with FD1’s Finance Director. During these meetings, further information has been requested from FD1. He met with Chief Widdis and Commissioner Chan last Friday where it was agreed the timing and the way the information regarding the increase was presented was handled poorly by FD1. It was also agreed to have further discussion on issues of concern to Edmonds and likely all three cities. Following tonight’s presentation and discussion, there will be a follow-up meeting this week with the three cities’ Finance Directors, Brier’s Mayor, Mountlake Terrace’s City Manager and him. He will be seeking a meeting with the three cities and FD1 late this week or early next week. He summarized there has been a good dialogue to this point. Fire District 1 Chief Ed Widdis commented he provided this same presentation to Mountlake Terrace, illustrating the benefits of contracting with FD1. The primary reasons Edmonds contracted with FD1 were: • More efficiencies o A 12-station fire department o A larger group of employees to pool from o More specialized equipment o More resources for the community o Re-classed the City fire service from a Class 4 to Class 3 • Save Money (He displayed the following spreadsheets): o City Revenue – Edmonds Fire (2010-2016) o Edmonds Fire Budget (2010-2016) o Contract Cost  Edmonds Fire Revenue Loss (Woodway and Esperance Contracts)  Costs Transferred to District o Estimated 5-year outlook (2010-2014)  Estimated savings via contracting : $5.8 million  Actual 5 year savings: $6 million Packet Page 585 of 586 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 19 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Ms. Spellman will no longer videotape Council meetings. Council President Buckshnis advised that was correct at this time. Her contract will be adjusted to reflect she will no longer videotape Council meetings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented some Councilmembers are interested in determining how many hours would be needed for legislative aid type work. Councilmember Petso commented she had not heard of people sharing a legislative assistant and the concept seems very odd. For example, one Councilmember may ask the aid to research what cities have done to help acquire parks; and another Councilmember may ask him/her to research what cities are doing to sell off surplus parks. She was hesitant to have a single, shared legislative assistant among seven people. 12. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Due to the late hour, Mayor Earling advised this would be delayed to a future meeting. 13. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS This item was rescheduled to a future meeting via action taken at the conclusion of Agenda Item 9. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling advised Rick Schaefer, the Principle at Tetra Tech, was scheduled to make a presentation at the November 28 meeting. His father passed away so his presentation has been rescheduled to November 25. Mayor Earling thanked Council and staff who attended the Five Corners ribbon cutting last week. Staff and elected officials have endured a lot of bullets as that project moved along. Early reports, including some from people who were opposed to the roundabout, have been positive. Mayor Earling invited the public to the Veterans Day Ceremony at the Veterans Plaza at 11 a.m. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Buckshnis advised she is working on the extended agenda. The Council will not be meeting on December 23 or 30. 16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 18. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Packet Page 586 of 586