2018-10-02 City Council - Full Agenda-2199Agenda
Edmonds City Council
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
OCTOBER 2, 2018, 7:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
October 2, 2018
Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 25, 2018
2. Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
3. Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages totaling $919.14 and amounts undetermined.
4. Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Sourcewell (Minnesota)
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. Fire Prevention Week Proclamation (5 min)
2. National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation (5 min)
3. Sister City Commission 30th Anniversary Delegation to Hekinan (15 min)
4. Presentation from Snohomish Public Utility District on Renewable Energy Credits Pilot (15 min)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation (20 min)
2. Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes (40 min)
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. Critical Areas Ordinance Report (15 min)
2. Discussion on Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene (EPS or “Styrofoam”) in Food Packaging (20
min)
3. Video Streaming of Council Committee Meetings (20 min)
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Special Finance Committee Meeting Report and Minutes (10 min)
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(I).
Edmonds City Council Agenda
October 2, 2018
Page 2
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 25, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
4.1
Packet Pg. 3
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 25, 2018
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Michael Nelson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Mesaros.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TOTALING AN AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 2
Doug Swartz, Edmonds, referred to Housing Task Force, a task force with members hand-picked by the
Mayor, and found it appalling that many of the members do not live in or have a connection to Edmonds
and a majority are in the homelessness business or building business. He challenged the task force to provide
examples where input from the public changed anything in the document, noting most of the project was
done out of the public’s sight. Passage of the Housing Strategy will fundamentally and permanently change
Edmonds. The zoning changes that will quickly be passed after the approval of the Strategy will present a
field day for developers with the development of taller buildings and buildings with insufficient parking.
At its core, the document is focused on removing regulations that have made Edmonds what it is and have
kept developers responsible. These are the same tactics that have been repeatedly tried and failed in San
Francisco, Portland and Seattle. He quoted the head of the Portland Police Union, “homelessness has turned
Portland into a cesspool.” The San Francisco Chronicle reported the San Francisco tourism industry
struggles to explain the street misery that horrified visitors see. Examples of Seattle’s failed efforts
regarding the homeless are readily apparent in the local news. He requested the City Council form a new
group of regular citizens, for and against the current document, to discuss in an open forum whether the
current draft Housing Strategy is what citizens want. He requested the Council commit to taking no action
on this document until they obtain citizen feedback. Even if Councilmembers agree with the draft document,
it is their responsibility to listen to the arguments of their constituents.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXCELSIOR PLACE STREET VACATION
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained additional information was received after staff
prepared the agenda memo and recommendation. Therefore, staff requests that following public comment,
the hearing be continued until next Tuesday. He reviewed:
Initiation of proceedings:
o ECDC 20.70.050.B – Petition of owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the
portion of street or alley to be vacated
o Resolution No. 1417 set public hearing for tonight
Map identifying vacation request area
Right-of-way established via 20’ right-of-way in the Edmonds Seaview tract in 1906 and has not
been brought u to City standards since 1906
ECDC 20.70.020 – Criteria for Vacation
o The vacation is in the public interest
o No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation
Vacation request an outgrowth of a lot line adjustment application the City received
o One of proposed lots, Parcel A spanned the Excelsior Place right-of-way and City could not
approve a lot that straddles a right-of-way
o Applicants given options
Amend lot line adjustment so no parcels straddle the right-of-way or
Apply for a street vacation
o Five existing lots of record
Public benefit of vacation
- Allows lot line adjustment to proceed and minimizes potential impacts to critical areas
- City no longer have responsibility and liability associated with right-of-way
Issues staff considered
o Traffic Flow
Excelsior Place right-of-way improved in two places
- Area between improved areas is steep so Excelsior Place unlikely to be extended
- City received comment that some residents use improved area and private road to
access 196th St SW
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 3
o Sight Distance
Required sight distance to turn left from 94th Place W onto Puget Drive is 300 feet; actual
sight distance is 200 feet
Aerial map of access based on Easements of Record
o Properties that have rights to use 94th Place W
o Private drive that connects 196th to improved area of Excelsior Place
o Properties that has legal rights to use both
In its previous recommendation, staff considered whether residents who have historically used the private
road have prescriptive rights to continue. Staff received additional information since the staff report was
prepared regarding how the area is signed and communications over the years. He displayed:
View into the right-of-way proposed to be vacated from the west and east
Photograph of private drive signs on the west and east
Applicants provided correspondence with residents on the west informing them this is not a public
road and indicating on occasion they have stopped people driving on the private road
Staff plans to further research the turn from 94th Place W to Puget Drive
o When some of the lots were platted in 1984, the City conditioned the plat to be right turn in/out
from 94th Place W
- Some striping remains hinting at right in/out
- Drivers currently make left turns in/out
Utilities
o Water and sewer mains exist in the right-of-way, installed by the applicant who is requesting
the street vacation
o Options
City maintain ownership and require utility easement
Applicant assume ownership of water and sewer mains
- City typically relinquishes ownership at manhole; existing manholes result in private
utility within the public right-of-way
- Water meters would need to be moved back to the public right-of-way and separate
water lines installed
o Applicant proposed to give the City a utility easement and provide a turnaround for City and
emergency vehicles
ECDC 20.70.140 Final Decision
o Following the public hearing, the City Council shall
1. Adopt an ordinance granted the vacation; or
1. Adopt an ordinance granted the vacation; or
2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or
3. Adopt a resolution of intent were specific conditions must be met within 90 days
a. Either
i. Monetary compensation up to one-half fair market value
ii. Grant of substitute public right-of-way
iii. Any combination of a.i or a.ii
Or
b. Grant of an easement to the City in exchange for easement vacated
Mr. Lien explained monetary compensation cannot be required if the City receives a utility easement. The
appraised value of the right-of-way is $10,500; per City Code, if monetary compensation could be accepted,
it would be half the appraised value or approximately $5,000.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 4
Staff’s previous recommendation was to deny the vacation; given the additional information received since
the staff report was issued, staff requests the City Council continue the public hearing to October 2 to allow
staff time to consider the new information, conduct further research and reconsider its recommendation.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the map identifying the critical areas and asked if the stream is open or
in a culvert. Mr. Lien answered it is open to the middle of the wetland area.
Councilmember Teitzel said he drove to the site yesterday and looked at 94th Place West. As he exited
south, he noticed a right turn only sign in addition to the yellow marking. He asked if drivers turning left
were breaking the law. Mr. Lien answered staff will research that.
Applicant
Duane Landsverk, agreed 94th Place W was signed no left turn but most officers have been fairly lenient
when issues have occurred there over the years as the sign has been missing at times, etc. Even prior to
1984, that intersection was difficult. That condition will not change for the existing lots that use that
intersection. He was confused with staff’s concern with that situation when new lots were not being created.
The lots exist; their goal is to create a better situation and avoid building on a critical slope, in a wetland or
next to a stream. This intersection is a problem and they support having the City resolve an issue that was
allowed in 1984. He appreciated the neighbors’ concerns, but they are not proposing any change to the
intersection. He was not prepared to make a presentation tonight as staff planned to request the public
hearing be continued. He requested an opportunity to provide additional information next week.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Jerry Janacek, Edmonds, resident to the north of the requested vacation, said the notice of public hearing
that he and his neighbors received stated, Dedication of a Portion of Excelsior Place Adjacent to the
Property Located at 19511 94th Place West. Most of the residents have lived in their homes for 30-40 years
and were here to ask questions:
1. Vacation is often a process used for real estate development. Is this the ultimate intent of this
request?
2. If this is a correct assumption, how much of the several acres of greenbelt would potentially be
developed?
3. Does the City have a policy to reduce or eliminate greenbelts and would this be one of the effects?
4. Since the nearby property is located on a steep slope along a ravine with a year-round stream, how
would this impact nearby properties? Stream requires 75-foot setbacks; an issue if the property is
to be developed.
5. As there are owls, woodpeckers and other wildlife in this area, is an Environmental Impact Study
needed?
In summary, what impact would this proposed change to Excelsior Place have on their neighborhood? He
submitted written comments.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
Mr. Lien said the public hearing is solely on the vacation request which was precipitated via the lot line
adjustment so he was hesitant to talk about the criteria for lot line adjustment versus the vacation.
Minimizing impacts to the critical areas is one of the public benefits provided by vacation. He identified
the location of the five existing lots of record. Accessing some of those lots would require crossing a steep
slope, going through a wetland, and across the stream and development would likely occur through the
critical area reasonable use exception variance process and would likely impact some of the critical areas.
The lot line adjustment rearranges the existing five lots to provide more building area outside the critical
areas and critical area buffers.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 5
Mr. Lien explained if/when development applications are submitted on the lot line adjustment, they would
be subject to critical area review. If they are within 50 feet of the top of the slope, geotechnical reports
would be required; if they are within 200 feet of the wetland, they would be likely to require a wetland
determination. The boundaries of the wetlands are known but not the classification; the classification and
habitat score determine the buffer. With regard to critical areas and environmental concerns, they would be
considered in accordance with the City’s regulations at the time of development review.
With regard to the question about the intent to further develop the area, Mr. Landsverk answered the purpose
of this exercise was to limit the amount of development. They are not proposing a land action application,
simply a boundary line adjustment to avoid the critical areas. Doing the vacation in conjunction with the
boundary line adjustment will allow the home sites to be located in the least critical, flattest area of the 11+
acres.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested superimposing the critical area map on the map of the boundary line
adjustment lots. As there are a lot of wetlands, native birds, trees and nature in this area, it would be helpful
to see how that is impacted. She asked whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be
required. Mr. Lien answered street vacation, lot line adjustment and single family development are all
exempt from SEPA review, therefore, an EIS is not required.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the zoning of the area. Mr. Lien answered it is RS-12.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled across street the RS-12 zoning was changed to RS-8. Mr. Lien said a
Comprehensive Plan change would be required to change the zoning from RS-12.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled Mr. Lien’s comment that if the vacation were granted, a water meter would
need to be installed at the boundary of the vacation. He asked if only one home to the east is served by that
water line or would multiple meters and water mains need to be installed to serve those residents.
Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell explained if the City were to relinquish ownership of a
portion of the water main and it became private, the water meters for properties served from that portion of
the public main that would then be private would have their water service relocated to the public portion of
the main and spaghetti lines installed from the meter to those homes. She asked how many homes are
currently served from the portion of water main adjacent to Mr. Landsverk’s property. Mr. Landsverk said
one home. Ms. McConnell explained if the City relinquished more of the public main beyond the area of
vacation and further west where Excelsior intersects with 94th Place West, additional homes would have
their water services relocated.
Councilmember Teitzel asked the cost to the City for installing new water meters and reconfiguring the
sewer main if the vacation were granted. Ms. McConnell answered the City would need to do new taps on
the water mains and set new meters; those costs would be the applicant’s as a condition of the vacation.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXCELSIOR PLACE STREET VACATION TO
OCTOBER 2, 2018. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONTINUE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE BD ZONING DISTRICT WITHOUT ON-SITE VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained when permits were issued for a property downtown
under the existing code which allowed buildings in the BD zone not to provide parking if the building
footprint was 4800 square feet or less, staff approved it based on the existing code. To allow the Council,
Planning Board and public to weigh in on appropriate regulations for parking in the BD Zone, the Council
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 6
approved a moratorium on August 21 on the development of new housing units that do not have on-site
vehicle parking. That ordinance also set a public hearing date for September 25th so the Council can
determine whether to continue the moratorium. If the Council chooses not to take action to continue the
moratorium, the moratorium automatically expires. The packet includes a resolution with findings that
would continue the moratorium for six months. Staff will work on updating the code with regard to that
specific issue which requires a significant public process. In February, Council could take action to extend
the moratorium or the Council could end the moratorium sooner if the code is updated sooner than six
months.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented when there were already such difficulties with parking, it was
a tragedy that this had occurred. She encouraged the Council to support the moratorium to allow staff time
to recommend amendments to require on-site parking.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Michelle Dodge, Edmonds, explained after seeing this in the news, she conducted some research including
speaking to neighbors. She learned when this was reviewed by the Planning Board three years ago, the
neighbors expressed concern about the lack of parking including one neighbor who submitted a letter to the
Planning Board. She was concerned that apparently the Planning Board was not talking to the Council. In
April 2018, My Edmonds News referenced an April 24th presentation to the Council regarding new
developments which touted these Beach Walk apartments as well as the Westgate Apartments although the
lack of parking was not mentioned at that time.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the presentation Ms. Dodge referenced, noting at that level, the Council
does not inquire about parking nor is there a large enough schematic provided to illustrate parking. She did
not recall the Planning Board reviewing that project. Ms. Hope answered it would not have come to the
Planning Board because it was allowed outright under code. Environmental Programs Manager Kernen
Lien advised it went to the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Ms. Hope explained the ADB reviews the
design, but they cannot make a decision on the parking requirements. She was not aware there was no
parking required for that building until one of the residents expressed concern. When this issue first arose
and it was determined the code allowed it outright, she was asked how that was included in the code. In
checking with staff, the only thing they could remember was maybe the Council wanted small buildings to
be allowed without requiring parking. However, there are no records regarding the intent.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the moratorium is for all BD zones. Ms. Hope answered it is all the BD
zones but only affects residential development in the BD zones. It does not affect other zones, but that is
not allowed in any other zones.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1418, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT
THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4124 WHICH ESTABLISHED A MORATORIUM ON
CERTAIN TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE BD ZONES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS FOR WETLANDS
Environmental Programs Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
Background
o Completed comprehensive CAO update in May 2016
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 7
o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06-
001
o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program
o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act
Shoreline Master Program applies in shoreline jurisdiction
CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction
o SMP Periodic Review
SMP Excepted Sections
o ECDC 23.50.010.B, Wetland Ratings.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands.
o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
History repeats itself (almost)
o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018
o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018
“If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you
use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update.”
Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance
o “We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland
data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to
make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores.”
o Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables
2016
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
If Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer Width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9
Category 1: Based on total score 75 105 165 225
2018
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
If Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer Width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-5 6-7 8-9
Category 1: Based on total score 75 110 225
Other minor amendments
o ECDC 23.50.020.E – Wetland activities
Related to expansion of a structure that does not increase “footprint of development”
New section ECDC 23.50.040.J – Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing
Development
o ECDC 23.50.040.G.3.d – buffer averaging scrivener’s error
Staff recommendation
o Direct staff to prepare ordinance for further consent agenda
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the redlined Section E on page 279 of the packet. Mr. Lien explained
expansion of a structure that does not increase footprint of development is an allowed activity in
23.50.020.E so a critical area report is not required; ECDC 23.50.40.J still allows it, but requires
enhancement at a ratio of 1:1. Due to the conflict, 23.50.020.E should have been deleted in the earlier
update. Councilmember Tibbott provided an example, on 1,000 square foot parking lot, a 100 square foot
shed would be allowed activity because they were not changing the footprint. Mr. Lien answered in
23.50.020.E it would be an allowed activity; under 23.50.40.J it is still allowed but 100 square feet of
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 8
mitigation or enhancement to the critical area would be required. Councilmember Tibbott asked what that
mitigation would look like. Mr. Lien answered it was likely to be buffer enhancement. Many streams and
wetlands in the City have lawn or development up to the edge of the critical area; the intent is to enhance
the buffer through additional plantings to provide a more functional buffer.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the wetland category for the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Lien answered
the marsh is a Category I estuarian wetland. The 2016 and the 2018 guidance did not change because the
buffer on estuarian wetlands are not based on habitat score. Estuarian wetland was not called out in the
current CAO; there is Category I-IV based on habitat and only Category I Estuarian wetland. The Category
II Estuarian Wetland is included in the SMP with a 115-foot buffer. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired
about setback. Mr. Lien advised setback is addressed in a different section of the code and that is not
proposed to be changed.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on polluted water that enters the marsh, noting he had never seen
additional controls on waterways or drainage that enters the marsh from uphill. He questioned whether a
study had ever been done regarding what exists uphill that might pollute the marsh. He recalled last week’s
discussion regarding the Waterfront Connector and past plans to move the ferry to Pt. Edward. He
questioned how the marsh buffers would affect construction at Pt. Edwards.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE CONSISTENT WITH THE UPDATES
PROPOSED IN EXHIBIT 4 FOR A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON MORATORIUM EXTENSION ON CRUMB RUBBER ATHLETIC
FIELDS
Council President Nelson recalled The City Council originally adopted the crumb rubber moratorium with
Ordinance 4013 on December 8, 2015. That moratorium has been extended several times, most recently via
Ordinance 4125 on August 21, 2018 to extend the prohibition of certain installations of SBR (styrene-
butadiene rubber) on public lands in the City of Edmonds for six months. The moratorium extension
requires a public hearing within 60 days.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
David Morton, Redmond, expressed support for Edmonds’ moratorium extension on crumb rubber
athletic fields. More definitive information on crumb rubber’s effects on people is still needed and he
applauded the Council for continuing its precautionary ban on the use of crumb rubber. Some people who
support the use of crumb rubber have chosen to accept the results of a January 2017 report of the
Washington State Department of Health (DOH). The authors of the report admit “assurances of the safety
of artificial turf are limited by lack of adequate information.” In the study the DOH set out to determine
whether the number of cancer diagnoses among soccer players reported to DOH was higher than would be
expected of a random sample. However, the study was poorly designed to accomplish this goal and the
conclusions in the report are not supported by the studies’ own data. The report uses an informal, incomplete
list of cancer cases compiled by Amy Griffin, a University of Washington soccer coach; this list cannot be
assumed to represent all cases of cancer among soccer players in Washington. The report presents an invalid
and misleading calculation of an observed to expected ratio. No systematic effort was made to identify all
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 9
the individuals with observed cancers. Based on fallacious calculations, faulty logic and faulty
methodology, the only valid conclusion to be drawn is that Coach Griffin’s list should not have been used
as the total number of observed cancers. The report makes a number of misleading, confusing and
irresponsible statements about its scope, creating the false impression that the DOH has assessed the
relationship between artificial turf exposure and cancer risk. DOH’s report is a travesty of science and many
of its conclusions and recommendations are without value. He applauded the Council for continuing its
precautionary ban on the use of crumb rubber.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed support for the ordinance continuing the ban and efforts to ensure
public safety, noting the school district seems to have a different attitude. When this was first discussed, he
attended a number of school district meetings and was turned off by the administration who wants crumb
rubber on their fields. He referred to the list of reasons in the ordinance, noting there was nothing about
runoff and the pollution of creeks and streams that eventually reach the marsh and Puget Sound. He
suggested that be added to the ordinance. He questioned whether reference to public lands in the ordinance
included school district property.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
For Council President Nelson, City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Council adopted an extension of
the moratorium on SBR installations on August 21, 2018 which will expire February 21, 2018; a public
hearing is required within 60 days. No other action is required.
Observing there has been a delay in the release of federal studies as well as the California study,
Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the moratorium could be extended again if those studies are not
available for the Council to make a final decision. Mr. Taraday answered there is no reason the City Council
cannot continue to extend this ban until it is comfortable with the results and makes a decision regarding
the use of the material in public facilities. Until that happens, periodic extensions are appropriate, especially
when the Council is awaiting the completion of additional scientific studies. As those studies are being
conducted by independent governmental agencies, the Council has no control over the timing of those
studies. It is up to the Council to decide whether they want to wait until those studies are completed.
7. ACTION ITEMS
1. 2018 SEWER REPLACEMENT CHANGE ORDER
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the Council has been briefed on this project three times;
this summer the sewer main was replaced in Civic Field to 7th Avenue in between City celebrations in the
venue. As the project proceeded east on Edmonds Street, problems with the subsurface began to arise.
Additional costs were incurred to remove the existing pile system and to address contamination created by
creosote-treated poles that supported the foundation.
City Engineer Rob English recalled a presentation was made to Council in early August that focused on, 1)
the charge order to bury the dewatering system at Civic Field to protect citizens attending events, 2)
additional pavement reconstruction in 7th Avenue, 3) contaminated materials discovered in Edmonds Street,
and 4) efforts to install the sewer main in that area. He displayed a photograph of the existing pile supported
sewer main that was removed and was not part of the original contract and a photograph of one the creosote
timber piles supporting the concrete blocks that had to be disposed of. The original contract acknowledged
there was peat in Edmonds Street; peat has a high level of organics and has settlement issues depending on
water levels and loading conditions.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 10
The original contract included a design to install the new sewer main with an envelope of lightweight
backfill that would prevent loading on the peat layer. After installing 120 feet of sewer main in Edmonds
Street, the contractor had concerns and conducted a video inspection that discovered the sewer pipe was
settling in several locations. At that point, Option 1 was developed: excavating the peat layer (about 18-20
feet) to reach bearing soil and backfill with concrete to establish a foundation for the new pipe. That worked
for the first 70 feet but then the bearing capacity of that soil became deeper (23-25 feet) and could not be
excavated with the contractor’s equipment. Option 2 was then developed with the contractor installing wood
piling at 10-foot intervals for the remaining 100-foot section into bearing soil with a support system for the
pipe. A video inspection of that section found two areas where the pipe had become oblong due to the
weight on the pipe.
Mr. English explained a 3rd option is being developed to solve that issue. He displayed a drawing, creating
a T-support through fiberglass reinforcement board over the existing pipe to distribute the deadload of the
material above and spread the load away from the pipe. The pipe was also replaced with ductal iron, a more
rigid pipe that could support a higher load. He described:
Extra work items (estimated cost)
Description Original
Estimate
Current
Estimate
Dewatering System Estimate $175,000
Pavement Repairs Estimate $80,000 $ 47,000
Contaminated Materials TBD $ 65,000
Edmonds Street Sewer TBD $275,000
CIPP Substitution ($41,400)
Tax (2,3,4) $ 39,900
Total $560,500
2018 Sewer Replacement Project
Description Original
Budget
Current
Budget
Construction Contract $1,159,091 $1,159,091
Management Reserve $ 232,000 $ 232,000
Construction Mgmt $ 174,000 $ 254,000
Additional Mgmt Reserve
(August 7, 2018)
$ 250,000
Additional Mgmt Reserve $ 155,000
Total $1,565,091 $2,050,091
Recommendations
o Authorize Change Order for the sewer in Edmonds St. (Estimated @ $275,000+tax=$304,000)
o Increase the Construction Management Budget by $80,000 and Management Reserve by
$155,000
Councilmember Johnson relayed this was presented to the Parks & Public Works Committee who
recommended it be presented to the full Council. She asked the age of the pipe that is being replaced. Mr.
English answered 20-30 years. Councilmember Johnson commented the concept of the sewer replacement
plan is a 100-year life. She asked whether it was anticipated the lifespan of the new pipe would only be 20-
30 years. Mr. English advised staff had that same discussion today; the rate of settlement of the peat layer
is unknown. Staff anticipates this sewer main will not have the same life expectancy that other sewer mains
have and there may be enough settlement in 20-30 years that bellies or a reverse slope develops like
happened to the previous pipe. He summarized it was difficult to predict but a full service life from this
sewer pipe is not anticipated.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 11
Mr. Williams referred to the diagram of the 3rd option, commenting they asked the contractor if that had
ever been done before and the contractor said no, but there was no reason why it shouldn’t work. Assuming
it works, 12-15 inches of settlement could occur without putting any additional load on the sewer pipe. He
agreed with Mr. English it is difficult to predict whether this is a 100-year solution. Peat is like pudding;
the pipes are well grounded and theoretically the brackets could be adjusted to raise the sewer line. There
have been discussions about drilling a hole in the top plate to measure the pipe’s movement.
Councilmember Johnson suggested providing the Council a basic understanding of the geology, what peat
is, and how large an area there is. Mr. Williams answered staff has a generalized sketch that may represent
the lateral limits of the peat. When the dewatering was done, there was concern it might impact adjacent
houses’ foundations and driveways but that has not happened. Several markers were surveyed in
immediately adjacent homes and if any settlement has occurred, it was in the range of 1/8 inch, but
predicting what will happen over time is difficult.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the source of revenue for this project. Mr. Williams answered is
from the Sewer Fund. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the effect of the additional cost for this project will
be fewer sewer replacement project next year. Mr. Williams agreed, the capital program is balanced to
match rate revenue. Mr. English recalled the August presentation identified savings in last year’s project
which reduces the impact on next year’s projects.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the discovery of the wood pile and concrete cap system was somewhat
of a surprise. Mr. Williams agreed it was, there were no records that showed that which was somewhat
surprising considering it occurred only 30 years ago. Councilmember Teitzel questioned rebuilding that
same structure, wood piles to hard pan, and asked why metal or concrete pilings that would not degrade in
a wet environment were not being used. Mr. Williams did not expect they would degrade quickly in that
environment. Some of the reason was expediency and some of it was cost. More elaborate designs were
considered but they were very expensive. It is not a not a very long sewer line in this area so they tried to
identify a cost effective solution that would not put extra load on the sewer pipe.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDER FOR THE SEWER IN EDMONDS ST. (ESTIMATED @
$275,000+TAX=$304,000) AND INCREASE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BUDGET BY
$80,000 AND MANAGEMENT RESERVE BY $155,000. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH SOURCEWELL
(MINNESOTA)
Public Works Director Phil Williams apologized the information he intended to include in the agenda packet
did not get submitted. He suggested scheduling the Interlocal Agreement on next week’s Consent Agenda.
Mr. Williams explained the City has been using cooperative purchasing agreements for a long time, the
most prominent is the Washington State purchasing agreement, usually for vehicles. A few years ago, the
City executed an interlocal agreement to join the Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC) who sources a
product, analyzes it, takes it to bid, and negotiates the lowest price which other government al agencies can
then use to buy equipment. Another is NJCP in Minneapolis, recently changed to Sourcewell, that has over
50,000 members. Rather than create specifications and seek authorization to bid, etc. staff is seeking
authorization to purchase a video truck for the Stormwater Department via Sourcewell. During this year’s
audit, the auditor pointed out State law requires an interlocal agreement to do that.
The Council was agreeable to having this item scheduled on next week’s Consent Agenda.
8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 12
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on September 11 meeting:
Business License Minimum Threshold and Definition of Engaging in Business – ordinance will be
presented to Council by yearend
July 2018 Financial Report
Review of UB Penalty Adjustment Policy – staff will develop policy
Public Facilities District Bond Refinancing – PFD will refinance their 4.25% bonds bond with 7
years remaining via a loan with a 3% interest rate for 10 years, collateralized by a $2.8 million CD
purchased by the City with a 2.1% return.
Councilmember Teitzel reported on the September 20 meeting:
Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal
o Senior Center reported
Details about financing package
Have raised$11M toward their $16 M capital fundraising target
Discussed financial risk to the City if the Senior Center does not reach their fundraising
targets financial targets, funds to support operation costs, landscape maintenance, and
future assumptions
Mr. Fleming and Mr. Johnson will present details to Council in November
Parks & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Tibbott reported on items the committee discussed:
Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District for Meadowdale Preschool
2018 Sewer Replacement Change Order
Striping project Main & 9th
o Intersection currently at LOS D, close to LOS D
o Staff developed concept to restripe to allow right turns on each leg of intersection
o Will bring intersection to LOS C
Project updates
o Paving projects due to strike
o Public meeting in Brackett Room regarding Pine Street
Staff will be implementing solutions
Public Safety, Personnel & Planning Committee
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported:
Reviewed Finance Manager for Public Works and Senior Accountant in Finance
o Committee supported Finance Manager but had questions regarding the Senior Accountant
9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Teitzel reported on:
Snohomish County Cities
o Update on Snohomish County emergency radio system replacement project
System is failing, no longer supported by vendor and replacement parts are difficult to find
$70 million ballot measure via a 0.1% sales tax increase to fund the replacement,
maintenance and future upgrades will be on an upcoming ballot
Historic Preservation Commission
o Plaque ceremony at the Scalf House at 6th & Fir, built in 1910
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 13
PSRC Transit Oriented Development Committee
o Continuing work on transit portion of Vision 2050
o 1.8M people will be living in the Puget Sound area by 2050.
Vision 2050 focuses on how to house them and move them around via transit
PSRC goal to absorb 44% of that population growth within ½ mile of transit stations.
- Assumptions behind that goal will be forthcoming
o Presentation on 300 unit Arete development in Kirkland
Concept to create housing within walking distance of work and/or transit corridors
Includes market rate and below AMI housing
Very low parking requirement – ½ space per unit
Development very popular and successful, waiting list for tenants
A field trip to the development is planned
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on:
WRIA 8 meeting (she was unable to attend due to special Finance Committee meeting)
o Agenda included 2019 federal and state priorities which include the Ballard Locks.
Puget Sound Partnership is meeting Thursday
o Reviewing 2019 priorities which includes Orcas, Puget Sound cleanup and Tribal rights
Tree Board
o Gave out free trees at Saturday Market
o Arbor Day celebration 9-12 on October 6 at Meadowdale Clubhouse
Planting native trees in greenbelt area
Climate Protection Committee meeting is meeting Thursday.
Council President Nelson reported on:
Snohomish County Emergency Radio System (SERS)
o Continued discussion regarding SERS and Snohomish County 911 merger.
Hope to have merger vote on October 4
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee will be meeting soon
Councilmember Tibbott reported on:
Economic Development Commission
o Report on the City’s sources of revenue
Auto sales and construction are still leading sources of revenue
PSRC reports both categories are softening in other cities.
Port of Edmonds
o Successful paving program this summer
Better to do smaller portions of parking lot more frequently so will be on annual schedule
o Removed roots that were plugging a drain system which prevents water pooling in parking lot
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she attended 12 meetings this month. She highlighted the
following:
Snohomish County Transportation Coalition (SNOTRAC)
o In progress of obtaining PSRC grants to provide transportation for people who do not drive
particularly from rural areas
o Meadowdale could be considered a rural area in Edmonds because does not have good bus
connections
o Hopeful will obtain sufficient funds for the next biennium
Snohomish County Law and Justice Committee
o Snohomish County Diversion Center
Opening delayed by Department of Health licensing issues
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 14
Served 187 people to date
Average stay 13.5 days
59 people opted out and did not stay for full treatment
106 males and 62 females
Total of 44 beds
10% of Washington State population is in Snohomish County but 19% of the overdose
deaths are in Snohomish County
Embedded Police Department social workers are assisting transporting to/from appoints
Diversion Center clients must be from a city with an embedded social worker
Councilmember Johnson reported on
Two Long Range Financial Planning meetings
o Intent is to bring policies to Finance Committee and then to Council
Attended Historic Preservation Commission Plaque Dedication for the Scalf home that was added
to the Historic Registry
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported tomorrow is the ribbon cutting for the new Magic Toyota, a facility that will bring
great rewards to the City on many levels. He encouraged Councilmembers to attend Snohomish County
Tomorrow’s annual meeting tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. at the Everett Transit Center.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Teitzel commented he has attended a number of meetings about the City’s Housing
Strategy, most recently the Mayor’s Town Hall where a number of comments were made about the Housing
Strategy. He said the City needs to be a better job communicating its plans. The plan is currently in draft
form and has not been finalized, but he continues to hear comments from citizens such as expressing
concern with a low income, drug alcohol and offender project near 84th Avenue West. He said that is a
misperception about the project and the City needs to better communicate its plans for future projects. He
will personally strive to communicate to citizens better with regard to the Housing Strategy and he
encouraged Councilmembers to do the same.
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Teitzel’s comments, noting the Council’s process is
very slow. Although people may think the Council can make decisions rapidly, it is necessary to following
the fact-finding protocol. The Council is currently in the fact finding and learning stage; there will be a time
when each Councilmember can provide their opinions and amendments to the plan. She encouraged
everyone to let the public process proceed and everyone will be happy.
In response to citizen comments regarding the Housing Strategy, Councilmember Tibbott said when he was
elected to the Council, he was involved with a transportation issue in his neighborhood and thought it could
easily be resolved in 5-10 months. At the end of three years, there was still no solution although several
scenarios had been discussed. The Housing Strategy is similar; there is a fact finding stage and a report with
recommendations that includes suggestions and ideas some of which are literally a brainstorm. Citizen input
is still being gathered and the Council is interested in what citizens have to say. He has learned a lot from
the comments and asked everyone to invest in the process, speak as clearly and precisely about the facts,
and work toward a solution that is good for the entire City.
Councilmember Tibbott reported on a boating excursion he and his took with his son, commenting
Edmonds residents live in the greatest place in the world and he hoped everyone had an opportunity to
enjoy their surroundings
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2018
Page 15
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Council is hearing that citizens are not feeling that they are being
heard clearly with regard to the Housing Strategy. She was hopeful more information would be forthcoming
and information could be provided to correct misinformation. She was supportive of Council President
Nelson’s plan to hold Town Hall meetings and commented on the importance of elected officials listening
to the public.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on produce she purchased at the Saturday Market and the
fabulous blackberry raspberry blueberry pie she made and well as a chicken stir fry made with peppers from
the market. She encouraged the public to visit the Saturday Market in the remaining two weeks; the fruits
and vegetables are fabulous.
Councilmember Johnson reported there will be a Homelessness Panel on at 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. on Thursday
at the Edmonds United Methodist Church on Caspers Street by the Neighborhood Action Coalition. She
encouraged Councilmembers to attend the Snohomish County Tomorrow General Assembly on Thursday
from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m.in the Weyerhaeuser Room at the Everett Transit Center, an opportunity for elected
officials in Snohomish County to gather to listen to Snohomish County Executive, the Transportation
Secretary and many other interesting discussions.
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 09-25-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #233281 through #233366 dated September 27, 2018 for $843,233.40 and
wire payment of $637.89.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
wire 09-25-18
claim cks 09-27-18
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18
4.2
Packet Pg. 19
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 2:04:03PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9252018 9/25/2018062693 US BANK BID-1687/0907BID/ED! ADVERTISING, PRINTING, DOMAIN REBID/Ed! printing of window clings140.000.61.558.70.41.00 307.33BID/Ed! domain renewal of web140.000.61.558.70.49.00 240.00BID/Ed! Facebook advertising140.000.61.558.70.41.40 90.56Total :637.89Bank total : 637.891 Vouchers for bank code :usbank637.89Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report11Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 20Attachment: wire 09-25-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233281 9/27/2018065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 14464WWTP: 9/14/18 PEST CONTROL SERVICEPest Control Service423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.52Total :80.52233282 9/27/2018076230 AARDVARK ISTD-18632INV#ISTD-18632 - EDMONDS PDBRO-BRO-DRS-14: 14" DIAMETER BROCO628.000.41.521.23.31.00 355.00Freight628.000.41.521.23.31.00 25.0010.3% Sales Tax628.000.41.521.23.31.00 39.14Total :419.14233283 9/27/2018001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC APWA Renewal.ZackAPWA RENEWAL.ZACK RICHARDSON 12/1/18-11/APWA Renewal.Zack Rchardson (840129)001.000.67.518.21.49.00 221.00Total :221.00233284 9/27/2018 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 5495024RETIREE PREMIUMS - OCTOBERFIRE RETIREE PREMIUMS617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,161.12LEOFF RETIREE PREMIUMS009.000.39.517.20.23.10 8,160.69Total :9,321.81233285 9/27/2018074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 15839POOL/SPA SUPPLIES - SENSORPOOL/SPA SUPPLIES - SENSOR001.000.64.576.80.31.00 114.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.74Total :125.741Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 21Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233286 9/27/2018069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990899136WWTP: 9/19/18 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATSMats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 74.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.6610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1990899137PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86Total :142.76233287 9/27/2018 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 56425ROUGH BOX WITH COVERROUGH BOX WITH COVER - MARIN130.000.64.536.20.34.00 493.00Total :493.00233288 9/27/2018002070 BALANCING SERVICE CO INC 19279WWTP: BALANCE FAN WHEEL SERVICE (SEATTLEBALANCE FAN WHEEL423.000.76.535.80.48.00 350.0010.1 % Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 35.35Total :385.35233289 9/27/2018012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2018-159INV 2018-159 PRE-HIRE EXAM 9/20/18PRE-HIRE EXAM 9/20/18 BOLASKY001.000.41.521.10.41.00 225.00Freight001.000.41.521.10.41.00 8.00Total :233.00233290 9/27/2018072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT 09232018DIVERSITY COMMISSION FILM SERIES POSTERDiversity Comm film series poster001.000.61.557.20.49.00 104.772Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 22Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233290 9/27/2018(Continued)072577 BAURECHT, MAGRITDiversity Comm film series poster and001.000.61.557.20.41.00 800.00Diversity Commission World Cafe poster001.000.61.557.20.41.00 50.00Total :954.77233291 9/27/2018076260 BELAIR, ROGER 6926 6927 PICKLEBALL6926 6927 PICKLEBALL INSTRUCTION6926 PICKLEBALL INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.25.41.00 60.006927 PICKLEBALL INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.25.41.00 60.00Total :120.00233292 9/27/2018071348 BERGERABAM 324040E4MB.SERVICES THRU 9/14/18E4MB.Services thru 9/14/18332.000.64.594.76.65.41 2,550.91Total :2,550.91233293 9/27/2018076779 BIGELOW, GERALD 2018 WOTS JUDGEWOTS POETRY WRITING CONTEST JUDGEWOTS POETRY WRITING CONTEST JUDGE117.100.64.573.20.41.00 128.00Total :128.00233294 9/27/2018076780 BRIDGESTONE HOSEPOWER LLC 83008007-00 UNIT 3 - HOSEUnit 3 - Hose511.000.77.548.68.31.10 103.1810.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.63Total :113.81233295 9/27/2018 069295 BROWN, CANDY 6871 BACKYARD BIRDS6871 BACKYARD BIRDS INSTRUCTION6871 BACKYARD BIRDS INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 93.50Total :93.50233296 9/27/2018073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 19215720CONTRACT/METER COPIER-BLDG3Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 23Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233296 9/27/2018(Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICESContract/Meter copier - Bldg001.000.62.524.10.45.00 35.67CONTRACT/METER COPIER-PLANNING19215721Contract/Meter copier-Planning001.000.62.524.10.45.00 35.67Total :71.34233297 9/27/2018075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS82COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT AConsulting: Communications and001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00Total :2,500.00233298 9/27/2018076786 CASEY & BREANNE NEUMAN 4-35975#40215651-803-LB3 UTILITY REFUND#40215651-803-LB3 Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 365.87Total :365.87233299 9/27/2018069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E8GA.ENG2018407 E8GA.ENG2018407 ROW PERMITE8GA.ENG2018407 ROW Permit423.000.75.594.35.65.41 335.00Total :335.00233300 9/27/2018075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100180122WWTP: 9/2018 JANITORIAL SERVICE JANITORIAL SERVICE423.000.76.535.80.41.00 514.00Total :514.00233301 9/27/2018072700 CURVATURE LLC 650254SWITCHES FOR PHONE SYSTEMCisco Catalyst 2960S Switch for new512.000.31.594.18.64.00 3,990.00Freight512.000.31.594.18.64.00 53.9610.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.594.18.64.00 416.53Total :4,460.494Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 24Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233302 9/27/2018068190 DATEC INC 26699PALO ALTO FIREWALL MAINTENANCEPalo Alto WildFire Firewall Maintenance512.000.31.518.88.48.00 15,575.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,604.23Total :17,179.23233303 9/27/2018064531 DINES, JEANNIE 18-387509/04/2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING09/04/2018 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AND001.000.25.514.30.41.00 346.8009/11/2018 CITY COUNCIL & COMM. MINUTES18-38779/11/18 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AND001.000.25.514.30.41.00 564.40Total :911.20233304 9/27/2018074592 DRISCOLL, SCOTT 2018 WOTS JUDGEWOTS POETRY WRITING CONTEST JUDGEWOTS POETRY WRITING CONTEST JUDGE117.100.64.573.20.41.00 247.00Total :247.00233305 9/27/2018064485 DUBOIS, CHRISTINE 2018 WOTS JUDGEWOTS NONFICTION WRITING CONTEST JUDGEWOTS NONFICTION WRITING CONTEST JUDGE117.100.64.573.20.41.00 149.50Total :149.50233306 9/27/2018007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BID-04132018BID/ED! REIMBURSEMENT FOR PRINTING POSTCBID/Ed! reimbursement for postcard140.000.61.558.70.41.00 78.40BID/ED! SPONSORSHIP FOR TASTE EDMONDS STBID-2399BID/Ed! Sponsorship for Taste Edmonds140.000.61.558.70.49.00 500.00Total :578.40233307 9/27/2018069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 6938 WUBNEH6938 WUBNEH YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP6938 WUBNEH YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.005Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 25Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :75.00233307 9/27/2018 069523069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP233308 9/27/2018 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 6835 PORTUGAL6835 PORTUGAL YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP6835 PORTUGAL YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00Total :75.00233309 9/27/2018069912 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 4786BRIDGE LOAN - ROOFING PROJECTV&R Roofing invoice - Roof Project Grant001.000.39.575.20.52.00 16,542.77BRIDGE LOAN - ROOFING PROJECT7135J2 Building Consultants invoice - Roof001.000.39.575.20.52.00 8,000.00BRIDGE LOAN - ROOFING PROJECT7136J2 Building Consultants invoice - Roof001.000.39.575.20.52.00 2,500.00Total :27,042.77233310 9/27/2018065805 EDMONDS THEATER BGC102DIVERSITY COMMISSION FILM SERIES THEATERDiversity Commission Film Series001.000.61.557.20.45.00 400.00Total :400.00233312 9/27/2018008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLERMARINA BEACH PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,856.15FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS6-00200FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,116.14BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER6-00410BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,089.23ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS6-00475ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,217.44WWTP: 7/17-9-15-18 METER 2088: 200 2ND A6-011276Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 26Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233312 9/27/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 200 2ND AVE S / METER 2088423.000.76.535.80.47.64 388.27WWTP: 7/17-9/15/18 METER 9439: 200 2ND A6-01130 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9439423.000.76.535.80.47.64 24.94WWTP: 7/1/-9/15/18 METER 5010484: 200 2N6-01140 200 2ND AVE S / METER 5010484423.000.76.535.80.47.64 3,361.79CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER6-01250CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 4,427.01CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275CITY PARK PARKING LOT001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,380.84CITY PARK SPRAY PARK6-01280CITY PARK SPRAY PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 3,707.74PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER6-02125PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 824.12BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER6-02727BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 334.64CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK SPRINK6-02730CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 461.75PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / ME6-02735PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,173.81FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / ME6-02736FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.25FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 76-02737FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 930.917Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 27Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233312 9/27/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISIONPUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 5TH6-02738PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,044.44VETERANS PLAZA6-02745VETERANS PLAZA001.000.64.576.80.47.00 207.50SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 7096-02825SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6,753.67FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN ST6-02875FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN001.000.66.518.30.47.00 24.94DOWNTOWN RESTROOM6-02885DOWNTOWN RESTROOM001.000.64.576.80.47.00 695.07FAC SPRINKLER6-02900FAC SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,524.17FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME6-02925FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,045.90CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 547.37HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER6-03275HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,712.65MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER6-03575MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 314.85FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE6-04127FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,667.55FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW /6-04128FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW8Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 28Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233312 9/27/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.25SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 5,312.34SEAVIEW PARK6-04425SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 553.37SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER6-04450SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,921.03PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE6-05155PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 170.50PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 647.88PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 647.88PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 647.88PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 647.88PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 647.87PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW /6-05156PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.78PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.769Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 29Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233312 9/27/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISIONPUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.775 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION6-060405 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION001.000.64.576.80.47.00 420.71MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER6-07775MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,373.18YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500YOST PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,718.24YOST POOL6-08525YOST POOL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 278.11Total :61,883.85233313 9/27/2018 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINESAR113058ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 PRINTER MAIMaintenance for printers 09/21/18 -512.000.31.518.88.48.00 307.2010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.64Total :338.84233314 9/27/2018066004 ESRI93518251ARCGIS NETWORK ANALYST FOR DESKTOPArcGIS Network Analyst for Desktop User001.000.67.518.21.49.00 1,437.86ArcGIS Network Analyst for Desktop User001.000.62.524.10.49.00 719.1410.3% Sales Tax001.000.67.518.21.49.00 148.1010.3% Sales Tax001.000.62.524.10.49.00 74.07Total :2,379.17233315 9/27/2018009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH826496CITY NOTICES - EDMONDS WATERFRONT CONNEC10Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 30Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233315 9/27/2018(Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALDCITY NOTICES - EDMONDS WATERFRONT001.000.25.514.30.41.40 68.80Total :68.80233316 9/27/2018071998 FOSTER, KELSEY BID-8360BID/ED! COPYWRITING FOR SEPTEMBERBID/Ed! copywriting for September140.000.61.558.70.41.00 600.00Total :600.00233317 9/27/2018011900 FRONTIER 425-776-3896FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINEFRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.55Total :133.55233318 9/27/2018076542 GRANICUS 100437LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA & MINUTELEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA &001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,417.50LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA & MINUTE102214LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA &001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,417.50Total :2,835.00233319 9/27/2018012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 9306081961WWTP: HANDLING CHG FOR MAXLITES (INV. 93HANDLING CHG FOR MAXLITES (INV.423.000.76.535.80.31.00 20.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2.06WWTP: 53C3100K ALLIED ELECTRONICS930609375053C3100K423.000.76.535.80.48.00 90.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 37.5910.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 13.14Total :162.7911Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 31Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233320 9/27/2018074804 HARLES, JANINE 527268PHOTOGRAPHY - SEPTEMBER 2018Photography for September 2018001.000.61.558.70.41.00 400.00Total :400.00233321 9/27/2018076787 HARRISON YU & LINDA YOUNG 4-38225#E18-10231KRM UTILITY REFUND#E18-10231KRM Utility refund - received411.000.233.000 134.95Total :134.95233322 9/27/2018013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 59REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.23.00 179.99Total :179.99233323 9/27/2018074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2018-107TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKETING, WEBSITETourism promotion and marketing for120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,666.00Tourism website maintenance120.000.31.575.42.41.00 200.00Videography120.000.31.575.42.41.00 400.00Total :2,266.00233324 9/27/2018067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1080187PM CONNECT UNION, SOCKET RAIL, VOLTAGE TPM CONNECT UNION, SOCKET RAIL, VOLTAGE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 64.8310.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.48PM 3 X 7 COATED STD AND PAINTERS TOUCH2015822PM 3 X 7 COATED STD AND PAINTERS TOUCH001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.8810.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.19PM CEMENT AND PRIMER3572051PM WET DRY PVC CEMENT AND PRIMER12Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 32Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233324 9/27/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.8510.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.29PM SOCKET RAIL, STD, SCREWDRIVERS, TAPE,4051637PM SOCKET RAIL, STD, SCREWDRIVERS,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 91.6410.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.16PM SPRAYER, DUST & LINT REMOVER, SHEET M7052068PM SPRAYER, DUST & LINT REMOVER, SHEET001.000.64.576.80.31.00 28.7210.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.87PM HOT DIP GALV SPIKES7052070PM HOT DIP GALV SPIKES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 55.8810.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.59PM PILNE, PLYWOOD, WIRE, TAPE, MARKER BO9021399PM PILNE, PLYWOOD, WIRE, TAPE, MARKER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 188.0810.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.81Total :521.27233325 9/27/2018076228 INSLEE BEST DOEZIE & RYDER PS 238976INVESTIGATION FEESDEV SVS - INVESTIGATION001.000.62.524.10.41.00 3,341.25DEV SVS - INVESTIGATION001.000.22.518.10.41.00 3,341.25Total :6,682.50233326 9/27/2018014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10046392 EAR PLUGSEAR PLUGS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.9513Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 33Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233326 9/27/2018(Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS10.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.08Total :33.03233327 9/27/2018076785 JEFFREY & CINDY AHLSTEDT 3-55889#4243-3069660 UTILITY REFUND#4243-3069660 Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 128.15Total :128.15233328 9/27/2018075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 039STATE LOBBYIST FOR SEPTEMBER 2018State lobbyist for September 2018001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,358.00Total :3,358.00233329 9/27/2018076788 JOHN & CHRISTINA PARKER 3-22150#611167596-SK UTILITY REFUND#611167596-SK Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 452.77Total :452.77233330 9/27/2018076784 LAWRENCE WILEY 8-44375#741774RT UTILITY REFUND#741774RT Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 30.03Total :30.03233331 9/27/2018 076782 LEOTEK ELECTRONICS USA LLC 4109998224E5AA.LED STREET LIGHTE5AA.LED Street Light126.000.68.595.70.65.41 405.00Freight126.000.68.595.70.65.41 29.3210.3% Sales Tax126.000.68.595.70.65.41 44.74Total :479.06233332 9/27/2018 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMEROct 2018CIGNA PREMIUMSOctober 2018 Cigna premiums811.000.231.550 12,214.2314Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 34Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :12,214.23233332 9/27/2018 075159 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER233333 9/27/2018 001780 MAGIC TOYOTA SCION 653119UNIT 15 - TRANSMITTER, MASTER KEYUnit 15 - Transmitter, Master Key511.000.77.548.68.31.10 416.1610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 42.87Total :459.03233334 9/27/2018076789 MARGUERITE MOORE 3-28650#40215021-807-CR4 UTILITY REFUND#40215021-807-CR4 Utility refund -411.000.233.000 218.79Total :218.79233335 9/27/2018020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 73528629WWTP: SEALANT SEALANT423.000.76.535.80.31.00 219.10Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 11.27Total :230.37233336 9/27/2018020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 290670PM BLADE, EDGER, GATORLINE, OIL, BAR, GAPM BLADE, EDGER, GATORLINE, OIL, BAR,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 60.6010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.24Total :66.84233337 9/27/2018076776 MURRAH & COMPANY PSBF 092418 BIRD FEST POSTER ART WINNERPuget Sound Bird Fest Poster Art Winner001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00Total :200.00233338 9/27/2018 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 15-1715-34E5KA.SERVICES THRU 8/31/18E5KA.Services thru 8/31/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 7,116.1515Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 35Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :7,116.15233338 9/27/2018 072746 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC233339 9/27/2018 075838 NELSON ELECTRIC INC 35810REPAIR HAND DRYER IN MEN'S RESTROOMREPAIR HAND DRYER IN MEN'S RESTROOM001.000.64.576.80.41.00 214.3210.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.41.00 22.07Total :236.39233340 9/27/2018076777 NORTHROP, CAROL TAI CHI CLASS REFUND TAI CHI CLASS REFUNDTAI CHI CLASS REFUND001.000.239.200 21.00Total :21.00233341 9/27/2018065720 OFFICE DEPOT 196924991001P&R ACCOUNT 90520437 PAPER, PADS, PENCILP&R ACCOUNT 90520437 PAPER, PADS,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 441.7410.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 45.50P&R ACCOUNT 90520437 FOLDERS196925382001P&R ACCOUNT 90520437 FOLDERS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.7010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.79Total :495.73233342 9/27/2018064326 ONISHI, LEANN TAI CHI CLASS REFUND TAI CHI CLASS REFUNDTAI CHI CLASS REFUND001.000.239.200 12.14Total :12.14233343 9/27/2018072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICALS CO 192766WWTP: 9/12/16 WILSON CLAYWilson Clay423.000.76.535.80.31.55 918.75Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.55 394.8516Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 36Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233343 9/27/2018(Continued)072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICALS CO10.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.55 135.30Total :1,448.90233344 9/27/2018027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 18-T1052458PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513018-T1052486PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513018-T1052511PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513018-T1052590PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00Total :384.00233345 9/27/2018027450 PAWSPAWS 8/2018ANIMAL SHELTERING - AUG 2018 - EDMONDS P19 ANIMALS @ $181.00 = $3439.00 -001.000.41.521.70.41.00 3,034.00Total :3,034.00233346 9/27/2018074793 PETDATA INC 7008INV#7008 - EDMONDS PD - AUG 201825 -1 YEAR LICENSES @ $3.90 =~001.000.41.521.70.41.00 97.50LATE FEES COLLECTED 2 @ $2.50 = $5.00001.000.41.521.70.41.00 5.00Total :102.50233347 9/27/2018075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 384840SEPTEMBER FRUIT PICKUPAPPLES, GRAPES, ORANGES - SEPTEMBER001.000.22.518.10.31.10 95.35Total :95.35233348 9/27/2018028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY T220861WWTP: CONDUITS17Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 37Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233348 9/27/2018(Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLYConduits for Hypo Work423.000.76.535.80.48.00 697.3010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 71.82WWTP: MEN PG29-6X5 & PCG106T291869MEN PG29-6X5 & PCG106423.000.76.535.80.48.00 33.90Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 110.3710.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 14.86Total :928.25233349 9/27/2018 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON CENTERALARM MONITORING FRANCES ANDERSON001.000.66.518.30.42.00 307.17ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16291104ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.66.518.30.42.00 22.21ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.64.576.80.42.00 22.21Total :351.59233350 9/27/2018067447 RILEY, CHARLES H. 58REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.23.00 81.00Total :81.00233351 9/27/2018066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 57REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.29.00 7,000.00Total :7,000.00233352 9/27/2018037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /18Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 38Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233352 9/27/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.17TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 12003-4823-3TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 39.18LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 214.45MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER2004-9314-6MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.89OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER421.000.74.534.80.47.00 143.26SEAVIEW PARK2007-1403-8SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.56SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET2007-3984-5SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 21.30LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 62.00SEAVIEW PARK2011-9708-4SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 35.17FISHING PIER RESTROOMS2012-3682-5FISHING PIER RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 199.81PINE ST PARK2013-2711-1PINE ST PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.74TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 45.82TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-119Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233352 9/27/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 34.98TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 46.29TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.74TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 33.64TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 59.22STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-5STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT111.000.68.542.63.47.00 9.16CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,333.37MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP2026-2041-5MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.89TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE001.000.66.518.30.47.00 20.61WWTP: 8/15-9/13/18 METER 1000135381: 2002030-9778-78/15-9/13/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.61 23,418.61Total :26,826.86233353 9/27/2018063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE CMI000469491CREDIT FOR Q1 SRDTF JAG GRANT - EDMONDSSRDTF JAG GRANT CONTRIBUTION CREDIT FOR001.000.41.521.10.51.00 -1,566.81INV#I000469491 CUST#SSH00010 - EDMONDS PI00046949120Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233353 9/27/2018(Continued)063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICETASK FORCE APR-JUNE 2018 SRDTF JAG001.000.41.521.10.51.00 2,692.50Total :1,125.69233354 9/27/2018037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE EDMS 2018-10OCT-2018 FIRE SERVICES CONTRACTOct-2018 Fire Services Contract Payment001.000.39.522.20.51.00 614,893.17Total :614,893.17233355 9/27/2018068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 94918LEGAL - TEAMSTERS MEDIATIONTEAMSTERS MEDIATION FEES421.000.74.534.80.41.00 607.62TEAMSTERS MEDIATION FEES423.000.75.535.80.41.00 607.62TEAMSTERS MEDIATION FEES422.000.72.531.90.41.00 607.62TEAMSTERS MEDIATION FEES111.000.68.542.31.41.00 607.62TEAMSTERS MEDIATION FEES001.000.64.571.21.41.00 533.50Total :2,963.98233356 9/27/2018074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 5119SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR SEPTEMBER 2018Social media services for September 2018001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00Total :300.00233357 9/27/2018040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 82095BIRTHDAY RENTAL YOUTH T-SHIRTSBIRTHDAY RENTAL YOUTH T-SHIRTS001.000.64.571.28.31.00 196.9010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.28.31.00 20.29Total :217.19233358 9/27/2018071666 TETRA TECH INC 51357036E5FD.SERVICES THRU 9/14/1821Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233358 9/27/2018(Continued)071666 TETRA TECH INCE5FD.Services thru 9/14/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 4,698.25Total :4,698.25233359 9/27/2018073749 THE WATERSHED COMPANY 2018-0995CONSULTING SERVICES FOR TREE BOARDConsulting services for Tree Board001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,120.33Total :1,120.33233360 9/27/2018075850 TURLEY, DAVE 09252018MILEAGE AND PER DIEM FOR WFOMileage and per diem for WFOA001.000.31.514.23.43.00 278.66Total :278.66233361 9/27/2018068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0802194-WA DOT TESTINGWATER DEPT - DOT TESTING421.000.74.534.80.41.00 99.00Total :99.00233362 9/27/2018067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9814553630C/A 671247844-00001Cell Service-Eng001.000.67.518.21.42.00 57.08Cell Service Fac-Maint001.000.66.518.30.42.00 74.22Cell Service-PD001.000.41.521.22.42.00 281.00Cell Service-PW Street/Storm111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.55Cell Service-PW Street/Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 18.55Cell Service-PW Water421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.55Cell Service-PW Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 55.65Cell Service-WWTP22Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233362 9/27/2018(Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS423.000.76.535.80.42.00 18.55Total :542.15233363 9/27/2018076747 WASHINGTON ELECTRIC LLC BLD20181163REFUND: APPLICANT CHECKED WRONG BOXRefund: applicant checked wrong box001.000.257.620 4.00Total :4.00233364 9/27/2018045912 WASPCDUES 2018-00573INV DUES 2018-00573 LAWLESS EDMONDS PDASSOCIATE DUES - LAWLESS001.000.41.521.10.49.00 75.00Total :75.00233365 9/27/2018075283 WAVE8136 50 211 00055035FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICEHigh Speed Internet service 10/01/18 -512.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.00Total :816.00233366 9/27/2018073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7431BUSINESS CARDS - DEVELOPMENT SERV., COUNTREATMENT PLANT - PAMELA RANDOLPH423.000.76.535.80.31.00 18.14COUNCIL - TEITZEL, JUDGE, BUCKSHNIS &001.000.11.511.60.31.00 108.56DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - HAUSS & MESKE001.000.62.524.10.31.00 48.2810.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.8710.3% Sales Tax001.000.11.511.60.31.00 11.1810.3% Sales Tax001.000.62.524.10.31.00 4.97BUSINESS CARDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES & PA7467PARKS & REC - TERRI ARNOLD BUSINESS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 30.14DEVELOPMENT SERVICES- BLANK DEV.23Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233366 9/27/2018(Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC001.000.62.524.10.31.00 180.8410.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.22.31.00 3.1010.3% Sales Tax001.000.62.524.10.31.00 18.63BUSINESS CARD ORDER DEVELOPMENT SERV., C7492PARKS & RECREATION - JENNIFER LEACH001.000.64.571.23.31.00 29.17DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - NELSON, CLUGSTON001.000.62.524.10.31.00 87.51COURT - OMAR GAMEZ DOUBLE SIDED001.000.23.523.30.49.00 59.3410.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.23.31.00 3.0110.3% Sales Tax001.000.62.524.10.31.00 9.0110.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.523.30.49.00 6.09BUSINESS CARD - PUBLIC WORKS, CEMETERY,7524CEMETERY - CLIFF EDWARDS BUSINESS CARDS130.000.64.536.50.31.00 20.86PUBLIC WORKS - PHIL WILLIAMS BUSINESS001.000.65.518.20.31.00 20.86DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - CARLOCK, GRIGGS,001.000.62.524.10.31.00 107.56CITY CLERKS OFFICE - FALK, MERRITT001.000.25.514.30.31.00 56.7210.3% Sales Tax130.000.64.536.50.31.00 2.1510.3% Sales Tax001.000.62.524.10.31.00 13.2410.3% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.31.00 5.85#10 WINDOW ENVELOPES753824Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
09/25/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 2:29:53PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount233366 9/27/2018(Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC#10 Window envelopes for Finance dept -001.000.31.514.23.31.00 339.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.31.00 34.92Total :1,221.00Bank total : 843,233.4085 Vouchers for bank code :usbank843,233.40Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report8525Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claim cks 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC
WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 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
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
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
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
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 E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
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
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR 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 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
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 E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
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 E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
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
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
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
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
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
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
Revised 9/25/2018
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-27-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages totaling $919.14 and amounts undetermined.
Staff Lead: WCIA Claim
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
n/a
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Narrative
Nathan Vrentas submitted a claim for damages for an undetermined amount.
Best Plumbing submitted a claim for damages for an undetermined amount.
Judith H Leraas Cook submitted a claim for damages in the amount of $919.14.
Attachments:
Nathan Vrentas CFD
Best Plumbing CFD
Cook, Judith CFD
4.3
Packet Pg. 58
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Nathan Vrentas CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Nathan Vrentas CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.bPacket Pg. 61Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.bPacket Pg. 62Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
Date: 9/26/2018 10:34 AM
Estimate ID:5745
Estimate Version:0
PreliminaryProfile ID:* MitchellQuote ID: 36747676
AUTO BUFF, INC.
4623 36th Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98126(206) 937-1127Fax: (206) 935-2798
Email: rico@ricosautobuff.com
Tax ID: 91-2190958
Damage Assessed By:Rico SmithClassification:None
Deductible:UNKNOWN
Insured:BEST PLUMBING
Mitchell Service:911055
Description:2013 Ford Econoline E250 Body Style:VanCrgo 138" WB Drive Train:4.6L Inj 8 Cyl 2WDVIN:1FTNE2EW4DDB22567OEM/ALT:A Search Code:B882614Options:PASSENGER AIRBAG, POWER STEERING, AIR CONDITION, TILT STEERING COLUMN
AM/FM STEREO, DRIVER AIRBAG, ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYS., TRACTION CONTROL
TIRE INFLATION/PRESSURE MONITOR, AUXILIARY INPUT, FIRST ROW BUCKET SEAT
ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL
Line Entry Labor Line Item Part Type/Dollar LaborItemNumberTypeOperationDescriptionPart Number Amount Units
Front Bumper
1 102693 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL Frt Bumper Assy INC
2 102694 BDY OVERHAUL Frt Bumper Assy 1.9
3 100003 BDY REMOVE/REPLACE Frt Bumper Face Bar ** QUAL REPL PART 582.00 *INC
Grille
4 100016 BDY REMOVE/REPLACE Grille ** QUAL REPL PART 373.00 *INC
5 100026 BDY REMOVE/REPLACE Lwr Grille Opening Panel ** QUAL REPL PART 200.00 *1.9 #
Front Lamps
6 102710 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL R Front Combination Lamp INC #
7 102711 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL L Front Combination Lamp INC #
8 100027 BDY REMOVE/REPLACE R Frt Combination Lamp Assembly AC2Z 13008 C 258.44 INC #
9 BDY CHECK/ADJUST Headlamps 0.4
10 100028 BDY REMOVE/REPLACE L Frt Combination Lamp Assembly AC2Z 13008 D 261.00 INC #
11 102740 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL R Headlamp Assy 0.2 #
12 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL R Frt Park/Signal/Marker Lamp INC #
13 102741 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL L Headlamp Assy 0.2 #
14 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL L Frt Park/Signal/Marker Lamp INC #
Hood
15 100070 BDY REMOVE/REPLACE Hood Panel ** QUAL REPL PART 667.00 *1.0
16 REF REFINISH Hood Outside C 2.4
17 REF REFINISH Add For Hood Underside C 1.2
18 104452 BDY REMOVE/REPLACE R Hood Hinge 8C2Z 16796 A 38.50 0.3 #
19 REF REFINISH R Hinge C 0.5
20 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL Hood Assy INC
21 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL R Cowl Top Grille 0.3 #
22 104453 BDY REMOVE/REPLACE L Hood Hinge BC2Z 16797 A 41.02 0.3 #
23 REF REFINISH L Hinge C 0.5
24 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL L Cowl Top Grille 0.3 #
Front Fender
25 102767 REF BLEND R Fender Outside C 0.9
26 102768 REF BLEND L Fender Outside C 0.9
27 102778 BDY REMOVE/INSTALL R Antenna Base 0.3 #
Additional Operations
ESTIMATE RECALL NUMBER: 09/26/2018 10:34:20 5745Mitchell Data Version:OEM: SEP_18_VMAPP:SEP_18_VCopyright (C) 1994 - 2018 Mitchell International Page 1 of 3Software Version:7.1.231 All Rights Reserved
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
Date: 9/26/2018 10:34 AM
Estimate ID:5745
Estimate Version:0
PreliminaryProfile ID:* MitchellQuote ID: 3674767628933021REFADD'L OPR De-Nib And Finesse 1.5*
29 REF ADD'L OPR Clear Coat 2.0
30 933003 REF ADD'L OPR Tint Color 0.5*
31 933018 REF ADD'L OPR Mask For Overspray 10.00 *0.3*
Special/Manual Entry
32 900500 BDY ADD'L LABOR OP Hand wash exterior of vehicle Existing 0.7**
Additional Costs & Materials
33 ADD'L COST Paint/Materials 284.80 *
34 ADD'L COST Hazardous Waste Disposal 5.00 *
* - Judgment Item
# - Labor Note Applies
C - Included in Clear Coat Calc
Estimate Totals
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Add'l
Labor Sublet
I.Labor Subtotals Units Rate Amount Amount Totals
Body 7.8 54.00 0.00 0.00 421.20 T
Refinish 10.7 54.00 10.00 0.00 587.80 T
Taxable Labor 1,009.00 Labor Tax @ 10.100 %101.91
Labor Summary 18.5 1,110.91
II.Part Replacement Summary Amount
Taxable Parts 2,420.96
Sales Tax @ 10.100%244.52
Total Replacement Parts Amount 2,665.48
III.Additional Costs Amount
Taxable Costs 289.80 Sales Tax @ 10.100%29.27
Total Additional Costs 319.07
Paint Material Method: Rates
Init Rate = 32.00 , Init Max Hours = 99.9, Addl Rate = 0.00
IV.Adjustments Amount
Customer Responsibility 0.00
I.Total Labor:1,110.91 II.Total Replacement Parts:2,665.48 III.Total Additional Costs:319.07
Gross Total:4,095.46
IV.Total Adjustments:0.00
Net Total:4,095.46
THIS ESTIMATE HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON THE USE OF CRASH PARTS SUPPLIED
BY A SOURCE OTHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER OF YOUR VEHICLE. WARRANTIES
APPLICABLE TO THESE REPLACEMENT PARTS ARE PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR
DISTRIBUTOR OF THESE PARTS RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER OF YOUR VEHICLE.
This is a preliminary estimate.
Additional changes to the estimate may be required for the actual repair.
THE ABOVE IS AN ESTIMATE, BASED ON OUR INSPECTION, AND DOES NOT COVER
ESTIMATE RECALL NUMBER: 09/26/2018 10:34:20 5745Mitchell Data Version:OEM: SEP_18_VMAPP:SEP_18_VCopyright (C) 1994 - 2018 Mitchell International Page 2 of 3Software Version:7.1.231 All Rights Reserved
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
Date: 9/26/2018 10:34 AM
Estimate ID:5745
Estimate Version:0
PreliminaryProfile ID:* MitchellQuote ID: 36747676
ADDITIONAL PARTS OR LABOR WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED AFTER WORK HAS BEGUN.
OCCASIONALLY, AFTER THE WORK HAS BEGUN, WORN, BROKEN, OR DAMAGED
PARTS ARE DISCOVERED WHICH ARE NOT EVIDENT ON THE INITIAL INSPECTION.
QUOTATIONS ON PARTS AND LABOR ARE CURRENT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
AUTHORIZATION FOR REPAIRS
AUTO BUFF INC IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE ABOVE SPECIFIED REPAIRS
TO THE VEHICLE DESCRIPED HERIN.
SIGNED____________________________________________ DATED ____________
ALL WORK IS GUARANTEED AS LONG AS YOU OWN THE VEHICLE. ALL PAINT WORK
IS GUARANTEED FOR (3) YEARS AS LONG AS THE VEHICLE IS WASHED AND
WAXED ON A REGULAR BASIS.
ESTIMATE RECALL NUMBER: 09/26/2018 10:34:20 5745Mitchell Data Version:OEM: SEP_18_VMAPP:SEP_18_VCopyright (C) 1994 - 2018 Mitchell International Page 3 of 3Software Version:7.1.231 All Rights Reserved
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Best Plumbing CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.c
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Cook, Judith CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.c
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Cook, Judith CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.c
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Cook, Judith CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.c
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Cook, Judith CFD (Claim for Damages)
4.3.c
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Cook, Judith CFD (Claim for Damages)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Sourcewell (Minnesota)
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Phil Williams
Background/History
Proposed interlocal introduced to City Council at the 9/25/2018 Council business meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement with Sourcewell (Minnesota) for cooperative
purchasing
Narrative
State law and local purchasing policies require an interlocal agreement be entered into to be able to use
competitive local and state government purchasing cooperatives. This option allows the City to buy
products off of the Washington State purchasing contract system as well as leveraging national
purchasing contracts for major purchases where recent competitive bidding has been used to establish
the lowest price. This allows the City to save time and still be certain we are getting the best price.
Sourcewell is the new name of NJPA (formerly National Joint Partners Association). This company has
been inbusiness for over 40 years and has over 50,000 members. They currently have a contract with
EnviroSight, LLC for purchase of their proprietary video inspection truck, associated equipment, and
software. The City has selected this equipment to provide a vehicle for use in assessing the condition of
our buried Stormwater pipes. Purchasing this vehicle using the Sourcewell contract will give the City the
best discount available for this specific purchase.
Edmonds also has cooperative purchasing agreements through the State of Washington and with HGAC
(Houston Galveston Area Council) via an interlocal agreement.
Attachments:
Edmonds Washington Interlocal Sourcewell
4.4
Packet Pg. 83
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Edmonds Washington Interlocal Sourcewell (Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Sourcewell (Minnesota))
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Edmonds Washington Interlocal Sourcewell (Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Sourcewell (Minnesota))
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Fire Prevention Week Proclamation
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
National Fire Prevention Week is observed in the United States and Canada, during the week in which
October 9 falls. In the United States, the first Presidential proclamation of Fire Prevention Week was
made in 1925 by President Calvin Coolidge. The National Fire Protection Association continues to be the
international sponsor of the week.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
This year’s FPW campaign, “Look. Listen. Learn. Be aware. Fire can happen anywhere,” works to educate
people about three basic but essential steps to take to reduce the likelihood of having a fire--and how to
escape safely in the event of one:
LOOK
Look for places fire could start. Take a good look around your home. Identify potential fire hazards and
take care of them.
LISTEN
Listen for the sound of the smoke alarm. You could have only minutes to escape safely once the smoke
alarm sounds. Go to your outside meeting place, which should be a safe distance from the home and
where everyone should know to meet.
LEARN
Learn two ways out of every room and make sure all doors and windows leading outside open easily and
are free of clutter.
Also, Sparky the Fire Dog® has a new friend, Simon, who is helping teach this year’s FPW messages - He’s
a smart, resourceful character who will join Sparky in spreading fire-safety messages to adults and
children alike.
Attachments:
FPW_2018
5.1
Packet Pg. 86
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: FPW_2018 (Fire Prevention Week Proclamation)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
National Arts & Humanities Month was established in 1993 and is celebrated every October in the
United States. It was initiated to encourage Americans to explore new facets of the arts and humanities
in their lives, and to begin a lifelong habit of participation in the arts and humanities. It has become the
nation's largest collective annual celebration.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
Arts Commission Chair Lesly Kaplan will be accepting the proclamation on behalf of the Edmonds Arts
Commission.
5.2
Packet Pg. 88
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Sister City Commission 30th Anniversary Delegation to Hekinan
Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
2018 Marks the 30th Anniversary of the Edmonds/Hekinan Sister City relationship.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
To mark the 30th Anniversary of the Edmonds/Hekinan Sister City relationship Mayor Earling lead an
eight member delegation to Hekinan, Japan in April. Delegation members will provide a review of their
trip.
5.3
Packet Pg. 89
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Presentation from Snohomish Public Utility District on Renewable Energy Credits Pilot
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
The City of Edmonds, with its community members, has strongly supported plans and practices that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A recent example is the City Council's adoption of Resolution 1389
("Climate Goals", attached). The resolution sets a goal of 100% renewable energy by 2019 for municipal
facilities and by 2025 for the City's community electricity supply. One way to begin achieving this goal is
through a program for renewable energy credits, as proposed by the Snohomish County Public Utility
District. PUD staff recently discussed the proposal with the City’s Development Services Director and
Public Works Director. If approved, the pilot program would begin in 2019.
Staff Recommendation
Approve moving forward with the PUD Renewable Rate Pilot
Narrative
At the Council's October 2 meeting, a presentation from PUD representatives Brian Booth and Jessica
Matlock will be made about the Renewable Rate Pilot. (See attachment.) The pilot program directly
responds to the Resolution's 2019 goal of 100% renewable energy for municipal facilities.
Attachments:
Resolution 1389
PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018
5.4
Packet Pg. 90
RESOLTJTION NO. 1389
A RESOLUTTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI"TE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMMITTING TO ACTIIEVE OR N]XCEED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
THE COÄLS ASTATLISHED IN THE PÀRIS CLIMATE ÂCCORD
WHEREAS, climate change poses a grave threat to the health and well-being of this and
future generations in Edmonds iurd beyond; and
V/HtrI{liAS, according to the Woricl l{ealth Organization, human-caused climate change
is already killing some 150,00û people every year around the world; and
V/HEREAS, people of color, immigrants, refugees, economically disaiivantaged
residents, older people and children, people who are homeless, and people with existing mental
or health conditions will experience climate change disproportionately; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 EPA report, Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of
Global Action, states that global action on climate change would prevent nearly 70,000
premature American cleaths annually by the end of the oentury while spaling the country
hundrecls of billions of dollars in economic losses;and
WHEREAS, .Washington State has already experienced long- term watming, more
fi'equent nighttirne heat waves, sea level rising along most of Washington's coast, increased
coastal ocean acidity, decline in glacial area and spring snowpack and the State Department of
Ecology has reported that, "humaï caused climate change poses an immediate and urgent
threat"; and
WHEREAS, econornists have concluded that'V/ashington's families and businesses are
likely to incur billions of dollars of annual economic costs if Washington state and other states
and nations fail to clrive reductions in climate-changing greenhouse gas poliution, These
economios impacts include increased energy costs, coastal and stotm damage, reduced food
production, increased wildland fire costs, and increased public health costs; ancl
V/HEREAS, in recognition of the immediate need to take strong and proactive action to
protect our environment, the City of Edmonds in 2006 established the Climate Protection
Committee witir a core mission to:
1. Encourage Edmonds citizens to be a pårt of the solution
2. Encourage Cíty staff and citizens to conservs cuffent resourccs
3. Work with the City Council to irnplement ideas to preserve and enhance our
environment
1
4. Effectively address the fi.rture impacts of climate change
5.4.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Resolution 1389 (Presentation from Snohomish Public Utility District on Renewable Energy Credits)
WI{ERËÂS, the Climate Protection Committee has established key environmental
strategies to: 1) Reduce fossil fuels with renewable energy resources for energy supplied to
buildings,2) Improve energy efficiency of and within buildings and 3) Require the design and
construction of new anrl rernodeled commetcial builclings to meet green building standards; and
WHERËAS, on June 6,2017, Mayor Dave Earling signed the Mayors National Climate
Action Agenda and stated "In light of the [President's] decision to withdraw from the Paris
Accord, I feel it impclrtant tbr our city to emphasize our local commitment to, and continued
efI'ort to improve our environment"; and
WIIEREAS, as a signatory of the Satb Energy Leadership Alliance ("SELA"), Edmonds
has committed itself to being a regional and national leader in addressing the adverse impacts of
climate change driven by the burning of fossil fuels; and enacted bold policies and programs to
rcduce emissions from its transportation, building energy, and waste settors ancl reduced
emissions while its population has grown; and
WHERpAS, the Paris Agreement resulted in a commitment from almost every nation to
take action and enact programs to limit global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees
Celsius, with an expectatiotr that this goal would be recluced to 1.5 degrees in the tuture; and
WHERSAS, the State of Washington has mandated statewide reduction of GHG
emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050; and
WHttItHAS, rhe City Council aclopted Resolution No. I 129 on September 18, 2006
a<iopting the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by thtl 73rd Annual U.S'
Conference of Mayors meeting; and
WHpREAS, Resolution No. 1129 also requestcd semi-annual updates to City Council
regar.cling the progress of the City in implementing the following program milest<lnes: 1)
Conduct a greenhouse gas cmissions inventory and florecast fbr the Llity, 2) b,stablish a
greenhouse gas emission target (CiHG), 3) Develop an action plan to meet the local greenhouse
emissions target, 4) Impiement the action plan and 5) periodically review progress and update
the plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 4,2Aß the City of Edmonds cornpleted a Climate Change
Action plan and within the plan it reportecl Edmonds buildings account for approximately one-
third of Eùnond's GHG emissions ftrr lighting, heating, cooling, and cooking; and
WI-{ERËAS, the Climate Change Action plan states replacing fossil fuel-derived energy
with renewable energy sources for both city owned buildings and throughout our community is
critical to achieving ihe greenhouse gäs emission reduction goals set forth in the City's Climate
Action Plan and the Compact of Mayors, to which the City is a signatory; and
WI"IEREAS, it is imperative that energy consumers and the utilities serving them take
early action to reduce carbon emissions given the accelerating rate climate change the planet is
2
5.4.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Resolution 1389 (Presentation from Snohomish Public Utility District on Renewable Energy Credits)
experiencing! and shifting to 100% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 is within
reach; and
WHH,REAS, "renewable energy" includes energy derived from hydrogen, wind power
sited in ecologically responsible ways, solar, existing and low-impact hydroeleotric, geothermal,
biogas (including biogas produced from biomass), and ocear:./wave technology sources'
"Renewable energy" specif-rcally excludes energy derived from fossil fuels, nuclear, biomass
feedstocks sourcecl from state and federal lâncls, hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, and
incineration of municipal and rnedical waste; and
V/HEREAS, the Edmonds City C<luncil has dcmonstrated its commitment to
environmental stewardship and the health and safety of Edmonds residents by numerous other
actions, including passing Resolution 1362 on June 28, 2016 stating its opposition to the
transport of crude oil by rail;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COT]NCIL OF'THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, THAT:
S.W¡¡g¡¡J: City Council lìrlly supports Mayor Dave Earling's June {),2Q17 endorsement
of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda.
Seetion 2: City Councit rededicates itself to partnering with the City adrninistration and
Ed¡ronds citizens to identify the benefits and costs of adopting policies and programs that
promote the long-term goal of greenhouse gas emissions reduction while maximizing economic
and social benefits ofsuch action'
Section 3:.The Planning Department and the Climate Protection Committee will report
annually to the City Corrncil our cur:rent municipal and community-wide GHG inventory starting
in 2018,
Section *; T'he Planning Department and the Climate Protectiou Committee wiil establish
and recommencl to City Council a GHC emissions reduction target goal fbr both the near term
and long tenn by July 1,2018.
Sestion 5: The Planning Department ancl the Climate Protection Committee will update
our City,s Climate Change Aotion Plan and review the specifîc strategies for meeting the
emissions reduction target as well as tying mitigation with adaptation meastres where possible.
Sec_tìpn 6: The City establishes the following renewable energy goals for both rnunicipal
facilities and for the City at large:
i. 1000á renewable energy for municipal facilities by 2019; and,
ii. 111%renewable energy for the City's community electricity supply by 2025.
Secrklr 7j By November 1, 2018, the Planning Department and the Climate Protection
Committee will develop a work plan, including options, methods ancl financial rssources needed
and an associated timeline and milestones to achieve these renewable energy goals'
3
5.4.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Resolution 1389 (Presentation from Snohomish Public Utility District on Renewable Energy Credits)
RESOLVED this 27th day of June,2017
CLERK,SSEY
APPRopÐ:
TOM
A
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
June28,2A17
June27,2017
1389
4
5.4.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Resolution 1389 (Presentation from Snohomish Public Utility District on Renewable Energy Credits)
PUD Renewable Rate Pilot
Presented by
Brian Booth and Jessica Matlock
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Background
June 6, 2017: City of Edmonds Mayor signs the U.S. Mayors National Climate Action Agenda.
June 27, 2017: Edmonds City Council signs amended Resolution 1389: “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds committing to achieve or exceed at the local level the goals established in the Paris Climate Accord.”
“WHEREAS, it is imperative that energy consumers and the utilities serving them take early action to reduce carbon emissions given the accelerating rate climate change the planet is experiencing, and shifting to 100% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 is within reach; and……”
Section 6: The City establishes the following renewable energy goals for both municipal facilities and for the City at large:
i.100% renewable energy for municipal facilities by 2019; and,
ii.100% renewable energy for the City’s community electricity supply by 2025.
Edmonds is the first city in Washington state to commit to the Sierra Club’s Ready For 100 Initiative. The City is 37th
city in the country.
2
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Background
Renewable under the 100% Renewable Energy Initiative is
defined as:
o Energy derived from hydrogen, wind power sited in
ecologically responsible ways, solar, existing and low-impact
hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas (including biogas
produced from biomass), and ocean/wave technology
sources.
o “Renewable Energy” specifically excludes energy derived
from fossil fuels, nuclear, biomass feedstocks sourced from
state and federal lands, hydrogen produced from fossil
fuels, and incineration of municipal and medical waste.
3
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
City of Edmond’s Request of
Snohomish PUD
To help them meet their goal of achieving 100%
renewable energy for municipal facilities by 2019
Hydro Okay
Nuclear Not Okay
Unbundled RECs Not Okay
Just over 8,000 MWh per Year for City-Owned Buildings
4
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Federal Trade Commission
Green Guides
A marketer should not make unqualified renewable energy
claims, directly or by implication, if fossil fuel, or
electricity derived from fossil fuel, is used to manufacture
any part of the advertised item or is used to power any
part of the advertised service, unless the marketer has
matched such non-renewable energy use with renewable
energy certificates.
If a marketer generates renewable electricity but sells
renewable energy certificates for all of that electricity, it
would be deceptive for the marketer to represent, directly
or by implication, that it uses renewable energy.
…marketers may minimize the risk of deception by
specifying the source of the renewable energy (e.g., wind
or solar energy).
5
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Strategy
Set a baseline fuel mix
Start with the State’s Fuel Mix for Snohomish PUD
Match Non-Renewable Fuel Sources with Existing, Bundled
RPS Resources (Wind, Biomass, etc.)
Match Remaining Non-Renewable Portion of Fuel Mix
with Bundled Renewable (REC-Producing) Energy
Sources
Generation Scheduled to SnoPUD
Not Necessarily Washington I-937 Qualified Renewables
Pricing based on incremental cost of these projects above
costs embedded in current rates
Hancock, Calligan, and Youngs Creek
6
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
The Fuel Mix
87%
11%
2%
State-Calculated SnoPUD Fuel
Mix (2016)
Hydro
Nuclear
Fossil Fuels
13% Non-Renewable
87%
9%3%
1%
Fuel Mix With RPS Accounting
Hydro
RPS Renewables
Nuclear
Fossil Fuels
7
4% Non-Renewable
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Pricing Details
$31.41
$13.82
$37.15
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
Dollars Per MWHPricing Components
Incremental
Cost of Small
Hydro
Capacity &
Shaping Credit
for Small
Hydro
Embedded
Cost of all
SnoPUD EnergyIncremental Average CostAverage Cost of Youngs,
Hancock, & Calligan
Creek projects ($82.38)
Credited Based on
embedded value
provided by these
resources ($45.23)
Net Cost of $37.15
8
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Options
Option 1: Consumptive Billing
Incremental Small Hydro Cost (3.715 cents) x Non-
Renewable Portion (4%) = .145 cents per kWh
Separate Line Item on Bill
Edmonds Would Pay about $12,000
Option 2: Flat Annual Cost
Pricing Based on Historical Consumption, Estimate of
Future Loads
Flat Monthly Bill –Easy to Implement
True-Up At the End of the Year
9
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Product Details
PUD Matches Non-
Renewable Portion of
Customer’s Electricity
Consumption with
Bundled Renewables
Generated 2018 –2020
Additional to RPS
Resources
.145 cents per kWh 87%
8%
1%4%
2019 Pilot Renewable Rate
Estimated Fuel Mix
Hydro
Wind
Solar,
Biomass,
Biogas
Certified Low
Impact Hydro
10
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Risks
Fuel Mix methodology could change
Hydro, wind volatility could make for volatile program
costs
Risk is limited by current Fuel Mix methodology
Pricing based on forecasted small hydro costs; new
resources have no operating history
11
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Risks For 2020 and Beyond
15% RPS Compliance Will Make SnoPUD 100% Renewable
If SnoPUD uses some unbundled RECs for RPS compliance,
Edmonds might want bundled alternative
Somewhat limited availability. Hancock & Calligan,
Youngs Creek can clean up about 220 average
megawatts of load if only 4% of mix is non-renewable
The potentially high cost of integrating new resources
should be borne by participants
Increasingly complicated rate design if the PUD must
acquire more new resources, sell existing supplies.
12
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
Recommendation
1-Year Pilot Program for 2019
Work with stakeholders for long-term solution for 2020
and beyond
13
5.4.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: PUD Renewable Rates Pilot Presentation 10.2.2018 (Presentation from
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Duane Landsverk and A.P. VanMeter have submitted a petition to vacate a portion of Excelsior Place
that lies adjacent to and north of the property addressed at 19511 94th Place West. The City Council is
required to consider street vacations in a public hearing set by resolution. The City Council passed
Resolution No. 1417 setting the public hearing for September 25, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Intent to Vacate with the
conditions noted in the staff report in Exhibit 1.
Narrative
The portion of Excelsior Place that is adjacent to and north of the property addressed at 19511 94th
Place West is the subject of this application. This section of right-of-way was created in 1906 with the
Edmonds Sea View Tracts plat. The right-of-way is 20 feet wide and the portion of this vacation request
is approximately 500 feet long. The City of Edmonds has sanitary sewer and water lines located within
the right-of-way. Two-thirds of property owners abutting this section of Excelsior Place have signed the
petition for street vacation.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.070, the City Council is to consider the vacation request at a public hearing set
by resolution. The City Council passed Resolution No. 1417 setting the public hearing for September 25,
2018. Additional information was provided by the applicant in advance of the public hearing on
September 25, 2018. City staff requested a continuation of the hearing to October 2, 2018 so the
additional information could be reviewed.
Procedures and criteria for street vacations are detailed in Chapter 20.70 Edmonds Community
Development Code. The staff report and attachments in Exhibit 1 includes a detailed analysis of the
requested street vacation and provides a recommendation to the City Council.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments
7.1
Packet Pg. 108
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
PLN20180021 Page 1 of 14
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Project: Consideration of vacating a portion of Excelsior Place adjacent to the
property addressed at 19511 – 94th Place West
Requested Permits: PLN20180021
Date of Report: September 28, 2018
Staff Contacts: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Public Hearing: October 2, 2018
Council Chambers
250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND PROCESS
An application and petition has been filed with the City of Edmonds to vacate that
portion of Excelsior Place that lies adjacent to and north of the property addressed at
19511 – 94th Place West (Attachments 1 – 7). Two of the three property owners who
abut the section of Excelsior Place proposed for vacation have signed the petition to
vacate. The right-of-way is 20 feet wide and the portion of this vacation request is
approximately 500 feet in length (Attachments 4 - 5).
The City Council is required to consider street vacations in a public hearing set by
resolution. The Council passed Resolution No. 1417 (Attachment 8) which set the public
hearing for September 25, 2018. Additional information was provided by the applicant
in advance of the public hearing on September 25th. City staff requested a continuation
of the hearing to October 2nd, so the additional information could be reviewed
(Attachment 28).
Below is staff’s evaluation of the street vacation criteria as established in Chapter 20.70
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 2 of 14
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Location: The subject street vacation is for that portion of Excelsior Place that lies
adjacent to and north of the property addressed at 19511 – 94th Place West
(Attachment 9).
2. Zoning: Public right-of-ways are unzoned. The properties surrounding Excelsior
Place are all zoned RS-12 (Single-family Residential; 12,000 square feet minimum lot
size). See Attachment 9 for zoning and vicinity map. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for the immediately adjacent properties is “Single Family - Resource”.
Given the surrounding Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations, if the City
Council approves the proposed street vacation, the vacated right-of-way should be
zoned RS-12 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of “Single Family - Resource.”
This would be consistent with the existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan
designations of the abutting land surrounding the subject right-of-way.
3. Size: The area of the proposed vacation is approximately 10,240 square feet.
4. Existing Use: The portion of Excelsior Place that is the subject of this vacation request
primarily serves as the driveway to 19511 - 94th Place West. Public utilities are also
located within the right-of-way, including water and sanitary sewer lines
(Attachment 5). Overhead power lines run adjacent to the right-of-way just north of the
Excelsior Place right-of-way.
III. NOTICE
Public Notice requirements for street vacations are detailed in ECDC 20.70.090. A notice
for the council’s consideration of vacation was published in the Herald Newspaper on
September 9, 2018. A notice was also posted at the subject site and mailed to property
owners within 300 feet of the site. In accordance with ECDC 20.70.090, the public
notice included description of easements that may be retained during the vacation
process (Attachment 10). The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC
20.70.090.
At the September 25, 2018 public hearing, the City Council continued the public hearing
to October 2, 2018. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.120, since the Council announced the date
of the next hearing no further notice of the hearing is required.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City of Edmonds has received three sets of written comments on the proposed
street vacation.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 3 of 14
Shirley and John Vicklund submitted comments (Attachment 24) concerned about safety
issues with access to Puget Drive from 94th Place West and indicated the neighbors
currently use Excelsior Place to head east.
Staff Response: Regarding safety concerns at the 94th Place West and Puget Drive
intersection, this is an existing condition that is not impacted by the street vacation.
Attachments 18 – 19 provided by the applicant document issues with this intersection in
1984 and a City Determination that access into and out of 94th Place West is to be via
right turns only. Traffic flow signage (Attachment xx) at 94th Place West and Puget Drive
address the traffic safety concerns. Documentation provided by the applicants
(Attachment 17 and 20) indicates notice has been provided to the Vicklund’s prohibiting
them from using the private drives to head east.
Jerry Janacek spoke at the September 25, 2018 public hearing and submitted the written
comments in Attachment 25 at the hearing. Mr. Janacek was primarily concerned about
future development and protection of the critical areas in the vicinity of the Excelsior
Place vacation.
Staff Response: The subject vacation is not specifically a development proposal. Any
subsequent development on the property must be consistent with the City of Edmonds
Critical Area regulations. One of the public benefits associated with the proposed
vacation is that vacating this portion of Excelsior Place would allow a lot line adjustment
to be processed that would result in avoiding impacts to critical areas in the area.
Ken Reidy submitted an email to City Council on September 25, 2018 (Attachment 26)
questioning to the City requiring an appraisal at time of application and requested
clarification on state law with regard to one of the potential options for the City Council
in approving the vacation (Option B discussed in Section VI of this staff report).
Staff Response: Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.060.G, an appraisal prepared by a qualified land
appraiser with an M.A.I. is an application requirement. Staff’s recommendation is not to
the Option the Mr. Reidy is seeking clarification on state law. Should the Council wish to
move forward with Option B, they may wish to seek clarification from the City Attorney
on these questions.
V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
This application was reviewed and evaluated by Snohomish County Fire District #1 and
City of Edmonds Engineering and Maintenance & Operations Divisions of Public Works.
Snohomish County Fire District #1: Snohomish County Fire District #1 provided the
following comments and recommendations (Attachment 11):
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 4 of 14
1. No easement is currently required. If property in the area of vacation is
developed and the vacation area will serve three or more lots, an emergency
access road consistent with Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Fire Lane
Standards will be required.
2. The fire hydrant located in the vacation area is to remain a public hydrant.
City of Edmonds Engineering and Maintenance & Operations Divisions: The Engineering
Division provided the following comments and recommendation regarding the proposed
street vacation (Attachment 12):
The Engineering and Maintenance & Operations Divisions of Public Works have
reviewed the subject application and recommend approval of the proposed Excelsior
Place street vacation. The proposal was found to meet the street vacation criteria
established in Edmonds Community Development Code 20.70.020 as it relates to
transportation and utility systems.
1) Traffic flow and sight distance concerns were reviewed in consideration of the
subject Excelsior Place street vacation. That portion of Excelsior Place right-of-way
subject this street vacation, is connected to other sections of City right-of-way
(Puget Drive to the west and 196th St SW to the east) through private roadways. The
currently accessible public portions of Excelsior Place right-of-way are highlighted in
the map below. That portion of Excelsior Place right-of-way adjacent to 19515 and
19511 does not directly connect to Puget Drive or 196th St SW right-of-ways.
A couple residents off 94th Pl W (the western extents of Excelsior Place) have
informed the City of their historical use of the private roads on the eastern extents
of the proposed vacation, however, the information submitted to the City as part of
the street vacation indicates only certain properties have easements of record.
Please refer to Attachment 15 of the staff report. The applicant provided additional
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 5 of 14
information to the City on September 25th further purporting the properties on the
west side of Excelsior Place do not have access through the private access road on
the east side of Excelsior Place. Photos were provided showing “private driveway”
signage (Attachment 21). The applicant also stated “over the past 18 years we
continually have stopped traffic trying to pass through on these driveways. We have
spoken to ALL the property owners on the west end and they are all aware that
there is no legal access through our driveway or across the driveways to the east”
(Attachment 17). While some of the residents have stated they have historically
used these private driveways, it appears as though this has not been a permissible
action by the owners of the property in which the driveway is located.
In addition to traffic flow, the City received comments regarding sight distance
concerns at the intersection of 94th Pl W and Puget Drive. The City Transportation
Engineer reviewed sight distance at this intersection and determined that it does not
comply with standards. To meet sight distance standards, a motorist exiting 94th Pl
W onto Puget Drive should have clear sight lines to the east for a distance of 300-ft.
This lineal footage is based upon the speed posted on the road, which is 30mph.
The current sight distance is 200-ft, which falls 100-ft short of being in compliance.
However, this has been a long standing issue that was specifically identified during
review of a short plat (S-12-81) in 1982. The engineering requirements established
by the City Engineer at the time, Jim Adams, restricted the turning movement onto
196th to a right turn only (Attachment 22). It has been confirmed that signage
currently exists along Puget Drive (196th) and at the intersection of 94th Pl W to
restrict traffic movements to right-in and right-out (Attachment 23).
With this analysis, it has been determined that the street vacation has little to no
effect on the existing traffic flow and sight distance conditions.
2) In addition to the transportation considerations, the City currently owns and
maintains a sanitary sewer main and water main, including a fire hydrant through
the subject vacation area.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 6 of 14
Operation and maintenance of utilities is more efficient when utilities are located
within a public right-of-way versus a private easement. This is found to be true as
decisions regarding the use of the right-of-way remains with the public and access to
the utility systems is not restricted by a private property owner. In this particular
case, the existing water and sewer mains are located mostly within the existing
paved driveway area, which helps to prevent the overgrowth of vegetation and
backyard improvements that tend to be the most burdensome in maintaining utility
systems located within easements. In addition, the applicant has offered to provide
a public safety and utility easement turn-around as a condition of the subject street
vacation (Attachment 17). The turn-around area would be seen as a public benefit
as it would improve existing access conditions and provide an unobstructed area for
public safety and utility maintenance & operations vehicles to maneuver within the
limited space.
When City utilities exist within an area to be vacated, staff considers whether the
utility systems should remain public or become private should the street vacation be
approved. In this particular case, it would be appropriate for City to continue to own
and maintain the utility systems for the following reasons:
a. The subject street vacation abuts 19511 94th Pl W and within the boundaries of
these limits, there is not a clear point in the utility systems to distinguish
between public and private ownership. In finding a point at which this clear
distinction could be made, public utilities would either fall within private
property or private utilities would fall within public right-of-way.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 7 of 14
b. If the water main were to become private, the water meters would need to be
re-located to fall within City right-of-way and new water service lines would
need to be run to the individual properties. This would create long runs of water
service line, which could create long term maintenance issues.
c. With the relocation of the water meters, the private water main and fire hydrant
would essentially serve as a private fire line. The change from a public water
main to a private fire line would spur the requirement for the property owners
to install a backflow assembly in a vault in order to provide water quality
protection between the public water system and the private fire line.
d. The sewer main could provide sewer service to other properties in the area
should those lots be developed in the future.
VI. ECDC 20.70 – STREET VACATIONS
A. ECDC 20.70.050 Initiation of Proceedings
Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.050.B a vacation may be initiated by petition of the owners
of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be
vacated. Three property owners abut this portion of Excelsior Place. The two
property owners lying north and south of the right-of-way, Edgar Mallory Living
Trust (represented by Duane Landsverk) and A.P. VanMeter, that would receive half
of the vacated right-of-way should the Council approve the vacation signed the
petition to vacate (Attachment 2). A third property owner whose property (9123 –
196th Street SW) is located at the western terminus of Excelsior Place did not sign
the vacation request.
Since two-thirds of the property owners abutting the right-of-way signed the
vacation request, the initiation of vacation proceedings is compliant with ECDC
20.70.050.
B. ECDC 20.70.020 Criteria for Vacation
The City Council may vacate a street, alley or easement only if it finds the following
criteria have been met:
1. The vacation is in public interest.
The applicants submitted a statement in support of the public interest criterion
(Attachment 3). The applicants note that the proposed street vacation would
vacate a substandard road and revert the road back to private ownership. The
proposed street to be vacated was created as a 20-foot right-of-way in 1906 as
part of the Edmonds Sea View Tracts plat (Attachment 13). Since that time, the
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 8 of 14
right-of-way has not been widened or improved to current city street standards.
The portion of right-of-way to be vacated is presently maintained by the
adjoining property owners. The applicants argue it is in the public interest to
return the right-of-way to private ownership, where the current adjoining
owners will continue to maintain property that they can then lawfully own and
relieve the city of any financial burden or liability that comes with public right-of-
way. In addition, the applicants offered to provide a public safety and utility
easement turn-around, which could also be seen as providing a public benefit.
This street vacation petition was precipitated by a lot line adjustment application
made under file number PLN20170050 (Attachment 14). The lot line adjustment
proposes to rearrange five lots of record (also created via the Edmonds Sea View
Tracts plat) in order to develop that lots in a manner that would have less impact
on the critical areas within the surrounding area (steep slopes, wetland and
stream). See Attachment 27 demonstrating the location of critical areas in
relation to the existing and proposed lot lay out. The lot line adjustment
application had one of the newly configured lots bisected by Excelsior Place. The
City’s Engineering Division noted that in order to approve the proposed lot line
adjustment either a street vacation request must be submitted and approved or
the lot line adjustment must be altered so no lot is bisected by the Excelsior
Place right-of-way. In an effort to avoid and minimize impacts to the critical
areas, the applicants chose to pursue the street vacation. The lot line
adjustment application has been put on hold pending the outcome of the street
vacation request.
City staff reviewed the information provided by the applicant, existing site
conditions - including traffic flow and public utility systems, comments received
from the public and documentation related to previous development of the area.
With the analysis outlined in this staff report, staff has concluded the proposed
street vacation meets the public interest criterion.
2. No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation.
The applicants indicated the portion of right-of-way requested to be vacated
serves as access to the five legal lots as noted on the lot line adjustment
application referenced above (Attachment 3). As currently configured, three of
the five properties have direct frontage on Excelsior Place, while the other two
rely on private easements for access to the Excelsior Place public right-of-way.
Should the vacation and lot line adjustment both be approved, the
rearrangement of lot lines would allow all five lots to have direct access to the
vacated portion of Excelsior Place through a shared private access road
easement. A series of private access easements (both existing and proposed
with the street vacation) would provide direct access to Puget Drive and/or 196th
Street SW.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 9 of 14
The applicants provided a map (Attachment 15) and access easements of record
(Attachment 16) related to the private access roads serving residences on the
eastern and western extents of the proposed Excelsior Place vacation. The
western extent of this section of Excelsior Place connects to a private road, 94th
Place West, which serves five residences and provides access to Puget Drive. The
eastern extent connects to another private road which provides access to eight
houses and ultimately ties into 196th Street SW, a public street. Additional
information was provided by the applicants to support their position that
properties on the west end of Excelsior Place do not have rights to access the
private access easement area on the east side of Excelsior Place (Attachments
17, 20, and 21). The applicants have noted that only 19511 – 94th Place West
has legal access from the west and east ends of the proposed Excelsior Place
vacation.
In summary, no properties would be denied direct access as a result of the
vacation.
C. ECDC 20.70.040 Limitations on Vacations
1. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.040.A, “the city may not vacate any street, alley,
easement, or part thereof that abuts any body of water unless all elements of
RCW 35.79.035 are complied with, and the vacated area will thereby become
available for the city or other public entity to acquire and to use for a public
purpose.”
The proposed vacation area does not abut any bodies of water.
2. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.040.B, “the city shall not proceed with the vacation if
the owners of 50 percent or more of the property abutting the street or alley or
part thereof, or underlying the easement or part thereof, to be vacated file a
written objection in the planning division prior to the time of the hearing.”
As of the writing of this staff report, the City has not received any written
objections to the proposed street vacation.
D. ECDC 20.70.140 Final Decision
1. ECDC 20.70.140.A provides the following:
Following the public hearing, the city council shall, by motion approved by a
majority of the entire membership in a roll call vote, either:
1. Adopt an ordinance granting the vacation; or
2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 10 of 14
3. Adopt a resolution of intent to vacate stating that the city council will, by
ordinance, grant the vacation if the owner(s) of property abutting upon
the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, meet specific conditions
within 90 days. The city may require the following as conditions:
a. Either:
i. Monetary compensation to be paid to the city in the amount of up
to one-half the fair market value for the street, alley, or part
thereof to be vacated unless acquired at “public expense,” then
full appraised value shall be paid; or
ii. The grant of a substitute public right-of-way which has value as an
access way at least equal to the vacated street, alley, or part
thereof; or
iii. Any combination of subsections (A)(3)(a)(i) and (A)(3)(a)(ii) of this
section totaling but not more than one-half the fair market value
of the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated.
OR
b. A grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement
vacated.
If the abutting property owner(s) complies with conditions imposed in the
resolution of intent to vacate within 90 days, the city council shall adopt
an ordinance granting the vacation.
2. The City Council has three options with the current street vacation application.
The Council may a) Deny the vacation petition, b) Approve the vacation subject
to the applicant assuming ownership of the utilities in the right-of-way and
require monetary compensation for the right-of-way to be vacated, or c)
Approve the vacation subject to the granting of an easement to the City of
Edmonds for the public utilities located within the right-of-way. Each option is
discussed below.
a. Deny the application: Should the City Council find the street vacation
petition does not meet the criteria for vacation in ECDC 20.70.020, the City
Council may deny the street vacation. In recent street vacations before the
City Council, it has been noted that the monetary compensation for the
vacation supports the public interest criteria. If easements are retained for
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 11 of 14
the public utilities (as noted in option c below), then pursuant to ECDC
20.70.140.A.3 the City cannot receive monetary compensation. The City
could relinquish ownership of the utilities (as noted in option b below);
however, the Public Works Utilities Maintenance & Operations Division finds
it to be in the public interest to retain ownership of the utilities.
b. Approve the vacation subject to the applicant assuming ownership of the
utilities in the right-of-way and requiring monetary compensation for the
right-of-way to be vacated: City owned utilities are located within the
Excelsior Place right-of-way, including a water main with fire hydrant and a
sanitary sewer main (Attachment 5). Should the City Council desire to
receive monetary compensation for the street vacation, the Council could
condition vacation approval on the applicant assuming ownership of the
utilities and requiring compensation for half the appraised value of the area
to be vacated.
An appraisal prepared by an MAI certified appraiser was submitted in
support of the vacation petition (Attachment 7). The appraised value of the
right-of-way proposed for vacation is $10,800. Pursuant to ECDC
20.70.140.A.3.a.i, the city can require monetary compensation up to one-half
of the appraised value, which $5,400 the proposed vacation.
As noted, the city utilities in the right-of-way consist of a sanitary sewer main
and water main with fire hydrant (Attachment 5). The water main, besides
providing water service to several properties along Excelsior Place, supplies
water to an existing public fire hydrant which Snohomish County Fire District
No. 1 requested to remain public. In addition to the Fire District’s comments,
the Public Works Utilities Maintenance & Operations Division has indicated a
desire to retain ownership of the utilities due to the extent of modifications
to the water system that would be required to make the system private,
along with the benefits that come with operating and maintaining City
utilities located within public right-of-way.
The City Council should consider the low appraised value of the right-of-way
along with Public Works’ and the Fire District’s desire to maintain ownership
of the utilities in the right-of-way in evaluating this option.
c. Approve the vacation subject to the granting of easements to the City of
Edmonds for the utilities located within the right-of-way: Public benefit can
be seen through eliminating any financial burden or liability that comes with
public right-of-way, by providing a street turn-around, and through
subsequent reconfiguration of lots that will mitigate potential development
impacts on existing critical areas. Access will not be denied to any
properties. Sight distance concerns have been raised at the intersection of
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 12 of 14
94th Pl W and Puget Drive; however, it has been concluded that this is a pre-
existing condition currently managed by restricting turning movements at
the intersection to right-in and right-out. The subject street vacation will not
improve nor make worse this condition. Based on the analysis throughout
this report, staff recommends approving the subject street vacation
conditioned upon securing a utility easement for the public water and sewer
utilities located within Excelsior Place and the development of a public safety
and utility easement turn-around.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject site is located within the “Single Family – Resource” designation of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and
policies for Residential Development that apply to this project.
Residential Development
A. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options
available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be
approached realistically in balancing economic, social, aesthetic and
environmental considerations.
A.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.
A.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
A.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
A.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development and expansion based upon the
following principles:
A.5.b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must
be discouraged
A.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides,
etc.
A.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, drainage, vegetation and habitat.
(Comprehensive Plan, Pg. 66)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 13 of 14
Nothing in the proposed right-of-way vacation is in conflict with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the proposal is not in conflict with the goals and
policies of the Transportation Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed street vacation would be consistent with the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan.
VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis in and the attachments to this report, staff finds the requested
vacation of Excelsior Place to be in accordance with the criteria in ECDC 20.70.020 and
the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of the street right-of-
way vacation with the following conditions:
1. A public utility easement shall be provided to the City of Edmonds for the
installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or
replacement of the water and sewer systems and necessary appurtenances,
over, across, through, and below the subject Excelsior Place vacation.
2. A utility access and emergency vehicle turn-around shall be constructed to City
standards and easement shall be provided in a location agreed upon by the
property owners and the City Engineering Division and Snohomish County Fire
District No. 1.
3. A private access easement shall be provided to all lots with frontage on the
vacated portion of Excelsior Place.
4. If property in the area of vacation is developed and the vacation area will serve
three or more lots, an emergency access road consistent with Snohomish County
Fire District No. 1 Fire Lane Standards will be required.
IX. ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Application
2. Petition for Vacation
3. Applicant Response Letter
4. Legal Description and Survey
5. Survey with Utilities
6. Applicant Location Map
7. MAI Appraisal
8. Resolution No. 1417
9. Zoning and Vicinity Map
10. Public Notice Documentation
11. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Comments
12. Engineering Division Comments
13. Edmonds Sea View Tracts Plat
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PLN20180021 – Excelsior Place Street Vacation
Page 14 of 14
14. Proposed Lot Line Adjustment under PLN20170050
15. Easement Access Map
16. Related Access Easements
17. Landsverk September 25, 2018 Email
18. 1984 Correspondence Regarding 94th PL W and Puget Drive
19. 1984 Letter from City of Edmonds City Engineer Regarding 94th PL W and Puget Drive
20. Documentation limiting Vicklund’s access to and through Landsverk Property
21. Photos of “Private Drive” signage
22. Recommendation traffic mitigations from S-12-81
23. Traffic Flow Signage
24. Vicklund September 21, 2018 Email
25. Janacek September 25, 2018 Written Testimony
26. Reidy September 25, 2018 Email
27. Critical Area and Lot Layout Map
28. September 25, 2018 Draft Council Minutes
X. PARTIES OF RECORD
City of Edmonds
121 – 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Duane and Deanne Landsverk
Edgar Mallory Living Trust
24113 – 56th Avenue West
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
A.P. VanMeter
9055 – 196th Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Lee Michaelis
Puget Sound Planning
24113 – 56th Avenue West
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Shirely and John Vicklund
19515 94th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jerry and Barbara Janacek
19228 92nd Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Ken Reidy
771 8th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
City of Edmonds
Land Use Applic, tion
rrtu + PL,n/Zi2!8-0 0ÐJ zoNE
-
DArE 3' i3't€ REC'DBY vvr 3
eeu.-í GÐ- Rrceipr#
t] FIE tr STAFF tr PB ! ADB tr CC
HEARIN,jDATE
I
tr
tr
tr
l
!
ü
I
I
uÍ
ü
u
n
D
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CoNDITIONAL USE PERMIT
HoME OCCUPATION
FORMAL SUBDIVISION
SHORT SUBDIVISION
LoT LINE ADJUSTMENT
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
REZONE
SHORELINE PERMIT
VARÌANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
OTHER:
. PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INI.oRMATIoN CoNTAINED VITHIN THE APPLICATION IS .4 PUßLIC RECORD .
pROpERTy ADDRESS OR LOCATION¡ ROw adjacent ro 19511 94th pL W
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)Edmonds BLA
PROPERTY OwNItR Dune Landsverk Pgo¡¡e # 42\-l42t-"t42
ADDRESS 241 13 56th Avç W Mountlake Terrace , WA 98043
E-MAIL dual€@lqh-inc.com FAX #
TAX ACCOUNT # 000043460000s805 SEC. 13 T'wP. 27 RNG. 03
DEScRrprroN oF PRoJEcr oR Pnoroslo usn IATTAcH coveR LETTER AS NECESSAR
adjacent to l95l I 94th PL W.
Street vacation ofthe ROW
DESCRIBE How THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSAR
APPLIcANT Hmah Philbrick pHONe# 206-2s0-'t9s2
ADDRESS 241 13 56th Ave W Mountlake Tenace, WA 98043
E-MAIL hannah@pugetsoundplæning.com F¡x #
CONTACT PERgg¡/d6p,¡1 Lee A Michaelis p¡19¡g # ¿zs-szo-to¿r,
ADDRESS 24113 56th Ave W Mountlake Tenace, WA 98043
E-MAIL lee.michaelis@pugetsoundplming.com FAX #
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to
release, indemnifr, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attomey's
fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information
fumished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certi$r that the information
and that I am authorized to lile;his application
and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
on the behalfofthe owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE oF DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
L Dun^¿--LaJst*¿-'certify urder the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that the following is a true and conect statement: I have authorized the above ApplicanVAgent to apply for the
subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staffof the City of Edmonds to enter the
subject prope(y for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATIIRE oF
Questions? Call (425) 7 7 1 -0220.
Revised on 8/22/l 2 B - Land Use Application Page I of lAttachment 1
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Edgar Mallory Living Trust
247t3 56th Ave. W.
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
RECETI/Er}
l'tAR - . ZÏtg
¡:,:|ttå\lifrI[ì i.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Per the terms of the Edgar Mallory Living Trust dated June 24, 2008:
Duane Landsverk and or/ Deanne Landsverk are both Trustees for the Edgar Mallory Living Trust. Both
individually or both jointly may act for and conduct business on behalf of the trust without the consent
of any other Trustee.
nne Landsverk D n
Co-Trustee Co-Trustee
Attachment 1
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
PETITION F'OR STREET OR ALLEY VACATIONTO: TI{E HONORABLE Crry COLJNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WAStr{INGTON\le, lbe undersigned olvneñi of trvo-thirds of the real property abutting upon that public rigþtof-way deseribed below, pursuant to RC\ry 35.79.010,do hereby petition úe City of Edmonds to vacate said public right-of-way, rlessribod æ follows:all. siù¡¿æ inthe City of Edmonds, C¡uúy of Snohomis\ State oflfashingtorl and request thæ said City Councit by Resolution fix a time and place whenthis Petition sb¿ll be heard and determined by that authority, r¡'hich time shall not be more than sixty (60) days nor less than twenty (20) days after thepassage of such ResolutionThese pages are a group ofpages containing an identical text and prayer intenderl by the signers ofttris Petition to be presented and considered as onoPetition and rnay be filed witì other pages containing additional sþatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Pøition.W-ARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true naÍie, or who lnowingly sig's more than one of these petitions, orsigns a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he.or she is oúherwise not qualifiod tcr sing, or who makesherein any false statemed, shall be guilty of a nrisde¡neanor.PRAYER Otr PETIIION: Fort]evacation ofSTV¡CPEI-mC¿0ÀIOV-96f,ECE r/Ërtí/'R : " Ztlg' ,4T1#UllgË i,,FILES/ÀIASIEß/TMISC¡/t /ts//t /tQil1ii( 1?fL ?t,v)Pa;s l9(ri 54/ zØ-n, ¿n'!-.nrlsuo- [,l)i,,^n^ o.-4"/2r"2/--äø,zruPageofAttachment 27.1.aPacket Pg. 125Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments
July 11,2018
RECEMED
JUL 2 3 2rTS
DEVELOPgEilTsER\/lcES
PSP Puget Sound Planning
lalncj use ctnsuf ting
Jen Machuga, Associate Planner
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds WA 98020
Jeannie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
RE: StreetVacationRequestAdjacenttol9Sll 94thPl.W(FileNumberPLN20180021)
Jen & Jeannie
Please accept this letter on behalf of the project applicants, in response to your letter of May 3, 2018. The
review comments, from your letter, are numbered in this letter and are addressed in ihlícs as follows: Please
accept this letter and the attached documents to continue your review,
1. Provide a cover letter indicating compliance with all applicable review criteria of Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.70 and indicating how all the comments below have been
addressed with your resubmittal.
Please accept the following nanative as our cover letter addresstng the review criteria for vacation
found in Chapter 20.70.020 (Criteria forVacation) of the ECDC.
"A, The vacation is in the public interest; and" The proposed sfreef vacation would vacate a
substandard road and revertthe road back to private ownershíp. The proposed sfreef to be vacated
is a porfion of Excelsior Ptace that was created as a 20' right of way as part of the original Plat of
Ednonds Sea Víew Tractsin 1906. Since thattime,therightof wayhasnotbeenwidenedorimproved
to cunent cig standards for public residential sfreefs. The portion of roadway to be vacated is
presently maintained by the adjoining propefi owners and not the City of Ednonds. lf is in the
public inúeresf to return the right of way back to private ownership, where the current adioining
owners will continue to maintain property that they can then lawfully own and relieve the city of any
financial burden or liabilig that comes with public right of way. Vacating the portion of right of way
wilt also altow the cunent city street to became prìvate property where it can be taxed like all
residenfial property in the Ci$ of Edmonds.
"8. No property will be denied direct açcess as a result of the vacation." The portion of right of way
requesting to be vacated currently se,ves as access to îive iegal lots as sfiown on the Boundary Line
Adjustment application submitted with the vacation reguesf. Currently, fhree of fhos e five properties
have direct frontage on Excelsior Place, while the other two would rely on easemenfs for access fo
public right of way. Foltowing the Boundary Line Adiustment and creation of private ingress/egress
easemenfs all 5 lots would have dlrect access fo an access easement which provide direcf access fo
a public right of way (Puget Drive).
Chapter 20.70.040 (Limitations on Vacation)
"A. Areas thatWay NotBeVacated. The ci$ may notvacate any streel alley, easement, or partthereof
that abuts any body oî water unless all elemenfs of RCW 35.79.035 are complied with, and the vacated
area will thereby become available for the city or other publíc entity to acquire and to use for a public
Puget Sound Planning
5005 200r" Street SW, Suite 101-ts | L.ynnwood WA 98036
425 830 1 046 | lee. rnichaelrs@pugelsoundplannin g corn I www. pugetsoundplannrng.com
Attachment 3
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
P6PJuly 11 , 2018
purpose." The portion of right of way requesting to be vacated does not abut any body of water;
therefore' this code section does not apply.
"8. Objection by Propefi Owner, The city shall not proceed with the vacation iî the owners of 50
percent or more of the propefi abutting the street ar alley or part thereof , or underlying the easement
or part thereof, to be vacated file a written objection in the planning division prior to the time of the
hearing." As provided with our initial submittal, 100 percent of the proper$ owners who abut the
sfreef are in îavor of fåe sfreef vacation.
2. Provide a surveyimap that shows the proposed area of vacation along with existing improvements.
Attached lor your review is a map showing fñe proposed area of vacation along with fñe exisfing
improvements within the area to be vacated,
3. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.020.4, one of the criteria the City Council must consider in evaluating a street
vacation is whetherthe vacation is in the public interest. Please submit a statement regarding what public
interest would be served by the vacation of this portion of right-otway.
Pleaseseefñeresponse underCommentI above. Thepublicinferesfs insummaryinclude, release
of financiat burden needed to maintain a public right of way; release of liability associated with public
right of way regarding accidenfs and injury; and increase in tax revenue as fñe propefi ls vacafed
and returned to private residential owned property.
4. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70,020.8, the City Council may vacate a street if it finds that "no property will be
denied direct access as a result of the vacation." Please provide evidence of how the proposed street
vacation would not deny direct access to any properties. The survey provided with the pending lot line
adjustment application (P1N20170050) indicates a portion of the driveway, at the NE corner of the street
vacation, is currently located within the City right-otway.
Please see fhe response under Comment I above. The portion of driveway referenced is for the
house located at 9055 196r,, Sf Sl,y. The property owner is pad .to the sfreef vacation and would
receive one hatf the width of the right of way upon sfreef vacatio¡i. The referenced driveway would
then be consolídafed with the propefi located at905519ôn' Sf Sl'y.
5. P/ease provide documentation indicating how the subject right-of-way was originally deeded to the Ctty
of Edmonds. Confirm whether the right-of-way was deeded by properties on both srdes of the right-of-
way or just one side, The appraisa/ seems to indicate the right-of-way was deeded entirely frsm the
parceltothesouth addressed as19511 94tl1Pl.W. lf thiswasnot ffiecase, theappraisalshouldbe
revised accordingly.
Excelsior Place was created in 1906 with thç recording of the Plat of Edmonds Sea View Tracts.
Neither the properties to the north, nor the property to the south dedicated land to create Excelsior
Place. The right af way and lots were created atthe same fime from the larger parcel as descnbed
on the face of the recorded plat. Pursuant to RCW 35.79.040 Title to Vacated Sfreef, it is agreed on
by atl parties of the petition, that each abutting property owner would receive one-half the width of
the vacated sfreef.
Page 2 City of Ëdmonds File No. P1N20180Û21Attachment 3
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
P$PJuly 11.2018
6. ECDC 20.70.060.G requires "an appraisal prepared by a qualified land appraiser with an M.A.l.
designation, establishing the fair market value of the street, alley, or part thereof to be vaçated." P/ease
respond to the following comnents relatsd to the appraisal provided with your application:
a. The code requiresthatthe appraisalbe prepared by an appraiserwtth an M.A.L designation.
tt is unclear if Mr, McGauhey has an M.A.l, designation. Please either provide evidence that
Mr. McGauhey has this designation or provide an appraisal by an appraiser with this
designation.
Attached úo fhis cover letter is e new appreisal prepared by James B. Price, MAI of the
Appraisal Group oîthe NW
b. The appraisal pravided with your application concludes that vacation of the subiect right-ol
way would add only $4,A00 in value to the adjacent propefty addressed 19511 94th Pl, W.
The appraisal concludes that the additional lot area would add minimal value to the subiect
site; however, the appraisal does not appear to consider the effecfs of a future proposed /of
line adjustment (referto separate pending application PLN20170050), which ts onlypossib/e
with vacation of the subject segment af right-of-way and/or any increased potential in being
able to subdivide or create additional lots in the general area,
Please see fñe attached reyised appraisal for the new appraised value and rationale
used fo appraise the portion of vacated right of way
c. The appraisal refers to the subject right-of-way as betng "the remnant of an unused road
originally platted, but never developed nar used, " However, fhrs secfíon of rþht-of-way was
in fact improved, but with a character that more closely matches a private driveway. This
should be clarified in the appraisal.
The revised report refers to the vacated portion of right of way as descrlbed and
graphically depicted by the surveyor exhibiß.
d. The City Councit recently approved a resolution of intent to vacate a portion of unopened
right-of-way appraximately 20 feet by 320 feet in size adjacent to the properties addressed
10410 and 10430 231st Sf. Stl/lF,/e No. PLN20170052) forwhich fhe assessed valuewas
$57,60A. Nthough there are differences in the circumsfances related to that application and
the subject application, the difference in assessed value between fhese two applications is
sizeable, which gives reason to question the accuracy of the subject appraisal. Please note,
future submittals may be senf fo an outside consultant for peer review,
The revised report attached to this caver letter concludes thatthe value of the portion
of right of way to be vacated is $10,800 more than two and a half times the previous
report.
7. Clfy G/S utitity maps (see below) indicate water and sewer mains exist within the existing public right'of
way. Please show exisfrng City utilities located within the proposed sfreef vacation area, as well as other
dry utitities that may exisf such as power, phone, cable, etc. Additionally, please note that should the
right-of-way be vaçated, the City will either require easomenfs to be retained for utilitíes or deternine that
ownership of City utilities should be transferred to the private propefty owners,
The map showing the area proposed for vacation also includes the city water and sewer mains.
There are utility lines iusf oufside of the right of way and other private utilities are located oufside
the portion of the right of way to be vacated.
Page 3 tity of Ëdmonds tile No. P1N20180021Attachment 3
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
P$PJuly 11,2018
Thank you for accepting and reviewing this document as part of the requested street vacation. lf you should
need additional information in the processing and review of this submittal, please contact me at
lee.michaelis@pugetsoundplanning.com or (425) 830-1 046.
Sincerely,
Puget Sound Planning
Lee A. Michaelis, AICP
Page 4 City of Edmonds File No. P1N30180û21Attachment 3
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
a^27 tt.R3.è.
H;til,{îiüffiffi.:""
' s#f$î'ffii*t""*-,
.r", tru¡iy L yrwt, tu"rt Mfi m.t¿,¡¿g!Ét.SEA VIE\V
nffi;il,i*r,ii å nn-s&' [¡Ñn í-üx¡ta' bÄtt I'o¿ì. l,J€r¡ ¿
C T S !.rèrþ^r"kh*;,,ïî*'fa *H**w&IR Fûãí|r"::íiÉM PL'r Ávdumltld trÉttr i@6 ÐßdgrNltY ouaucåI ftï+J !Wêr../ Þ¡ørr
\d¡ñ tatt d Olidd n cd4 nlrl-iñatt ¡r wHlat, cdt Mu .t tut J kt1t.lût Se ttrte L1/Asetyarop U*ttttt¡o Poa¡tot
6ot¡aoat.¡ Lot N'¿
å
t
$
TRA
Scate ltucn - SOO aÿ7.
Morch -9 -t9ôó
ÐEt
ilr
I
\
Ctut 6tetn¿aas
I\
À
E(
ò
í
/,t c
tt ,o
^r' oY
ao-
-"-
,u{
.¡
,1,
4^
'o
f5ße 7tfc
heNil 8.
0fEid ¡p-?L *ntf'
4
{tùô
¡0
o
h,. rt"¿ ./'a.-..N 5.^ v''-NtN)tÉ{
ñ,
ì.ti\ \))
\"--\\-...t'rUr{'
r*twÃtø'rw
¿æÈ,lUrRre_.vdtñ.. l, 1.1 d oflici.l âæùd, Ea. lZ.?oE^il v. wrllrAÀts. cdnty r;l|Lfrí1
f...,t' tactet.s dt. fè4.*.àt.t.t.'ttu tã¿1t i^ Sà.hd-ö a..nlt
7,.^ì!
af/
lı1¿. ..|tr. a,ù.
./
f '. N..^ ê.. á.t/ ./ d.
A
c/ J".¿..',ù c.e.ù' V.!ô,.:¿...
ñ. &.'.tt'ant a44 /.¡.haã Ò/ ar/ a'.tr
t^,il.t.6 rá¡?..ù (q'in¿n'¿F L!ãt é.,r4 (a7) úutA
C.-J¿ ,^...tr) ÈÁt. rl tÁ. f,,tt..,.¿. ùr.irÀ^
fà. Á^.'"r. ^úÍ ô/ .A. ôoed|..t tuett . (et ft' b)
t$ ./, q 1ø. f,. (¿) lltht t.t6 ./ tl. ?th|',.J d¿ü4hi
ó..,à,-t - ê.fi,..ùt ı1 ¿P.'^t .^ Á. ."ì t'. '/t'¡tS.¡a,^ Ã,,h.ã /'t), -^'.1 f..ãt ¡t f.r-/..a ^4ô ñt'ìt ^"d¿,.¿dt(la.to| ./r.,.! l.i^ ./ *. tta,f.' rftnaã co'¡t, l¡l*'¡¡ sa¡
5dàil n,.¿..^ 'tt .nJ 5.¡n.1 Ãt^t..4 l.a/ t^ 7 af N 4 + 6 ,r'/
.¡)
"sü'
. ¿ã4 .rl^út
¿a.làtt d. ,,i^¿../. -.t tt|a.r ı 4. J.â'il. Âòr' þ'a¡â¡ã R^¡"nd
a.h/.,t- éJ Ad.t H.a/.,.ttr .n¿ -,/. ,t ttl d'tN ilt¿¿-tl" ¿tt
'.eo ../ ,...>d.J ¡\ vo... /ì .f Þ..rt ai P^t. atr y' d, 4.o'dt
v
54
.'td d. d,t¡¡ "^./ /"t"î;ù .l^ilt¡'r4
'...b .;{t."èr .4 ?t!.3 .F- dr/.... /
.t ¿à¡t .^¿ c..,.û ./. Jât4 5..à.,t tal
h, ...tod ò¡.¡t á.aò t'd,../.¿ ¿t/J ã'. ¡1.-ã ". ã. ?t"t .ù¿ d. r.¡^¡¡.û o/
*^... rtu'*û. .(.,.t 1-t'.abl
"/ ¡4. d.fe/,'.
rl l,
,\
bt
i..d. aaa fht d. t,..¿ .t..'.'¿'..t ,.,
/y'.. ",. ñ/.il¿ .. .ü¿ .oñ^..ı¿
oy' .1. f.'¿¿ 1/... â¿ ú. ñea ./ Êd',
/,,¡¡ ¡4¿¿. ¡1,,¡ta
Ac'.ãt. tl.*\ .. ã,i
t'¿".¿¡, lh ø.a4àtt ¡.ro,¿.d
".^
¿r,.
||..^ tÁ. ù.'.ttâ. ed .¡ ?4, f/.¿ ê/ nd. L.^¿t
.^d¿ .J aría¿^ùa ¿r Ì¿' P^ttè' ã41 M¿.^4.'
5a
>\
ù
¡t-
''
\
\
ù¡\
¡at ì t c"httaea Ô d. ..ãh, .f 'ta'ù '. ^4 '6J".
î 2'ilRJâ
ìl\,¡>'I
t\\
N\r
{
¡.
ñ\
!¡\ 't\\
I Þ
ul
é+
óJ
6l
77
,o
8t
A?
tt
+9
te
10
05
8+
6t
--Tl
i øt I
!
as an streets,not a suryey
modifìed by endorsement,any, the CompanYdepictcd. Except to the extenl a polioy oftille insurance is expressly
or olher mÊtters shown thereon.
does not insure dimensions, distances, locatiot"
Attachment 3
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
.\Ì'\tuey<lt¿¡ v g lg.n ,rò tott .'w/ rW .;;/îr¿'¿y;"",.:Tut logrr.a oz t¡¿J tqau.,¿ ¡t- ¿i' lo6t trôa tt¿tP'' øA rt*¿'a/ Qeias y..ú.r.!î Jè ¿..,..¿ ¿d Pr.þtt r.t r-r''rgl?oe/ tf)\¿w ¡/" loPp¿tcøy¡ î-'¿t.¡uu.' pua 2 én r:tu¿,2o¡d y4.,tx,p .ttú fe't, ./'¿.t.tfa/t"¿i:4/F "tdù¿ v.ll¿tt J.rl,v'J¿¿p.!îrd qfp,o/ao'¿ 7 g; 12zttouo2 \¡tto/aotz' ' ,ot/¿to¿¿l¿o¿ vt ¡:uo ltolttzç'3'tþn-tt7--L''.1 y¿¿ût,lt î toy ."¿1,,.p"a y'o vqs 4uôêJ yt.tz'téù¡ l¿.à¡orq Çu,oJ qJooq y /1t '!ûòr',t-_-_- ¡il¿ttu¡tt¡,ust¿ t.ttr¿cla a,'ry 'y¿ /è tñtJ,q¡¿À ç ¿ttltvto"'o' "'.u*¡ro, ,r, .,rt"a úuaÐ rt'N'puc /o '2'¿a'ril.¿t'o) $uaø¿ /a pto"7 ayt t7 pao,Jlyttttt'"s,litao2¿rlo7 't"'¡3gtat d V V-bw /. ¡lutt, .'g pt..ldL pú. Pt4,u¡EtX2*.tt rt a.'rr¡tt .øa¿rñ' ''.o.eg.ilsî{ !"t -ñ.!i'""¡lv.JoÙ,qî¿a !4 .¿uJçJ"N3 T,J9O 3lMON)'9Vil80¿¿tttya ote stattutsty¿ pttt¿l/t .Ju.t¿ry /.'a 9 '19 *,-u :lozoJeot r¿t u' ptôr.,t t9o2 a¿uttt'cl tr.g ,¿.àat tîa. t.!lÞpt r.yJ rø Æ4oA p'uc/o î"2ttù o Jo pa*o</ 4.p !îÐttuu /a p.toe/o úørapil! . þ t)'n /2 *y ectouo3 Ç yo.,/aot2 lttoc r,¡1 þ*ty. s."t,^'ao¿.tw ua.?¡ t¿uo) Pu! '1ta4t'rpø.2t ,auy' zqlaJty /o ti",p E ,¿"rryr¿r lgttty c.,p tut ¿a1ë ota1r>p /9uty ît6r..rt¿tdl at'4 v'5. co.onag-./c ¿"¡/ tty¡ dutculu'ot pu.¡¿¿v¿t ** /o ¿y'q'¡ e¿¡t'u' '.uãø ¿y|t 6t', Puù | a./6.ay..4 ¡.c ¿9¡ prctqr;¿r3. /.û.D rprð ¡..u'r4t y'ø oto¡J ¡"r''.--! qt &'.uy puo'us6u1yt16 e.ts' ¿yl l¿ h.r .y¿ ..su" La,,,, pur p,,'""Lê uoyotoúo: v tzttou,q ¿,,o¿/øt"2 ¿-g ¡J!.¡.¿J ...k, t, ,.¿,u //,, Àø,.N^.-- ! a,r /, O,,")¿NOILvJlAlO tt' |,,errriv,qq¡,io¿ç,s¿oltîpu't ¿u¿p.¡s¿¿¿ c¿t p¿o¡/*¿tct..v.¿¿Ã trt?¿ ¿e"a an4 2ar att ts ,..¡ ,ù. ru.( uc r.¡ .¿ù,t¿tt t.,/¡ /t.r.lz ft.91- .l.e,!rë.¿¿., ,¿r¡ /. .rt¡',4 to ?rt.a .ø t, o.!),¿.r.¿' r.ra...t,'.t?,r¡t.P t¿r.'r¿.p't¿¡r' lu,¡ù"r'ø.'¿e t9 l-yaa>.t u' 4plrt.Jn /2Vt"t!"uùù )ùt?'..¿d t't",tyt,/" t¿- a,". ,tr rt?! ynu' v.uút,p¿o P,"¡ q ..^dù9 1Pry/ùv.t¡',ty'o lor ryrú'at t9' tr¿.'/Jþ ry y'-ry¿ -r'p.¿t"t ¡oft¡ q2 ca rút, trilti)p,ìyq-ou2tø ¿/.t¿ p'v vúlt uoao'"J"2 p'"r/o f'n¿t,tt1 pt.lltct¡ e9ft¡2 ¡ør.y¿ ,v puv prt.!¿¿ú t.'¿'.p .¿!o¿¿N Fuo 1Þ1. tyt ,.y' :¿"¿sc¿ ia ,',."/è.Q P,eieW /- /'.r/r pu, tra ..ve¿!ó^ r,.o ¿"/.v""/ P"" ¡6 eê'¿ú)tP¿o 1-.'/vú¿1"!r'.èþ t")âtù ,t,fttlt.¿ ñw¿,¿¡C tut ¿.¿)a't..? y'ô¡.v lts ¿o9'ze o¿pî¿1-tuYcvy'þ¿tívà.t.s- 9.r tþ u¿¿/t..J þvî.t) p,ar.yJ ,y PûôtJù.P"tU yt"r tu 2,o/*tt5. 7 s Þ,¿¡ rW ,V lu.'tnlrt,P¿O î¿ttt.Jþôttt .V) pt¿.trt. ólb /ù. ,¿t ltrtrrúP'.þ.//Ò ,'t,orz¿¿ou.Jçpa/^"t2 /o r,"¿*tts 'er ry oJ ua.ur tu,E p,"./^"t2 usû¡3¿,ùotlu¿l'¡ry .g.roJ .arer r- "¿ p,"./^"'2 a î P¿¿w¿¿r 't"a.!.,y'','.!îe,trrÁ!" ¿tvs',v¿ ..J pilo n' tttkl úor¿il. 2tn6ttttpua ¿vJ tu/ ¿¿ó/'1 ,o.t ø vv¿.!d /. h2 ,,é t.,y¿ ,c t"y¿ t/t.e'vs' e.v¿!t"rlì:II.t'lI./{î¡?. fl¡ìr:l'tr..,) _,2","1...ù'l"li,.lI!liril.¡tsciì{5tqlìJJII.tt I et:F_ar!lru4'n,"r¡ r o.tt,n, L-,li 'iii:*:.#îHüilr.¡¡¡,,",r r .ã¡!,u .ni,,¡,¡¡t r/,"rJ'r.þ.9ñ¡ rrì¡s¡çtrrA to Çt tat¡,rr, J, o ;?r:l:d.¿!t. ru 5ú rrr ¡o ¡vJd¡¡ ,y6¿2 atot tr¿p¿¿J 4.4:rlItt1 g îòì+æIIfItlt¿tzìeIIffittd¿f,"*.. itf ifl\.1ttatsL1t9Ag¿13¿¿tet¿ao?9¿?¿antostrccts,notsurveymod¡fiedbycndorsemenl,ifany'theCompanydepicted.Excepttoth€ €xtentpolicyof rirlernsurance tsexpresslyorÒthermãll€fsshowhthereon.doesñottnsu¡edimensions,distances,locationofeåsem€nls,Attachment 37.1.aPacket Pg. 131Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
ÐfilBlT A - Legal Description for Right-of-Way VacationTHAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 13,TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DËSCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 0O'18'06'EAST ALONG THE EAST IINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 37O.BO FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OFBEGINNING AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF CITY OF EDMONDS BOUNDARY LINEADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 199912175W7 AND CORRECTIONTHERFTO UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 2011041s0312; THENCE SOUTH 83"52'21" WEST ALONGTHE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 509.23 FEET TO THE NORHTWESTERLYCORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 06"13''13" WEST 20.00 FEFI-; THENCE NORTH83"52'21" EAST 511.52 TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE SOUTH00'18'06" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 20.13 FEET TO THE POINT OFBÊGINNING.SITUATE IN THE COUNWOF SNOHOMISH, STATE OFWASHINGTON.ÐECETT¿ErMAR i; 20lgr-ffi¡¡p;.Attachment 47.1.aPacket Pg. 132Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
A PORTON OF rHE S-E. 1/4 OF THE S-E.. 1/4 OFsEcïoN 13, ï.27N., R-5E-, w'M.SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTONï.P-O.8.O)NOOl8'06"Es.w. coR. GoyT LoT 4sEc'noN coR. 18-27-4MONUMENT NOT FOUNDPOSIÏON ESTABUSH BYTHE PLAT OF SEAVIEWPINES NO. 2, VOL 59, PG. 170Þ.ÐÞÕ¡r]Irrr'-o\ffl(¡'u,l.J\jo-É"ON'MESCALE-1"=100'^&tr{TBT?RffiËeEjvEDTri-CountyLand Surveying Company4610 200th St. S.W. Suite ALynnwood, Wo. 98036 (425\776-2926 Fox:776-2850UNE TABLEBEARINGsoola'06"wN06'1J'13"wLENG'fH20.1320-ooLINEL1L2TO BE VACA'IEDRIGHT-OF_WAY$utt$H.g¿ú20'lg"""1ffif¡¡p 1',.Attachment 47.1.aPacket Pg. 133Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Attachment 5
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
v,Ë
Ëan=og
þ luÊx
Uz v0
2rF".2ZU<É
f ñ:Éa-Z y Sa5*3:z< ¡¡ s'\I' <
-J t- trl ;ir^. lO¡¿]3\Jrrì < GØrto J ÈF-:;iEL!ñ<{U ıÈ
ô-
à=oëÈui
ËÈË
Ë=Ësi ÌË3
S Ëi.P
$ñF*qyØO È¡tòòì$sñu
JIIAWN UAIE:
oJ/12/2ots
)MWN BY:
LN
;HLCKLD BY:
Uil
INC.
TERRACE,
2411J 56TH
AVE W
MOUNTUKE
]K(NLÇI NU,
2016-48
Î'CALE
l'= 200'
ïHEET NAME
SITE MAP
ìHEET NUMBER
lofl
54
4
g-o29
UNPUTTED
UNOPENED RIGHT OF WAY
5
55
3-O38
UNPIÀTTED
3-O50
UNPUTTED59
vTO
*-r*
ROWFROMRADIUS
n*of
,*Ñ 57
56
OPEN
3-OO1
UNPIÀTTED
2
o-o99
UNPUTTED
9
3-o51\t lto
1 \3-O20
TEDVACAROW TO BE
4
SPs- l 2-81
ROW
FROM
!'f.l¡ ril¡¡l,tl,l'::.: I ¡-,; ¡,, I:
l
I
i
I
i
1
l
1
I
J
II
I
t5¡{ j
I
J
!
ì
.
i':.i:f
,ß¿4 |
i.. \, t, ,.
il
¡:iiìlj;iÌ
I
)l
')
ì
I
¡
Iì
t
ì'
J,I+
;
I
I
\.
..i'
¡
:
j
i
1
1
I
¡
I
lt
I
:
I
i i,..
:.,
it..
l:II
iì
iìili1
l
li
rlt,.i i''.
I
ii
i r¡ ¡ ì t.i \,¡r,,'
I
¡
t;".: ",i i.i,:tiil t :
II
I
I
I
I
!
¡
I
1
t
lt..
1
I
I
I
Him.
Attachment 6
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTYReport Number A-5590TOGATED AT19511 94th PIWEdmonds, WA 98020FORDeanne Landsverk19511 94rh Pr WEdmonds, WA 98020oPliltolt oF vAtuEof Risht of Way Vacation - $10,800AS OFJune 29,2018BYJames B. Price, MAl, SRM/A, Andrew F. SorbaAppraisalGroup of the NW1409 140th St NE, Suite 105Bellevue, WA 98007425453-9292jprice@appraisalg roupnw.comappraisalgroupnw.comAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 136Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
BonowerFile No. A-5590Property Address 19511 94th pt WCityEdmondsCount! g¡eþe¡¡s¡State wA Zip Code 98020Lender/Client Deanne LandsverkTABTE OF GOl{TEilTSCover PaqeGP LandAdditional Comparables 4-6Supplemental Addendum ...,Subiect PhotosSubiect PhotosAddenda AAddenda BLocation MapComparable Photos 1-3Comparable Photos 4-6Ceftifications & Limiting Conditions - ResidentialAppraise/s Oualificatrons - Page 1Appraise/s 0ualifications - Page 212367II101112131415171819Attachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 137Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Appraisal Group of the NorthWest LLP, 9 l -1 704802,(425)453'9292PRAISAL REPOFile No.:Change in Land UseX NotLikelyI Likely * f] ln Process ** To:5%2-4 UnitPresent Land Useone-Unit 70%5%Multi-UnitComm'l 10%Recreational 5%5%VacantThethistoanof: Market Value0r otherOne-Unit HousingPRICE AGE$(000) (yrs)220 Low New6 403 Hiqh 1001.200 Pred 28uqùvr ru!This reflects thevaluenolseeCunentDate is the EffectivePredominantOccupancyX OwnerE Tenant! Vacant (0-5%)! Vacant (>5%)monthHOA:OtherFeeLeaseholdLeased Fee0ther1951 IEdmondsWA98020St SW to the north. turnino south at Washinoton State Hiohwav 525 and intersectinolnterstate 5 to the east. Washinoton State Hiohwav 104 to the south. and Puoet Sound to the west.Market Area Comments: The area bounded bv 1Deanne Landsverk and Citv of Edmondslntended Use(s) (by name ortype)Client DeanneLandsverkAddress: 19s11 94th PtW, Edmonds,wA 98020Aooraiser: James B. Price. MAl. SR A/AAddress: 1409 l40th St NE Suite 105. Bellevue, WA 98007CharacteristicsLocation: IUrban XSuburban ERuralBuiltup: ffi Over75% ll25-75V, I Under2S%Growth rate: X Rapid X Sta¡te I SlowProperty values: X lncreasing E StaUe I DecliningDemand/supply: X Shortage I ln Balance I OverSupplyMarketinq time:, X Under 3 Mos. f] g-6 lt¡os. fl Over 6 Mos.ItenEmployment StabilityConvenience to EmploymentConvenience to ShoppingConvenience to SchoolsAdequacy of Public TransportationRecreational FacilitiesGoodxxxxTxAveragetrluTxnFair Poor N/At]TTTtrTTtrTTTTTTTt=lnnItenAdequacy of UtilitiesProperty CompatibilityProtection from Detrimental ConditionsPolice and Fire ProtectionGeneral Appearance of PropertiesApoeal to MarketGoodxTTxxxtrxxTtrTFairTTtrtrTTPoorunTTTTN/AnnTTTnAverageFactors Affec{in g Ma*etabilityED BLA REC AFN 1999121201104130312Assessois Parcel #:TaxYear: 2018 R.E. Tues:Assessments: $Market Area Name:ReferenceCensus Tract 0503.Cunent 0wner of Record: Deanne LandsverkBonowerProiect Type (if applicable): [l pU0 E De Minimis PUD IAre there any existing improvements to the property? E No X yes lf Yes, indicate current occupancy:X Owner I Tenant I Vacant I Nothabitableresidence with a 1 ,1 38 Sq. Ft. attachedcarnort all built in 2001. The home has three bedrooms and four bathrooms. Forino value is not imoacted bv the rioht of wav vacation: therefore the dwellinq will maintain the same valueannraiealrrñ^eêcnt.,^^^¡^¡before the riqht of wav vacation occurs and after the riqht of way isThe site is improvedoarâoe. 1.592 So.Ft. detached oaraoe. and 384Ft.a 4.132 So.Ft. AGLA 2 storv sinqle familvthe dwellof thislf Yes, give a brief description:fair markat rrah re nf lhp rinhl nf wav fn he vacafedlntended Use: Estimate theDescriotion: Section 13 Townshio 27 Ranoe 03 Quarter SE - EDMONDS SEA VIEWCITY OF ED BLA 5-9.89 REC AFN 8906200263 EXC TH PTN DAF:BEG AT SE COR OF SD PAR B THN23* 06 18W178.53FT TH N42* 18 1 1E 106.86FT TO NE COR OF SD LOTB & E LN OF SEC TH SOO* 2621W ALG SD E LN 243.25FT TOLeqalBLK OOO D-05 - PAR B OFCountv: SnohomishTÞAl1TqCopyright@ 2007 by a la mode, inc. This form may be reproduced unmodified without writtenGPLANDForm GPLND LT - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAM0DEmust312007Attachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 138Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
LANDL REPORTFile No.:Copyrìght@ 2007 by a la mode, inc. This form may be reproduced unmodified without wrìtten permission, however, a la mode, inc. nlust be acknowledgedForm GPLND LT -"T0TAL'appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAM0DEUtilitiesElectricityGasWaterSanitary SewerStorm SewerTelephoneMultimediaPublicxxxxxxStreet\/vidthSurfaceCurb/GutterSidewalkt._Corner Lotlnside LotGood0therUuateABpears Adgqnd UtilitiesFrontagePublic PrivateTopographyx¡Cul de SacOther site elementsSizeShapeDrainageViewl-0ther Provider/DescriptionlrçsllqrOtf-sitelmprovements TYPeStreet LightsSjqnifican!$loping3.28 acrerslr4th Plw-1-1234.541.5812t23t16Edmonds+1 10COMPARABLE NO. 2Snohomish/R101622175thPtW73.67mil2.81+141et Sound0007+11+Net990+50$NE-LNet2+130.06ificantFeeGoodi q .1 , 1, -0_0_,$ roo1.981Il-evelNNWMLS 6864191.13 miles NEN0. 37704 Olympic View DrwA 98026Snohomish/RS12Tr3NWMLS 861235Fee Sit16+(DESCRIPTIONNoneCOMPARABLE NO. 1DESCRIPTIONNone6.843.219.319.3X+NetNWMLS 869808Cou¡ty8eçSrdq¿lSe¡l16 XXX 76th Ave WEdmonds. WA 98026r$ 9?9,Address 19s1 1 94th Pt wnificant SlGood-Pu SoundPROPERTYnlaFeetntoViewNetmeDESCRIPTIONRecordsFEATUREwA 98020Sale PricePrice/ AcreVALUE ADJUSTMENTLocationSite AreaData Source(s)Verification Source(s)Sales or FinancingConcessionsFEMA Soec'l Flood Hazard Area r Yes X No FEMA Fl00d Zone XFEMA Map # 53061C1305EFEMA Map Date 1 1/08/1 999Site Comments: The site is deveþpedlrylllaqlnglq famrly leqidç!çq, lClached Sa@Sq, qnq privatelqedtVay- Tbe dwellinçrc¡d 4etachellevel area of the parcel, the þClê!çq Sllhq pqrcel lLaqqIS¡lIS qS¡ificallslopinq. The qite he! !ee! !!!ptoveì withmainder of the pqfcel haq lleIute tqllye gro!4h-oâraoe are built on aThe reificant landscaDo present improvements comply with existing zoning requirements? f, Yes - l\o Ll No lmprovements12Uses allowed under cunent zoning: ResidentialZoningClassification: RSDescription: l dtyellittg BCII2,000 S!.EI,Are CC&Rs applicable? I Yes [l No X Unknown Have the documents been reviewed?Comments:I Yes X No Ground Rent (if applicable) $ /The site is developed with an estate style residenceithis is the higheqt and !e9!uqe-0ther use (explain)nole Familv ResidenceHighest & Best Use as improved: X Present use, orActual Use as of Effective Date: iSummary of Highest & Best Use:Use as appraised in this reporl Vacant LqndDimensions: See Plat MSite Area:3.28 AcresooÉ,Èo.zoat,É,d=ooor¡¡(t,zot-ÈÉ,oøt¡¡c¡l¡¡tsøGDLAND312007Attachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 139Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
LAND APPRTCopyright@ 2007 by a la mode, inc. This form mayA-5590mode, inc. must be acknowledged and credited.SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (if required)E-Mail: ioricetOaooraisalorouDnw.comta¡/': 42s-4ss-974oI Did Not lnspect07to5t2019Aooraisal Grouo of the NWCompany:07to5t2018Date of Report (Signature):applicableor co-APPRAISER (ifState: WAPhone: 425-453-9292Designation:Supervisory orCo-Appraiser Name:Expiration Date of License or Certification:lnspection of Subiect N Did lnspectDate of lnspection: June 29.2018License or Certification #: 1002080Analysis of sale/transfer history and/or any cunent agreement of sale/listing:There has been no sale of the subiectl/êârcthreeneclwithin theEclmonds WA 98020Address: 19511 94th Pt W,E-Mail: deanne(@loh-inc.comClient Name: Deanne LandsverkClient Contact Deanne LandsverkName: James B. Price. MAl. SRM/AE-Mail: ioricerôaooraisalorouonw.comState: WAX Did Not lnspect (DesKop)Fal/.: 42s-4s5-974o06t13t2019Ø./^*APPRAISERPhone: 425-4sg-9292Appraiser07to5t2018Date of Report (Signature):Aooraisal Grouo of the NWCompany:MAIDesignationExpiration Date of License or Certification:lnspection of Subject f, Did tnspectDate of lnsoection: June 29.2018License or Certification #: 1100229fl This reoort is also subiect t0 other Hvoothetical Conditions and/or Extraordinary Assumptions as specified in the attached addenda.This appraisal is made X "as is", 0r I subiecttothe following conditions:Based upon an inspection of the sub¡ect property, defined Scope of Work, Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions, and Appraise/s Certifications'my (ouri 0pinion öf the Market Valúe (ór ôthei specified vaiue type), as def¡ned herein, of the real property.tfa! is the--subiect.gf q!.report is: .$ - ' 1,000,000 ,asof: June 29,2018 , which is the effective date of this appraisal.If indicated above, this Ooinion of Value is subiect to Hvpothetical Conditions and/or Extraordinary Assumptions included in this repoñ. See attac[QllAdC9llla.A true and complete copy of this report contains 19 pages, including exhibits which areproperly understood without reference to the information contained in the complete report, which contains the following attached exhibits: I Scope of WorkX timiting cond./Certifications X Nanative Addendum X Location Map(s) I nooO Addendum I Additional Salesconsidered an integral part of the report. This appraisal report may not beI Hypothetical ConditionsX ParcelMaoX Photo Addendaf-l ExtraordinarvAssumotions X Aooraise/s0ualificationsMy research I did N did not reveal any prior sales or transfers of the subject property for the üree years prior to the efiective date of thisappraisalData Source(s): Countv Records. NWMLS1st Prior Subiect SaleÆransferDate: None in the previous 3 vearPriceSource(s):2nd Prior Subiect Sale/IransferDate:Price:Source(s)deweloned bêær¡se it is not a rêliâble indiætion of mârket velue: and for this tvoe of assionment. it does not produce meaninqful results. Theof a Planned Unitwh¡ch wasISTheselesbecausenotfL^fhis tvoe of Drooertv is nôt oenerâllv used for income oeneration. and the results would not bein thiswas notll. The costFinal ReconciliationDescribe common elements and recreational facilities:PROJECT INFORMATION FOR PUDsName of$lndicated Valuesize. and tooooraohv adiustments have been made based on statistical analvsis of2 3 are considered most similar to the subiect and have been oiven orimary valuation weiqht. SalesSale I isarrrentlvIS4and5fha ¡nmnafifir¡asiteisted on NWMLS 1265549 for $1.200.000. and with 464 CDOM, thelikalrr lnn hinh fnr nr rrrenl markct narticinanfsliclinn nrinphave been oiven secondarv valuationmarkel area. Sales 1indicates thelann awnacr rra limaGPLANDForm GPLND LT - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAM0DE312007Attachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 140Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
+G) $ Adiust$$$COMPARABLE NO.6$DESCRIPTIONll +il+Gì S Adiust+120.000-130 000-117.500+100.000$ -zz.soc$ r.r¿z.soo$ t tzs ooofl + X-anahamiah/trÞDÞQAveraoe-TerritorialCOMPARABLE NO.511521 N Dogwood LnWoodwav- WA 980202.18 miles SW$ zøzzza¡sNWMLS 965629Countv Records/AoentDESCRIPTIONNone10t27t16Fee SimoleWoodwav448Generallv Level+ l-) $ Adiust+30.000-255.000+100 000s -125.000875.000$$ r.ooo.ooo12t15t17Fee SimpleLake Forest Park5.6Sionificant SlooinoKino/RS9600Averaoe-Territorialfl+ XCOMPARABLE NO.419031 40th Pt NELake Forest Park- WA 981555.11 miles SE$ rzs 871 43NWMLS 114U15Countv Records/AoentDESCRIPTONNoneSUBJECT PROPERTYnla$$County RecordsDESCRIPTIONnlanlaFee SimoleEdmonds3.28Sionificant SlooinoSnohomish/RS12Good-Puqet SoundNet Adiustnent lTotal. in $)Adiusted Sale Price fin $ìSummary of Sales Comparison ApproachFEATUREAddress 19511 94th pt WEdmonds, WA 98020Proximitv to SubieclSale PricePrice/ AcreData Source(s)Verification Source(s)VALUE ADJUSTMENTSales or FinancingConcessionsDate of Sale/timeRiohts AopraisedLocationSite Area lin Acres)TooooraohvCountvZoninoViewNAL MPARABLE SALESmayFile No.:however, a la mode, inc. must be acknowledged and credited.GPLANDForm GPLND LT.(AC) -'T0TAL" appraisalsoftware by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAM0DE312007Attachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 141Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
RnrrnwprPrnoertvArklress 19511 94th PIWCitvEdmondsCountv SnohomishStateWA Zio Code 98020A-5590Valuation Analysis of Road Vacationln order to estimate the value of the land and percentage of value we've utilized the "across the fence" technique, we mustfind comparable land sales to the subject and determine what rights were conveyed.Fee-Simple real estate comes with a "bundle of rights", which includes the right of possession, the right of control, the rightof exclusion, the right of enjoyment, and the right of disposition. Whenever one or more of these rights is impinged upon,the value of a piece of real estate is decreased. The traditional bundle of rights is:.Right of Possession: Very basically put, this is basic use of the property. This right can be impinged upon through thegovernment's Police power, Right of Eminent Domain, Taxation, and Escheat..Right of Control: This right allows the property owner the ability to manage the use of the property in any means deemedlegal within the jurisdiction(s) in which the property exists..Right of Exclusion: This right allows the property owner the ability to limit who or what may enter their property..Right of Enjoyment: This right asserts the property owner's right to participate in any lawful activities he finds pleasurablewhile on the property..Right of Disposition: This right allows the property owner to rent, lease, or sell, permanently or temporarily, fully orpartially, the property rights owned.The owner still retains the partial right of possession and the right of enjoyment. The right of way vacation would revert allother rights back to the subject.The proposed right of way vacation area includes the area described in Exhibits A and B, an estimated total area of 10,240sq ft (20.065'x 510.375').Based on our above land value analysis, the subject land value is estimated at $7 per square foot, when all rights areconveyed in a Fee Simple lnterest. While the subject and sales are potentially sub dividable based on zoning, this wouldnot represent the highest and best use. Therefore, we must treat the the additional land is as surplus, which is typicallyless valuable than excess land. Additionally, some rights are still held by the subject owner, it would not be appropriate tovalue the reverting land rights at 100% of value. The easement itself provides little public utility as it stands; this area hasbeen left almost entirely unused by the public since the creation of the right of way. Due to significant sloping in the right ofway vacation area, and limited utility, usability, and marketability, we estimate that the value associated with the rightsreverting to the subiect owner to be 15o/o.Right of Way Vacation Area: 10,240sqftMarket Value of Land: $7/sqftReverting Value of Land: 15%10,240sqft x $7/sqft x 15o/o = $10,800 (R)$10,800 - Estimated Value of Right of Way VacationAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 142Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Subiect Photo PageBonowerProperty Address 1951 1 94th Pt WCitvEdmondsCounty SnohomishState wA Zip Code 98020Deanne LandsverkSubiect Front19511 94th Pt WSales PriceGross Living AreaTotal RoomsTotal BedroomsTotal BathroomsLocationViewSite0ualityAgeSubiect Rear$ubieet StreetAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 143Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Subiect Photo PageBonowerPropertv Address 19s11 94th Pt WCrtyEdmondsCounty SnohomishState WA ZipCode 98020Lender/Client Deanne LandsverkRight of Way to be VacatedSales PriceGross Living AreaTotal Roomsïotal BedroomsTotal BathroomsLocationViewSite0ualityAgeRight of Way to be VacatedRight of Way to be VacatedAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 144Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Addenda AÐfilBfT A - bgal Desaiptim for Rightd-\ryay VacationTHAT POR-TTON OF THE SOUTHEST SUARTER OF T}E SOUTHEAST OIIARTEF OF SECNON 13,TOWNSHIP 27 NOHTH. RANGE 3 EAST. W.M., MORE PAFITICULAFLY DESCRIBÊÐ A.S FOLLOWS:COMMÊNüNG AT.ÍT{E SC{.JT}I EAST CÛRNER OF SAID SECTON 13: T}IËNCË NORTI{ 0(118,06'FAST ALONG lHE EAST UNE 1TIERÊOF A DISTANCE OF 370.80 FEET TO THE TFUE POINT OFBEGINMNG AND TþlE NORTHEÀST CffiNEB OF LOT 1 OF CÍTY OF EDI,IOND€ BOUNDAFY UNEÄDJUSTMENT RECOFDED UNDER AUDÍIORS FltE NO. 190912175007 AtlD COBHECnONttEFE[O UNDEH AUDÍfORS F¡tE NO. æ1 104130312; THENCE SOUTH 8f5U21 " WEST ALONG.IHE NORTTI IJNE OF SAIÐ LOT 1 A D]STANCE OF s{XI.æ FEEÍ TO THE NORI-ITWESTERI.YCOHNER OF SAID LOT 1; 'IFIENCE NORIH 06"13'13" WEST 20.00 FEFf; TIIENCE NORTH8815â21" EAST 511 .52 TO A POINT ON THE EAST UNE OF SAID SECTON 13i .IHENCE SOUTHtr15!6- WEST ALONG SAID EAST UNE A DISÍANCE OF æ.13 FEET TO THE PO]NT OFEGINNING.STUA:TE IN lHE COUNTY OF g\¡OI-OM]SH, STATE OF WASHINGTON.Form SCNLTR - 'TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAM0DEAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 145Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Addenda BILEtsLATIINGsÕo1a'06'wN(161-'l'13"wLLNS ¡H20.1320.00LINLL1L?"-.T"-é^ "$Y-RIGHT-OF-WAYBÊ VACAÌÊDA PORTON OF'rì-{Ë S.E. 1/4 OF THE S.E. 1/4 WsEcTroN 13. T.27N.. R.3E., W.M.SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTONT'P'O'B' NoolB'06'E370.os.w. coR. coyT LoT 4sEcnoN coR. 18-27-4MOI.IUMENT NOT FOUNDPOSÌOl.l ÊSlABUslr BY]}IE PLAÍ OF SEAVIEWPTNES NO. 2, VOL. 59. PG. 170Þ.ì-rrì{I*z\-lo-\IscALE-r"=100'.&W[RNRTri-CounLand Surveying4610 200th st. s.w.tyCompanySuite ALyrnwood, Wo. 98056 (423)776-2526 Fox:776-2850H.of\9Form SCNLTR - "T0TAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAM0DEAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 146Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Location MapCounty SnohomishDeanne LandsverkEdmondsState wA Zio Code 98020BonowerAddress 19s1 I 94th Pt wa ta mode, incjn#lhtlåf ûa¡ffiiëtKrtÉyfnrefcily ¡ùt¡,tu,PtsçessiDnAÀf,rC1ÊfoinrFråtri- 5ñffrtffrrth füÉ,TF.ü.ïMukilteoHarbour FointF7-tFdrlnsnt IiH Ì/ rfl{lrq -l-' -.ä¡':g=;';i: .î,TllJrh irriït,99..'ì4ù&E:tr3i1üii!Murp"ttysf+merMe¡dolr¡dalejJtlr.l! f'l3ûHl 5r,|{! Ë,, þ !,:¡þy.rt;-.;¡.'rzìì¡n¿lare qåj}sManorL¡kq Fqrest P-¿rk:?lSher¡d¿n BeadhBnercr.Erl¿qÈ:il{d'\¡f¡Kenmcire,Mcorl¡rndst¡kr Pút!r .'#Jlh t-5tir")U¡r;ñ'r't¡r¿tqËr-r{rE-q+¡{!î!o:'trnyon Ferk:?:lCreelr!r iE5*-4fo.::-+;'t'¿ì,qìÞf{enn¡rdCÕmEfBothelVfãyr,rù¿l¿lü¡n,J.ftbtfeEsperanceTle l{ighfanoså¡:.f,¡Jr,14¿,'dEt+R\. HrohlandsShoreltne " ;'td slr 5!il¿úÞr¡Ð=tt-]¿n rÌ,;'4oãqûÞg4rlParËwoad.tû{.rq *{il f[Il'+å lr;räÉs _ ..l.lmt.iü-3 Ê.äIaflEfiEczals fiFc¡o--ofi Êmpdion"sl¡gtnrtrÐL--COI|PARABLE Ho. il.16221 75$ Pl WZ"3o mlles NE16 XXX 76th Ave W1..52 miles 5ENo, I7704 olympic View Drl,13 mlles NE319031 4ûft pl NË5,1I miles SENo.419511 94th Pl W11521 N Dogwood Ln¿.r8 rn¡lËs 5WCOI,IPARABLE No".hS6r**,'r+dæi¡-¡¿'-ÊÊl.[:+rAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 147Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Gomparable Photo PageBonowerAddressWCouState WACodeDeanneGomparable 116 XXX 76th Ave WProx. to Subject 1.52 miles SESale Price 920,000Gross Living AreaTotal RoomsTotal BedroomsTotal BathroomsLocation EdmondsViewSite 1.980ualrtyAgeGomparable 21622175t11PlWProx. to Subject 2.30 miles NESale Price 830,000Gross Living AreaTotal RoomsTotal BedroomsTotal BathroomsLocation EdmondsViewSite 2.810ualityAgeGomparable 37704 Olympic View DrProx. to Subiect 1.13 miles NESale Price 1,100,000Gross Living AreaTotal RoomsTotal BedroomsTotal BathroomsLocation EdmondsViewSite 4.690ualityAgeAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 148Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Gomparable Photo PageBorrowerPropertv Address 1951 1 94th pt wCitvEclmondsCounty SnohomishState WA Zip Code 98020Deanne LandsverkGomparable 419031 40th Pt NEProx. to Subiect 5.1 1 miles SESale Price 1,000,000Gross Living AreaTotal RoomsTotal BedroomsTotal BathroomsLocation Lake Forest ParkViewSite 5.60ualityAgeGomparable 511521 N Dogwood LnProx. to Subiect 2.18 miles SWSale Pdce 1 ,175,000Gross Living AreaTotal RoomsTotal BedroomsTotal BathroomsLocation WoodwayViewSite 4.480ualityAgeGomparable 6Prox. to SubiectSale PdceGross Living AreaTotal RoomsTotal BedroomsTotal BathroomsLocationViewSite0ualityAge$i cr¡FAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 149Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
A-5590Deanne Landsverk19511 94th Pl W, Edmonds, WA 98020MARKET VALUE is defined as the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditionsrequisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.lmplicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditionswhereby:1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;2. both parties are well informed or well advised and acting in what they consider their own best interests;3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;4. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and5. the price represents the normal consideration forthe property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted byanyone associated with the sale.Source: The Dictionary of Real Eslate Appraisal, 5th ed., Appraisal lnstituteThis appraisal is subjectto the following assumptions and limiting conditions:. Th¡s report is prepared using forms developed and copyrighted by the Appraisal lnstitute. However, the content, analyses, and opinions setforth in this reporl are the sole product of the appraiser. The Appraisal lnstitute is not liable for any of the content, analyses, or opinions setforth herein.. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character or nature. No opinion is rendered as to title, which is assumed to be good andmarketable. All existing liens, encumbrances, and assessments have been disregarded, unless otherwise noted, and the property isappraised as though free and clear, having responsible ownership and competent management.. I have examined the property described herein exclusively for the purposes of identification and description of the real property. The objectiveof our data collection is to develop an opinion of the highest and best use of the sublect property and make meaningful comparisons in thevaluation of the property. The appraiser's observations and reporting of the subject improvements are for the appraisal process and valuationpurposes only and should not be considered as a warranty of any componenl of the property. This appraisal assumes (unless otherwisespecifically stated) that the subject is structurally sound and all components are in working condition.r I will not be required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made an appraisal of the properly in question, unless specificarrangements to do so have been made in advance, or as otherwise required by law.. I have noted in this appraisal report any significant adverse conditions (such as needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazardouswasles, toxic substances, etc.) discovered during the data collection process in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in thisappraisal report, I have no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent physical deficiencies or adverse conditions ofthe property (such as, butnot limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, adverse environmenlal conditions, etc.)that would make the property less valuable, and have assumed that there are no such conditions and make no guarantees or warranties,express or implied. I will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required todiscover whether such conditions exist. Because I am not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, this appraisal report must not beconsidered as an environmental assessment of the property. I obtained the information, estimates, and opinions furnished by other partiesand expressed in this appraisal reportfrom reliable public and/or private sources that I believe to be true and correcl.¡ I will not disclose the contents of this appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,and/or applicable federal, state or local laws.. The Client is the party or parties who engage an appraiser (by employment contract) in a specific assignment. A party receiving a copy of thisreportfrom the client does not, as a consequence, become a party to the appraiser-client relationship. Any person who receives a copy ofthis appraisal report as a consequence of disclosure requirements that apply to an appraiser's client, does not become an intended user ofthis report unless the client specifically identified them at the time of the assignment. The appraiser's written consenl and approval must beobtained before this appraisal report can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or othermedia.' lf this valuation conclusion is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, it is assumed that the improvements will becompleted compelently and without significant deviation.STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONSVALUE DEFINITIONthe data, analysis or any other work product provided by the individual appraise(s).Al Reports@ Al-900.04 Certification, Assumptions and Limiting Conditions @ Appraisal lnstitute 2013, All Righls Reserved January 2013Form A19004 - "T0TAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAM0DEAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 150Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
A-5590Client File #:AppraisalHle #:Deanne Landsverk195'11 94th Pl W, Edmonds, WA 98020ClientSubþct Property:Andrew F. SorbaØ.,/^*SR^/vADate oTtost2olqReportCO-APPRAISERAPPRAISERSignatureCertified Residential E Certified General IState WACertified Residential X Certified General EState WASignatureNameExpirationDate 06t13t2019ExpirationDate 0Tt0st201sTrainee I Licensed ELicense # 1100229Trainee X Licensed ELicense # 1002080Report Date 0710512018Name James B.' I am a Designated Member of the Appraisal lnstitute.As of the date of this report, I have completed the continuingeducation program of the Appraisal lnstitute.' I am not a Member, Candidate or Practicing Affiliate of theAppraisal lnstitute.I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and conect.r The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the report assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal,unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions.. I have no present (unless specified below) or prospective interest in the property that is the subiect of this report, and I have no (unlessspecified below) personal interest with respect to the parties involved.. I have no bias with respect to any property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon the developing or reporting predetermined results.r My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or directionin value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a slipulated result, or the occurrence of asubsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.. My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards ofProfessional Appraisal Practice.r lndividuals who have provided significant real property appraisal assistance are named below. The specific tasks performed by those namedare outlined in the Scope of Work section of this report.X None tr Name(s)As previously identified in the Scope of Work section of this report, the signer(s) of this report certify to the inspection of the property that isthe subiect of this repoft as follows:Property inspected by Appraiser I Yes X NoProperty inspected by Co-Appraiser X Yes :l No. Services provided, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the propefi that is the subject of this report within the three-yearperiod immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment X None I Specify services provided:Appraisal lnstitute Designated Member, Candidate for Designation, or Practicing Affiliate Certify:. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements ofthe Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal lnstitute, which include the lUniformStandards of Professional Appraisal Practice.. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal lnstitute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.the data, analysis or any other work product provided by the individual appraise(s).Al Reports@ Al-900.04 Certification, Assumptions and Limiting Condilions @ Appraisal lnstitute 2013, All Rights Reserved January 2013Form 419004 -'TOTAL" appraisalsoftware by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAM0DEAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 151Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Appraiser's Qualifications - Page 1Qulrmc.lrrons or Arrn¡rsnnJrn'ms B. Pntct, MAf, SRYWÄwww.Af?ß rsAr,GRorip¡tw.coM ; JPRTcE(AAr"ßA¡sALGnouPhIvy.coMPtroNf, No.: (425) 4ß-9Ð2Blrr #ll0; FrxNo. 625¡ 45"ntn01409 140" Pr.tcn ITE, SrT l0s,Bu^rævur" WÀ 9E0ø-3963EDUCATIONBachelor of Science in Finance, Real Estate Ernphasis; Northem lllinois Univenity/Unive,rsity of lllinois.Appraisal Institutß cou$¡es include Capitalization fr*ty, Residential Valuation, EasementValuation, Uniform Appraisal Standa¡ds for Federal Lan<l Acquisitions, and Standardsof Professional Practice.Seminars and Classes inchrde: AI Course 833- Fundamentals of Separating Real Property,Penonal Property and Intangible Business Assets, Real Estate Feasibility, Busi¡essValuation, Valuation of Easements and Litigation Skills, and Appnaisal of PartialAcquisitions,2016.PROß.ESSIONA,L MEMBERSHIPSAppraisat InstituteIVfembership: MAI Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute since 1979Formerly: President, Dircctor, and Vice President, Seattle Chryter and AlaskaChapterInternational Right of Way AssociationDesignation: SR/WA(SeniorRightoflMayAgent)Position: International Right of Way Association Valuation Committee, pastchairFormerly: Regional Chair, Region 7, International Right of WayAssociationInternational Right of Way Association Director, President, and ViceP¡esident Seattle, Washington and Fafubanks, Alaska ChaptersEXPERIHYCE: Over 43 yearcCurrently: General Partner, Appn¡rser Gnoup oF THENoRTlrwEs-T LLPDeveloper of subdivision, office building, and reside,ncesOwner of office buildings and apartuentsFormerþ: Proprietor, Appn¡ser Gnoup or runNonï{wrsrAppraisea Schueler, McKor¡m & KeenanParfirer, Price & Associates, AlaskaSeniorAppraiser, Fint State Bank of OregonAppraiser, Pacific First Fedemal Savings BankAppraiser, U.S. Smel I Br¡siness AdministrationAppraiser, rWashington State De,pt of TransportationAppraiser, U. S. Snall Business AdministrationQUalified as an expert wilness in Superior Court, Federâl Cor¡rt Master's Hearings, andFederal Bankruptcy Court Servd as an arbitrator in property valuation and lease renewals.Washington State Deparment of Transportation approved appraiser.Fee reviewer; Washington Dept of Transportation, rnajorbanls, and governmental cliEnts.Qualified as a Master; held Master's Hearings in AlaskaArrently certified rmder the cmtinuing education program of the Appraisal Inst'ttute.Curr@tly certified in Washington State as a General Apraiser (CertificateNo. I100229)Vice President- Newcastle TrailsArryn¡rs¡,r Gnoup or nm Nonïrwr'gr LLPForm SCNLTR - "T0TAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1 -800-ALAM0DEAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 152Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Appraiser's Qualifications - Page 2çualifications of JA¡,rEs B. Prucr. u¡,1 sn/WnPage2CT.IENTS SERVEI)Abeyta & Associates, R./W CompanyBenson & Mclaughlin, AccountantsBellerue CollegeBellewe SchoolDisFictBoston Private BankBricklin Neu¡man, AtûorneysBullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass &Hoffuan;Bureau of Tndian AffairsBr¡¡eau of I¿nrl Manage,nrenfCamp KoreyCherÆon Products CompanyChr¡rch of God, Western WashingtonCity ofAuburnCity ofBelleweCityofDes MoinesCity of IssaquahCþoflCrktandCity of Maple ValleyCity ofMount VernonCityofNewcastleCity of Port AngelesCityofRedmondCity of SeaTaeCity of SeattleCþof ShorelineCity ofTacomaCityofTukwilaColumbiaBankC.ostcoEastmån, Scott, Atbmey, BellernreEl CentroDel¿RazaEnumclaw Pr¡blic SchoolsFirst Sound BankHDR EngineeringJeffenonCountyJohn Lpch, CPA, BellernreJohns Monroe Mitnrnaga, Attorneys;Michael Monroe, Da¡rell MitsunagaKeating Bucklin & McCormack,Kent SchoolDistictKeyBank of WashingtonKing CountyKing County Library SptemKittitâs CountyKorea Exchange Ba¡k (KEB)O. R. Colan Assooiates, Inc.(Acquisition Specialists)Ogden Murphy W'allace, AttorneysOpenBankOverlake HospitalPerkins Coie, LLCPlazaBankPortof FridayHa$orPortof Orc.asPort of SeattleRryet SoundEnergyReid Middleton, EngineersSaehanBankSeattle City LightSeattle School DistrictSharon Cates, AtùorneySound TransitTacoma SchoolDistictTacoma UtilitiesUrnpquaBankU.S. BankU.S. Fidetity & GuaranteeU.S. Postal SenriceUniBankUnionBankUniversal Field SsvioesWashington Federal BankWashington Dept. of Transportation-Approved Appraiser & ReviswerWashington State Dept. ofNaturalResourcesWashington State Parks & RecreationC.ornmissionWasteManage, entWilliams Northwest PipelineWïlshire BankArpn¡rs¡r, Gnow or mr Nonn¡wrgr LLPForm SCNLTR - "T0TAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1 -800-ALAM0DEAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 153Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Go-Appraiser's QualificationsQualifications of AppraiserAndrew F. Sorbaw$w-Appn tIsAtGRonPNW.coM ; AsonnA@fl¡rya¡¡¡5¡lGnoupNlt¡.couPnoxr No.: 425-453-9292 x128; Flx rrto.: 425-455-97401409 140il Pr.¡,cs NE, Sunr 105, Bru¡wE, WA 98007-3693EducationBachelor of Arts - Double Major in Political Science & Laws, Societies,and Justice; Universþ of Washingtonkofessional DesþnationsLicensed RealEstaæ Appraiser Trainee, State of Vlashington;Certificate No. 1002080Appraisal CoursesGeneral Appraiser Income Approach Part I - Appraisal InstituteGeneral Appraiser Site Valuation & Cost Approach - Appraisal InstitutsBasic Appraisal Principles - App.aisal InstituteBasic Appraisal Prccedures - Appraisal lnstitr¡teUSPAP 2016-n17 - Appraisal Instiû¡tßT'.qlerience2017-Present Appraiser, Appraisal Group of the Northwest, LLPClients Served:Elliot & Corryany Appraiserstlargiss Properties, LLCHDR,IncKent School DisfictLasher Holzapfel Sperry & EbbersonLaw Ofñces of Beth A. McDaniel, PLLCPerkins Coie, LLPPierce CountySchweet Linde & Coulson" PLLCForm SCNLTR - "T0TAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAM0DEAttachment 77.1.aPacket Pg. 154Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Attachment 8
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
13141912819303
9022
20021
20020
1
9
3
0
0
110510291001
20031
19128
1305 193058920
19324
1112194131324
910123519218
9116
1123 89001912019105
88181416
920
1231
1121
1241871219232
1122
20106
19722950019428
1011
931
4
1007
834
19902 19900
12139511
20018 871019111
19204
199058912
1981720029
9109 888987061961519711132719243
12161306
1224
19817
19226
90099706
19230
19311
20028
192219118
1205104119105
1025
19327
9035 88201021
19210 9220
12301118 862919308
921
1410
892019624926
20103
1015
1011 19517194051312
19801
101490008909 1911519115
192111026953119903
1303
1214
19200
19532
19309
19225
1121 1992719619
1323
123410321304
19515
131214399010
192269630
1010
193
1
6
19227
19314
153
0
19102
8826821
19213
19409
8908
1020 197039049
1108
11161225
820 197158907
19305151
5
19516
915
903155119117
9007
1430
880211038918880619805
19730
8911
93019209 19918
19928192289507
19522
19128
19524 9106110710311206
141
7
1930519306
8726
2002119215
1004
1428
1400
922
5
112012251152
19214
19905
9029420757
8718120019125
1992519312
8715891519226 1922519129
1139
1412
197141450
870419501
1201199141225 911191231141
200098909
1991214289513 88201972119918
911
19130
198242002319220
144
9 93151932
3
200301204115419222192311040 198159007
1230
19115
19219
9108
19124
1031
100619911
19401
1012
20017
102793028710
19919
19230
11201920819229
19205
14418902194011318
1309
931 890219702
19822932 9121198188721124619315
19910
197
1
0
112519105
1111
140514071409
19412
19915
1403
19210
19911 194208815131619705
124511011028102711121016 111620024
929 193031911419106
19411
920
199181114 91198932
19212
1217
9110
891119308110419301830
835918
1420
1251201041942695108812
19402
928
1008
1055
11101103
871519830
19726
19210
19904871419309
9509
1432195081009 2000219226 1971319106
1218 1931019248
1561
199281313
19311
200198820927
19102
19222
1930190551115
10101215151
2
19225
8917
11161140
19906
19804
8629193101439870419125
19228
1126
836 8925901
19509
19810
200299241440 19409131519811
1011 892811359515 9125
89198907 8720
19127
142
4 9525150
5
19727
19829
1992219211
8201923520026
19623
1313 1923119317
19520
9303
19129
1312
19109
9199608 9011
961019223
110219407
8940
10251008 870420019
8718
87111542
19110
1125 88141231913
19121 19115
8915
1305 9212892411009005
1109
1109
930
8927
19910
19902
1136 198131220200258840910219925824
1450
19917
19518
11191117
10051025
2003119228
1047 9129THESE LOTS ADDRESSED OFF 192NDPARKING
MAPLEWOODHILL PARK
8705PUDSUB STATIONROCK & GEMCLUB87128904
19507
8717
9016
1132
828 826
8719
19511
8710PUGET D R
VIEWLAND WAY
191ST PL SW
MAPLEWOOD DR194TH ST SW
192ND ST SW92ND AVE WVIEWLAND WAYOLYMPICAVE12THAVEN 88TH AVE WMAPLEWOODDROLYMPICVIEW DR200TH ST SW
VISTA WAYOLYMPIC AVEP
U
G
ET
DR91ST AVE W11TH PL N12THAVEN88TH AVE W196TH ST SW 89TH AVE W12TH PL N88TH AVE W89TH PL W192ND
PLSW94THAVEW
93RD PL WVISTA WAY
VISTA PL
EUCLID
AVE 89TH PL W89TH PLWFOREST DELL DR
192ND ST
S
W
EXCELSIOR PL
94THPLWSR 524 SR524
H
Vacation Request
Zoning and Vicinity MapExcelsior Place Street VacationPLN20180021
1 inch = 400 feet
Scale
Attachment 9
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 10
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Sign Posting Locations (Excelsior Place)
East end of the indicated area on the easement
Middle area of the indicated area on the easement
West end of the indicated area on the easement
Attachment 10
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 10
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 10
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 10
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 10
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 10
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
CITY OF EDMONDS – PLANNING DIVISION STAFF COMMENT FORM
PW-Engineering Fire PW - Maintenance Building
Project Number:
Applicant’s Name:
Property Location:
Date Application Received: Date Application Routed:
Zoning:
Project Description:
If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact:
Responsible Staff: Ext.
Name of Individual Submitting Comments:
Title: Date:
I have reviewed this land use proposal for
my department and I do not have any
comments. My department may also
review this project during the building
permit process (if applicable) and reserves
the right to provide additional comments at
that time.
I have reviewed this land use proposal for
my department and have the following
comments or conditions:
Attachment 11
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Updated: Jan 2018
NOTE: Detailed plans must be submitted, and approved, prior to painting any new fire lane or modifying any existing fire lane.
Fire Lanes must:
1) Be a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches. *Fire lanes shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide in the immediate vicinity of any building over 30 feet in height above grade. Such fire lanes shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the building.
2) Provide Fire Department access to within 150 feet of any portion of an un-sprinkled building. In
buildings that provided with an automatic sprinkler, access may be increased, at the discretion of the Fire Marshal. 3) Provide Fire Department access to all on-site fire hydrants and fire department connections (FDC) for sprinkler and standpipe. A hydrant must be located to within 25’ of a fire department
connection.
4) Have adequate turning radius to allow maneuvering of fire apparatus: inside radius 25 feet; outside radius 45 feet. 5) Be circulating or have an approved turn-around if over 150 feet long. Have grades of no more than 12%.
6) Be paved with asphalt or approved equivalent and be capable of supporting the imposed loads of
fire apparatus. 7) Be marked with words “FIRE LANE – NO PARKING.” Words to be painted on the pavement inside the lane. Letters to be a minimum of 12” high, 2” stroke, yellow in color, and alternately spaced every 50 feet.
8) Have perimeter striping/curbing to delineate the boundaries of the Fire Lane. Striping to be a
minimum of 4 inches wide and striping/curbing to be yellow in color. 9) When required by the Fire Marshal, signs shall be used in addition to or in lieu of striping. Signs, when approved, shall meet the following requirements: a) Size: 18” high x 12” wide (min.)
b) Mounting: Bottom of sign 48” to 60” above grade. c) Style: Industry standard (Vulcan %7-6-9, Rainbow 01-527, EMED TC 18816 or approved equivalent). d) Color: Red lettering on white background e) Spacing: 50’ between signs or as required by Fire Marshal.
10) Fire lanes shall be established by these requirements to provide access to buildings during construction, alteration or demolition. Fire Code Supplemental Rules and Regulations are designated interpretations of the adopted International Fire Code, Edmonds Community Development Code and national standards allowed by IFC 102.7,102.8 and 102.9 and ECDC 19.25 which provide specifics and details to aid in conformance with the intent of the governing laws, statutes, ordinances and fire- and life safety-related requirements.
FIRE LANE STANDARDS
Attachment 11
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
City of Edmonds
Date: September 27, 2018
To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Subject: PLN20180021 – Street Vacation: A Portion of Excelsior Place Landsverk – 19511 94th Pl W
The Engineering and Maintenance & Operations Divisions of Public Works have reviewed the subject application and recommend approval of the proposed Excelsior Place street vacation. The proposal was found to meet the street vacation criteria established in Edmonds Community Development Code 20.70.020 as it relates to
transportation and utility systems. 1) Traffic flow and sight distance concerns were reviewed in consideration of the subject Excelsior Place street vacation. That portion of Excelsior Place right-of-way subject this street vacation, is connected to other sections of City right-of-way
(Puget Drive to the west and 196th St SW to the east) through private roadways. The currently accessible public portions of Excelsior Place right-of-way are highlighted in the map below. That portion of Excelsior Place right-of-way adjacent to 19515 and 19511 does not directly connect to Puget Drive or 196th St SW right-of-ways.
MEMORANDUM
Attachment 12
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
A couple residents off 94th Pl W (the western extents of Excelsior Place) have
informed the City of their historical use of the private roads on the eastern extents
of the proposed vacation, however, the information submitted to the City as part of the street vacation indicates only certain properties have easements of record. Please refer to Attachment 15 of the staff report. The applicant provided additional information to the City on September 25th further purporting the
properties on the west side of Excelsior Place do not have access through the
private access road on the east side of Excelsior Place. Photos were provided showing “private driveway” signage (Attachment 21). The applicant also stated “over the past 18 years we continually have stopped traffic trying to pass through on these driveways. We have spoken to ALL the property owners on the west end
and they are all aware that there is no legal access through our driveway or across
the driveways to the east” (Attachment 17). While some of the residents have stated they have historically used these private driveways, it appears as though this has not been a permissible action by the owners of the property in which the driveway is located.
In addition to traffic flow, the City received comments regarding sight distance concerns at the intersection of 94th Pl W and Puget Drive. The City Transportation Engineer reviewed sight distance at this intersection and determined that it does not comply with standards. To meet sight distance standards, a motorist exiting
94th Pl W onto Puget Drive should have clear sight lines to the east for a distance
of 300-ft. This lineal footage is based upon the speed posted on the road, which is 30mph. The current sight distance is 200-ft, which falls 100-ft short of being in compliance. However, this has been a long standing issue that was specifically identified during review of a short plat (S-12-81) in 1982. The engineering
requirements established by the City Engineer at the time, Jim Adams, restricted
the turning movement onto 196th to a right turn only (Attachment 22). It has been confirmed that signage currently exists along Puget Drive (196th) and at the intersection of 94th Pl W to restrict traffic movements to right-in and right-out (Attachment 23).
With this analysis, it has been determined that the street vacation has little to no effect on the existing traffic flow and sight distance conditions. 2) In addition to the transportation considerations, the City currently owns and
maintains a sanitary sewer main and water main, including a fire hydrant through
the subject vacation area.
Attachment 12
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Operation and maintenance of utilities is more efficient when utilities are located
within a public right-of-way versus a private easement. This is found to be true as
decisions regarding the use of the right-of-way remains with the public and access to the utility systems is not restricted by a private property owner. In this particular case, the existing water and sewer mains are located mostly within the existing paved driveway area, which helps to prevent the overgrowth of vegetation
and backyard improvements that tend to be the most burdensome in maintaining
utility systems located within easements. In addition, the applicant has offered to provide a public safety and utility easement turn-around as a condition of the subject street vacation (Attachment XX Landsverk email). The turn-around area would be seen as a public benefit as it would improve existing access conditions
and provide an unobstructed area for public safety and utility maintenance &
operations vehicles to maneuver within the limited space. When City utilities exist within an area to be vacated, staff considers whether the utility systems should remain public or become private should the street vacation
be approved. In this particular case, it would be appropriate for City to continue to
own and maintain the utility systems for the following reasons: a. The subject street vacation abuts 19511 94th Pl W and within the boundaries of these limits, there is not a clear point in the utility systems to distinguish between public and private ownership. In finding a point at which this clear
distinction could be made, public utilities would either fall within private
property or private utilities would fall within public right-of-way. b. If the water main were to become private, the water meters would need to be re-located to fall within City right-of-way and new water service lines would
Attachment 12
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
need to be run to the individual properties. This would create long runs of
water service line, which could create long term maintenance issues.
c. With the relocation of the water meters, the private water main and fire hydrant would essentially serve as a private fire line. The change from a public water main to a private fire line would spur the requirement for the property owners to install a backflow assembly in a vault in order to provide water quality
protection between the public water system and the private fire line.
d. The sewer main could provide sewer service to other properties in the area should those lots be developed in the future. Thank you.
Attachment 12
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 137.1.aPacket Pg. 170Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Attachment 13
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Attachment 14
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Attachment 14
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Attachment 14
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Attachment 14
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Attachment 14
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Attachment 14
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
CURRENTLYIMPROVED ROADTHIS AREA TOO STEEP FORFUTURE IMPROVEMENTUNIMPROVED RIGHT OFWAY TO BE VACATEDTHIS PROPERTY AS ACCESSRIGHTS TO BOTH THE BLUE &READ ACCESS ROADSAttachment 157.1.aPacket Pg. 178Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 16
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
From:Deanne Landsverk
To:Lien, Kernen; Duane Landsverk; lee.michaelis@pugetsoundplanning.com
Cc:Williams, Phil; English, Robert; Hope, Shane; McConnell, Jeanie
Subject:RE: Public Hearing Continuation
Date:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11:42:30 AM
Attachments:180925 dml Attachment #1.pdf180925 dml Attachment #2.pdf180925 dml Attachment #3.pdf180925 dml Attachment #4.pdf180925 dml Attachment #5.pdf180925 dml Attachment #6.pdf
Good Morning Everyone –
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us yesterday to discuss our concerns with the Staff
recommendation to Council to deny the request to vacate a portion of Excelsior Place.
The first concern is the premise that there is a prescriptive easement for the properties to the
west of 19511 to traverse over 5 properties for safer access out to 196th from their homes. In
your report and recommendation to City Council you state the following
“Considering this potential safety issue, it would be in the best interest of the public to
maintain the Excelsior Place right-of-way, which would in turn allow traffic flow to continue
through the private access roads and public right-of-way as it historically has.
“the street vacation could place access restrictions on the properties along the western
extents of the Excelsior Place street vacation. “
These statements are both incorrect and misleading. There are no access rights for any
properties to the west for access across any of the properties to the east for access to 196th –
prescriptive or otherwise. A Private Driveway sign (Photo #1) is clearly posted at the west end
of the property at 19511. There is also a Private Driveway sign (Photo #2) at the east end of
these private driveways as well. ALL properties owners on the west end have been informed
that there is no access out to 196th via these private driveways. Over the past 18 years we
continually have stopped traffic trying to pass through on these driveways. We have spoken
to ALL the property owners on the west end and they are all aware that there is no legal
access through our driveway or across the driveways to the east. We are not home 24/7 and
we prefer not to have to gate our property so cars do on occasion pass through, however, it is
clearly signed that this is a Private Driveway. Please also see attachments #1-3 where the
original owners of these west side properties wrote letters to the City of Edmonds in 1984
regarding their concerns with their access from 94th to 196th. This street vacation will not
change any of the existing conditions as it relates to ingress and egress for those properties.
Attachment #4 is the City Engineer’s response to their concerns. This site distance issue has
been a concern of all property owners for over 30+years and we would like to see the City put
this on their CIP list for future consideration. Even if this portion of Excelsior Place were to be
Attachment 17
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
improved (which it currently is a 20’ unopened right of way), there would be no public access
to it, one would have to Trespass over private property in order to get to it. In addition, this
portion of Excelsior could not be improved to meet current road standards as it is only 20’
wide.
The only public written response to our vacation request was from John Vicklund. If the City
were so inclined to request it, I would be happy to provide you with a novel of paperwork
documenting our interactions with Mr. & Mrs. Vicklund since 1999. I am including
Attachment #5 which is a restraining order we were forced to get against the Vicklunds when
we were building our home in 2000. They were extremely opposed to us building our home
and fought us at every turn in the application process. Things got to the point where Mrs.
Vicklund physically assaulted Duane and was charged and found guilty of that assault. We
formally notified Mr. & Mrs. Vicklund through their attorney that their presence on any
portion of our property would be considered trespassing (see Attachment #6). Nothing to
that end has changed over the past 19 years. Mr. Vicklund would like you to believe that the
building of our home and legally removing trees created the situation at the juncture of 196th
and 94th when the documents provided herein clearly illustrate that this situation existed long
before we bought our property. Mr. Vicklund continues with his lies when stating that he and
the neighbors use Excelsior Place to go east. Again I refer you to Attachmet #5. Excelsior
Place is an unopened Right of Way at this point, so there is no way that he or the others legally
use this road to go east. If they use our driveway to go east, they are in fact knowingly
trespassing and for the City to deny the vacation request on this premise, is in fact
encouraging this illegal activity.
Regarding the 2nd concern of the street vacation, the utilities. As discussed, in order provide a
greater public benefit, we would agree to place the utilities that are now legally inaccessible to
City maintenance vehicles to maintain said utilities into an easement with a proper turn
around as a condition of the vacation. This would resolve several outstanding issues with the
current conditions with the utilities.
The other issue that should be given greater weight in this matter is the public benefit of
protecting critical areas. There are 11+ acres owned by us along with A.P. Van Meter. On
these 11+acres there are significant challenges. This vacation will allow for us to address
these challenges with a BLA that will significantly reduce the impact on critical areas that
include steep slopes, wetlands and a stream.
Again thank you for your time and we look forward to moving this process forward in a
manner that benefits us all.
Regards,
Duane Landsverk
Attachment 17
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
From: Lien, Kernen [mailto:Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 4:54 PM
To: Duane Landsverk <duane@lqh-inc.com>; Deanne Landsverk <deanne@lqh-inc.com>;
lee.michaelis@pugetsoundplanning.com
Cc: Williams, Phil <Phil.WIlliams@edmondswa.gov>; English, Robert
<Robert.English@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; McConnell,
Jeanie <Jeanie.McConnell@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Hearing Continuation
Duane et. al,
Based on the additional information discussed today, staff will request a continuation of the public
hearing. Please follow up in writing with details related to access, turn-around, etc. In order to
prepare for the hearing on October 2nd, the information would need to be received by noon on
Wednesday September 26th.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Kernen Lien | Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds – Planning Division
425-771-0220
Attachment 17
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 18
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 18
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 18
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 19
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 20
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 20
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 20
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 20
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 20
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 20
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 20
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing
Attachment 21
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with
Attachment 22
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 22
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
“No Left Turn” sign placed in the East Bound direction on Puget Drive to prevent
vehicles from turning left onto 94th Pl W.
“Right Turn Only” sign placed at the intersection of 94th Pl W and Puget Drive to prevent left hand turns
onto Puget Drive.
Attachment 23
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
“Hidden Driveway Ahead” signage placed in the West Bound direction on Puget Drive to give drivers
advanced warning of the driveway access at 94th Pl W and Puget Drive.
Attachment 23
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
1
Lien, Kernen
From:John Vicklund <johnvicklund@hotmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 21, 2018 1:46 PM
To:Lien, Kernen
Cc:Earling, Dave; Shirley Vicklund
Subject:Vacation of a portion of Excelsior Place
Dear Kernen Lien and the Edmonds City Council,
As we are unable to attend the Council meeting on September on September 25th, we are writing our concerns of access and safety regarding this matter. Currently, the neighbors use Excelsior Place to
go East up the hill. This is a necessary exit to 94th Place West because of increased traffic on
SR524(Puget Drive) and the blind corner as we enter SR524.
When the retaining rockery was put in many years ago, the neighbors could see clearly up the hill at the stop sign on 94th Place and Puget Drive. In 1999 Duane Landsverk and his logging crew cut down over a hundred trees in this environmentally sensitive area. The result is that the hillside has pushed the rockery out over four feet towards the road and many trees are falling over in the
area. This destruction over the years has cause an extremely dangerous blind corner for traffic coming down Puget drive and cars leaving 94th Place West. Tuning left up Puget drive is an extreme hazard.
We oppose the plan to remove Excelsior Place as a city street that is open to the neighborhood. We
recommend that the Council reject this proposal to turn it into private property and thus eliminating a
safe exit to 194th Place West.
Enclosed find a copy of the restrictions on Lot of the sub division by Lois Vinyard in 1984. Line 6 of filing 8408290222 clearly gives the City of Edmonds authority to deny any more houses or traffic on the difficult ingress and egress of 94th Place West.
Thank you for consideration of the safety of our neighborhood. Please visit our driveway and the
difficult entry onto Puget Drive before you make any decisions on removing Excelsior Place from our citizens safe use.
Sincerely,
Shirley and John Vicklund
John H. Vicklund
19515 94th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
johnvicklund@hotmail.com
Cell: 425‐754‐3054
Attachment 24
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 25
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 25
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 12:44 PM
To:Nelson, Michael; Buckshnis, Diane; Monillas, Adrienne; Mesaros, Thomas; Johnson,
Kristiana; Tibbott, Neil; Teitzel, Dave; Lien, Kernen
Cc:Taraday, Jeff; Earling, Dave
Subject:Public comments for tonight's public hearing Agenda Item 6.1
To All,
As I stated during a street vacation public hearing on November 1, 2016, requiring an appraisal with a street vacation
application seems premature. Per the Supreme Court, the authority to require compensation is permissive which
means such is allowed but it is not the Council’s obligation to require compensation for a street vacation. As such, why
should an applicant have to acquire and pay for an appraisal with the application prior to City Council’s discussion on
whether to grant the petition and/or require compensation? I think the City should consider reimbursing the applicants
for the cost of the appraisal.
Before City Council votes on Agenda Item 6.1 this evening, please consider this a formal request for City Staff to provide
City Council and all citizens of Edmonds answers to the following questions:
What State Law allows the City Council to approve a street vacation subject to the applicant assuming ownership of
public utility infrastructure located in the public right‐of‐way?
What State Law allows the City Council to transfer public utility repair and maintenance responsibilities to a private
party as part of a street vacation legislative process?
Again, please answer all the above questions before City Council votes on Agenda Item 6.1. Please provide the specific
RCW or case law that allows the City Council to do what City staff lists as option b).
Thank You,
Ken Reidy
Attachment 26
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Attachment 277.1.aPacket Pg. 219Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for Excelsior Place Street Vacation)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 25, 2018 Page 2
Doug Swartz, Edmonds, referred to Housing Task Force, a task force with members hand-picked by the Mayor, and found it appalling that many of the members do not live in or have a connection to Edmonds and a majority are in the homelessness business or building business. He challenged the task force to provide examples where input from the public changed anything in the document, noting most of the project was done out of the public’s sight. Passage of the Housing Strategy will fundamentally and permanently change Edmonds. The zoning changes that will quickly be passed after the approval of the Strategy will present a field day for developers with the development of taller buildings and buildings with insufficient parking. At its core, the document is focused on removing regulations that have made Edmonds what it is and have kept developers responsible. These are the same tactics that have been repeatedly tried and failed in San Francisco, Portland and Seattle. He quoted the head of the Portland Police Union, “homelessness has turned Portland into a cesspool.” The San Francisco Chronicle reported the San Francisco tourism industry struggles to explain the street misery that horrified visitors see. Examples of Seattle’s failed efforts regarding the homeless are readily apparent in the local news. He requested the City Council form a new group of regular citizens, for and against the current document, to discuss in an open forum whether the
current draft Housing Strategy is what citizens want. He requested the Council commit to taking no action on this document until they obtain citizen feedback. Even if Councilmembers agree with the draft document, it is their responsibility to listen to the arguments of their constituents.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXCELSIOR PLACE STREET VACATION
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained additional information was received after staff prepared the agenda memo and recommendation. Therefore, staff requests that following public comment, the hearing be continued until next Tuesday. He reviewed:
• Initiation of proceedings: o ECDC 20.70.050.B – Petition of owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the
portion of street or alley to be vacated o Resolution No. 1417 set public hearing for tonight
• Map identifying vacation request area
• Right-of-way established via 20’ right-of-way in the Edmonds Seaview tract in 1906 and has not been brought u to City standards since 1906
• ECDC 20.70.020 – Criteria for Vacation o The vacation is in the public interest
o No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation
• Vacation request an outgrowth of a lot line adjustment application the City received
o One of proposed lots, Parcel A spanned the Excelsior Place right-of-way and City could not approve a lot that straddles a right-of-way o Applicants given options
Amend lot line adjustment so no parcels straddle the right-of-way or
Apply for a street vacation o Five existing lots of record
Public benefit of vacation - Allows lot line adjustment to proceed and minimizes potential impacts to critical areas - City no longer have responsibility and liability associated with right-of-way
• Issues staff considered o Traffic Flow
Excelsior Place right-of-way improved in two places - Area between improved areas is steep so Excelsior Place unlikely to be extended - City received comment that some residents use improved area and private road to access 196th St SW
Attachment 28
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 25, 2018 Page 3
o Sight Distance
Required sight distance to turn left from 94th Place W onto Puget Drive is 300 feet; actual sight distance is 200 feet
• Aerial map of access based on Easements of Record o Properties that have rights to use 94th Place W
o Private drive that connects 196th to improved area of Excelsior Place o Properties that has legal rights to use both
In its previous recommendation, staff considered whether residents who have historically used the private road have prescriptive rights to continue. Staff received additional information since the staff report was prepared regarding how the area is signed and communications over the years. He displayed:
• View into the right-of-way proposed to be vacated from the west and east
• Photograph of private drive signs on the west and east
• Applicants provided correspondence with residents on the west informing them this is not a public road and indicating on occasion they have stopped people driving on the private road
• Staff plans to further research the turn from 94th Place W to Puget Drive o When some of the lots were platted in 1984, the City conditioned the plat to be right turn in/out
from 94th Place W - Some striping remains hinting at right in/out - Drivers currently make left turns in/out
• Utilities o Water and sewer mains exist in the right-of-way, installed by the applicant who is requesting
the street vacation o Options
City maintain ownership and require utility easement
Applicant assume ownership of water and sewer mains - City typically relinquishes ownership at manhole; existing manholes result in private utility within the public right-of-way
- Water meters would need to be moved back to the public right-of-way and separate water lines installed o Applicant proposed to give the City a utility easement and provide a turnaround for City and emergency vehicles
• ECDC 20.70.140 Final Decision
o Following the public hearing, the City Council shall 1. Adopt an ordinance granted the vacation; or 1. Adopt an ordinance granted the vacation; or 2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or 3. Adopt a resolution of intent were specific conditions must be met within 90 days a. Either i. Monetary compensation up to one-half fair market value ii. Grant of substitute public right-of-way
iii. Any combination of a.i or a.ii Or b. Grant of an easement to the City in exchange for easement vacated
Mr. Lien explained monetary compensation cannot be required if the City receives a utility easement. The appraised value of the right-of-way is $10,500; per City Code, if monetary compensation could be accepted, it would be half the appraised value or approximately $5,000.
Attachment 28
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 25, 2018 Page 4
Staff’s previous recommendation was to deny the vacation; given the additional information received since the staff report was issued, staff requests the City Council continue the public hearing to October 2 to allow staff time to consider the new information, conduct further research and reconsider its recommendation. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the map identifying the critical areas and asked if the stream is open or in a culvert. Mr. Lien answered it is open to the middle of the wetland area. Councilmember Teitzel said he drove to the site yesterday and looked at 94th Place West. As he exited south, he noticed a right turn only sign in addition to the yellow marking. He asked if drivers turning left were breaking the law. Mr. Lien answered staff will research that. Applicant Duane Landsverk, agreed 94th Place W was signed no left turn but most officers have been fairly lenient when issues have occurred there over the years as the sign has been missing at times, etc. Even prior to
1984, that intersection was difficult. That condition will not change for the existing lots that use that intersection. He was confused with staff’s concern with that situation when new lots were not being created. The lots exist; their goal is to create a better situation and avoid building on a critical slope, in a wetland or
next to a stream. This intersection is a problem and they support having the City resolve an issue that was allowed in 1984. He appreciated the neighbors’ concerns, but they are not proposing any change to the intersection. He was not prepared to make a presentation tonight as staff planned to request the public
hearing be continued. He requested an opportunity to provide additional information next week. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Jerry Janacek, Edmonds, resident to the north of the requested vacation, said the notice of public hearing that he and his neighbors received stated, Dedication of a Portion of Excelsior Place Adjacent to the Property Located at 19511 94th Place West. Most of the residents have lived in their homes for 30-40 years and were here to ask questions: 1. Vacation is often a process used for real estate development. Is this the ultimate intent of this request? 2. If this is a correct assumption, how much of the several acres of greenbelt would potentially be
developed? 3. Does the City have a policy to reduce or eliminate greenbelts and would this be one of the effects? 4. Since the nearby property is located on a steep slope along a ravine with a year-round stream, how
would this impact nearby properties? Stream requires 75-foot setbacks; an issue if the property is to be developed. 5. As there are owls, woodpeckers and other wildlife in this area, is an Environmental Impact Study
needed? In summary, what impact would this proposed change to Excelsior Place have on their neighborhood? He submitted written comments. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Mr. Lien said the public hearing is solely on the vacation request which was precipitated via the lot line adjustment so he was hesitant to talk about the criteria for lot line adjustment versus the vacation. Minimizing impacts to the critical areas is one of the public benefits provided by vacation. He identified the location of the five existing lots of record. Accessing some of those lots would require crossing a steep slope, going through a wetland, and across the stream and development would likely occur through the
critical area reasonable use exception variance process and would likely impact some of the critical areas. The lot line adjustment rearranges the existing five lots to provide more building area outside the critical areas and critical area buffers.
Attachment 28
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 25, 2018 Page 5
Mr. Lien explained if/when development applications are submitted on the lot line adjustment, they would be subject to critical area review. If they are within 50 feet of the top of the slope, geotechnical reports would be required; if they are within 200 feet of the wetland, they would be likely to require a wetland determination. The boundaries of the wetlands are known but not the classification; the classification and habitat score determine the buffer. With regard to critical areas and environmental concerns, they would be considered in accordance with the City’s regulations at the time of development review. With regard to the question about the intent to further develop the area, Mr. Landsverk answered the purpose of this exercise was to limit the amount of development. They are not proposing a land action application, simply a boundary line adjustment to avoid the critical areas. Doing the vacation in conjunction with the boundary line adjustment will allow the home sites to be located in the least critical, flattest area of the 11+ acres.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested superimposing the critical area map on the map of the boundary line adjustment lots. As there are a lot of wetlands, native birds, trees and nature in this area, it would be helpful to see how that is impacted. She asked whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be
required. Mr. Lien answered street vacation, lot line adjustment and single family development are all exempt from SEPA review, therefore, an EIS is not required. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the zoning of the area. Mr. Lien answered it is RS-12. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled across street the RS-12 zoning was changed to RS-8. Mr. Lien said a Comprehensive Plan change would be required to change the zoning from RS-12. Councilmember Teitzel recalled Mr. Lien’s comment that if the vacation were granted, a water meter would need to be installed at the boundary of the vacation. He asked if only one home to the east is served by that water line or would multiple meters and water mains need to be installed to serve those residents. Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell explained if the City were to relinquish ownership of a portion of the water main and it became private, the water meters for properties served from that portion of the public main that would then be private would have their water service relocated to the public portion of the main and spaghetti lines installed from the meter to those homes. She asked how many homes are
currently served from the portion of water main adjacent to Mr. Landsverk’s property. Mr. Landsverk said one home. Ms. McConnell explained if the City relinquished more of the public main beyond the area of vacation and further west where Excelsior intersects with 94th Place West, additional homes would have
their water services relocated. Councilmember Teitzel asked the cost to the City for installing new water meters and reconfiguring the
sewer main if the vacation were granted. Ms. McConnell answered the City would need to do new taps on the water mains and set new meters; those costs would be the applicant’s as a condition of the vacation.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXCELSIOR PLACE STREET VACATION TO OCTOBER 2, 2018. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONTINUE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE BD ZONING DISTRICT WITHOUT ON-SITE VEHICLE PARKING SPACES Development Services Director Shane Hope explained when permits were issued for a property downtown under the existing code which allowed buildings in the BD zone not to provide parking if the building footprint was 4800 square feet or less, staff approved it based on the existing code. To allow the Council, Planning Board and public to weigh in on appropriate regulations for parking in the BD Zone, the Council
Attachment 28
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Exhibit 1: PLN20180021 Staff Report for October 2nd Council Hearing with Attachments [Revision 1] (Continued Public Hearing for
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The Planning Board heard an introduction on this matter at their May 23, 2018 (Exhibit 9) and held a
public hearing on July 25, 2018 (Exhibit 10) at which a recommendation was forwarded to City Council.
The City Council heard an introduction on this subject at the September 4, 2018 Council meeting moved
hold a public hearing to receive public feed on the proposed amendments.
Staff Recommendation
Provide staff direction on next steps and/or direction on specific code amendments.
INTRODUCTION
In 2016, the City Council discussed modifying their role in quasi-judicial decisions (See Exhibits 11, 12,
and 13 for relevant Council minutes from 2016.). Two of the primary reasons for considering a change
in the Council's role involved frustration with restrictions against ex-parte contact in the quasi-judicial
setting and potential risks to the City of Edmonds and individual Council members.
As a result of its discussions on this subject, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Exhibit 1) in
2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
that will move quasi-judicial decision-making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer
citizen boards and direct it to the hearing examiner to the extent allowed by state law. The adopted
resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council
revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution.
CITY COUNCIL QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS
The city council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following applications and
appeals (see ECDC 20.01.003):
Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural
design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is
required); Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is
required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development.
Applications (Type IV-A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; and Site
7.2
Packet Pg. 224
specific rezone.
In addition to the Type IV applications and appeals of Type III-B, pursuant to ECDC 17.00.030.C, the City
Council also sits in a quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies.
POTENTIAL CODE PROCESS AMENDMENTS
Most of the discussion around quasi-judicial decisions before City Council has focused on closed record
appeals of Type III-B decisions (decisions issued by the Hearing Examiner or Architectural Design Board)
to the City Council. Staff has developed a FAQ to some of the questions that have been raised regarding
cost of appeals to City Council versus appeals to Superior Court which is provided in Exhibit 21. The
potential code amendments in Exhibits 3 - 7 address quasi-judicial and other process matters unrelated
to closed record appeals to the City Council. Should the City Council ultimately decide to retain its role
in closed record appeals, the remaining code amendments should still be considered as these
amendments clarify public hearing and appeal proceedings (Exhibit 5 - New Chapter 20.06 ECDC),
eliminate provisions that are not consistent with state law (Elimination of ECDC 20.100.040 - Included in
Exhibit 7), and provides other clean up and clarifications related to decision processes.
Type III-B Appeals to City Council
The Code Modifying the City Council’s role in quasi-judicial appeal decisions in the Edmonds Community
Development Code primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Exhibit 3 contains a
modified ECDC 20.01.003 which includes tables for permit type and decision framework, and procedure
for development project permit applications. Type III-B have been moved into the Type III-A column and
removed the “-A” and “-B” qualifiers. Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the Edmonds
Community Development Code for “Type III” and removed all the “-A” and “-B” qualifiers from the text.
An electronic search for terms such as “appealable to council” was also conducted and references
updated.
Public Agency Variance
When a public agency applies for a variance from provisions of the zoning ordinance, pursuant to ECDC
17.00.030.C, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation on the variance to the City Council. The
City Council then holds a closed record hearing to consider the variance request. The recent Edmonds-
Woodway High School Playfields Project reviewed by the Council is an example of this process. The
criteria for public agency variances is the same criteria for other variance requests (see ECDC 20.85.010).
Further review of public agency variances before the City Council seems to only result in additional
process since the review criteria is the same. Given the direction of Resolution No. 1367, requiring
public agency variances be heard by the Council is proposed to be eliminated.
Final Plat and Planned Residential Developments
Final formal plats (subdivision of property into five or more lots) and Final Planned Residential
Developments are currently Type IV-A quasi-judicial decisions made by the City Council. Subdivisions
and Planned Residential Developments require multiple approvals and by the time the final subdivision
or PRD is before the Council much of the construction related to the subdivision has already been
completed. This can include the installation of roads, sidewalks, utilities stubs (water, sewer, power,
gas, cable), and stormwater facilities. Often the only construction that has not been completed is the
7.2
Packet Pg. 225
residences on the new lots since those permits cannot be issued until the subdivision has been finaled.
There is little new input that can be provided by the Council at final subdivision or PRD review as the
development has largely been completed. This situation has been recognized by the City Council during
recent reviews of some final plats.
Review of final plats by the legislative body used to be something that was required by state law
(Chapter 58.17 RCW). In 2017, the state legislature passed SB 5674 which allows the legislative
authorities to delegate final plat approval to administrative personnel. Exhibit 6 contains amendments
to the City’s subdivision regulations (Chapter 20.75 ECDC) which would delegate the Council’s role in
review of final formal subdivisions. Similar amendments to the PRD chapter (Chapter 20.35 ECDC) are
included in Exhibit 7.
Related Code Amendments
In reviewing the code to address quasi-judicial decision making by the City Council, other items were
identified that logically should be addressed concurrently with this update.
Chapter 20.06 ECDC - Open Record Public Hearing & Chapter 20.07 ECDC Closed Record Appeals
The distinction is not clear between these chapters because appeals of Type II staff decisions reference
Chapter 20.07 ECDC for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decision are heard before the Hearing
Examiner in an open record public hearing. As part of this amendment, Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC
are proposed to be combined into a single chapter to remove this confusion. As part of this
combination, detail on the appeal format and procedures before the hearing examiner are also being
addressed.
ECDC 20.100.040 Review of approved permits
ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of approved permits, is a problematic code section in that it is likely
noncompliant with state law. See the City Attorney’s memorandum in Exhibit 2 detailing potential legal
issues with this section. Given these concerns, staff is proposing to delete ECDC 20.100.040. To make
clear that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of
approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) has been
added to Chapter 20.110 ECDC - Civil Violation Enforcement Procedure.
Development Agreements
ECDC 20.01.003, currently identifies the approval process for development agreements (Chapter 20.08
ECDC) as a Type V legislative action. As part of this update, we are proposing to modify the approval
process of development agreements to be a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before
the Planning Board, after which the Planning Board would make a recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council would hear the development agreement proposal in a closed record hearing format.
This change recognizes that under state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW), development agreements are not
legislative and, in fact, must be consistent with the local development code.
As a practical matter, the development agreement review process should be generally consistent with
the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction
with the development agreement. The site specific rezone is one type of project permit application that
7.2
Packet Pg. 226
would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. So, it makes sense to use a similar
quasi-judicial process. It would only make sense to process development agreements as legislative if
they are being processed in conjunction with a comprehensive plan amendment, which seems less
likely.
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City has received written public comments on the proposed amendments from two individuals.
These comments are provided in Exhibit 8 and Exhibits 15 - 21.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Resolution No. 1367
Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040
Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments
Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments
Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC)
Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments
Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC
Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email
Exhibit 9: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 14: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 15: Ken Reidy August 31, 2018 Email
Exhibit 16: Ken Reidy September 4, 2018 Email
Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1
Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2
Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3
Exhibit 20: Gary Nelson September 21, 2018 Email
Exhibit 21: ACE Quasi-Judicial Position Letter
Exhibit 22 - FAQ Regarding Costs of Appeals
7.2
Packet Pg. 227
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Resolution No. 1367 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
7.2.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Resolution No. 1367 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Date: May 23, 2018
To: Edmonds Planning Board
Copy: Kernen Lien
From: Jeff Taraday
Re: Legal basis for repeal of ECDC 20.100.040
This memo sets forth a legal rationale for the repeal of ECDC 20.100.040.
The History of this Section
This code section was last amended by Ordinance 3112 in 1996. The code
does not indicate what ordinance originally adopted this section. We do
know that it existed in a 1980 version of the code. Based on this date, we
know that it significantly predates the state’s adoption of the Regulatory
Reform Act (chapter 36.70B RCW) and the Land Use Petition Act (chapter
36.70C RCW), which were both adopted in 1995. This helps explain the
inconsistencies between this section and those state laws.
Ordinance 3112 adopted significant amendments to the code in 1996. The
ordinance contains 44 pages and 40 sections. The whereas clauses
mention the Regulatory Reform Act (chapter 36.70B RCW) generally, but
they do not provide any meaningful legislative intent related to the ECDC
20.100.040 amendments. Only subsection C was amended at that time.
And due to the lack of strike-through and underlining, we cannot easily
discern what changes were made.
The drafters of the 1996 ordinance could have identified the
inconsistencies between this section and state law at that time. Their
review was so broad, however, that the difficulties in harmonizing this
section with the recently adopted state laws probably escaped their
attention. And, in defense of the drafters, the courts did not make their
reading of these new laws, particularly LUPA, clear until several years
later.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and
Most of chapter 20.100 ECDC was repealed in 2009 with Ordinance 3736.
For reasons that are not yet clear, ECDC 20.100.040 was not repealed at
that time.
Difficulty Harmonizing with the Regulatory Reform Act
The Regulatory Reform Act requires cities to provide a consolidated
permit review process. “The review process shall provide for no more than
one consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an
open record predecision hearing is provided prior to the decision on a
project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent open record
appeal hearing.” RCW 36.70B.060. Any review of an approved permit
under ECDC 20.100.040 necessarily involves review of a permit that has
already gone through the City’s permit review process, including any
applicable opportunity for appeals. Where that process already included a
hearing, another hearing under ECDC 20.100.040 could violate the
hearing number limits set forth in the Regulatory Reform Act.
The Act also states that “[e]ach local government shall adopt procedures to
monitor and enforce permit decisions and conditions.” RCW
36.70B.160(3). But that enforcement authority should not necessarily be
read as authority to conduct additional hearings, notwithstanding the
hearing limits contained in RCW 36.70B.060. The City’s enforcement
procedures are contained in chapter 20.110 ECDC. Additionally, the City
has a process to address nuisances in chapter 6.20 ECC. So, the public
interest sought to be protected by ECDC 20.100.040 is largely protected
via other provisions of the code, with one notable exception discussed
below.
Difficulty Harmonizing with the Land Use Petition Act
Another problem with ECDC 20.100.040 is that it could suggest to the
public that collateral attacks on approved permits are available when they
are not. Such collateral attacks conflict with the finality requirement of the
Land Use Petition Act.
“A land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless
the petition is timely filed with the court and timely served ….” RCW
36.70C.040(2). The strength of this finality requirement was emphasized
in Chelan County. v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P.3d 1, 15 (2002).
In that case, Chelan Country tried to argue that “a county cannot be
prevented from revoking an improperly issued land use approval under res
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and
judicata or in the interest of administrative finality.” Id. The court rejected
that argument.
Leaving land use decisions open to reconsideration long after
the decisions are finalized places property owners in a
precarious position and undermines the Legislature's intent
to provide expedited appeal procedures in a consistent,
predictable and timely manner.
As amici curiae point out, if this court allows local
government to rescind a previous land use approval without
concern of finality, innocent property owners relying on a
county's land use decision will be subject to change in policy
whenever a new County Planning Director disagrees with a
decision of the predecessor director.
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P.3d 1, 15 (2002). We
know from the Nykreim case that even an erroneous decision is entitled to
finality under LUPA if that decision is not timely challenged. Against this
backdrop, one can imagine many situations where application of ECDC
20.100.040 would be impossible to square with LUPA’s finality
requirement. Whether or not one likes the holding of Nykriem, it is the
law of the land and the city’s code should be drafted to be consistent with
that law. The current code creates unrealistic expectations.
There are still situations (where permit conditions are not being met and
other means of compliance have failed) where the City would be entitled to
revoke a permit. Even so, the revocation language in ECDC 20.100.040
should be revised and relocated to the enforcement chapter.
7.2.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and
Edmonds Page 1/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Sections: 20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions. 20.01.001 Types of actions. 20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. 20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. 20.01.007 Exempt projects.
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard procedures, decision criteria, public notification, and timing for development project permit application decisions made by the city of Edmonds. These procedures are intended to:
1. Promote timely and informed public participation;
2. Eliminate redundancy in the application, permit review, and appeals processes;
3. Process permits equitably and expediently;
4. Balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors;
5. Ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably; and
6. Result in development that furthers city goals as set forth in the comprehensive plan.
These procedures provide for an integrated and consolidated land use permit process. The procedures integrate the environmental review process with land use procedures, decisions, and consolidated appeal processes.
B. The provisions of this title supersede all other procedural requirements that may exist in other sections of the city code. When interpreting and applying the standards of this title, its provisions shall be the minimum requirements. Where conflicts occur within provisions of this title and/or between this title and other city code provisions and regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Where conflict between the text of this title and the zoning map ensue, the text of this title shall prevail.
C. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be calendar days. Whenever the last day of a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city’s development services department is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday or closed day. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010].
20.01.001 Types of actions. There are five main types of actions (or permits) that are reviewed under the provisions of this chapter. The types of actions are based on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by the decision making body, the level of impact associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of appeal opportunity.
A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative decisions made by the development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”). Type I permits are ministerial decisions are based on compliance with specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are clearly enumerated. Type II permits are administrative decisions where the director makes a decision based on standards and clearly identified criteria, but where public notice is required. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.00406.040..
B. Quasi-Judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II and Type III (B only) decisions are quasi-judicial decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgment in the review of each specific application. Quasi-judicial decisions are made by the hearing examiner, the architectural design board, and/or the city council.
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Page 2/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Legislative Decisions. Type V actions are legislative decisions made by the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regarding future private and public developments, and management of public lands.
1. Planning Board. The planning board shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city council may hold a public hearing itself on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The city council may consider the planning board’s recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council desires to hold a public hearing on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do so without forwarding the proposed decision to the planning board for a hearing.
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to the public as set forth in Chapter 20.03 ECDC.
4. Implementation. City council Type V decision shall be by ordinance or resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010].
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. A. Determination by Director. The director shall determine the proper procedure for all project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure.
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may determine whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the applications are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest numbered to the lowest.
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection (B) of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council being the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner, architectural design board or planning board, as applicable, and then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according to ECDC 20.06.001020. Concurrent public hearings held with the architectural design board and any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers present. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. A. Permit Types.
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Page 3/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
TYPE I TYPE II-A TYPE II-B TYPE III-A TYPE III-B TYPE IV-A TYPE IV-B TYPE V
Zoning compliance letter Accessory dwelling unit Contingent critical area review Outdoor dining Essential public facilities Final formal plats Site specific rezone Development agreements
Lot line adjustment Formal interpretation of the text of the ECDC by the director
Shoreline substantial development permit, where public hearing not required per ECDC 24.80.100
Technological impracticality waiver for amateur radio antennas
Design review (where public hearing by architectural design board is required)
Final planned residential development Development agreements Zoning text amendment; area-wide zoning map amendments
Critical area determinations SEPA determinations Critical area variance Comprehensive plan amendments
Shoreline exemptions Preliminary short plat Contingent critical area review if public hearing requested
Conditional use permits (where public hearing by hearing examiner is required)
Annexations
Minor amendments to planned residential development
Land clearing/grading Shoreline substantial development permit, where public hearing is required per ECDC 24.80.100
Variances Development regulations
Minor preliminary plat amendment Revisions to shoreline management permits Shoreline conditional use Home occupation permit (where public hearing by hearing examiner is required)
Staff design review, including signs Administrative variances Shoreline variance Preliminary formal plat
Final short plat Land use permit extension requests Essential public facilities Preliminary planned residential development
Sales office/model (ECDC 17.70.005) Guest house Design review (where public hearing by architectural design board is required)
Final formal plats Innocent purchaser determination Conditional use permits (where public hearing by hearing examiner is required)
Final planned residential development Variances
Home occupation permit (where public
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds Page 4/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
hearing by hearing examiner is required)
Preliminary formal plat
Preliminary planned residential development
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds Page 5/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
B. Decision Table.
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Page 6/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I – IV) LEGISLATIVE
TYPE I TYPE II-A TYPE II-B TYPE III-A TYPE III-B TYPE IV-A TYPE IV-B TYPE V
Recommendation by: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning board Planning board
Final decision by: Director Director Director Hearing examiner/ADB Hearing examiner/ADB City council City council City council
Notice of application: No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision:
No Only if appealed, open record hearing before hearing examiner
(1) If director decision is appealed, open record hearing before hearing examiner (2) If converted to Type III-A process
Yes, before hearing examiner or board to render final decision
Yes, before hearing examiner or board to render final decision
No Yes, before planning board which makes recommendation to council
Yes, before planning board which makes recommendation to council or council could hold its own hearing
Closed record review: No No No No Yes, before the council No Yes, before the council
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds Page 7/7
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Any reference to “Type II” in the Edmonds Community Development Code without expressly being modified as “Type II-B” shall be construed to mean Type II-A for the purposes of this section unless the context clearly suggests otherwise. [Ord. 4072 § 7 (Att. G), 2017; Ord. 4026 § 4, 2016; Ord. 3982 § 4, 2014; Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3806 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the authority of the city council to make changes to the city’s comprehensive plan, or the city’s development regulations as part of the annual revision process. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.01.007 Exempt projects. A. The following projects are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter: historic register designations, building permits, street vacations, street use permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits issued under ECDC Title 18.
B. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building and/or other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city’s SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits, are excluded from the requirements of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130, which includes the following procedures:
1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.03.002) unless an open record hearing is allowed on the permit decision;
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B));
3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.06.001020);
4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of the date of the report that do not require an open public record hearing (ECDC 20.06.002060(C)); and
5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06.00920.02.007). [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.2.c
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Page 1/4
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Chapter 20.02
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sections: 20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. 20.02.002 Permit application requirements. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. 20.02.004 Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property. 20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. 20.02.006 Resubmission of application after denial. 20.02.007 Notice of Final Decision
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. A. Prior to filing applications for Type II actions requiring a preliminary plat and Type III and IV actions, applicants are encouraged to participate in a preapplication conference. Preapplication meetings with staff provide an opportunity to discuss the proposal in general terms, identify the applicable city requirements and the project review process including the permits required by the action, timing of the permits and the approval process. Plans presented at the preapplication meeting are nonbinding and do not “vest” an application.
B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request, upon payment of applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city’s adopted fee resolution.
C. The development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”) shall provide the applicant with the following during the conference:
1. A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city’s design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form provided by the director to the applicant under subsection (C) of this section shall bind the city in any manner or prevent the city’s future application or enforcement of all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations.
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications will be considered on a time-available basis by the director. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.02.002 Permit application requirements. An application shall consist of all materials required by the applicable development regulations and shall include the following general information:
A. A completed land use application form;
B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the application with the consent of all owners of the affected property;
C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications, as required by the applicable development regulations;
D. The applicable fee; and
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Page 2/4
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
E. Cover letter describing how the proposal satisfies the applicable standards, requirements and criteria in the development regulations. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving an application, the director shall mail or personally deliver to the applicant a determination which states that either:
1. The application is complete; or
2. The application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete.
B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the determination of completeness.
C. Additional Information. An application is complete for the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of ECDC 20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the applicable development regulations. The determination of completeness shall be made when the application is sufficiently complete for review, even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the director’s ability to request additional information or studies whenever new information is required, or when substantial changes are made to the proposed project.
D. Incomplete Applications.
1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to subsection (A)(2) of this section that the application is incomplete, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in subsection (A) of this section.
2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the application, which had been previously determined under subsection (A)(1) of this section to be complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. If circumstances warrant, the applicant may apply in writing to the director requesting a one-time 90-day extension. The extension request must be received by the city prior to the end of the initial 90-day compliance period.
3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested within the 90-day period (or within the 90-day extension period, as applicable), the director shall make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be taken on the application, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed.
4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city’s determination of completeness.
E. Director’s Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An application shall be deemed complete under this section if the director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in subsection (A) of this section.
F. Date of Acceptance of Application. Permit applications shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is determined to be complete, the director shall note the date of acceptance for continued processing.
G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the application. Under no circumstances shall the city place any application on “hold” to be processed at some later date, even if the request for the “hold” is made by the applicant, and regardless of the requested length of the “holding” period. This subsection does not apply to applications placed on “hold” upon determination by the city that additional information is required in order to make a decision. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Page 3/4
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
20.02.004 Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property. A. If an applicant submits an application that cannot be reconciled with a previously submitted application on the same property, the previously submitted application shall be deemed withdrawn by the applicant and it shall be rendered null and void. The director shall notify the applicant that the previously submitted application has been deemed withdrawn and will not be processed any further. Withdrawal shall be deemed to occur even when the city has finished processing the previously submitted application.
B. Many inconsistencies between applications can be reconciled through corrections that are made during the development review process. This section is not intended to treat all inconsistencies as effecting a withdrawal of the earlier application.
C. Without limiting the generality of subsection (A) of this section, the following examples are intended to illustrate whether a subsequent application shall be deemed irreconcilable with an earlier application:
1. Examples of Irreconcilable Applications That Result in Withdrawal.
a. Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence, the four-lot short plat is deemed withdrawn.
b. Applicant submits a design review application for a 20-unit multifamily housing development. Subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a 30-unit multifamily housing development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy substantially the same space they are irreconcilable and the 20-unit application would be deemed withdrawn.
2. Examples of Applications That May Be Inconsistent but Are Not Irreconcilable Resulting in Withdrawal.
a. Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application.
b. Applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site-improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a corrected version of at least one of the two plans, then city staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. [Ord. 4006 § 1, 2015; Ord. 3992 § 1, 2015].
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. Within 10 days of accepting an application, the director shall transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.02.006 Resubmission of application after denial. Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this title that is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for review for a period of 12 months from the date of the last action by the city on the application or request unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a significant change in the application or a significant change in conditions related to the impacts of the proposed project. [Ord. 4006 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3992 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009. Formerly 20.07.007].
20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Page 4/4
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available administrative appeals. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director.
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, or other decision period specified in subsection (A) of this section, the following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the deficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A ECDC;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative appeals of development project permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, unless a longer period is agreed to by the director and the applicant;
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant in writing.
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is a Type IV permit process identified in ECDC 20.01.003.A.
4. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.70B.070. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.2.d
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Chapter ECDC 20.02 Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 1/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS
Sections:
20.06.000 General.
20.06.001 Joint public hearings.
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
20.06.008 Decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
20.06.000 General
20.06.010 Consolidated appeals
20.06.020 Joint public hearings
20.06.030 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal
20.06.040 Appeals of permit decisions or recommendations
20.06.050 Prehearing conference
20.06.060 Responsibility of director – Open record public hearing
20.06.070 Conflict of interest
20.06.080 Ex parte communications
20.06.090 Disqualification
20.06.100 Burden and nature of proof
20.06.110 Order of proceedings – Predecision open record public hearing
20.06.120 Procedure for an open record appeal hearing
20.06.130 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal
20.06.140 Decisions
20.06.150 Reconsideration of decision
20.06.160 Judicial appeals
20.06.000 General.
A. An open record public hearing is a hearing conducted by an authorized body or officer that creates the city’s
record upon which the outcome of a decision or appeal is based through testimony and the submission of documents
and other evidence and information. A public hearing may be held prior to the city’s decision on a development
project permit application; this is an “open record predecision hearing.” A public hearing may be held on an appeal
if no open record predecision hearing was held for the a permitdecision on a project permit application; this is an
“open record appeal hearing.”
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV permit applications and open record appeal hearings on
all appeals of Type II decision appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings
conducted by the city hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner’s rules.
CA. “Closed record appeal” means an administrative appeal to the city council. Such appeals are decided based on
the previously created record. to the city council, following an open record public hearing on a development project
permit application when the While such appeal proceedings is on the record with nodo not allow new testimony,
documents or other evidence or information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC
20.067.005130(B)., and only appeal arguments are allowed based upon the record.
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 2/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
DB. The right of appealAny appeal for allof a project permit applications and Type V land use decisions shall be as
allowed and described in the matrix set forth in ECDC 20.01.003.
C. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004. [Ord.
20.07.00206.010 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than appeals of determinations of significance
(“DS”), and exempt permits and approvals under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated
appeal using the appeal procedure for the highest type permit application. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh.
A), 2009].
3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009. Formerly 20.06.001].
20.06.001020 Joint public hearings.
A. Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
“director”)city may combine jointly conduct any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that
may be held conducted by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as long as
the requirements of subsection (C) of this section are met.
B. Applicant’s Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that the city conduct a joint public hearing
with another agency, as described in subsection (A), above, on a permit application be combined as long as the joint
hearing schedule can be held would allow a decision to be issued within the applicable time periods set forth in this
chapterTitle 20. In the alternativeIf the joint hearing schedule would not allow a decision to be issued within the
applicable time periods, the applicant may agree in writing to a particular schedule if additional time is neededan
extension of the applicable time periods in order to complete the hearingsallow a joint public hearing to be
conducted.
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held with another local, state, regional,
federal or other agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is Doing so is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agency’ies’ adopted applicable notice
requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough
time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city hearing; orand
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010].
20.07.00306.030 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Standing Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term “parties of record,” for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at thean open record public hearing on the subject application;
3. Any person who individually submitssubmitted written comments concerning the subject application at the
open record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II decision), PROVIDED THAT. Ppersons who
have only signed a petitions are not “parties of record;” and/or
4. The city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.00406.040 Appeals of recommendations and decisions – Pproject permit decisions or recommendations.
Any administrative appeals of a hearing body’s recommendation ordecision on a project permit decisionapplication
on a permit application shall be governed by the following:
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 3/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body’s decision[reserved].
B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the hearing body’s written decision on
a project permit application. The appeal period for determinations of nonsignificance shall be extended for an
additional seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW allow public comment on a
determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the appealablein relation to the applicable project permit
decisionapplication. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city’s development services department by
mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by
mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were
mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body’s
decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated
by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city’s development services department
is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be filed on the next day that is
not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or closed day.
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required appeal fee as set forth in the
city’s adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information:
1. Appellant’s name, address, email address, and phone number;
2. A statement describing appellant’s standing to appeal;
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based with specific
references to the facts in the record;
5. The specific relief sought;
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the
appellant’s signature.
7. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by
11 inches), with one-inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller
than 12-point), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body’s decision on the project permit application until
such time as the appeal is concludedresolved or withdrawn.
F. Notice of Appeal. The development services director (hereinafter the “director”) shall provide mailedwritten
notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.00306.020. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 §
4 (Exh. A), 2009].
G. Multiple appeals. More than one appeal may be filed concerning the same appealable decision on a project
permit application.
20.06.050 Prehearing Conference
A. The Hearing Examiner may on his or her own order, or at the request of the city, applicant or appellant, hold
aone or more conferences prior to the hearing to consider:
1. Identification, clarification, and simplification of the issues;
2. Disclosure of witnesses to be called and exhibits to be presented;
3. MotionsThe scheduling or hearing of motions that any party would like to have considered;
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 4/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
4. Other matters deemed by the Hearing Examiner appropriate for orderly and expeditious disposition of the
proceedings.
B. Prehearing conferences may be held by telephone conference call.
C. The Hearing Examiner shall give notice to all parties of record of any prehearing conference to be held. Notice
may be written or oral.
D. All parties of record shall be representedparticipate atin any prehearing conference unless they waive the right
to be present or represented, and they are granted permission by the Hearing Examiner not to attendparticiapate.
Failure to participate without such permission may result in that party’s waiver of issues adjudicated during the
prehearing conference and/or dismissal of the appeal.
E. Following the prehearing conference, the Hearing Examiner shall issue an order reciting the actions taken or
ruling on motions made at the conference.
20.06.002060 Responsibility of director for hearing – Open Record Public Hearing.
The director shall:
A. Schedule project permit applications for review and public hearing;
B. Verify compliance with notice requirements;
C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report which sets forth all of the decisions
made on the proposal as of the date of the report, including recommendations on project permit applicationss in the
consolidated permit process that do not by themselves require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall
also describe any mitigation required or proposed under the city’s development regulations or SEPA authority. If the
threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has not been issued previously by the city, the
report shall include or append this determination;
D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a copy of the notice of decision to those
entitled by this chapter to receive the decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.003070 Conflict of interest.
The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict of interest and appearance of
fairness doctrine as set forth in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may
hereafter be amended. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.004080 Ex parte communications.
A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issue in a proceeding
before him or her, other than to participate in communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for
maintaining an orderly process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal counsel on any issue.
B. If, before serving as on the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives
an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing
body, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in subsection (C) of this
section.
C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, he or she shall
place in the record:
1. All written communications received;
2. All written responses to the communications;
3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses made; and
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 5/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte communication.
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Upon request made after
notice of the ex parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a
rebuttal statement on the record. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.005090 Disqualification.
A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience of the reason(s) for the
disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and physically leave the hearing room.
B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum cannot be achieved, then all members
present, after stating their reasons for disqualification, shall be prequalified and deliberations shall proceed. [Ord.
3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.006100 Burden and nature of proof.
A. Except for Type V actions and, appeals of Type II actions and closed record appeals, the burden of proof is on the
proponent. The development project permit application must be supported by convincing proof evidence in the
record that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city’s development regulations and comprehensive plan
(review criteria). The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been
adequately mitigated.
B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the appellant has the burden of proof with respect to
points raised on appeal.
C. In a closed record appeal of the architectural design board, its decision shall be given substantial deference
regarding decision review within its expertise and contained in its decisions. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4
(Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.007110 Order of proceedings – Predecision Open Record Public Hearing.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be
supplemented by administrative procedures and/or hearing examiner rules as appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following shall be determined:
1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and if there is objection, the hearing
body may proceed or terminate the proceeding;
2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and accepted information, such as:
1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards, and state and federal law;
2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Order of presentation. The order of presentation for predecision open record public hearings shall generally
proceed as follows:
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 6/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
1. Hearing Examiner’s or hearing body’s introductory statement;
2. Department’sStaff presentation;
3. Applicant’s presentation;
4. Public commentstestimony on proposal;
5. Response from staff (if any);
6. Rebuttal from applicant (if any);
67. Questions of staff, applicant, or other persons submitting testimony;
78. Deliberation by hearing body if applicable;
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection C, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order
established if the hearing body deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of the
hearing may also be modified as agreed upon by the parties with the hearing body’s approval.
E. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burden(s) or presumptions(s) established by
applicable law(s).
CF. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal evidence to be considered by the
hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any information shall do so on the record. The hearing body,
however, may take notice of matters listed in subsection (B) of this section at any time. Any information given
official notice may be rebutted.
DG. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area with or without notification to the
parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting forth the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit and
any relevant observations made during the visit.
EH. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in
his or her discretion, permit persons attending participating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants.
Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved any such questions will be asked of persons submitting
testimony by through the presiding officer.
FI. When the presiding officer has closed the public comment testimony portion of the hearing, the hearing body
may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff or any person submitting informationtestimony. An
opportunity to present rebuttal testimony shall be provided if new information is presented in through the
questioning. When all evidence has been presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer
shall officially close the record and end the hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 7/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.06.120 Procedure for open record appeal hearing.
A. Appeal hearings shall have a structured format and shall be conducted in a manner deemed by the Hearing
Examiner to make the relevant evidence most readily and efficiently available to the Hearing Examiner and to
provide the parties a fair opportunity for hearing.
B. Where the code provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to overcome the City decision being
appealed, the order of hearing is generally as follows:
1. Hearing Examiner’s introductory statement;
2. Parties’ opening statements (optionalif allowed by hearing examiner);
3. Appellant’s presentation of evidence and argument;
4. Department’s presentation of evidence and argument;
5. Applicant’s presentation of evidence and argument (if applicant is not the appellant);
6. Appellant’s Rebuttalpresentation of rebuttal evidence and argument;
7. Closing argument of parties (if allowed by hearing examiner);
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection B, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order
established if the Hearing Examiner deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of
the hearing may also be modified as agreed upon by the parties with the Hearing Examiner’s approval.
D. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burden(s) or presumptions(s) established by
applicable law(s).
E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in his
or her discretion, permit persons attendingparticipating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants. Unless
the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved questions will be asked of persons submitting testimony
bythrough the presiding officer.
20.06.1307.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appealhearings.
A. Closed record appealshearings shall be argued and decided based on the record established at the open record
hearing before the hearing body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall include the written
decisionrecommendation of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official
transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
1. At his/her own expense, a party to the appealof record may have the official tape recording of the open
record hearing transcribed; however, to be admitted into the recordconsidered during the closed record hearing,
the transcription must be performedprepared and certified by a court reporter or a transcriber that is pre-
approved by the city. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by the city directly from the
transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record reviewhearing. It shall be
each party of record’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the transcription from the city.
2. The director shall maintain a list of pre-approved transcribers that are court approved; and if needed, shall
coordinate with parties to the appealof record so that no more than one official transcription is admitted into the
recordplaced before the city council.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council except: (1) new information required to
rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte communication providedthat is placed on the record during an
appearance of fairness disclosure; and (2) relevant information that, in the opinion of the city council, was
improperly excluded by the hearing body/officer.
1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly excluded must specifically request in writing within five
working days of the appeal deadline that the information be made part of the record. The request shall be addressed
to the city council president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the issues appealed, the reason(s)
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 8/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
that the information was excluded by the hearing body/officer, and the reason why the hearing body/officer erred in
excluding the information.
2. In determining whether the information should be admitted, the city council president may request other parties of
record to submit written arguments rebutting the above. Nonresponse by the city council president within five
working days of the initial request that the information be made part of the record shall constitute a rejection of the
same.
C. Parties to the appealof record may present written arguments to the city council. Arguments shall describe the
particular errors committed by the decisionmakeraddress the applicable decision criteria, with specific references to
the administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden to demonstrate that the decision is clearly erroneous
given the record.
D. While written arguments are not required, appellantparties of record may submit his or her written arguments no
later than 12 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record reviewhearing. Parties of record, except
for the appellant, may submit his or her written arguments or respond in writing to appellant’sopening arguments no
later than seven working days before the closed record reviewhearing. AppellantParties may rebut in writing to
responses submitted by parties of record no later than four working days before the closed record reviewhearing. If
the applicant is not the appellant, applicant may submit a final surrebuttal in writing to appellant’s rebuttal no later
than two working days before the closed record review.
E. Written arguments, responses, and rebuttals and surrebuttals must be received by the city’s development services
department by mail or personal delivery at or before 4:30 p.m. of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted.
Submittals received by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when
such submittals were mailed or postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the parties involved to obtain for their
own use from the city copies of written arguments, responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted.
F. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11),
with one-inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single
sided, double spaced and without exceeding 12 pages in length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not
already in the record shall not be allowed.
G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness issues, if any, followed by the
opportunity for oral presentations by the director and other parties of records, including the appellant. After the
presentations, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an
opportunity for the director, appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall
not request information outside the administrative record. If the city council believes that it needs information not
contained in the record to make a proper decision on the application, it may remand the application to have the
record reopened for that limited purpose.
If information outside the administrative record is offered (in written submittals or oral presentation) by a party of
record, it shall be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same to timely object and provide
justification in support of the objection. Objections to information outside the administrative record shall be brought
before the city council begins deliberations. The party offering the information shall have the opportunity to show
where in the record said information is contained.
H. The city council shall determine whether the dereview the cisionrecommendation by the hearing body/officer is
clearly erroneousde novo givenbased on the evidence in the record. The city council shall affirm, modify or reverse
the decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the
requirement for a decision within the time periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW
36.70B.080(3), theAs it deems necessary, theThe city council may remand the decisionapplication with instructions
to the hearing body to reopen the hearing to obtainfor additional information on a subject that is relevant to the
decision criteria.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on closed
record appeal in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.06.00902.007. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010;
Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 9/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.06.008140 Decision.
A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.007110, or ECDC 20.06.120, or ECDC 20.06.130, the
hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing is an appeal, the hearing
body shall affirm, reverse or, with the written consent of the applicant, which shall include a waiver of the statutory
prohibition against two open record hearings, remand the decision for additional information.
B. The hearing body’s written decision shall be issued within 10 working days after the close of record of the
hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the parties. Where
the record is voluminous, the hearing body may inform the parties during the hearing that more than 10 working
days will be necessary to render a decision.
C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC 20.0602.0096.
D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on an application within the time limits provided for in this section,
it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons
why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5,
2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.009 Notice of final decision. [RELOCATE TO ECDC 20.02.007]
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of
completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision
on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include
the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available administrative appeals. For
Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain
that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of
revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who
submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County
assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director.
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, or other decision period specified in
subsection (A) of this section, the following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director to correct plans, perform required
studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director
notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines
that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the
additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the
deficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period
shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter
43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by
Chapter 20.15A ECDC;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative appeals of development project
permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals,
unless a longer period is agreed to by the director and the applicant;
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant in writing.
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a permit application:
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 10/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a
determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003
and RCW 36.70B.070. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.010150 Reconsideration of decision.
A. General. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.00306.020 as having standing to file an administrative appeal
may request reconsideration of a decision of the hearing examiner which issues immediately after the open record
public hearing on a permit application described in this chapter. (There shall be no reconsideration of a decision of
the director (staff), ADB or city council.) Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to any appeal.
Reconsideration shall be limited to:
1. Error(s) of procedure;
2. Error(s) of law or fact;
3. Error(s) of judgment; and/or
4. The discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
have been discovered.
B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee, must be filed with the director within
10 calendar days of the issuance of the hearing examiner’s written decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the
director before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration that are
received by mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will not be accepted, no matter when
such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a request for reconsideration, the day the
hearing examiner’s decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the reconsideration is a Saturday,
Sunday, or holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the reconsideration may be filed on
the next business day.
D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall be in writing, be accompanied by the
required reconsideration fee, and contain the following information:
1. The name, address, email address, and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of the request for reconsideration;
3. Requestor’s statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon which the request is based;
4. The specific relief requested;
5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be true, followed by his/her signature.
6. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by
11), with one-inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than
12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the hearing examiner’s decision until such time
as the hearing examiner issues a decision on reconsideration.
F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The director shall provide mailed notice that a request for reconsideration
has been filed to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.0036.020.
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 11/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
G. Hearing Examiner’s Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration
without a hearing, but may solicit written arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for
reconsideration shall be issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all parties of record, regardless of whether
a party filed a motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of record. Any ground not stated in the initial
motion is waived.
3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the hearing examiner by the city council is not
subject to a motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner’s Reconsideration. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for
reconsideration based on the administrative record compiled on the application up to and including the date of the
hearing examiner’s decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or
inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner’s decision. The reconsideration
decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify, affirm or reverse the hearing examiner’s decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on reconsideration
in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.062.009007.
20.07.00606.160 Judicial appeals.
THaving exhausted any available administrative appeals, the city’s final decision on an application may be appealed
by a party of record with standing toby filecommencing a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court.
Such petition must be filedcommenced within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C
RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
[jt1]J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of the hearing examiner’s decision, and a request for
reconsideration was timely filed, then any judicial appeal must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision
on reconsideration, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 12/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Chapter 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Sections:
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions – Permit decisions or recommendations.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
20.07.007 Recodified (effective until September 13, 2015).
20.07.007 Resubmission of application (effective after September 13, 2015).
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
A. “Closed record appeal” means an administrative appeal on the record to the city council, following an open
record public hearing on a development project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no new
evidence or information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005(B), and only appeal
argument allowed.
B. The right of appeal for all permit applications and Type V land use decisions shall be as described in the matrix
set forth in ECDC 20.01.003. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than appeals of determinations of significance
(“DS”), and exempt permits and approvals under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated
appeal using the appeal procedure for the highest type permit application. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh.
A), 2009].
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term “parties of record,” for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application;
3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open record public
hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II decision). Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of
record; and/or
4. The city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions – Permit decisions or recommendations.
Appeals of a hearing body’s recommendation or decision on a permit application shall be governed by the
following:
A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body’s decision.
B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the hearing body’s written decision.
The appeal period shall be extended for an additional seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to Chapter
43.21C RCW allow public comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the appealable project
permit decision. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city’s development services department by mail or
by personal delivery at or before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 13/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were mailed or
postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body’s
decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated
by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city’s development services department
is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be filed on the next day that is
not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or closed day.
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required appeal fee as set forth in the
city’s adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information:
1. Appellant’s name, address and phone number;
2. A statement describing appellant’s standing to appeal;
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based with specific
references to the facts in the record;
5. The specific relief sought;
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the
appellant’s signature.
7. All written submittals should be typed on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11), with one-inch margins,
using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body’s decision until such time as the appeal is
concluded or withdrawn.
F. Notice of Appeal. The development services director (hereinafter the “director”) shall provide mailed notice of
the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A),
2009].
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
A. Closed record appeals shall be based on the record established at the open record hearing before the hearing
body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall include the written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies
of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
1. At his/her own expense, a party to the appeal may have the official tape recording of the open record hearing
transcribed; however, to be admitted into the record, the transcription must be performed and certified by a
transcriber that is pre-approved by the city. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by the city
directly from the transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record review. It
shall be each party of record’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the transcription from the city.
2. The director shall maintain a list of pre-approved transcribers that are court approved; and if needed, shall
coordinate with parties to the appeal so that no more than one official transcription is admitted into the record.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council except: (1) new information required to
rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte communication provided during an appearance of fairness
disclosure; and (2) relevant information that, in the opinion of the city council, was improperly excluded by the
hearing body/officer.
1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly excluded must specifically request in writing within
five working days of the appeal deadline that the information be made part of the record. The request shall be
addressed to the city council president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the issues
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 14/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
appealed, the reason(s) that the information was excluded by the hearing body/officer, and the reason why the
hearing body/officer erred in excluding the information.
2. In determining whether the information should be admitted, the city council president may request other
parties of record to submit written arguments rebutting the above. Nonresponse by the city council president
within five working days of the initial request that the information be made part of the record shall constitute a
rejection of the same.
C. Parties to the appeal may present written arguments to the city council. Arguments shall describe the particular
errors committed by the decisionmaker, with specific references to the administrative record. The appellant shall
bear the burden to demonstrate that the decision is clearly erroneous given the record.
D. While not required, appellant may submit his or her written arguments 12 working days before the date scheduled
for the closed record review. Parties of record, except for the appellant, may submit his or her written arguments or
respond in writing to appellant’s arguments no later than seven working days before the closed record review.
Appellant may rebut in writing to responses submitted by parties of record no later than four working days before
the closed record review. If the applicant is not the appellant, applicant may submit a final surrebuttal in writing to
appellant’s rebuttal no later than two working days before the closed record review.
E. Written arguments, responses, rebuttal and surrebuttals must be received by the city’s development services
department by mail or personal delivery at or before 4:30 p.m. of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted.
Submittals received by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when
such submittals were mailed or postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the parties involved to obtain for their
own use from the city copies of written arguments, responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted.
F. All written submittals should be typed on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11), with one-inch margins,
using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided, double spaced and
without exceeding 12 pages in length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not already in the record shall not
be allowed.
G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness issues, if any, followed by the
opportunity for oral presentations by the director and other parties of records, including the appellant. After the
presentations, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an
opportunity for the director, appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall
not request information outside the administrative record.
If information outside the administrative record is offered (in written submittals or oral presentation) by a party of
record, it shall be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same to timely object and provide
justification in support of the objection. Objections to information outside the administrative record shall be brought
before the city council begins deliberations. The party offering the information shall have the opportunity to show
where in the record said information is contained.
H. The city council shall determine whether the decision by the hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the
evidence in the record. The city council shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer
accordingly. Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the time
periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW 36.70B.080(3), the city council may remand the decision
with instructions to the hearing body for additional information.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on closed
record appeal in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.06.009. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord.
3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
The city’s final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use
petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the
decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 15/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application (effective until September 13, 2015).
Recodified to ECDC 20.02.006 by Ord. 3992.1 [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.07.007 Resubmission of application (effective until September 13, 2015).
Recodified to ECDC 20.02.006 by Ord. 3992.1 [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
7.2.e
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) (Public Hearing on Permit
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 1/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Chapter 20.75
SUBDIVISIONS
Sections: 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. 20.75.020 Purposes. 20.75.025 Scope. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. 20.75.035 Compliance required. 20.75.040 Application. 20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment – Application. 20.75.055 Lot combination. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision – Time limit. 20.75.075 Modifications. 20.75.080 General findings. 20.75.085 Review criteria. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval – Time limit. 20.75.105 Repealed. 20.75.107 Preliminary approval – Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. 20.75.110 Changes. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. 20.75.140 Final plat – Required certificates. 20.75.145 Final plat – Accompanying material. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. 20.75.158 Short plat – Staff review. 20.75.160 Final plat – Filing for record. 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. 20.75.170 Further division – Short subdivisions. 20.75.175 Court review. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. 20.75.185 Penalties.
20.75.010 Citation of chapter. This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.020 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites
for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements;
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 2/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress, while minimizing impervious surfaces;
E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots;
F. To promote the preservation of critical areas and encourage low impact development;
G. To encourage site design that can make the best use of renewable energy resources including solar and geothermal;
H. To encourage low impact development (LID) practices when providing for streets and sidewalks. [Ord. 4085 § 18 (Exh. A), 2017; Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.025 Scope. This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW 58.17.040, including but not limited to:
A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots;
B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent;
C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter.
Divisions under subsections (A) and (B) of this section will not be recognized as lots for building purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.030 Subdivision defined. A. “Subdivision” means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term “lot” includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term “sale” includes lease gift or development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to “subdivision” is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both “formal subdivision” and “short subdivision” unless one or the other is specified.
B. “Formal subdivision” means a subdivision of five or more lots.
C. “Short subdivision” means a subdivision of four or fewer lots.
D. “Unit lot subdivision” means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045 where compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot.
E. “Parent lot” means the lot with legal lot status which establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision.
F. “Unit lot” means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred upon recording of a unit lot subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.035 Compliance required. Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.040 Application. Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development services director on forms provided by the community development department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002:
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 3/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the community development department;
B. Title report;
C. A survey map, if required by the community development services director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant’s option;
D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC;
E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in-lieu fees, if desired by the applicant;
F. Source of water supply and name of supplier;
G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used;
H. Other information that may be required by the community development services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983].
20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision. A. Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee-owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional standards of ECDC Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that each newly created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) complies, with those dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed.
B. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only in the following zones: multiple residential, general commercial, and Westgate mixed-use. A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located.
C. Association with Site Development – Application Timing. In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a development site plan as required by Chapter 20.10, 20.11, or 20.12 ECDC, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020(B)(3) submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a building permit.
D. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is vested to the applicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030(E)) in effect at the time a complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit lot subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforming with respect to the bulk and dimensional standards required by ECDC Title 16.
As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn-arounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street will be evaluated based on the parent lot’s compliance with such requirements, and not based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards.
E. Future Additions and Modifications. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable development standards. Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed.
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 4/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
F. Homeowners’ Association Ownership of Common Areas. Any commonly used areas or facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and maintained by a homeowners’ association with the right to assess the individual unit lot owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation regarding the rights of the homeowners association must be submitted for recording with the final plat.
G. Maintenance Agreements for Building Exteriors. Maintenance agreements must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. The maintenance agreement must require equal participation by all owners within any one building and must be recorded on the final unit lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes.
H. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat.
I. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot must be noted on the final plat.
J. An application for final unit lot plat will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record.
K. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are processed and reviewed as short subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 20.01 ECDC and the requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment – Application. A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division.
B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will:
1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before;
3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone;
4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC.
D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the city and shall at a minimum contain the following information:
1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the plans shall include the following:
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 5/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s);
b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements;
c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements;
d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements);
e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s);
f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and
g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet.
2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing:
a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted;
b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in the parcel(s);
c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and reference by auditor’s file number and/or recording number;
d. Any encumbrances on the property; and
e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property.
E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable cause.
G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 63, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 1998].
20.75.055 Lot combination. A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, or nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this code in effect at the time of said combination.
B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments.
C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director finds that the combination of lots would:
1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or
2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city’s comprehensive plan. The director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined, negatively impact compliance with the city’s urban density requirements as established pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish County planning policies.
D. The director’s decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director’s decision within 10 working days of mailing of the decision and posting
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 6/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000].
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by-11-inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat:
A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision;
B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision;
C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map;
D. A vicinity sketch;
E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number;
F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot;
G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any;
H. Lot dimensions and numbers;
I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site;
J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the owners of adjacent property;
K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the community development services director. Ten-foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision;
L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights-of-way, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of existing and proposed streets;
M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any;
N. The location of tree-covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning development services director;
O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to be removed;
P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas;
Q. A statement of improvements to be installed;
R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and areas subject to flooding;
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 7/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division;
T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the proposed subdivision;
U. Other information that may be required by the community development services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.].
20.75.065 Preliminary review. A. Responsibility for Review. The community development services director, or a designated planning staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise.
B. Notice of Hearing.
1. When the director of community development services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the following for a formal subdivision:
a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days prior to the hearing.
b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the city’s boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city.
c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city-county boundary.
d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to a state highway right-of-way.
e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a location description in nonlegal language.
C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of filing.
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type III-A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
E. Short Subdivisions – Staff Review. The director of community development services shall review a short subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision – Notice required).
F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the community development services director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 1983].
20.75.070 Formal subdivision – Time limit. The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included within said 90 days. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010].
20.75.075 Modifications. A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the requested modification.
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 8/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant’s proposed subdivision will be considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification.
C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 6, 1998].
20.75.080 General findings. A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved:
A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter.
B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest.
C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter.
D. Floodplain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2466, 1984].
20.75.085 Review criteria. The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as floodplains, steep slopes or unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with subsections (A)(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off-site impacts on drainage, views and so forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 9/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use.
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from the planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of:
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. Chapter 19.25 ECDC, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community development services director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision, from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20.
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC 248-96-090 are met.
E. Floodplain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998; Ord. 2466, 1984].
20.75.090 Park land dedication. A. Dedication or In-Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final plat of any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in-lieu of dedication, or do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes.
B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion of the land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in-lieu fees is required unless dedication is proposed and approved.
C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision.
D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of adjacent land.
E. In-Lieu Fee. In-lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 10/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval – Time limit. A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing examiner is appealed to the Edmonds city council and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the city council or judiciary.
B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven five years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2014, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. The time period for short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3925 § 1, 2013].
20.75.105 Extensions of time. Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983].
20.75.107 Preliminary approval – Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. Short plats that received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006, and would have expired prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall have their preliminary approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section. Preliminary approval of such short plats shall expire and have no further validity at the end of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. Notice of the two-year extension from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be provided to the parties of record of such preliminary short plats. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3925 § 2, 2013].
20.75.110 Changes. A. Preliminary Plats. The community development services director may approve as a Type II decision (Staff decision – Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of approval. If the proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of correction. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009].
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval, allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval.
B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a licensed engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines that engineer plans are not necessary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.130 Installation of improvements. A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Completion – Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the final plat is submitted for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to guarantee the completion of
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 11/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
the improvements within one year of the approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC.
C. Acceptance – Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two years from the date of acceptance.
D. Short Subdivision – Deferred Installation. If the community development services director determines that installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots created by the subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance with the following:
A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or supervise the preparation of, the final plat.
B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s).
C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners, boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land, and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public works director.
D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.140 Final plat – Required certificates. The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections (A) through (G) of this section shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review. Subsection (G) of this section is required for formal subdivision only.
A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with:
1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision;
2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed;
3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided.
B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they have notice of the subdivision.
C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public, acknowledged by a notary.
D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required improvements.
E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner of direct access to any street from any property.
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 12/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be dedicated to the public.
G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate.
H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works:
1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights-of-way, design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures; and approving the final plat or short subdivision.
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council, or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
I. Community Development Services Director. The following statements to be signed by the community development director:
1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of the preliminary approval; and approving the final plat or shore subdivision.
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
J. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and city clerk that the city council has approved the final plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedication.
K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments for which the land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been paid. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.145 Final plat – Accompanying material. The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat:
A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each check or recheck of the final plat.
B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or reestablished corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet.
C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and shown on the final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner’s certificate. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.150 Waiver of survey. The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines.
If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998].
20.75.155 Review of final plat. A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required improvement plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works.
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 13/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for correction within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include required environmental review.
C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community development services director shall conduct an administrative review the final plat of a formal subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the Snohomish County superior court. They shall then forward the final plat to the city council for a Type IV-A decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140 or attaching their recommendation for disapproval.
D. City Council Review. If the city council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval in this chapter have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall sign the statement of the city council approval on the final plat.
ED. Acceptance of Dedication. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the formal subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the formal subdivision. City council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994].
20.75.158 Short plat – Staff review. The community services director, through his/her designees, tThe director of public works and the community development services director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the Snohomish County superior court hearing examiner as a Type II decision under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 68, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994].
20.75.160 Final plat – Filing for record. The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor and the community development department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered “approved” until so filed with the county auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.165 Effect of rezones. The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the purposes allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat for record, even if the property is rezoned; provided, that all requirements of the community development code, other than lot area, are met. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.170 Further division – Short subdivisions. A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the requirements of this chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2623 § 1, 1987].
20.75.175 Court review. Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of Snohomish County. The action may be brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 14/14
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
cost of transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless: (1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not meet the definition for “lot of record” in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall comply with the city’s development regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding nonconforming lots.
A. “Lot of Record” Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain “lot of record” status for a parcel that does not meet the “lot of record” definition. To obtain this status, the applicant must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that:
1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in question. If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the innocent purchase status may not be granted;
2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm’s length transaction;
3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative;
4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject parcel as a separate lot; and
5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the applicant.
B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already been constructed.
C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and “lot of record” status shall be recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3982 § 3, 2014].
20.75.185 Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney’s fees. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
7.2.f
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Exhibit 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 1/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
16.20.050 Site development standards – Accessory buildings.
A. General. Accessory buildings and structures shall meet all of the standards of ECDC 16.20.030 except as
specifically provided in this section.
B. Height. Height shall be limited to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting antennas and their supporting
structures. Garages or other accessory buildings attached by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection to the
main building which results in a separation exceeding 10 feet in length may not exceed the 15-foot height limit. The
separation shall be determined by the minimum distance between the outside walls of the main building and
accessory building, exclusive of the connecting structure.
C. Rear Setbacks. The normally required rear setback may be reduced to a minimum of five feet for accessory
buildings covering less than 600 square feet of the site.
D. Satellite Television Antenna. A satellite television antenna which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in
diameter shall comply with the following regulations:
1. General. Satellite television antennas must be installed and maintained in compliance with the Uniform
Building and Electrical Codes as the same exist or are hereafter amended. A building permit shall be required
in order to install any such device.
2. Setbacks. In all zones subject to the provisions contained herein, a satellite television antenna shall be
located only in the rear yard of any lot. In the event that no usable satellite signal can be obtained in the rear lot
location or in the event that no rear lot exists as in the case of a corner lot, satellite television antennas shall
then be located in the side yard. In the event that a usable satellite signal cannot be obtained in either the rear or
side yard, then a roof-mounted location may be approved by the staff; provided, however, that any roof-
mounted satellite antenna shall be in a color calculated to blend in with existing roof materials and, in the case
of a parabolic, spherical or dish antenna, shall not exceed nine feet in diameter unless otherwise provided for by
this section. In no event shall any roof-mounted satellite television antenna exceed the maximum height
limitations established by this section.
3. Aesthetic. Satellite television antennas shall be finished in a nongarish, nonreflective color and surface which
shall blend into their surroundings. In the case of a parabolic, spherical or dish antenna, said antenna shall be of
a mesh construction. No commercial advertising of any kind shall be displayed on the satellite television
antenna.
4. Size and Height. Maximum size for a ground-mounted parabolic, spherical or dish antenna shall be 12 feet in
diameter. No ground-mounted antenna shall be greater than 15 feet in height unless otherwise approved for
waiver as herein provided. The height of roof-mounted satellite television antennas shall not exceed the lesser
of the height of the antenna when mounted on a standard base provided by the manufacturer or installer for
ordinary operation of the antenna or the height limitation provided by the zoning code.
5. Number. Only one satellite television antenna shall be permitted on any residential lot or parcel of land. In
no case shall a satellite television antenna be permitted to be placed on wheels or attached to a portable device
for the purpose of relocating the entire antenna on the property in order to circumvent the intentions of this
section.
E. Amateur Radio Antennas.
1. The following applications for the following approvals shall be processed as a Type II development project
permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC):
a. Requests to utilize an amateur radio antenna dish which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in
diameter;
b. Requests to utilize an antenna which:
i. Would be greater than 12 feet in height above the principal building on a site. The height of the
antenna shall be determined by reference to the highest point of the roof of the principal building,
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 2/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
exclusive of the chimney or other roof-mounted equipment. The request to locate a 12-foot antenna on
a building is limited to buildings whose height conforms to the highest limit of the zone in which the
building is located.
ii. Would exceed the height limit of the zone when mounted on the ground or on any accessory
structure (see subsection (E)(2)(d) of this section).
2. The application shall comply with the following regulations:
a. Definition. “Amateur radio antenna” means an antenna, or any combination of a mast or tower plus an
attached or mounted antenna, which transmits noncommercial communication signals and is utilized by an
operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Guy wires for amateur radio antennas are
considered part of the structure for the purpose of meeting development standards.
b. General. Amateur radio antennas must be installed and maintained in compliance with the Uniform
Building and Electrical Codes, as the same exist or are hereafter amended. A building permit shall be
required to install an amateur radio antenna.
c. Location. Amateur radio antennas may be ground- or roof-mounted, however, these devices shall:
i. Be located and constructed in such a manner as to reasonably ensure that, in its fully extended
position, it will not fall in or onto adjoining properties;
ii. Not be located within any required setback area; and
iii. Be retracted in inclement weather posing a hazard to the antenna.
d. Height. The height of a ground-mounted tower or roof-top antenna may not exceed the greater of the
height limit applicable to the zone or 65 feet when extended by a telescoping or crank-up mechanism
unless an applicant obtains a waiver (see subsection (F) of this section).
i. Only telescoping towers may exceed the height limits established by subsection (E)(1)(b) of this
section. Such towers shall comply with the height limit within the applicable zone and may only
exceed the height limit of the applicable zone and/or 65-foot height limit when extended and operating
and if a waiver has been granted.
ii. An antenna located on a nonconforming building or structure which exceeds the height limit of the
zone in which it is located shall be limited to height limit of the zone plus 12 feet.
e. Aesthetic. To the extent technically feasible and in compliance with safety regulations, specific paint
colors may be required to allow the tower to blend better with its setting.
F. Technological Impracticality – Request for Waiver.
1. The owner, licensee or adjacent property owner may apply for a waiver if:
a. Strict application of the provisions of this zoning code would make it impossible for the owner of a
satellite television antenna to receive a usable satellite signal;
b. Strict application of the provisions of this zoning code would make it impossible for the holder of any
amateur radio license to enjoy the full benefits of an FCC license or FCC protected right; or
c. An adjacent property owner or holder of an FCC license or right believes that alternatives exist which
are less burdensome to adjacent property owners.
2. The request for waiver shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner as a Type III-A decision and may be
granted upon a finding that one of the following sets of criteria have been met:
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 3/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
a. Technological Impracticality.
i. Actual compliance with the existing provisions of the city’s zoning ordinance would prevent the
satellite television antenna from receiving a usable satellite signal or prevent an individual from
exercising the rights granted to him or her by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by
license, law or FCC regulation; or
ii. The alternatives proposed by the property owner or licensee constitute the minimum necessary to
permit acquisition of a usable satellite signal by a satellite television antenna or to exercise the rights
granted pursuant to a valid FCC license, law or FCC regulation.
b. Less Burdensome Alternatives. The hearing examiner is also authorized to consider the application of
adjacent property owners for a waiver consistent with the provisions of subsection (F)(1)(c) of this section
without the requirement of a finding that a usable satellite signal cannot be acquired when the applicant or
adjacent property owner(s) establish that the alternatives proposed by the applicant are less burdensome to
the adjacent property owners than the requirements which would otherwise be imposed under this section.
For example, adjacent property owners may request alternative or additional screening or the relocation of
the antenna on the licensee’s property. In the interactive process described in subsection (F)(3) of this
section, the hearing examiner shall attempt to balance the impact of the tower on the views of adjacent
properties, as well as the impacts of alternative screening and relocation in order to equitably distribute
any negative impacts among the neighbors while imposing reasonable conditions on the antenna, its
location and screening that do not impair the rights granted by the FCC to the licensee.
3. The process shall be an interactive one in which the hearing examiner works with the licensee to craft
conditions which place the minimum possible burden on adjacent property owners while permitting the owner
of the satellite antenna or holder of an amateur radio license to fully exercise the rights which he or she has
been granted by federal law. For example, the number of antennas and size of the array shall be no greater than
that necessary to enjoy full use of the FCC license. Conditions may include but are not limited to requirements
for screening and landscaping, review of the color, reflectivity and mass of the proposed satellite television
antenna or amateur radio facilities, and other reasonable restrictions. Any restriction shall be consistent with the
intent of the city council that a waiver to the antenna owner be granted only when necessary to permit the
satellite television antenna to acquire usable satellite signal or to allow the licensee to exercise the rights
granted by Federal Communications Commission license after consideration of aesthetic harmony of the
community. The process employed should involve the interaction of the licensee or owner and the
neighborhood. Certain issues have been preempted by federal law and shall not be considered by the hearing
examiner. Such issues include, but are not limited to, the impacts of electromagnetic radiation, the potential
interference of the amateur radio facility with electronic devices in the neighborhood and any other matter
preempted by federal law or regulation. Impact on view and on the values of neighboring properties may be
considered in imposing reasonable conditions but shall not be a basis for denial of a permit to construct the
antenna.
4. The application fee and notification for consideration of the waiver by an owner of a satellite television
antenna shall be the same as that provided for processing a variance. No fee shall be charged to the holder of a
valid FCC amateur radio license.
5. In the event that an applicant for waiver is also obligated to undergo architectural design review, the
architectural design board shall defer any issues relating to the antenna and/or other amateur radio equipment to
the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may, at his or her discretion, request the architectural design board
review and comment regarding required screening and landscaping and its integration into sight and
landscaping plans. No additional fee shall be required of the applicant upon such referral.
G. The provisions of subsections (D), (E) and (F) of this section shall be interpreted in accordance with the
regulations of the Federal Communications Commission including but not limited to PRB-1. In the event of
ambiguity or conflict with any of the apparent provisions of this section, the provisions of federal regulations shall
control. [Ord. 3736 §§ 8, 9, 2009; Ord. 3728 § 3, 2009; Ord. 3547 § 1, 2005].
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 4/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
17.00.030 Application of regulations.
A. Code Compliance Required. All land in the city shall be used, and all buildings shall be built, structurally altered,
or moved onto a site, only in compliance with all regulations of this zoning ordinance.
B. Setbacks – Density.
1. Any setback, yard, minimum lot size, or open space required by this zoning ordinance for one use may not
be used to meet minimum requirements of this zoning ordinance for any other use.
2. When an existing lot is subdivided, or is the subject of a lot line adjustment, the new lot lines will not make
any existing improvements nonconforming to the regulations of this zoning ordinance.
C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency
shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a
location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the
action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council.
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
G. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely
for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without
regard to the limitations of subsections (B), (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are
met:
1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original building or structure.
“Footprint” shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane parallel to the ground in which
the existing building could be placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar features; and
provided, that the new footprint of the building or structure shall not be expanded by more than 10 percent and
is found by the city staff to be substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with
current codes.
2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No
nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use under state
law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or
reconstruction.
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming
accessory buildings or structures.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it
is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style and structure after
complying with current codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff
decision., except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the ADB rather than to the hearing examiner.
The decision of the ADB hearing examiner shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC
20.07.00620.06.160.
17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units.
A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which registered with the city during the registration period
which ended October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal nonconforming detached and attached
accessory dwelling units (ADU). Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is defined in Chapter 20.21 ECDC.
B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU shall enjoy all the protections and privileges afforded
to a nonconforming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020; provided, however, that such ADU shall be
subject to the permit review requirement of ECDC 20.100.040 to the end that the city council reserves the right to
impose additional conditions on the continued use and occupancy of the formerly illegal ADU if it is found to
constitute a nuisance or present a hazardous condition, or to revoke such registration and permit if a nuisance or
hazardous condition relating to the ADU is not abated.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 5/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit certificate confirming such status and listing the physical
dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be continued in accordance with such permit certificate;
provided, however, that the registration and permit of a formerly illegal ADU may be revoked and/or conditioned in
accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20.100.040.
D. Failure to register a structure within the time period established by the provisions of this section shall be
considered to be presumptive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject to abatement. The owner of such
structure may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent evidence which
establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was
permitted by Snohomish County or the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete
compliance with the applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the dates such construction
was initiated and was completed. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.75.020 Outdoor dining – Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit.
Outdoor dining not meeting the requirements of ECDC 17.75.010 shall be a secondary use requiring a conditional
use permit within the zones stated in ECDC 17.75.010(A). This use shall be established and maintained only in
accordance with the terms of a conditional use permit approved by the hearing examiner as a Type III-A decision
under the procedural requirements contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a minimum, the conditions considered for
imposition by the hearing examiner may include a restriction on operating hours, location of the outdoor seating,
and/or buffering of the noise and visual impacts related to the outdoor dining seating. All seating permitted pursuant
to the conditional use permit shall be located outside of public rights-of-way. If outdoor seating is approved under
these provisions, no additional parking stalls shall be required for the outdoor dining. [Ord. 3871 § 1 (Att. A), 2012;
Ord. 3783 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 19, 2009; Ord. 3628 § 4, 2007; Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000].
17.100.030 Conditional use permits (CUP) – Community churches and schools requiring a CUP.
A. All new churches and schools and any nonconforming church or school whose review has been triggered
pursuant to ECDC 17.40.050 shall register with the staff on a form developed for its use. The staff shall determine
which churches qualify as neighborhood churches; churches failing to register shall be presumed to be community
churches.
B. Decisions to approve, condition, or deny a CUP; to review a CUP; or decline to renew a CUP shall be a Type III-
A decision. [Ord. 3783 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 23, 2009; Ord. 3353 § 12, 2001].
19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments.
I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read:
1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after
issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.025I(2).
2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be
extended, unless they are associated with a primary building permit for a larger construction
project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit:
Demolition permits;
Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC;
Mechanical permits;
Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits;
Grading, excavation and fill permits;
Water service line permits;
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 6/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Plumbing permits;
Gas piping permits;
Deck and dock permits;
Fence permits;
Re-roof permits;
Retaining wall permits;
Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits;
Sign permits;
Shoring permits;
Foundation permits.
3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for
an additional year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection
conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended.
Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend
the permit.
4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period
of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year expiration, an
extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress
inspection conducted by the city building inspector after the previous extension, the permit
shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building
permit fee to extend the permit.
5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three
(3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit
issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required,
with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior
permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an appeal is
filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC
20.07.00420.06.040 the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed
until final decision.
6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that
modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred
since the original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would
significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of
a new permit.
20.05.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review and decide on conditional use permit applications as Type III-A
decisions as set forth in ECDC 20.01.003.
B. Appeals. Appeals shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 7/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit or, if no building permit is required, substantially
commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be
null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration date.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for any extension of time shall be reviewed by the community
development director as a Type II decision.
E. Location. A conditional use permit applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be
transferred to any other property.
F. Denial. A conditional use permit application may be denied if the proposal cannot be conditioned so that the
required findings can be made. [Ord. 3783 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 37, 2009; Ord. 2270 § 1,
1982].
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
A development agreement is a Type IV development project permit application and shall be processed in accordance
with the procedures established in this title. A development agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city
council after a public hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.11.010 Review procedure – General design review.
A. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold
determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). All other developments may be approved by staff
as a Type I decision. When design review is required by the ADB, proposed development shall be processed as a
Type III-B decision. The role of the ADB shall be dependent upon the nature of the application as follows:
1. The ADB shall conduct a public hearing for the following types of applications:
a. Applications that are not consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B).
b. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which the ADB serves as
the sole decision-making authority.
c. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which all decision-making
authority is exercised both by staff, pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, and by the ADB.
The ADB shall act in the place of the staff for these types of applications.
2. The ADB shall review proposed developments at public meetings without a public hearing and make
recommendations to the hearing examiner to approve, conditionally approve, or deny proposals for
developments that, although consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B), are not subject to a public
hearing by the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section. The hearing examiner shall subsequently hold a
public hearing on the proposal.
3. The ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this
section shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal. The ADB or hearing examiner may continue
its public hearing on the proposal to allow changes to the proposal, or to obtain information needed to properly
review the proposal. See ECC 3.13.090 regarding exemptions from review required by this chapter.
4. Notwithstanding any contrary requirement, for a development in which the city is the applicant, the action of
the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this
section shall be a recommendation to the city council.
B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall only be required for applications that are
subject to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be provided
in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 39, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007].
20.12.010 Applicability.
The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 8/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
developments may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When
design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III-B
decision. [Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.11.040 Appeals.
All design review decisions of the hearing examiner or the ADB are appealable to superior court in accordance with
Chapter 36.70C RCW. appealable to the city council as provided in Chapter 20.07ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 40, 2009;
Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007].
20.12.080 Appeals.
A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in
accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.appealable to the city council as provided in Chapter 20.07 ECDC. These are
the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable.
B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable appealable to superior court in accordance
with Chapter 36.70C RCW.to the city council as provided in Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that
the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC.
Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.16.110 Reconsideration and appeal.
Reconsideration of the hearing examiner’s ruling shall be governed by ECDC 20.06.010150. The decision of the
hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.Appeal of the hearing
examiner’s ruling shall be governed by Chapter 20.07 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 48, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord.
3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.130 Building permit application.
A. Any building permit for an EPF approved under this chapter shall comply with all conditions of approval in the
conditional use permit. In the event a building permit for an EPF is denied, suspended or revoked due to a failure to
comply, the department shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project sponsor.
B. No construction permits may be applied for prior to conditional use approval of the EPF unless the applicant
signs a written release acknowledging that such approval is neither guaranteed nor implied by the department’s
acceptance of the construction permit applications. The applicant shall expressly accept all financial risk associated
with preparing and submitting construction plans before the final decision is made under this chapter.
C. Building permits for an EPF which fail to comply with the conditions of approval shall be suspended and a report
made to the director. The director shall institute a proceeding before the hearing examiner to permit the EPF’s
sponsor a hearing at which to show cause why its conditional use permit should not be revoked or further
conditioned. Such hearing shall be conducted as if it were a Type III-A decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06
ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 49, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.35.080 Review process.
A. An application for a PRD has two stages. The first stage, the preliminary PRD, includes the following:
1. Pre-Application Staff Review. The preliminary plans of the proposal shall be submitted to the planning
manager for review and comment. This provides an opportunity for the developer to work with the city staff to
design a total plan which best meets the goals of the city and the needs of the developer. Such potential
problems as drainage, topography, circulation, site design and neighborhood impact should be identified and
addressed before the proposal is submitted for formal review.
2. Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant shall host a public pre-application neighborhood
meeting to discuss and receive public comment on the conceptual proposal. The applicant shall provide notice
of this meeting to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site by depositing written notice in the U.S.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 9/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Mail postage paid at least 14 calendar days in advance of the meeting to all persons and entities shown as
having an ownership interest in the land records of Snohomish County. An affidavit of mailing shall be
provided to the city by the applicant attaching its mailing list.
While this meeting will allow immediate public response to the proposal in its conceptual form, comments
submitted during this meeting are not binding to the applicant or staff. However, staff may make general
recommendations to the applicant as part of the formal application based on the input from this meeting to the
extent that said comments are consistent with the adopted provisions of the Edmonds Community Development
Code and the comprehensive plan. As a courtesy, the applicant shall provide summary minutes of the meeting
to all of those in attendance within two weeks of the date of the meeting.
3. Review by the Architectural Design Board. The design board will review the project for compliance with the
urban design guidelines, landscaping, and/or the single-family design criteria in ECDC 20.35.060 and forward
their recommendation of the site and building design on to the hearing examiner for his consideration. Their
review will be at one of their regularly scheduled meetings, but will not include a public hearing or the ability
for the public to comment on the project.
4. The Public Hearing with the Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner shall review the proposed PRD for
compliance with this section as a Type III-B decision.
If, after all appeals are exhausted, the proposal is denied, a similar plan for the site may not be submitted to the
development services department for one year. A new plan which varies substantially from the denied proposal,
as determined by the development services director, or one that satisfies the objections stated by the final
decision-maker may be submitted at any time.
An applicant who intends to subdivide the land for sale as part of the project shall obtain subdivision approval
in accordance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC before any building permit or authorization to begin construction is
issued, and before sale of any portion of the property. The preferred method is for the applicant to process the
subdivision application concurrently with the planned residential development proposal.
B. The second stage of the PRD process, the final PRD, consists of the city’s review of the final plans for
consistency with the preliminary PRD as approved. The decision at this stage will be made by city staff unless the
final PRD is submitted as a consolidated application with a permit that requires city council review, i.e., a formal
subdivision plat. The final PRD will be subject to the following review:
1. The applicant shall submit the final development plan to the development services director, conforming to
the preliminary plan as approved, and all applicable conditions of that approval. The planning manager shall
review the plan along with the city engineer and make a final decision. The plan shall contain final, precise
drawings of all the information required by ECDC 20.35.030. The applicant shall also submit all covenants,
homeowners’ association papers, maintenance agreements, and other relevant legal documents.
2. If city staff finds that the final development plan conforms to the preliminary approval, and to all applicable
conditions, staff shall approve the plan and its accompanying conditions as a covenant which touches and
concerns the subject property, incorporating by reference all maps, drawings and exhibits required to specify
the precise land use authorized. A file shall be maintained by the development services department containing
all maps and other documents or exhibits referred to in the approval. The approval shall also contain a legal
description of the boundary of the proposal. The covenant shall be recorded with the county auditor if no
subdivision plat is to be recorded.
3. The provisions of approval shall be restrictions on the development of the site. Revocation of approval or
abandonment as provided in this chapter shall eliminate all requirements imposed under the planned residential
development plan, such as alternative bulk development standards, and shall cause the old underlying bulk
development standards to be in full force and effect. [Ord. 3822 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 3, 2010; Ord. 3465 § 1,
2003].
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 10/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
20.45.050 Review of changes to Edmonds register of historic places properties.
A. Review Required. No person shall change the use, construct any new building or structure, or reconstruct, alter,
restore, remodel, repair, move or demolish any existing property on the Edmonds register of historic places or within
a historic district on the Edmonds register of historic places without review by the commission and without receipt
of a certificate of appropriateness, or in the case of demolition, a waiver, as a result of the review.
The review shall apply to all features of the property, interior and exterior, that contribute to its designation and are
listed on the nomination form. Information required by the commission to review the proposed changes are
established in rules.
B. Exemptions. The following activities do not require a certificate of appropriateness or review by the commission:
ordinary repair and maintenance which includes painting or emergency measures defined in ECDC 20.45.000 (K).
C. Review Process.
1. Requests for Review and Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness or Waiver. The building or zoning
official shall report any application for a permit to work on a designated Edmonds register property or in an
Edmonds register historic district to the commission. If the activity is not exempt from review, the commission
shall notify the applicant of the review requirements. The building or zoning official shall not issue any such
permit until a certificate of appropriateness or a waiver is received from the commission but shall work with the
commission in considering building and fire code requirements.
2. Commission Review. The owner or his/her agent (architect, contractor, lessee, etc.) shall apply to the
commission for a review of proposed changes on an Edmonds register property and request a certificate of
appropriateness or, in the case of demolition, a waiver. Each application for review of proposed changes shall
be accompanied by such information as is required by the commission established in its rules for the proper
review of the proposed project.
The commission shall meet with the applicant and review the proposed work according to the design review criteria
established in rules. Unless legally required, there shall be no notice, posting or publication requirements for action
on the application, but all such actions shall be made at regular meetings of the commission. The commission shall
complete its review and make its recommendations within 30 days of the date of receipt of the application. If the
commission is unable to process the request, the commission may ask for an extension of time.
The commission’s recommendations shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon in
reaching its decision. Any conditions agreed to by the applicant in this review process shall become conditions of
approval of the permits granted. If the owner agrees to the commission’s recommendations, a certificate of
appropriateness shall be awarded by the commission according to standards established in the commission’s rules.
The commission’s recommendations and, if awarded, the certificate of appropriateness, shall be transmitted to the
building or zoning official. If a certificate of appropriateness is awarded, the building or zoning official may then
issue the permit.
3. Demolition. A waiver of the certificate of appropriateness is required before a permit may be issued to allow
whole or partial demolition of a designated Edmonds register property or in an Edmonds register historical
district. The owner or his/her agent shall apply to the commission for a review of the proposed demolition and
request a waiver. The applicant shall meet with the commission in an attempt to find alternatives to demolition.
These negotiations may last no longer than 45 days from the initial meeting of the commission, unless either
party requests an extension. If no request for an extension is made and no alternative to demolition has been
agreed to, the commission shall act and advise the official in charge of issuing a demolition permit of the
commission’s decision on the waiver of a certificate of appropriateness. Conditions in the case of granting a
demolition permit may include allowing the commission up to 45 additional days to develop alternatives to
demolition. When issuing a waiver the commission may require the owner to mitigate the loss of the Edmonds
register property by means determined by the commission at the meeting. Any conditions agreed to by the
applicant in this review process shall become conditions of approval of the permits granted. After the property
is demolished, the commission shall initiate removal of the property from the register.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 11/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
4. Appeal of the Commission’s Decision on a Waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The commission’s
decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness shall be appealable to the hearing examiner
pursuant to Chapter 20.06 ECDC may be appealed to the city council within 14 calendar days. The appeal must
state the grounds upon which the appeal is based.
The appeal shall be reviewed by the council only on the records of the commission. Appeal of council’s hearing
examiner’s decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness may be appealed to superior court. [Ord.
3397 § 1, 2002].
20.50.060 Permit requirements.
A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this chapter
without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein,
the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of this title and ECDC Title 18.
B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted.
Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as shown in Table
20.50.060(B)(1). In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to
determine what permits are required for the proposed facility. The conditional use permit types referenced are
described in Chapter 20.01 ECDC.
Table 20.50.060(B)(1) – Permit Requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities
Type of Wireless Communication Facility
Permits Required
Building Permit Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) Right-of-Way Permit
Building-mounted facilities or facilities co-located on an existing
structure or monopole X X (as applicable)
New structure-mounted facilities involving structure replacement
to obtain additional height X (as applicable) X (Type II) X (as applicable)
New monopole facilities (pole complies with height requirement
of the underlying zone in ECDC Title 16) X X (as applicable)
New monopole facilities (pole exceeds maximum height of zone
in ECDC Title 16) X X (Type III-B) X (as applicable)
C. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects located on public or private property shall be
reviewed and evaluated by the director, or his designee. The director of public works or his/her designee shall
review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are located partially or fully within the city rights-of-way.
Regardless of whether the director or the director of public works or their respective designees are reviewing the
application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
D. All applications for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable
design standards by the director or his designee.
E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body with
jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.).
F. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility
which minimizes parking, landscaping or other site development standards established by the Edmonds Community
Development Code.
G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for variances under
Chapter 20.85 ECDC. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based solely on the exceptions set forth in
this chapter.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 12/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
H. Third Party Review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically based
computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the
proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and
topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the
engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The city may at its discretion require third
party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical third party review
shall be borne by the applicant.
1. The selection of the third party expert is at the discretion of the city. The third party expert review is intended
to address interference and public safety issues and be a site-specific review of engineering and technical
aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants’ methodology and
equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant.
Based on the results of the expert review, the city may require changes to the proposal. The third party review
shall address the following:
a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
c. The validity of conclusions reached;
d. The viability of other site or sites in the city for the use intended by the applicant; and
e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the city.
I. Any decision by the director or the director of public works shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a
decision by the city to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless
communication facility.
J. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the director, director of public works, or hearing
examiner without the approval of the city.
K. Co-location of additional antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered to increase the
nonconformity of the structure and is therefore allowed; provided, no increase to the height of a nonconforming
monopole is allowed. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.080 Review time frames.
A. Co-Located Facilities (Building- and Structure-Mounted).
1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building or engineering
permit, the city shall issue a final decision on the project within 90 days of the date the application is
determined to be complete. The city shall have 30 days from the date of filing to determine whether the
application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the city shall inform the applicant in writing of the
documentation needed to make the application complete. The city shall have 14 days from the receipt of the
additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. Such
decision shall be final and appealable only to superior court under the Land Use Permit Act.
2. The 90-day time period for a decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the city and the
applicant if circumstances warrant.
3. For purposes of this section, “co-located facilities” includes any of the following types of facilities:
a. Facilities that are mounted or installed on an existing monopole, building or structure; or
b. Facilities that do not involve a substantial increase in the size of a monopole. For purposes of this
section, “substantial increase in the size of a monopole” means:
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 13/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
i. The mounting of the proposed antenna on the monopole would increase the existing height of the
monopole by more than 10 percent or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation
from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater; provided, however, that
the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subsection if
necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas;
ii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than one
new equipment shelter;
iii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the
monopole that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet, or more than the width of
the monopole at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the
proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subsection if necessary to shelter the
antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the monopole via cable; or
iv. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current monopole site,
defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any
access or utility easements currently related to the site; or
c. Facilities that are a part of a distributed antenna system; provided, that the distributed antenna system
connects to an existing tower or antenna.
B. New Monopoles. Wireless communication facilities requiring a Type III-B conditional use permit shall meet the
requirements of Chapter 20.05 ECDC. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.110 New monopole facility standards.
A. New monopoles are not permitted within the city unless the applicant has demonstrated that:
1. Coverage Objective. There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will
eliminate such gap in service; and
2. Alternatives. No existing structure, building, or other feasible site or sites, or other alternative technologies
not requiring a new monopole in the city, can accommodate the applicant’s proposed wireless communication
facility; and
3. Least Intrusive. The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the
gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this
chapter, this title, and the comprehensive plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 14/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Acceptable Monopole WCF (Possible Co-Location Opportunity)
Acceptable Monopole WCF
B. All monopole facilities shall conform to the following site development standards:
1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees, existing structures
and other existing site features camouflage these facilities.
2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help conceal the
facility.
3. Equipment Enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located underground. If the
enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be underground. If there is no other choice but to
locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure
which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
4. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of
the structure which supports the antennas.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 15/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
C. Review Criteria. The hearing examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the maximum
height of the zone as a Type III-B conditional use permit (per Chapter 20.05 ECDC), and shall determine whether or
not each of the above standards is met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the Type III-B conditional use permit
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. That the monopole height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective;
2. That no existing monopoles, structures or alternative site(s) are located within the geographic area that meet
the applicant’s engineering requirements to fulfill its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical
boundaries of the city);
3. That existing monopoles or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a
sufficient height to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective;
4. That existing structures or monopoles do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant’s
proposed antenna and ancillary facilities;
5. That the applicant’s proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with antennas on the
existing monopoles or structures, or the antennas on existing structures would cause interference with the
applicant’s proposed antenna;
6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new monopole is unsuitable. Costs of
alternative technology that exceed new monopole or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the
technology unsuitable; and
7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing monopoles and structures or other sites
or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified
by a registered professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required.
D. Zoning Setback Exceptions.
1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks identified in
ECDC Title 16. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the
goal of this section of concealing such facilities from view.
2. The director or hearing examiner, depending on the type of application, may approve modifications to be
made to setbacks when:
a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain
portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the
existing setback requirements; or
b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or
c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance
from residentially zoned properties.
3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any setback required under the State
Building Code or Fire Code.
4. A request for a setback exception shall be made at the time the initial application is submitted. [Ord. 3961 §
1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.60.015 Design review procedures.
A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section,
and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all
applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application in
accordance with the policies of ECDC 20.10.000 and the standards and requirements of this chapter; provided, that
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 16/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review the application in accordance with the criteria
set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the planning manager on any sign permit application shall
be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural design board are appealable to the hearing examiner.
1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board for
the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the potential
for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety:
a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter;
b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter;
c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not
consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood.
B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed in
subsection (B)(1) of this section and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1)
of this section.
1. The ADB shall review any sign permit application that requests a modification to any of the standards
prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve modification requests that arise from one of the
following two situations:
a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two
streets, or has an unusual geometric shape or topography;
b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that
substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity.
2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria:
a. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and
proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity;
b. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by
more than 50 percent.
C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the
planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in
accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may
make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or
artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by theme,
style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing a mural
or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the city councilhearing examiner pursuant to the procedure established in
Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure quality
and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or message
expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design
or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown
area.
2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to:
a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork;
b. Minimum one-fourth-inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component;
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 17/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
c. Material/color samples;
d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight-and-one-half-inch-by-11-inch format to include a
description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements; a
schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist’s resume; and evidence of assumption of
liability by applicant or designee; and
e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the
historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated
historic district.
3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include:
a. Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no
fluorescent paints;
b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering.
Consideration should be given to anti-graffiti coating; and
c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent
structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale,
color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may
be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not
be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an
existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the
existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the
same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 4064 § 1 (Att. A), 2017; Ord. 4039
§ 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60, 2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.85.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type III-A decisions in accordance with provisions of
Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
B. Appeals. Appeals of hearing examiner decisions on variance shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in
accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.as provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or
the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before
the expiration and the city approves the application.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the community
development director as a Type II decision (Staff decision – Notice required).
E. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to
any other property. [Ord. 3783 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 70, 2009].
23.40.195 Contingent review procedure for certain types of development.
A. Scope. The procedures set forth in this section shall apply to the following types of critical area restoration
projects as allowed by ECDC 23.40.215:
1. Restoration projects involving anadromous fish streams;
2. Restoration projects involving Category I or Category II wetlands;
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 18/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
3. Restoration projects involving Category I or Category II estuarine wetlands.
B. Notice of Application. Development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section shall be processed
as a Type II application, unless the process is altered according to subsection (D) of this section. In addition to the
notice provided pursuant to ECDC Title 20, notice of application for all such development shall also be sent to the
city council by email.
C. Contingent Review Process. Development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section shall be
escalated to a Type III-A process when:
1. The city receives a request from any person for a public hearing within 14 days of the date of the notice of
application; and
2. The public hearing request is accompanied by a hearing fee in the amount of 50 percent of the difference
between the Type II and Type III-A application fee.
D. Effect of Contingent Review. When the contingent review process is triggered pursuant to subsection (C) of this
section, the project applicant shall pay the other 50 percent of the difference between the Type II and Type III-A
application fee, on top of the previously paid Type II application fee. The applicant shall pay this fee within 30 days
of notice from the city that the fee is due. If the applicant fails to pay the additional fee within the required 30-day
period, the application for the project shall be deemed withdrawn. The city shall not schedule the public hearing
until the additional fee has been paid. For these public hearings, the cost of the hearing examiner shall be borne by
the city.
E. Notice of Decision. Whether development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section is processed
as a Type II application or escalated to a Type III-A application, notice of decision shall be sent by email to the city
council in addition to any other notice that may be required by ECDC Title 20. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016].
20.100.040 Review of approved permits.
A. Scope. Any permit approved by the city under the community development code may be reviewed under this
section if the conditions of the permit are not being met, the requirements of the city code of Edmonds are not being
met, or the permitted activity is causing a nuisance or hazardous condition. A permit includes any city approval
under the community development code.
B. Initiation of Review. A review under this section may be initiated by:
1. The community development director;
2. An approved motion of the city council;
3. An application, accompanied by the application fee set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC, of three persons living in
separate dwellings located within 300 feet of the site of the allowed activity stating their belief as to how the
provisions of subsection A of this section have been met.
C. Review Procedure.
1. The director of community services shall notify the permittee in writing that the permit is being reviewed, list the
alleged deficiencies, and specify a reasonable time for the permittee to correct the deficiencies.
2. If the permittee could reasonably correct the deficiencies, but fails to do so within the specified time, the director
of community services may refer the matter to the city attorney for criminal or civil enforcement of the city code, or
the conditions of the permit.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds
Page 19/19
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
3. If the only reasonable ways to correct the deficiencies are for the permittee to cease the permitted activity, or for
the city to impose new or changed conditions on the permit, the director of community services shall refer the matter
to the hearing examiner for review.
4. The hearing examiner shall hold a public hearing under Chapter 20.91 ECDC to review the permit or approval,
using criteria required for the original permit, and subsection A of this section.
5. If the hearing examiner finds that deficiencies exist, and that they can be reasonably corrected by imposing new or
changed conditions on the permit, the permit conditions may be changed. The hearing examiner’s actions shall be
final, unless the original approval required city council approval. In that case, the hearing examiner’s action shall be
a recommendation to the council to be considered by the council under ECDC 20.100.030.
6. If the hearing examiner finds that the only reasonable way to correct the deficiencies is for the permittee to cease
the permitted activity, the hearing examiner may revoke the permit. The hearing examiner’s action shall be
appealable to the city council under ECDC 20.100.010.
7. If the permit is revoked, the permit shall be null and void, and all activity allowed by the permit shall cease. [Ord.
3112 § 29, 1996].
NEW SECTION
20.110.045 Suspension or revocation of permit.
The city shall retain the right to suspend or revoke a permit issued under this development code that fails to comply
with any conditions of approval of said permit, or which operates in a manner inconsistent with representation made
in the application. The suspension or revocation of a permit may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner under
Chapter 20.06. ECDC. Upon receipt of a timely appeal under Chapter 20.06 ECDC, suspension or revocation shall
by stayed pending decision on the appeal; provided that such a stay shall affect any stop work order issued by the
Director.
7.2.g
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Exhibit 7: Related amendments throughout ECDC (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From: Gary Nelson [garynelsonsmail@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 10,2018 5:51 PM
To: Nathan Monroe (Planning Board)
Cc: Monillas, Adrienne; Teitzel, Dave; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Nelson, Michael; Tibbott,
Neil; Mesaros, Thomas
Subject: Hearing Examiner APPeals
Mr. Chaiffnan and members of the Planning Board:
I am submitting remarks which address the Edmonds City Council Resolution
1367 and the Edmonds Development Services Staff who have submitted to the
Planning Board the issue regarding the implementation of quasi-judicial
HEARING EXAMINER APPEALS.
The proposed change in procedure would require that citizen appeals of Hearing
Examiner decisions on Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) issues (See RCW 36.70C
attached) would go to the Snohomish County Superior Court.
Currently, appeals of the Hearing Examiner decisions are submitted to and heard
by the city council. The contemplated change impacts both applicant appeals and
appeals by interveners, such as abutting property owners, neighborhood groups,
and interested citizens who wish to address Hearing Examiner decisions on land
use applications that have been approved or denied.
These are some of the imoacts to Edm 's citizens.
1. SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FILING FEES V/OULD BE
IMPOSED
FEE CATEGORY REFERENCE
$240.00 Land use Petition RCw 36.70C.040; RCW 36.18.020(2,5)
2. CITIZENS WILL REQUIRE REPRESENTATION BY AN ATTORNEY
Typically, most attorneys will charge $200.00 to $500.00 per hour for time involved.
3. THE FILED APPEAL WILL CAUSE DELAYS IN RESOLVING EACH CASE
As of August28,2017, the waiting time for a LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9
to 10 months, dependent on case loads of Superior Court Judges
4. HEARING EXAMINER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IS QUESTIONABLE
7.2.h
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Since the City Council will be bypassed and unaware of current appeals, any observations of
hearing examiner performance are lost. The hearing examiner decisions together with city staff
submissions to the examiner or the court are sheltered from oversight by the Mayor or City
Council. The yearly Hearing Examiner Report will no longer be a timely evaluation procedure
for review ofthese decisions and appeals.
5. ADDITIONAL TIME AND EXPENSES BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner decisions will require that the City of Edmonds be represented
by the City Attorney together with planning staff at the court hearing. The City Attorney will
submit additional hours for reimbursement. The staff will be diverted from their normal job
functions in preparing and appearing in court.
6. A CHANGE CREATES AN UNFRIENDLY APPEAL PROCESS
Citizens are subjected to a process where the hearing examiner can issue any ruling and an
Edmonds citizen is not allowed to present overlooked facts to the local elected offrcials.
Representation has been sabotaged by the proposed change in process. Most citizens object to
this departure from what is expected from the city council members.
It should be noted, that on November 8r2016, a ballot measure embodied as Snohomish
Counfy Charter Amendment Proposition 4, proposed this same quasi-judicial approach
such that Hearing Examiner Appeals would be submitted to the court. The results from
Edmonds residents on this measure was 57.77" NO
It is recommended that the Planning Board report to the City
Council that the current appeals process should be retained.
Submitted by: Gury Nelson, 9710 Wharf Street, Edmonds, WA 98020
425-778-8362,sarvnelson l.com
*RCV/ 36.7 0C Definitions
"(2) "Land use decision" means a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer
with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to
hear appeals, on:
7.2.h
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
(a) An application for a project permit or other goverrìmental approval required by law before
real property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used, but excluding
applications for permits or approvals to use, vacate, or transfet streets, parks, and similar types of
public property; excluding applications for legislative approvals such as area-wide rezones and
annexations; and excluding applications for business licenses;
(b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property
of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvemento development, modification,
maintenance, or use of real property; and
(c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the improvement,
development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property. However, when a local
jurisdiction is required by law to enforce the ordinances in a court of limited jurisdiction, a
petition may not be brought under this chapter.
V/here a local jurisdiction allows or requires a motion for reconsideration to the highest level
of authority making the determination, and a timely motion for reconsideration has been filed,
the land use decision occurs on the date a decision is entered on the motion for reconsideration,
and not the date of the original decision for which the motion for reconsideration was filed."
These are typical issues that would need to be filed in the Superior Court:
1. Subdivisionapplications
2. Critical area delineation
3. Zoning applications
4. Comprehensive plan designation
5. Conditional use permit
6. Special use permits such as tree removal, hydraulic permits, etc
7. Variances8. Boundary line adjustment
7.2.h
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
7.2.h
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Exhibit 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 13
Board Member Lovell pointed out that a public hearing on the draft Housing Strategy is scheduled for June 13th, followed by further Planning Board discussion on June 27th. He asked why the hearing is scheduled prior to continued Board discussion. Director Hope responded that staff felt it would be useful for the Board to hear from the public prior to their continued discussion and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, the Task Force will also provide input and recommendations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there are very few opportunities for the development of multifamily housing on either public or private land in Edmonds, particularly given the current zoning and land use regulations. He asked if more work should be done in the strategic planning portion of the strategy to zero in more on areas within City that can be appropriate for these types of development. The narrative in the plan does not speak to the fact that Edmonds is a high-income, single-family, commuting community. The Board is being asked to do something about all of this; and based on his experience, he sees an awful lot of public concern as the action items are implemented moving forward. He expressed his belief that the plan is terrific and covers everything the City could possibly do, but implementation could become mind boggling. Director Hope recalled that the idea was to identify the things the City could reasonably take on, and it does not mean that every action item will lead to implementation. The action items are intended to provide a toolbox of actions the City could consider to address housing issues. Some of the action items will be implemented at a later time via code amendments, and others will be worked out during budget discussions. For example, the City Council set aside money to work on homeless services, and the City is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability. By sharing the resources of the jurisdictions that participate in the alliance, they may be able to provide gap financing for a non-profit developer to develop lower-income housing. These developments may not be located in Edmonds but would be nearby. Again, she said these details would be worked out after the draft Housing Strategy has been adopted. Board Member Crank recalled that the City Council set aside $250,000 in 2017 to study homelessness and the potential to partner with non-profit organizations to address the problem. With the budgeting coming up in 2018, there is a possibility that if the City, via the Planning Board, does not come up with some decision on the Housing Strategy, perhaps that money will be taken away and/or reallocated somewhere else. The importance of expediting the homelessness conversation, with involvement by Cohn Consulting, is to get something going so when it is time to talk about homelessness again during the next budget cycle it does not get pulled away because there has been no movement. Director Hope said the City Council had originally intended that the Housing Strategy be done by 2019, but they have since asked staff to speed it up. The goal is to complete the project in 2018. Board Member Robles recalled that one of the Board’s suggestions was to stress “aging in place.” The solution to aging in place is also the solution to affordable housing for rebound families, separated families, low-income families, etc. He is interested to see what the community input will be towards the draft Housing Strategy given that one solution will help solve both problems. As an example of this concept, Director Hope said the City has heard from some people who are concerned about how ADUs will impact their neighborhoods, but others would really like to promote that option. These concerns could be worked out at the code level. The issue before the Board is whether or not the draft Housing Strategy provides an appropriate toolbox for the City to work from. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that when the draft Housing Strategy is presented at the public hearing, it would be helpful for staff to provide a statement of recommendation for the Board to consider. Director Hope responded that this would probably not be available at the public hearing, where the idea is to listen to the public’s concerns and ideas. However, staff could certainly provide a statement of recommendation when the Board continues its discussion on June 27th. Board Member
Rubenkonig commented that having a statement of recommendation from staff helps the Board to focus its discussion. She appreciates when this information is part of the Board’s packet. The Board took a short break at 9:25 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Board Member Crank left the meeting and did not return. PERMIT DECISION MAKING – QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien provided a broad overview of the City’s current decision-making processes and referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003, which lays out the framework for the different types of permit decisions within the City. He explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial and administrative
7.2.i
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Exhibit 9: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 14
decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial means “court like,” which implies that the proceedings must be similar to those followed by a court. If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process such as the proper notice of the hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of the facts being considered by the decision-making body (no ex-parte contacts), an impartial decision maker free from bias and conflicts of interest (appearance of fairness), and the decisions must be based on the facts of the case and not on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the ECDC that will remove quasi-judicial decision-making responsibilities from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with the resolution. He explained that, as a legislative body, the City Council Members like to be responsive to their constituents. However, when quasi-judicial matters are brought before them, they cannot discuss the issues with their constituents without creating ex-parte communications and violating the Appearance of Fairness rules. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that having the City Council sit in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma if decisions are not made based on code. A City Council Member could be held liable if for making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following:
• Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board is required, conditional use permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, home occupation permits, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential development (PRD).
• Applications (Type IV-A and IV-B): Final formal plats, final PRD, site specific rezones, and variance applications from public agencies. Mr. Lien proposed the following amendments:
• Remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Type III-B decisions would be moved to the Type III-A column and the “A” and “B” qualifiers would be removed.
Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the code for Type III and removed all of the “A” and “B” qualifiers from the text.
• Leave site-specific rezones (Type IV-B) as quasi-judicial decisions that require final approval by the City Council. Site-specific rezones are a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial. Decisions are based on criteria, but because they require a change to the zoning map, they must be passed by ordinance before the City Council.
• Modify the subdivision (ECDC 20.75) and PRD (ECDC 20.35) chapters to remove the City Council from the final approval process. Currently, preliminary formal plat and PRD decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council approves final formal subdivisions and PRDs (Type IV-A). Typically, all of the subdivision improvements have been installed prior to application for final approval, and the City Council’s final approval is simply based on whether or not all of the requirements of preliminary approval have been met. When the City Council originally adopted Resolution No. 1367, State law required the legislative body to make the final decision on formal plats. However, recently approved Senate Bill 5674 allows this legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel.
• Eliminate the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.C requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Variances are normally heard by the Hearing Examiner and decisions are based on criteria spelled out in the code for
when a variance may be granted. Currently, public agency variances require a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed record hearing. As proposed, the Hearing Examiner would make the decision on all variance applications.
• Remove ECDC 20.100.040, which is in conflict with the Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) but retain a section elsewhere in the code that allows the City to revoke a permit if the conditions of the permit are not
7.2.i
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Exhibit 9: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 15
being met. It appears that ECDC 20.100.040 was established in 1980, which is when the framework of the current ECDC was established. The Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) were passed in about 1995. The Regulatory Reform Act limits the City to one open record hearing on a decision process. Because ECDC 20.100.040 could result in an endless number of public hearings, it is in direct violation of the Regulatory Reform Act. There are also inconsistencies with LUPA and the concept of finality. As per LUPA, once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed. However, ECDC 20.100.040 opens it up to where a permit does not have finality associated with it. ECDC 20.100.040 is also inconsistent with LUPA in that it allows for collateral attack. As per LUPA, projects that were not appealed cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process.
• Combine ECDC 20.06 (Open Records Public Hearings) and 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) into a single
chapter. The titles of these two code sections do not match up with their content. For example, ECDC 20.07 has references regarding appeals, which can be open record appeals, and this tends to confuse people. The City Attorney
has also recommended additional details regarding appeal briefings before the Hearing Examiner. Appeals before the Hearing Examiner are similar to a court proceeding in that people present their cases and the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. Currently, when people file appeals to the Hearing Examiner, they are not required to spell out what their arguments will be until they are made before the Hearing Examiner. The City Attorney has recommended that a
briefing schedule for appeals should be added to this section to outline the process so that arguments are written out before an appeal goes before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said his intent is to have the specific code amendment language ready for the Board’s review on June 27th with a potential public hearing on July 25th followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell clarified that the revisions are being driven by a specific request from the City Council via Resolution No. 1367. The Board Members have all been briefed in the past about the importance of quasi-judicial proceedings, so he questioned the need to have an additional study session prior to the public hearing. Chair Monroe asked about the original intent for the “review of approved permits” clause. Mr. Lien said he searched legislative history, and it appears it was tied in with larger code updates. There is nothing specific about its history and it is not possible to identify its intent. The City Attorney drafted a memorandum relative to the issue that will be included in the next packet. The clause was adopted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act, which lays out the decision-making process, and the provision has only been used once in the 10 years he has been with the City. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the chart provided by Mr. Lien to illustrate the various decision-making processes. It is clear that many decisions will still take place and the Architectural Design Board will still be involved in quasi-judicial
decisions. The only change they are looking at per the City Council’s request is to remove them from the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien agreed that is the main intent of the proposed amendments, with a few minor cleanup items as described earlier. He confirmed that he is working closely with the City Attorney to create the appropriate code language for the proposed amendments. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendments do not represent significant changes. However, she
suggested that both charts should identify who is responsible for making the final decisions. Mr. Lien said when the amendments come back to the Board, all of the proposed language, including the updated charts, will be available. However, he explained that the tables are intended to be different. One table describes the types of decisions and the other identifies who makes the final decisions, how decisions are made, and how decisions are appealed.
The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on June 27th without an additional study session. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA There was no discussion about the extended agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
7.2.i
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Exhibit 9: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 2
review resulting in one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. However, he received an email from the DOE on July 12th, announcing new wetland guidance. He has since verified the City Council’s intent to update the wetland regulations with the most recent guidance, which requires the Board to consider additional updates. The additional updates will be presented to the Board on August 22nd, and the Board will need to hold another public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the four sections of the CAO that were part of the update to be consistent with the 2016 guidance. He explained that the new 2018 guidance pertains primarily to the buffer sections and the wetland ratings would remain nearly the same. The 2016 guidance has four sets of wetland buffers based on habitat scores, and the 2018 guidance only has three sets of buffers and the habitat scores are calculated differently. In the 2016 guidance, the lower Category 5 habitat score was not much different than the Category 3 and 4 habitat scores, so it was combined with Category 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING-QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision-making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by law. The resolution requests that the staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council code revisions that are consistent with the resolution. Mr. Lien explained that the City currently has 5 decision processes as spelled out in the table in ECDC 20.01.003:
• Type I are staff decisions with no notice and include lot line adjustments, critical area determinations, shoreline exemptions minor amendments to planned residential development (PRD), minor preliminary plat amendments and staff administrative design review.
• Type II are staff decisions with notice and include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determinations, preliminary short plats, land clearing and grading, revisions to shoreline management permits, administrative variances, and shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is not required.
• Type III are quasi-judicial decisions. Type III-A decisions include critical area variances, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is required, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required, shoreline variances, and shoreline conditional uses. Type III-A decisions are not appealable to the City Council. Type III-B decisions include outdoor dining, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is requested, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required and shoreline conditional uses and variances. Type III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council and include essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the ADB is required, conditional use permits and home occupation permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential developments (PRDs).
• Type IV are quasi-judicial decisions that are appealable to the City Council. They include final formal plats, final PRDs and site-specific rezones.
• Type V are legislative decisions that include development agreements, zoning text amendments, area-wide zoning map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations and development regulations. Mr. Lien explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial decisions have stricter procedural requirements that include proper notice of hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of all facts being considered by the decision-making body, impartial decision makers free from bias and conflicts of interest, and decisions that are based on the facts of the case rather than on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien reviewed that during the City Council’s discussions relative to Resolution No. 1367, Councilmembers voiced frustration with the ex-parte contact prohibitions and concern about potential liability issues. They asked the staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward revisions to the code that would remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decision-making
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 3
making responsibility. Some code changes have already been implemented since adoption of the resolution. For example, the City Council was removed from the appeal process for decisions related to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He reviewed the current proposal as follows:
• The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would be modified by changing all Type III-B decisions that were appealable to the City Council to Type III-A decisions that are appealable to Superior Court and not the City Council. The Type III-B decision process would then be eliminated.
• The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would also be modified to make development agreements, which are currently listed as Type V legislative decisions, Type IV quasi-judicial decisions. As proposed the process for development agreements would be similar to the process for site-specific rezones.
• A number of amendments are proposed to update existing code language to be consistent with the changes proposed in Table 20.01.003. These changes were identified via an electronic search of the entire code.
• The proposal would move final plat approval for subdivisions and PRDs from being Type IV-A quasi-judicial decisions before the City Council to being Type I administrative decisions. Subdivisions and PRDs require a multi-step process that starts with preliminary plat approval by the Hearing Examiner who may identify a number of conditions. The next step is civil design and infrastructure work. By the time final plats and PRDs get to the City Council for final approval, all of the preliminary requirements have been met and often all of the improvements have been installed and there is very little the City Council can do to affect change. Consistent with recent Senate Bill
5674, which allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel, proposed amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would remove the City Council from the final approval process.
• An additional change would be made to ECDC 20.75 to update the approval time periods. During the recent economic downturn, changes were made to extend the approval period for final and preliminary plats. However, this provision has expired and will be removed.
• All references in the code to Community Development Director will be changed to Community Services Director.
• ECDC 17.00.030.C would be amended by eliminating the sentence that requires the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Currently, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed-record hearing and makes the final decision. This amendment would take the City Council out of this quasi-judicial process.
• ECDC 20.100.040 is currently a problematic code section that is likely noncompliant with State law. It allows a property owner within a certain distance of a subject property to request that the permit be opened up again once it
has been approved. Essentially, the provision could result in endless public hearings and was drafted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, which limits the number of open record hearings to just one. The provision also runs
counter to the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70A), which states that once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed even if it did not comply with
permitting criteria when approved. It also prohibits projects from being collaterally attacked through other administrative permit review processes. Given these legal ramifications, staff is recommending that the provisions be
deleted. However, to ensure that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) would be
added.
• There is confusion between Open Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.06) versus Closed Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.07). Currently, appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decisions are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. The proposal is to combine the two sections into a single chapter and provide additional details about the appeal format and procedures before the Hearing Examiner.
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 4
• ECDC 20.01.003 currently identifies the approval process for development agreements as a Type V legislative action.
The City Attorney has recommended that the approval process for development agreements be modified to a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board who would make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would hear the proposal in a closed record hearing format. Development agreements are similar to contract rezones and provide a way for the City to place more restrictive requirements on a project than the underlying zoning would allow. The development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with the
development agreement. For example, a site-specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. Therefore, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial process.
Board Member Lovell clarified that, as currently proposed, Type III decisions would require an open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said that would be true in most cases, but the ADB would participate in the design
review process for applications that require SEPA. He referred back to the Table in ECDC 20.01.003, which outlines the types of actions and their respective review processes. As proposed, all of the permits that are appealable to the City Council now would be changed to be appealable to Superior Court. The only exception would be site-specific rezones and development agreements, which would be appealable to the City Council via a closed record public hearing. Board Member Lovell asked
if the City Council would have an opportunity to negotiate with the developer about what the appropriate conditions of a development agreement might be. City Attorney Taraday described how he envisions the development agreement process moving forward, starting with him
working with the staff and applicant to craft a draft development agreement to present to the Planning Board in an open record public hearing. The Planning Board would accept testimony from the applicant and public and then forward a recommendation
to the City Council as to what the terms of the development agreement should be. Following a closed-record public hearing, the City Council can adopt the development agreement exactly as recommended by the Board or they can modify it based on their discussion. Because the City Council’s hearing would be closed record, they would not be able to solicit any new information or ask questions about things that are not already on the record. If the Board doesn’t ask the questions and get all
of the pertinent information into the record during its hearing, it cannot be added to the record at a later time as part of the Council’s review. The Planning Board would be the finders of fact for the City Council. The development agreement process
is similar to the process the City currently uses to review site-specific rezones. However, instead of voting on an ordinance to adopt a development agreement, the City Council would vote to accept or modify the terms of the development agreement that is put forward by the Planning Board.
Board Member Rosen asked if there is a financial impact associated with sending appeals to Superior Court as opposed to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday answered that judicial appeals typically cost more than administrative appeals. However,
it is important to keep in mind that not everything would remain the same. For example, taking the City Council out of the appeal process would liberate them to participate in the hearing process and to appeal decisions made by the Hearing Examiner
and ADB to Superior Court. Currently, the City Council does not have the ability to appeal Type III-B decisions because they are the body who hears the appeals. If a judicial appeal is initiated for a Type III-B decision, the appellant would have to move
the appeal forward with no help from the City. Under the proposed amendment, if the appellant and the City are aligned and have the same consensus, the City Council can appeal a Hearing Examiner decision on its own, saving the taxpayers and
citizens a lot of money and time. Essentially, the City Attorney would be responsible to appeal the decision to Superior Court. He summarized that significant changes take place when you free up the City Council to appeal its own Hearing Examiner
decisions.
Mr. Lien advised that the fee for appealing decisions to the City Council is currently $500, and City Attorney Taraday added that the fee to appeal a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) decision to Superior Court is $250. The big cost difference is related to
attorney fees, as many people do not have the ability to file appeals to Superior Court on their own. He also agreed that appellants are probably less likely to appeal actions to Superior Court than to the City Council. Mr. Lien pointed out that
appellants often hire attorneys to present their cases to the City Council, as well.
Chair Monroe recognized that Resolution No. 1367 mandates that the City Council be removed from the quasi-judicial decision-making process. He asked if staff believes the proposed amendments are the only way to implement the resolution. Mr. Lien
said he does not know of any other way to accomplish the task other than altering the processes. City Attorney Taraday agreed
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 5
that, from a high-level overview, there is no other way to accomplish the task, but the details of the process could certainly be modified, as well. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes represent what the City Council asked the staff and Planning Board to do. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed changes would take the City Council completely out of quasi-judicial decisions that are made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien responded that would be true unless the City Council opposes a decision made by the Hearing Examiner and decides to appeal to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday explained that potential liability to the City and individual Councilmembers was a significant factor in the City Council’s decision to adopt Resolution No. 1367. City Councilmembers are elected to be legislators and represent their constituents, not to be judges. It is difficult for Councilmembers, who are accustomed to being responsive to their constituents, to play the role of judge and judicially apply the code based on the record in front of them. Some are unable to fill this role, and they end up making arbitrary and capricious decisions that are not consistent with law or the record. When this occurs, the City could be subjected to millions of dollars in damages. These same risks would not be present if the City Council were to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to Superior Court. While the City may not win the appeal, the risks would be minimized. City Attorney Taraday explained that, under the current process, City Council Members are unable to participate in public hearings for quasi-judicial actions because it would disqualify them from hearing an appeal under the Appearance of Fairness rules. If they no longer have to serve in this capacity, they could feel free to be a party of record and participate in hearings to represent their constituents’ viewpoints. Vice Chair Cheung asked about the process the City Council would use to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Council would probably meet in an executive session with their attorney to discuss the Hearing Examiner decision, as well as the pros and cons of moving forward with an appeal and the likelihood the City would prevail. Ultimately, the City Council would make a legislative decision about whether to appeal or not. No public hearing would be required, but the vote would need to take place in a public meeting. Vice Chair Cheung asked if the City would be responsible to pay additional attorney fees associated with the appeal. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Attorney’s Office is retained on a flat-fee basis. They get paid the same amount every month regardless of whether there is litigation or not. Mr. Lien pointed out that the City has incurred additional attorney fees for closed record appeals to the City Council when an independent attorney must be hired to represent the City’s case while the City Attorney represents the City Council. Board Member Lovell asked how other cities have addressed this issue. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) pleads with cities to do this because it significantly reduces risk. Before the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, the Executive Director of the WCIA asked them to please consider getting out of the quasi-judicial decision-making process because of the risk it creates to the City and the public. Chair Monroe reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is not to debate the merits of Resolution No. 1367, which has already been adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the hearing is to decide if the proposed amendments are the right way to implement the resolution. Gary Nelson, Edmonds, observed that this issue has been debated by many jurisdictions for a number of years. Three months following the City Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 1367, Proposition 4 appeared on the ballot to change the charter for Snohomish County. The issue had come before the County Council twice before and was defeated both times. The results of the ballot measure in Edmonds was interesting, as 57.7% of the precincts voted no. It appears that the majority of City residents have strong feelings about what their City Council and appointed officials are responsible to do. He said he is concerned that the proposed amendments would significantly increase the cost of appealing quasi-judicial decisions. In addition to a filing fee, appellants may have to hire an attorney to assist in the appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Nelson commented that staff put a lot of thought into many of the proposed changes, and most appear to be very reasonable. However, it is not likely that the proposed changes to the quasi-judicial appeal process will be acceptable to the residents of Edmonds. While City Attorney Taraday suggests the changes will liberate the City Council and eliminate potential conflicts, most citizens of Edmonds expect their elected officials to carry on their current role and make responsible decisions regardless
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 6
of their personal opinions. They have been elected to study the facts and make decisions based on law. He is disappointed with Councilmembers who say this responsibility is too difficult, and perhaps they should consider resigning their positions. The appointed officials are very responsible and capable of providing recommendations to the City Council, but the City Council should retain the right to make the final decision. Mr. Nelson expressed his belief that the current approach for appeals is accurate and responsible and the City should simply maintain this process and table the proposed amendments. However, he would like the other proposed amendments to go forward as presented. He referred to written comments (Attachment 8) he submitted prior to the meeting, including a list of LUPA issues. He summarized that although neighbors sometimes quarrel over issues, none of the issues are so difficult that appeals to Superior Court are warranted. He said he supports the current process of a Hearing Examiner decision that is appealable to the City Council. He pointed out that appealing decisions to the Superior Court can be costly and take significantly more time. In most cases, appellants have to hire an attorney to represent their case. He encouraged the Board to consider what is in the best interest of the citizens of Edmonds. They should strive to avoid increasing the financial impacts to citizens and prolonging the process of appeals. Sending appeals to the City Council is a timely approach that works. Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Nelson’s written comments (Attachment 8), which state that RCW 36.70C defines land use decisions as “a final determination by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals.” He expressed his belief that the Hearing Examiner meets this criterion. The Hearing Examiner has the background, experience and know how to make decisions based on all the facts and City regulations, and their decisions should stand. If someone wants to appeal, they should have to go to the higher authority, which he believes is the Superior Court. He said he supports the changes as proposed. Vice Chair Cheung asked how often quasi-judicial decisions are appealed. Mr. Chave reviewed that the permit review process was originally set up in 2009 to take the City Council out of closed record appeals, but it was put back into the process in 2010. Since that time, the City Council has only heard a few appeals. Vice Chair Cheung asked if there are any other appeal options the Board could consider other than City Council or Superior Court. Mr. Lien pointed out that appeals to shoreline permits go to the Shoreline Hearings Board rather than to Superior Court, but if the Council is removed from quasi-judicial decision making, Superior Court would be the next step for all other appeals. Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the City Council is in the best position to make decisions for Edmonds. He questioned why the City Council does not want to retain this decision-making ability. He said he is a little leery of giving up the values of Edmonds into the hands of the Snohomish County court. Vice Chair Cheung said he understands that the City Council would prefer not to have to make these decisions, but the same could be said for citizens who are asked to serve on juries. He recognized that there are a lot more opportunities for ex-parte communications to occur with the current process, but these same concerns could be attributed to someone who is asked to serve on a jury. Mr. Lien explained that the amendments would not remove the City Council from the process. The City Council would still be responsible for establishing the policies and regulations that are applied to specific permits. Chair Monroe agreed but pointed out that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the role of interpreting the rules and policies. He understands why the City Council supports the change, but he is not sure it will benefit the citizens and the City. Board Member Robles cautioned that a certain balance must be made between risk and inherent risk and decisions should not be made based on monetary aspects alone. He recalled a recent rezone that came before the Planning Board. A lot of work was done by the applicant and staff, but the public was not properly notified of the proposal and were ill prepared to participate in the hearing. The developers seemed to have an advantage over the citizens and the Board was constrained by the facts and couldn’t help represent the citizen’s concerns based on the constraints of the quasi-judicial process. He asked if that is analogous to what the City Council would be faced with because they would be constrained to talk only about the facts of the proposal. City Attorney Taraday commented that the Board has more latitude in an open record public hearing than the City Council has in a closed record public hearing. The Board should never feel constrained in collecting the facts and information needed to make a recommendation.
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 7
City Attorney Taraday referred to Vice Chair Cheung’s earlier comment comparing the City Council’s role to that of a jury. He explained that for site-specific rezone applications and development agreements, the Planning Board would serve as the jury in the sense that the Board would conduct the hearing and collect testimony and evidence from witnesses. The Board gets to make factual findings based on everything they hear and see and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Hearing Examiner would play this same role in Hearing Examiner permits. Even with the current process, the City Council does not get to play that role because they are limited to the evidence collected by the Board or Hearing Examiner. He summarized that, in court, juries are not asked to make legal decisions or answer questions of law. The judge hears the legal stuff and the jury hears the factual stuff and they come together to make a decision. Currently, the City Council is frequently asked to make legal decisions when they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 25, 2018. Chair Monroe recognized that the City Council has already made the decision to remove themselves from quasi-judicial decisions via Resolution No. 1367, and the proposed amendments are intended to implement this earlier action. However, he suggested that the motion should include a recommendation that the City Council carefully consider the concerns that have been discussed by the Board before taking final action. Mr. Lien commented that the Board can recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendments or recommend changes, regardless of the Council’s direction in Resolution No. 1367. Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Lien’s earlier comment about how the monetary impact of the proposed amendments would be less if you consider the overall process and risks. The real question is if you want the City Council to be more involved in the legislative role where they are able to represent the interest of their constituents. As pointed out by Mr. Lien and City Attorney Taraday, there are struggles that any City Council will encounter when they try to work both roles because it requires them to step out of one to be in the other. Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, and that is difficult to do when they are required to act as judge on quasi-judicial decisions. This conflict of roles is at the heart of the proposed changes. Mr. Chave commented that very few appeals end up before the City Council. If there are few appeals, maybe the risk isn’t so high. On the other hand, if there are few appeals, the proposed amendments would not create a significant impact to citizens. As a staff person, he supports wanting the City Council to represent its citizens. They are most effective when they are able to develop and oversee regulations. Citizens are much better off having their voices heard during the legislative processes that establish codes and regulations. It is better for the City Council to make decisions at the rule level rather than at the end of the process trying to figure out how to not follow the rules in order to represent their constituents. Board Member Robles observed that one law of risk management is you want the entity that is best qualified to handle the risk to carry the risk. He asked what type of citizens would end up having to litigate their way back to wholeness if the amendments are adopted as proposed. In other words, he asked who would be impacted the most? Mr. Lien said it could be anyone, from major land owners to single property land owners. Everyone would be treated the same. He advised that in most of the appeals he has heard before the City Council, attorneys have been involved. Sometimes property owners pool their resources to get representation, but it is not a requirement. City Attorney Taraday said he can think of several LUPA actions (not more than 10) that have been appealed to the City Council during his tenure as City Attorney. In at least three cases the appellants were pro say. He explained that a LUPA action is on the record and appeals to Superior Court do not require witnesses or cross examination. The court simply reads the facts from a sheet of paper. The appeal decision is based on the same record that would be sent to the City Council for consideration. Board Member Robles asked how undue influence could play into a Councilmember’s decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that anyone sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is required to disclose relationships that could cause bias. A Councilmember who is strongly anti-development would not necessary be required to disclose this information but basing a decision solely on this strong bias could create liability for the City, and that is where the biggest risk lies.
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 8
Board Member Rosen said the severity of the situation appears to come from City Councilmembers who cross the line. It would help him to better understand the problems they are trying to solve. Is the problem based on exposure to risk they have encountered over the many years they have been doing quasi-judicial appeals, or were the amendments initiated based on feedback from the WCIA? Mr. Chave answered that in his tenure with the City he has seen things that concerned him in terms of how things play out at the Council level. This is not simply an academic discussion but based on real-life experiences. Board Member Rosen asked, in the scheme of risk, how does the Council’s involvement in quasi-judicial appeals compare. City Attorney Taraday said the amendments are intended to manage but not eliminate risk. In his opinion, the amendments represent a very sensible way to manage risk. Divorcing politics from the land use issues, you get a better land use application process and better policies. It is important to understand that, while the City Councilmembers may have a better sense of the values of the City than a Hearing Examiner or judge, those values are not supposed to be expressed when processing land use applications. They are supposed to be expressed when adopting code regulations. Mr. Lien referred to City Attorney Taraday’s 2016 memorandum stating that not only is it a risk to the City but individual Councilmembers could also be liable for decisions made in the quasi-judicial process. CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Monroe voiced reservations about the proposed amendment to take the Council out of the quasi-judicial decision-making process, recognizing that it is nearly impossible to write codes that developers cannot eventually find loopholes around. He said he is shocked that the City Council wants to give away this power. He believes the proposed changes will eventually be adopted by the City Council but the Board should emphasize the need for the Council to take a hard and careful look at the pros and cons before making a final decision. CHAIR MONROE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT THE BOARD ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A HARD LOOK BEFORE GIVING AWAY THIS PUBLIC TRUST. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about turning over quasi-judicial decisions to a judge who may not be as familiar with the City’s codes as the City Council. The City Councilmembers are accountable to their constituents. He understands the potential conflicts of interest but agrees the Council should carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. It is different for petitioners to stand in front of a judge who would expect them to present their appeal in a more legal manner versus speaking before the City Council. On the other hand, it sounds like appeals are not common and most people who appeal are probably more experienced and have their own counsel. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chair Monroe closed the public hearing. The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:32 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE AT 9107 AND 9111 – 236TH STREET SW FROM RS-8 TO RM-1.5 Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He reminded the Board
of the appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. He also invited Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications, and none indicated any. He asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None indicated a concern. Lastly, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Board Member’s participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. All those who planned to participate in the hearing were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give would be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report and Martin Reimers was present to represent the applicant.
7.2.j
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Exhibit 10: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2016
Page 7
session is for the Council to have confidential discussions. Taking minutes or notes may make a
Councilmember uncomfortable speaking during an executive session.
Councilmember Nelson questioned whether Resolution 853 was good policy. Although the City has been
taking minutes of executive session for 20 years, he found it enlightening that a poll of 46 cities revealed
none of them took minutes or notes. If one of the purposes was to be able to disclose minutes in the
future, yet the nature of the topics will never be disclosed due to attorney-client privilege, it creates a
false/misleading purpose. He summarized it does not make a lot of sense to be taking minutes in
executive session.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked the next step if the Council chose to rescind the resolution. Mr. Taraday
said he would prepare a resolution repealing Resolution 853 for Council consideration. Mayor Pro Tem
Johnson suggested if that resolution was scheduled for Council consideration on May 24, the public
would have an opportunity to provide input at the May 17 and 24 Council meetings. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas said two weeks would give the public an ample opportunity to speak to the Council with
regard to Resolution 853.
Councilmember Teitzel said he not oppose the notion of the public providing comment but he wanted to
ensure the public understood that the rules as they currently exist under Resolution 853 create an illusion
of openness.
Councilmember Nelson referred to Mr. Passey’s comment that the number of executive session has
increased and asked whether the majority were attorney-client privilege topics. Mr. Passey answered it
was a mixture of topics; there have been a lot of real estate matters, potential and pending litigation, a few
related to discussing the qualifications of a candidate for public office, and collective bargaining.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson requested the City Attorney draft a resolution for further discussion on May 24
and action the following week, which will provide three weeks for public testimony before any action is
taken.
7. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO CONTINUE CITY’S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING
QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the Council briefly discussed this during their retreat. He explained
quasi-judicial hearings are where the City Council sits in a judicial capacity, acting like judges. Most of
time the Council acts as legislators; as legislators the Council has a great deal of discretion and are not
bound by strict criteria or standards in making legislative decisions. The public looks to the Council as
legislators; when the public appeals to the Council, they are looking to the Council as people they vote for
that they want to represent them and reflect their values which is what a good legislator does. When the
Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity, the Council is forced to play a completely different role, acting
like a judge.
When the public comes to a courtroom, they expect a fair and impartial hearing. When Councilmembers
sit in a quasi-judicial hearing, they are expected to act in a fair and impartial manner regardless of who
may be in the audience asking for something. Sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity puts the Council in a
very difficult position, giving the illusion the Council can make whatever decision is being requested.
That is in fact an illusion because Councilmembers do not have the same discretion in a quasi-judicial
matter that they have as legislators. Councilmembers have much less discretion in a quasi-judicial hearing
because the decision must be made in a manner that is consistent with the previously adopted decision
criteria and standards in the zoning code. If those codes do not directly address the issue before the
Council or in a manner that allows the Council to grant the relief being requested, the Council may not be
able to grant that relief.
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2016
Page 8
Mr. Taraday provided a recent example, the crumb rubber issue, where some very concerned citizens
asked the Council to deny a project based on their concerns about the infill material used on those fields.
The infill was not one of the decisions before Council and ultimately a majority of the Council approved
the project but many did so reluctantly because it did not feel right. Councilmembers knew they were
doing the right thing as a judge to approve the project because it met the standards but many were unsure
about the infill material and some spoke to that from the dais. Several months later as legislators the
Council was able to adopt a temporary ban on crumb rubber.
In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi-judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested
they ask themselves if so, why? If it because they feel the Council can make better decisions than the
Hearing Examiner, that they have more expertise than the Hearing Examiner, that is a valid reason to
continue this practice so that the Council can correct the Hearing Examiner’s errors. He explained there
was another way to accomplish that, appealing the Hearing Examiner’s decision under LUPA. For
example, when the Hearing Examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with
the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a LUPA
appeal in Superior Court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council’s behalf to convince
the court that the Hearing Examiner’s decision wrong.
Mr. Taraday explained there are benefits to that process from a risk management standpoint. If he goes to
court and argues the Hearing Examiner’s decision was wrong and and the judge upholds the Hearing
Examiner’s decision, no damage claim will be filed against the City. Conversely if an appeal comes
before the Council acting as the decision maker and constituents are clamoring to overturn a Hearing
Examiner decision and the Council does so when it shouldn’t, the City could face a significant damage
claim as a result of that action. He summarized from a risk management standpoint, much of the same
thing can be accomplished by directing him to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions versus having the
Council in the position of decision-maker.
Councilmember Tibbott observed if the Council relinquishes the role of judicial reviews, the Council
could be participants in a Hearing Examiner’s review process and advocates for citizens. He found that a
powerful position and a good role for Councilmembers. He asked if it would be possible for the Hearing
Examiner to do quasi-judicial reviews on a City Council night. Mr. Taraday said the Hearing Examiner’s
regular meeting time is Thursday. If an issue was important enough, Councilmember Tibbott suggested
holding the hearing on a City Council night when citizens are more attuned to participating. Another
option would be to televise Hearing Examiner’s meeting for important topics like crumb rubber. Mr.
Taraday said Hearing Examiner meetings currently are not televised. They are held in Council Chambers
and could be televised although there would be some additional cost. Scheduling Hearing Examiner
meetings on Council nights could affect the time available for Council business meetings, which is
another reason for not having Councilmembers participate in quasi-judicial hearings. When quasi-judicial
hearings arise, they consume a significant amount of time.
Mr. Taraday explained when there is a quasi-judicial before the Council, Councilmembers are not allowed
to have any contact with proponents or opponents of that matter except for what is said at the microphone.
Councilmembers are cut off from their constituents when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. If the City
Council allowed the Hearing Examiner to hear quasi-judicial matters, Councilmembers could participate
at the Hearing Examiner meeting as a member of the public but could also have unlimited contact with
constituents on that issue and play a very different role than when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was unsure she wanted Hearing Examiner hearings on Council nights; it
is already difficult to consider all the items on the agenda. She was unsure how sitting through each
other’s meetings would benefit the Council or the Hearing Examiner. Her understanding the reason this
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2016
Page 9
was done initially was to save appellant’s money; there is no cost to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision
to the City Council. Mr. Taraday clarified there is a $500 fee to appeal a Type IIIB Hearing Examiner
decision to the City Council. He agreed there could be a cost savings for the appellant; for example, the
Hearing Examiner makes a decision, several citizens contact the Council expressing their concern with
the decision and the Council decides to appeal. That decision saves the citizens $500 because they do not
pay the appeal fee to the Council and the Council directs the City Attorney to appeal the Hearing
Examiner’s decision on the City’s behalf.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the cost to appeal to court if the Council decided not to direct the
City Attorney to appeal the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Mr. Taraday answered the filing fee in court is
less than $500 but the total cost depends on whether the appellant hires attorney or does it pro se.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled prior to this decision, the average cost for bringing an appeal
where the appellant was not representing themselves was $5,000 which is expensive for citizens. She
recognized the current process does not take into consideration the cost of staff time, Council time, etc.
She summarized the reason for having the Council hear quasi-judicial appeals was the result of citizens’
requests because it was more economical. She agreed having the Council in a quasi-judicial role shuts the
Council out of the process. She questioned why background regarding the change was not included in the
agenda packet, recalling the change was made in 2010. She suggested having more information about
why and when the change was made.
Councilmember Teitzel said his concern was the quality of the decision. Only one Councilmember is an
attorney and although he had full confidence in the intellect of Councilmembers, in some cases acting in a
quasi-judicial role requires an understanding of the relationship between the local code and state law.
Rather than having a citizen request the Council make the decision, it would be better and higher quality
to have a judge make that decision. If the Council believes an error has been made, the Council has the
ability to direct the City Attorney to file an appeal as well as provide testimony. He supported moving
away from having Council involved in quasi-judicial appeals.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the dictionary definition of quasi-judicial, “seemingly, apparently but
not really.” He said that is fitting for the role the Council is asked to play, playing the role of a judge
when Councilmembers are actually legislators. He recalled the one quasi-judicial hearing he was involved
in was a very frustrating experience because he was unable to be a legislator and could not talk to
anybody or consider all the information he wanted to review and was limited to a narrow focus. When
this was first put in place, the intent was right, but in practice the result is not what was intended. He
found it such a frustrating experience that he recommended the Council avoid being in a quasi-judicial
role.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked how many of the quasi-judicial decisions the Council has made have been
appealed. Mr. Taraday recalled the appeal of the decision on Building 10 was dismissed and the City
prevailed in an appeal of the crumb rubber decision. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a proposal to
construct a house in critical area. Mr. Taraday said that did not go to court. Councilmember Buckshnis
recalled in 2010 citizens wanted an opportunity to come to City Council. Mr. Taraday suggested it may be
interesting to research how many times the Council has reversed the Hearing Examiner’s decision in the
last 5-6 years, suspecting it was a very rare if ever occurrence. If the point of this process in 2010 was to
provide a low cost means of reversing the Hearing Examiner and in practice that has almost never
happened because the Hearing Examiner generally does a good job, then that would be useful information
to have.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson recalled in the case Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned, a 3rd party entered
into a negotiation and purchased the property from the people who wanted to build in the critical area.
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2016
Page 10
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in researching whether the Council has reversed any
of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. She recalled the Council has upheld nearly every Hearing Examiner
decision; in one the Council may have upheld only part of his decision.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled another instance where a fence was lowered, perhaps that was the one
the Council only supported a portion of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. She noted the Council has only
had 7-8 quasi-judicial in the past 6 years. She recalled when the Council was first taken out of the quasi-
judicial role, citizens objected and the process was reversed. She recalled the reason was the monetary
aspect.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson pointed out the Burnstead issue as another example. She referred to a Directors
Report to the Planning Board from Development Services Director Shane Hope that described a Hearing
Examiner decision. The Hearing Examiner considered a proposed critical area reasonable use variance on
March 24; the Hearing Examiner’s decision was made on April 7; the City filed a motion for
reconsideration on April 12 but the Council was just learning about it this week. She asked when the
LUPA appeal process expired and how would the Council know about it. Mr. Taraday agreed the current
process is not set up to do what has been discussed tonight. If the City changed to a system where the City
Council was no longer in a quasi-judicial capacity but wanted to be ready to file a LUPA appeal, a
mechanism would need to be set up whereby the Council was informed of decisions in a timely manner.
There are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked whether the Council’s current quasi-judicial role precludes taking action
to file a LUPA on the City’s behalf. Mr. Taraday said it depends on whether there was an administrative
appeal to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson observed in this instance there was not but she was
unclear when the final decision was made and feared it may be too late to file an appeal. Mr. Taraday said
if administrative appeals have been exhausted and the only remaining appeal is judicial, the only question
is whether there is standing. He suggested if the Council was interested in discontinuing the current
practice, the administrative appeal process would need to be revised to clearly articulate the possibility of
the Council bringing appeals and how that process works. With regard to the decision Mayor Pro Tem
Johnson was referencing, he was uncertain when a LUPA appeal would need to be filed and if the
Council wanted to discuss it as potential litigation, he recommended that be done in executive session.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of information, relaying she received an email that
Councilmembers other than Mayor Pro Tem Johnson could not be heard on the television broadcast.
Following a brief recess to address a technical issue, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson advised apparently not all
Councilmembers could be heard on the television broadcast but minutes of the meeting will be available.
As the online streaming was operational, the issue was likely with the cable channel.
Development Services Director Shane Hope suggested following up with additional information such as
the history regarding the Council assuming this role, the reversal rate of Hearing Examiner decisions,
what other jurisdictions do with regard to quasi-judicial appeals, and if the Council chose not to be the
decision maker, how to ensure the Council received information in timely manner to make a decision
regarding an appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson observed the Council is scheduled to discuss this again at
the May 24 meeting.
Mr. Taraday invited the Council to inform if there was any other information staff could provide to assist
the Council in making an informed decision.
6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson relayed to Mayor Earling, everyone wishes they were in Hawaii with him.
7.2.k
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Exhibit 11: May 10, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2016
Page 17
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the map of options and asked for a description of the Admiral Way
overpass and the merits of that location. Mr. Schaefer said although it may seem out of the way for
emergency response, it is a distinct location and it is screened from view or back-dropped visually by
hillside. It can drop into the Port property which may provide flexibility for a landing. It would follow the
Unocal access road along the bottom of the hill, climb to an overpass structure, clear the to-be-relocated
Willow Creek and the railroad and drop down into the edge of Port parking area. Councilmember
Mesaros asked whether it would have pedestrian access. Mr. Schaefer said it would be routinely used for
pedestrian and bicycle access and could accommodate an emergency vehicle when necessary.
Councilmember Mesaros commented another benefit of that alternative is the ability to circumnavigate
the marsh. Mr. Schaefer said the ability to tie it into the trails, through marina and Marina Beach Park was
identified as a community amenity. Mr. Williams said the same could be said for the Edmonds Street
alternative; it would be available for emergency vehicles to provide aid on the west side of the tracks as
well as allow pedestrians and bicycles to access waterfront amenities. Councilmember Mesaros
commented that alternative did not circumnavigate the marsh. Mr. Schaefer said the grades in all
alternatives provide ADA access.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if the Dayton Street Overpass would require Port property and demolition
of existing buildings. Mr. Schaefer agreed it would require some property but would not require any
demolition. It would launch from the north side of Dayton along the edge of the Salish Crossing property,
climb over the parking area south of the rail station, diagonally over the intersection and drop into the
Port property behind their sign. It would encroach into the yard area of new Jacobson Marine but would
not impact their building.
Council President Johnson commented one of the advantages of this presentation is it gives the public an
opportunity to hear everything that has been considered to date, especially those not able to attend public
meetings or visit the website. She asked where the Level 2 evaluation criteria were firm. Mr. Schaefer
answered they were drafted and presented to the community at the last meeting. Some comments were
received although fewer than at past meetings which is the reason the online open house was extended an
additional week and another notice issued.
Council President Johnson observed the language on the working draft page and the criteria were similar
but not exactly the same. Mr. Schaefer advised the language on the working draft had to be more brief;
the language on the working draft page is not the criteria, it is the purpose and need. He pointed out there
are multiple components of each criterion. In Level 1 the consultant team did the first assessment against
the criteria which was then validated by the Task Force. In Level 2 the consultant team is providing
information and the Task Force is taking the first cut at the rating.
Council President Johnson offered to provide Mr. Schaefer send her notes. She recalled an operational
issue that has been discussed intermittently over the last 10 years was having a ferry reservation system
on the Edmonds-Kingston route. She suggested that be considered in this effort.
Councilmember Nelson (Co-Chair of the Task Force) recognized how hard the Task Force and and Mr.
Schaefer have been working.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO CONTINUE CITY'S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING
QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS
Senior Planner Kernen Lien said this topic was discussed at the retreat and the May 10 Council meeting.
Currently, there are three ways a land use action can come before the City Council for a quasi-judicial
7.2.l
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2016
Page 18
decision under a closed record review: 1) site specific rezone, 2) appeal of Type III-B decision (ADB or
Hearing Examiner), and 3) public agency variance request. The Woodway Playfields quasi-judicial
hearing was an appeal of a public agency variance request.
The three issues the Council requested further information on included, 1) the history of quasi-judicial
decisions before the Council, 2) recent decisions by the Council, and 3) what other jurisdictions are doing.
With regard to the history, Mr. Lien explained the current code framework was established in 1980 and
since then the City Council has been doing quasi-judicial hearings for appeals of Hearing Examiner, ADB
and public agency variance requests. Prior to that time, the City had a Board of Adjustment, a 7-member
board that heard variances, condition use permits, etc., things the Hearing Examiner now hears. Decisions
of the Board of Adjustment went to Superior Court.
In 2009 the City established the current process framework, Type I through V permits. At that time there
was considerable discussion regarding the Council’s involvement in the quasi-judicial decision process.
Discussion was focused primarily on the Type III-B decisions by the Hearing Examiner and ADB. He
referred to minutes from the 2009 update that were emailed to Council today. Also included in the packet,
Exhibit 3, is a list of pros and cons prepared by Rob Chave in 2009 regarding Council involvement in
quasi-judicial decisions.
When the Title 20 update was passed in June 2009, Hearing Examiner and ADB appeals were taken out
of the City Council and became appeals to Superior Court. At the first Council meeting in January 2010,
an interim ordinance was passed that again inserted the Council into closed record appeals. The
discussion at that time did not focus on rezones or public agency variances, only appeals and whether to
have oral or written arguments to Council on appeals as it is easier to track whether something is in the
record when the record is written versus oral. A permanent ordinance was passed in September 2010.
Mr. Lien reviewed quasi-judicial decisions since 2010 in the 3 categories:
Seven site specific rezones
o Planning Board makes recommendation to City Council
o Council upheld 6
o One was denied on a 3-3 vote
Four public agency variance requests
Council approved most requests
Woodway Playfields was more complex and included five permits
o Hearing Examiner recommended denial of two
o By the time it reached the Council, the School District withdrew those two
o Council essentially upheld Hearing Examiner decision and added a few conditions of
approval to the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation
Type III-B decisions
o Four projects
o 5 appeals (Building 10 appealed to City Council twice)
o 2 reversed
o Regarding Building 10, the City Council reversed the ADB decision and a critical area
variance request
With regard to other jurisdictions’ quasi-judicial procedures, Mr. Lien referred to Exhibit 4, explaining
most jurisdictions have a quasi-judicial process for site specific rezones. Some include an appeal to City
Council from the Hearing Examiner, others do not.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how many times a City Council decision has been appealed to Superior
Court. Mr. Lien answered in the last 10 years, Building 10 and Woodway Playfields were appealed to
7.2.l
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2016
Page 19
Superior Court. There was a settlement agreement for Building 10 so no decision was issued and the City
prevailed with regard to the Woodway Playfields. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the court never
ruled on Building 10 decision so it was unknown whether the Council’s decision would have been upheld
had the court ruled. That project was of a magnitude that had the Council’s decision not been upheld,
there could have been real damages resulting from that application process.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled the Council previously discussed the cost to appeal a decision to Superior
Court versus to the City Council. Mr. Lien answered the fee for an appeal of a Type III-B decision to City
Council is $500. Mr. Taraday said the filing fee for Superior Court is $250; the cost could be much more
if the appellant hired an attorney.
Councilmember Buckshnis recommended the Council read the 2009 minutes. She commended Mr. Lien
for his research and for summarizing it for the public.
Councilmember Mesaros commented there could also be attorney costs for an appeal to City Council if
the appellant chose to hire an attorney.
Councilmember Nelson thanked Lien for the summary. He recalled going through one public agency
variance request and found the information regarding other decisions very comprehensive and helpful.
Council President Johnson commented there is also a cost to the City Council for the more elaborate
appeals that come to the City Council. For example, Burnstead and Building 10, the City engaged
separate counsel for the City Council at a cost of approximately $5,000 per case. There is also the expense
of time; they were not easy decisions and required many meetings. She said it makes sense for some
quasi-judicial proceedings to come to the City Council, those that are quick and efficient. However, for
the ones that seemingly take endless amounts of reading, study and evaluation, she preferred they go to
Superior Court because they usually end up in Superior Court anyway. She asked if a distinction could be
made in the Type III-B decisions between large and small application. She recalled two of the Type III-B
decisions were very small involving one property and two were very large and required tremendous time
and effort. Mr. Taraday said the City probably could distinguish; there would need to be criteria
established in advance for distinguishing between them. For example, the current categories of decisions
are not the universe of possible categories. One category the City Council is stuck with hearing is site
specific rezones.
Council President Johnson referred to the risk associated with Council serving in a quasi-judicial
capacity; if the City lost in an appeal to Superior Court, the City would be responsible for much more
than just the filing fee. Mr. Taraday explained the City could be required to pay damages if the City
Council’s decision was found to be arbitrary and capricious. In extreme cases Councilmembers as
individuals can be held personally liable for decisions made when serving in a quasi-judicial capacity. In
its legislative capacity, the Council has nearly absolute personally immunity. In a quasi-judicial capacity,
there is the theoretical possibility of a personal liability lawsuit because the immunity is only qualified not
absolute. For example, in the Mission Springs in Spokane Councilmembers were found not to be immune
from the personal suit filed against them.
Councilmember Tibbott thanked staff for the synopsis the Council received this afternoon and suggested
it be included in a future packet. Development Services Director Shane Hope agreed it would.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled the Planning Board heard four quasi-judicial cases, three were
straightforward and the questions Planning Board Members asked provided material for the City Council.
One was more complex and the Planning Board needed more preparation to process it adequately. If the
Council continued to hear site specific rezones, he asked if they would still go to Planning Board for a
recommendation to City Council. Ms. Hope answered yes, the process would stay the same.
7.2.l
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2016
Page 20
Councilmember Tibbott recommended providing Planning Board enough notice regarding upcoming
hearings so they do not engage with a project before it comes to Planning Board to avoid tainting the
process. He discussed this with two former Planning Board Members, one was in favor of the Council
moving away from quasi-judicial reviews and the other was in favor of retain the Council in that role so
he was able to see benefits on both sides, especially with rezones. If the Council continued to hear site
specific rezones, he recommended identifying ways to improve the process; for example, inform the
Council in advance so they do not engage with proponents or opponents.
Councilmember Tibbott preferred the Council not hear more extensive appeals. While on the Planning
Board, he felt members were asked to provide input regarding topics they were not trained for. There was
one lawyer on the Planning Board who was able to look at the issue from a legal perspective but other
Planning Board Members were not. There are benefits from a diversity of views looking at a project and
offers insight; however, on complex appeals that require a great deal of study, he preferred to delegate
them to the Hearing Examiner or other body. Ms. Hope agreed the Planning Board needed to have the
proper training; staff has been more proactively recently in helping the Planning Board understand their
role and legal requirements. Staff will consider how to distinguish between small and large projects for
example according to the value of the project, property size, etc.
With regard to whether the Planning Board would continue to make recommendations to the City Council
regarding rezone, Mr. Taraday said they could but they do not have to; it could be done by the Hearing
Examiner.
Quoting Councilmember Councilmember Nelson, Councilmember Mesaros said citizens elected
Councilmember to primarily be legislators, not judges. The skill set Councilmembers bring to the Council
is for pondering legislative opportunities and making choices for citizens; serving in a quasi-judicial role
puts the Council in a difficult position, a role they not be as equipped for.
Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Taraday to explain qualified immunity versus absolute immunity,
pointing out if Councilmembers are making decisions for which they are personally liable, they need to
know what that entails. Mr. Taraday offered to provide a more in-depth analysis in writing. With qualified
immunity, a Councilmember is not as fully protected personally from a suit; although there is a decent
chance of having a suit dismissed, in extreme case a Councilmember could have personal liability. The
prospect of a Councilmember being sued is not just a theoretically possibility; a Councilmember was
named in the Building 10 lawsuit.
Councilmember Teitzel said he was also concerned about the Council’s skill set to serve judges. It gives
him pause personally to act in quasi-judicial fashion, reviewing the record to determine whether an
Administrative Law Judge or Hearing Examiner made a legal error. He felt ill equipped to make that
decision as he was not an attorney and wanted to avoid being in that role in the future. He agreed the
Council could be involved in site specific rezones.
3. TITLE 19 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATES
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Building Official Leif Bjorback and Fire Marshal
Kevin Zweber. She referred to a pile of books that represented thousands of pages; the ordinance
summarizes key changes made to the code based on State requirements. Following the presentation and
Q&A, she requested the ordinance be forwarded to the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Bjorback explained every three years the International Building Code (IBC) is updated and
republished by the International Code Council. The IBC is a family of codes including commercial,
residential fire, plumbing, energy, etc. that are used in most areas of the country including the State of
7.2.l
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Exhibit 12: June 7, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 5
years 4 months. The request is to extend the existing lease 1 year so there is a 15-year lease. The grant
documents have already been submitted, but the State staff knew changing the lease would take an act of
Council and gave the center until early September to accomplish it.
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he had never bought coffee from an espresso stand, finding it too
expensive, but recently visited the stand on 238th twice. The ladies were very nice looking and wearing a
bra and thong. At both visits, when he asked the lady if he could have “more goodies” if he gave her
$100, she acted offended. It seemed to him the Council was spending an inordinate amount of time on an
ordinance related to indecent exposure when any day of the week a person could drive from here to
California and find people dressed the same way these ladies were dressed. This espresso stand is hard to
find; if a person wants to see a scantily dressed person and pay $5 for coffee, that is their business, not the
City Council’s or Police Department’s business unless they are offering other services. He urged the
Council to leave well enough alone.
7. STUDY ITEMS
1. SENIOR CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite referred to Mr. Fleming’s comments, explaining this is a request
to authorize the Mayor to sign a lease amendment to add a year to the current lease with the senior center
so that they are eligible for a State grant for the rebuild of the senior center.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO MOVE THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXTEND THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
SENIOR CENTER FOR ONE YEAR TO NEXT WEEK’S CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CITY'S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Council has had several discussions regarding
the City Council’s role in the quasi-judicial decision making process. In June, Councilmembers expressed
interest in getting away from being the quasi-judicial decision maker on a number of types of land use
issues that the Council is currently charged with doing under the City code. She recalled the Council
requested information from the City Attorney regarding absolute versus qualified immunity. The packet
includes background materials as well as a resolution that could be placed on the next Consent Agenda
that provides direction when the Development Code is updated in near future to remove that discretionary
quasi-judicial process from the City Council’s responsibility.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council considered this six years ago and four years ago she
voted to return rights to appeal land use decisions, overturning previous Council actions that took away
citizens’ voice. She recalled whenever the City Council has reviewed a quasi-judicial matter in the past,
they have worked out correctly. She did not support changing the Council’s role in quasi-judicial hearings
because she believed citizens should have a right to voice their opinion to Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also did not support moving the Council out of quasi-judicial land use
hearings. When the Council moved back to holding quasi-judicial hearings, the Council was not sure how
that would work out; she has been involved in several quasi-judicial hearings in the past 6½ years and it
has been a good use of Council time and resources and allows citizens to appeal to the Council. In most
cases the Council upheld the Hearing Examiner’s decision. This provides a second step for citizens
without the cost of going to court at a cost of $500-$5000 depending on whether an attorney is hired. She
concluded this was a basic standard for citizen rights and shows the City Council is supportive of citizens.
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 6
Council President Johnson said in general the City has made progress by using a Hearing Examiner
instead of a citizen board of appeals. To the greatest extent possible, she preferred to rely on the Hearing
Examiner process and the Superior Court of Snohomish County to adjudicate any questions. She felt there
was too much risk on the City if the Council makes a mistake. For those reasons she supported the
proposal. She asked when this would be addressed in the code update. Ms. Hope answered in a few
months.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the proposal; he did not believe that he, as a
Councilmember, had enough training in the law to make a proper legal decision. The Council’s role as
legislators is to establish code, listen to citizens and ensure the code is clear so it can be interpreted
properly. The proper place for interpreting a legal question and appeal issues is via the court system. He
agreed with Council President Johnson that the Hearing Examiner process was working, there is an appeal
process is place and available to citizens and it is not the Council’s role to interpret the law.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said there has been no risk to the City for nearly seven years and unless
the Council interpreted things incorrectly, there was no risk to the City. She felt it was part of the
Council’s job to represent the citizens of Edmonds. Citizens should not have to appeal to court when that
can be done by the Council.
Councilmember Nelson recalled his personal experience on the one and only quasi-judicial hearing he
participated in, commenting he did not enjoy it. However, just because he did not like something did not
mean it was not necessarily good for the City or citizens. In reviewing the decisions the Council has made
in past quasi-judicial hearings, there are more incidents where the Council has provided an oversight and
check system to help citizens and he felt there was a role in the process for Council. He appreciated the
City Attorney’s research regarding immunity, relaying it was clear the only way Councilmembers were
personally liable was if they went off the well-established legal path and felt it was well worth that risk.
Council President Johnson said as legislators, the Council has many opportunities to help citizens
including conversations with them, speaking on their behalf before the Hearing Examiner, discussing any
inequities in the codes or law and taking a legislative action. It was not necessary for the Council to be in
a quasi-judicial role. She has been very uncomfortable in the quasi-judicial role because Councilmembers
are unable to communicate directly with citizens and help them with issues. She felt the risk was real and
asked the City Attorney to speak to the subject of risk. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed it was a real
risk. He distinguished between risk to the City versus risk to Councilmember personally, stating it was
true Councilmembers have to go off the rails to find themselves personally liable, a high hurdle for a
plaintiff to clear. The real risk is to the City. The City is a member of an insurance pool; if there were a
significant plaintiff judgment against the City, while WCIA may come to the City’s short term rescue,
there is a long term cost to the City when WCIA considers it a risky city.
Mr. Taraday referred to a recent judgment rendered against the City of SeaTac, explaining while not
quasi-judicial, it was a land use case. When land use judgments go bad, they can get into the stratosphere
in terms of costs; the judgment against SeaTac was $18 million. SeaTac is appealing the judgment but it
will spawn litigation and risk for SeaTac and their insurance pool. He was aware of one other lawsuit
where the reinsurer of CIAW (SeaTac’s insurance pool) was essentially claiming they would not cover
and defend because the actions of the City officials in that matter went off the rails, beyond what they
considered a covered event. While the City can look to its insurance for coverage, there are instances that
will not be covered and taxpayers are left holding the bag. In his five years as city attorney, he could think
of at least one land use decision that while it did not translate into a dollar loss, he was not comfortable
with the risk assessment after that decision was made. The Council did things in that case that it probably
should not have done; the specifics could be discussed in executive session. In that situation there was
real risk to the City and the City was fortunate to get out of it without significant cost or judgment against
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 7
the City. He summarized the Council should not think quasi-judicial land use decision making is carefree;
they are playing with big dollars.
Mr. Taraday said the problem when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is Councilmembers will be tempted
to fix their constituents’ problems because the Council represents them, citizens voted for them, made
campaign contributions, etc. If a Councilmember through that temptation crosses the line even a little bit,
while probably not personally liable, could mean a multimillion dollar judgment against the City for
reading something into the code that is not there for example.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Taraday should not be using SeaTac’s $18 million judgment as an
example to scare Councilmembers because it was not quasi-judicial. In her six years on the Council, she
can think of one instance where she took issue with how things progressed, but felt they progressed
correctly. Issues arose as part of that because a Councilmember was part of process, a unique situation.
She felt Mr. Taraday was trying to scare the Council; if the Council follows the process and the record,
this process should be allowed to continue especially since situations like SeaTac have not arisen. Mr.
Taraday said his point in using SeaTac as an example was to quantify the risk and to point out millions of
dollars can be at stake in land use decisions. He was not telling the Council they could not retain this
decision making authority; the Council has been doing it for years. He simply wanted the Council to do so
with their eyes wide open about the nature of the risk.
Councilmember Teitzel commented he was elected to represent the citizens of Edmonds and did not agree
moving away from this quasi-judicial role was a disservice to citizens. He reminded if the Council felt the
Hearing Examiner’s decision was incorrect, the Council can request the City Attorney file an appeal to
Superior Court and testify on citizens’ behalf. He intended to use that process if he found an error in the
Hearing Examiner’s decision.
Council President Johnson recalled this discussion when she was on the Planning Board many years ago.
The City Attorney at that time, Scott Snyder, strongly recommended the Council not be in a quasi-judicial
role. She recalled Mark Laughlin, WCIA, also strongly advised the Council not to participate in a quasi-
judicial role and a person from MRSC gave the same advice. She asked Ms. Hope, Mr. Chave and Mr.
Taraday for their best advice regarding the Council’s involvement in quasi-judicial decision making. Ms.
Hope responded because of the risks involved and the complexity of some issues, because the Council has
a clear legislative role to assist and give direction on policies and if the Council is not in a quasi-judicial
role, has the ability to appeal decisions and take the constituent’s side, she believed moving away from
the quasi-judicial role is prudent and still allows the Council to help citizens.
Mr. Chave pointed out over the years more details and specifics in have been added to the code. The key
reason for that is to avoid too much indefensible discretion which the courts dislike. Regardless of the
Council’s decision, that trend should be recognized. He summarized the value of retaining the appeal is
outweighed by the potential value the Council can add by closer involvement with citizens.
Mr. Taraday emphasized his recommendation is insignificant; he will defer to and do whatever the
Council wants to do. To the Councilmembers who were interested in the status quo, his only
recommendation was he believed the Council could better serve constituents by getting early notice of
pending quasi-judicial actions that are coming to the Hearing Examiner, getting involved with and talking
with constituents during the process, working with him to advocate for a particularly position in front of
the Hearing Examiner and if necessary, direct him to appeal the Hearing Examiner’s decision if the
Council did not agree with it. The Council can do more to advocate on behalf of constituents via those
techniques versus sitting as judge. If the Council tries to advocate for citizens while sitting as a judge,
they can be sued. The Council cannot do both, be an advocate for constituents and a judge at the same
time. If the goal was to represent constituents, he recommended getting involved earlier at the Hearing
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 8
Examiner level, talking to constituents, establishing a process whereby the Council is notified of items
going to the Hearing Examiner, testifying at Hearing Examiner hearings, organizing people to rally for or
against a project, etc.
As the longest serving Councilmember present, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas disputed some of what
has been said. Neither she nor Councilmember Buckshnis have ever had a citizen approach her wanting
them to do something about their case. She recognized Mr. Taraday was uncomfortable with risk,
pointing out the Council incurs risk every day; every decision incurs some level of risk. Although she
appreciated what Councilmember Teitzel had to say, she pointed out six months as a Councilmember did
not qualify him to understand the process as well as Councilmembers who have been on the Council
longer and have been involved in previous cases. She pointed out Council President Johnson has been
opposed to this ever since she got on the Council and has asked this question of everyone who
interviewed for an appointment to Council.
Council President Johnson raised a point of order; Roberts Rules of Order state a person is not to make
arguments that are personal, are not to name people or be argumentative. She objected to Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas identifying what each Councilmember has said and arguing that point. Mayor Earling
ruled that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas may continue her testimony, however, she was not to bring up
individuals’ names.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said some Councilmembers are passionate about making this change.
She believed citizens needed to have a voice, and not the costly voice of appealing to court. She
questioned whether all Councilmembers fully understood the original reason the Council moved into the
quasi-judicial role. There is passion behind allowing citizens the ability to come to Council for a decision.
She did not mean to offend any Councilmembers but wanted the facts to be clear.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO MOVE RESOLUTION 1367 TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, A RESOLUTION OF CITY
COUNCIL CITY OF EDMONDS EXPRESSING INTENT TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL
AND OTHER VOLUNTEER CITIZEN BOARDS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL PERMIT
PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW UPON ADOPTION OF THE REVISED
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Council President Johnson said this vote is just showing intent and the Council will have an opportunity
to make a final decision in several months when the code is brought to the Council.
Councilmember Nelson referred to Mr. Taraday’s comment about crossing the line and the risk in these
decisions. He asked if Mission Springs v. City of Spokane was a good example. Mr. Taraday answered
yes. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Taraday to describe the Mission Springs case. Mr. Taraday
explained Mission Springs involved a grading permit and the City Council disregarding legal advice
given to them during a public meeting, advice that should have been given in executive session. That City
Attorney said publicly something to the effect that the Council needed to approve the permit and Council
did not and got sued.
Councilmember Nelson read from the Supreme Court case, where a Councilmember asked “If we direct
staff not to issue permits until the tunnels were improved, what would happen? The City Attorney
responds, “What would happen is that would be the genesis for a cause of action by the developer against
the city for unlawfully interfering with the issuance of a building permit and that is essentially the same
basis that we’re presently in federal court on, a civil rights violation.” The City Attorney goes on to say
“It’s a charter violation, the Council has no administrative authority, the Council act through ordinances
and sets policy and administrative staff is charged with following ordinances.” The City Attorney clearly
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 9, 2016
Page 9
tells the Council what they are doing is not right and the Council ignores his advice, a very clear, bright
line. Mr. Taraday agreed it was a clear, bright line in that case; it is not always.
Councilmember Nelson recalled WCIA has also routinely brought up Mission Springs as an example of
what can go wrong. He clarified it was not something the Spokane Council did not understand or was
surprised by, it was very clear what would happen. When talking about these kinds of risks, it was
important to put it in context. Mr. Taraday said he would not give advice in a public meeting; if that
situation ever arose, he would take the Council into executive session, advise of the consequences and the
Council would need to take a vote in public without the public’s knowledge of the City Attorney’s advice.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT. AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to take a vote tonight as Councilmembers have stated their positions
and it likely would be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
3. CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled a kick off meeting was held to launch the Master Plan
process in early May. Since then there have been stakeholder interviews, an open house, a virtual open
house, project advisory meetings and an update to the Planning Board two weeks ago (draft minutes are
included in the packet). She introduced five members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) who
were present including Council President Council President Johnson, Councilmember Teitzel, Pat
Woodell, John McGibbon and Alex Witenberg. She recognized the PAC for their help.
Chris Jones, Principal and Landscape Architect, Walker | Macy, said this update is not to present
alternatives but to report on the public involvement process to date and what they have heard so far from
the community related to the park program and existing uses on the site. He used the metaphor for this
project, it’s like removing a temporary tree. He reviewed existing Park Program (activities)
Events
o Taste of Edmonds
o 4th of July Fireworks
o Wenatchee Youth Circus (concluding operation 2016)
o Sports tournaments
o Arts Festival (parking)
Existing Structures
o Boys & Girls Club (Field House)
Interested in remaining on site and expanding footprint to 18,000-25,000 square feet
Historic Preservation Committee pursuing listing of site and field house as historic
o Grand Stand
Parking
Storage
Active Recreation
o Soccer
o Tennis
7.2.m
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Exhibit 13: August 9, 2016 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 3
implement the goals with the assumption that the goals were already accepted. The presentation, in addition
to presenting the goals as settle, predetermined the audience’s objections. The Housing Director and the
consultant told the audience that the strategy would not increase crime in Edmonds from low income
persons, would not attract homeless people and would not raise taxes. The message the audience heard was
that anyone opposing the housing strategy was a selfish bigot which the citizens found quite offensive. In
his 30-year career as a business executive, a board director and a non-profit director, he never saw a strategy
presented that was devoid of the resources to successfully implement the strategy; for the City, that is the
budget. He questioned how attendees could possibly choose among six goals and provide suggested
improvements without knowing the cost of the goals and the impact they would have on other City
priorities. To do so without understanding the tradeoffs was to live in la-la land. He questioned not having
any idea of the cost, impacts and tradeoffs when the City has been working on the housing strategy since
2015. It was not selfishness or bigotry to ask the core question, what can realistically be accomplished with
the resources available and what is given up to accomplish those goals. That is the responsibility of the
Council, citizens or any steward of the strategy. If the City expected the citizens’ support, he asked that
they be respected.
7. STUDY ITEMS
1. PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
Resolution No. 1367
o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity
Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions
Liability issues for council members
o Resolution No. 1367
Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions
to the ECDC modifying the City Council’s role in quasi-decision making processes
o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367
Decision processes
o Administrative Decisions
Type I – Staff decision no notice
Type II – Staff decision with notice
o Quasi-judicial Decisions
Type III – Hearing Examiner/ADB
Type IV – Plats/PRDs/Site Specific Rezone
Appeals of Type II and Type III-B
- Type II appeals to Hearing Examiner at open record public hearing
- Type III-B appeals to City Council at closed record hearing
o Legislative
Type V
ECDC 20.01.003
o Table of land use decisions
Quasi-judicial Decisions
o Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial
Legislative decisions establish policies for future application
Quasi-judicial are the application of those policies
o Strict procedural requirements
Property notice of hearing
Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to
hear what others have to say
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Exhibit 14: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 4
Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision-making body (i.e.,
no ex-parte contacts)
An impartial decision-maker free from bias and conflicts of interest
Decisions based on facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition
ECDC 20.01.003
o Table of land use decisions with revisions
Move III-B decisions moved to III-A column, Type becomes III
Type IV-A moved to Type I column
Development Agreements moved from legislative process to Type IV quasi-judicial
Attachment in packet includes related ECDC text amendments
Type IV-A: Subdivisions and PRDs
o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments
o All requirements of preliminary approval have been met
o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval
o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel
o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 delegates final approval to staff
ECDC 17.00.030 – Public Agency Variance
o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any
other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to
build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning
ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall
be a recommendation to the city council
ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits
o Conflicts with state law
Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW
- One open record public hearing
- ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings if three neighbors within 300
feet of a project keep requesting review of approved permits
Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW
- “Finality” – Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely
filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply
with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim)
- Habitat Watch v. Skagit County – Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through
another administrative permit review process
New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to
suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which
operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application
ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings
o Confusing cross references regarding appeals
o Combine into a single chapter
o Added some language for prehearing conferences
o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings
Development Agreements
o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial
decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council
o Council considers development agreement in closed record review
o Consistent with state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW); development agreements are not legislative,
but must be consistent with local development code
Next steps
o On extended agenda for September 18 but that date does not allow adequate time for noticing
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Exhibit 14: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 5
o Suggesting public hearing on September 25 although there are already four public hearings on
that agenda
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be provided to Council. She recalled this
change was made immediately after Councilmembers Petso and Bloom left the Council and two new
Councilmembers were elected. She urged the new Councilmembers to read and understand the change,
explaining it takes citizens’ voices away from City Council and all appeals will be to the hearing examiner
and on to Superior Court which costs a great deal. She referred to an email from Gary Nelson that said the
cost was $240 and attorney fees were $200-500/hour. She recalled the Council hearing approximately ten
cases in the past. She suggested this change be reconsidered as the City Council makes serious decisions
about housing, land use, the Shoreline Master Program, critical areas, etc. and she did not support having
that done by the hearing examiner and Superior Court.
Councilmember Johnson said she has experienced both sides of the process. When decisions were
appealable to Superior Court in the past, her father protested a neighbor’s short subdivision when the
hearing examiner made what she and her father felt was a bad decision. Her father hired an attorney and
with her help, went through the process. Given the choice to go to Superior Court, they chose not to continue
as they did not want to spend the money. As a Councilmember she has experienced this process when the
Council has had to hire separate attorneys for the Council and go through elaborate quasi-judicial
procedures. That experience convinced her this role was not the best for the City Council.
Councilmember Johnson read from a presentation to the City Council from City Attorney Jeff Taraday that
explains why this an appropriate role, “In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi-
judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested we ask ourselves why. If it’s because the City Council can make
better decisions than the hearing examiner, that they have more expertise than the hearing examiner, then
that’s a valid reason to continue this practice so that we can correct the hearing examiner’s errors. There
was another way to accomplish that, by appealing the hearing examiner’s decision under LUPA. For
example, when the hearing examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with
the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a land use
petition action appeal to superior court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council’s behalf
to convince the court that the hearing examiner’s decision was wrong. He explained that there are benefits
to that process from a risk management perspective. If he goes to court and argues the hearing examiner’s
decision is wrong and the judge upholds the hearing examiner’s decision, no damage claim will be filed
against the City. Conversely, if an appeal goes before the City Council acting as a decision maker and
constituents are clamoring to overturn the hearing examiner decision and the Council does so when it
shouldn’t, then the City could face a significant damage claim as a result of that action. He summarized
that from a risk management standpoint, much of the same thing can be accomplished by directing him to
appeal hearing examiner decisions versus having the Council in the position of the decision maker.”
Councilmember Johnson found this very useful information for the City Council to consider; it is a way for
the City Council to respond to constituents, to be able to have open conversations with them without
jeopardizing Council decisions.
Councilmember Johnson said when ponding how to ensure good decision making, one of the essential
issues is the hearing examiner himself. If the City has a good hearing examiner, and she believed Phil
Olbrechts was one of the best she has seen, who does not make mistakes and there haven’t been decisions
overturned, the City rely on him and the Council can act as a check and balance. Upon very careful
consideration, that is the direction she was leaning but she was willing to listen to testimony and think about
the matter very thoroughly.
Councilmember Johnson invited Mr. Taraday to add to what she read. Mr. Taraday said he still agreed with
those comments, that was still his opinion in terms of weighing the pros and cons. If Councilmembers
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Exhibit 14: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 6
believe they have more expertise than the hearing examiner and can make better decisions, that is the one
valid reason for keeping the Council in quasi-judicial decision making. The significant role the City Council
can play on behalf of its citizens should not be discounted, to essentially be the citizens’ advocate by taking
appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizens when the Council feels an error has been made. In that
situation, the citizens do not pay any of the costs; and it is essentially a cost-free appeal to the City on behalf
of the citizens assuming the City Attorney’s flat fee arrangement continues. He noted for the record, there
is an assumption being made that Superior Courts are only accessible to those who hire attorneys. However,
many LUPA cases brought against City were by pro se litigants on their own behalf; Superior Court does
not necessarily require hiring counsel.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the June 10 comments submitted by Gary Nelson to the Planning Board,
specifically Snohomish County Superior Court filing fees would be $240. Mr. Taraday said that was about
right. Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the fee to appeal a hearing examiner decision to the City
Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the City’s appeal fees:
Appeal of staff decision to the hearing examiner: $400
Appeal of Type III-B decision to City Council: $500
Appeal of a notice of civil violation: $880
Councilmember Teitzel summarized potentially an appeal to Superior Court would be less expensive than
an appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel again referred to Mr. Nelson’s comments that state
the filed appeal will cause delays in resolving each case. As of August 28, 2017, the waiting time for a
LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9 to 10 months. Mr. Taraday answered LUPA cases are heard on a
separate schedule, the waiting time quoted was probably true for civil actions generally, but LUPA cases,
because they are on the record, they are generally given an expedited schedule that is usually faster.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the $200-$500/hour cost to be represented by an attorney
was accurate. Mr. Taraday agreed that was in the ballpark, noting people who have come to the City Council
have also hired lawyers; lawyers can be hired for either venue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was
more likely to see people represented in Superior Court, noting there have been a number of hearings where
the appellant was not represented by an attorney. She recalled Councilmember Johnson saying her parent
could not afford to take an issue to Superior Court, anticipating appealing to City Council would have been
more affordable. She recalled in the past, the City Council upheld most of the hearing examiner’s decisions
but also overturned some, based on fact, not on personal feelings or emotions. When Councilmembers are
sworn in on a quasi-judicial matter, they can recuse themselves if they have any bias, ex-parte
communication or conflict of interest. The only time the Council was required to hire a separate attorney
was when a Councilmember filed a quasi-judicial appeal on an issue in their neighborhood.
With regard to endless public hearings, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in the six years the Council
heard quasi-judicial appeals, there were approximately ten. Mr. Lien clarified the point regarding endless
public hearing was not related to quasi-judicial decisions; it was related to amendments to a different code
section, reviews of approved permits (a permit that has been approved and construction has started and
review of the permit can be opened and sent back to the hearing examiner).
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has faith in the City’s Hearing Examiner, Phil Olbrechts but
people make mistakes and bringing an appeal to City Council provides the ability to double check his
decisions. She recalled there were a couple times the Council reversed the hearing examiner’s decisions,
not based on emotion or politics, but based on the Council’s interpretation versus the interpretation of one
person. She urged the Council to think carefully about this, noting there were pitfalls in both processes. She
agreed with Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis for the new Councilmembers in particular to read the
information carefully because it takes away the rights that citizens used to have. She asked if a public
hearing was held when this change was made. Mr. Lien answered the minutes of the three meetings where
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Exhibit 14: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 7
it was discussed are in the packet; the resolution was passed at the third meeting. He was uncertain whether
a public hearing was held. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see a public hearing in the
minutes.
On behalf of the newer Councilmembers, Mayor Pro Tem Nelson said they are no longer new.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the two key issues discussed in 2016, frustration with ex-parte contact
prohibitions and liability issues for Councilmembers, recalling in the 3-4 quasi-judicial issues he has been
involved in, avoiding ex-parte contact was difficult. When Councilmembers are approached and have to
tell citizens they cannot talk about an issue, there is a sense of frustration on both the citizens’ part as well
as the Councilmember’s. That was a key factor for him in considering this. Mr. Taraday said
Councilmembers generally run for office to be responsive to constituents; it is frustration for elected
officials in a quasi-judicial context because they cannot be responsive to their constituents when they are
unable to talk to them. He suggested that was an issue that Councilmembers should think carefully about;
whether they were comfortable with and wanted to be put in a situation whether they could not engage with
constituents regarding a project or would they rather be able to engage, and be able to say, I’m concerned
too and testify before the hearing examiner. Councilmembers could testify to the hearing examiner if they
were liberated from the burden of remaining impartial because of the quasi-judicial aspect.
Mr. Taraday said the Council may assume by hearing appeals, they will right a wrong and be on the side of
their constituents and be the heroes of the day. However, sometimes the opposite happens, the Council is
forced to vote against the will of their constituents such if the application meets the requirements, it must
be approved. In that instance, not only can the Council not talk to their constituents, in addition they may
end up doing the exact opposite of their constituents want the Council to do which could be uncomfortable
and not necessarily the position the Council wants to be placed in.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how many Type III-B appeals there have been in the five years. Mr. Lien
answered there have been 4 since 2009, the Burnstead plat (upheld), Hillman critical area reasonable use
variance (overturned), design review Building 10 (remanded to ADB and then overturned) and a fence
height variance (upheld). Mr. Taraday referred to the Building 10 appeal, explaining a LUPA appeal was
filed following the City Council’s action that was essentially stayed pending a new application and approval
of the new application allowed the earlier LUPA to be dismissed. He clarified he did not want the Council
to presume the City would have prevailed on the first LUPA; it is entirely possible that had that situation
not been worked out, that case may not have gone the City’s way. Just because the City has not an adverse
judgment recently, he did not want the City Council to be overly bullish on City’s chances of always
prevailing.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said the Hillman critical area was a code problem and the appellant
wrote the code change. The Council found an issue with the code and it was good to have someone fact-
check the code. She said she has never seen a summary list of appeals or been asked to go with citizens to
an appeal since 2016. Mr. Taraday said the code has not been changed to take the Council out of process
yet. Mr. Lien said there have been no appeals to the Council since 2016.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented this same quasi-judicial approach went before the
Snohomish County voters in November 2016 as Proposition 4 and the majority of voters voted no, 57.7%
in Edmonds.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Hillman example and asked what the process would look like if that
had been reviewed by Superior Court instead of the City Council. Mr. Lien explained that was a critical
area reasonable use variance. The appellant did not write the code change; the code change was related to
the definition of minimal reasonable economic use. The code said a single-family residence was a minimal
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Exhibit 14: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 8
reasonable economic use. The City Council overturned the hearing examiner’s decision because the Council
determined what was proposed was not the minimal reasonable economic use. After the hearing, that section
was removed from the definition of minimal reasonable economic use so that a single-family residence was
no longer assumed to be minimal reasonable economic use. Mr. Taraday explained if the appellant had not
had the option of coming to the City Council to challenge the hearing examiner’s decision, it would have
gone to Superior Court and the City Attorney would have argued on the City’s behalf to convince the judge
that that was the wrong decision and that the residence could have been smaller, etc. With regard to the
code change, the need to make changes arises a variety of ways, via an application that does not reach a
hearing where an ambiguity is pointed out and flagged for amendment, a hearing examiner decision that
flags an issue for later amendment, etc. Ambiguity in the code will continue to arise whether it is the Council
or Superior Court reviewing appeals.
Councilmember Tibbott summarized the appeal could have happened either of two ways. Mr. Taraday
agreed, it just would have been a different body making the decision. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the
code amendment was made after the legal process was completed. Mr. Lien answered the code amendment
does not necessarily have to wait until the decision is made but it would not apply to a project that is already
vested.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comment about overturning a decision/mistake made by the hearing
examiner and asked what the appeal body was overturning. Mr. Taraday explained the hearing examiner
makes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a decision. The decision has to rest on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is difficult for a finding of fact to be overturned on a closed record appeal
because, by definition, the appeal body is not receiving new evidence and is reviewing the same information
the hearing examiner received. It is unlikely in looking at the same exact evidence, the appeal body will
reach a different factual finding. There are situations where a finding of fact can be overturned but it is less
common. Most of time, if the Council retained this function, the issue was trying to determine whether the
hearing examiner made an error in its legal opinion. Those are legal arguments; frequently attorneys on
both sides will make argument to the City Council explaining why the code should be interpreted one way
or another. That was more likely to be in the realm of the City Council if the Council retained this quasi-
judicial function.
Councilmember Tibbott observed the Council would be serving as judges as if they had a specialty as
lawyers and understanding the proceedings. Mr. Taraday answered essentially, by definition if the Council
was ruling on a legal argument, they were playing a legal role.
Councilmember Tibbott said he may be new to the Council, but he served four years on the Planning Board
where there were also quasi-judicial reviews. He recalled some were handled well and some were handled
poorly. Those that were handled poorly was due to the way they came to the Planning Board from staff.
The Board was not adequately prepared, did not receive information in enough time to prevent ex-parte
interaction and as a result some decisions were skewed by outside information that was beyond the closed
record. He found that very distressing now that he understands what the process is supposed to look like.
He did not want the Council to be in the position of ferreting that out and potentially at risk of liability due
to mishaps. He assumed that could be fixed, but there were significant logistical steps that needed to be
taken to protect the quasi-judicial process. His experience in a quasi-judicial role was not positive; it
requires specialized training to interpret findings, especially real estate zoning laws which are within the
realm of the hearing examiner to review. At this point he still supported Resolution 1367 and the role it
outlined for the City Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers who had not been through the process to
read the cases so they understand the Council’s role, anticipating staff could provide links to the
information. She recalled one of the cases was regarding a fence and the point at which the height of the
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Exhibit 14: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 9
fence was measured. Mr. Lien clarified it was a fence on top of a retaining wall. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas recalled that decision was reversed. Mr. Lien advised it was upheld. With regard to ex-parte
contact, in all the years she was on Council and heard appeals, she had only been contacted twice about
cases and in both she very professionally said she could not discuss it and that stopped the conversation.
She recalled during the process Councilmembers are asked to reveal ex-parte contact and on occasion a
Councilmember recused themselves.
Councilmember Mesaros recalled visiting City Hall and upon seeing Mr. Lien, asking him about a project
and if there were any problems. Mr. Lien responded they should not talk about it because if there were
problems and they were appealed, Councilmember Mesaros could be required to make a decision in a quasi-
judicial hearing. That was insightful on Mr. Lien’s part. As Councilmember Tibbott said, a Councilmember
may be talking to citizens about a project in its infancy and unknowingly be tainted by that discussion later
in the process. As Mr. Taraday said, Councilmembers pride themselves on their accessibility to citizens;
however, citizens may offer input early in the process before an appeal, resulting in a Councilmember being
involved in ex-parte contact before the appeal process even begins.
Mr. Lien said in reviewing the three meetings in 2016 agendas, none of them were public hearings. This
item is on the extended agenda for September 18; the Council could have further discussion prior to a public
hearing or schedule a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson offered to work with Mr. Lien to select a date
for the public hearing. Councilmembers were agreeable to that approach.
2. INTRODUCTION TO UPDATING CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS FOR WETLANDS
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said this is the third time this topic has been presented to
the Council. He reviewed:
Background
o Completed comprehensive CAO update in May 2016
o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06-
001
o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program
o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act
Shoreline Master Program applies in shoreline jurisdiction
CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction
o SMP Periodic Review
This updated focuses on SMP Excepted Sections
o ECDC 23.50.010.B, Wetland Ratings.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands.
o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
History repeats itself (almost)
o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018
o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018
“If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you
use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update.”
Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance
o “We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland
data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to
make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores.”
o Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables
2016
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
7.2.n
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Exhibit 14: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial
From:Ken Reidy
To:Mesaros, Thomas; Buckshnis, Diane; Monillas, Adrienne; Johnson, Kristiana; Nelson, Michael; Teitzel, Dave;Tibbott, Neil
Cc:Earling, Dave; Taraday, Jeff; Williams, Phil; Hope, Shane; Lien, Kernen
Subject:Re: Continuing to use the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds is Wrong and Unethical
Date:Friday, August 31, 2018 5:36:31 PM
Please include my emails about the use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds in all
future Council Agenda Packets dealing with the topic of Permit Decision Making and Quasi-
judicial Processes.
History proves Fact #11: The use of the Hearing Examiner system cannot be trusted to lead
to justice in Edmonds because history proves the City is willing to provide incomplete
and/or false information to the Hearing Examiner. Compounding this problem, history
also proves current elected officials do not have the will to address this improper
conduct and the great harm caused by the City's conduct. Without a will for liberty and
justice for all, current elected officials are wrong and unethical to allow citizens of
Edmonds to be subject to the Hearing Examiner system.
Please end use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds at once.
Please respond per my multiple requests evidenced below. Thank you.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 5:56 AM
To: Thomas Mesaros; Diane Buckshnis; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Michael Nelson;
Dave Teitzel; Neil Tibbott
Cc: Dave Earling; Jeff Taraday; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; reedh@wciapool.org;
sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Continuing to use the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds is Wrong and Unethical
Please respond per my requests.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 3:19 PM
To: Thomas Mesaros; Diane Buckshnis; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Michael Nelson;
Dave Teitzel; Neil Tibbott
Cc: Dave Earling; Jeff Taraday; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; reedh@wciapool.org;
sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Continuing to use the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds is Wrong and Unethical
Dear City Council (Others blind cc’d),
Furthermore, on page 14 of 16 of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice’s Findings,
Conclusions, and Order signed on February 19, 2010 (even though she declared the Order
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Exhibit 15: Ken Reidy August 31, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
was mailed on February 18, 2010!), Ms. Rice stated the following:
Had the Applicant applied for an encroachment permit, it would have been denied.
Why would Ms. Rice say such a thing? Why would she speculate that an application for an
encroachment permit would have been denied? Why would she incorporate her speculation
into her Findings, Conclusions, and Order? What was going on here?!?!
Please look again at the attached document: November 17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting
At the bottom of the notes, it clearly says:
(3) Building permit for alteration of shed and
to permit lean-to.
*encroachment to be issued in conjunction with bldg permit.
>clearly state encroachment permit VOID once
easement is VOID
Up above on the right-hand side of the notes, one can clearly see:
>Reidy to submit (#3) at same time
Please appreciate: Ann and Jeanie clearly knew that the Reidys could be issued an
encroachment permit!
So again - Why would Ms. Rice say such a thing? Why would she speculate that an
application for an encroachment permit would have been denied? Why would she
incorporate her speculation into her Findings, Conclusions, and Order? What was going on
here?!?!
This is yet another reason the Hearing Examiner System does not work in Edmonds. A System
that allows for Hearing Examiner speculation while staff who know better sit by quietly - must
be terminated.
Please do so before other citizens can be harmed like the Reidys were!It might be different if elected officials would support their constituents harmed by such conduct. Sadly, current elected officials have clearly shown they do not have the will to do so, insteadallowing harm to continue for years and years.
Please end use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds at once.
Please respond and confirm you have read this email also.
Thank you.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 1:24 PM
To: Thomas Mesaros; Diane Buckshnis; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Michael Nelson;
Dave Teitzel; Neil Tibbott
Cc: Dave Earling; Jeff Taraday; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; reedh@wciapool.org;
sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Continuing to use the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds is Wrong and Unethical
Dear City Council (others blind cc’d),
The following FACTS should be very easy for current elected officials to verify, understand and
value:
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Exhibit 15: Ken Reidy August 31, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
1. It is FACT that the former City Attorney, former Mayor and City Staff never informed the
Reidys of City Ordinance # 3696, the Ordinance that grandfathered our setbacks. This FACT is
true even though Scott Snyder, Ann, Rob E and JMC discussed the new Ordinance that
grandfathered structures constructed prior to 1980 in a meeting/phone conference on July
31, 2009. This meeting/phone conference took place 189 days before Reidys’ Code
Enforcement Hearing in front of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010.
Please see attached PDF document: July 31, 2009 Scott Snyder mtg – phone conf.
2. It is FACT that City Staff knew that “Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at
minimum, a letter from neighbor states it was there prior to 1981”. This FACT was known
for at least 80 days before Reidys’ Code Enforcement Hearing in front of former Hearing
Examiner Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010. Please see attached PDF document: November
17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting
3. It is FACT that neither the former City Attorney or City Staff included ECDC 17.40.020(H) or
Ordinance #3696 as “Relevant Code Sections” in their “BUILDING DIVISION & ENGINEERING
DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER” dated January 27,
2010. ECDC 17.40.020(H) was relevant as the City knew it could grandfather Reidys' setbacks.
Please pause here and consider for a moment how egregious the City’s Conduct was
related to FACT #3 alone. The City Attorney and City Staff knew about and discussed a
relevant code section for months before the Reidys’ Hearing but still choose to leave the
critical information out of the City’s REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER!! How can any reasonable person trust the Hearing Examiner System in
Edmonds?
4. It is FACT that the Reidys discovered City Ordinance #3696 before our Code Enforcement
Hearing in front of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010.
5. It is FACT that neighbor Finis Tupper declared under penalty of perjury on January 30, 2010
that he remembered seeing the entire structure as far back as 1968.
6. It is FACT that the City objected to the admission of the Finis Tupper Declaration & Brief
document on relevance grounds. The City objected even though the City had known for a
long time that “Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from
neighbor states it was there prior to 1981”.
7. It is FACT that former City Attorney Scott Snyder represented to former Hearing Examiner
Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010 that: Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses only,
not illegal uses. As all know, this is simply not true in Edmonds. Edmonds has created
exceptions. Ordinance # 3696 is one example of an exception as is Ordinance # 3962
which grandfathered AT&T’s illegally initiated wireless facility that was not permitted upon its
establishment. Please take 45 seconds to listen to Snyder’s representation to former Hearing
Examiner Sharon Rice. Please see attached audio file: February 4, 2010 Scott Snyder
representation to Hearing Examiner
8. It is FACT that former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice represented that the Finis Tupper
Declaration & Brief document was “undated”. The document was clearly dated so it is highly
alarming that Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice missed this and made a point to represent that
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Exhibit 15: Ken Reidy August 31, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
the document was “undated”.
9. It is FACT that that former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice represented that the testimony
and declaration of witness Finis Tupper addressing the duration of the existing accessory
structure in its current configuration was not relevant. Per Ordinance #3696, the declaration
was relevant. Once the evidence was provided, former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice and the
City were required to conclude that the structure was presumptively nonconforming. This
was MANDATORY per ECDC 17.40.020(H).
10. It is FACT that Ordinance #3696 grandfathered Reidys’ setbacks, just as it did for Straub et
al as documented in Kernen Lien’s letter dated August 30, 2010. Please ask yourself why the
City of Edmonds did not provide this same information to the Reidys or to former Hearing
Examiner Sharon Rice! Please see attached document: August 30, 2010 Kernen Lien letter
to Straub et al
The factual information documented above is brutal to say the least…especially as all of you
are very aware of the years of harm and suffering caused by the City’s harassment of the
Reidys.
The straw that breaks the back of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds, however, is the
current City Council’s choice to not voluntarily address all these great wrongs. I believe it is
very wrong and very unethical to not address these great wrongs and then go forward as if the
Hearing Examiner System can be trusted and is fair to citizens of Edmonds. History proves
Fact #11: The use of the Hearing Examiner system cannot be trusted to lead to justice in
Edmonds because history proves the City is willing to provide incomplete and/or false
information to the Hearing Examiner. Compounding this problem, history also proves
current elected officials do not have the will to address this improper conduct and
the great harm caused by the City's conduct. Without a will for liberty and justice for all,
current elected officials are wrong and unethical to allow citizens of Edmonds to be subject
to the Hearing Examiner system.
Please end use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds at once.
Please respond and confirm you have read this email, read the 3 PDF's attached and listened
to the 45 second long audio clip. Thank you.
Ken Reidy
7.2.o
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Exhibit 15: Ken Reidy August 31, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From:Ken Reidy
To:Mesaros, Thomas; Buckshnis, Diane; Monillas, Adrienne; Johnson, Kristiana; Nelson, Michael; Teitzel, Dave;Tibbott, Neil
Cc:Earling, Dave; Taraday, Jeff; Williams, Phil; Hope, Shane; Lien, Kernen
Subject:Re: Continuing to use the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds is Wrong and Unethical
Date:Tuesday, September 4, 2018 12:00:51 PM
Attachments:797D0554EB994FA4B20FA319744BA9C0.pngJuly 31, 2009 Scott Snyder mtg - phone conf..pdfNovember 17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting.pdf
Dear City Council,
Please appreciate - one way you can take steps to protect your constituents from experiencing what
the Reidy family experienced is to stop using the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds.
It is really very simple and straightforward. History shows the City government is willing to provide
incomplete/false information to the Hearing Examiner. You have all been provided the related
documentation many times. Two examples are attached again for your convenience. The “new
ordinance” was clearly a very relevant Code section but it was not included in the City Attorney and
City staff’s list of relevant Code sections. "Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at
minimum, a letter from neighbor states it was there prior to 1981." As all know, I found the law right
before my Hearing. I provided a signed and dated statement that my building had been seen in the
1960’s – but Hearing Examiner Rice ruled it was not relevant. It was very relevant.
The City did not provide this absolutely critical information to either the Reidys or the Hearing
Examiner. After Kernen Lien told Straub et al about the exact same relevant Code Section - it was
represented to former City Councilmember Steve Bernheim that in my case, the City was “forced” to
“push the issue” due to liability issues.
Current City Officials all know the facts and history shows nobody has the will to properly address
the wrongdoing. As such, it is very wrong and very unethical to promote the use of a Hearing
Examiner System in Edmonds. To the contrary, citizens should be told that the City has evidenced a
willingness to provide incomplete/false information to the Hearing Examiner. Transparency demands
full disclosure of the truth. The Hearing Examiner system might work in other Cities – but it does not
work in Edmonds.
Please protect your constituents and end the use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds at
once.
Thank you,
Ken Reidy
<!--[if !vml]-->
<!--
[endif]-->
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 5:36 PM
To: Thomas Mesaros; Diane Buckshnis; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Michael Nelson;
Dave Teitzel; Neil Tibbott
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Exhibit 16: Ken Reidy September 4, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Cc: Dave Earling; Jeff Taraday; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; Lien, Kernen
Subject: Re: Continuing to use the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds is Wrong and Unethical
Please include my emails about the use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds in all
future Council Agenda Packets dealing with the topic of Permit Decision Making and Quasi-
judicial Processes.
History proves Fact #11: The use of the Hearing Examiner system cannot be trustedto lead to justice in Edmonds because history proves the City is willing to provideincomplete and/or false information to the Hearing Examiner. Compounding thisproblem, history also proves current elected officials do not have the will to address thisimproper conduct and the great harm caused by the City's conduct. Without a will forliberty and justice for all, current elected officials are wrong and unethical to allowcitizens of Edmonds to be subject to the Hearing Examiner system. Please end use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds at once. Please respond per my multiple requests evidenced below. Thank you.
Ken Reidy
<!--[if !vml]-->
<!--
[endif]-->
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 5:56 AM
To: Thomas Mesaros; Diane Buckshnis; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Michael Nelson;
Dave Teitzel; Neil Tibbott
Cc: Dave Earling; Jeff Taraday; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; reedh@wciapool.org;
sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Continuing to use the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds is Wrong and Unethical
Please respond per my requests.
Ken Reidy
<!--[if !vml]-->
<!--
[endif]-->
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 3:19 PM
To: Thomas Mesaros; Diane Buckshnis; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Michael Nelson;
Dave Teitzel; Neil Tibbott
Cc: Dave Earling; Jeff Taraday; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; reedh@wciapool.org;
sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Continuing to use the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds is Wrong and Unethical
Dear City Council (Others blind cc’d),
Furthermore, on page 14 of 16 of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice’s Findings,
Conclusions, and Order signed on February 19, 2010 (even though she declared the Order
was mailed on February 18, 2010!), Ms. Rice stated the following:
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Exhibit 16: Ken Reidy September 4, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Had the Applicant applied for an encroachment permit, it would have been denied.
Why would Ms. Rice say such a thing? Why would she speculate that an application for an
encroachment permit would have been denied? Why would she incorporate her speculation
into her Findings, Conclusions, and Order? What was going on here?!?!
Please look again at the attached document: November 17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting
At the bottom of the notes, it clearly says:
(3) Building permit for alteration of shed and
to permit lean-to.
*encroachment to be issued in conjunction with bldg permit.
>clearly state encroachment permit VOID once
easement is VOID
Up above on the right-hand side of the notes, one can clearly see:
>Reidy to submit (#3) at same time
Please appreciate: Ann and Jeanie clearly knew that the Reidys could be issued an
encroachment permit!
So again - Why would Ms. Rice say such a thing? Why would she speculate that an
application for an encroachment permit would have been denied? Why would she
incorporate her speculation into her Findings, Conclusions, and Order? What was going on
here?!?!
This is yet another reason the Hearing Examiner System does not work in Edmonds. A System
that allows for Hearing Examiner speculation while staff who know better sit by quietly - must
be terminated.
Please do so before other citizens can be harmed like the Reidys were!
It might be different if elected officials would support their constituents harmed by such
conduct. Sadly, current elected officials have clearly shown they do not have the will to do so,instead allowing harm to continue for years and years.
Please end use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds at once.
Please respond and confirm you have read this email also.
Thank you.
Ken Reidy
<!--[if !vml]-->
<!--
[endif]-->
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 1:24 PM
To: Thomas Mesaros; Diane Buckshnis; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Michael Nelson;
Dave Teitzel; Neil Tibbott
Cc: Dave Earling; Jeff Taraday; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; reedh@wciapool.org;
sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Continuing to use the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds is Wrong and Unethical
Dear City Council (others blind cc’d),
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Exhibit 16: Ken Reidy September 4, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
The following FACTS should be very easy for current elected officials to verify, understand and
value:
1. It is FACT that the former City Attorney, former Mayor and City Staff never informed the
Reidys of City Ordinance # 3696, the Ordinance that grandfathered our setbacks. This FACT is
true even though Scott Snyder, Ann, Rob E and JMC discussed the new Ordinance that
grandfathered structures constructed prior to 1980 in a meeting/phone conference on July
31, 2009. This meeting/phone conference took place 189 days before Reidys’ Code
Enforcement Hearing in front of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010.
Please see attached PDF document: July 31, 2009 Scott Snyder mtg – phone conf.
2. It is FACT that City Staff knew that “Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at
minimum, a letter from neighbor states it was there prior to 1981”. This FACT was known
for at least 80 days before Reidys’ Code Enforcement Hearing in front of former Hearing
Examiner Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010. Please see attached PDF document: November
17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting
3. It is FACT that neither the former City Attorney or City Staff included ECDC 17.40.020(H) or
Ordinance #3696 as “Relevant Code Sections” in their “BUILDING DIVISION & ENGINEERING
DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER” dated January 27,
2010. ECDC 17.40.020(H) was relevant as the City knew it could grandfather Reidys' setbacks.
Please pause here and consider for a moment how egregious the City’s Conduct was
related to FACT #3 alone. The City Attorney and City Staff knew about and discussed a
relevant code section for months before the Reidys’ Hearing but still choose to leave the
critical information out of the City’s REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER!! How can any reasonable person trust the Hearing Examiner System in
Edmonds?
4. It is FACT that the Reidys discovered City Ordinance #3696 before our Code Enforcement
Hearing in front of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010.
5. It is FACT that neighbor Finis Tupper declared under penalty of perjury on January 30, 2010
that he remembered seeing the entire structure as far back as 1968.
6. It is FACT that the City objected to the admission of the Finis Tupper Declaration & Brief
document on relevance grounds. The City objected even though the City had known for a
long time that “Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from
neighbor states it was there prior to 1981”.
7. It is FACT that former City Attorney Scott Snyder represented to former Hearing Examiner
Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010 that: Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses only,
not illegal uses. As all know, this is simply not true in Edmonds. Edmonds has created
exceptions. Ordinance # 3696 is one example of an exception as is Ordinance # 3962
which grandfathered AT&T’s illegally initiated wireless facility that was not permitted upon its
establishment. Please take 45 seconds to listen to Snyder’s representation to former Hearing
Examiner Sharon Rice. Please see attached audio file: February 4, 2010 Scott Snyder
representation to Hearing Examiner
8. It is FACT that former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice represented that the Finis Tupper
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Exhibit 16: Ken Reidy September 4, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Declaration & Brief document was “undated”. The document was clearly dated so it is highly
alarming that Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice missed this and made a point to represent that
the document was “undated”.
9. It is FACT that that former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice represented that the testimony
and declaration of witness Finis Tupper addressing the duration of the existing accessory
structure in its current configuration was not relevant. Per Ordinance #3696, the declaration
was relevant. Once the evidence was provided, former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice and the
City were required to conclude that the structure was presumptively nonconforming. This
was MANDATORY per ECDC 17.40.020(H).
10. It is FACT that Ordinance #3696 grandfathered Reidys’ setbacks, just as it did for Straub et
al as documented in Kernen Lien’s letter dated August 30, 2010. Please ask yourself why the
City of Edmonds did not provide this same information to the Reidys or to former Hearing
Examiner Sharon Rice! Please see attached document: August 30, 2010 Kernen Lien letter
to Straub et al
The factual information documented above is brutal to say the least…especially as all of you
are very aware of the years of harm and suffering caused by the City’s harassment of the
Reidys.
The straw that breaks the back of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds, however, is the
current City Council’s choice to not voluntarily address all these great wrongs. I believe it is
very wrong and very unethical to not address these great wrongs and then go forward as if the
Hearing Examiner System can be trusted and is fair to citizens of Edmonds. History proves
Fact #11: The use of the Hearing Examiner system cannot be trusted to lead to justice in
Edmonds because history proves the City is willing to provide incomplete and/or false
information to the Hearing Examiner. Compounding this problem, history also proves
current elected officials do not have the will to address this improper conduct and
the great harm caused by the City's conduct. Without a will for liberty and justice for all,
current elected officials are wrong and unethical to allow citizens of Edmonds to be subject
to the Hearing Examiner system.
Please end use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds at once.
Please respond and confirm you have read this email, read the 3 PDF's attached and listened
to the 45 second long audio clip. Thank you.
Ken Reidy
7.2.p
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Exhibit 16: Ken Reidy September 4, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From:Ken Reidy
To:Earling, Dave; Nelson, Michael; Monillas, Adrienne; Johnson, Kristiana; Buckshnis, Diane; Mesaros, Thomas;Tibbott, Neil; Teitzel, Dave; Hite, Carrie; Williams, Phil; Hope, Shane; Lien, Kernen
Cc:Taraday, Jeff; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject:Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien"s important letter
Date:Saturday, September 8, 2018 8:49:51 AM
Attachments:July 31, 2009 Scott Snyder mtg - phone conf..pdfFebruary 4, 2010 Scott Snyder representation to Hearing Examiner.amrAugust 30, 2010 Kernen Lien letter to Straub et al.pdf
Once again,
For those of you who think citizens should go in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge, please
consider the following:
I followed the process, paid for my appeal, and spent massive resources researching the laws
in preparation for my Hearing. The huge cost of time and money expended between July 31,
2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me
on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Please see those notes attached. Why do you think they kept that from me? Why the
bullying and harassing related to something that could have been so easily addressed? I
finally became aware of Ordinance No. 3696 just days before my February 4, 2010 Hearing.
Please listen to the attached audio clip. It is less than 1-minute long.
You will clearly hear me say:
“Another point, just don’t underestimate the significance of when the building was
built. Umm, I’m not an attorney but it may be grandfathered because it was built before
1981. That could be a significant issue.”
I concluded by saying that for a number of reasons my building was legal.
After my comments, W. Scott Snyder represented to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
Why do you think Snyder represented this instead of telling Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice
what Kernen Lien represented to Straub, et al in the attached letter dated August 30, 2010?:
"According to ECDC 17.40.020.A and ECDC 17.40.020.H (which contains similar language), if
you can provide "photographic or other substantial evidence" that the lean-to existed on or
before January 1, 1981, the structure will be presumed to be a nonconforming building
and a variance application will not be necessary for the lean-to to remain."
Mr. Lien understood the law and the intent behind the law. He knew that grandfathering
did not only apply to legally initiated uses in the City of Edmonds!
Straub et al had applied for a variance! They would not have needed a variance had
their lean-to been a legally initiated use.
History proves going in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge does not work so well for
all citizens of Edmonds. Do current City Officials believe citizens must have unlimited
resources to combat the type of City conduct I faced?
Please give this deep thought. Will there ever be any outrage expressed by any of you? You
see the harm that this caused. You see the daily torment that goes on and on. The City
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
government caused this by its illegal acts. I believe ethical people make this right. To do
otherwise would be to support wrong and to support the harassment and harm of citizens
who did nothing wrong.
The huge cost expended between July 31, 2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been
avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me on July 31, 2009 that they had
just discussed the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
The years of torment that have followed could have been easily avoided also. But they did not
tell me - they kept it secret and then Snyder made his comments to Rice after I discovered
Ordinance No. 3696.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 6:20 PM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
Please note that Straub et al. had applied for a Variance Application (PLN20100063) because
the City and Straub et al. knew that their building was ILLEGAL:
Following is the permit WORK DESCRIPTION:
REDUCE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK FROM 25' TO 0'7" TO ALLOW FOR THE
RETENTION OF AN EXISTING LEAN TO STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS.
Please fully comprehend that the City and Straub et al. knew without a doubt that the existing
lean to structure had been CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS and violated the required 25’
setback.
In my case, W. Scott Snyder represented to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
Why do you think Snyder represented this instead of telling Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice
what Kernen Lien represented to Straub, et al in his letter dated August 30, 2010?:
"According to ECDC 17.40.020.A and ECDC 17.40.020.H (which contains similar language), if
you can provide "photographic or other substantial evidence" that the lean-to existed on or
before January 1, 1981, the structure will be presumed to be a nonconforming building
and a variance application will not be necessary for the lean-to to remain."
Yup - the Straub EXISTING LEAN TO STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS was
allowed to remain. So much for the representation to Rice that "Grandfathering applies to
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses." That simply is not true in Edmonds. See Ordinance
3696 for one example and see the Ordinance that grandfathered AT&T's facility for another
example.
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 11:42 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
Do any of you truly believe a citizen should have to spend the majority of their lifetime savings
fighting back against the City's code enforcement efforts related to a structure grandfathered
by Ordinance No. 3696?
We'd still have our peace of mind, our money and our shed had we simply been told about the
new ordinance. Straub was told after they applied for a variance - why weren't we told the
same thing?
The City could have also told us about the law on November 17, 2009 - the day we met with
former Mayor Gary Haakenson. See notes from the same day attached. Why weren't we told
that?:
"Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from neighbor states it
was there prior to 1981."
I could have provided that letter that day had they told me about the law.
Just think about the massive stress for years and years that could have been so easily avoided.
That stress continues each and every day.
It took us almost 30 years of very hard work to save that money.
Ken Reidy
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 10:56 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
The following is right out of Snyder's 7/28/09 email - he had the date of Kolouskova's
email wrong by 3 days - but he knew Kolouskova had conveyed an offer on Thuesen's behalf!:
"Duana Kouloskova, Thuesen's attorney sent an email on 7/20 questioning the withholding
of civil plan approval and conveying an offer to drop a civil appeal of the vacation if the
"shed" was removed."
The offer that was conveyed involved taking action against third party Reidy - requiring me to
remove my shed. 3 days later, the City realized and discussed that:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Why did Snyder and staff not just simply tell Kolouskova/Thuesen about the new ordinance?
Did Snyder and Staff tell the City Council about the offer that was conveyed?
The City kept me in the dark - and chose to not tell me about the new ordinance OR the offer
that Thuesen's attorney had conveyed.
Where is the outrage?
Does the City Attorney and Staff have the authority to act related to offers conveyed by
opposition legal counsel without City Council's involvement?
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 10:08 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
To all,
So why did Snyder and City Staff not tell me on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed the
following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Why do you think they kept that from me?
Did the following have anything to do with why they kept this secret from me?:
At 9:41 am on July 17, 2009, Thuesen Attorney Duana Kolouskova emailed former City
Attorney Scott Snyder an email that included the following “Framework for Resolution” offer:
Based on the foregoing context, I have discussed your email with Eric and how we may be
able resolve some of these issues at this juncture. Eric has agreed that he will dismiss the
roadway vacation, including all issues and claims against the City with respect to the
secondary access from 9th Avenue to the Thuesen primary residence, based on the
following precondition:
• The shed and the identified trees are removed by either the City or Mr. Reidy not later
than end of business on August 6, 2009.
If said obstructions are removed by that date, we would dismiss the vacation lawsuit the
following, week.
What did Thuesen's secondary access off of 9th Avenue to his primary residence have to do
with me?
Thuesen Attorney Kolouskova’s email to Scott Snyder was not cc’d to anybody. Snyder
responded 54 minutes later, cc’d Jeanie McConnell and Rob English, and told Kolouskova that
he would “convey this proposal to my client”. Even tough Reidy was named in
this "Framework for Resolution" legal settlement offer, Reidy was not copied on these
emails. The Reidys were not included in the related "proposal" discussion – we had no
idea that, behind our back, the City team was negotiating Code Enforcement against us
with Thuesen.
On July 28, 2009, Scott Snyder emailed his famous time table that included the concept
of triggering Reidys’ duty to remove his shed. Please see that email attached. We had no
such duty – our shed was legal. Had it not been legal, it could have easily been permitted via
an encroachment permit.
Three days after Snyder's time table was emailed, on July 31, 2009, the City team discussed
that:
”Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
One would hope that realization would have put a stop to Step 3 in Snyder’s Time Table:
-when the civil approvals are final, trigger Reidy's duty to remove the shed.
I had no such duty. The City knew structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are
grandfathered.
With full knowledge of this – the City ramped up its code enforcement efforts. Please see the
attached Code Enforcement Order dated August 7, 2009. The Civil approvals were not final
until August 13, 2009. Landau's related report (See step 2 in Snyder's Time Table) wasn't
received at the City until October 7th of 2009!!!!- see attached. Landau's 3 options were all
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
better than what this City government did to me - especially Options #2 & #3. What incredibly
conduct by City of Edmonds government!
Did the City act early to be closer to the deadline date of August 6, 2009? Why did the City act
at all after the City realized and discussed that?:
”Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 7:39 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
To all,
For those of you who think citizens should go in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge, please
consider the following:
I followed the process, paid for my appeal, and spent massive resources researching the laws
in preparation for my Hearing. The huge cost of time and money expended between July 31,
2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me
on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Please see those notes attached. Why do you think they kept that from me? Why the bullying
and harassing related to something that could have been so easily addressed? I finally
became aware of Ordinance No. 3696 just days before my February 4, 2010 Hearing.
Please listen to the attached audio clip. It is less than 1-minute long.
You will clearly hear me say:
“Another point, just don’t underestimate the significance of when the building was built.
Umm, I’m not an attorney but it may be grandfathered because it was built before 1981.
That could be a significant issue.”
I concluded by saying that for a number of reasons my building was legal.
After my comments, W. Scott Snyder represented to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
Why do you think Snyder represented this instead of telling Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice
what Kernen Lien represented to Straub, et al in the attached letter dated August 30, 2010?:
"According to ECDC 17.40.020.A and ECDC 17.40.020.H (which contains similar language), if
you can provide "photographic or other substantial evidence" that the lean-to existed on or
before January 1, 1981, the structure will be presumed to be a nonconforming building
and a variance application will not be necessary for the lean-to to remain."
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Mr. Lien understood the law and the intent behind the law. He knew that grandfathering
did not only apply to legally initiated uses in the City of Edmonds!
Straub et al had applied for a variance! They would not have needed a variance had their
lean-to been a legally initiated use.
History proves going in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge does not work so well for
all citizens of Edmonds. Do current City Officials believe citizens must have unlimited
resources to combat the type of City conduct I faced?
Please give this deep thought. Will there ever be any outrage expressed by any of you? You
see the harm that this caused. You see the daily torment that goes on and on. The City
government caused this by its illegal acts. I believe ethical people make this right. To do
otherwise would be to support wrong and to support the harassment and harm of citizens
who did nothing wrong.
The huge cost expended between July 31, 2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been
avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed
the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
The years of torment that have followed could have been easily avoided also. But they did not
tell me - they kept it secret and then Snyder made his comments to Rice after I discovered
Ordinance No. 3696.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 7:11 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday
Subject: Re: City Council Agenda June 5, 2018
To all,
While Temporary Construction Easements are fresh in your mind, please appreciate that a TCE
is a temporary right acquired by the City from an owner of real property. The TCE allows the
City to use property belonging to another party for a public purpose – construction.
The legal document used to facilitate this acquisition of temporary rights is a GRANT. You all
know this as evidenced by the GRANT document attached to Tuesday night’s agenda packet.
TCE’s are temporary. At the end of the temporary period, RESTORATION is required as part of
the GRANT contract. RESTORATION is a critical element of the contract. For example, upon
completion of the Hickman Park Project work, the City shall RESTORE the property to
substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject Project.
In my case – the City had no need to construct, repair or maintain anything. There was no
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
public project that would have modified our property. There was no public purpose for the
TCE.
The TCE was forced on us against our will. The TCE was tied to the 5 year life of Thuesen’s
preliminary plat approval. The City failed to get a GRANT.
Without a GRANT, there was nothing in a Contract requiring the City to RESTORE our property
to its original condition at the end of the TCE Term.
As you all know – Thuesen never needed or used our land. The only thing the TCE was used
for was the City’s Code enforcement attack on our legal building. The City knew our building
was legal for many reasons, including the fact that a new ordinance grandfathered its
setbacks.
Please give this deep thought. Will there ever be any outrage expressed by any of you? You
see the harm that this caused. You see the daily torment that goes on and on. The City
government caused this by its illegal acts. I believe ethical people make this right. To do
otherwise would be to support wrong and to support the harassment and harm of citizens
who did nothing wrong.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 11:30 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday
Subject: City Council Agenda June 5, 2018
To all,
The June 5, 2018 City Council Agenda includes a staff recommendation to accept and sign a
Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) for work in and around Hickman Park. An easement
document is included in the Agenda Packet whereby the property owners convey and GRANT
the TCE to the City of Edmonds. The TCE has a public purpose – it is to be used specifically
for Hickman Park Project work documented on Agenda Packet Pg. 117.
Upon completion of the Hickman Park Project work, the City shall RESTORE the property to
substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject Project.
For contrast, Snyder intervened into the September 16, 2008 Public Hearing and
recommended the City Council reserve a TCE for private party Thuesen on my fee title
property. There was no public purpose – the City had no project work to do on my property.
The TCE was solely for Thuesen’s use and the life of the easement was tied to Thuesen’s 5
year preliminary plat approval.
The TCE on my property was not GRANTED to the City of Edmonds. The TCE on my property
was not GRANTED to private party Thuesen. (The current City Council apparently believes it
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
can require fee title owners to GRANT easements to private third-parties as evidenced by
Resolution No. 1405. I wonder where that idea came from? No supporting law has been
provided despite numerous requests and even a promise to research and get back to me.)
Had my situation involved the GRANT of an easement - I would have had the
opportunity to require RESTORATION of my property upon completion of any work. Please
read that again and think about it. Had my situation involved the GRANT of an easement - I
would have had the opportunity to require RESTORATION of my property upon completion
of any work. A requirement for RESTORATION could have helped prevent much harassment
and bullying of my family. But City of Edmonds government made sure there was no GRANT.
The City simply forced the TCE on me against my will.
As there was no GRANT document – there was nothing that required the City to RESTORE my
property to substantially its original condition.
As there was no public Project – there should not have been anything to RESTORE. Also - the
TCE was never needed or used privately by Thuesen. History shows Thuesen was able to build
his private retaining wall without using my property.
For some reason, City of Edmonds government was motivated to clear the TCE area ahead of
any use by Thuesen. The City bullied and harassed us with multiple code enforcement orders
over many months. We lost a huge chunk of our lifetime savings fighting off the City’s
attacks. The loss of the savings affects us each and every day. Think of the hard work for
decades to build up those savings. Remember – City of Edmonds government chose to do all
of this even though the TCE would never be used for any construction purpose whatsoever.
As the City was bullying and harassing my family – Snyder and City Staff realized no later than
July 31, 2009 that a new Ordinance grandfathered structures constructed prior to 1980. See
attached. The City did not share this information with me. To the contrary – 8 days later the
City of Edmonds ramped up its Code Enforcement attack August 7, 2009. See attached.
It was ugly and very harmful - and history proves it was all for nothing. The end result was
that I was made to establish a 12.5’ setback where only a 5’ setback is required. Of course no
setback at all was required because the new ordinance grandfathered the structure.
As for the concept of the City RESTORING the property to substantially its original condition,
except as modified by the subject Project – that is just another bad reflection on Edmonds City
government. There was no project that modified the property. Nevertheless, my legal
structure was permanently taken by the City of Edmonds related to its illegal temporary
easement. The structure was never RESTORED.
I believe that Current officials choice to refuse to voluntarily address these outrageous
historical acts fuels distrust in City government and harms all citizens of Edmonds. I continue
to hope that a person will come along in City government who will insist the City act with
integrity. I continue to hope that one day there will be somebody with the will to fight for
citizens harmed by the City's illegal, unethical conduct.
Ken Reidy
7.2.q
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Exhibit 17: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #1 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From:Ken Reidy
To:Earling, Dave; Nelson, Michael; Monillas, Adrienne; Johnson, Kristiana; Buckshnis, Diane; Mesaros, Thomas;Tibbott, Neil; Teitzel, Dave; Hite, Carrie; Williams, Phil; Hope, Shane; Lien, Kernen
Cc:Taraday, Jeff; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject:Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien"s important letter
Date:Saturday, September 8, 2018 9:37:05 AM
Attachments:July 31, 2009 Scott Snyder mtg - phone conf..pdfNovember 17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting.pdf
To all,
Why do you think they kept that from me? Why the bullying and harassing related to
something that could have been so easily addressed?
The following may provide a big clue:
Back on September 16, 2010, former City Councilmember Steve Bernheim asked former City
Attorney W. Scott Snyder and Kernen Lien the following:
May I ask in connection with the Straub variance application (see attached) what is the difference
between the Straub's case and Ken Reidy's case regarding the applicability of the city's grandfather
clause for nonconforming structures?
Snyder's response was his famous September 16, 2010 email to Bernheim that
included the following:
“You are also aware of the liability issues relative to Thuesen that forced the city
(administration) to push the issue.”
Why would liability or legal obligations cause the City to treat citizens differently
under the same law, ECDC 17.40.020 (A) & (H)?
PUSH THE ISSUE - isn't that simply incredible! Why
not just keep it simple and follow the law?
Please appreciate, the City of Edmonds clearly chooses if and when it will follow the law and who
it will or won’t help!
Snyder had the option of telling Bernheim about the City’s secret discussions about my
shed, the new ordinance and grandfathering. See both sets of notes attached. Instead, he chose to
argue that my situation was somehow different than the Straub situation.
Despite Scott Snyder’s complete knowledge of the grace period created under Ordinance 3696 – and
despite the fact that he and staff had discussed this law and my building in their private meetings
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
(See attached 7/31/09 notes) – and despite the fact that he had advised the City that it
had the authority to lighten the burden for property owners regarding nonconforming uses
by creating exceptions – Snyder chose to make the following representation to former Hearing
Examiner Sharon Rice at the conclusion of my Code Enforcement Hearing:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
This is not always true in Edmonds because Edmonds creates exceptions. For example, Ordinance
3696 created an exception for accessory buildings that existed prior to January 1, 1981. (You all
know about AT&T also.) Please remember, the June 3, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes clearly
document that Staff’s intent was to establish a grace period for structures that existed prior to
January 1, 1981, the effective date of the ECDC, and staff would not pursue those buildings as
nonconforming. The exception would be an accessory dwelling unit. He (Duane Bowman)
commented this would reduce the burden on staff and homeowners
to demonstrate compliance with a building permit for accessory structures in existence for 30+
years.
I proved that my building had been in existence for 30+ years. What more should I have had to do to
keep the City of Edmonds from invading my privacy, harassing me, breaking the City’s
own laws and pursuing and attacking my private property that the City knew could
be grandfathered?
So this concept that the “city government does not get to choose who it will or won’t help”
is extremely dangerous and misleading. There may be citizens out there that will rely on this
representation and ignorantly trust that the City will be just and treat all citizens fairly and
equally under the law. History shows that this is not true – this is not how City of Edmonds
government always conducts itself. Citizens need to know that Edmonds
will push issues rather than just applying its laws fairly and equally.
I think all elected officials and City Staff have a duty to be truthful – please make sure all citizens
know that history proves the Edmonds City government chooses who it will or won’t help….even
when City government is aware of a new ordinance that grandfathered private property like my shed
that was built in the 1960’s.
The Hearing Examiner System does not work in Edmonds. History shows that City Officials think they
can push the issue due to so called liability issues. History shows City Officials are willing to
provide the Hearing Examiner incomplete information and also misrepresent law to the Hearing
Examiner.
History shows City Council will not advocate for citizens harmed by such conduct.
A Hearing Examiner system should work in theory - but history shows it does not work in Edmonds.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 8, 2018 8:49 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; Lien, Kernen
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
Once again,
For those of you who think citizens should go in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge, please
consider the following:
I followed the process, paid for my appeal, and spent massive resources researching the laws
in preparation for my Hearing. The huge cost of time and money expended between July 31,
2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me
on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Please see those notes attached. Why do you think they kept that from me? Why the
bullying and harassing related to something that could have been so easily addressed? I
finally became aware of Ordinance No. 3696 just days before my February 4, 2010 Hearing.
Please listen to the attached audio clip. It is less than 1-minute long.
You will clearly hear me say:
“Another point, just don’t underestimate the significance of when the building was
built. Umm, I’m not an attorney but it may be grandfathered because it was built before
1981. That could be a significant issue.”
I concluded by saying that for a number of reasons my building was legal.
After my comments, W. Scott Snyder represented to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
Why do you think Snyder represented this instead of telling Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice
what Kernen Lien represented to Straub, et al in the attached letter dated August 30, 2010?:
"According to ECDC 17.40.020.A and ECDC 17.40.020.H (which contains similar language), if
you can provide "photographic or other substantial evidence" that the lean-to existed on or
before January 1, 1981, the structure will be presumed to be a nonconforming building
and a variance application will not be necessary for the lean-to to remain."
Mr. Lien understood the law and the intent behind the law. He knew that grandfathering
did not only apply to legally initiated uses in the City of Edmonds!
Straub et al had applied for a variance! They would not have needed a variance had
their lean-to been a legally initiated use.
History proves going in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge does not work so well for
all citizens of Edmonds. Do current City Officials believe citizens must have unlimited
resources to combat the type of City conduct I faced?
Please give this deep thought. Will there ever be any outrage expressed by any of you? You
see the harm that this caused. You see the daily torment that goes on and on. The City
government caused this by its illegal acts. I believe ethical people make this right. To do
otherwise would be to support wrong and to support the harassment and harm of citizens
who did nothing wrong.
The huge cost expended between July 31, 2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been
avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me on July 31, 2009 that they had
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
just discussed the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
The years of torment that have followed could have been easily avoided also. But they did not
tell me - they kept it secret and then Snyder made his comments to Rice after I discovered
Ordinance No. 3696.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 6:20 PM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
Please note that Straub et al. had applied for a Variance Application (PLN20100063) because
the City and Straub et al. knew that their building was ILLEGAL:
Following is the permit WORK DESCRIPTION:
REDUCE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK FROM 25' TO 0'7" TO ALLOW FOR THE
RETENTION OF AN EXISTING LEAN TO STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS.
Please fully comprehend that the City and Straub et al. knew without a doubt that the existing
lean to structure had been CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS and violated the required 25’
setback.
In my case, W. Scott Snyder represented to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
Why do you think Snyder represented this instead of telling Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice
what Kernen Lien represented to Straub, et al in his letter dated August 30, 2010?:
"According to ECDC 17.40.020.A and ECDC 17.40.020.H (which contains similar language), if
you can provide "photographic or other substantial evidence" that the lean-to existed on or
before January 1, 1981, the structure will be presumed to be a nonconforming building
and a variance application will not be necessary for the lean-to to remain."
Yup - the Straub EXISTING LEAN TO STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS was
allowed to remain. So much for the representation to Rice that "Grandfathering applies to
legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses." That simply is not true in Edmonds. See Ordinance
3696 for one example and see the Ordinance that grandfathered AT&T's facility for another
example.
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 11:42 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
Do any of you truly believe a citizen should have to spend the majority of their lifetime savings
fighting back against the City's code enforcement efforts related to a structure grandfathered
by Ordinance No. 3696?
We'd still have our peace of mind, our money and our shed had we simply been told about the
new ordinance. Straub was told after they applied for a variance - why weren't we told the
same thing?
The City could have also told us about the law on November 17, 2009 - the day we met with
former Mayor Gary Haakenson. See notes from the same day attached. Why weren't we told
that?:
"Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from neighbor states it
was there prior to 1981."
I could have provided that letter that day had they told me about the law.
Just think about the massive stress for years and years that could have been so easily avoided.
That stress continues each and every day.
It took us almost 30 years of very hard work to save that money.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 10:56 AM
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
The following is right out of Snyder's 7/28/09 email - he had the date of Kolouskova's
email wrong by 3 days - but he knew Kolouskova had conveyed an offer on Thuesen's behalf!:
"Duana Kouloskova, Thuesen's attorney sent an email on 7/20 questioning the withholding
of civil plan approval and conveying an offer to drop a civil appeal of the vacation if the
"shed" was removed."
The offer that was conveyed involved taking action against third party Reidy - requiring me to
remove my shed. 3 days later, the City realized and discussed that:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Why did Snyder and staff not just simply tell Kolouskova/Thuesen about the new ordinance?
Did Snyder and Staff tell the City Council about the offer that was conveyed?
The City kept me in the dark - and chose to not tell me about the new ordinance OR the offer
that Thuesen's attorney had conveyed.
Where is the outrage?
Does the City Attorney and Staff have the authority to act related to offers conveyed by
opposition legal counsel without City Council's involvement?
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 10:08 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
To all,
So why did Snyder and City Staff not tell me on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed the
following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Why do you think they kept that from me?
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Did the following have anything to do with why they kept this secret from me?:
At 9:41 am on July 17, 2009, Thuesen Attorney Duana Kolouskova emailed former City
Attorney Scott Snyder an email that included the following “Framework for Resolution” offer:
Based on the foregoing context, I have discussed your email with Eric and how we may be
able resolve some of these issues at this juncture. Eric has agreed that he will dismiss the
roadway vacation, including all issues and claims against the City with respect to the
secondary access from 9th Avenue to the Thuesen primary residence, based on the
following precondition:
• The shed and the identified trees are removed by either the City or Mr. Reidy not later
than end of business on August 6, 2009.
If said obstructions are removed by that date, we would dismiss the vacation lawsuit the
following, week.
What did Thuesen's secondary access off of 9th Avenue to his primary residence have to do
with me?
Thuesen Attorney Kolouskova’s email to Scott Snyder was not cc’d to anybody. Snyder
responded 54 minutes later, cc’d Jeanie McConnell and Rob English, and told Kolouskova that
he would “convey this proposal to my client”. Even tough Reidy was named in
this "Framework for Resolution" legal settlement offer, Reidy was not copied on these
emails. The Reidys were not included in the related "proposal" discussion – we had no
idea that, behind our back, the City team was negotiating Code Enforcement against us
with Thuesen.
On July 28, 2009, Scott Snyder emailed his famous time table that included the concept
of triggering Reidys’ duty to remove his shed. Please see that email attached. We had no
such duty – our shed was legal. Had it not been legal, it could have easily been permitted via
an encroachment permit.
Three days after Snyder's time table was emailed, on July 31, 2009, the City team discussed
that:
”Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
One would hope that realization would have put a stop to Step 3 in Snyder’s Time Table:
-when the civil approvals are final, trigger Reidy's duty to remove the shed.
I had no such duty. The City knew structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are
grandfathered.
With full knowledge of this – the City ramped up its code enforcement efforts. Please see the
attached Code Enforcement Order dated August 7, 2009. The Civil approvals were not final
until August 13, 2009. Landau's related report (See step 2 in Snyder's Time Table) wasn't
received at the City until October 7th of 2009!!!!- see attached. Landau's 3 options were all
better than what this City government did to me - especially Options #2 & #3. What incredibly
conduct by City of Edmonds government!
Did the City act early to be closer to the deadline date of August 6, 2009? Why did the City act
at all after the City realized and discussed that?:
”Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 7:39 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
To all,
For those of you who think citizens should go in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge, please
consider the following:
I followed the process, paid for my appeal, and spent massive resources researching the laws
in preparation for my Hearing. The huge cost of time and money expended between July 31,
2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me
on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Please see those notes attached. Why do you think they kept that from me? Why the bullying
and harassing related to something that could have been so easily addressed? I finally
became aware of Ordinance No. 3696 just days before my February 4, 2010 Hearing.
Please listen to the attached audio clip. It is less than 1-minute long.
You will clearly hear me say:
“Another point, just don’t underestimate the significance of when the building was built.
Umm, I’m not an attorney but it may be grandfathered because it was built before 1981.
That could be a significant issue.”
I concluded by saying that for a number of reasons my building was legal.
After my comments, W. Scott Snyder represented to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
Why do you think Snyder represented this instead of telling Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice
what Kernen Lien represented to Straub, et al in the attached letter dated August 30, 2010?:
"According to ECDC 17.40.020.A and ECDC 17.40.020.H (which contains similar language), if
you can provide "photographic or other substantial evidence" that the lean-to existed on or
before January 1, 1981, the structure will be presumed to be a nonconforming building
and a variance application will not be necessary for the lean-to to remain."
Mr. Lien understood the law and the intent behind the law. He knew that grandfathering
did not only apply to legally initiated uses in the City of Edmonds!
Straub et al had applied for a variance! They would not have needed a variance had their
lean-to been a legally initiated use.
History proves going in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge does not work so well for
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
all citizens of Edmonds. Do current City Officials believe citizens must have unlimited
resources to combat the type of City conduct I faced?
Please give this deep thought. Will there ever be any outrage expressed by any of you? You
see the harm that this caused. You see the daily torment that goes on and on. The City
government caused this by its illegal acts. I believe ethical people make this right. To do
otherwise would be to support wrong and to support the harassment and harm of citizens
who did nothing wrong.
The huge cost expended between July 31, 2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been
avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed
the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
The years of torment that have followed could have been easily avoided also. But they did not
tell me - they kept it secret and then Snyder made his comments to Rice after I discovered
Ordinance No. 3696.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 7:11 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday
Subject: Re: City Council Agenda June 5, 2018
To all,
While Temporary Construction Easements are fresh in your mind, please appreciate that a TCE
is a temporary right acquired by the City from an owner of real property. The TCE allows the
City to use property belonging to another party for a public purpose – construction.
The legal document used to facilitate this acquisition of temporary rights is a GRANT. You all
know this as evidenced by the GRANT document attached to Tuesday night’s agenda packet.
TCE’s are temporary. At the end of the temporary period, RESTORATION is required as part of
the GRANT contract. RESTORATION is a critical element of the contract. For example, upon
completion of the Hickman Park Project work, the City shall RESTORE the property to
substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject Project.
In my case – the City had no need to construct, repair or maintain anything. There was no
public project that would have modified our property. There was no public purpose for the
TCE.
The TCE was forced on us against our will. The TCE was tied to the 5 year life of Thuesen’s
preliminary plat approval. The City failed to get a GRANT.
Without a GRANT, there was nothing in a Contract requiring the City to RESTORE our property
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
to its original condition at the end of the TCE Term.
As you all know – Thuesen never needed or used our land. The only thing the TCE was used
for was the City’s Code enforcement attack on our legal building. The City knew our building
was legal for many reasons, including the fact that a new ordinance grandfathered its
setbacks.
Please give this deep thought. Will there ever be any outrage expressed by any of you? You
see the harm that this caused. You see the daily torment that goes on and on. The City
government caused this by its illegal acts. I believe ethical people make this right. To do
otherwise would be to support wrong and to support the harassment and harm of citizens
who did nothing wrong.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 11:30 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday
Subject: City Council Agenda June 5, 2018
To all,
The June 5, 2018 City Council Agenda includes a staff recommendation to accept and sign a
Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) for work in and around Hickman Park. An easement
document is included in the Agenda Packet whereby the property owners convey and GRANT
the TCE to the City of Edmonds. The TCE has a public purpose – it is to be used specifically
for Hickman Park Project work documented on Agenda Packet Pg. 117.
Upon completion of the Hickman Park Project work, the City shall RESTORE the property to
substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject Project.
For contrast, Snyder intervened into the September 16, 2008 Public Hearing and
recommended the City Council reserve a TCE for private party Thuesen on my fee title
property. There was no public purpose – the City had no project work to do on my property.
The TCE was solely for Thuesen’s use and the life of the easement was tied to Thuesen’s 5
year preliminary plat approval.
The TCE on my property was not GRANTED to the City of Edmonds. The TCE on my property
was not GRANTED to private party Thuesen. (The current City Council apparently believes it
can require fee title owners to GRANT easements to private third-parties as evidenced by
Resolution No. 1405. I wonder where that idea came from? No supporting law has been
provided despite numerous requests and even a promise to research and get back to me.)
Had my situation involved the GRANT of an easement - I would have had the
opportunity to require RESTORATION of my property upon completion of any work. Please
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
read that again and think about it. Had my situation involved the GRANT of an easement - I
would have had the opportunity to require RESTORATION of my property upon completion
of any work. A requirement for RESTORATION could have helped prevent much harassment
and bullying of my family. But City of Edmonds government made sure there was no GRANT.
The City simply forced the TCE on me against my will.
As there was no GRANT document – there was nothing that required the City to RESTORE my
property to substantially its original condition.
As there was no public Project – there should not have been anything to RESTORE. Also - the
TCE was never needed or used privately by Thuesen. History shows Thuesen was able to build
his private retaining wall without using my property.
For some reason, City of Edmonds government was motivated to clear the TCE area ahead of
any use by Thuesen. The City bullied and harassed us with multiple code enforcement orders
over many months. We lost a huge chunk of our lifetime savings fighting off the City’s
attacks. The loss of the savings affects us each and every day. Think of the hard work for
decades to build up those savings. Remember – City of Edmonds government chose to do all
of this even though the TCE would never be used for any construction purpose whatsoever.
As the City was bullying and harassing my family – Snyder and City Staff realized no later than
July 31, 2009 that a new Ordinance grandfathered structures constructed prior to 1980. See
attached. The City did not share this information with me. To the contrary – 8 days later the
City of Edmonds ramped up its Code Enforcement attack August 7, 2009. See attached.
It was ugly and very harmful - and history proves it was all for nothing. The end result was
that I was made to establish a 12.5’ setback where only a 5’ setback is required. Of course no
setback at all was required because the new ordinance grandfathered the structure.
As for the concept of the City RESTORING the property to substantially its original condition,
except as modified by the subject Project – that is just another bad reflection on Edmonds City
government. There was no project that modified the property. Nevertheless, my legal
structure was permanently taken by the City of Edmonds related to its illegal temporary
easement. The structure was never RESTORED.
I believe that Current officials choice to refuse to voluntarily address these outrageous
historical acts fuels distrust in City government and harms all citizens of Edmonds. I continue
to hope that a person will come along in City government who will insist the City act with
integrity. I continue to hope that one day there will be somebody with the will to fight for
citizens harmed by the City's illegal, unethical conduct.
Ken Reidy
7.2.r
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Exhibit 18: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #2 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From:Ken Reidy
To:Earling, Dave; Nelson, Michael; Monillas, Adrienne; Johnson, Kristiana; Buckshnis, Diane; Mesaros, Thomas;Tibbott, Neil; Teitzel, Dave; Hite, Carrie; Williams, Phil; Hope, Shane; Lien, Kernen
Cc:Taraday, Jeff; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject:Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien"s important letter
Date:Saturday, September 8, 2018 9:54:27 AM
Attachments:Gebert Email - Thuesen Civils.pdf
To all,
Why do elected officials think a Hearing Examiner system works in Edmonds? History shows
the City of Edmonds is very willing to violate Hearing Examiner Decisions, use a former Hearing
Examiner rather than the Hearing Examiner under contract, etc. The related documentation
has been provided to all of you.
As a citizen, I believe strongly that it is time to end the use of a Hearing Examiner system in
Edmonds. When Hearing Examiners are willing to represent blatant FALSEHOODS in a
decision (See Below) - surely the City Council can see that this system is grossly unfair to
Edmonds citizens. Please end use of the Hearing Examiner system at once!
During 2015, the Hearing Examiner operated for nearly a year after his contract expired - until
citizen's brought this conduct to the City's attention. In 2007 - a
former Hearing Examiner acted as if he was the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem when there was no
need for such - the City had Hearing Examiners Toweill, Rice, Taylor under contract at the
time. On February 4, 2010, former City Attorney Scott Snyder made the following very
incomplete representation to the Hearing Examiner during my Code Enforcement Hearing:
Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses only, not illegal uses.As all of you know, this is simply not true in Edmonds. Edmonds creates exceptions. The ordinance that grandfathered my shed proves that. The Ordinance grandfatheringthe wireless facilities built without permit proves that. Why didn't Hearing Examiner SharonRice know this and call Snyder out?
Please appreciate the following:
Blatant FALSEHOOD taken right out of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice's February 19,
2010 decision Document - the Document she declared under penalty of perjury to have
mailed February 18, 2010 -(yes, those dates are factual):
"Due to topography, the initial design of the neighboring short plat involved a retaining wall
proposed in the unopened alley between the Appellant's and Plat Applicant's properties."
TRUTH - found on page 10 of 2006 Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell's July 6, 2006 Decision -
the following was included in STAFF'S RESPONSE:
“Mr. Thuesen fails to note that his original application, which the City concurs is vested to the
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
old Critical Areas Ordinance, was for a two lot short plat where both lots gained access to
9th Ave. N. and the wetland was entirely preserved.”
2006 Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell concurred with staff that vesting only applies to the
original application(dated January 18, 2005) and not to the substantial modifications
submitted by the applicant many months later.
2006 Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell then clearly ruled on July 26,
2006 that “Complete relocation of driveways, etc. was not approved.” The record was
closed on that date - Scott Snyder knows that, see below.
Despite Ron McConnell's clear ruling on July 26, 2006, less than 1 year later, City
Staff expedited review of Thuesen's civil plans that involved a complete relocation of
the driveway. City Staff did so on June 8, 2007 - see attached.
Please ask yourself - why did City Staff do this 3 days
before self proclaimed Hearing Examiner Pro Tem Ron McConnell
even issued his June 11, 2007 final decision? Why did staff also know about a
settlement? (Please note - Toweill, Rice, Taylor were the City Hearing Examiners in 2007-not
Ron McConnell)
Later CR 2A related emails discussed the need for this expedited review to be in a Settlement
Agreement - but of course that never took place and was never approved by City Council.
How do you think Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice got to the point where she would make
a FALSE statement about the initial design of Thuesen's Retaining Wall? She also claimed in
her Decision Document that had I applied for an Encroachment Permit my request would
have been denied!!!! Incredible stuff.
Will the City of Edmonds and City Staff ever be held accountable for violating Ron
McConnell's final decision that “Complete relocation of driveways, etc. was not
approved"? Per Scott Snyder's January 4, 2011 letter to Sandra Chase
- The Hearing Examiner's final decision was dated July 26, 2006. The record
was closed on that date.
Why not properly address the harm caused by these historical wrongs and start to rebuild
trust in Edmonds City Government?
The Hearing Examiner System sounds good in theory. Sadly, history shows it harms citizens
of Edmonds. Please end use of the Hearing Examiner system at once!
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 8, 2018 9:36 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; Lien, Kernen
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
To all,
Why do you think they kept that from me? Why the bullying and harassing related to
something that could have been so easily addressed?
The following may provide a big clue:
Back on September 16, 2010, former City Councilmember Steve Bernheim asked former City
Attorney W. Scott Snyder and Kernen Lien the following:
May I ask in connection with the Straub variance application (see attached) what is the difference
between the Straub's case and Ken Reidy's case regarding the applicability of the city's grandfather
clause for nonconforming structures?
Snyder's response was his famous September 16, 2010 email to Bernheim that
included the following:
“You are also aware of the liability issues relative to Thuesen that forced the city(administration) to push the issue.”
Why would liability or legal obligations cause the City to treat citizens differently
under the same law, ECDC 17.40.020 (A) & (H)?
PUSH THE ISSUE - isn't that simply incredible! Why
not just keep it simple and follow the law?
Please appreciate, the City of Edmonds clearly chooses if and when it will follow the law and who
it will or won’t help!
Snyder had the option of telling Bernheim about the City’s secret discussions about my
shed, the new ordinance and grandfathering. See both sets of notes attached. Instead, he chose to
argue that my situation was somehow different than the Straub situation.
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Despite Scott Snyder’s complete knowledge of the grace period created under Ordinance 3696 – and
despite the fact that he and staff had discussed this law and my building in their private meetings
(See attached 7/31/09 notes) – and despite the fact that he had advised the City that it
had the authority to lighten the burden for property owners regarding nonconforming uses
by creating exceptions – Snyder chose to make the following representation to former Hearing
Examiner Sharon Rice at the conclusion of my Code Enforcement Hearing:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
This is not always true in Edmonds because Edmonds creates exceptions. For example, Ordinance
3696 created an exception for accessory buildings that existed prior to January 1, 1981. (You all
know about AT&T also.) Please remember, the June 3, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes clearly
document that Staff’s intent was to establish a grace period for structures that existed prior to
January 1, 1981, the effective date of the ECDC, and staff would not pursue those buildings as
nonconforming. The exception would be an accessory dwelling unit. He (Duane Bowman)
commented this would reduce the burden on staff and homeowners
to demonstrate compliance with a building permit for accessory structures in existence for 30+
years.
I proved that my building had been in existence for 30+ years. What more should I have had to do to
keep the City of Edmonds from invading my privacy, harassing me, breaking the City’s
own laws and pursuing and attacking my private property that the City knew could
be grandfathered?
So this concept that the “city government does not get to choose who it will or won’t help”
is extremely dangerous and misleading. There may be citizens out there that will rely on this
representation and ignorantly trust that the City will be just and treat all citizens fairly and
equally under the law. History shows that this is not true – this is not how City of Edmonds
government always conducts itself. Citizens need to know that Edmonds
will push issues rather than just applying its laws fairly and equally.
I think all elected officials and City Staff have a duty to be truthful – please make sure all citizens
know that history proves the Edmonds City government chooses who it will or won’t help….even
when City government is aware of a new ordinance that grandfathered private property like my shed
that was built in the 1960’s.
The Hearing Examiner System does not work in Edmonds. History shows that City Officials think they
can push the issue due to so called liability issues. History shows City Officials are willing to
provide the Hearing Examiner incomplete information and also misrepresent law to the Hearing
Examiner.
History shows City Council will not advocate for citizens harmed by such conduct.
A Hearing Examiner system should work in theory - but history shows it does not work in Edmonds.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Sent: Saturday, September 8, 2018 8:49 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope; Lien, Kernen
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
Once again,
For those of you who think citizens should go in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge, please
consider the following:
I followed the process, paid for my appeal, and spent massive resources researching the laws
in preparation for my Hearing. The huge cost of time and money expended between July 31,
2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me
on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Please see those notes attached. Why do you think they kept that from me? Why the
bullying and harassing related to something that could have been so easily addressed? I
finally became aware of Ordinance No. 3696 just days before my February 4, 2010 Hearing.
Please listen to the attached audio clip. It is less than 1-minute long.
You will clearly hear me say:
“Another point, just don’t underestimate the significance of when the building was
built. Umm, I’m not an attorney but it may be grandfathered because it was built before
1981. That could be a significant issue.”
I concluded by saying that for a number of reasons my building was legal.
After my comments, W. Scott Snyder represented to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
Why do you think Snyder represented this instead of telling Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice
what Kernen Lien represented to Straub, et al in the attached letter dated August 30, 2010?:
"According to ECDC 17.40.020.A and ECDC 17.40.020.H (which contains similar language), if
you can provide "photographic or other substantial evidence" that the lean-to existed on or
before January 1, 1981, the structure will be presumed to be a nonconforming building
and a variance application will not be necessary for the lean-to to remain."
Mr. Lien understood the law and the intent behind the law. He knew that grandfathering
did not only apply to legally initiated uses in the City of Edmonds!
Straub et al had applied for a variance! They would not have needed a variance had
their lean-to been a legally initiated use.
History proves going in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge does not work so well for
all citizens of Edmonds. Do current City Officials believe citizens must have unlimited
resources to combat the type of City conduct I faced?
Please give this deep thought. Will there ever be any outrage expressed by any of you? You
see the harm that this caused. You see the daily torment that goes on and on. The City
government caused this by its illegal acts. I believe ethical people make this right. To do
otherwise would be to support wrong and to support the harassment and harm of citizens
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
who did nothing wrong.
The huge cost expended between July 31, 2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been
avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me on July 31, 2009 that they had
just discussed the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
The years of torment that have followed could have been easily avoided also. But they did not
tell me - they kept it secret and then Snyder made his comments to Rice after I discovered
Ordinance No. 3696.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 6:20 PM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
Please note that Straub et al. had applied for a Variance Application (PLN20100063) because
the City and Straub et al. knew that their building was ILLEGAL:
Following is the permit WORK DESCRIPTION:
REDUCE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK FROM 25' TO 0'7" TO ALLOW FOR THE
RETENTION OF AN EXISTING LEAN TO STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS.
Please fully comprehend that the City and Straub et al. knew without a doubt that the existing
lean to structure had been CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS and violated the required 25’
setback.
In my case, W. Scott Snyder represented to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
Why do you think Snyder represented this instead of telling Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice
what Kernen Lien represented to Straub, et al in his letter dated August 30, 2010?:
"According to ECDC 17.40.020.A and ECDC 17.40.020.H (which contains similar language), if
you can provide "photographic or other substantial evidence" that the lean-to existed on or
before January 1, 1981, the structure will be presumed to be a nonconforming building
and a variance application will not be necessary for the lean-to to remain."
Yup - the Straub EXISTING LEAN TO STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS was
allowed to remain. So much for the representation to Rice that "Grandfathering applies to
legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses." That simply is not true in Edmonds. See Ordinance
3696 for one example and see the Ordinance that grandfathered AT&T's facility for another
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
example.
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 11:42 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
Do any of you truly believe a citizen should have to spend the majority of their lifetime savings
fighting back against the City's code enforcement efforts related to a structure grandfathered
by Ordinance No. 3696?
We'd still have our peace of mind, our money and our shed had we simply been told about the
new ordinance. Straub was told after they applied for a variance - why weren't we told the
same thing?
The City could have also told us about the law on November 17, 2009 - the day we met with
former Mayor Gary Haakenson. See notes from the same day attached. Why weren't we told
that?:
"Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from neighbor states it
was there prior to 1981."
I could have provided that letter that day had they told me about the law.
Just think about the massive stress for years and years that could have been so easily avoided.
That stress continues each and every day.
It took us almost 30 years of very hard work to save that money.
Ken Reidy
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 10:56 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
The following is right out of Snyder's 7/28/09 email - he had the date of Kolouskova's
email wrong by 3 days - but he knew Kolouskova had conveyed an offer on Thuesen's behalf!:
"Duana Kouloskova, Thuesen's attorney sent an email on 7/20 questioning the withholding
of civil plan approval and conveying an offer to drop a civil appeal of the vacation if the
"shed" was removed."
The offer that was conveyed involved taking action against third party Reidy - requiring me to
remove my shed. 3 days later, the City realized and discussed that:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Why did Snyder and staff not just simply tell Kolouskova/Thuesen about the new ordinance?
Did Snyder and Staff tell the City Council about the offer that was conveyed?
The City kept me in the dark - and chose to not tell me about the new ordinance OR the offer
that Thuesen's attorney had conveyed.
Where is the outrage?
Does the City Attorney and Staff have the authority to act related to offers conveyed by
opposition legal counsel without City Council's involvement?
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 10:08 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Re: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
To all,
So why did Snyder and City Staff not tell me on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed the
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Why do you think they kept that from me?
Did the following have anything to do with why they kept this secret from me?:
At 9:41 am on July 17, 2009, Thuesen Attorney Duana Kolouskova emailed former City
Attorney Scott Snyder an email that included the following “Framework for Resolution” offer:
Based on the foregoing context, I have discussed your email with Eric and how we may be
able resolve some of these issues at this juncture. Eric has agreed that he will dismiss the
roadway vacation, including all issues and claims against the City with respect to the
secondary access from 9th Avenue to the Thuesen primary residence, based on the
following precondition:
• The shed and the identified trees are removed by either the City or Mr. Reidy not later
than end of business on August 6, 2009.
If said obstructions are removed by that date, we would dismiss the vacation lawsuit the
following, week.
What did Thuesen's secondary access off of 9th Avenue to his primary residence have to do
with me?
Thuesen Attorney Kolouskova’s email to Scott Snyder was not cc’d to anybody. Snyder
responded 54 minutes later, cc’d Jeanie McConnell and Rob English, and told Kolouskova that
he would “convey this proposal to my client”. Even tough Reidy was named in
this "Framework for Resolution" legal settlement offer, Reidy was not copied on these
emails. The Reidys were not included in the related "proposal" discussion – we had no
idea that, behind our back, the City team was negotiating Code Enforcement against us
with Thuesen.
On July 28, 2009, Scott Snyder emailed his famous time table that included the concept
of triggering Reidys’ duty to remove his shed. Please see that email attached. We had no
such duty – our shed was legal. Had it not been legal, it could have easily been permitted via
an encroachment permit.
Three days after Snyder's time table was emailed, on July 31, 2009, the City team discussed
that:
”Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
One would hope that realization would have put a stop to Step 3 in Snyder’s Time Table:
-when the civil approvals are final, trigger Reidy's duty to remove the shed.
I had no such duty. The City knew structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are
grandfathered.
With full knowledge of this – the City ramped up its code enforcement efforts. Please see the
attached Code Enforcement Order dated August 7, 2009. The Civil approvals were not final
until August 13, 2009. Landau's related report (See step 2 in Snyder's Time Table) wasn't
received at the City until October 7th of 2009!!!!- see attached. Landau's 3 options were all
better than what this City government did to me - especially Options #2 & #3. What incredibly
conduct by City of Edmonds government!
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Did the City act early to be closer to the deadline date of August 6, 2009? Why did the City act
at all after the City realized and discussed that?:
”Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 7:39 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com
Subject: Hearing Examiners and Court - Kernen Lien's important letter
To all,
For those of you who think citizens should go in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge, please
consider the following:
I followed the process, paid for my appeal, and spent massive resources researching the laws
in preparation for my Hearing. The huge cost of time and money expended between July 31,
2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me
on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
Please see those notes attached. Why do you think they kept that from me? Why the bullying
and harassing related to something that could have been so easily addressed? I finally
became aware of Ordinance No. 3696 just days before my February 4, 2010 Hearing.
Please listen to the attached audio clip. It is less than 1-minute long.
You will clearly hear me say:
“Another point, just don’t underestimate the significance of when the building was built.
Umm, I’m not an attorney but it may be grandfathered because it was built before 1981.
That could be a significant issue.”
I concluded by saying that for a number of reasons my building was legal.
After my comments, W. Scott Snyder represented to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that:
"Grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not to illegal uses."
Why do you think Snyder represented this instead of telling Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice
what Kernen Lien represented to Straub, et al in the attached letter dated August 30, 2010?:
"According to ECDC 17.40.020.A and ECDC 17.40.020.H (which contains similar language), if
you can provide "photographic or other substantial evidence" that the lean-to existed on or
before January 1, 1981, the structure will be presumed to be a nonconforming building
and a variance application will not be necessary for the lean-to to remain."
Mr. Lien understood the law and the intent behind the law. He knew that grandfathering
did not only apply to legally initiated uses in the City of Edmonds!
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Straub et al had applied for a variance! They would not have needed a variance had their
lean-to been a legally initiated use.
History proves going in front of a Hearing Examiner or Judge does not work so well for
all citizens of Edmonds. Do current City Officials believe citizens must have unlimited
resources to combat the type of City conduct I faced?
Please give this deep thought. Will there ever be any outrage expressed by any of you? You
see the harm that this caused. You see the daily torment that goes on and on. The City
government caused this by its illegal acts. I believe ethical people make this right. To do
otherwise would be to support wrong and to support the harassment and harm of citizens
who did nothing wrong.
The huge cost expended between July 31, 2009 and February 4, 2010 could have been
avoided had Snyder and City Staff simply told me on July 31, 2009 that they had just discussed
the following in a phone conference:
“Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.”
The years of torment that have followed could have been easily avoided also. But they did not
tell me - they kept it secret and then Snyder made his comments to Rice after I discovered
Ordinance No. 3696.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 7:11 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday
Subject: Re: City Council Agenda June 5, 2018
To all,
While Temporary Construction Easements are fresh in your mind, please appreciate that a TCE
is a temporary right acquired by the City from an owner of real property. The TCE allows the
City to use property belonging to another party for a public purpose – construction.
The legal document used to facilitate this acquisition of temporary rights is a GRANT. You all
know this as evidenced by the GRANT document attached to Tuesday night’s agenda packet.
TCE’s are temporary. At the end of the temporary period, RESTORATION is required as part of
the GRANT contract. RESTORATION is a critical element of the contract. For example, upon
completion of the Hickman Park Project work, the City shall RESTORE the property to
substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject Project.
In my case – the City had no need to construct, repair or maintain anything. There was no
public project that would have modified our property. There was no public purpose for the
TCE.
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
The TCE was forced on us against our will. The TCE was tied to the 5 year life of Thuesen’s
preliminary plat approval. The City failed to get a GRANT.
Without a GRANT, there was nothing in a Contract requiring the City to RESTORE our property
to its original condition at the end of the TCE Term.
As you all know – Thuesen never needed or used our land. The only thing the TCE was used
for was the City’s Code enforcement attack on our legal building. The City knew our building
was legal for many reasons, including the fact that a new ordinance grandfathered its
setbacks.
Please give this deep thought. Will there ever be any outrage expressed by any of you? You
see the harm that this caused. You see the daily torment that goes on and on. The City
government caused this by its illegal acts. I believe ethical people make this right. To do
otherwise would be to support wrong and to support the harassment and harm of citizens
who did nothing wrong.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 11:30 AM
To: Dave Earling; Michael Nelson; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Buckshnis;
Thomas Mesaros; Neil Tibbott; Dave Teitzel; Hite, Carrie; Phil Williams; Shane Hope
Cc: Jeff Taraday
Subject: City Council Agenda June 5, 2018
To all,
The June 5, 2018 City Council Agenda includes a staff recommendation to accept and sign a
Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) for work in and around Hickman Park. An easement
document is included in the Agenda Packet whereby the property owners convey and GRANT
the TCE to the City of Edmonds. The TCE has a public purpose – it is to be used specifically
for Hickman Park Project work documented on Agenda Packet Pg. 117.
Upon completion of the Hickman Park Project work, the City shall RESTORE the property to
substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject Project.
For contrast, Snyder intervened into the September 16, 2008 Public Hearing and
recommended the City Council reserve a TCE for private party Thuesen on my fee title
property. There was no public purpose – the City had no project work to do on my property.
The TCE was solely for Thuesen’s use and the life of the easement was tied to Thuesen’s 5
year preliminary plat approval.
The TCE on my property was not GRANTED to the City of Edmonds. The TCE on my property
was not GRANTED to private party Thuesen. (The current City Council apparently believes it
can require fee title owners to GRANT easements to private third-parties as evidenced by
Resolution No. 1405. I wonder where that idea came from? No supporting law has been
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
provided despite numerous requests and even a promise to research and get back to me.)
Had my situation involved the GRANT of an easement - I would have had the
opportunity to require RESTORATION of my property upon completion of any work. Please
read that again and think about it. Had my situation involved the GRANT of an easement - I
would have had the opportunity to require RESTORATION of my property upon completion
of any work. A requirement for RESTORATION could have helped prevent much harassment
and bullying of my family. But City of Edmonds government made sure there was no GRANT.
The City simply forced the TCE on me against my will.
As there was no GRANT document – there was nothing that required the City to RESTORE my
property to substantially its original condition.
As there was no public Project – there should not have been anything to RESTORE. Also - the
TCE was never needed or used privately by Thuesen. History shows Thuesen was able to build
his private retaining wall without using my property.
For some reason, City of Edmonds government was motivated to clear the TCE area ahead of
any use by Thuesen. The City bullied and harassed us with multiple code enforcement orders
over many months. We lost a huge chunk of our lifetime savings fighting off the City’s
attacks. The loss of the savings affects us each and every day. Think of the hard work for
decades to build up those savings. Remember – City of Edmonds government chose to do all
of this even though the TCE would never be used for any construction purpose whatsoever.
As the City was bullying and harassing my family – Snyder and City Staff realized no later than
July 31, 2009 that a new Ordinance grandfathered structures constructed prior to 1980. See
attached. The City did not share this information with me. To the contrary – 8 days later the
City of Edmonds ramped up its Code Enforcement attack August 7, 2009. See attached.
It was ugly and very harmful - and history proves it was all for nothing. The end result was
that I was made to establish a 12.5’ setback where only a 5’ setback is required. Of course no
setback at all was required because the new ordinance grandfathered the structure.
As for the concept of the City RESTORING the property to substantially its original condition,
except as modified by the subject Project – that is just another bad reflection on Edmonds City
government. There was no project that modified the property. Nevertheless, my legal
structure was permanently taken by the City of Edmonds related to its illegal temporary
easement. The structure was never RESTORED.
I believe that Current officials choice to refuse to voluntarily address these outrageous
historical acts fuels distrust in City government and harms all citizens of Edmonds. I continue
to hope that a person will come along in City government who will insist the City act with
integrity. I continue to hope that one day there will be somebody with the will to fight for
citizens harmed by the City's illegal, unethical conduct.
Ken Reidy
7.2.s
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Exhibit 19: Ken Reidy September 8, 2018 Email #3 (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
From: Gary Nelson <garynelsonsmail@gmail.com>
Date: September 21, 2018 at 10:52:08 AM PDT
To: Kristiana Johnson <kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>, Mike Nelson
<michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas <adrienne.monillas@edmondswa.gov>,
Diane Buckshnis <diane.buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>, Dave Teitzel <dave.teitzel@edmondswa.gov>,
Thomas Mesaros <thomas.mesaros@edmondswa.gov>, Neil Tibbott <neil.tibbott@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Mayor Dave Earling <dave.earling@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Quasi-judicial process
Dear Members of the Edmonds City Council:
Unfortunately, I am out of the area on September 25th and will not be in attendance for your
continuation hearing on this matter. This brief note is to underscore two reasons for the council to
retain the current appeal process for Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) issues.
The citizens of Edmonds rely on the City Council to deliberate and render decisions on appeals dealing
with land use decisions, not shift this responsibility to the executive branch (developmental services
department and hearing examiner) and subsequently to the judicial branch (superior court). My June 10,
2018 letter in your packet reflects the sentiments of our citizens, where Edmonds citizen's vote on the
November 8, 2016 County Charter ballot measure was 57.7% “NO” on this very item. Discussions on this
issue by our citizens have increased awareness of this proposed change. I sense that the opposition has
increased.
The arguments by the staff that a change of hearing examiner appeals to the court will “liberate the city
council” or “the council is not adequately prepared to make land use decisions” defies reality in our
system. The council is sitting as a “jury” on any LUPA appeal. The only information under consideration
is “on the record material” provided by the hearing examiner’s office. There no substance to the
argument that the council “needs specialized knowledge” to deliberate on an appeal. The council also
needs to consider the staff's desire for this revision: if this is such a good idea to require appeals to the
superior court, why hasn’t other cities pursued this process?
I trust that the council will retain the existing “citizen friendly” process that we have in place, and not be
pushed into a hostile course of action being pursued by staff. With all the good decisions that the
council has effected in the past few years, it would be a discredit for members of the council to be
remembered as persons who shifted responsibilities for decision making to outside the city’s elected
body.
Thank you for your “NO” vote on this change to our city code.
Gary Nelson
9710 Wharf Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425)778-8362
7.2.t
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Exhibit 20: Gary Nelson September 21, 2018 Email (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Letter to the Editor:
In 2009, the Edmonds City Council legislated that after a land use decision by the Hearing Examiner, if the
decision was disputed, the parties would first be required to “present its case” to the City Council in a “court-like”
matter (Edmonds Community Development Code Section Chapter 20.07 – Closed Record Appeals), generally
described as a “Quasi-Judicial” hearing. Attorneys are often (but not always) hired by the parties for this hearing.
After the quasi-judicial hearing by Council, it renders a decision and both parties then have the option of appealing
that decision to Snohomish County Superior Court.
In 2016 Council passed by 4-3 vote (sound familiar) a resolution to remove the Council from Quasi-Judicial
land use proceedings. Since that resolution was passed, action on changing the code to be consistent with it was
delayed until this year. Then in May and July of 2018, the Planning Board discussed and held a Public Hearing on
code changes designed to eliminate Council involvement, along with other changes to Chapter 20 for other items
unrelated to Council involvement in this hearing process. They recommended the proposed changes be adopted.i
On September 4, Council discussed this change, which also includes other changes unrelated to the quasi-
judicial component. It is now poised to hold a public hearing on October 2 to reconsider and say that any land use
appeals from hearing examiners must go directly to Superior Court.
ACE supports retaining the quasi-judicial hearing process at the City Council level because:
Edmonds citizens elect City Council members to represent them and the existing process retains that
representation.
It provides a less-costly way for citizens to have their voice heard by local residents whom they
elected.
While the basis for this change is stated to be certain risks involved in quasi-judicial hearings, the fact
is all Council decisions carry a degree of risk – it comes with the territory. That is why we have a City
attorney, and also why the City carries liability insurance for such matters.
Very few land use matters are currently appealed beyond hearing examiners. The Council currently
does not spend much time on appeals.
Edmonds would be the only city in the County to bypass the City Council for appeals. Even the
Snohomish County Council currently handles land use appeals.
City council members are familiar with Edmonds’ issues, while Snohomish County courts and land use
staff are not.
Citizens retain the right to appeal land use decisions (subdivision applications, critical area
delineations, comprehensive plan designations, conditional use permits, special use permits,
variances and boundary line adjustments) to appeal to Superior Court if they are not satisfied with
the Council decision.
We encourage the Edmonds Council to retain the local representation process for Closed Record Appeals.
The Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE)
i Part of the record at Planning Board and in the Council packet is an email to the Planning Board Chair and City Council
members by Gary Nelson, a former Edmonds Planning Board & City Council member, Snohomish County Council member and
22-year Washington State Representative & Senator. He opposes this change for the following reasons:
Court filing fees of $250 are required
Citizens will require representation by an attorney
Appeal will cause delays in resolving each case (approximately 9-10 months)
Hearing Examiner performance evaluation is questionable
Additional time and expenses by the City attorney & staff
An unfriendly appeal process
Mr. Nelson also notes in his email that in November 2016 a ballot measure sending land used disputes directly from a Hearing
Examiner directly to Superior Court (i.e. this same process at the County level), Edmonds residents rejected the measure by
almost 60%.
7.2.u
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Exhibit 21: ACE Quasi-Judicial Position Letter (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
Frequently Asked Questions regarding Costs of Appeals
1. What is the cost of a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) appeal to Snohomish County
Superior Court?
The of cost of appealing an Administrative Hearing Decisions to Snohomish County
Superior Court is $240 as established by RCW 36.18.020(2,5).
2. What is the cost to appeal a Type III-B decision to the Edmonds City Council?
In accordance with the fee schedule adopted under Resolution No. 1415, an appeal of a
Type III-B decision to the City Council cost $500.
3. Do LUPA appeals to Superior Court require the appellants to be represented by an
attorney?
Appeals to superior court do not require appellants to obtain legal representation.
Appellants may represent themselves pro se in Superior Court.
7.2.v
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Exhibit 22 - FAQ Regarding Costs of Appeals (Public Hearing on Permit Decision Making and Quasi-judicial Processes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Critical Areas Ordinance Report
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40.055 requires reports to the City Council during
the first and third quarter of each year. ECDC 23.40.055 provides that:
The director will provide a report to the city council during the first and third quarter each year,
summarizing critical area decisions that have been made since the previous report. The report will
include information such as the number and type of critical area decisions that have been made,
including information on buffers and enhancements approved for each applicable decision, a description
of each approved restoration project, and other information specifically requested by the council
following the previous report.
This is the fourth critical area report to the City Council with the last report given on May 15, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Critical Area Determinations
A critical area determination is required for all properties that have a development proposal that will
include some ground disturbance and where there has not been a critical area determination within the
last five years. Property owners fill out the Critical Area Checklist form with basic information on the
property and then staff does a preliminary review of available site information, including checking the
critical area GIS layers, and then conducts a site visit. The result of this review is either a “Waiver” which
means it was determined that there were no critical areas on or adjacent to the site or a “Study
Required” which indicates that there appears to be critical areas on or adjacent to the site.
Since the last critical area report in May, there have been 94 applications for critical area
determinations. Forty-seven (47) determinations were “Waiver” and 40 determinations were “Study
Required,” with an additional seven applications still awaiting a determination. Exhibit 1 contains a
spread sheet with the critical area permit number, site address, and critical determination for each of
the critical area determinations since May 2018.
Subsequent Determinations: A new requirement with the 2016 critical area ordinance update is that a
new critical area determination is required for properties whose previous critical area determination is
8.1
Packet Pg. 371
more than five years old. Prior to the 2016 update, staff had been telling property owners that they
would only need to have the critical area determination done once on their property; so a few property
owners have been surprised when they were informed of the need for a subsequent determination. The
fee for a subsequent critical area determination was set at $50 which is half of the fee for a first time
determination. Forty of the 94 critical area determinations since May 2018 were subsequent critical
area determinations. Seven of the 40 subsequent critical area determinations resulted in a change from
“Waiver” to “Study Required.” Six of these seven changes were the result of a determination of the
presence of potential erosion hazards or landslide hazards. The other change from "waiver" to "study
required" was the result of an off-site stream whose 75-foot buffer just clipped a property, resulting in a
“Study Required” determination. Prior to the 2005 critical area ordinance update, erosion hazards and
landslide hazard areas were determined differently than they are under either the current or
immediately past versions of the CAO. As a result, it is the pre-2005 critical area determinations that so
far have resulted in determination changes.
Development Review Matrix
Critical Area Review: If a critical area “Study Required” determination is issued for a property (see the
Critical Area Determinations section below), when a development application is submitted for that
property, the Planning Division reviews the development proposal for consistency with the City’s critical
area regulations.
Exhibit 2 is a matrix with development applications in the City of Edmonds since the last report with
critical areas on or adjacent to site. The matrix includes the permit number, project location, a short
description of the project, the associated critical area file number, type(s) of critical area, and
description of the critical area review and decision.
Interrupted Buffer, Buffer Averaging, Buffer Width Reduction, or Enhancement Project
Since the May 2018 report, there has been one project with an Interrupted Buffer determination
(Exhibits 3). The development was a single family addition on Melody Lane where the property was
separated from an off-site wetland view Melody Lane.
No development proposals included buffer averaging, buffer width reduction, or enhancement projects.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Critical Area Determinations since May 1, 2018
Exhibit 2 - Development Review Matrix
Exhibit 3 - 693 Melody Lane Interupted Buffer Determination
8.1
Packet Pg. 372
Permit ID Decision Address Flooded Areas Geo Hazard Stream Wetland
CRA20180080 STUDY REQUIRED 17521 72ND AVE W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180081 WAIVER 22618 98TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180082 STUDY REQUIRED 836 BIRCH ST, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180083 WAIVER 21511 98TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180084 STUDY REQUIRED 18909 OLYMPIC VIEW DR, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180085 WAIVER 23715 77TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180086 WAIVER 22311 96TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180087 STUDY REQUIRED 8629 238TH ST SW, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180088 WAIVER 801 ALDER ST, EDMONDS
CRA20180089 WAIVER 23225 HUMBER LN, EDMONDS
CRA20180090 WAIVER 18520 88TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180091 WAIVER 19917 89TH PL W, EDMONDS
CRA20180092 WAIVER 24006 79TH PL W, EDMONDS
CRA20180093 WAIVER 851 10TH AVE N, EDMONDS
CRA20180094 WAIVER 950 CAROL WAY, EDMONDS
CRA20180095 WAIVER 7902 203RD ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180096 WAIVER 20209 84TH PL W, EDMONDS
CRA20180097 WAIVER 21616 92ND AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180098 STUDY REQUIRED 9801 241ST PL SW, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180099 WAIVER 23725 107TH PL W, EDMONDS
CRA20180100 WAIVER 10610 240TH PL SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180101 WAIVER 7115 OLYMPIC VIEW DR, EDMONDS
CRA20180102 STUDY REQUIRED 127 SKYLINE DR, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180103 WAIVER 23305 97TH PL W, EDMONDS
CRA20180104 STUDY REQUIRED 15809 70TH AVE W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180105 STUDY REQUIRED 21222 PIONEER WAY, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180106 STUDY REQUIRED 7910 240TH ST SW, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180107 STUDY REQUIRED 24116 102ND PL W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180108 STUDY REQUIRED 17020 TALBOT RD, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180109 STUDY REQUIRED 9601 220TH ST SW, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180110 STUDY REQUIRED 327 ELM ST, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180111 STUDY REQUIRED 440 12TH PL N, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180112 STUDY REQUIRED 224 12TH AVE N, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180113 STUDY REQUIRED 220 RAILROAD AVE, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180114 STUDY REQUIRED 19130 OLYMPIC VIEW DR, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180115 STUDY REQUIRED 7316 164TH ST SW, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180116 WAIVER 718 VISTA PL, EDMONDS
CRA20180117 WAIVER 9211 PARK RD, EDMONDS
CRA20180118 WAIVER 20516 80TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180119 STUDY REQUIRED 19213 OLYMPIC VIEW DR, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180120 WAIVER 831 SOMERSET LN, EDMONDS
CRA20180121 WAIVER 1327 9TH AVE N, EDMONDS
CRA20180122 WAIVER 620 FIR ST, EDMONDS
CRA20180123 STUDY REQUIRED 18130 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180124 STUDY REQUIRED 23303 100TH AVE W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180125 WAIVER 19323 80TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180126 WAIVER 21701 84TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180127 STUDY REQUIRED 23911 74TH AVE W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180128 STUDY REQUIRED 7821 175TH ST SW, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180129 STUDY REQUIRED 7727 168TH PL SW, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180130 WAIVER 22027 96TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180131 WAIVER 20105 MAPLEWOOD DR, EDMONDS
CRA20180132 STUDY REQUIRED 17019 73RD PL W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180133 WAIVER 19325 80TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180134 WAIVER 7702 238TH PL SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180135 WAIVER 115 EDMONDS ST, EDMONDS
CRA20180136 WAIVER 23319 97TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180137 WAIVER 730 VISTA PL, EDMONDS
CRA20180138 WAIVER 1009 GLEN ST, EDMONDS
CRA20180139 STUDY REQUIRED 183RD & 76TH AVE W STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180140 WAIVER 9624 234TH ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180141 STUDY REQUIRED 746 HEMLOCK ST, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180142 STUDY REQUIRED 8364 OLYMPIC VIEW DR, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180143 STUDY REQUIRED 17151 SEA LAWN DR, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180144 STUDY REQUIRED 9230 217TH PL SW, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
Critical Area Determinations since May 1, 2018
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Critical Area Determinations since May 1, 2018 (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
Permit ID Decision Address Flooded Areas Geo Hazard Stream Wetland
Critical Area Determinations since May 1, 2018
CRA20180145 WAIVER 915 PINE ST, EDMONDS
CRA20180146 WAIVER 9215 BOWDOIN WAY, EDMONDS
CRA20180147 WAIVER 8401 215TH ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180148 STUDY REQUIRED 9229 OLYMPIC VIEW DR, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180149 WAIVER 7709 202ND PL SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180150 WAIVER 21423 98TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180151 STUDY REQUIRED 1134 8TH AVE S, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180152 WAIVER 7915 228TH ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180153 STUDY REQUIRED 19243 94TH AVE W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180154 STUDY REQUIRED 1122 VIEWLAND WAY, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180155 WAIVER 8422 238TH ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180156 STUDY REQUIRED 24304 92ND AVE W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180157 WAIVER 20520 85TH PL W, EDMONDS
CRA20180158 STUDY REQUIRED 1133 SIERRA PL, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180159 STUDY REQUIRED 18825 94TH AVE W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180160 STUDY REQUIRED 17005 72ND PL W, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180161 WAIVER 18807 88TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180162 WAIVER 22421 97TH AVE W, EDMONDS
CRA20180163 WAIVER 1125 OLYMPIC AVE, EDMONDS
CRA20180164 APPLIED 7909 192ND PL SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180165 APPLIED 7901 206TH ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180166 STUDY REQUIRED 101 MAIN ST, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180167 APPLIED 8704 188TH ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180168 APPLIED 8716 188TH ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180169 STUDY REQUIRED 121 SUNSET AVE N, EDMONDS STUDY REQUIRED
CRA20180170 WAIVER 9103 206TH ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180171 APPLIED 8229 TALBOT RD, EDMONDS
CRA20180172 APPLIED 8525 186TH ST SW, EDMONDS
CRA20180173 APPLIED 643 9TH AVE N, EDMONDS
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Critical Area Determinations since May 1, 2018 (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
PERMIT NUM PM_Permit_Status Primary Address Work Description PM_Permit_Applied Critical Area Erosion Hazard Landslide Hazard Seismic Hazard Stream Wetland
Frequently Flooded
Areas Critical Areas Report
BLD20180604 FINAL 836 BIRCH ST, EDMONDS BUILD 6' FENCE ON PROPERTY LINE 05/02/2018 CRA20180082 x x
Allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.80.040, fence in erosion or
landslide hazard area.
BLD20180607 ISSUED 23005 76TH AVE W, EDMONDS Construct 6' fence in front of property 05/02/2018 CRA20180078 x
Allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.80.040, fence in erosion or
landslide hazard area.
BLD20180613 APPLIED 515 HOMELAND DR, EDMONDS ADDITIONS AND REMODEL OF EXISTING RESIDENCE.05/03/2018 CRA20170171 x x x
Staff has request critical area reports on the first review given location
near stream and steep slope. Critical area reports have not yet been
submitted.
BLD20180638 ISSUED 693 MELODY LN, EDMONDS CONSTRUCT NEW 522 SF ADDITION IN EXISITNG COURTYARD 06/28/2018 CRA20170206 x
Interrupted buffer analysis submitted and approved with building
permit. Melody Lane actus as a physical and functional separation from
the subject property and the wetland on the opposite side of Melody
Lane.
BLD20180680 FINAL 811 12TH AVE N, EDMONDS REPLACE EXISTING DECK 05/16/2018 CRA20160116 x
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not
required for properties with only erosion hazards. However,
construction documents are required to include an erosion and
sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements
set fourth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion
control requirements are review be the Engineering Division
during permit review.
BLD20180708 APPLIED 7600 212TH ST SW, EDMONDS
SYNTHETIC TURF FIELDS/SPORT FEATURES - TENNIS COURTS - BATTING CAGES AND
SUPPORT STRUCTURE - LIGHTING/POLES - FENCING/POLES 05/23/2018 CRA20180032 x
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not
required for properties with only erosion hazards. However,
construction documents are required to include an erosion and
sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements
set fourth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion
control requirements are review be the Engineering Division
during permit review.
BLD20180748 READY TO ISSUE 17126 76TH AVE W, EDMONDS 370 SQ FT MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION 05/31/2018 CRA20170103 x
No critical area report was required because project location was
outside of critical areas and critical area buffers.
BLD20180774 ISSUED 24116 102ND PL W, EDMONDS 828 SQUARE FOOT DECK 06/06/2018 CRA20180107 x x
Deck addition was more than 50 feet from tope of slope, so no
geotechnical report was required for the landslide hazard area off site.
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not required
for properties with only erosion hazards. However, construction
documents are required to include an erosion and sediment control
plan prepared in compliance with requirements set fourth in Chapter
18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion control requirements are
review be the Engineering Division during permit review.
BLD20180778 ISSUED 17020 TALBOT RD, EDMONDS
INTERIOR REMODEL
EXTEND EXISTING DECK
PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL INCLUDED 06/07/2018 CRA20180108 x x
Deck addition was more than 50 feet from tope of slope, so no
geotechnical report was required for the landslide hazard area off site.
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not required
for properties with only erosion hazards. However, construction
documents are required to include an erosion and sediment control
plan prepared in compliance with requirements set fourth in Chapter
18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion control requirements are
review be the Engineering Division during permit review.
BLD20180789 ISSUED 224 12TH AVE N, EDMONDS New SFR 06/08/2018 CRA20180112 x
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not
required for properties with only erosion hazards. However,
construction documents are required to include an erosion and
sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements
set fourth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion
control requirements are review be the Engineering Division
during permit review.
BLD20180881 FINAL 18130 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS New 18x24 Carport 06/27/2018 CRA20180123 x
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not
required for properties with only erosion hazards. However,
construction documents are required to include an erosion and
sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements
set fourth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion
control requirements are review be the Engineering Division
during permit review.
BLD20180895 ISSUED 10430 231ST ST SW, EDMONDS 136 sq ft 1 story addition at rear of house, 114 sq ft brick patio adjacent to new addition.06/29/2018 CRA20170172 x
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not
required for properties with only erosion hazards. However,
construction documents are required to include an erosion and
sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements
set fourth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion
control requirements are review be the Engineering Division
during permit review.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Development Review Matrix (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
PERMIT NUM PM_Permit_Status Primary Address Work Description PM_Permit_Applied Critical Area Erosion Hazard Landslide Hazard Seismic Hazard Stream Wetland
Frequently Flooded
Areas Critical Areas Report
BLD20180903 ISSUED 23303 100TH AVE W, EDMONDS
Excavation and backfill for new detached garage, pour concrete apron and replace some of
existing driveway.06/29/2018 CRA20180124 x x
Deck addition was more than 50 feet from tope of slope, so no
geotechnical report was required for the landslide hazard area off site.
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not required
for properties with only erosion hazards. However, construction
documents are required to include an erosion and sediment control
plan prepared in compliance with requirements set fourth in Chapter
18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion control requirements are
review be the Engineering Division during permit review.
BLD20180915 ISSUED 600 3RD AVE S, EDMONDS STORAGE SHED 07/03/2018 CRA20130128 x x x
No critical area report was required because project location was
outside of critical areas and critical area buffers.
BLD20180936 APPLIED 7727 168TH PL SW, EDMONDS
BLOCK RETAINING WALL NEAR TOP OF STEEP HILL , COLLECT DRAINAGE & PIPE TO BOTTOM
& DISPERSE IN RR ROW.07/09/2018 CRA20180129 x
Geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of ECDC
23.80.050 and address the criteria of ECDC 23.80.060 and
23.80.070 was reviewed and approved with the application.
BLD20180946 ISSUED 17019 73RD PL W, EDMONDS
First story deck off rear of house. Deck to be 289sq ft, with composite decking materials for
surface and railing.07/12/2018 CRA20180132 x x
Geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of ECDC
23.80.050 and address the criteria of ECDC 23.80.060 and
23.80.070 was reviewed and approved with the application.
BLD20180965 ISSUED 739 MAPLE ST, EDMONDS
ADD 2 BEDROOMS AND BATH OVER EX GARAGE. NEW DECK OVER ENTRY. REMODEL
MASTER BEDROOM AND MASTER BATHROOM TO CREATE NEW OFFICE SPACE.07/16/2018 CRA20180022 x x
Allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 - modification to
legally constructed structure that does not increase the footprint
of the structure.
BLD20181039 READY TO ISSUE 18604 SOUNDVIEW PL, EDMONDS SPA INSTALL WITH MECHANICAL, MAIN PERMIT BLD2017-1175 08/03/2018 CRA20160073 x x
No critical area report was required because project location was
outside of critical areas and critical area buffers.
BLD20181102 ISSUED 742 DALEY ST, EDMONDS
Renovation (Repair) of existing deck on stormwater structure located in right-of-way and
within city easement on private property. Work to be completed in coordination with City
Public Works Street & Storm Divisions.08/14/2018 CRA20170050 x x
Allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 - modification to
legally constructed structure that does not increase the footprint
of the structure.
BLD20181152 APPLIED 1133 SIERRA PL, EDMONDS
REPLACE EXISTING CANTILEVERED DECK 495 SQ FT, WITH NEW POST BEAM WOOD DECK,
SAME SIZE.08/27/2018 CRA20180158 x x x x
Goetechnical report requested on first review. No stream or wetland
reports required because the deck replacement is a modification to a
legally constructed structure that does not increase the footprint of the
structure and thus is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC
23.40.220.C.4. Geotechnical report require because the project
involves new footings for the deck.
BLD20181213 APPLIED 19520 94TH PL W, EDMONDS BUILD 14 X 43 DECK AND INSTALL 2 12' SLIDING GLASS DOORS 09/13/2018 CRA20180033 x x
Geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of ECDC
23.80.050 and address the criteria of ECDC 23.80.060 and
23.80.070 was reviewed and approved with the application.
Waiting for critical area notice on title to be recorded.
STF20180017 APPROVED 23915 102ND AVE W, EDMONDS HAZARD TREE REMOVAL IN CRITICAL AREA 03/14/2018 x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180018 APPROVED 8235 TALBOT RD, EDMONDS HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL 05/15/2018 CRA20160016 x x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180023 APPROVED 7721 168TH PL SW, EDMONDS TREE REMOVAL 06/25/2018 x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180027 APPROVED 8111 FREDERICK PL, EDMONDS HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL 07/19/2018 x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180028 APPROVED 834 CARY RD, EDMONDS HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL 07/31/2018 x x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180030 APPROVED 17110 74TH AVE W, EDMONDS Haz tree removal from critical area 08/09/2018 x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180031 APPROVED 7815 175TH ST SW, EDMONDS Haz Tree 08/13/2018 x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180032 COMPLETED 8229 TALBOT RD, EDMONDS HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL 08/17/2018 CRA20000133 x x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180033 APPROVED 798 DALEY ST, EDMONDS HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL (1)08/20/2018 x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180034 COMPLETED 16915 TALBOT RD, EDMONDS HAZARDOUS TREE IN CRITICAL AREA 08/22/2018 x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180035 COMPLETED 18311 85TH PL SW, EDMONDS HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL (1)08/23/2018 x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
STF20180036 COMPLETED 701 12TH AVE N, EDMONDS HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL (1)09/13/2018 x x x
Hazard tree removal approved consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.
PLN20180033 APPLIED 15729 75TH PL W, EDMONDS 3-LOT SHORT PLAT 05/03/2018 CRA20180012 x x
Project is located in the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area of
north Edmonds. Geotechnical reports associated with the subdivision are being peer reviewed as requied by Chapter 19.10 ECDC.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Development Review Matrix (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
PERMIT NUM PM_Permit_Status Primary Address Work Description PM_Permit_Applied Critical Area Erosion Hazard Landslide Hazard Seismic Hazard Stream Wetland
Frequently Flooded
Areas Critical Areas Report
PLN20180037 APPLIED 20020 83RD AVE W, EDMONDS 2-LOT SUBDIVISION. RETAINING EXISTING HOUSE. 06/07/2018 CRA20180067 x
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not
required for properties with only erosion hazards. However,
construction documents are required to include an erosion and
sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements
set fourth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion
control requirements are review be the Engineering Division
during permit review.
PLN20180039 -
PLN20180043 APPLIED 220 RAILROAD AVE, EDMONDS WATERFRONT CENTER AND WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT (SENIOR CENTER)06/12/2018 CRA20180113 x
x
(Puget Sound)x
Critical area report and mitigation plan submitted with application.
Staff requested additional information the geotechnical report to
address the seismic hazard. Decision will be issued by Hearing
Examiner likely in early December.
PLN20180044 APPLIED 17005 72ND PL W, EDMONDS
MAINTAIN LANDSCAPING BY PRUNING & CROWN THINNING INCLUDING TOPPING OF
PREVIOUSLY TOPPED TREES 06/14/2018 CRA20180160 x x x Geotechnical report submittal with application is under review.
PLN20180050 APPLIED 20114 83RD AVE W, EDMONDS 2 LOT SHORT PLAT 07/20/2018 CRA20180064 x
Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.050.G, geotechnical reports are not
required for properties with only erosion hazards. However,
construction documents are required to include an erosion and
sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements
set fourth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Compliance for of erosion
control requirements are review be the Engineering Division
during permit review.
PLN20180052 APPLIED 121 5TH AVE N, EDMONDS SHORELINE EXEMPTION 07/30/2018 x x x
Shoreline exemption issued minor site investigative work. Allowed
activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 and ECDC 24.80.010.B.12 (SMP Exempt Activity)
PLN20180054 APPLIED 101 MAIN ST, EDMONDS SHORELINE PERMIT FOR WORK ON EXISTING DECK 08/21/2018 CRA20180166 x
Geotechnical report requested on first review to address liquefaction
hazard.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Development Review Matrix (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
lnc,IIr
tþ"Delineation / Mitigation / Restorat¡on / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 1gth Avenue S.E.
Suite 106
Everett, Washington 98208
(4251337-s174
Fax (425) 337-3045
June 27 ,20LB
Don Berger
693 Melody Lane
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Site Assessrnent and Functional Analysis: Snohornish County Tax ID
#27031300308200
OnJune 14,20L8, Wetland Resources, Inc. (V/RI) conducted an on-site assessment and functional
analysis for the above referenced parcel, located at 693 Melody Lane in Edmonds, WA. The
purpose of this investigation was to evaluate an oflsite wetland identified by the City of
Edmonds, the associated wetland buffer, and potential buffer impacts associated with the
proposed addition to the existing single-family residence on the property. The site is located
within a portion of Section 13, Township 27N, Range 038, W.M.
Srrn DnscRrPTroN
The subject property is accessed from the west via Melody Lane. It contains a single-family
residence, associated access drive, and maintained lawn and landscaping. The site is moderately
sloped with a west-facing aspect. Soils on the site are mapped by the NRCS web soil survey as
Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0-B percent slopes. Surrounding land use consists of single-
family residential use. A wetland associated with the mouth of Shell Creek is located west of
Melody Lane.
Srrn ÀssnssMENT aND FUNcTIoNAL Ar{A¡,ysIs
Wetland and Bffir Assessmmt
The wetland located to the west of Melody Lane is approximately 60 feet west of the western
boundary of the subject parcel. The wetland was evaluated from the right-of-way of Melody
Lane. It contains an emergent area, dominated by broadleaf cattaú, (T1pha latifolia), with a scrub-
shrub area upslope, dominated by Pacific willow (Sølix lasiandra) and Sitl<a wülow (Salix sitchensis).
Further upstream the wetland becomes forested and contains Western red cedar (Thrajo plicata)
and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). Redwing blackbirds (A,gelaius þhoeniceus) were observed
and other songbird activity was detected in the wetland during the site investigation. A wetland
rating was not completed, but based on a general assessment of wetland functions and values
WRI expects that it would receive a 165 to 225-foot protective buffer. Therefore, the prescribed
buffer would extend approximately 105 to 165 feet onto the subject property.
Wetland Res ourc e s, Inc.
June 27, 2018
.'#--ffiå5äffiv.nïfliì
CITY CQPY ruNze z$Ìû
1
&ut>7tßt3{illlVÃi¡-r,¡-,,,r.¡ri ¡ ;;L.¡l¡.;i.,r5 iiï¡ì.
0t1Y 0Ë ËDtiJi0þi0[ì
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - 693 Melody Lane Interupted Buffer Determination (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
Functionøl Anaþsis
pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), adjacent areas that are
physically separated from a stream or wetland may be exempted from the prescribed buffer
widths.
ECDC %.4A.22A.C.4,DanlEment Proposal within lrctemtþted Stream or Wetl,and Brffers. AQiacent areas ,that ma1 be þh2sicalþ
separatidfro* o it ro* or wetland die n exßting ttsolb estybtisþd structures or þaaed areas ma) be exunþted
fom tlre |resni.bed brffir widths lf praum scimtfuatþ ti befunctinnalþ isaktedfrom tlu rtream or wetland. The
"director *ilt rrquip l" opptirooi io prouide o iitt otntt*mt andfunctional anaþsis documentation reþort b7 a
quaffied criücåt orro ,o^ultont that dernonstrates the intøruptcd bffir area is functíonaþ isolated. Tlte director
,t oti ,o ido the þdrologic, geutogxc, and/or biatogicat habitat corntection þotmtial and tlze extent and pennanence
of tke plrysícøl seþaration."
The subject property is physically separated from the wetland and stream by an existing paved
,oudwaf lfrnåfody l,an.). Any portion of the wetland buffer that would extend west of Melody
Lurr. oáto the suLject piop..ty *ould not provide signi{icant protection to wetland functions.
The basis of this assessment comes from review and anaþis of Best Available Science on the
topic of buffer functions. Chapter 5 of the Washington State Department of Ecology Guidance
Dãcument entitled "Freshwater Wetlønds in Washington Stat¿ Valum¿ 1: A Syntlusis of the Sc'iøtce"
provides a comprehensive anaþsis of buffer functions. The following, taken directþ from the
'aforementioned document, is a úst of the functions provided by buffers: 1.) removing sediment;
Z.) removing excess nutrients; 3.) removing toxics; 4.) influencing microc-limate, 5.) maintaining
aájacent haËitat; 6.) screening adjacent disturbances; and 7.) maintaining habitat connectivity.
Functions numbered l-3 relate to water quality improvement. Stormwater from the subject
property flows west into catch basins in Melody Lane and is then piped to the north and
air.frrrg.r directly inro Puger Sound (see Figure 1). Therefore, the property is hydrologically
disconnected from the wedánd and provides no water quality contribution or improvement for
the wetland.
Wetland Resources, Inc.
June 27,2018
2 693 Melody Lane
WRI #I8156
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - 693 Melody Lane Interupted Buffer Determination (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
o,
-t
Þ#,
Figure l¡ Stormwater from the property flows to Puget Sound via the piped stormwater system
(Source: City of Eclmonds GIS interactive online map)
Function 4 relates to the influence of the buffer on microclimate. The presence of Melody Lane
interrupts the microclimate created by vegetation adjacent to the wetland, disconnecting it from
the microclimate occurring across the road from the wetland. Therefore, any portion of the
buffer that may occur west of the roacl does not influence the microclimate of the subject
wetland.
Functions numbered 5-7 relate to r,vildlife habitat. Bulner isolation created by the road and a
chain link fence that runs alons the eastern side of Melody Lane eliminates connectivity of the
subject property to the r,vetland for all but avian species (see Figure 2). Due to the disconnection,
any portion of the buffer that may occur east of the road does not provide a significant influence
on wilcilìfe habitat functions of the wetland.
-{:
.;1' ;'i.
{t.4.
Wetland Resources, fnc.
June 27,20t8
693 Melody Lane
wRI #181s6
3
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - 693 Melody Lane Interupted Buffer Determination (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
Ft
L
OFF.gfTE
Figure 2: Melody Lane and chain link fencing physically separate potential wildlife habitat
connectivity between the wetland and the subject property (looking north).
(Source: Google Maps)
The existing paved roadway of Melody Lane is a permanent feature and functionally isolates the
wetland west of the road from the subject property. Therefore, the buffer of the wetland should
not extend beyond the limits of the western edge of Melody Lane.
CoNcl-usro¡c
A wetland lies west of Melody Lane, west of the subject property. The wetland buffer is
interrupted by Melody Lane and should not cast onto the subject property. No other wetlands or
streams occur in the vicinity of the subject property. Therefore no buffer impacts will result from
the proposed project.
Wetland Resources, Inc.
.lune 27 ,20lB
4 693 Melody Lane
wRi #18156
SUSJECT PROPERTY
-l,'.4T
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - 693 Melody Lane Interupted Buffer Determination (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
Usn Or Tnrs Rsponr
This Site Assessment and Functional Analysis is supplied to Don Berger as a means of evaluating
the ofÊsite wetland and associated buffer as required by the City of Edmonds during the
permitting process. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser
èxtent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or
concealed conditions.
The laws applicable to critical areas are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at
any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information
deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect.
This report conforms to the standard of care employed by ecologists. No other representation or
warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty
is disclaimed.
Wetland Resources, Inc.
Joie Goodman
Associate Ecologist
Wetland Resources, fnc.
June 27, 2018
5 693 Melody Lane
wRI #lBl56
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - 693 Melody Lane Interupted Buffer Determination (Critical Areas Ordinance Report)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Discussion on Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene (EPS or “Styrofoam”) in Food Packaging
Staff Lead: Steve Fisher/Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
The Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution 1357 on April 16, 2016 which adopts both Zero Waste
Washington’s and the State of Washington’s “Beyond Waste Plan” as long-term goals to eliminate waste
and pollution in the extraction, manufacture, transportation, storage, use, reuse and recycling of
materials.
Expanded polystyrene (EPS or “Styrofoam”) breaks down into smaller pieces but does not fully
biodegrade and pollutes the Puget Sound and other area waterways. In the interest of public health as
well as the environment, the Council is asked to consider prohibiting expanded polystyrene (EPS) by
food and beverage service providers (e.g., restaurants, fast food providers, cafes, convenience markets,
delicatessens, coffee shops, schools, hospitals, grocery store take-out food counters, vending trucks or
other businesses selling prepared food and beverages for consumption on or off the premises within the
Edmonds city limits.
Many municipalities--including Seattle, WA, currently have EPS/Styrofoam bans in effect: New York City
(and several other cities in New York), Takoma Park, MD, Washington DC, Miami Beach, FL, Freeport and
Portland Maine, and Nantucket Massachusetts.
Staff Recommendation
Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator in Public Works recommends the Council move forward to prohibit
the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) by food and beverage service providers.
Narrative
Council will discuss prohibiting (EPS/Styrofoam) in food packaging. The intent of this discussion and
possible future ordinance is to put forth notice to the citizens and food service businesses of Edmonds
that in January 2020, an ordinance prohibiting EPS/Styrofoam in Edmonds will be established. Training
and guidance on the Styrofoam ban for local businesses will be provided by City of Edmonds staff.
Attachments:
2018-09-17 styrofoam ban ordinance
8.2
Packet Pg. 383
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A BAN ON THE USE OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE BY FOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds Climate Change Action Plan states our vision by 2050
as: “Edmonds is one of many flourishing communities in the Puget Sound region of Western
Washington with our energy coming from nearly 100% renewable sources, our waste streams
approaching zero, and nearly all our products and services obtained from sustainable sources,”
and; and
WHEREAS, item B.4 in Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan states: “Promote a healthy
community by seeking to protect and enhance the natural environment through a balanced
program of education, regulation, and incentives. Environmental programs in Edmonds should
be tailored to and reflect the unique opportunities and challenges embodied in a mature, sea-side
community with a history of environmental protection and awareness,”; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution 1357 on April 16, 2016
which adopts both Zero Waste Washington’s and the State of Washington’s “Beyond Waste
Plan” as long-term goals to eliminate waste and pollution in the extraction, manufacture,
transportation, storage, use, reuse and recycling of materials; and
WHEREAS, these goals can be supported through strategies, policies and action plans
that significantly reduce waste and pollution; and
WHEREAS, “Expanded polystyrene,” as defined below, breaks down into smaller pieces
but does not fully biodegrade, and is polluting the Puget Sound and other area waterways; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds desires to protect the integrity of the natural
environment, fish and wildlife from litter and pollution caused by expanded polystyrene; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to improve the environment, in part, by prohibiting the use
of certain types of expanded polystyrene within the City; and
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: 2018-09-17 styrofoam ban ordinance (Discussion on Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene (EPS or “Styrofoam”) in Food Packaging)
WHEREAS, this Ordinance will serve in the interest of public health safety as well as the
environment in an effort to reduce litter and pollutants onto the land and the waters of the city
and beyond; and
WHEREAS, notifying the local food industry now of the expanded polystyrene ban that
will take effect in 2020 will provide the food industry a fair opportunity to use up their current
supplies of expanded polystyrene and order supplies of compostable alternative products before
the ordinance banning the expanded polystyrene products takes effect;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new chapter 6.90 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Expanded
Polystyrene Prohibition,” is hereby adopted to read as follows:
6.90.010 Definitions. 6.90.020 Expanded Polystyrene Prohibition. 6.90.030 Violations.
6.90.010 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply.
A. "Expanded polystyrene" means blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams
(sometimes called Styrofoam, a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam
insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and
processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres
(expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion-blow molding
(extruded foam polystyrene).
B. "Expanded polystyrene food service products" means food containers, plates,
"clamshells," hot and cold beverage cups, meat and vegetable trays, egg cartons, and other
products, made of expanded polystyrene and used for selling or providing food for consumption
on or off the premises.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: 2018-09-17 styrofoam ban ordinance (Discussion on Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene (EPS or “Styrofoam”) in Food Packaging)
C. "Food service businesses" means full-service restaurants, fast food restaurants, cafes,
delicatessens, coffee shops, grocery stores, retail food vendors, home delivery services, non-
profit food providers, vending trucks or carts, business or institutional cafeterias, or other
businesses, selling or providing food within the City of Edmonds for consumption on or off the
premises.
6.90.020 Expanded Polystyrene Prohibition.
A. Effective January 1, 2020, food service businesses in the City of Edmonds shall be
prohibited from selling or providing food in expanded polystyrene food service products; nor
shall any food service business purchase, obtain, or possess any expanded polystyrene food
service products, except as otherwise provided under subsections B. In addition, the following
requirements shall apply to food service products that are used:
i. All disposable food service products shall be either compostable or recyclable, and
ii. To qualify as compostable or recyclable, disposable food service products must be
considered compostable or recyclable by the solid waste collection provider that services the
subject property.
B. Prepackaged soups and other prepackaged foods that food service businesses sell or
otherwise provide to their customers in expanded polystyrene food service products that have
been filled and sealed prior to receipt by the food service business shall be exempt from the
prohibition established in subsection A.
6.90.030 Violations. A violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a
Class I civil infraction pursuant to Chapter 7.80 RCW. Issuance and disposition of infractions
issued for violations of this chapter shall be in accordance with Chapter 7.80 RCW. The penalty
for violation of a provision of this chapter shall be $100.00. The penalty for a second or
subsequent offense in violation of the provision of this chapter within two years of any previous
offense shall be $250.00.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: 2018-09-17 styrofoam ban ordinance (Discussion on Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene (EPS or “Styrofoam”) in Food Packaging)
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect
thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: 2018-09-17 styrofoam ban ordinance (Discussion on Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene (EPS or “Styrofoam”) in Food Packaging)
5
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2018, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A BAN ON THE USE OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE BY FOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY.
.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2018.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: 2018-09-17 styrofoam ban ordinance (Discussion on Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene (EPS or “Styrofoam”) in Food Packaging)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Video Streaming of Council Committee Meetings
Staff Lead: Mike Nelson/Maureen Judge
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
The City Council business meetings are broadcast live on television, streamed online and available for
viewing later. However, the once a month City Council committee meetings are only recorded by audio
for the purpose of transcribing for meeting minutes. These minutes are later made public online. There
is no live video streaming or video recording of the committee meetings.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Council President Nelson will introduce a discussion on the need for video streaming and recording of
Council committee meetings to improve transparency of the legislative process. Part of this discussion
will include remarks from Michele Earl-Hubbard, Board Vice President of the Washington Coalition for
Open Government. The Washington Coalition for Open Government is a nonprofit organization
dedicated to ensuring transparency and openness in government.
8.3
Packet Pg. 389
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/2/2018
Special Finance Committee Meeting Report and Minutes
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to report on items discussed in the Special Finance
Committee meeting held on September 20, 2018. The committee meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
FC092018
9.1
Packet Pg. 390
Minutes
SPECIAL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
September 20, 2018
_________________________________________________________________________________
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Dave Teitzel (Chair) Scott James, Finance Director
Councilmember Diane Buckshnis Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Dave Earling
Guests
Ferrell Fleming, Executive Dir, Senior Center
Daniel Johnson, Capital Project Manager
The meeting was called to order at 1:01 p.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room.
1. Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal
Ms. Hite referenced materials in the packet and reviewed:
History
o Current arrangement
Operational support: $75,000/year
No fee lease for current building
City maintains grounds
Senior Center maintains daily needs
City helps with capital items
January 2015: City entered into an option for a 40-year ground lease with Senior Center
o Terms include
Senior Center right to demolish building and build new
Senior Center would pay for complete cost of new building
Senior Center would pay for 50% cost to construct parking lot, and maintain parking lot
City would use free of charge from 4-10 PM Monday-Thursday and other mutually
agreeable times
Term for 40 years with renewal option for 15 more
Senior Center Proposal
o Updates financial goal to exercise option; from $7.5M to $12M, or 75% of total cost
o Parking lot and street frontage improvements for design, construction and maintenance
become 100% responsibility of the City
o Adds easements (still in process) for parking lot and utilities
o New legal description defines the footprint of the building
o Adds language to Section 4.1.1 to allow City Council to approve demolition and construction
based on financial viability
o Adds some minor cleanup language
Drawing of new Waterfront Center with Waterfront Redevelopment
Waterfront Redevelopment site plan
Drawing highlighting the footprint of Waterfront Center building
Drawing of the full project build out
Full project cost (original cost estimates from schematic phase, includes escalation,
contingency, etc.)
Component Costs
Design Waterfront Park $248,987
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: FC092018 (Council Committee Report)
09/20/18 Special Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
Design Parking Lot $ 116,040
Design Street Frontage $ 106,131
Design Ebbtide $ 203,510
Construction Park $2,129,118
Construction Street Frontage $ 291,554
Construction Ebbtide Walkway $1,371,033
Permitting, Eng. Environmental $ 325,000
Total $6,145,386
Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements
Parking Lot Design Cost 50% Senior
Center
$ 116,040 $ 58,020
Parking Lot Construction $1,354,013 $677,006
Frontage Improvements Design $ 106,131 $ 53,065
Frontage Construction $ 291,554 $145,777
Total $1,867,736 $933,868
If Council interested in supporting lease amendment, City will need to identify and include other
50% ($933,868) in 2019 budget.
Any in-water work must be done during July-mid October fish window
Senior Center Due Diligence
o Building replacement feasibility study – in packet
o Campaign feasibility study
o Waterfront Center Campaign update
o Waterfront Center operational pro forma
Mr. Fleming reviewed:
History of partnership between the City and the Senior Center
Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood mayors were ex-officio members in 60s and 70s
of South County Senior Center Board.
Property purchased using $300,000 HUD grant and $100,000 local match
City’s Strategic Action Plan identified need for new building
o Senior Center and Parks & Recreation appointed as lead to accomplish that
Many issues with the current building including water intrusion and plumbing problems
Thrift store relocating in December near Goodwill
Permitting process delay until April, operations continue at Senior Center until then
Mr. Johnson provided campaign highlights:
Raised to date: $10,907,719 toward revised goal of $16M
Met $1M Rick Steves community challenge
Rick Steves committed another $1M, total $4M.
$1,027,500 in recent gifts
Submitted conditional use and shoreline development permits
Security community space to house programs during transition year
Plan to break ground spring 2019 (subject to fundraising and permitting)
Fundraising
Sector Goal Raised Balance
Leadership (individuals) $6,100,000 $4,707,500 $1,392,500
Board
Board reserves
$ 400,000 $ 370,121
$ 125,000
$ 29,879
($125,000)
Government $6,500,000 $4,000,000 $2,500,000
Foundations $2,500,000 $1,490,000 $1,010,000
Community Campaign $ 500,000 $ 215,098 $ 284,902
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: FC092018 (Council Committee Report)
09/20/18 Special Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3
Total $16,000,000 $10,907,719 $5,0092,218
Recently learned Verdant request of $2.5M was not funded
Potential $500,000 from the City if the Council agrees to the lease agreement
$500,000 request pending with Snohomish County
Potential sources of additional Funds
o Leadership Gifts – Goal $1.5M
o Campaign Co-Chair Gary Haakenson – Woodway campaign event September 30
o Board – Goal $50,000
Asking board members (who are able) to increase their original pledge
o Government - goal $2.5M
State, Count, City
o Foundations – Goal - $1M
Hazel Miller, McEachern, Satterberg Foundation, local Tribes
o Community Campaign – Goal $250,000
Campaign Breakfast, October25
Business Campaign – in partnership with the Chamber – “We’re In”
Service Clubs
Mr. Fleming reviewed
Existing ground lease developed in late 2014.
o Concept of project at that time much simpler and did not envision the Waterfront
Redevelopment. Original idea for beach restoration was the result of architect team
Have secured spaces throughout the City for most Senior Center programs during construction
One State grant has time limits, needs to be spent by June
Mr. Johnson explained
Most campaigns require some type of financing due to pledges
o Waterfront Center is trying to raise all funds via gifts and pledges but anticipate will need
financing
Pursuing both bank financing and other options.
Semble publication: “The Essential Guide to Financing Options for Non-Profits” identifies
seven options for financing and pros and cons of each (will provide electronic version)
o Senior Center Board authorized engaging a business consultant who assists non-profits in
preparing bank packages for financing
Will also do a market analysis on assumptions on revenues
o If financing is required, debt service will be paid by pledge payments.
Mr. Fleming reported on work being done by the Senior Center Finance Committee (Councilmember
Buckshnis is on a leave of absent from that committee), new rental opportunities, and determining
whether the thrift store will more profitable onsite or off-site.
Mr. Fleming, Mr. Johnson and staff responded to questions and discussion followed regarding frontage
improvements not anticipated in original ground lease, current responsibility for building maintenance,
no plans to do a new feasibility study, timing to raise remaining funds, Senior Center coming to Council
to exercise lease once have documentation of how to reach $16M, plans to continue fundraising during
construction, including assumptions in proforma, including financing scenarios in proforma for Debt
Service Net of Pledge Receivables instead of “to be determined,” funding source if the Council agrees
to fund the parking lot and frontage improvements, large Park projects where funds are committed,
prioritization of Park and Public Works projects.
Discussion continued regarding savings if a City crew constructed the sidewalk, the Senior Center not
planning to ask the City for a bridge loan, specific language in the ground lease, the Waterfront Center
building envelope, the City’s responsibility for landscape maintenance, why membership dues and
program fees are down, capital campaign contributors becoming operating fund donors, use of the
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: FC092018 (Council Committee Report)
09/20/18 Special Finance Committee Minutes, Page 4
building by the Senior Center and the City, status of the Ebbtide declaratory judgment (Mr. Taraday
provide update in executive session), interest rate and terms for personal loan, annual O&M,
landscaping plan, future of the mature trees near the street, and the square footage of the existing and
new thrift shop.
Discussion continued regarding preserving building space intended for thrift shop for future growth,
building design in response to sea level rise, flood insurance, Council approval of a temporary
construction easement, Senior Center’s hope to conclude the lease agreement by yearend, doing in-
water work during the fish window, utility easement, timing of Council approval of temporary construction
easement and demolition, and Council decision points related to the amended option and new ground
lease, temporary construction easement, and approval to demolish and construct.
Council requests included:
Include more detail on government grants in proforma
Add financing scenarios in Debt Service Net of Pledge Receivables in proforma
Include updated operational proforma assumptions
Include easement exhibits
Include Senior Center timeline, WG Clark letter, and updated feasibility
Action: Schedule for full Council in November 20 for discussion and potential action.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:47 p.m.
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: FC092018 (Council Committee Report)