2007.08.28 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
August 28, 2007
6:15 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding Pending Litigation
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2• Consent Agenda Items
A. Roll Call
B. AM-1145 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2007.
C. AM-1147
Approval of claim checks #98471 through #98629 for August 23, 2007 in the amount of $500,868.04.
Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #45390 through #45489 for the period of August 1 through
August 15, 2007 in the amount of $828,834.25.
D. AM-1140
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Patricia Tuller (amount undetermined) and Patricia Dzeima
(amount undetermined).
E. AM-1139
Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement for vehicle maintenance
services between the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway, decreasing the vehicle shop rate.
3. AM-1144
Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer Program, and proposed resolution
(15 Min)
declaring Edmonds to be military family friendly and encouraging area businesses to become a military
family friendly employment partner.
4. AM-1146
Presentation by Puget Sound Regional Council on the updated growth strategy and policies.
(30 Min)
5. AM-1143
Public Hearing regarding a proposed ordinance adding a new Chapter 5.60, Graffiti; declaring graffiti a
(30 Min)
public nuisance; prohibiting defacement of property with graffiti and possession of graffiti implements;
imposing criminal penalties; requiring the removal of graffiti; and establishing an appeals process.
6. AM-1142
Closed Record Review on an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's approval of a 27-lot Preliminary Plat
(45 Min)
(Woodway Plat) located at 23700104th Avenue West. (Appellant: Lora Petso / Applicant: Burnstead
Construction / File No. P-07-17 and PRD-07-18)
7.
Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)
8. AM-1141
Discussion regarding the SeaShore Transportation Forum Agreement.
(10 Min)
9. (15 Min)
Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
10. (5 Min)
Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Min)
Council Comments
12. Adjourn
Packet Page 1 of 303
Packet Page 2 of 303
AM-1145
Approve 08/20/07 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:
Submitted By:
Department:
Review Committee:
Action:
08/28/2007
Sandy Chase
City Clerk's Office
infnrmn+inn
Time: Consent
Type: Action
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2007.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Link: Draft Minutes
Fiscal Impact
S ffarhmanfe
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 08:31 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/23/2007 09:42 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 11:26 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 08/22/2007 04:05
Chase PM
Final Approval Date: 08/23/2007
No
Packet Page 3 of 303
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
Special Meeting
August 20, 2007
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Shaun Callahan, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Acting Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Debra Sharp, Accounting Assistant
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Orvis requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 2007.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #98147 THROUGH #98320 FOR AUGUST 9, 2007 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $549,630.36 AND #98321 THROUGH #98470 FOR AUGUST 16, 2007
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,248,681.37.
D. JUDICIAL SALARY INCREASE TO MAINTAIN STATE FUNDING FOR JUDICIAL
POSITION.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 20, 2007
Page 1
Packet Page 4 of 303
E. ORDINANCE NO. 3658 — REZONING PROPERTY AT 125 2ND AVE NORTH FROM
RM-2.4 TO RM-1.5. (R-2007-15).
G. ORDINANCE NO.3660 — 2007 SECOND QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT.
H. ORDINANCE NO 3661 — ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED EVENTS.
I. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON AUGUST 14, 2007 FOR THE 95TH PLACE WEST
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($112,790).
J. RESOLUTION NO. 1151 — THANKING STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE SHAUN
CALLAHAN.
ITEM F: ORDINANCE NO. 3659 REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 318 - 320 WALNUT
STREET FROM RM-2.4 TO RM-1.5 (FILE R-2007-28).
Councilmember Orvis advised he pulled this item to vote against it.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER
ORVIS OPPOSED.
3. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE SHAUN
CALLAHAN.
Council President Olson read a Resolution commending Student Representative Callahan for his service
as Student Representative on the City Council during the spring/summer term of 2007 and extending their
best wishes to him in his future endeavors. She presented the Resolution and a plaque to Student
Representative Callahan.
Student Representative Callahan commented his intent was to speak his mind and be honest about his
feelings which he felt he had done as well as represent citizens who were unable to come to meetings. He
thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as Student Representative. He introduced his father,
mother and brother.
Mayor Haakenson thanked him for speaking his mind and commended his family for raising such a fine
young man.
Councilmember Moore also thanked the Callahans for raising a fine young man, noting he would soon
begin his college education at Edmonds Community College. She recalled his high school class has
elected him as most likely to become president.
4. ACCEPTANCE OF POINT EDWARDS PUBLIC EASEMENTS.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman displayed a map of Pt. Edwards. He recalled when this
was previously presented to the Council as a Consent Agenda item several questions were raised
regarding the access road and proposed viewpoints. He explained the Council created the Master Plan
Hillside Zone in 2002 as a result of an application for the redevelopment of the Unocal property.
Ordinance No. 3411 created the Master Plan for the upper yard area. The upper yard was purchased and
is being developed by Pt. Edwards LLC as the Pt. Edwards Condominium project. In response to
questions regarding public and private access from Pine Street, he explained west of SR104 Pine Street
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 20, 2007
Page 2
Packet Page 5 of 303
was a public road and connected with the Town of Woodway. He identified private access points into Pt.
Edwards.
He explained as part of the Master Plan, three public viewpoints were created along Pine Street. There is
also a public access along the back of the first building to a public viewpoint and a stormwater detention
pond. There is potential to develop this into a pedestrian access to the Edmonds Crossing in the future
although there are significant slopes in the area. The Master Plan required dedication of easements to the
public viewpoints and to the stormwater pond/viewpoint; those easements are before the Council for
approval tonight.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why the approval was presented to the Council now when not all the
viewpoints had been constructed. Mr. Bowman answered he had been working on the wording of the
easements for approximately four years and it was now acceptable to the developer and the City for
maintenance and operation. Acceptance of the easements is a requirement of the Master Plan and the
final building will soon be submitted for permits.
Councilmember Wambolt stated he walked the area over the weekend and discovered the sign for the
public viewpoint was located off Pine Street. He recommended the sign be relocated to Pine Street so
that it was visible to the public. Mr. Bowman agreed to discuss moving the sign with the developer.
Councilmember Wambolt inquired about the approval process for a private road. Mr. Bowman explained
in this instance, the Master Plan was reviewed by both the Planning Board and the City Council. At that
time there was discussion about creating Pt. Edwards as a gated community which the City opposed and
the developer agreed. However, because the developer did not want to build the roads to City street
standards and the City did not want to maintain them, the developer proposed and the City agreed to
allow the roads to be private and in exchange required the viewpoints to allow public access.
Councilmember Wambolt clarified the private drive was approved by the Council but not while he was a
Councilmember. Mr. Bowman agreed.
Councilmember Wambolt commented many people were unhappy to discover the roads were private and
that there was so little public access to the property. He recalled the effort to build a park on the property
and Mayor Haakenson's unsuccessful efforts to acquire funds from the State to purchase the property.
Mr. Bowman advised the viewpoints that were required are significant.
Councilmember Wambolt expressed concern with the continued closure of Pine Street and use of the
right-of-way by the developer as a staging area with no compensation to the City. He questioned why the
City did not require compensation, particularly when Pine Street would remain closed for up to five years.
He pointed out compensation for use of the right-of-way was required from the developer of Old Mill
Town. Mr. Bowman explained compensation was required where there was on -street parking; there was
no on -street parking on Pine Street.
Councilmember Marin agreed with the request to move the sign so that it was visible from Pine Street.
He asked where visitors would park to access the viewpoints. Mr. Bowman identified areas where
visitors could park on Pine Street and walk to the viewpoints. He anticipated the viewpoints would be
used primarily by pedestrians walking in the area. For Councilmember Marin, Mr. Bowman identified
the location of the viewpoints in relation to the Deer Creek Hatchery.
Councilmember Moore asked for clarification that the reason the City did not charge for the use of the
street was because there was no on -street parking. Mr. Bowman explained the fee for use of the right-of-
way and disruption of parking was not established when the Pt. Edwards development began.
Councilmember Moore recommended staff pursue compensation for use of the Pine Street right-of-way.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 20, 2007
Page 3
Packet Page 6 of 303
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE EASEMENTS TO ALLOW THEM TO BE
RECORDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. REPORT ON STAFF'S ACTIONS REGARDING THE JULY 26, 2007 SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE COMMUNITY/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised the Development Services Department
management staff reviewed the minutes of the July 26 special meeting of the Community
Services/Development Services (CS/DS) Committee and identified a number of items they planned to
report on to the Committee at their September 11 meeting.
In an effort to address the overdue permit backlog, an experiment was conducted last Wednesday where
the permit counter and telephones to permit reviewers were closed to allow a concentrated effort on the
overdue permit backlog. Telephones were answered by other staff members who took messages and/or
transferred calls to management staff. Building inspections continued but engineering inspections did not
and one scheduled pre -application conference was held. He advised a report run on Tuesday afternoon
showed 79 overdue permit reviews; after the closure, there were 43 remaining, a 54% reduction. Based
on the success of that experience, he proposed doing it again this Wednesday in an effort to address the
remainder of the backlog. He noted before the experimental closure, engineers worked overtime the
weekend before and were able to complete several of the overdue permit reviews.
He noted most of the items identified in the minutes were administrative rather than legislative although
there were a few potential legislative items that would be presented to the Council. He acknowledged
there were several good ideas from the meeting including issuing the 28-day completeness letter sooner
than 28 days for an application that met all the requirements. He advised staff was in the process of
preparing a report to the CS/DS Committee and Council that addressed several of the suggestions
reflected in the minutes.
Councilmember Marin thanked Mr. Bowman for moving forward on several of the issues that were
identified. He acknowledged it was a potentially contentious issue that turned out to be a very amicable
meeting. He viewed the meeting as a partnership, the public reaching out to staff and staff responding.
Mr. Bowman stated he clarified with staff members that those in attendance at the meeting felt it was not
a contentious meeting but as an opportunity to share ideas. He acknowledged it was criticism of the
department but was constructive criticism. He commented there were some comments in the minutes that
he did not agree with and would not support but there were many that staff would pursue. Mr. Bowman
commented to most of their customers, time was money; anything staff did to delay them was
problematic.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Bowman to respond to the suggestion regarding "subject to field
inspection permits." Mr. Bowman advised he had discussed with the developer of the City's PermitTrack
software a process whereby people could apply online for "over-the-counter permits" although a process
for payments will need to be determined. This could be available for more routine permits such as roof,
mechanical or plumbing permits. He advised once the person applied on-line, the review would be done
within 1-2 days and a permit emailed to the person. He did not favor "subject to field inspection permits"
particularly for building inspections as once the permit was issued, it represented a contract with the
developer. If the permit was subject to field inspection, he questioned how disputes would be mediated.
He advised that subject would be addressed further in the report to the CS/DS committee.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 20, 2007
Page 4
Packet Page 7 of 303
Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Bowman to speak to the comment "take applications in fair order."
Mr. Bowman advised he was uncertain what that meant and was listing to the audio tape. He suspected it
addressed the difference in review time for a small permit versus a large permit. He explained permits are
often triaged and smaller permits completed more quickly; longer, more complex permits have a longer
review time.
Councilmember Plunkett commented Snohomish County did online permitting. Mr. Bowman advised
Snohomish County participated in MyPermits.com via a consortium with several eastside cities. Bothell
also participates in that consortium. He explained it was not truly an online permit, a person could apply
online and a permit was issued by the individual city.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the suggestion that certain planners work on smaller permits and
more experienced planners work on bigger permits. Mr. Bowman answered the city's current planners
did not have the level of experience that some former planners had. As a result Planning Manager Rob
Chave and he often assisted the planners with permit reviews. He clarified that suggestion would be
appropriate if the city had more experienced planners.
Councilmember Moore thanked Mr. Bowman for reacting quickly to the results of the public hearing.
She referred to Mr. Bowman's comment that most of the issues were administrative rather than
legislative, questioning why the complaints were not addressed before she asked for a public hearing. Mr.
Bowman answered staff had been working on these issues since he came to the City including holding
stakeholder meetings. He noted many of the problems arose when the City began to lose staff members.
Councilmember Moore disagreed, remarking she had heard these complaints for the past 3'/2 years and
that was the reason she scheduled a public hearing. She questioned why the Council had not held a public
hearing sooner. Mr. Bowman commented most of the issues raised at the meeting were being addressed
by staff. For example the City now had a system that could track permits.
Councilmember Moore asked if there was a policy when a customer at the counter got upset, the staff
member walked away. She noted a Councilmember had had that experience at the counter. Mr. Bowman
answered his staff was told if a customer was being abusive, they were to leave the counter and find a
supervisor.
Councilmember Moore asked about a checklist as part of the policy manual. Mr. Bowman answered that
was a concept he would not support as a review checklist would need to virtually contain the entire code.
He advised staff used internal checklists but they were not in a form available to the public. He was not
aware of any agency that had a review checklist available to the public.
With regard to administrative issues versus legislative issues, Councilmember Moore pointed out the
Council's policies dictate how the City operates. She recalled the Council's mission, vision and value
statement refers to a customer -friendly city and some of the issues identified at the July 26 CS/DS
meeting violated that policy. Mr. Bowman responded the Development Services Department staff are
very customer friendly, dedicated, courteous and professional. Customers do not always agree with the
answers they receive at the counter and he acknowledged staff did occasionally make mistakes.
Councilmember Moore responded her impression was it was not the employees but the process and she
was glad staff was taking steps to address the concerns that were voiced. Mr. Bowman commented staff
enforced the code that was adopted by the Council; many of the issues staff encountered were code -
related.
Councilmember Moore inquired about the status of the code rewrite. Mr. Bowman answered the review
had been completed for Chapter 15 and 17; City Attorney Scott Snyder was working on Chapter 16 and
Chapters 18-21 and the critical area regulations in Chapter 23 remained. He noted there was still a great
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 20, 2007
Page 5
Packet Page 8 of 303
deal of opportunity for citizens/developers to participate in the code rewrite. He expected the review of
all the chapters would be complete by next spring and ready for presentation to the Council a chapter at a
time. Councilmember Moore referred to a suggestion to form a committee to assist with the rewrite. Mr.
Bowman advised he could facilitate that effort.
Councilmember Marin clarified the July 26 CS/DS meeting was a special meeting to solicit suggestions
from the public not a public hearing where the Council was soliciting public comment on a particular
document. He noted members of the public who attended were anxious to talk but were also cognizant
that they needed to work with staff on a daily basis and wanted their comments seen as suggestions rather
than criticism. He thanked the public for their suggestions and staff s response to their suggestions.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether there had been any criticism from customers regarding the
department's closure last Wednesday. Mr. Bowman answered there were only two complaints, both from
code violators. He planned to propose another creative idea regarding office hours at the September 11
CS/DS committee meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled staff s indication that some of the code rewrite would be available this
fall. Mr. Bowman answered Chapter 17 and the non -conforming regulations would be presented to the
Council this fall. He explained the nuisance regulations were contained in Chapter 17; staff planned to
schedule separate hearings for the nuisance provisions and for the non -conforming regulations. He
anticipated a series of code rewrite presentations to the Council.
Councilmember Moore referred to a question at the meeting about the restroom on the second floor being
closed. Mr. Bowman stated a security committee recommended access on the second floor be controlled;
the restrooms allowed access to the entire second floor. He commented another issue was staff being
asked questions by customers while in the restroom. He noted there were public restrooms available on
the first and third floors. Mayor Haakenson suggested if the Council allocated the funds from the Council
Contingency Fund, doors and walls could be constructed to separate the restroom from the department.
Councilmember Moore requested Mayor Haakenson obtain an estimate.
Mayor Haakenson commented the code rewrite would not solve the issue of people applying for permits
who do not like the answer they receive. Staff will continue to enforce the code when it is rewritten and
there will continue to be those who disagree with the City's regulations. With regard to why the code
rewrite is taking longer than expected, he reminded the Council that they delegated the City Attorney a
number of issues earlier this year which has slowed the code review process. He suggested as staff and
the City Attorney completed their review of a code section, a group comprised of developers,
homeowners and a Councilmember conduct a review. He suggested Councilmember Moore may be
interested in participating in that process. He invited Councilmembers and developers to spend four hours
one day on the second floor watching what transpires, anticipating that exercise would allow them to see
what occurs on the second floor each day.
Council President Olson asked for a progress report on the Planning Board's review of the OR Zone. Mr.
Bowman advised it was docketed by the Council in October for the 2007 amendments. The Planning
Board would be discussing it this fall and forwarding a recommendation to the Council. The earliest the
Council could take action would be in December when the Council considered the ordinance with all the
2007 Comprehensive Plan amendments.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no members of the public present who wished to provide comment.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 20, 2007
Page 6
Packet Page 9 of 303
7. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Finance Committee
Councilmember Wambolt reported staff provided the Committee an overview of the Second Quarter
Budget Report. Staff also provided information on REET receipts, advising revenues were expected to be
above projections for the year but by a lesser amount each subsequent month. Next, staff reviewed the
second quarter budget amendment; seven of the thirteen items have been previously approved by the
Council. The budget amendment was approved as Consent Agenda Item 2G. The final item the
Committee discussed was a constitutionally protected events ordinance; this item was approved as
Consent Agenda Item 2H.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson advised approximately one year ago staff attempted to organize a combined document
shredding, hazardous waste drop-off and Citywide clean-up and found the cost prohibitive particularly for
the Citywide cleanup and hazardous waste drop-off due to disposal fees. City Clerk Sandy Chase pursued
the document shredding portion and with the assistance of a sponsorship by the Enterprise Newspapers, a
free document shredding event will be held Saturday, August 25 at the Top Foods parking lot. He
described materials that could be shredded and the amount of material each resident could present for
shredding. DataSite NW (Seattle Shred) is donating the shredding service and certificates of destruction
will be available. In addition, the Edmonds Police Department, Crime Prevention, will provide
information related to identity theft to participants, recycling information will be provided by the City's
Recycling Coordinator and all participants will be entered into a drawing for a free home shredder
donated by Office Max.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Olson wished Councilmember Wambolt a belated Happy Birthday on August 15.
Councilmember Marin advised he would be participating in a debate with Snohomish County
Councilmember Gary Nelson this Friday regarding the Sound Transit/RTID ballot measure at the
Lynnwood Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmember Marin announced his son Rex was accepted into a prosthetic and orthotics program at
Northwest University.
Councilmember Plunkett reported a good friend of the Council and the community, Don Nicholson,
passed away a few weeks ago. Mr. Nicholson and his family owned and operated Sound Disposal for the
past 30 years and his family plans to continue operating the business. He concluded Don was a
gentleman and would be missed.
Student Representative Callahan expressed his thanks to the audience members who provide comment to
the Council, recognizing them for their community activism.
Mayor Haakenson agreed Mr. Nicholson was a good man who would be missed.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 20, 2007
Page 7
Packet Page 10 of 303
AM-1147 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date: 08/28/2007
Submitted By: Debbie Karber
Submitted For: Dan Clements Time: Consent
Department: Administrative Services Type: Action
Review Committee:
Action: Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #98471 through #98629 for August 23, 2007 in the amount of
$500,868.04. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #45390 through #45489 for the period
of August 1 through August 15, 2007 in the amount of $828,834.25.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposits and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non -approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2007
Revenue:
Expenditure: $1,329,702.29
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $500,868.04
Payroll: $828,834.25
A t+ai-hmnn+e
Link: Claim Checks 8-23-07
�i
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq
Inbox
Approved By
Date
Status
1
Admin Services
Dan Clements
08/23/2007 03:29 PM
APRV
2
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
08/23/2007 03:47 PM
APRV
3
Mayor
Gary Haakenson 08/23/2007 04:01 PM
APRV
4
Final Approval
Sandy Chase
08/23/2007 04:32 PM
APRV
Packet Page 11 of 303
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Final Approval Date: 08/23/2007
Started On: 08/23/2007 02:13
PM
Packet Page 12 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 1
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98471
8/23/2007
061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX
807525
VOLLEYBALL T-SHIRTS
VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE T-SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00
79.73
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00
7.10
Total :
86.83
98472
8/23/2007
066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND
SEPTEMBER
KENNELING SERVICES - SEPTEME
SEPTEMBR 2007/KENNELING-
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
1,856.26
Total :
1,856.26
98473
8/23/2007
069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
7175
PLAQUE
BRONZE PLAQUE: DRUXMAN
127.000.640.575.500.310.00
127.90
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00
4.90
Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00
11.82
Total :
144.62
98474
8/23/2007
069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
7147
OLD PW - 10X14 GLOW IN THE DA
OLD PW - 10X14 GLOW IN THE DA
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
156.60
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
4.22
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
14.31
Total :
175.13
98475
8/23/2007
001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
214037-070802
MICHAEL BOWMAN/PLANNING BD
MICHAEL BOWMAN/PLANNING BD
001.000.620.558.600.490.00
18.75
Total :
18.75
Page: 1
Packet Page 13 of 303
vchlist
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 2
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98476
8/23/2007
071844 AMTEST AIR QUALITY
74586
C-248 INCINERATOR PROJECT
C-248 INCINERATOR PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
9,776.25
74702
4933-001
C-248 INCINERATOR PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
3,017.75
Total :
12,794.00
98477
8/23/2007
069751 ARAMARK
512-3940364
UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
43.36
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
3.86
Total :
47.22
98478
8/23/2007
069751 ARAMARK
512-3940366
18386001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
92.54
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
8.24
Total :
100.78
98479
8/23/2007
069751 ARAMARK
512-3938992
PW MATS
Page: 2
Packet Page 14 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98479 8/23/2007 069751 ARAMARK
98480 8/23/2007 070832 ASHER, ELIZABETH M
98481 8/23/2007 064343 AT&T
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount
(Continued)
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
1.38
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
5.24
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
5.24
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
5.24
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
5.24
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
5.26
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
0.12
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
0.47
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
0.47
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
0.46
Total :
30.06
14217 PRO TEM JUDGE
PRO TEM JUDGE
001.000.230.512.510.410.00 130.00
Total : 130.00
425-774-0944 STATION #20 FAX
STATION #20 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 34.66
Page: 3
Packet Page 15 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 4
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98481
8/23/2007
064343 064343 AT&T
(Continued)
Total :
34.66
98482
8/23/2007
064341 AT&T MOBILITY
206-660-2168
C/A 129795740
Cell phone Gene - final bill
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
200.20
Total :
200.20
98483
8/23/2007
001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
74586
UNIT 491 - LOGO GRAPHICS
UNIT 491 - LOGO GRAPHICS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
1,644.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
146.32
74587
UNIT 490 - LETTERING LOGO AND
UNIT 490 - LETTERING LOGO AND
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
815.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
72.54
Total :
2,677.86
98484
8/23/2007
001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC
67813
SWIM TEAM AWARDS
SWIM TEAM AWARDS
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
743.95
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
66.22
Total :
810.17
98485
8/23/2007
001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST
September 2007
SEPTEMBER 2007 AWC PREMIUM!
09/07 Fire Pension AWC Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00
4,396.65
09/07 Retirees AWC Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
25,041.75
09/07 Gaydos AWC Premiums
001.000.510.526.100.230.00
1,004.18
09/07 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00
261,255.48
Total :
291, 698.06
Page: 4
Packet Page 16 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98486
8/23/2007
012005
BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH
2O07-343
INV#2007-343 EDMONDS PD
PRE -EMPLOY POLYGRAPH
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
175.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
7.00
Total :
182.00
98487
8/23/2007
070992
BANC OF AMERICA LEASING
9762673
COPIER RENTAL
COPIER RENTAL
001.000.230.512.501.450.00
153.55
Total :
153.55
98488
8/23/2007
071224
BARTELL, CHRISTINE
BARTELL0816
REFUND
REFUND - RETURNING CREDIT Ol�
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
8.00
Total :
8.00
98489
8/23/2007
066891
BEACON PUBLISHING INC
5153
Gymastics Coach, #07-30 ad
Gymastics Coach, #07-30 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
23.94
Total :
23.94
98490
8/23/2007
071854
BEARD, MELISSA
510-2207
TRAINING MISC
Fire Ldrship class
001.000.510.522.400.490.00
387.00
Total :
387.00
98491
8/23/2007
002500
BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
600799
INV#600799 EDMONDS PD - DREYI
SHORT SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
59.95
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
5.34
602770
INV#602770 EDMONDS PD - COMIV
COMMENDATION BAR
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
11.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
0.98
Page: 5
Packet Page 17 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98491
8/23/2007
002500 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC (Continued)
Total :
77.27
98492
8/23/2007
065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY
451225
UNIT 238 - SEAT REPAIR
UNIT 238 - SEAT REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
210.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
17.85
Total :
227.85
98493
8/23/2007
066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL
1460734
C-251
C-251 ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMEW
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
9,391.21
Total :
9,391.21
98494
8/23/2007
066914 BUSINESS TELECOM PRODUCTS INC
181496
HEADSET SUPPLIES
BATTERY REPLACEMENT KIT FOR
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
25.00
Freight
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
6.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
2.64
Total :
33.64
98495
8/23/2007
066914 BUSINESS TELECOM PRODUCTS INC
181495
WIRELESS HEADSET-DS DEPT. RE
WIRELESS HEADSET-DS DEPT. RE
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
350.40
Total :
350.40
98496
8/23/2007
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
RN07071024
SEWER - CYLINDER RENTAL FEES
SEWER - CYLINDER RENTAL FEES
411.000.655.535.800.450.00
7.75
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00
0.69
Total :
8.44
98497
8/23/2007
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
LY110491
ALS SUPPLIES
Page: 6
Packet Page 18 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 7
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98497
8/23/2007
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
(Continued)
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
20.77
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
13.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
3.05
LY110492
ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
10.38
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
13.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
2.12
Total :
63.32
98498
8/23/2007
003515 CH2M HILL INC
3613818
005715
C-263 ODOR CONTROL STUDY
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
7,289.15
Total :
7,289.15
98499
8/23/2007
003710 CHEVRON USA
7898305185708
INV#7898305185708 EDMONDS PD
FUEL
104.000.410.521.210.320.00
279.53
Total :
279.53
98500
8/23/2007
066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
460696441
UNIFORMS
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00
46.36
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00
4.12
460696442
OPS UNIFORMS
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
89.44
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
7.95
Page: 7
Packet Page 19 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 8
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98500
8/23/2007
066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
(Continued)
460697473
UNIFORMS
Stn 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00
92.40
Stn 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
92.40
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00
8.22
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
8.22
460697496
OPS UNIFORMS
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
132.66
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
11.80
Total :
493.57
98501
8/23/2007
066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL
9393938
COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease for PW-
001.000.650.519.910.450.00
596.27
Total :
596.27
98502
8/23/2007
035160 CITY OF SEATTLE
DMT00085
2007 Share Maint Cost Fiber Optic P
2007 Share Maint Cost Fiber Optic P
001.000.390.528.200.410.00
745.62
Total :
745.62
98503
8/23/2007
004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
W1819579
INSECT SPRAY
WASP & HORNET KILLER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
197.62
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
17.59
Total :
215.21
98504
8/23/2007
004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
W1821341
FAC MAINT - LINERS, TT, TOWELS
Page: 8
Packet Page 20 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
98504
8/23/2007
004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
(Continued)
FAC MAINT - LINERS, TT, TOWELS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1,100.90
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
98.20
W1821373
FAC - NO TOUCH TOWELS
FAC - NO TOUCH TOWELS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
379.80
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
34.02
Total :
1,617.92
98505
8/23/2007
004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
W1822526
OPS SUPPLIES
Stations' supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
503.81
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
45.06
Total :
551.37
98506
8/23/2007
064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
28937
CODE UPDATES
Copies of ECDC
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
210.00
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
18.69
Total :
228.69
98507
8/23/2007
068077 CODES KNOWLEDGE COMPANY
470
2007-0592/FRANCES AND.CTR SEI
2007-0592/FRANCES AND.CTR SEI
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
3,727.50
Page: 9
Packet Page 21 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 10
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98507 8/23/2007 068077 CODES KNOWLEDGE COMPANY
Invoice
(Continued)
471
472
���7iZ�7P�df►�iZ�YLiI:1r�Iic�K�I►�IuI�Zy1_1Si7_\:7��Y�7��)t�[�P►6��1E:3
5687
98509 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 2425
PO # Description/Account
TGP FIRE-RESISTANT GLAZING
TGP FIRE-RESISTANT GLAZING
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
BLDG 10 PT.EDWARDS/BLD2007-0
BLDG 10 PT.EDWARDS/BLD2007-0
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
Total
WAPELRA Conference 9/19 - 9/21/0,
WAPELRA Conference 9/19 - 9/21/0�
001.000.220.516.100.490.00
Sno. County Mayor's Luncheon on 7/
Sno. County Mayor's Luncheon on 7/
001.000.210.513.100.490.00
Total
CREDIT CARD PURCHASES
Amount
675.00
10,323.00
14,725.50
=17E1I11
22.34
172.34
Page: 10
Packet Page 22 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 11
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98509 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount
(Continued)
FITNESS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
107.81
3 REGISTRATIONS FOR MID YEAR
001.000.640.574.200.490.00
297.00
10 X 10 CANOPY
001.000.640.574.200.310.00
107.81
SWIM TOYS FOR YOST POOL
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
35.76
SALLY LIDER HOTEL EXPENSES F
001.000.640.574.200.430.00
214.50
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
277.20
NEWSLETTERS
123.000.640.573.100.490.00
268.99
NEWSLETETRS
117.100.640.573.100.310.00
5.07
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00
105.45
SURVEYS FOR COMP PLAN
125.000.640.594.750.650.00
29.90
RIBBONS FOR SWIM MEET
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
1,211.69
SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00
79.99
POOL SAFETY SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
82.49
OWL PELLETS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
39.84
MOP REFILL
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
17.64
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00
86.19
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00
88.18
Page: 11
Packet Page 23 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 12
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98509 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
98510 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
MARBLE POLISH
117.200.640.575.500.310.00
20.98
PRINTING
123.000.640.573.100.490.00
150.28
PRINTING
117.100.640.573.100.490.00
150.28
REC SUPPLIES
001.000.640.574.200.310.00
24.17
POOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
9.84
PLANNER FOR RENEE
001.000.640.574.200.310.00
37.02
COOKIES FOR JC RECOGNITION
001.000.640.574.200.310.00
58.03
2994
CREDIT CARD PURCHASES
Misc purchases for Sister City Visitor
623.200.210.557.210.490.00
549.00
Ferry Travel -Visitors from Sister City
623.200.210.557.210.430.00
107.20
Misc purchases for Sister City Visitor
623.200.210.557.210.310.00
163.99
Total :
4,326.30
1287
CDW-G HP Officejet Pro & Cable
Page: 12
Packet Page 24 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 13
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98510 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
Invoice
(Continued)
AW C
98511 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 9757
98512 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 3263
PO # Description/Account Amount
CDW-G HP Officejet Pro & Cable
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
202.21
Office Max Flash Drives
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
108.87
RackSolutions.com Blade servers;
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
428.26
CDW-G HP OfficejetPro
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
160.26
Domain Name Registration One Yr R
001.000.310.518.880.490.00
99.00
CDW-G Laser desk -jet 3390 FD Repl
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
701.49
Ref overcharged on registration/Shar
Ref overcharged on registration/Shar
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
-40.00
Total :
1,660.09
C-251 SWITCHGEAR PARTS
C-251 SWITCHGEAR PARTS
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
2,836.55
Total :
2,836.55
3263 - O'BRIEN
MEAL - ORAL BOARD
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
44.78
CD-R SPINDLE
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
108.60
MEAL - ORAL BOARD
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
31.38
2/SUPPORT STANDS-
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
81.02
3.6 V DC BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.700.310.00
73.92
BAGS - LAW LEAF
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
6.49
Page: 13
Packet Page 25 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 14
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98512 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
8272
8275 - EDMONDS
FUEL - M.GREENE-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
43.29
MEAL - M.GREENE-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
99.12
LODGING - M.GREENE-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
315.68
MEAL - M.GREENE-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
31.01
FUEL - M.GREENE-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
40.52
SHUTTLE - D. SMITH-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
22.00
MEAL - D. SMITH-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
19.70
8298
8298 - BARD
BOATERS COURSE - M.BARD-
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
15.00
CERTIFICATE - R.SUTTON-
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
9.95
CERTIFICATE - M.MARSH-
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
9.95
REGISTRATION - G.GANNON-
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
175.00
REGISTRATION - D.ANDERSON-
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
175.00
AIRLINE TICKET - M.RICHARDSON
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
275.30
Page: 14
Packet Page 26 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 15
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98512 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
98513 8/23/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
9821
9821 - EDMONDS
MEAL - PAULSON-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
112.35
LODGING - PAULSON-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
432.40
NO SHOW CHARGES
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
79.65
MEAL - PAULSON-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
84.62
LODGING - PAULSON-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
432.40
MEAL - RT SMITH-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
23.38
LODGING - RT SMITH-
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
562.44
Total :
3,304.95
5988
OFFICE MAX - TELEMETRY PRINT[
OFFICE MAX - TELEMETRY PRINT[
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
75.01
WA L&I - FLEET BLDG FO PROJ -
001.000.310.518.880.490.00
58.00
GUARDIAN SECURITY - OLD PW E
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
55.00
APPLIANCE PARTS - FS 17 - KIT Sl
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
84.83
U FRAME IT - PW PICTURE FRAMII
001.000.650.519.910.310.00
133.78
Page: 15
Packet Page 27 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 16
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98513
8/23/2007
069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
7577
DUNN LUMBER -UNIT EQ1 OR - St
DUNN LUMBER -UNIT EQ1 OR - SI,
511.200.657.594.480.640.00
1,183.09
DUNN LUMBER - EQ10FI - SUPPLIE
511.200.657.594.480.640.00
111.37
MAGIC TOYOTA - UNIT 372 - DISC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
57.42
DUNN LUMBER - EQ10FI - SUPPLIE
511.200.657.594.480.640.00
95.13
HOME DEPOT-EQ10FI - SUPPLIES
511.200.657.594.480.640.00
66.82
DUNN LUMBER - EQ10FI - SUPPLIE
511.200.657.594.480.640.00
59.99
FISHERIES SUPPLY - EQ10FI - BLP
511.200.657.594.480.640.00
120.66
DUNN LUMBER - EQ10FI - SUPPLIE
511.200.657.594.480.640.00
63.44
SERVICE FEES
511.000.657.548.680.490.00
11.73
Total :
2,176.27
98514
8/23/2007
069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
4783
Remote for DVD Council Chambers
Remote for DVD Council Chambers
001.000.110.511.100.310.00
77.55
Copy from Tape to DVD
001.000.110.511.100.410.00
56.51
4783
AWC-Cancellation-M Moore
AWC-Cancellation-M Moore
001.000.110.511.100.490.00
-125.00
Total :
9.06
98515
8/23/2007
069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
1109
M SMITH
Prevention color books
001.000.510.522.300.310.00
356.45
Page: 16
Packet Page 28 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 17
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98515
8/23/2007
069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
4662
LUCAS
Operations supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
177.63
8112
WESTFALL
Fire Code Laws
001.000.510.522.300.490.00
158.48
9858
CORREIRA
ALS Mtg supplies
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
6.99
Total :
699.55
98516
8/23/2007
064328 CORBETT, JAMES
CORBETT0814
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR SISTER Cl"
623.200.210.557.210.310.00
124.57
Total :
124.57
98517
8/23/2007
005850 CRETIN, LAWRENCE
CRETIN0818
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR FOR
AUG
001.000.640.574.100.410.00
330.00
Total :
330.00
98518
8/23/2007
070817 CUFLEY, CHRISTY GERHART
071207
PRO TEM FEES
PRO TEM FEES
001.000.230.512.510.410.00
130.00
Total :
130.00
98519
8/23/2007
064005 DAY -TIMERS INC
56943933
2008 Portfolio refill
2008 Portfolio refill
001.000.310.514.100.310.00
33.29
Freight
001.000.310.514.100.310.00
8.75
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.100.310.00
3.74
Total :
45.78
98520
8/23/2007
069616 DE MELLO, FELIX
DEMELLO0814
REIMBURSEMENT
Page: 17
Packet Page 29 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 18
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98520
8/23/2007
069616
DE MELLO, FELIX
(Continued)
REIMBURSMENT FOR SISTER CIT`
623.200.210.557.210.310.00
130.03
Total :
130.03
98521
8/23/2007
070230
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING
Monthly
STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PI:
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00
237.00
Total :
237.00
98522
8/23/2007
047450
DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES
2007070133
CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for July 2007
001.000.390.528.800.420.00
332.59
2007070133
BILL # 1139711
310-00076
VISTA Business License - —
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
495.48
310-00076
Enterprise Server - Exchange, ISA, a
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
1,543.69
310-00076
Office Pro 2007-
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
631.98
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
223.87
2007070133
BILL # 1139820
310-00076
ADOBE Photoshop upgrade to CS3 -
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
158.76
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
12.69
Total :
3,399.06
98523
8/23/2007
060933
DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER
206490
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
100.76
206491
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
104.85
Page: 18
Packet Page 30 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 19
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98523
8/23/2007
060933
DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER
(Continued)
206492
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
82.28
Total :
287.89
98524
8/23/2007
071848
EAGLE ROOFING
EAGLE ROOFING
OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.
OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00
221.50
Total :
221.50
98525
8/23/2007
068803
EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS
2952107
SEWER INVENTORY - -
SEWER INVENTORY - -
411.000.000.141.150.310.00
1,790.00
Sales Tax
411.000.000.141.150.310.00
152.15
Total :
1,942.15
98526
8/23/2007
068292
EDGE ANALYTICAL
07-08905
WATER QUALITY - WATER ANALY:
WATER QUALITY - WATER ANALY;
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
884.00
Total :
884.00
98527
8/23/2007
007625
EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL
EAF0814
REFUND
REFUND OF REMAINING DAMAGE
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
117.08
Total :
117.08
98528
8/23/2007
007775
EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
130909
REFUND DEPOSIT FOR HYDRANT
REFUND DEPOSIT FOR HYDRANT
411.000.000.245.110.000.00
650.00
Total :
650.00
98529
8/23/2007
070683
EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL
11550
UPS/DEPT OF ECOLOGY
Page: 19
Packet Page 31 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 20
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
98529
8/23/2007
070683
EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL
(Continued)
UPS/DEPT OF ECOLOGY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
17.25
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
1.54
11623
UPS/DEPT OF LNI
UPS/DEPT OF LNI
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
15.51
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
1.38
Total :
35.68
98530
8/23/2007
071719
EDNETICS INC
43094
ROUTER FOR FIBER AND REDUNE
310-00077 CISCO 6504-E for fiber routing-
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
13,918.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
1,238.70
Total :
15,156.70
98531
8/23/2007
008812
ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
026784
COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.500.480.00
45.69
Total :
45.69
98532
8/23/2007
008812
ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
026925
Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (7/7 - 8/7/1
Page: 20
Packet Page 32 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 21
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98532
8/23/2007
008812
ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
(Continued)
Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (7/7 - 8/7/1
001.000.610.519.700.480.00
8.59
Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (7/7 - 8/7/1
001.000.220.516.100.480.00
8.59
Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (7/7 - 8/7/1
001.000.210.513.100.480.00
8.58
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.480.00
0.76
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.480.00
0.76
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.480.00
0.77
Total :
28.05
98533
8/23/2007
066024
EVANS, GENE
082107
2007 BOOT ALLOWANCE - G EVAN
2007 BOOT ALLOWANCE - G EVAN
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
164.00
Total :
164.00
98534
8/23/2007
009315
EVERETT COMMUNITY COLLEGE
14801
STREET- FLAGING CLASS FOR —
STREET- FLAGING CLASS FOR —
111.000.653.542.900.490.00
45.00
Total :
45.00
98535
8/23/2007
071640
EVERGREEN ID SYSTEMS LLC
3652
Fargo Id machine cleaning kit
Fargo Id machine cleaning kit
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
39.95
Freight
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
5.00
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
4.00
Total :
48.95
98536
8/23/2007
066378
FASTENAL COMPANY
WAMOU11029
CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES
Page: 21
Packet Page 33 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 22
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98536
8/23/2007
066378
FASTENAL COMPANY
(Continued)
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
24.93
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
2.22
Total :
27.15
98537
8/23/2007
071472
FILCO COMPANY INC
FILCO
OUT OF CITY LIMITS.
OUT OF CITY LIMITS.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00
55.00
Total :
55.00
98538
8/23/2007
070271
FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200
144662
TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKIN
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for Sepi
001.000.390.519.900.450.00
300.00
Total :
300.00
98539
8/23/2007
070973
FISCHER PLUMBING HEATING &
FISCHER PLUMBING
DUPLICATE PERMIT FOR BEVERL`
DUPLICATE PERMIT FOR BEVERL`
001.000.000.257.620.000.00
95.00
Total :
95.00
98540
8/23/2007
010600
FOG TITE INC
237318
WATER INVENTORY - W-MTRBOXI
WATER INVENTORY - W-MTRBOXI
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
275.00
W-MTRLID-0.75-010
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
745.00
W-MTRLID-00-010
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
745.00
W -MTRLID-02-050
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
402.00
Sales Tax
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
192.86
Total :
2,359.86
98541
8/23/2007
068075
GENERAL AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY CO
51543
INV#51543 ACCT#20999 EDMONDE
Page: 22
Packet Page 34 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 23
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98541
8/23/2007
068075
GENERAL AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY CO
(Continued)
20 MINUTE SPIKELESS ROAD FLAI
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
698.40
Total :
698.40
98542
8/23/2007
068617
GLEISNER, BARBARA
GLEISNER8287
QIGONG CLASSES
QIGONG #8287
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
13.50
QIGONG #8286
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
13.50
Total :
27.00
98543
8/23/2007
063137
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
080416
FLEET INVENTORY - 12 EAGLE RS
FLEET INVENTORY - 12 EAGLE RS
511.000.657.548.680.340.30
1,247.04
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.30
110.99
Total :
1,358.03
98544
8/23/2007
012199
GRAINGER
9426634896
LIBRARY - MOTOR
LIBRARY - MOTOR
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
30.82
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.65
Total :
33.47
98545
8/23/2007
069332
HEALTHFORCE OCCMED
2126-81
Testing Services - Fire
Testing Services - Fire
001.000.220.516.210.410.00
1,887.00
Total :
1,887.00
98546
8/23/2007
062383
HEPBURN INDUSTRIES
IN075132
BURIAL SUPPLIES
BURIAL SUPPLIES
130.000.640.536.200.340.00
100.00
Freight
130.000.640.536.200.340.00
21.71
Page: 23
Packet Page 35 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 24
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98546
8/23/2007
062383
062383 HEPBURN INDUSTRIES
(Continued)
Total :
121.71
98547
8/23/2007
066233
HIGHLINE MEDICAL ENTERPRISES
07/31/2007
INV# 07/31/2007 ACCT#LM0026896
DIVE PHYSICAL FOR DM
001.000.410.521.220.410.00
450.00
Total :
450.00
98548
8/23/2007
071832
HOLT, BEN
BEN HOLT
NEEDS TO REAPPLY WITH UPDAT
NEEDS TO REAPPLY WITH UPDAT
001.000.000.257.620.000.00
3,483.00
Total :
3,483.00
98549
8/23/2007
068737
JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC
107653
INV#107653 EDMONDS PD
PRE -OFFER PHQ REPORTS (2)
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
24.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
1.72
Total :
25.72
98550
8/23/2007
015270
JONES CHEMICALS INC
359096
HYPOCHLORITE
HYPOCHLORITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.53
3,077.55
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53
270.82
Total :
3,348.37
98551
8/23/2007
016850
KUKER RANKEN INC
324238-001
INV#324238-001 ACCT#1005003 EC
MAINTENANCE ON TOTAL STATIO
001.000.410.521.220.480.00
250.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00
22.25
Total :
272.25
98552
8/23/2007
070120
L.E.A.D.S.ONLINE INC
212855
INV#212855 CUST#EDWAPD EDMC
SELECT SEARCH SERVICE PACKA
001.000.410.521.210.410.00
1,428.00
Page: 24
Packet Page 36 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 25
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98552
8/23/2007
070120
070120 L.E.A.D.S.ONLINE INC
(Continued)
Total :
1,428.00
98553
8/23/2007
068711
LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
8007-298
SUPPLIES
NITRILE GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
189.60
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
4.18
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
17.25
Total :
211.03
98554
8/23/2007
071846
LOWELL'S STAINED GLASS
12837
CITY HALL - REPAIR ART GLASS V
CITY HALL - REPAIR ART GLASS IP
116.000.651.519.920.480.00
131.25
Sales Tax
116.000.651.519.920.480.00
11.68
Total :
142.93
98555
8/23/2007
018760
LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
095315
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00
213.44
Total :
213.44
98556
8/23/2007
018760
LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
095378
OFFICE SUPPLIES
LOGO ENVELOPES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
124.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
11.04
Total :
135.04
98557
8/23/2007
018760
LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
095328
PLANNING ENVELOPES.
PLANNING ENVELOPES.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
188.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
16.73
Total :
204.73
Page: 25
Packet Page 37 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 26
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98558
8/23/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
094647
ADMIN SUPPLIES
Letterhead
001.000.510.522.100.310.00
162.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.310.00
14.42
Total :
176.42
98559
8/23/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
094241
INV#094241 EDMONDS PD - FIR CF
5000 FIR CARDS
001.000.410.521.110.310.00
96.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00
8.54
094537
INV#094537 EDMONDS PD - LETTE
2 REAMS OF LETTERHEAD
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
202.50
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
18.02
Total :
325.06
98560
8/23/2007 069362 MARSHALL, CITA
3115
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
60.00
3147
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
60.00
3149
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
45.00
3154
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
45.00
3155
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
135.00
Page: 26
Packet Page 38 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 27
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
98560
8/23/2007
069362
MARSHALL, CITA
(Continued)
3156
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
135.00
3159
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
60.00
3160
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
45.00
3163
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
45.00
3167
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
45.00
3173
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
45.00
3174
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
135.00
Total :
855.00
98561
8/23/2007
071499
MARSHALL, LESTER
LESTER0816
REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
28.00
Total :
28.00
98562
8/23/2007
019940
MC COMAS, GARY
70
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
274.70
Total :
274.70
98563
8/23/2007
020039
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
70030903
123106800
Page: 27
Packet Page 39 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 28
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
98563
8/23/2007
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
(Continued)
HIGH PRESSURE WASH GUN/EXTI
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
244.95
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
7.37
70040463
123106800
STEEL FLANGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
21.09
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
6.20
70046268
123106800
HOSE COUPLING/SOCKET/PLUG
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
82.96
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
5.42
70049040
123106800
BRASS NOZZLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
33.60
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
4.77
70064025
123106800
TAPE RULE/SANDING DISC
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
62.18
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
5.85
Total :
474.39
98564
8/23/2007
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
50398
STREET- GAS MOWER RENTAL FE
STREET- GAS MOWER RENTAL FE
111.000.653.542.710.450.00
115.85
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.450.00
10.31
Total :
126.16
98565
8/23/2007
024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
S1654370.001
2091
Page: 28
Packet Page 40 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 29
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98565
8/23/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
(Continued)
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
500.70
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
43.06
S1654370.002
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
55.96
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
4.81
S1654370.003
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
190.66
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
16.40
S1654370.004
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
7.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
0.65
S1654393.001
2091
CREDIT/ FUSE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
-198.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
-17.03
S1654896.001
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
36.89
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
3.17
S1654896.002
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
241.07
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
20.73
Page: 29
Packet Page 41 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 30
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98565 8/23/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY (Continued)
S1654896.003
2091
ELETRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
45.60
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
3.92
S1654896.004
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
17.85
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
1.54
S1654896.005
2091
ELLECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
22.80
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
1.96
S1657761.001
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
49.69
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
4.27
S1657761.002
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
74.82
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
6.43
S1657761-003
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
330.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
28.38
S1657887.001
2091
G
CREDIT SOCKET TUBE BASE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
-19.47
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
-1.67
Page: 30
Packet Page 42 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 31
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98565
8/23/2007
024960
024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC
COMPAl' (Continued)
Total :
1,472.69
98566
8/23/2007
061013
NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
0546493
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:-
001.000.640.576.800.450.00
98.02
Total :
98.02
98567
8/23/2007
063511
OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
214456
Office Supplies - HR
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
25.57
Office Supplies (copier paper)
001.000.610.519.700.310.00
11.53
Office Supplies (copier paper)
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
11.53
Office Supplies (copier paper)
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
11.52
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
3.30
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00
1.03
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
1.02
Total :
65.50
98568
8/23/2007
063511
OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
361300
Labels/calendar refill/pen refills
Labels/calendar refill/pen refills
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
76.58
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
6.82
Total :
83.40
98569
8/23/2007
063511
OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
242172
520437
HIGHLIGHTERS/BINDERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
96.09
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
8.55
Page: 31
Packet Page 43 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 32
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98569
8/23/2007
063511
063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued)
Total :
104.64
98570
8/23/2007
063511
OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
183345
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
114.98
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
10.23
Total :
125.21
98571
8/23/2007
063511
OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
190180
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES DS DEPT
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES DS DEPT
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
192.85
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
17.17
289066
TONER FOR BLDG DEPT.
TONER FOR BLDG DEPT.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
190.84
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
16.98
Total :
417.84
98572
8/23/2007
063511
OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
260832
Office Supplies for Council
Office Supplies for Council
001.000.110.511.100.310.00
25.87
Total :
25.87
98573
8/23/2007
063511
OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
196350
INV#196350 ACCT#520437 250POL
Page: 32
Packet Page 44 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 33
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98573 8/23/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
Invoice
(Continued)
98574 8/23/2007 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 660042
98575 8/23/2007 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 660303
98576 8/23/2007 071819 OHLSEN, YOUNG-AE
71107
PO # Description/Account
Amount
WHITE 9X12 ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
15.35
WEATHERPROOF LABELS - INVEN
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
34.69
CALCULATOR INK FOR SUZANNE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
7.68
YELLOW PAPER PADS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
25.00
MANILA FILE FOLDERS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
5.99
SHEET PROTECTORS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
11.51
3 REAMS OF COLORED PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
23.05
DVD-R SPINDLE OF 50
001.000.410.521.210.310.00
19.49
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
10.98
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00
1.73
Total :
155.47
BAL ON #00006.900130 & 180
Bal on #00006.900130 Jul 07
001.000.360.515.100.410.00
40.00
Bal on #00006.900180
001.000.360.515.100.410.00
168.00
Total :
208.00
Prof Services - Legal - legislative
Prof Services - Legal - legislative
001.000.110.511.100.410.00
3,730.00
Total :
3,730.00
INTERPRETER FEES
Page: 33
Packet Page 45 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 34
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98576
8/23/2007
071819 OHLSEN, YOUNG-AE
(Continued)
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
80.00
Total :
80.00
98577
8/23/2007
065704 OMB PRODUCTIONS
OMB0826
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PAYMENT #2::-
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
1,200.00
Total :
1,200.00
98578
8/23/2007
063750 ORCA PACIFIC
030159
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
223.67
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
19.90
030284
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
522.62
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
46.51
Total :
812.70
98579
8/23/2007
066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP
CAMPCASH0821
Daycamp Petty Cash Reimbusement
Daycamp Petty Cash Reimbusement
001.000.640.575.530.310.00
266.73
Daycamp Petty Cash Reimbusement
001.000.640.575.530.490.00
192.00
Day Camp Travel Reimbursement
001.000.640.575.530.430.00
16.20
Total :
474.93
98580
8/23/2007
062770 PENTEC ENVIRONMENTAL INC
707243
CONSULTANT SVCS/WETLAND SV
CONSULTANT SVCS/WETLAND SV
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
521.06
Total :
521.06
98581
8/23/2007
071856 PERLMAN, DAVID
229
ALS PROF SERVICES
Page: 34
Packet Page 46 of 303
vchlist
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 35
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98581
8/23/2007 071856 PERLMAN, DAVID
(Continued)
Assessmt/interview
001.000.510.526.100.410.00
350.00
Total :
350.00
98582
8/23/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC
PCASH0821
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
Page: 35
Packet Page 47 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 36
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98582 8/23/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount
(Continued)
FAN & WIPES FOR GYMNASTICS
001.000.640.575.550.310.00
66.70
PAPER TOWELS FOR TOUCH TAN
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
8.43
FLASH DRIVE
001.000.640.574.200.310.00
19.59
ARTS COMMISSION SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00
3.99
CRAFTS FOR PEE WEE RANGERS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
4.83
BEACH RANGER MILEAGE
001.000.640.574.350.430.00
12.05
SHRIMP FOR FOOD - TOUCH TANI,
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
3.35
BEE STING SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6.85
STICKERS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
3.77
UNIFORM PANTS FOR BEACH RAf
001.000.640.574.350.240.00
43.56
STICKERS FOR CHEERLEADING C
001.000.640.575.550.310.00
5.43
VINYL TABLE COVER
001.000.640.574.200.310.00
3.26
FOAM CORE
001.000.640.574.200.310.00
6.52
ICE FOR SISTER CITY
623.200.210.557.210.310.00
3.38
FILM DEVELOPING FOR SISTER CI
623.200.210.557.210.490.00
10.42
FRAMES FOR HEKINAN HOMESTA
623.200.210.557.210.310.00
13.00
FOAM PICTURE FRAMES FOR GY1\
001.000.640.575.550.310.00
3.44
Page: 36
Packet Page 48 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 37
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98582
8/23/2007
008350
008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC (Continued)
Total :
218.57
98583
8/23/2007
071783
PIGSKIN UNIFORMS 1167
INV#1167 EDMONDS PD - MCCLUR
K-9 JUMPSUIT
001.000.410.521.260.240.00
300.00
POLICE LABEL
001.000.410.521.260.240.00
10.00
NAME PATCH
001.000.410.521.260.240.00
7.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.260.240.00
9.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.240.00
26.67
Total :
353.17
98584
8/23/2007
064552
PITNEY BOWES 3833100-AU07
DM100 MAIL SYS & DIMENSION M(
250-00164
DM1000 Mailing System and-
001.000.250.514.300.450.00
866.00
Total :
866.00
98585
8/23/2007
071811
PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 158508
INV#158508 ACCT #2772 EDMOND
POSTAGE FOR CASE 06-5098/509f
001.000.410.521.100.420.00
18.66
158519
INV#158519 ACCT#2772 EDMONDE
POSTAGE CASE 06-5098/5099
001.000.410.521.100.420.00
21.10
158695
INV#158695 ACCT#2772 EDMONDE
RETURN CAMERA FOR SERVICE
001.000.410.521.100.420.00
8.97
Total :
48.73
98586
8/23/2007
067263
PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANI 0018663-IN
0004397
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.12
53.95
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12
4.54
Page: 37
Packet Page 49 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 38
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98586
8/23/2007
067263 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMF (Continued)
Total :
58.49
98587
8/23/2007
070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
07-523
COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00
1,720.00
Total :
1,720.00
98588
8/23/2007
065579 QUIKSIGN
55851
SUNSET GALLERIES/CU-07-49 SIG
SUNSET GALLERIES/CU-07-49 SIG
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
144.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
12.82
55896
JORDAN/S-07-29
JORDAN/S-07-29
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
156.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
13.88
55910
MARIER/R-07-53 SIGN INSTALLATI
MARIER/R-07-53 SIGN INSTALLATI
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
156.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
13.88
55915
NORDIC/ADB-07-54 SIGN INSTALL)
NORDIC/ADB-07-54 SIGN INSTALL)
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
156.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
13.88
Total :
666.46
98589
8/23/2007
071696 RANKINS, KATE
RANKINS0817
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR-
001.000.640.574.100.410.00
40.00
Total :
40.00
98590
8/23/2007
066948 RAY ALLEN MFG CO INC
224778
INV#224778 EDMONDS PD
Page: 38
Packet Page 50 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 39
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
98590
8/23/2007
066948 RAY ALLEN MFG CO INC
(Continued)
EURO STYLE INTERMED. LEFT SLI
001.000.410.521.260.310.00
109.95
25' GRIP -IT LINE
001.000.410.521.260.310.00
41.90
Freight
001.000.410.521.260.310.00
15.00
Total :
166.85
98591
8/23/2007
069920 RESOURCEFUL BAG & TAG INC
15792
RECYCLE - KITS, BAGS, DECALS
RECYCLE - KITS, BAGS, DECALS
411.000.654.537.900.490.00
575.00
Total :
575.00
98592
8/23/2007
071257 RH HOOVER INC
3-00995
RE: #206136442 UTILITY REFUND
RE: #206136442 UB Refund Hoover/
411.000.000.233.000.000.00
85.71
Total :
85.71
98593
8/23/2007
069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN
2246
PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
125.00
2373
PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
125.00
2374
PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
125.00
2400
PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
125.00
2401
PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
125.00
Total :
625.00
Page: 39
Packet Page 51 of 303
vchlist
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 40
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98594
8/23/2007
061482 SEA -WESTERN INC
117978
OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Dropp,Karg,Johnston,S.Smith
001.000.510.522.200.250.00
5,930.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.250.00
527.77
Total :
6,457.77
98595
8/23/2007
036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC
1071717
Blue claims check stock
Blue claims check stock
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
439.00
Freight
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
78.72
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
46.08
Total :
563.80
98596
8/23/2007
065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
238721916
SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMP
FLAG FOOTBALL #8044-
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
4,032.00
Total :
4,032.00
98597
8/23/2007
037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT
1000 177452
Q1-07 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS &
Q1-07 Liquor Board Profits & Taxes
001.000.390.567.000.510.00
2,184.46
Total :
2,184.46
98598
8/23/2007
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2710014701
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
29.74
Total :
29.74
98599
8/23/2007
038100 SNO-KING STAMP
35827
INV#35827 EDMONDS PD
Page: 40
Packet Page 52 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 41
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
98599 8/23/2007 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
98600 8/23/2007 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Invoice
(Continued)
ClrYAs]
98601 8/23/2007 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2007105
98602 8/23/2007 071711 SNOHOMISH COUNTY VIKINGS VIKINGS0816
PO # Description/Account
LOCKER MAGNET - SMITH
001.000.410.521.110.310.00
LOCKER MAGNET - MANDEVILLE
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
LOCKER MAGNET - HESLOP
001.000.410.521.300.310.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.110.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.300.310.00
Total
DUMP FEES
DUMP FEES
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
Total ;
INV#2007105 EDMONDS PD - JULY
69.67 BOOKINGS FOR JULY
001.000.410.523.600.510.00
713.33 HOUSING DAYS FOR JULY
001.000.410.523.600.510.00
Total ;
REFUND
Amount
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.50
0.58
0.36
0.35
15.79
96.53
74.32
3.48
2.67
177.00
6,181.12
41,694.14
47,875.26
Page: 41
Packet Page 53 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 42
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98602
8/23/2007
071711 SNOHOMISH COUNTY VIKINGS
(Continued)
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
56.00
Total :
56.00
98603
8/23/2007
070677 SPRINT
JULY7-AUG6, 2007
INV FOR JULY7-AUG6, 2007 06200'
DATA CARDS
001.000.410.521.220.420.00
102.64
Total :
102.64
98604
8/23/2007
071585 STERICYCLE INC
0004104147
INV#0004104147 CUST#6076358 E[
MONTHLY MINIMUM CHARGE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00
10.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.410.00
0.36
Total :
10.36
98605
8/23/2007
040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
123610
PW/FLEET - FIBER OPTIC SUPPLIE
PW/FLEET - FIBER OPTIC SUPPLIE
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
1,760.92
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
156.72
127433
FISHING PIER/BEACH RANGER OF
FISHING PIER/BEACH RANGER OF
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
825.86
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
26.97
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
75.90
127434
PW/FLEET - FIBER PROJECT - SU
PW/FLEET - FIBER PROJECT - SU
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
45.78
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
4.07
Page: 42
Packet Page 54 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 43
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
98605
8/23/2007
040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
(Continued)
127435
PW/FLEET - FIBER OPTIC MATERI)
PW/FLEET - FIBER OPTIC MATERI)
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
128.35
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
11.42
129509
RETURNED FIBER OPTIC SUPPLIE
G RETURNED FIBER OPTIC SUPPLIE
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
-319.92
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
-28.47
Total :
2,687.60
98606
8/23/2007
067835 T-MOBILE
135840772
CELL PHONE USEAGE
PARK MAINTENANCE CELL PHONE
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
85.93
Total :
85.93
98607
8/23/2007
071850 TANG, PUI
TANG0814
REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
95.00
Total :
95.00
98608
8/23/2007
071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN
1011
CONSULTANT SERVICES 8/7-8/16/I
CONSULTANT SERVICES 8/7-8/16/I
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
1,820.00
Total :
1,820.00
98609
8/23/2007
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
1525074
NORDIC/ADB-07-54 LEGAL ADVER'
NORDIC/ADB-07-54 LEGAL ADVER'
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
27.36
1525610
ZIMMERLUND/S-07-52 LEGAL ADVI
ZIMMERLUND/S-07-52 LEGAL ADVI
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
15.12
Page: 43
Packet Page 55 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 44
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
98609
8/23/2007
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
(Continued)
1525772
SHAPIRO/R-07-53 LEGAL ADVERTI
SHAPIRO/R-07-53 LEGAL ADVERTI
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
20.88
Total :
63.36
98610
8/23/2007
071852 TIGER PUBLISHING CO
2007-082
Mailing services - City newsletter,
Mailing services - City newsletter,
001.000.240.513.110.490.00
472.50
Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.490.00
42.05
Total :
514.55
98611
8/23/2007
071849 TOPLANDSCAPE.COM
BusLic Refund
OVERPMT OF BUSINESS LIC
Overpmt of Bus Lic
001.000.000.257.310.000.00
25.00
Total :
25.00
98612
8/23/2007
068254 TOWERS, LORRIE C
03-MAY07
PRO TEM JUDGE
PRO TEM JUDGE
001.000.230.512.510.410.00
21.67
Total :
21.67
98613
8/23/2007
071582 TRANSLATION SOLUTION CORP
2809
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
411.34
Total :
411.34
98614
8/23/2007
071839 TUMBAO
TUMBA00826
PARK CONCERT
CITY PARK CONCERT:-
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
800.00
Total :
800.00
98615
8/23/2007
061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
7593975
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
Page: 44
Packet Page 56 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 45
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98615
8/23/2007
061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
(Continued)
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
291.76
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
25.97
Total :
317.73
98616
8/23/2007
011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00
58.02
425-771-1124
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-E
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-E
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
53.62
425-775-1344
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHY\
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHII\
001.000.640.574.350.420.00
57.05
Total :
168.69
98617
8/23/2007
011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
425-AB8-2844
POLICE T1 LINE
Police T1 Line 8/10-9-10/07
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
374.01
Total :
374.01
98618
8/23/2007
011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
425 712 0423
03 0260 1032797592 07
AFTER HOURS PHONE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
55.74
425 NW 1-0060
03 0210 1079569413 10
BPS TELEMENTRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
41.12
425-771-5553
03 02101014522641 07
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
57.52
Total :
154.38
98619
8/23/2007
011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
425-774-0944
FS #20-FAX LINE
Page: 45
Packet Page 57 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 46
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98619
8/23/2007
011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
(Continued)
FS #20-FAX LINE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
49.73
Total :
49.73
98620
8/23/2007
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
0576454957
Mayor Haakenson cell phone svc. (4,
Mayor Haakenson cell phone svc. (4',
001.000.210.513.100.420.00
123.60
Gary Haakeson cell phone svc. (425)
001.000.210.513.100.420.00
13.87
Total :
137.47
98621
8/23/2007
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
206-706-3334
C/A 370106564-00002
Cell Phone Jim Stevens
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
49.96
570091643-00001
CELL PHONE -STREET LEAD
CELL PHONE -STREET LEAD
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
33.92
964212899-00001
206-947-3220
cell phone water quality
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
39.32
Total :
123.20
98622
8/23/2007
045515 WABO
13111
CODE BOOKS - BLDG. DEPT.
CODE BOOKS - BLDG. DEPT.
001.000.620.524.100.490.00
4,053.86
Total :
4,053.86
98623
8/23/2007
065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
M.GREENE
2007 CRD CONFERENCE - M.GREE
REGISTRATION/M.GREENE-
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
75.00
Total :
75.00
98624
8/23/2007
065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
106018794
INV#106018794 EDMONDS PD
BACKGROUND CHECKS - 07/07
001.000.000.237.100.000.00
72.00
Page: 46
Packet Page 58 of 303
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 47
08/23/2007
2:09:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98624
8/23/2007
065035 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL (Continued)
Total :
72.00
98625
8/23/2007
045912 WASPC
60136
ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVI
ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVI
001.000.230.523.200.510.00
678.50
Total :
678.50
98626
8/23/2007
047960 WEAN, GREG
71
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
229.29
Total :
229.29
98627
8/23/2007
068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS
5685
OPS COMMUNICATIONS
Motorola radios
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
514.80
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
12.79
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
46.96
Total :
574.55
98628
8/23/2007
065535 WESTERN FACILITIES SUPPLY
314315-00
INV#314315-00 CUST#701-480 EDIN
86G - 75# GROCERY SACKS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
107.18
FUELSURCHARGE
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
3.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
9.22
Total :
119.40
98629
8/23/2007
071855 WSCFF
4433
WSCFF MEDICAL EXPENSE REIME
WSCFF Medical Expense Reimburse
811.000.000.231.561.000.00
1,800.00
WSCFF Medical Expense Reimburse
811.000.000.211.100.000.00
1,762.50
Total :
3,562.50
Page: 47
Packet Page 59 of 303
vchlist Voucher List Page: 48
08/23/2007 2:09:42PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
159 Vouchers for bank code : front
159 Vouchers in this report
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Bank total
Total vouchers
Amount
500,868.04
500,868.04
Page: 48
Packet Page 60 of 303
AM-1140
Claims for Damages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date: 08/28/2007
Submitted By: Sandy Chase Time:
Department: City Clerk's Office Type:
Review Committee:
Action
Tnrnw► n+inn
Consent
Action
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Patricia Tuller (amount undetermined) and
Patricia Dzeima (amount undetermined).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Claims for Damages have been received by the following individuals:
Patricia Tuller
8509 - 214th Pl. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
(Amount Undetermined)
Patricia Dzeima
23502 Edmonds Way, B303
Edmonds, WA 98026
(Amount Undetermined)
Fiscal Impact
Att- nhmon+e
Link: Tuller Claim
Link: Dzeima Claim
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/21/2007 10:28 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/21/2007 11:01 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/21/2007 11:07 AM APRV
2.D.
Packet Page 61 of 303
Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 08/21/2007 10:14
Chase AM
Final Approval Date: 08/21/2007
Packet Page 62 of 303
Please take, note
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: _1
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
1. Describe occurrence
arl / -
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
RECEIVED
AUG 2 0.2007
Date Claim Form Al
Receiv d b City
who resides at �� z)
4' mailing address s'',.v
home phone #z%,�-S-22yJ.�"rk phone # , is claiming damages against
in the sum of $ � arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
e�TIME:efAV
the nature of the defects or acts of n*,
damages.
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes No
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: r� '`7 / ,-7
and the policy #:
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUiREO FOR AUTOMOBILE. CLAIMS ONLY
License Plate # Driver License # / / P45 C
Type Auto: � ,✓y1 c'r? c �a � �� y 6�2
(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER: �CLhf �-
Address: All e5i< Address:
Phone#:i:�_ Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
Packet Page 63 of 303
* *.NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED
�- being first duly sworn, depose and say that. I am the claimant for the above
described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe'
sam a true.
X
State of W h��iin�g��tton
County of 3V to r►.6MV& j,\,
Signature of Claimant(s)
1 certify, that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that l al:yl 1 -V Ll keAr is the person who appeared before me, and said
person acknowledged that (he/4p signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his& free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Rated: (V3 / 2A / Z4007 1
Signatur tt WaW PtibRe
staro of WCuhinglon
Title V140114A A KOUW
'My APpolnlm*nfExpit0a.MCkfib.;01Y ,
My appointment expires
Packet Page 64 of 303
RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS AUG. 2 0 2007
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES- FORM
Date Claim Form
c-:7d by City
8 av PM
Please take note that �Q 17Ze 1 rY> who resides at Z J5�J2 Mnn wd f-
2mailing address
home phone # 3►H - 55(D 2 , work phone # is claiming damages against
( Mt`�(1a Ea34i( _ ppin the sum of $ arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: a l (5' 0- 1 TIME: T- 200 1 sh OQm
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
1. Describe occurrence explaining the nature of the defects or acts of negligence causing damages. Q t
a a d
row. Ono
-CY a\ d e 1 w
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company?
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
Yes Y No
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY
License Plate # 2 _V J Driver License # ' n (J M Iy C'L-
Type Auto: 2.tJ03 ACj&i['C'A1 _�j i -
Ti-(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER:
Address: Address: �3
G2
Phone#: Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
Packet Page 65 of 303
* *.NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED
I, BaA-r Q . Z8( `(Y1 k being first duly swom, -depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the
X
Signature of Claimant(s)
State of Washington
County of �� n Aa m /Sh
certify, that I know or have satisfactory evidence that P—'V IC4,4 Z)ZeI n7Z is the person who appeared before me, and said
person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument. NX
Dated: S'&?o /.(Q 7 A. ''+fit
Signature 3��' �►n�# f
Title ; �� to
My appointment expires / �/�Z
hto , $
Packet Page 66 of 303
AM-1139 2.E.
Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement with Woodway
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date: 08/28/2007
Submitted By: Kim Karas
Submitted For: Noel Miller Time: Consent
Department: Public Works Type: Action
Review Committee: Finance
Action: Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement for vehicle
maintenance services between the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway, decreasing the
vehicle shop rate.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize the Mayor to sign the Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement with the Town of
Woodway, decreasing the vehicle shop rate from $77.82 per hour to $73.00 per hour.
Previous Council Action
Previously, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign the First Addendum on November 5, 2003, at
that time the hourly rate was raised to $77.82. Our Fleet Division's efficiency has increased to a
level that the vehicle shop rate has decreased, allowing us to pass the savings to our customers.
Narrative
The Town of Woodway has requested the City of Edmonds to continue the on -going maintenance
of their police patrol vehicle. Due to the decrease in the vehicle shop rate, the Addendum would
change the Town of Woodway's rate from $77.82 per hour to $73.00 per hour.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Town of Woodway-Original Agreement
Link: Town of Woodway Addendum #1
Link: Town of Woodway Addendum 2
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 11:26 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/23/2007 01:28 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 02:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim Started On: 08/21/2007 08:21
Karas AM
Packet Page 67 of 303
Final Approval Date: 08/23/2007
Packet Page 68 of 303
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SERVICES
between �, , f
THE CITY OF EDMONDS '
and
THE TOWN OF WOODVJ.AY
JUN 0 8 2001
OFFICE OF THE WYOR
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter, "the Agreement" � is entered into
under the authority of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, bdtween the City of
Edmonds (hereinafter "Edmonds"), a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Washington, and the Town of Woodway (Hereinafter "Woodway"), a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington (collectively "the Parties"), to
provide for the periodic servicing and maintenance of vehicles owned by Woodway, and to
define the Parties' respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this undertaking.
Wl-IEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW authorizes two or more political subdi sions or units
of local government of the State of Washington to cooperate on a basis of mute& advantage to
provide for services and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Parties mutually desire to establish a formal arrangement under which
Edmonds will provide periodic automotive maintenance services for vehicles owned by
Woodway; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of defining
their respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this undertaking; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Woodway has taken appropriate action to
approve Woodway's entry into this Interlocal Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds has taken appropriate action to
approve Edmonds' entry into this Interlocal. Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained
herein, or attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, the Parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a formal arrangement
under which Edmonds will provide periodic automotive maintenance services for vehicles
owned by Woodway. The terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement shall accordingly
be interpreted to advance this purpose. This Agreement further seeks to allocate and define the
Parties' respective rights, obligations, costs and Iiabilities concerning the establishment,
operatiori and maintenance of this undertaking.
Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon May 1, 2001 after execution
by the Parties hereto. Unless terminated in accordance with Section 3, this Agreement shall
remain effective until December 31, 2006, when it shall expire automatically. The Parties may at
their option renew this Agreement for a mutually agreed upon term by a writing signed by both
Parties.
� ]ZL4713B4.DOC; I IO0006.9001751)
Packet Page 69 of 303
Section 3. Termination, Either Party may terminate this Agreement with or without
cause by providing the other Party with 30 days written notice of its intent to terminate.
Termination shall not alter Woodway's payment obligations under Section 6 for services already
rendered and shall not alter the Parties' respective obligations under Section 11 of this
Agreement.
Section 4. Obligations of Edmonds. Edmonds agrees to:
A. Provide periodic automotive maintenance services for Woodway vehicles upon
Woodway's request. Such maintenance services may include, but are not limited
to, oil changing, engine tuning, tire rotation, replacement and pressure adjustment,
and other services as requested by Woodway and expressly agreed to by
Edmonds. Edmonds' obligation to service Woodway vehicles is limited by
Section 8 of this Agreement.
B. Inform Woodway upon receiving each vehicle to be serviced of the probable date
and time of completion for any automotive maintenance services project; notify
Woodway upon completion of any such project; and provide reasonable advance
notice to Woodway in the event of Edmonds' inability to meet a previously
indicated completion date.
C. Inform Woodway upon receiving each vehicle to be serviced of the estimated
time and cost of the services to be rendered. If further inspection of the vehicle
reveals that the time and cost of the necessary services will exceed the original
estimate by 30% or more, Edmonds shall notify Woodway of the increased
estimate and shall not perform any increased work until receiving Woodway's
consent to the revised estimate.
D. Provide Woodway with a separate invoice for each vehicle serviced pursuant to
this Agreement itemizing all services performed.
E. Charge Woodway for all services performed pursuant to this Agreement in
accordance with Section 6.
Section 5. ObIigations of Woodway. Woodway agrees to:
A. Provide Edmonds with 7 days advance notice of each request for automotive
maintenance services. Edmonds may at its sole discretion accept Woodway
vehicles upon lesser notice.
B. Transport each Woodway vehicle to be serviced under this Agreement to and
from Edmonds' Fleet Maintenance Facility, Iocated at 7110 210`' Street SW in
Edmonds.
C. Retrieve each Woodway vehicle from the Edmonds Fleet Maintenance Facility
within 24 hours of receiving notification by Edmonds that such vehicle has been
serviced and/or is tendered for Woodway's retrieval.
{!ZL471384.DOC;1 /00006.900175/] 2
Packet Page 70 of 303
D. Provide written warning to Edmonds at the time any Woodway vehicle is
submitted for servicing if the vehicle is in any unusually dangerous condition.
E. Pay Edmonds in accordance with Section 6 of this Agreement for all automotive
maintenance services performed by Edmonds.
Section 6. Payment Schedule. The Parties agree to the following billing and payment
schedule:
A. Edmonds shall charge Woodway a fee of $48.00 per hour, exclusive of
replacement parts and materials, for routine automotive maintenance services
performed under this Agreement, said amount roughly approximating the actual
cost of providing such services. Replacement of automotive parts and necessary
materials, including but not limited to oil, tires and various vehicle fluids, shall be
billed separately to Woodway at cost plus any procurement expense incurred by
Edmonds. Any disposal fee incurred by Edmonds in disposing automotive parts
and materials from Woodway vehicles, including but not limited any hazardous
waste disposal charge, shall likewise be billed separately to Woodway at cost.
B. Within 14 days after completing an automotive servicing project on a Woodway
vehicle pursuant to this Agreement, Edmonds shall submit an itemized invoice to
Woodway listing the tasks completed, the hours expended, the automotive parts
replaced and the total charge to Woodway.
C. Within 14 days of receiving an invoice pursuant to subsection B above, Woodway
shall tender full payment to Edmonds for the full amount due under said invoice.
Section 7. Ownership and Disposition of Property- Any automotive part on a Woodway
vehicle removed and/or replaced by Edmonds pursuant to this Agreement other than oil filters,
air filters, windshield wiper blades and tires shall remain the legal property of Woodway and
shall be retained, discarded or otherwise disposed of by Edmonds only with the consent of
Woodway.
Section S. Priority of Vehicle Servicing: No Exclusive Service Arrangement Created.
The Parties understand that, notwithstanding this Agreement, the highest priority of the Edmonds
Fleet Maintenance Facility is and will remain the servicing and maintenance of vehicles owned
and operated by the City of Edmonds. In the event that Edmonds may from time to time lack the
capacity to expeditiously provide automotive maintenance services to Woodway requested
pursuant to this Agreement, Edmonds shall as soon as practicable notify Woodway of its present
inability to service Woodway vehicles and shall inform Woodway of the estimated time of delay
in servicing. Any such delay shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement. Upon receipt of
such notice from Edmonds, Woodway may at its discretion utilize another service provider for
the purpose of obtaining automotive maintenance services for Woodway vehicles. Nothing in
this Agreement shall be construed as requiring Edmonds to service any Woodway vehicle within
(JZ L471384.DOC;1l00006.900175/ 1 3
Packet Page 71 of 303
any particular time, or to establish Edmonds as the exclusive provider of automotive
maintenance services for Woodway vehicles.
Section 9. Liability for Vehicle Damage. Woodway shall exclusively bear all risk of
loss or damage to any vehicle submitted to Edmonds for maintenance servicing pursuant to this
Agreement while such vehicle is (a) in transit to and from the Edmonds Fleet Maintenance
Facility, or (b) stored at the Edmonds Fleet Maintenance Facility after 24 hours subsequent to
notification by Edmonds that the vehicle is ready for retrieval by Woodway. Liability for vehicle
damage occurring after Woodway submits and Edmonds accepts a vehicle for servicing but
before 24 hours have lapsed after Edmonds has directed Woodway to retrieve the vehicle shall
be allocated as provided in Section I I of this Agreement.
Section 10. Administration; No Separate Entity Created. No separate legal entity is
formed by this Agreement.
Section 11. Release. Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement.
A. Edmonds agrees to protect, indemnify and save Woodway harmless from and
against any and all injury or damage to Woodway or its property, and also from
and against all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character
arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or
arising out of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the fault of the
Edmonds, its agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Edmonds
specifically promises to indemnify Woodway against claims or suits brought
under Title 51 RCW by Edmonds' employees or subcontractors and waives any
immunity that Edmonds may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the
limited extent accessary to indemnify Woodway. Edmonds shall also indemnify
and hold Woodway harmless from any wage, overtime or benefit claim of any
Edmonds employee, agent, representative or subcontractor performing services
under this Agreement. Edmonds further agrees to fully indemnify Woodway
from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the
end that Woodway is held harmless therefrom. Tlus paragraph shall not apply to
damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of Woodway. In situations
involving the sole negligence of Woodway or its employees, the Parties'
respective Iiabilities shall be as defined by the law of the State of Washington.
B. Woodway agrees to protect, indemnify and save Edmonds harmless from and
against any and all injury or damage to Edmonds or its property, and also from
and against all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character
arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or
arising out of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the fault of
Woodway, its agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Woodway
specifically promises to indemnify Edmonds against claims or suits brought under
Title 51 RCW by Woodway's employees or subcontractors and waives any
immunity that Woodway may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the
limited extent necessary to indemnify Edmonds. Woodway shall also indemnify
{lZL471394.DOC;1100006.900175/1 4
Packet Page 72 of 303
and hold Edmonds harmless from any wage, overtime or benefit claim of any
Woodway employee, agent, representative or subcontractor performing services
under this Agreement. Woodway further agrees to fully indemnify Edmonds
from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the
end that Edmonds is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph shall not apply to
damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of Edmonds. In situations
involving the sole negligence of Edmonds or its employees, the Parties' respective
liabilities shall be as defined by the law of the State of Washington.
Section 12. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws
of the State of Washington. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in
Snohomish County Superior Court.
Section I3. No Employment Relationship Created. The Parties agree that nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to create an employment relationship between Edmonds and any
employee, agent, representative or contractor of Woodway, or between Woodway and any
employee, agent, representative or contractor of Edmonds.
Section 14. Notices. Notices to Edmonds shall be sent to the following address:
City of Edmonds
Director, Public Works Department
711.0 210t1i Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Notices to Woodway shall be sent to the following address:
Town of Woodway
Chief of Police
23920 113th Place W.
Woodway WA 98020
Section 15. Duty to File Agreement With County Auditor. Woodway shall, after this
Agreement is executed by both Parties but before the effective date provided in Section 2, file
this Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor.
Section 16. Integration. This document constitutes the entire embodiment of the
Agreement between the Parties, and, unless modified in writing by an amendment to this
Interlocal Agreement signed by the Parties hereto, shall be implemented as described above.
CITE' OF EDMONDS
rvGary H�aakenson, Mayor
Date:
TO VF WOOD W)A
By: _
Carla NIchoIs, Mayor
Date:
( ]ZL471384.DOC;1 100006.9001751}
Packet Page 73 of 303
FIRST ADDENDUM
to
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for
VESICLE MAINTENANCE SERVICES
between
THE CITY OF EDMONDS
and
THE TOWN OF WOODWAY
This First Addendum to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Vehicle Maintenance Services
("Agreement") between the City of Edmonds ("Edmonds") and the Town of Woodway
("Woodway") is entered into by and between Edmonds and Woodway as of the date indicated
helnw_
L RECITALS
WHEREAS, Edmonds and Woodway (collectively, "tile Parties") entered into the
Agreement on June 6, 2001 for the purpose of establishing a formal arrangement udder wlvch
Edmonds would provide periodic automotive maintenance sen=ices for vehicles owned by
Woodway; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement required Woodway to reimburse Edmonds for said services
at the rate of $48.00/llr., exclusive of, inter alia, replacement automotive parts and materials,
procurement expenses, and disposal charges; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to preserve the framework. of their contractual relationship
under the Agreement, but establish a new reimbursement rate for services rendered pursuant
thereto; and
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of both Parties have taken appropriate action to
approve the Parties' respective execution of this First Addendum;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the teens and conditions contained herein. or
attached said incorporated and made a part hereof, the Parties mutually agree as follows:
IT. TERMS
Section 1. Amendment of Section 6(A) of the Agreement. Section 6(A) of the
Agreement is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
A. Edmonds shall charge Woodway a fee of $77.82 per hour,
exclusive of replacement parts and materials, for routine
automotive maintenance services performed under this
( JZLa5434G.DOC;1100006,9001751) 1
Packet Page 74 of 303
Agreement, said amotu-it roughly approximating the actual
cost of providing such services. Replacement of
automotive parts and necessary materials, including but not
limited to oil, tires and various vehicle fluids, small be
billed separately to Woodway at cost plus any procurement
expense incurred by Edmonds. Any disposal fee incurred
by Edmonds in disposing automotive parts and materials
from Woodway vehicles, including but not Iimited to any
hazardous waste disposal charge, shall hicewise be billed
separately to Woodway at cost.
Section 2. Other Terms not Su erceded. This First Addendum modifies, but does not
super -cede, the Agreement, Except as specifically statcd in this First Addendum, cach and every
term, covenant and condition of the Agreement shall remain In effect as if this Fist Addendum
did not exist and shall govern the modified terms contained in this Addendum. If the terms of
this First Addendum conflict with the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this First Addendum
shall control.
Section 3. Filing. Within 10 days of the execution of this First Addendum by both
Parties, Woodway shall file a copy of the executed First Addendum with the Snohomish County
Auditor.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Addendumn as of the last
date written below.
DONE this day of , 2003.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Mayor Gary Ilaakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE O THE C;fEY ATTORNEY:
-2V
W. Scott Sn , er
(IZU54346.DOC;I/0006G.9001751) 2
Packet Page 75 of 303
By:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATION:
By.
Lorraine Taylor, City Clerk
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
By: 1 �—
WOODWAY
Is
Zu 5,4346. fD 0 C,1 f00006.000175i ]
Packet Page 76 of 303
SECOND ADDENDUM
to
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Between
THE CITY OF EDMONDS
A n d
THE TOWN OF WOODWAY
This Second Addendum to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Vehicle Maintenance
Services ("Agreement") between the City of Edmonds ("Edmonds") and the Town of
Woodway ("Woodway") is entered into by and between Edmonds and Woodway as of the
date indicated below.
I. RECITALS
WHEREAS, Edmonds and Woodway (collectively, "the Parties") entered into
the Agreement on June 6, 2001 for the purpose of establishing a formal arrangement under
which Edmonds would provide periodic automotive maintenance services for vehicles
owned by Woodway; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement required Woodway to reimburse Edmonds for said
services at the rate of $48.00/hr., exclusive of, inter alia, replacement automotive parts and
materials, procurement expenses, and disposal charges; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to preserve the framework of their contractual
relationship under the Agreement, but revise the duration provisions and establish a new
reimbursement rate for services rendered pursuant thereto and filing options; and
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of both Parties have taken appropriate action
to approve the Parties' respective execution of this Second Addendum;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein,
or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the Parties mutually agree as follows:
II TERMS
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2 - TERM OF THE AGREEMENT.
The Term of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
Section 2. Term: The Agreement and this Second Addendum shall be effective
upon full execution of the Parties hereto. This agreement shall remain in effect
for one year and shall automatically renew for continuous one year periods of
time unless terminated in accordance with Section 3 of the original agreement or
revised by a writing signed by both Parties.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 6(A) OF THE AGREEMENT.
PW ADMINISTPATION\Town Of Woodway-FLT\Edmonds.Town of Woodway Addendum 2 revised.doe Page 1 of 3
Packet Page 77 of 303
Section 6(A) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
A. Edmonds shall charge Woodway a fee of $73.00 per hour,
exclusive of replacement parts and materials, for routine automotive
maintenance services performed under this Agreement, said amount roughly
approximating the actual cost of providing such services.
Replacement of automotive parts and necessary materials, including but not
limited to oil, tires and various vehicle fluids, shall be billed separately to
Woodway at cost plus any procurement expense incurred by Edmonds. Any
disposal fee incurred by Edmonds in disposing automotive parts and materials
from Woodway vehicles, including but not limited to any hazardous waste
disposal charge, shall likewise be billed separately to Woodway at cost.
SECTION 3. OTHER TERMS NOT SUPERSEDED:
This Second Addendum modifies, but does not supersede, the Agreement. Except as
specifically stated in this Second Addendum, each and every term, covenant and condition of
the Agreement shall remain in effect as if this Second Addendum did not exist and shall
govern the modified terms contained in this Addendum. If the terms of this Second
Addendum conflict with the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this Second Addendum shall
control.
SECTION 4. FILING.
Pursuant to RCW 39.34.040 Within 10 days of the execution of this Second Addendum
by both Parties, Woodway shall file a copy of the executed Second Addendum with the
Snohomish County Auditor. or in the alternative this Second Addendum, may be listed by
subject on the Woodway or Edmonds City web site or other electronically retrievable public
source.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have fully executed this Second Addendum as of the
last date written below.
DONE this day of , 2007.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Mayor Gary Haakenson
PW ADMINISTPATION\Town Of Woodway-FLT\Edmonds.Town of Woodway Addendum 2 revised.doc Page 2 of 3
Packet Page 78 of 303
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
IRA
Grant K. Weed, Special Counsel to Edmonds
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
LIZA
City Attorney
01[oil,N0us] aL"W1Z1] 1]LIM
By:
Mayor Carla Nichols
PW ADMINISTPATION\Town Of Woodway-FLT\Edmonds.Town of Woodway Addendum 2 revised.doc Page 3 of 3
Packet Page 79 of 303
AM-1144
Military Family Friendly Employer Program
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:
Submitted By:
Submitted For:
Department:
Review Committee:
A rtinn
08/28/2007
Sandy Chase
Councilmember Deanna Dawson
City Clerk's Office
infnrmatinn
Time: 15 Minutes
Type: Action
3.
Subject Title
Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer Program, and proposed
resolution declaring Edmonds to be military family friendly and encouraging area businesses
to become a military family friendly employment partner.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Adopt the attached resolution.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Caldie Rogers, Chamber President with the Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce,
will give a presentation on the Military Family Friendly Employer Program. Ms. Rogers provided
a briefing packet, which is attached as Exhibit 1.
A proposed resolution for the City Council's consideration declaring Edmonds to be military family
friendly and encouraging area businesses to become a military family friendly employment partner
is attached as Exhibit 2.
Link: Exhibit 1 - Briefing Packet
Link: Exhibit 2 - Resolution
Fiscal Impact
AttarhmPntc
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date
Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/22/2007 03:57 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/22/2007 04:42 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 08:34 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 08/22/2007 03:32
Chase PM
Final Approval Date: 08/23/2007
Packet Page 80 of 303
Packet Page 81 of 303
Marysville
Military Family Friendly
Employment Partnership Initiative
Packet Page 82 of 303
Military Family -Friendly Employment Partnership
A win -win -win for Snohomish County
Situation
Hiring the family members of our military forces is now cited by top military officials as the second greatest
concern facing today's U.S. military both here and abroad — second only to the threat posed by payday loan
operations. This bias is based on the perception that military families move frequently and are less reliable and
less skilled than other workers.
Yet family members of military personnel are well educated, skilled and highly trained to be top -performing
employees in any number of industry sectors.
"As a former military spouse, I have personally experienced the reluctance of employers to hire military spouses
throughout this country. Although equipped with degrees in psychology and marketing, employment doors in
those fields remained closed to me one duty station after another. Frustrated, I finally dared a landscape
contractor to hire me. Convincing him that he did not have to pay for my health insurance, he accepted my dare.
Putting in sprinkler systems, spas, swimming pools and landscaping for four years was not what I had expected to
do with my college degree," reports Melissa West, Military Affairs Chairman for The Greater Marysville Tulalip
Chamber of Commerce — Carlson Wagonlit Travel, Marysville.
Proposal
The Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber's Military Affairs Division is spearheading a county -wide coalition to
ensure Snohomish County remains "military friendly," asking employers throughout the county to participate in a
Snohomish County Military Family -Friendly Employment Partnership. Colleges; chambers of commerce;
municipal, county, tribal and state governments; as well as military and civilian agencies and the media will be
asked to reach out to the entire county's business community.
The goal of the partnership initiative is to help military spouses and family members attain financial security and
achieve employment goals, while corporate partners have access to a readily available, diverse and talented pool
of candidates.
Employers will be educated on the many advantages of hiring military family members, with a request to sign a
non -binding partnership agreement affirming their support of this new workforce. This non -binding partnership
pledge confirms an employer's intent to work toward increased employment and career opportunities for military
family members, who represent a vast array of education and experience.
Anticipated Result
As the partnership grows, so will the scope and actions of this county -wide initiative. Military spouses will be
gainfully employed, Snohomish County and its employers will benefit from a versatile, experienced workforce,
and ultimately, a successful role model for use by other military communities across the state, the nation and
around the world will have been established.
We believe that Snohomish County's growing employment opportunities makes the Snohomish County Military
Family -Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative a win -win -win partnership.
2
Packet Page 83 of 303
Greater Marysville Tulalip Military Affairs Mission Statement
Military Family Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative
To serve as an employment resource linking employers throughout Snohomish County to the talented
workforce represented by the families of the Puget Sound Military forces who have, are, and/or will be
relocating to Snohomish County.
Action Steps
• Educate and inspire Snohomish County employers to tap into the talented employee pool
represented by the families of relocating Military personnel.
• Conduct Editorial Boards gaining support from all area media to participate in a coordinated
media blitz.
• Gain formal resolutions of support from all municipal, tribal and county councils.
• Formalize Snohomish County employers' support through individual non -binding partnership
agreements affirming their support of this new workforce that represents such a vast array of
education and experience, and to pledge their best efforts to increase employment and career
opportunities to military spouses and family members.
• Develop and distribute Military Family Friendly Employer logo identifiers.
• Identify and coordinate services offered by all private and/or public Snohomish County
employment resources.
• Identify and coordinate support services that will assist Military family members both in their
employment search and their successful engagement of employment.
• Launch a www.militgaspousejobsearch.org as an association page to the Department of Labor's
America's Job Bank that will provide military spouses a portal for their resumes and allow
MFFEP partners the opportunity to post jobs on the site and view spouse resumes.
• Pursue partnership development and new partner recruitment thus strengthening local
relationships, and working on partner best practices and strategic communication plans.
• Provide entrepreneurial development support to Military family members interested in new
business start-ups.
• Serve as a gateway to community volunteer opportunities and programs
3
Packet Page 84 of 303
Snohomish County Military Family Friendly Employer
Partnership Agreement
I affirm my organization's support of Snohomish County's highly skilled workforce comprised of
military family members who represent a vast array of education, talent and experience.
I pledge our company's best efforts to increase employment and career opportunities to military spouses
and children relocating to Snohomish County.
With this agreement, I understand that I can attract talent comparable to a nation-wide search, without
the costly burden of advertising or relocation costs, commissions or similar costs associated with
commercial recruiting firms by posting our company's job openings through Naval Station Everett, the
Military Spouses' Career Network, and the Department of Labor's America Job Bank.
Signature
Date
Print Name Title
Company Name Phone
Address Fax
Address E-Mail
Yes, please link to my site
Website
Current # of Employees
Type of business/industry/organization
Jobs your company offers:
El
El
Li
El
Return to:
Snohomish County Military Family Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative
c/o The Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce
8825 34' AVE NE, Suite C, Tulalip, WA 98271.
(360) 659-7700 * Fax (360) 653-7539 * E-mail Services@MarysvilleTulalipChamber.com
4
Packet Page 85 of 303
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE
MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME
A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hosts a vast number of military families who are either permanently or
temporarily stationed in the area; and
WHEREAS, military spouses and family members are often faced with employer bias because of
stereotypes such as availability and potential length of employment; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds has and wishes to continue to experience economic development and
the creation of family wage jobs; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports strongly a diverse and inclusive qualified workforce; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports fully our troops and their families; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds is an equal opportunity employer; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hereby makes the following finding of fact:
A. Today's employers are faced with an unprecedented challenge of meeting their staffing needs in
today's high-technology, service -oriented economy. The demand for motivated, qualified
personnel has outstripped supply in many industries. Without new sources of talent, growth,
productivity and profits will be constrained by shortages in the labor market.
B. Military family members provide an advantage to employers searching for high levels of talent,
training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of military family life.
C. Military family members are highly educated and trained in a variety of disciplines. More than
one -fifth of spouses have earned a baccalaureate degree and one in twenty holds one or more
graduate or professional degrees. Many more are licensed or certified in skilled trades or
professional fields.
D. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average job tenure of
employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across all industries, the average
tenure is between three and four years. The median tour of duty for military personnel is 3 years,
suggesting that their accompanying spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if
they find employment shortly upon arrival.
E. Approximately 6500 sailors and civil service persons are assigned to Naval Station Everett with
an estimated 10,000 family members. Of this number there are about 5% per month that rotates
in and out. This means about 825 sailors plus family members, per month, are coming into and
out of Naval Station Everett.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
THE CITY OF EDMONDS IS A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY PARTNER AND
ENCOURAGES AREA BUSINESSES TO JOIN THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY
PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE
5
Packet Page 86 of 303
Tap the Resource!
Today's Staffing Climate
Unemployment is at its Lowest Point in Over 26 Years ... Today's employers are faced with an
unprecedented challenge of meeting their staffing needs in today's high-technology, service -oriented
economy. The demand for motivated, qualified personnel has outstripped supply in many industries.
Without new sources of talent, growth, productivity and profits will be constrained by shortages in the
labor market.
Lifelong Employees are No Longer the Norm ... Some employees are taking advantage of the
strong economy and changing jobs-- moving to positions that offer greater compensation, a more
compatible quality of life, more flexibility, or professional advancement. Downsizing from a decade ago
continues to haunt the labor force; many have surrendered ideas of a single -employer career and are
instead, looking to find stability and advancement on their own terms. Where once companies were
populated with individuals who had risen through the ranks, today's employees have the lowest average
tenure with their company than at almost any point in history. Companies have to look outside their
ranks to sustain their continued existence and growth.
Employers Need Ways to Maintain Flexibility in Staffing, Yet Still Attract Dedicated, Highly -
Skilled Employees ... But despite the strength of today's economy, you know that factors change-- in
today's global economy, things are more volatile than ever before. Profits, and in some cases survival,
are predicated upon an organization's ability to respond quickly and decisively. Maintaining a labor
force with the flexibility and agility to respond to evolving forces in a timely manner remains a
challenge. Some companies have turned to the temporary labor industry to provide this flexibility. That
flexibility comes at price-- commissions on top of salaries, as well as a workforce that is fundamentally
unstable. Temporary employees may come and go as they receive more "permanent" positions from
your competitors. How to balance your need for flexibility and prospective employees' desires for
stability?
The Employer's Advantage
Today's Military Spouses are the Solution to the Shortage of Dedicated, High -Quality
Employees ...Traditionally overlooked as a viable source of talent, today's military spouses are proving
their advantage to employers. Combining talent, training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of
military family life, military spouses are the solution to your staffing challenges.
Military spouses are educated, highly -skilled, and trained in a variety of disciplines ... Whatever
your needs, chances are there is a military spouse who is perfectly suited to them! Over half of all
military spouses have some college training. More than one -fifth has earned a baccalaureate degree. One
in twenty holds one or more graduate or professional degrees. Many are licensed or certified in skilled
trades or professional fields, with experience in a variety of different types and sizes of organizations,
and invariably in different parts of the country-- or even the world. If you're looking for an employee
who is bilingual, or one who has proven their ability to "hit the ground running"-- look no further than
the military spouses in your community. Chances are there is one who possesses the skills and abilities
you seek.
Packet Page 87 of 303
Military Spouses are Change Masters ... The unique nature of military family life demands that
spouses remain ready to adapt and adjust to change. Accordingly, military spouses develop coping
mechanisms for dealing with and adapting to change. These skills are an asset in the workplace. It is said
that in business today, the only constant is change. Those who have developed within themselves the
capacity to function in the midst of change are the employees on whom you can depend during turbulent
times. Change, instability, ambiguity-- they can turn an organization upside down and create chaos. But
those who can continue to function, those who thrive on change --they produce and they can lead, as they
adapt and adjust to accommodate the changing environment. Military spouses are change masters!
Military Spouses are Multi -Skilled ... Largely as a result of their geographic mobility, military
spouses have garnered experience in a variety of organizations and in a variety of settings. Part of
adapting to change entails the development of new skills appropriate to the novel situation. While the
resumes of some military spouses may appear "unfocused" or disjointed as a result of their need to make
the most of whatever opportunities may have existed in a given location, the fact is, those resumes
demonstrate a variety of skills, experience in a multitude of settings, and the adaptability to be able to
leverage their existing knowledge and experience to learn the new skills needed to tackle the demands of
a each new job.
Military Spouse has Diverse, Applicable Experience ... Unlike employees who have spent much of
their career within the same organization; military spouses often have diverse experience within their
career field. Having seen and done things in more than one way, they can bring that experience of
lessons learned to new positions, bringing to bear the best practices gleaned from exposure to many
different settings. Organizations in search of "new blood" may find military spouses to be a major
infusion of new ideas, best practices, strategic knowledge and a worldly view that exists in no other
applicant population.
Military Spouses can Bring to Bear Inter- and Intra-Industry Experience ... As is typical of the
diversity of their experience; some military spouses' careers have combined experience in their field
across industries, along with different positions within a single industry. This unique breadth of
knowledge and exposure enables them to see things from a much more complete perspective. This cross -
perspective orientation is similar to the strategy employed in leading managerial development programs-
- because it is the kind of diverse experience that is essential to competent, well-rounded leaders.
Military Spouses can Impart a Fresh Perspective and Renewed Energy in Your Organization ...
If there's one place you're not likely to find a military spouse, it's in a rut! Their periodic mobility
ensures that. It also ensures that military spouses will usually be in a fresh and energized state-- striving
to demonstrate how quickly they learn their new job and contribute to the success of your organization,
or working to sustain that same high level of commitment, recognizing that your assessment of them as
an employee matters in their upcoming job search. Military spouses never have the opportunity to
become "dead wood"...!
The Military Family Lifestyle Encourages Military Spouses to Become Goal -Oriented, and to
Strive for Immediate and Continuous Results ... When it comes to the accomplishment of goals, most
employees who do set goals recognize that they have a lifetime to accomplish them. For the military
spouse who knows he/she may be moving on in a few years, there is an impetus to make significant
progress in the near -term. Procrastination doesn't pay-- and military spouses know that a change is
always inevitable. Transfers become milestones for military spouses-- and the continuing necessity to
sum up what they've accomplished for your organization, as for those before, serves to reinforce a
results -driven orientation.
VA
Packet Page 88 of 303
Military Spouses can Act in the Long -Term Interests of the Organization ... That same labor
force flexibility that you seek as an employer is an ominous threat to employees. As your organization
strives to stay ahead of the competition, your employees strive to ensure attainment of their own
personal goals. For many, a goal of self-preservation, even to the detriment of the organization's long-
term needs, exists. Employees may act in a manner that justifies their continued employment, instead of
in a way that may increase the efficiency of your operations, eventually eliminating their job. Lacking a
long-term motive for self-preservation, military spouses can assist in developing and implementing
improved business practices that may reduce your labor costs in the long -run.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Figures Indicate that Military Spouses are No Less "Stable" than
their Counterparts ... The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the
average job tenure of employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across all industries,
the average tenure is between three and four years. The median tour of duty for military personnel is 3
years, suggesting that their accompanying spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if
they find employment shortly upon arrival.
Military "Homebasing" Will Add to Spouses' Employment Stability ... In an effort to reduce its
own relocation expenses, the Department of Defense and Coast Guard have sought to reduce the
frequency of geographic transfers of military personnel and their families. Additionally, the Base
Realignment and Closure Act resulted in the consolidation of many military facilities, reducing the need
for some transfers. Extensions to tours of duty and coordination enabling sequential tours in the same
geographical location have become more common, and assisted the armed forces in reducing their costs-
-while at the same time, promoting increased stability of the military spouse workforce. Military spouses
may remain in an area for three, four, or even six years-- something quite uncommon previously.
Spouses who are employed are also far more likely to remain in the geographic area to continue their
employment when the military member deploys or is ordered on an unaccompanied tour to an overseas
location. This promotes increased stability for the local economy, which directly benefits local
employers.
Turnover Among Military Spouses is More Predictable Than Among Their Counterparts ...
Although military spouses and their counterparts are likely to stay with an employer for the same length
of time on average, compared to others; there is less variability in the tenure of military spouses. This
translates to greater predictability and makes it easier for organizations to manage their turnover rate
effectively. Employers who demonstrate an open willingness and commitment to hire military spouses
also tend to cultivate a more trusting environment-- working together, military spouses and their
employers can plan for impending transfers, providing ample time to hire and train replacements-- rather
than the minimal notice to the employer afforded by typical employees, which often leaves the employer
undermanned. Staffing shortages generate animosity among those who must pick up additional
responsibilities and the overtime costs and disruption to operations can grow rapidly; chronic shortages
can increase turnover among other employees, creating a vicious cycle. Predictable, well -managed
turnover sustains organizational performance, controls recruiting costs, and maintains workforce morale.
Military Spouses Can Take Advantage of Free and Low -Cost Career Development and Training
Resources ... Recognizing the unique demands placed on military families, the Department of Defense
and its components have developed training programs for military family members that help develop
essential life skills-- from anger management, to team building, to leadership and health and wellness
issues. Many of these programs have direct applicability to employees' success and value in the
workplace. In addition, some military installations offer a variety of classes in career development,
computer skills, foreign languages, and other employment topics-- including some commercially -
Packet Page 89 of 303
available training programs that your own employees have benefited from. Using their collective
numbers, the military family service organizations have been able to offer such training opportunities to
military spouses at reduced cost, compared to individual training paid for by employers. When they
avail themselves of these resources, your military spouse employees can help you stretch your training
dollars while they continue to improve their skills to the benefit of your organization.
Military Spouses Understand the Importance of a Drug -Free Lifestyle ... Few topics are more
controversial that drug testing in the workplace and in many states the practice is strictly curtailed or
prohibited. Employee drug use has been shown to negatively impact job performance and to impair
safety in some industries-- yet the legal issues surrounding testing programs are a strong deterrent for
even conscientious employers who want to retain the most able workforce. The military's much -
publicized "zero tolerance" policy on illicit drug use and possession and its rigorous random testing
program has led to drug use figures which are significantly below those of other segments of society.
The severity of sanctions for the possession or use of drugs on military property, including in
government -owned housing, coupled with a social culture that severely discourages illicit drug use,
impacts military spouses. While it may not provide the same level of assurance as an employee drug
testing program, this social influence on military spouses likely reduces the need for such testing-- and
comes at no cost to employers.
Advertising Job Openings Through Your Local Military Installation Costs You Nothing ... Most
military installations operate job placement offices for military spouses, and will gladly refer qualified
applicants to you for consideration. Some will even allow you to post jobs anonymously and pre-screen
applicants based on criteria that you provide. Your local military installation can advise you of the
services they offer employers, and how to take advantage of them. Employers seeking to fill full- or
part-time positions at multiple locations may elect to advertise free at the MSCN web site. Installation
newspapers are another excellent source for reaching prospective military spouse employees in the local
area. As some are operated on a cost -recovery basis or by commercial enterprises, nominal advertising
fees may apply; however, such fees are generally more cost-effective than other types of print
advertising and are particularly effective for targeting military spouses already living in the local area.
You Will Have Access to Military Spouses and Retiring/Transitioning Service Members, All of
Whom Offer Outstanding Training and Experience ... Your local military installation's job
placement office can assist you in finding well -qualified applicants. In addition to military spouses
(some of whom have prior military service themselves), the transition assistance coordinator can help
put you in contact with service members who are retiring or leaving active duty. These individuals often
have militarily -unique skills and experience that defense contractors seek, and the leadership skills,
outstanding work ethic, dedication, and other valuable attributes that all employers search for. You may
even find a husband/wife team that is ideally suited for the positions you seek to fill.
You Can Attract Talent Comparable to a Nation -Wide Search, Without the Costly Burden of
Relocation Expenses ... Because the government pays most relocation expenses of military families
moving to your area, you can attract talent comparable to a nationwide search of job candidates, without
the high cost of paying them to relocate. Coupled with the lack of commissions and similar costs
associated with commercial recruiting firms, hiring military spouses through your local military
installation or the Military Spouses' Career Network can greatly reduce your company's recruiting costs!
The Military Spouse Advantage Is
the Employer's Advantage
Packet Page 90 of 303
WE
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY
FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA
BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY FAMILY
FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hosts a vast number of military families who are either
permanently or temporarily stationed in the area; and
WHEREAS, military spouses and family members are often faced with employer bias
because of stereotypes such as availability and potential length of employment; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds has and wishes to continue to experience economic
development and the creation of family wage jobs; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports strongly a diverse and inclusive qualified
workforce; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports fully our troops and their families; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds is an equal opportunity employer; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hereby makes the following finding of fact:
A. Today's employers are faced with an unprecedented challenge of meeting their
staffing needs in today's high-technology, service -oriented economy. The demand
for motivated, qualified personnel has outstripped supply in many industries.
Without new sources of talent, growth, productivity and profits will be
constrained by shortages in the labor market.
B. Military family members provide an advantage to employers searching for high
levels of talent, training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of military
family life.
C. Military family members are highly educated and trained in a variety of
disciplines. More than one -fifth of spouses have earned a baccalaureate degree
and one in twenty holds one or more graduate or professional degrees. Many more
are licensed or certified in skilled trades or professional fields.
D. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average
job tenure of employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across
all industries, the average tenure is between three and four years. The median tour
of duty for military personnel is 3 years, suggesting that their accompanying
spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if they find
employment shortly upon arrival.
-I-
Packet Page 91 of 303
E. Approximately 6500 sailors and civil service persons are assigned to Naval
Station Everett with an estimated 10,000 family members. Of this number there
are about 5% per month that rotates in and out. This means about 825 sailors plus
family members, per month, are coming into and out of Naval Station Everett.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
THE CITY OF EDMONDS IS A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY PARTNER AND
ENCOURAGES AREA BUSINESSES TO JOIN THE MILITARY FAMILY
FRIENDLY PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.
RESOLVED this day of , 2007.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
-2-
Packet Page 92 of 303
AM-1146
Puget Sound Regional Council Presentation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:
Submitted By:
Department:
Review Committee:
Action:
08/28/2007
Sandy Chase
City Clerk's Office
Time: 30 Minutes
Type: Information
9
Information
Subject Title
Presentation by Puget Sound Regional Council on the updated growth strategy and policies.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A representative of the Puget Sound Regional Council will be present to update the City Council
on the major aspects of the growth strategy and policies.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 11:26 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/23/2007 01:28 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 02:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 08/23/2007 10:10
Chase AM
Final Approval Date: 08/23/2007
Packet Page 93 of 303
AM-1143
Public Hearing Regarding Draft Graffiti Ordinance
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:
Submitted By:
08/28/2007
Al Compaan Time:
Department: Police Department Type:
Review Committee: Public Safety
Action: Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
30 Minutes
Action
Public Hearing regarding a proposed ordinance adding a new Chapter 5.60, Graffiti;
declaring graffiti a public nuisance; prohibiting defacement of property with graffiti and
possession of graffiti implements; imposing criminal penalties; requiring the removal of
graffiti; and establishing an appeals process.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Move forward with a final draft ordinance based on public, staff, and City Council input.
Previous Council Action
5.
Draft ordinance was reviewed by Public Safety Committee on July 10, 2007, with a
recommendation that there be a subsequent public hearing to solicit input before a final draft is
issued. Public Safety Committee had also discussed graffiti problems and response at its meetings
of February 13, March 13, and April 10, 2007.
Narrative
The increasing incidence of graffiti, and appropriate response to the problem by the city, has been a
discussion topic at Public Safety Committee for several months. The outcome of those discussions
is a draft ordinance that would declare graffiti a public nuisance; would prohibit defacement of
property with graffiti and prohibit possession of graffiti implements; would require removal of
graffiti; and would provide provisions for criminal (gross misdemeanor) or civil penalties for
violation of respective provisions, as well as a process for abatement.
During review of the draft ordinance by Public Safety Committee on July 10, it was agreed by
Committee and Police Department members present that sections 5.60.040 and 5.60.030(C) of the
draft should be eliminated. These are provisions pertaining to regulation of display and sale of
graffiti implements, as well as furnishing certain items to minors that could be used to create
graffiti. Public Safety Committee chose to leave these provisions in the draft for purposes of the
Public Hearing and allowing the public to review the broader language.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Graffiti Ordinance DRAFT
Link: Minutes Public Safety Committee 2-13-07
Packet Page 94 of 303
Link: Minutes Public Safety Committee 3-13-07
Link: Minutes Public Safety Committee 4-10-07
Link: Minutes Public Safety Committee 7-10-07
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 08:30 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/23/2007 09:42 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 11:26 AM APRV
Form Started By: Al Started On: 08/22/2007 02:25
Compaan PM
Final Approval Date: 08/23/2007
Packet Page 95 of 303
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.60, GRAFFITI;
DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE;
PROHIBITING DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY WITH
GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS;
IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES; REQUIRING THE
REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI; ESTABLISHING AN APPEALS
PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, cities are authorized under Titles 35 and 35A RCW to make and enforce by
appropriate ordinances all such police and sanitary regulations as are not in conflict within state
law; and
WHEREAS, cities are authorized under Titles 35 and 35A RCW to declare by ordinance
what shall be deemed a nuisance; and
WHEREAS, cities are authorized under Chapter 7.48 RCW to abate public nuisance at
the expense of the parties creating, causing, committing, or allowing the same to continue; and
WHEREAS, graffiti is vandalism; and
WHEREAS, the defacement of public and private property by graffiti vandals costs
businesses, property owners, cities, the counties, and the State millions of dollars a year; and
WHEREAS, graffiti is a visual symbol of disorder that erodes feelings of safety in and
demoralizes our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, some forms of graffiti can create a climate of intimidation, contributing to
neighborhood decline; and
WHEREAS, the existence of graffiti often becomes an invitation to additional crime; and
WHEREAS, graffiti can result in lowered property values, business viability, and
community pride; and
WHEREAS, there is substantial evidence that the prompt removal of graffiti is an
effective prevention strategy which discourages its return, while the failure to promptly remove
graffiti increases the likelihood that more graffiti will occur on the same site and on nearby
property; and
{BFP667136.DOC;2/00006.900020/} - 1 -
Packet Page 96 of 303
WHEREAS, public and private efforts to reduce graffiti are undermined by those few
property owners who fail to cooperate in cleaning graffiti from their property despite requests
from their neighbors; and
WHEREAS, the failure to maintain one's property by removing graffiti to a reasonable
degree and within a reasonable period of time constitutes a public nuisance for the reasons set
forth above; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to take steps now to protect the public health, safety and
welfare of our community against this threat; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new Chapter 5.60 Graffiti is hereby adopted and added to Title 5
ECC to read as follows:
Chapter 5.60
GRAFFITI
Sections:
5.60.010
Declaration of policy — Findings.
5.60.020
Definitions.
5.60.030
Prohibited acts.
5.60.040
Display and storage of graffiti implements.
5.60.050
Declaration of public nuisance.
5.60.060
Notice of graffiti nuisance.
5.60.070
Appeal, abatement and cost recovery proceedings.
5.60.080
Trust fund.
5.60.090
Remedies not exclusive.
5.60.100
Severability.
5.60.010 Declaration of policy — Findings.
The City Council finds that graffiti on public and private buildings,
structures, and on personal property, including motor vehicles,
creates a condition of blight within the City that can result in the
deterioration of property values, business opportunities, and
enjoyment of life for persons using adjacent and surrounding
properties. The City Council further finds that the presence of
graffiti is inconsistent with the City's goals of maintaining
property, preventing crime, and preserving aesthetic standards.
Accordingly, it is the purpose of this Chapter to promote the
{BFP667136. DOC;2/00006.900020/)
Packet Page 97 of 303
-2-
health, safety and welfare of the general public. No provision of
this Chapter and no action taken pursuant hereto is intended to
impose any duty whatsoever upon the City or any of its officers or
employees. Further, nothing contained herein is intended or shall
be construed as forming the basis of any liability on the part of the
City, its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage
resulting from any action or inaction on the part of the City, its
officers, employees or agents.
5.60.020 Definitions.
A. "Abate" or "abatement" means the removal, painting over,
or the obscuring of graffiti from view.
B. "Graffiti" means any unauthorized inscription, word,
figure, painting or other defacement that is written, marked,
etched, scratched, sprayed, drawn, painted, or engraved on or
otherwise affixed to any surface of public or private property by
any graffiti implement, to the extent that the graffiti was not
authorized in advance by the owner or occupant of the property, or,
despite advance authorization, is otherwise recognized and deemed
a public nuisance pursuant to RCW 7.48.120 and .130.
C. "Graffiti implement" means an aerosol paint container, a
broad -tipped marker, gum label, paint stick or graffiti stick, etching
equipment, brush or any other recognized, similar and comparable
device capable of scarring or leaving a visible unauthorized
inscription, word, figure, painting, mark or other defacement on
any natural or manmade surface. A "broad -tipped" marker is any
form of ink pen with a tip exceeding one -quarter (1/4) inch in
width.
5.60.030 Prohibited acts.
A. Defacement. It shall be unlawful for any person to apply
graffiti to any natural or manmade surface on any City -owned
property or, without the permission of the owner or occupant, on
any non -City -owned property.
B. Possession of Graffiti Implements. It shall be unlawful for
any person to possess any graffiti implement, with intent to
damage property or under circumstances evincing an intent to use
the same in order to damage property, while in or upon any public
facility, park, playground, swimming pool, school property,
recreational facility, or other public building or structure owned or
operated by the City or while in or near an underpass, bridge
{BFP667136.DOC;2/00006.900020/} - 3 -
Packet Page 98 of 303
abutment, storm drain, or similar types of infrastructure unless
otherwise authorized by the City.
C. Furnishing to Minors. It shall be unlawful for any person,
other than a parent or legal guardian, to sell, exchange, give, loan,
or otherwise furnish, or cause or permit to be exchanged, given,
loaned, or otherwise furnished, any aerosol paint container, paint
stick or graffiti stick, or etching equipment to any person under the
age of eighteen (18) years without the written consent of the
parents or guardian of the minor. It shall be an affirmative defense
to prosecution under this subsection that the defendant made a
good faith attempt to comply with the requirements of this section
by requesting that a customer present photo identification, making
a reasonable effort to determine the customer's age.
D. Penalties. Any person violating any provisions of this
section shall be deemed guilty of a gross misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in Chapter 5.50
ECC. In the case of a minor, the parent or guardian having
custody of the juvenile shall be jointly and severally liable with the
minor for the payment of all fines and/or restitution imposed as the
result of a violation of this section, except that liability shall not be
imposed upon any governmental entity, private agency, or foster
parent assigned responsibility for an unemancipated minor
pursuant to court order or the department of social and health
services.
5.60.040 Display and storage of graffiti implements.
A. Every person who owns, conducts, operates, or manages a
retail commercial establishment selling aerosol paint containers,
paint sticks, or broad- tipped markers shall store the containers,
sticks or markers in an area continuously observable, through
direct visual observation or surveillance equipment, by employees
of the retail establishment during the regular course of business. In
the event that a commercial retail establishment is unable to store
the aerosol paint containers, paint sticks, or broad -tipped markers
in an area as provided above, the establishment shall store the
containers, sticks, and markers in an area not accessible to the
public in the regular course of business without employee
assistance.
B. Signage Required. Every person who operates a retail
commercial establishment selling graffiti implements shall:
{BFP667136.DOC;2/00006.900020/) - 4 -
Packet Page 99 of 303
1. Place a sign in clear public view at or near the display of
such products stating: "Graffiti is against the law. Any person who
defaces real or personal property with paint or any other liquid or
device is guilty of a crime punishable by 90 days in jail and/or
$1,000 fine."
2. Place a sign in the direct view of such persons responsible
for accepting customer payment for graffiti implements stating:
"Selling any aerosol paint, paint stick or graffiti stick, or etching
equipment to persons less than 18 years of age is against the law
and punishable by 90 days in jail and/or $1,000 fine."
C. Penalties. Any person found to be in violation of the
provisions of this section of this chapter shall be deemed to have
committed a civil infraction as established in Chapter 7.80 RCW
and for each violation shall be subject to a civil penalty of $100;
provided that penalties for an additional separate violation of a like
nature by the same person within a one year period shall be $250.
Any person charged with a civil infraction under the provisions of
this chapter shall respond to the notice of infraction in the manner
set forth in Chapter 7.80 RCW.
5.60.050 Declaration of public nuisance.
Graffiti is determined to be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare and is a public nuisance. It is a visual symbol of
disorder that demoralizes and erodes feelings of safety in our
neighborhoods. It contributes to neighborhood decline by inviting
crime and leading to a climate of intimidation in our
neighborhoods. Furthermore, it lowers property value, commerce
and community pride.
5.60.060 Notice of graffiti nuisance.
A. When the City has reason to believe that a property within
the City may be a potential graffiti nuisance property, the City
shall identify the party(ies) responsible for the property and send
the party an informational letter describing the nature and location
of the graffiti and requesting that the graffiti be removed promptly.
The letter shall explain the problems caused by the continued
presence of graffiti and the need for its prompt removal at the
responsible party's expense, describe the resources available to aid
in graffiti removal, and give notice that failure to remove graffiti is
a violation of City code that may lead to legal action to remove the
graffiti at the expense of the party and may subject the party to
civil penalties. The letter may also identify any graffiti removal
{BFP667136.DOC;2/00006.900020/} - 5 -
Packet Page 100 of 303
assistance programs available through the City, or any private
graffiti removal contractors.
B. If the graffiti is not removed within five (5) business days
after the information letter has been sent, the City shall notify
property owner and the occupant of the property, if different, or in
the alternative, the building association or management company if
there are multiple owners and/or occupants, in writing, by certified
mail, that the property has been identified as a potential graffiti
nuisance property. The notice shall be deemed served and
received three (3) business days after mailing, and shall contain the
following information:
1. The names and addresses of the property owners, or
building owners association;
2. The street address and legal description of the property
sufficient for identification of the property;
3. A statement that the property is a potential graffiti nuisance
property with a concise description of the conditions leading to the
finding;
4. An order to abate the graffiti within five (5) business days
after receipt of the notice and that if the graffiti is not abated within
that time the City will declare the property to be a public nuisance,
subject to the abatement procedures herein;
5. A statement that the notice of graffiti nuisance property
may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter
20.100 ECDC by written notice to the Development Services
Director within five (5) business days; and
6. A statement notifying the parties that the failure to file a
timely and complete appeal will constitute a waiver of all rights to
an administrative appeal.
C. Written notice to the Development Services Director
requesting an appeal hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall
include the name of the party requesting the appeal, the address of
the graffiti nuisance property, a statement indicating standing to
appeal, and a concise statement as to reasons why the graffiti on
the property does not constitute a public nuisance.
D. Property owners, or building owners association, that fail to
comply with the terms of a notice of graffiti nuisance property
(BFP667136.DOC;2/00006.900020/) - 6 -
Packet Page 101 of 303
shall be subject to a penalty assessed by the City through the
Development Services Director at the rate of $250.00 per day per
violation. Each and every day or portion thereof during which any
violation is committed, continued, permitted or not corrected shall
be a violation for purposes of this Chapter.
5.60.070 Appeal, abatement and cost recovery
proceedings.
A. Notice of Appeal Hearing. Upon a timely written request
for an appeal, the City shall provide the property owner and the
occupant of the property, if different, or in the alternative, the
building association or management company if there are multiple
owners and or occupants, notice of the appeal hearing before the
Hearing Examiner at least five (5) business days in advance of the
same. Notice shall be deemed served three business days after the
same is mailed to the parties by certified US mail.
B. Determination of Hearing Officer. The determination of the
Hearing Officer after the due process hearing shall be final, and
there shall be no further administrative appeal. If, after the due
process hearing, regardless of the attendance of the property owner
or the responsible party or their respective agents, the Hearing
Officer determines that the property contains graffiti viewable
from a public or quasi -public place, the Hearing Officer shall
declare the same a nuisance and order the property owner, or
building owners association, to abate it. Should the party fail to
comply with the Hearing Officer's order within three business
days, daily fines of $250.00 shall accrue until the nuisance is
abated. Each and every day or portion thereof during which any
violation is committed, continued, permitted or not corrected shall
be a violation for purposes of this chapter.
C. Abatement. The City may, pursuant to Chapter 7.48 RCW,
obtain a warrant of abatement to enter upon the property, cause the
removal, painting over (in such color as shall meet with the
approval of the Court), or such other eradication thereof as the
Court determines appropriate, and shall provide the property
owner, or building owners association, thereafter with an
accounting of the costs of the eradication effort on a full cost
recovery basis.
5.60.080 Trust fund.
The City Council hereby creates the City of Edmonds Anti -Graffiti
Trust Fund. Penalties assessed against violators of this Ordinance
,BFP667136.DOC;2/00006.900020/} - 7 -
Packet Page 102 of 303
shall be placed in the fund, along with any monetary donations
received from persons wishing to contribute to the fund. The City
Council shall direct the expenditures of monies in the fund. Such
expenditures shall be limited to the payment of the cost of graffiti
removal, the payment of rewards for information leading to the
conviction of violation of the Ordinance, the costs of administering
the Ordinance, and such other public purposes as may be approved
by the Council by resolution.
5.60.090 Remedies not exclusive.
The remedies for violation of this chapter that are set forth in this
chapter are not exclusive.
5.60.100 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter or the
application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is
not affected.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
fBFP667136.DOC;2/00006.900020/} - 8 -
Packet Page 103 of 303
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
M.
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO,
(13FP667136.DOC,,2/00 a06.900020/) - 9 -
Packet Page 104 of 303
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2007, 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, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.60, GRAFFITI;
DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE;
PROHIBITING DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY WITH
GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS;
IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES; REQUIRING THE
REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI; ESTABLISHING AN APPEALS
PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of 2007.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{BFP667136.DOC;2/00006.900020/)- 10 -
Packet Page 105 of 303
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
February 13, 2007
Committee Members Present: Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Chair
Councilmember Michael Plunkett
Staff Present: Chief of Police David Stern
Assistant Chief of Police Al Compaan
Guests: None
The meeting was called to order at 1800 hours.
A. Discussion regarding graffiti in the city and enacting an anti -graffiti ordinance.
Chief Stern presented an overview of the issue indicating that there was evidence of two
distinct types of graffiti in our community. Those being the so called art form placed by
taggers and a small amount of gang related material. At the present time existing
enforcement is conducted under the malicious mischief provisions of code and is adequate
for the purpose. Chief Stern noted that removal of graffiti is done in part by the city and in
part by property owners depending on who owns the property in question. Edmonds
Community Development Code, section 20.110.030, specifies that graffiti is a nuisance on
private property and must be removed by the owner; however, it does not specify a time
frame.
A discussion was held on several options, including adding code to make it a crime to
possess, purchase or furnish implements used to produce graffiti and formalizing abatement
procedures. It was agreed that a time factor needed to be added to the existing code.
The committee agreed that Chair Person Dawson would look further into the legislative
aspect and consult the City Attorney. The matter will then be brought back to the Public
Safety Committee on March 13, 2007.
Action: On February 13, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Discussion was held regarding
enacting an anti -graffiti ordinance. It was agreed by the committee that Chair Person Dawson would look
into the legislative aspect and consult the City Attorney and that a time factor needed to be added to the
existing code. This item to be brought back to Public Safety Committee on March 13, 2007.
B. Review of 2007 Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of
Lynnwood.
Assistant Chief Compaan discussed the 2007 addendum to the Prisoner Detention Agreement with
the City of Lynnwood. This is an annual addendum that covers the costs of the Whatcom County
Cooperative Prisoner Transport, which provides a daily prisoner transport service that runs between
Bellingham and Seattle. This service transports prisoners between the various jails along the I-5
corridor. The proportionate cost to the City of Edmonds for 2007 is $13,067.67 and that is already
budgeted in the current Police General Fund budget.
Packet Page 106 of 303
Councilmembers Dawson and Plunkett agreed that this item should be placed on consent agenda with
a "do pass" recommendation.
Action: On February 13, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. The committee reviewed the "2007
Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of Lynnwood." Councilmembers Dawson and
Plunkett recommended a "do pass" with the item to be placed on the consent agenda for February 20,
2007.
Meeting adjourned at 1932 hours.
Packet Page 107 of 303
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
March 13, 2007
Committee Members Present: Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Chair
Councilmember Michael Plunkett
Staff Present: Chief of Police David Stern
Assistant Chief of Police Al Compaan
Assistant Chief of Police Gerry Gannon
Guests: Mayor Gary Haakenson
Bio Park, City Attorney's Office
Reporter from the Beacon
One audience members
The meeting was called to order at 1810 hours.
A. Continued discussion regarding graffiti in the city and enacting an anti -graffiti
ordinance.
Previously Chief Stern presented an overview of the issue indicating that there was evidence
of two distinct types of graffiti in the community. Those types being the so called art form
placed by taggers and a small amount of gang related material. It was noted that existing
enforcement is conducted under the malicious mischief provisions of code and is adequate
for the purpose. Removal of graffiti is done in part by the city and in part by property owners
depending on who owns the property in question. Edmonds Community Development Code
section 20.110.030 specifies that graffiti is a nuisance on private property and must be
removed by the owner but does not specify a time frame.
Previous discussion of several options, included adding code to make it a crime to possess,
purchase or furnish implements used to produce graffiti and formalizing abatement
procedures. It was agreed that a time factor needed to be added to the existing code.
Chair Dawson invited Bio Park from the City Attorney's Office to present their view of legal
issues involved in some of the options previously discussed. Mr. Park mentioned the use of
public funds to remove graffiti on private property as a potential obstacle which could be
avoided by use of monies recovered from suspects. Mr. Park also noted that for City
personnel to enter private property for abatement purposes a warrant from superior court
would be needed. Mr. Park also discussed the differences between burden of proof and
affirmative defense issues relating to possession of graffiti implements and recommended the
latter. The final issue dealt with service by certified mail in abatement cases as an acceptable
method.
It was determined by the Council members that a broad range of options should be presented
to the full Council in a public hearing format to allow for citizen input. Chief Stern and
Chair Dawson will collaborate on a presentation
Packet Page 108 of 303
Action: On March 13, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Continued discussion was held regarding
enacting an anti -graffiti ordinance. It was agreed by the committee that a broad range of options be
presented to the full Council in a public hearing format to allow for citizen input. Chair Person Dawson
and Police Chief David Stern will collaborate on a presentation. This item will be placed on the City
Council Agenda for a public hearing on a date to be determined.
Meeting adjourned at 1834 hours.
Packet Page 109 of 303
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
April 10, 2007
Committee Members Present: Council member Deanna Dawson, Chair
Council member Michael Plunkett
Staff Present: Fire Chief Thomas J. Tomberg
Police Chief David Stern
Assistant Chief Mark Correira
Guests: Mark Bailey
The meeting was called to order at 1800 hours.
A. Request for Qualifications — Fire Department Medical Program Director (MPD)
Dr. James Mercer, a member of the Edmonds Emergency Physician's Group, and long time
Medical Program Director (ALS and BLS) for the Edmonds and Lynnwood Fire Departments,
has decided to step back from the MPD position he has held since 1998. Dr. Mercer began
service under Medic 7, served both departments for three years after the January 1, 2003 Medic
7 dissolution, and subsequently signed individual contracts with the two fire departments to
continue as MPD.
After consulting with the City Attorney on a replacement process, Fire Administration seeks to
publish a "Request for Qualifications - Medical Program Director" document to begin the hiring
process. Dr. Mercer has agreed to serve until his successor assumes MPD duties.
AC Correira reviewed the attached RFQ with Public Safety Committee members. Edmonds is
working in concert with Lynnwood Fire in the hiring process although the MPD contracts are
separate. The candidate selection process includes submission of qualifications, background
check, and an interview panel. Committee members indicated their willingness to serve on the
interview panel. Part of the hiring process requires approval of the appointee by Snohomish
County MPD Dr. Ron Brown. The City Attorney will review the MPD employment contract.
When a successor is chosen, the MPD employment contract will be reviewed by the Public
Safety Committee prior to Council submission on the consent agenda. Committee members
indicated they could be contacted for contract approval prior to a scheduled Public Safety
Committee meeting.
Action: After approval by the City Attorney, the Medical Program Director position RFQ will be
published.
B. Update on Graffiti Enforcement (Unscheduled)
Council Chair Dawson gave an update on a discussion from previous meetings on the graffiti
enforcement. Chair Dawson noted that she had contacted other departments and found that
their legislative approach was measured as opposed to very aggressive. Chief Stern indicated
that such an approach would be his recommendation to the Council as well.
A target date of May 1, 2007 was agreed upon for presentation to the full Council
Packet Page 110 of 303
Action: On April 10, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Chair Dawson gave an update on
her findings of other department approaches regarding graffiti enforcement. A target date of
May 1, 2007 was agreed for presentation to the full Council.
Meeting adjourned at 1817 hours.
Packet Page 111 of 303
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
July 10, 2007
Committee Members Present: Council member Chair Deanna Dawson
Council member Michael Plunkett
Staff Present: Acting Police Chief Al Compaan
Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair
Attorney Bio Park, City Attorney's Office
Guests: Mayor Gary Haakenson
Chris Fyall, Editor, Edmonds Beacon
The meeting was called to order at 1800 hours
A. Discussion regarding graffiti.
Item for discussion was the review of draft graffiti ordinance. Mr. Park stated that he had drafted
a broad ordinance and had used language that would survive judicial review by looking at case
law involving similar ordinances. For example, possession of graffiti implements requires a
showing of intent, not just mere possession.
During the review, Council Member Dawson, Council Member Plunkett and Acting Police Chief
Compaan felt that displaying for sale and the furnishing to minors language contained in
5.60.040 and 5.60.030(C) should be eliminated. However, Council Members Dawson and
Plunkett agreed that the public should have the opportunity to review broader language
contained in the draft for discussion purposes . That way the public would have an opportunity
to review the draft in its original form even though staff and the committee agreed that the
previously referred to sections should be eliminated before a final draft is completed.
Council member Dawson also mentioned that Snohomish County will be hosting a "Graffiti
Summit" on July 26, 2007 at 8:30 AM for purposes of bringing together interested stakeholders
including elected officials, city and county staff, citizens, business and property owners to
exchange ideas and partner together on the issue of graffiti.
Acting Chief Compaan asked if Council Members Dawson and Plunkett were agreeable if he
communicated directly with Mr. Park regarding some non -substantive language issues in the
draft. They agreed that would be fine.
Action: On July 10, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. The committee reviewed the "Draft
Graffiti Ordinance" and Council Members Dawson and Plunkett recommended the draft
ordinance be placed on the City Council Agenda for a public hearing to be scheduled at a time
to be determined by the City Clerk.
B. Judicial salary certification for State funding reimbursement.
Judge Fair provided information to the committee that stated recent judicial salary increases at
the state level will require the City to increase the judicial salary in order to remain eligible for
continued court improvement fund accounts. The State provides reimbursement to the City for
a portion of the judge's salary, but only if the City pays a salary equivalent to 95% or greater of a
Packet Page 112 of 303
district court judge's salary, pro rated by the number of hours worked. Because of this, raising
Judge Fair's salary would result in a net financial gain to the City in 2007.
Council Member Dawson asked if the increase is approved would it become permanent. Judge
Fair stated it was his opinion that the "base salary" would not be increased above the $63,751
amount negotiated in February of 2006. Judge Fair also noted that the City Council could roll
the salary back to that amount at any time and added this increase was not permanent.
Council Member Dawson asked Judge Fair if he would check with the City Attorney Scott
Snyder to confirm that this was in fact the case.
Council Members Dawson and Plunkett stated that if City Attorney Scott Snyder confirms this
information, the matter should be placed on consent for approval.
Action: On July 10, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Discussion was held on the
"Judicial Salary Certification for State funding reimbursement." Council Members Dawson and
Plunkett stated after confirmation is received from City Attorney Scott Snyder that City Council
could roll the salary back at any time and that this increase was not permanent they were
recommending this item be placed on the consent agenda, date to be determined, for review
and approval of the judicial salary increase to $70,136 effective September 1, 2007.
C. Request for a contract amendment from City Prosecutor.
Council Member Dawson noted she was pulling this item from the agenda with the
recommendation that staff work with the city prosecutors (Zachor and Thomas, P.S.) on any
contractual issues and then, if necessary, the matter can be put back on the agenda.
Action: On July 10, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Council Member Dawson pulled
this item from the agenda with recommendations that the staff work with the city prosecutors on
any contractual issues and then, if necessary, the matter can be put back on the agenda.
Meeting adjourned at 1825 hours
Packet Page 113 of 303
AM-1142
Closed Record Review - Burnstead Subdivision
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:
Submitted By:
Department:
Review Committee:
Action:
Subiect Title
08/28/2007
Duane Bowman
Development Services
Information
Time: 45 Minutes
Type: Action
Closed Record Review on an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's approval of a 27-lot
Preliminary Plat (Woodway Plat) located at 23700 104th Avenue West. (Appellant: Lora
Petso / Applicant: Burnstead Construction / File No. P-07-17 and PRD-07-18)
6.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Take oral argument from the Appellant and the Applicant and continue the matter to a date certain
to allow the City Council to fully review the extensive record.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
On June 21, 2007, the Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the application of
Burnstead Construction for a 27 lot Planned Residential Development (PRD)/Preliminary
Subdivision, along with hearings on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeals of Lora
Petso and Heather marks/Cliff Sanderlin.
The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on the PRD/Preliminary Plat and SEPA appeals on July
20, 2007. Requests for reconsideration were filed by Lora Petso and Heather Marks on August 2,
2007 and August 3, 2007. The Hearing Examiner issued decisions on August 8, 2007 reaffirming
the July 20, 2007 decision and denying the reconsideration request.
The record on this matter is extensive. Attached to the agenda bill are some of the more pertinent
documents (appeal, Hearing Examiner decisions, staff report and verbatim transcript). The City
Council only can consider the Hearing Examiner's decision on the preliminary plat and has no
authority to review the matters relating to the SEPA appeals or the PRD decision. Those matters
are subject to appeal to superior court.
Given the volume of material in this case, staff recommends the following actions by the City
Council:
Packet Page 114 of 303
• Open the closed record proceeding and allow the the appellant and applicant time to
present oral argument on the record.
• Continue the matter to a date certain to allow the City Council to fully consider
extensive record.
• Reconvene the closed record review to allow the City Council to ask clarifying
questions of the appellant, applicant or staff and then make a decision on the appeal.
• Direct City Attorney to prepare necessary findings of fact for the City Council
decision.
Copies of the appeal, the Hearing Decision, staff report, plat map, applicant written rebuttal and
verbatim transcript are attached.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Appeal of Lora Petso
Link: Exhibit 2 - Hearing Examiner Decision
Link: Exhibit 3 - Reconsideration Decision Petso
Link: Exhibit 4 - Reconsideration Decision Marks
Link: Exhibit 5 - Staff Report
Link: Exhibit 6 - Verbatim Hearing Transcript
Link: Exhibit 7 - Bumstead Construction Response
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox
1 City Clerk
2 Mayor
3 Final Approval
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Final Approval Date: 08/23/2007
Approved By Date
Status
Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 04:32 PM APRV
Gary Haakenson 08/23/2007 04:38 PM APRV
Sandy Chase 08/23/2007 04:40 PM APRV
Started On: 08/22/2007 01:27
PM
Packet Page 115 of 303
RECEIVE
AUG 0 2 2007
Appeal to the Edmonds City Council
PERMIT COUNTER
1. Decision being Appealed: I am appealing the Hearing Examiner Decision to
approve the preliminary plat for formal subdivision. The project applicant is
Burnstead Construction Co. The hearing examiner's written decision is dated July
20, 2007.
2. Name, Address and Interest of Appellant: Lora Petso, 10616 237t' Place S.W.,
Edmonds, WA 98020. I am a downstream neighbor of the proposed subdivision. I
will suffer impacts from the proposed development including: loss of playf elds,
lack of parkland dedication, damage to an environmentally critical Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation area, destruction of a wetland/drainage facility and
probable flooding if the hearing examiner decision is approved. I will also suffer
aesthetic impacts from a failure to require under -grounding of utility wires as a
condition of the subdivision. Finally, I will suffer safety risks due to the unsafe
access proposed, and the lack of a safe school bus stop to serve the new residents. I
have provided numerous written comments regarding the proposal since before the
pre -application hearing, and I testified and presented documents at the open record
hearing.
3. Reasons: The proposal, even as conditioned, does not meet the requirements of
either the Washington State or the City of Edmonds Subdivision laws. (See
detailed statement attached.) In addition, required notice and hearing procedures
were not followed, improperly restricting information and contributing to the
erroneous decision. The procedural violations include violations of the appearance
of fairness doctrine.
A more detailed statement of the basis of this appeal is attached. IF YOU CAN'T
BE BOTHERED TO READ THE WHOLE THING, AT LEAST READ THE
CONCLUSION ON PAGE 16. Additional written argument will be provided later,
as permitted by ECDC 20.105.040(D)(1)).
4. Persons to be notified under 20.105.02003). According to the instructions
provided by the hearing examiner, no other actions are required to pursue this
appeal to council of the subdivision approval.
NOTE: I will be out of town for the Tuesday, August 21, 2007 council meeting.
Please set a different date for the council hearing on this appeal.
Packet Page 116 of 303
1. Drainage for the proposed subdivision is inadequate.
Inadequate storm drainage causes the subdivision to fail to meet statutory
requirements, including but not limited to: The purpose section of the State and
Local subdivision ordinances (facilitate provision for ... storm drainage), the City
of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (both the General Plan and the Southwest
Drainage Basin Plan), and the requirement of the subdivision ordinance to
minimize offsite impacts to drainage (ECDC 20.75.085(A)(4)).
As the record indicates, existing properties in Woodway Meadows already
flood several times each year. Despite the fact that the existing facilities cannot
currently handle storm water in the area, the hearing examiner has approved a
subdivision with storm water overflow into the existing overburdened system.
The subdivision is not planning to either size or maintain drainage facilities
consistent with the requirements of our drainage plan even though the plan sets
specific standards applicable to this area of Edmonds in general, and the Woodway
Meadows basin in particular. For example, our Drainage Plan identifies 6 inches
per hour as the maximum sustainable infiltration rate for the area (assuming proper
design, a high level of ongoing maintenance, and no site specific impairments such
as high groundwater). The subdivision, however, assumes that it will somehow
attain an infiltration rate of 10 inches per hour. This assumption is not supported
by the record, which shows that the 6 inches per hour standard is well justified',
and that the applicant's testing was flawed2. Based on studies provided in the
comprehensive plan, the subdivision facility is only 1/6 h the size required.3
i The Drainage Plan acknowledges that short term infiltration rates such as would be revealed in test Pits could be as
high as 8 to 20 inches per hour, but that in actual practice the short term rate should be reduced to account for
progressive clogging of the soil matrix over time. (Drainage Plan at 3-1). At page 4-3, the rational for the 6 inches
per hour standard is explained as follows:
The average infiltration rate of 6 inches per hour is considered to be a long-term rate that
can be sustained over a multiple year period, assuming the facilities are maintained by sediment
removal ... actual can vary ... Furthermore, infiltration capacity at a given site could be restricted
due to high groundwater conditions. )
2 The applicant has submitted some off site testing data based on an old storm water manual from another
jurisdiction (2005, King County), of the six test pits dug, vault testing data for pit 4 is provided, but pit 4 is not even
located on the site.. There was no testing at all on in Tract C, where the infiltration vault is to be constructed. There
is also no reported data provided from testing in Pit 2, the pit location nearest the proposed vault in Tract C. Point
drain testing was conducted for pits 1 and 5, but they are the farthest away from Tract C.
3 Based on the information provided in the development application and in the comprehensive plan, the applicant
has six times as much water to handle as he can successfully infiltrate through his system. Although the vault has
allegedly been sized to accommodate a 100-year event, it is clear based on the studies performed for our
comprehensive drainage plan, that the vault can't even handle a two-year event.
2
Packet Page 117 of 303
The Drainage Plan also calls for additional drainage facilities in the area, but
the subdivision proposes elimination of an existing facility (the wetland/drainage
ditch/intermittent stream last expanded in 1983).
The elimination of the existing drainage ditch/wetland/intermittent stream
will flood residences to the West of the subdivision. Even if we suppose for a
moment that the drainage vault discussed above had been properly sized to
accommodate both the new subdivision and the offsite water flowing from the
north, there is no physical way for the offsite water from the north to reach the
vault. While pipes will carry street water to the vault, offsite water will run, as it
always has, west and south along the edge of the property (particularly after the
property is augmented with fill). With the drainage ditch filled, and the land raised
by added soil, the offsite storm water will flood the adjacent properties to the west.
The Drainage Plan also indicates that maintenance is critical to the success
of an infiltration facility and sets forth a proposed maintenance schedule for the
Woodway Meadows basin (Table 6-1 in the plan), yet the proposed subdivision
contemplates that the pipes and vault will be owned and maintained by the
residents of the new subdivision. Since overflow is into the existing Woodway
Meadows neighborhood, it is unlikely to expect the subdivision's homeowners
association to allocate their own time and money to proper maintenance of the
drainage facility.
The applicant has claimed that the Homeowner's association of the new
subdivision will maintain the facility as any other common facility under the
Packet Page 118 of 303
CCR's, but there is no specific mention of that responsibility in the CCR's, nor
could such an obligation be legally enforced. Indeed, for the most part the CCR's
speak of City ownership of storm drainage. As just one example, see Section 4,
page 4, entitled "City of Edmonds Storm Drainage Easements.
The Drainage Plan, page 4-1, also indicates that in this basin, "concentration
of drainage runoff should be avoided wherever possible by employing a large
number of small distributed infiltration, facilities as compared to using pipes and
ditches that route flow to a few large facilities." Yet the subdivision proposes a
system ofpipes concentrating up to 15,840 cubic feet of water in a single vault.
The planned concept is further explained on page 4-11 of the Drainage Plan, "A
dispersed infiltration facility concept ... is the recommended method for disposing
of storm water runoff in the drainage system ... the intent of this concept is to
keep runoff water disbursed in low quantities, rather than collecting and
concentrating water in large volumes in a single location. The plan gives the
example of small infiltration facilities at 150 intervals.
The following table summarizes several major aspects in which the proposed
subdivision fails to comply with the Drainage Plan incorporated in our
Comprehensive Plan. Please note also that the failure to identify a maintenance
schedule and the party responsible for maintenance is also a violation of our public
works code, Title 18.
Comprehensive Plan
Proposed Subdivision
Alleviate existing problems
Use existing astern for overflow
Add new facilities
Eliminate existing facility
Design for no more than sustainable
long term infiltration - 6 inches per hour
Design assuming 10 inches per hour
infiltration and disregard the future
Maintenance according to approved
schedule
Maintenance at whim of homeowners
association
Use numerous distributed facilities
Concentrate up to 15,840 cubic feet of
water at a single site
When the plan is to improve drainage in the area, the City should not
approve a subdivision that would remove existing drainage facilities and channel
overflow into the already overburdened system. When the plan is for sustainable
infiltration systems designed to a 6 inches per hour infiltration standard, approving
lesser facilities designed to a 10 inches per hour standard barely even attained in a
four hour off site test should not be permitted. When the plan is to conduct storm
maintenance in the area according to a specific schedule to protect property
4
Packet Page 119 of 303
owners, approving a subdivision with no maintenance at all should not be
permitted. When the plan specifically calls for distributed facilities, approving a
subdivision proposing to pipe 15,840 cubic feet of water to a single location should
not be permitted.
The drainage issues were pointed out to staff at the ADB meeting on May 2.
Boardmember Schaefer noted that the Vortex separator planned for pre-treatment
"does a good job in terms of overall mass of sediment removal, but it does not get
the fine particles based upon the modeling that he has seen and the empirical data
that he has reviewed. It will have a tendency to plug the surface coat, crust over the
surface and reduce the infiltration capacity."
As a way to address the problems, Mr. Schaefer suggested a more rigorous
maintenance program. He presumed the City would be responsible for
maintenance, but Ms. Stewart indicated that the homeowners' association had the
responsibility.
Mr. Schaefer saw the obvious enforcement concern that presented, and
suggested oversizing the facility as a way to give more reliability in case things did
not get maintained as frequently as they should.
He noted that it was an engineering issue, not an ADB issue, but he
wondered if engineering was satisfied that the recreation area allowed sufficient
space for a suitably sized vault.
He also noted the existing drainage problem in the area, stating that in the
past the neighborhood had water over the road, through the lawns and under
houses.
It is the responsibility of this council to deny the subdivision on the basis of
failure to comply with the comprehensive plan and statutory requirements
regarding drainage. If the applicant had actually tested infiltration on Tract C
where the vault will be located and found it to be adequate over the long term, and
if adequate provision had been made for maintenance, and if overflow were not
diverted into an already overburdened system, and if stormwater were not
concentrated in a single location, then, maybe, council could consider disregarding
the requirements of the comprehensive plan. Under the circumstances, council
must deny the subdivision.
5
Packet Page 120 of 303
2. The proposed subdivision eliminates much needed playfields.
The elimination of two full sized playfields causes the subdivision to fail to
meet statutory requirements, including but not limited to: The purpose section of
the State and Local subdivision ordinances (facilitate provision for ... parks and
recreation areas), and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (both the General
Plan and the Park Plan), the zoning code (ECDC 16.10.000B3 and 16.20.000B),
and the requirement to minimize offsite impacts to environmental resources
(ECDC 20.75.085).
Building homes on playfields in a city with a documented shortage of
playfields is contrary to the purpose requirements of the subdivision ordinance, and
contrary to our Comprehensive plans and zoning ordinance. The property is
planned for a park, the playfields are needed, and building homes on the fields
would be contrary to the ILA's which allow public access to the fields until at least
June 2009.
The hearing examiner danced around this consideration by committing a
series of errors, including but not limited to, restricting testimony and exhibits
regarding the ILA's, restricting testimony and exhibits regarding the need for
playfields and our level of service standards for playfields, claiming the
comprehensive plan was in error to repeatedly include the fields in the field
inventory, and claiming it was OK for council to disregard the ILA's and the
comprehensive plan provisions regarding parks. The hearing examiner flatly
ignored the requirement, in both the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance,
that "any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its
neighbors ... open spaces". She also failed to acknowledge the purpose of RS
zoning is equally to (A) provide for single family dwellings and (B) provide for
non-residential uses which complement single family use (park and playfields).
ECDC 16.20,000. See also ECDC 16.10.000 (A) and (C).
3. The subdivision eliminates a wetland, in violation of the subdivision ordinance,
our critical areas ordinances, our zoning ordinance, our PRD ordinance, and our
comprehensive plan.
Rather than minimize the impact to drainage ditch/wetland/intermittent
stream, and perhaps dedicate it to the City for drainage/wetland purposes, the
proposal is to "fill" the ditch/wetland/intermittent stream. The proposal to "fill" the
wetland totally destroys its functions both as a drainage ditch, and as a wetland.
This is not consistent with the requirement of the subdivision ordinance that the
0
Packet Page 121 of 303
proposal "minimize the impact to environmental resources." Note also that our
regulations regarding required studies, mitigation, buffers and best available
science have not been followed.
While the wetland started, and still functions, as a drainage ditch, that does
not mean that it is not a wetland. It meets our code definition for a wetland.
Although the stream was not observable on the day of the site visit by the wetland
consultant, the drainage consultant provided evidence of the direction of stream
flows. The wetland consultant testified that the soils were saturated, and Ms. Marks
and I provided evidence of the growth of wetland vegetation. See photo below.
Our ordinance defines wetlands as those areas ... "that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal conditions do support, a prevalence of vegetation
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." All such areas in Edmonds meeting
that criteria, regardless of any formal identification, "are hereby designated critical
areas." ECDC 23.50.010.
The hearing examiner made no determination on the presence of a wetland,
but erroneously attempted to turn the issue into whether or not a stream was
present on the day the wetland consultant visited the property. Had she visited the
site prior to the hearing, as is required by our ordinances, the demolition fencing
would not have restricted her access to the site, and she may well have seen the
intermittent stream herself.
7
Packet Page 122 of 303
4. The subdivision severely damages a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Area, in violation of the subdivision ordinance, our critical areas ordinances, our
the zoning ordinance, the PRD ordinance, and the comprehensive plan.
The stand of trees in the northeast corner of the property is designated on the
City Critical Areas Map, a portion of the City Comprehensive Plan, as a Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. (Approximately the area outlined in Blue
below).
The wetland consultant testified at the hearing that he did not consider the
designated area to be F&WHCA because there was no stream on that specific
parcel.
As the hearing examiner has conceded, however, the area is by definition a
F&WHCA, even without a stream.
As will be shown when the report of a qualified expert is completed, it is
extremely high quality habitat, with tall grasses, downed and decaying logs and a
variety of heights and types of trees. (See photo below, open Record Materials at
24).
8
Packet Page 123 of 303
A bald eagle was seen recently perched in the trees. (See Open Record
Materials at 24). Because the area juts out from the wildlife corridor to the north, it
is ideal for birds of prey. When the school is replaced with parkland, the value of
the habitat will further increase.
Even if the stand of trees is not treated as a F&WHCA, the subdivision
ordinance still requires that the development "minimize" impacts to environmental
feature of the site. Instead, the hearing examiner has approved a plan to cut at least
16 significant trees in the area, install a rockery or retaining wall, and encroach
upon the area with two building lots (Lot 17 and Lot 18). Note also that our
regulations regarding required studies, buffers, mitigation and best available
science have not been followed.
5. The subdivision does not adequately preserve trees.
Even without the critical area, the stand of trees must be fully preserved to
minimize both environmental impacts of the proposal, and to minimize offsite
view impacts. The picture below shows the backdrop the trees on Lot 17/Lot
1 S/Tract E could provide for the proposed City park. If the subdivision is approved
as is, at least the four trees on the left will be lost, and the size of the backdrop is
reduced by over 1/3.
0
Packet Page 124 of 303
6. The proposed subdivision does not provide for minimal grading, or make any
effort at all to relate street, house, and lot placement to the existing topography as
required by ECDC 20.75.085.
The site is over 90% level, with just a small slope in the stand of trees in the
northeast corner of the property, and a small drainage ditch/wetland/intermittent
stream just inside the west edge of the property. Yet the proposal is to "fill" the
wetland, and cut and grade the only tiny little slope on the property.
Rather than arrange the homes around the existing topography, as required
by the ordinance, home sites are located on the drainage ditch, and require cutting
into the one small sloped area on the property.
Meanwhile, elements of the development that do not require grading and
filling occupy the flat areas of the property. (Tract C, etc.) This is exactly contrary
to the subdivision ordinance.
7. Undergrounding of utility wires should be required.
The offsite impact created by utility wires can easily be avoided by requiring
undergrounding of wires as has already been done for the adjacent Woodway
Meadows neighborhood. Staff recommended this requirement, but the hearing
examiner apparently missed it.
10
Packet Page 125 of 303
Failure to require undergrounding of wires will affect views from the
proposed park, and for residents of the the existing "wire -free" Woodway
Meadows neighborhood.
8. The subdivision should not be approved due to the myriad of procedural errors
including but not limited to, inadequate content and posting of notice, failure of the
hearing examiner to do a pre -hearing site visit as required by our ordinances,
improper exclusion of both exhibits and testimony, and appearance of fairness
violations.
11
Packet Page 126 of 303
The photo above shows the posted notice as viewed from the public right of
way just east of the site. The sign is leaning against the fence several feet from the
sidewalk and behind the trees near where the orange cones are located. It cannot be
seen unless a driver glances to the right exactly as he or she is passing that
location.
9. The subdivision should not be approved due to a failure to comply with the
requirement for a dedication of park land.
It is conceded by the hearing examiner that no dedication of park land is
proposed even though that is a requirement of our subdivision ordinance. Lot 17,
18 and Tract E would be excellent property to dedicate as park land.
10. The subdivision should not be approved due to a failure to comply with the
zoning ordinance.
The requirements of the zoning ordinance must be met for subdivision
approval, but they are not met in this proposal. There is no provision in the sub-
division ordinance that would excuse non-compliance with the zoning ordinance
even in the case of a PRD proposal. Furthermore, as the hearing examiner has
found the requirements for a PRD have not been met (buffering), then the PRD
ordinance cannot in any event excuse the lack of compliance with the zoning
ordinance.
It is clear that the subdivision does not comply with the zoning ordinance
coverage requirement. The subdivision illegally proposes lot coverage greater that
35%. (See both the environmental checklist, and the drainage information which
shows 35% of each lot for impervious roof area, prior to adding in driveways and
walkways.)
The subdivision also fails to preserve any environmental features of the
property (wetland, F&WHCA and playfields), despite the clear requirement of the
zoning code that "Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself
and its neighbors the following values:... views, open spaces, shorelines and
other natural features. This requirement is simply NOT met by filling a wetland,
cutting trees and constructing a retaining wall in a wooded area and building
homes on playfields.
12
Packet Page 127 of 303
11. The subdivision should not be approved due to a failure to comply with the
PRD ordinance.
Even as conditionally approved, the proposal does not provide elements
required including, but not limited to, buffering beyond the requirements of code,
open space, protection of natural resources and critical areas, public benefit,
parking, traffic, set back from F&WHCA, reduction of impervious surfaces, etc.
In addition, the purpose of the PRD ordinance is to provide protection of
critical areas in excess of other requirements of City code (20.35.010A), but here,
the critical area protections have been disregarded. Superior protection is not
provided, indeed, even the other requirements of City code have not been applied.
Similarly, under a PRD, such site amenities such as trees, watercourses and
wetlands, topography and other features are to be preserved "beyond the
requirements of the code". ECDC 20.35.010(H). Since the City failed to even
apply the code in this case, protection "beyond the code" has not been achieved.
Another purpose of a PRD is implementation of the policies of the
comprehensive plan, which has not occurred in this case. ECDC 20.35.010(L).
The "beyond code" requirements appear not only in the purpose section of
the ordinance, but as required elements of a PRD. For example, greater buffering
in 20.35.040, greater preservation of natural features in 20.35.060A5.
The hearing examiner's attempt to require buffering on just two sides of the
development also does not comply with the ordinance. In fact, the buffering
requirement is greater along public ways (the perimeter trail in the park), not less.
12. The proposal is not consistent with general provisions of the comprehensive
plan, including but not limited to the following:
While the hearing examiner states that Council has some discretion in
balancing the GMA goals embodied in the comprehensive plan, our
Comprehensive Plan provides, on page 2, not as a general goal but as a mandatory
procedure, that no park will be abandoned without a hearing.
No street, park, or other public way, ground, place, space, or
public building or structure, or utility [whether publicly or privately
owned] shall be abandoned, constructed or authorized until the
Hearing Examiner has reviewed and reported to the City Council on
13
Packet Page 128 of 303
the location, extent and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Hearing Examiner's report shall be advisory only. Notice of the
hearing by the Hearing Examiner shall be given in the manner
specified in each case by the City Council.
With regard to balancing Goals, the hearing examiner's conclusion did not
balance, but simply disregarded the following purposes included on page 1 of the
plan:
To ... conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources.
To discourage ... inharmonious subdividing.
To facilitate adequate provision for public services such as ... parks.
Development policies at page 3 include:
... guarantee that there are sufficient resources to insure established
levels of community services and ample provisions are made for necessary
open space, parks, and other recreational facilities.
Any growth or development shall strive to preserve for itself and its
neighbors the following values:
c. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural teatures
d. Freedom from ... visual pollution
State Goals at page 5 include:
Open Space and recreation: Encourage the retention of open space and
development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat,
increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks.
Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the state's high
quality of life ...
Citizen participation and coordination: Encourage the involvement of
citizens in the planning process
Public Facilities and services: Ensure that those public facilities and services
necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at
the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing
current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
Other miscellaneous provisions include the following:
14
Packet Page 129 of 303
The City's intent is to take a conservative approach to critical areas. P. 52
New residential development must be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. P. 54
Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of
development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. P. 54
Generally in urban areas a lack of open space has been one of the major
causes of residential blight ... Open space must be reserved now for assurance that
future settled areas are relieved by significant open land, providing recreational
opportunities as well as visual appeal...
Goal. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the
character and quality of the urban and suburban environment, in accordance with
the following policies:
All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces:
Lands which have an abundance of wildlife
Lands which would have unique suitability for future recreational uses both
passive and active.
... sufficient space for active and passive recreation
The City's woodlands, marshes, and other areas containing natural
vegetation provide an important resource which shall be preserved. p66
Areas where vegetation exists provide good sites for nature trails and for
other recreation and education opportunities ... wildlife is a valuable natural
resource... Underdeveloped wooded areas and city parks provide habitats for
many birds and mammals. All p. 66
The City should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas
containing mature vegetation are preserved in accordance with the following:
Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available
science
Subdivision layouts, buildings, and roads should be designed so that existing
trees are preserved.
Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation
outside these areas should be preserved.
Even the staff report noted comprehensive plan text supporting preservation
of woodlands, natural vegetation for a variety of purposes (see Materials at page
20).
CFI,
Packet Page 130 of 303
Conclusion, and the Public Interest Requirement
A subdivision cannot be approved if it is not in the public interest.
While it is surely not in the public interest to approve a subdivision that does
not meet our code requirements or comprehensive plan policies regarding buffers,
open space, lot coverage, critical areas, preservation of environmental features and
a host of other issues, it is particularly not in the public interest to approve a
subdivision that has inadequate drainage and is sure to flood existing residences.
A single problem with the subdivision proposal could, perhaps, be met with
additional conditions. For example, undergrounding of utilities could be added as a
condition, or lots 17 and 18 could be eliminated to protect the trees. In this case,
however, the negative public impacts are so overwhelming and pervasive that the
subdivision should be denied. Undergrounding wires and eliminating lots 17 and
1 S, for example, cannot stop flooding from inadequate drainage, replace lost
playf elds, or restore a wetland. Such conditions cannot minimize grading, or
ensure adequate buffering and open space as required in our PRD ordinance.
Even those who wish to see houses on this property do not support this
subdivision. (See testimony of Kevin Clarke). The proposal simply does not do
enough to meet drainage, safety, and other concerns. It does not comply with the
comprehensive plan or the requirements of our codes.
00 40W 0
9/4p/40*7
Packet Page 131 of 303
16
CITY OF EDMONDS
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
rh C. 1 S9v
In the Matter of the Application of
BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION CO.
For Approval of a Formal Plat
And Planned Residential Development
In the Matter of the Appeal of
LORA PETSO,
Appellant
Of a SEPA Threshold Determination
In the Matter of the Appeal of
HEATHER MARKS and CLIFF SANDERLIN,
Appellants
Of a SEPA Threshold Determination
NOS. P-2007-17
PRD-2007-18
NO. APL-2007-1
NO. APL-2007-2
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
and DECISION
(Woodway Elementary Plat)
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request to approve a Preliminary Plat for the Formal'Subdivision of one parcel of land into
27 single-family lots and five tracts is GRANTED, subject to conditions. The request to
approve a Planned Residential Development is REMANDED for compliance with ECDC
20.35 in regard to perimeter design.
The appeal of the April 19, 2007 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance by Lora Petso is
-DENIED. The appeal of the April 19, 2007 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance by
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of theAppeals ofPetso and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petro) and APL-2007-2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page I of 43
Packet Page 132 of 303 ' Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin is DENIED. From the Record presented to the Hearing
Examiner, evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the City evaluate the proposed development's
probable environmental impacts, that these impacts were adequately considered, and that
proposed mitigation measures, including compliance with state and local laws, arc reasonable
and capable of ensuring that these impacts will not have more than a -moderate effect on the
environment.
Although the Applicant's request for plat approval is subject to further review of the Tract E
open space, as it pertains to the adjacent Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, the
Hearing Examiner does not conclude that the, City's evaluation in this regard was fatal to the
MDNS. It is clear £roan,. the Record that this information was before the City and that the City
considered the impact of the proposal on this area: A condition of approval in this regard will
ensure further environmental analysis as to the impacts of the proposal on the functions and
values of the adjacent critical area.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request
Burnstead Construction Company (Applicant), requested approval of a Formal Plat for the
division of one parcel of land, totaling approximately 5.61 acres, into 27 single-family lots and
five tracts to provide for open space/recreation, private driveways, and drainage. Residences
would be connected to domestic water and sanitary sewer provided by the Olympic View Water
and Sewer District. The subject property is located within the City of Edmonds at 23708 —140th
Avenue West. In conjunction with this application, the Applicant seeks to utilize the City's
Planned Residential Development provisions, ECDC Chapter 20.35, in order to alter certain
development standards.
A�pneal
The City of Edmonds reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed development as
required by the State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA] and issued a Mitigated Determination of
Non -Significance [MDNS] on April 19, 2007.
Two appeals of this determination were timely filed. Lora Petso filed an appeal of the MDNS
on May 16, 2007. Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin filed an appeal of the MDNS on May 17,
2007.
Hearing and Procedural History
An open record public hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
on June 21, 2007. The Record for the hearing was left open for the limited submittal. of
information pertaining to the Edmonds School District, availability of water and sewer, notices
of the public hearing, and 2003 Southwest Edmonds Drainage Plan. This information was
received and the Record was closed on June 28, 2007. On June 28, 2007, documents were
In the matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project.P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRO-2007-18 (PRL)j
In the Matter of the ,Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007--1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 2 of 43
Packet Page 133 of 303
received from Appellants Marks and Sanderlin. These documents included reference sources to
support Appellant Marks' testimony, a Google EarthTM aerial photograph, and a August 2005
Wetland Delineation Report for property located in Jefferson County, Washington. Admission
of these exhibits is DENIED; the Record for the hearing remained open for the limited purpose
of the submittal of the documents requested by the Hearing Examiner.
After receiving relevant information to facilitate a better understanding of the property and
surrounding neighborhood, the Hearing Examiner conducted a site visit on June 23, 2007.'
Preliminary Matters
In conjunction with the SEPA appeals, exhibits and testimony were presented in regard to the
transactional history of the "Old Woodway Elementary School" site. The Old Woodway school
site is approximately 11 acres in size and encompasses three parcels: Parcel A (3.73 acres),
Parcel B (1.83 acres), and Parcel C (5.61 acres). The Edmonds School District closed the
school several years ago and the ball fields, located on Parcel C, have since been utilized by the
public for recreational purposes pursuant to several Interlocal Agreements [ILA] entered into by
the School District, the City, and Snohomish County.
In 2006, the School District elected to sell Parcels A and B to the City of Edmonds and Parcel C
to the Applicant. As sole property owner, this was well within the School District's rights.
Appellants and members of the public asserted that this transaction was in violation of the City's
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan which identifies the site as a park and that the
subsequent termination of the ILA was not legally executed. In addition, Appellant Petso asserts
that the property, is still subject to the terms of the ILA, which requires that it be maintained as a
park until 2009 and, therefore, the Applicant should not be permitted 'to develop the site with
residential units. According to Appellants, the subject property should be retained as a city park.
See generally, SEPA Appeal Exhibit D, Petso Brief; SEPA Appeal Exhibit E, Marks Brief.
The public's dissatisfaction with the School District's and the City's actions in regards to the
subject property is evident. However, the Hearing Examiner notes that the City has granted her
limited jurisdiction and that this jurisdiction does. not encompasses the authority to determine
whether or not the County's, City's, or School District's actions in regard to the sale of Parcel C
and the subsequent termination of the ILA were legally executed. This determination is for the
Washington Courts and neither the Appellant nor any other member of the public submitted
1 The Hearing Examiner acknowledges that ECDC 20:100.01O(Q labels the site visit as a "pre -hearing" activity.
However, due to the public involvement in this hatter and in actions taken by the City preceding this action, the
Hearing Examiner believed that a site visit was best conducted after receiving information from the members of the
public who best understood the area — the neighboring property owners. It should be further noted that ECDC
20.105.050 provides that no procedural irregularity or informality shall affect the final decision unless substantial
rights of a person with demonstrable beneficial interests are adversely affected. Therefore, any "pre -hearing"
irregularity was cured by the subsequent visit.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-20071 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderhn)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 3 of 43
Packet Page 134 of 303
evidence that a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled that these actions were improper-2
Given this, the sale of the property and the termination of the ILA are presumed valid. The
Hearing Examiner further notes that although Parcel C may have been encumbered by the ILA at
the time the Applicant purchased the site, any encumbrance was extinguished upon termination
of the underlying ILA which, as noted supra, is an action presumed to be valid.
Therefore, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the Burnstead Construction Company is the
legal property owner of Parcel C and is permitted to seek development of the site pursuant to the
laws and regulations in place at the time of filing of its completed development application. All
portions of exhibits and testimony received in regard to the transactional history of the property
shall be deemed irrelevant and stricken.
Testimony and Exhibits
Due to the fact that this was a combined hearing for determination of the Formal Subdivision,
Planned Residential Development, and SEPA Appeal, all testimony and exhibits were
incorporated into each request and/or appeal.
Testimony
At the open record public hearing conducted on June 21, 2007, the following individuals were
present and/or provided testimony under oath:
1. Tiffany Brown, Burostead Construction
2. Jerry Lutz, Attorney for Applicant — Perkins & Coie
3. Nicole Hernandez, Civil Engineer — The Blue Line Group
4. Louis Emenhiser, Sr. Wetland Ecologist — Wetland Resources Inc.
5. Blaine Chesterfield, City of Edmonds-Stormwater Engineer
6. Jeanie McConnell, City of Edmonds -Acting Engineer
7. Patrick McGrady, Reid Middleton, Transportation Engineer
8. Karen Stewart, Reid Middleton — Project Planner
9. Diane Cunningham, City of Edmonds W-- Planning Department
10. Brian McIntosh, City of Edmonds - Parks & Recreation
11. John Westfall, City of Edmonds — Fire Marshall
12. J. Scott Kindred, Soils Engineer — Associated Earth Sciences Inc.
13. Don Fiene, City of Edmonds — Assistant City Engineer
1.4. Lora Petso, Appellant
15. Heather Marks, Appellant
16. Richard Miller
17. Kevin Clarke
18. Cliff Sanderlin, Appellant
19. John O'Leary
2 It is further noted that the sale of the property and the termination of the ILA occurred in 2006. Pursuant to RCW
36.70C.040, a challenge to a final land use decision is barred unless filed within 21 days of issuance.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007--1 (Petso) and APL-2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 4 of 43
Packet Page 135 of 303
20. Roger Hertrich
21. Colin Southcote-Wait
Exhibits
At the open record public hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official
record.
Plat and Planned Residential Development:
Exhibit A: Staff Report dated June 13, 2007
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Project Narrative
Attachment 3: Preliminary Plat Map/PRD
Attachment 4: Preliminary Maps (Plat/PRD, Existing Conditions, Grading and
TESC, Utility, Road Profile)
Attachment 5: Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, prepared by The Blue Line
Group, dated February 28, 2007
Attachment 6: Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Transportation Engineering
NorthWest LLC, dated January 30, 2007
Attachment 7: Steep Slope Map
Attachment 8: Correspondence from Edmonds School District, dated February 6,.
2007, RE: Termination of Interlocal Agreement
Attachment 9: Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, issued April 19,
2007
Attachment 10: City of Edmonds' Architectural Design Board Staff Report, dated
April 25, 2007
Attachment 11: City of Edmonds' Architectural Design Board Decision, May 2,
2007, RE: Plat and PRD application
Attachment 12: Correspondence from The Blue Line Group, dated May 7, 2007,
RE: Front yard setbacks
Attachment 13: Agency Comments: City of Edmonds' Fire Department, dated
September 26, 2006
Attachment 14: City of Edmonds' Engineering Requirements for Plats, dated June
6, 2007
Attachment 15: Correspondence from Reid Middleton, dated June 18, 2007, with
attachment from Transportation Engineering NorthWest LLC, RE:
Traffic study comments
Attachment 16: Listing of Parties of Record
Exhibit B: Agency Comments: Edmonds School District, dated June 27, 2007, RE:
School Impacts
Exhibit C: Olympic View Water & Sewer District Availability
Exhibit D: Affidavits of Posting, Mailing, and Publication with copies of postings and
publications
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P 2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007--1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page S of 43
Packet Page 136 of 303
SEPA Appeal:
Exhibit A: Staff Report dated June 8, 2007
Attachment 1:
Vicinity Map
Attachment 2:
Preliminary Plat Map
Attachment 3:
Existing Conditions Plan
Attachment 4:
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Attachment 5:
Environmental Checklist, prepared by The Blue Line Group, dated
February 23, 2007
Attachment 6:
Steep Slope Map
Attachment 7:
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, issued April 19,
2007
Attachment 8:
Lora Petso Appeal of MDNS, received May 16, 2007
Attachment 9:
Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin Appeal of MDNS, received
May 17, 2007, with four attachments:
a. Site Plan — Plat at Woodway Elementary
b. Site Vicinity Map from Traffic Impact Study
c. 2007 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes from
Traffic Impact Study
d. Google Site Aerial Map
Exhibit B: Applicant's Response to Appeal of MDNS, prepared by Perkins Coie, dated
June 11, 2007, with attachments
Attachment 1: Correspondence from Associated Earth Sciences, dated June 8,
2007, RE: Response to SEPA review comments
Attachment 2: Correspondence from Wetland Resources Inc., dated June 7, 2007,
RE: Response to SEPA appeal
Attachment 3: Temporary Demolition Easement, recorded September 14, 2006
Attachment 4: Correspondence from Transportation Engineering Northwest,
dated June 8, 2007, RE: Response to SEPA Appeal
Attachment 5: Interlocal Agreement, recorded December 28, 2006
Attachment 6: City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan, Table 6.1 Proposed Neighborhood Park
System with Facilities Plan Map
Exhibit C: City of Edmonds' Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report, dated March 20,
2007
Exhibit D: Appellant Lora Petso's Brief with 60 attachments3
3 Appellant Petso did not provide a copy of this briefing or the exhibits prior to the June 21, 2007 hearing. After a
cursory review at the hearing, neither the City nor the Applicant objected to the submittal of these exhibits.
Therefore, these documents were admitted into the Record with the notation that they will be accorded the necessary
weight and relevance based on the issues presented on appeal. See Appendix A for a complete determination as to
the relevance of each attachment.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Pelso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 6 of 43
Packet Page 137 of 303
Exhibit E: Appellants Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin Brief with one attachment
Attachment 1: E-mail correspondence, dated between November 2006 and
February 2007, RE: C-Curb (Roads)
Exhibit F: Southwest Edmonds Drainage Plan, dated March 2002
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the record developed at the open record hearing of June 21, 2007, the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions are entered in support of the decision of the Hearing Examiner:
The Applicant requests approval for a formal subdivision [Subdivision or Plat] to
subdivide one parcel of land (approximately 5..61 acres) into 27 single-family residential
lots and five tracts to provide for open/recreation space, private driveways, and drainage
facilities. The subject property is located at 23708 — 100 Avenue West in Edmonds,
Washington.4 Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, pages 1-2, 5, 13; Plat Exhibit A(2), Project
Narrative, Plat Exhibit A(3); Testimony of Ms. Stewart_
2. In conjunction with the request for plat approval, the Applicant seeks to develop the site
as a Planned Residential Development [PRD] pursuant to Edmonds Community
Development Code [ECDC] Chapter 20.35. A PRD may be located in any residential
zoning district. The purposes of a PRD are to promote flexibility and creativity in the
layout and design of new developments so as to protect the environment and critical areas
through the use of permanent open space; provide for a variety of housing with a
combination of architectural styles; promote the efficient use of land; integrate
development with the existing community and maintain existing neighborhood character
and natural site amenities; and cluster development to preserve or create open spaces and
provide more efficient street and utility systems. ECDC 20.35.010; ECDC 20.35.
020(A); Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 9; Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
3. Pursuant to the Washington's State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA], RCW 43.21C, the
City, acting as lead agency for identification and review of environmental impacts caused
by the proposal, issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance [MDNS] on April
19, 2007. The MDNS was based on the Environmental Checklist which incorporated the
following documents: Preliminary Plat Plans, Planned. Residential and Conceptual
Utility Plan, Wetland Determination, Stormwater Infiltration Testing and Steep Slope
Assessment, Traffic Impact Study, and Preliminary Storm Drainage Report. The MDNS
4 The subject property is referenced by Tax Parcel Number 27033600303200 and is located in Section 36, Township
27N, Range 3E, W.M. Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-1 & (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks%Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 7 of 43
Packet Page 138 of 303
set forth six mitigating measures including mitigation for the protection of vegetation on
Open Space Tract E, landscape screening, and impacts related to traffic. The City
determined that any potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed Plat/PRD
would be addressed through the mitigation measures included in the MDNS and the code
requirements and processes the City has in place. The deadline for commenting on the
MDNS was May 3, 2007 and the appeal period closed on May 17, 2007. There were two
appeals. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 2-3, 5, 8, and 14, Plat Exhibit A(9), MDNS;
SEPA Exhibit A(S), Environmental Checklist; SEPA Exhibit A(8) — (9), Appeals of Petso
and Marks; Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
4. From the documents presented (SEPA Appeal Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 9, SEPA
Appeal Exhibit A(8) and A(9)), Appellants cite to impacts on earth (grading), air, water
(drainage), flora and fauna, environmental health, critical areas, recreation,
transportation, and public services. The Hearing Examiner views the appeal issues as
follows:
Appellant Marks alleges that the City has failed to adequately consider the
impacts of the proposal. The Appellant asserts impacts to transportation
in caused by the additional residences are not adequately mitigated.
Appellant Marks also points to the impact on the surrounding community during
the construction period including truck traffic (volume), airborne pollution
(exhaust emissions, dust from excavation; disbursement of herbicide/pesticide
residue), and noise. In addition, Appellant Marks states that environmental
review omitted a complete listing of on -site flora and fauna that would be
impacted as well as the loss of a recreational area. This Appellant also asserts
that property taxes in the surrounding area would be adversely impacted.
Appellant Marks requested that the MDNS be invalidated. SEPA Exhibit E and
SEPA Exhibit A(9), Marks Appeal.
Appellant Petso alleges that the City failed to accurately describe the
environmentally significant features of the site, specifically in regard to the
alleged critical area (Fish and Wildlife Habitat) and drainage ditch
(wetland/intermittent stream). In addition, the Appellant asserts that the City
has failed to. comply with ECDC 23.40 and 23.90, as applied to the alleged
critical area. Appellant Petso further argues that the City's environmental
assessment does not adequately address the drainage of stormwater and loss of
recreational use nor does it adequately mitigate for transportation and
5 Appellant Petso further asserts that the site is an 11-acre city parr, and equates this to an environmentally sensitive
area. As noted supra, the subject property is not a city park but privately -owned land In fact, both Appellants point
to the Environmental Checklist's statement that there are "no environmentally sensitive areas" on the site. SEPA
Exhibit A(A Checklist, Page 11. The ECDC does not define "environmentally sensitive areas but reference to
such areas within the code generally relates to wetlands, geological hazardous areas, or frequently flooded areas.
No reference is made to parks as environmentally sensitive and the Appellant failed to provide citation to any
section of the ECDC that would support this assertion.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007 18 (PAD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Pelso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 8 of 43
Packet Page 139 of 303
visual/aesthetic impacts (i.e. buffer, -underground utilities, loss of trees). Like
Appellant Marks, Appellant Petso requests that the MDNS be invalidated.
SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal; SEPA Exhibit A(8),
In addition, the Appellants asserted that the City erred when it issued the MDNS and that
an Environmental Impact Statement [EIS] be required. Appellants argue that the City
failed to give full and adequate . consideration to all of the required elements of the
environment. SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal; SEPA Exhibit E, Marks Appeal, Testimony
of Ms_ Petso; Testimony of Ms. Marks.
5. The site is currently developed with a baseball field on the northern portion of the parcel
and a soccer field on the southern portion. These fields were formerly part of the Old
Woodway Elementary School which was closed by the Edmonds School District.6 Plat
Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 2, Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative. .
6. The subject property is located within the city limits of Edmonds and is zoned Residential
Single Family — 8000 square feet minimum lot size [RS-8]. The purpose of the RS
zone, in addition to serving the general public health and safety, is to provide for and
regulate areas primarily for single-family living so as to: afford for a range of densities;
preserve light, privacy, views, open spaces, nature features; and minimize the impact on
infrastructure such as roads and utilities. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 2, ECDC
1620.000; ECDC 16.10.100; ECDC 16.00.010
7. The RS-8 zone permits single-family dwelling units outright so long as it does not exceed
5.5 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). For a PRD, density is calculated as total Gross
area/minimum lot size of the RS-8 zone or, for this proposal; 224,227/8,000 for a density
of 30.53 or 30 lots. The Applicant proposed 27 lots. ECDC 16.20.010(A)(1); ECDC
16.20. 030 Table of Site Development Standards, Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 2 and 5;
Exhibit A(3), Site Plan, Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
8. The subject property is designated as Single -Family Urban 1 [SFU-1]- on the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan Map. The RS-8 zoning classification corresponds to this
comprehensive plan designation, The City's Comprehensive Plan does not provide a
definition or purpose for the SFU-1 designation but does set forth goals seeking to
maintain high quality residential development and a broad range of housing types and
densities. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map, Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Land Use
Element, Goals B and C, Pages 53-54.
9. The City's Comprehensive Plan seeks to provide a broad range of housing types and
densities under a guiding policy of "Design Infill." A PRD is seen as a way to provide a
6 The "Old Woodway School" is approximately 11 acres in size and encompasses three parcels of land: Parcel A
(3.73 acres), Parcel B (1.83 acres), and Parcel C (5.61 acres). The Edmonds School District surplused the site and,
in 2006, sold Parcels A and B to the City with Parcel C was to the Applicant. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 2.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007 1 (Petso) and APL 2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Clearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 9 of 43
Packet Page 140 of 303
variety of housing choices. Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.030, alternative development
standards may be established through the PRD process but these alternatives are limited
to certain bulk development standards including building setbacks, lot size, lot width, lot
coverage, street and utility standards, and enhanced design standards provided in Title 20.
ECDC 20.35.030(A); ECDC 20.35.030(A) (1) (a)-(9. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages
2, 7, and 9, Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, LU
Goal C, Page 54, Testimony of Ms_ Stewart.
10. Through the PRD process, the Applicant proposes to vary the RS-8 development
standards as follows:
Required Proposed
Lot Area: 8,000 sq feet 5,700-8,361 sq feet
Lot Width: 70 feet 60-70 feet
Setbacks
Street: 25 feet 15 fee?
Side: 7.5 feet 5 feet
No additional alternatives have been requested by the Applicant. In order to receive
approval of alternative development standards, the proposed PRD must provide (1)
greater landscaping and buffering; (2) safe and efficient site access, on -site circulation„
and off-street parking; and (3) harmonious use of materials as to architectural building
design.. The PRD must also (4) maintain exterior lot line setbacks; (5) minimize visual
impact; (6) preserve unique natural features existing on -site, and (7) reduce impervious
surfaces. ECDC 20.35.040; ECDC 20.35.030; Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Plat
ExhibitA(4), Site Plan; Testimony of Stewart, Testimony of Ms. Brown.
11. Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.080(3), the City's Architectural Design Board [ADB] reviews a
PRD application for compliance with urban design guidelines, landscaping, and/or the
Single -Family Design Criteria in ECDC 20.35.0609 and forwards its recommendation to
the hearing examiner for consideration. 10 In reviewing the proposal, the ADB considered
ECDC 16.20.030 sets forth the development standards applicable to detached single-family development within
the RS-8 zone.
8 The Applicant originally requested a modification of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet. However,
based on the colloquy at the May 2, 2007 ADB meeting, the Applicant requested that in addition to the originally
requested PRD alternative standards, the front yard setback be reduced to 15 feet. Appellant/Public asserted that the
ADB would not have suggested this. However, the minutes of the ADB meeting demonstrate such colloquy. It
should be noted that at the ADB meeting, this reduction to 15 feet was supported by the ADB but limited to porch
columns and projections of porch roofs, not to the exterior wail of the building. Plat Exhibit A(12); see also Plat
Exhibit A(11), Page 11.
9 ECDC 20.35.060 sets forth specific design criteria for single-family PRDs so as to ensure that the development
will maintain a single-family character.
" Pursuant to ECDC 2035.80(A)(3)-(4), the ADB makes a recommendation to the hearing examiner.who issues a
final decision.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-I (Petro) and AP1r2007-2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 10 of 43
Packet Page 141 of 303
zoning, critical areas, building design (i.e. character, entries; materials, garages), and site
design (i.e.` landscaping, open space, street design, significant natural . features). The
ADB concluded that the proposed PRD was consistent with ECDC 20.35 and
unanimously recommended approval of the PRD, subject to four conditions regarding
building forms/materials, maximum impervious coverage, and landscaping. ECDC
20.35.060, Plat Exhibit A(10) and A(11), Staff Report and ADB Recommendation;
Testimony of Ms. Stewart; Testimony of Ms. Brown.
12. The Applicant submitted architectural renderings of proposed residence which depict a
strong connection between the street and the house by utilizing architectural elements
such as walkways, porches, .main entrances oriented to the street, and modulation of roof
lines and building fronts so as to visually diminish garages. The new internal roadway
would provide sidewalks, illumination, and street trees. Several lots would be served by
shared driveways. Site design retains the only wooded portion of the site (Tract E) as a
separate and distinct open space tract. The Hearing Examiner concurs with the ADB's
recommendation, subject to the stated conditions. Plat Exhibit 4(10), Staff Report to
ADB; Plat Exhibit A(I ]), ADB Recommendation; ECDC 20. 35.060.
13. Home designs would vary in size from 2,855 to 3,421 square feet with variations in
design styles/features including front porches. Due to the size of the proposed lots
(5,700 to 8,361 sq feet), the houses would vary in size with most having significantly less
bulk than allowed under RS-8 standards. The ADB reviewed the design of the proposed
homes and appeared to find these designs acceptable, subject to secondary evaluation at
the time of building permit application. Plat Exhibit A(4) —Site plan; Plat Exhibit A(2),
Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(10) ADB Report.
14, The Applicant's proposal includes lots ranging in size from 5,700 square feet (Proposed
Lot 15) to 8,361 square feet (Proposed Lot 6), with an average lot size of 6,376 square
feet. Lot widths range between 60 to 70 feet. The RS-8 zone provides for maximum lot
coverage of 35 percent. 1 1 ECDC 16.20.030; Plat Exhibit A(4) — Site plan; Plat Exhibit
A(2), Project Narrative_
15. A Conceptual Landscape Plan was submitted which shows street trees throughout the
development. All residential lots would be landscaped with a stated goal of creating an
aesthetic and park like pedestrian -oriented neighborhood. A mixture of coniferous and
deciduous trees would be planted throughout the site, including at various points along
the exterior boundary. Open space areas (Tracts A, C, and F) would also be landscaped.
Plat Exhibit A(2% . Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4) — Conceptual Landscape Plan.
"Testimony was submitted that the Applicant's proposal amounts to 35.8% coverage. This figure, taken from the
Environmental Checklist, pertains to all impervious surfaces (i.e_ roadways, structures). The 35% coverage
limitation is based on individual Iots and not on the project as a whole. Conditions of approval will require the
Applicant to confonn to this standard.
In the .Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PP-D-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007 1 (Petso) and APL-2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City ofEdmonds
Page 11 of 43
Packet Page 142 of 303
16. The surrounding area is similarly zoned RS-8 and is developed with single-family
residences along the subject property's southern and western borders. Adjacent to the
eastern property line is the now defunct Old Woodway Elementary School site and is
proposed for redeveloped as. a city neighborhood park. A Bonneville Power
Administration [BPA] easement extends along the northern side of the site with single-
family residences abutting the northern edge of the easement. Existing single-family
development within the surrounding area is generally large lot development (i.e. greater
than 8,000 square feet). Plat Exhibit A, StaffReport, Report, Page 5; Plat Exhibit A(1), Vicinity
Map, Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative.
17. Testimony was received asserting that the proposed lot sizes were not compatible with
the surrounding community. The R.S-8 zoning district sets a minimum 8,000 square foot
lot area or 30 lots for the subject property under standard subdivision. regulations.
Application of the PRD alternative standards permits reduction of this required square
footage. The Applicant is proposing 27 lots, three lots less than what would be permitted
under standard development requirements. ECDC 16.20.03; ECDC 20.35.030,
Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
18. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A, the State's Growth Management Act [GMA], the City has
adopted a Comprehensive Plan to provide guiding principles and objectives for the
community's development with an underlying strategy of "design infill" so as to preserve
the residential character of the community. Several policies and objectives support the
Applicant's proposal including, but not limited to: Land Use [LU] Goal B (high quality
residential development); LU Policies B.1, B.3, B.5, and BA (harmonize design to add to
community identity and desirability; minimize encroachment on views; protect areas
from incompatible land uses; development compatible with natural constraints); LU Goal
C (range of housing types and densities); LU-C.l.a (encourage single-family homes in
PRD configuration); Open Space [OS] Goal B (open space as element to character and
quality of urban/suburban environment); Soils and Topography [ST] Policy B.1 (flexible
procedures, such as PRDs, in areas with steep slopes); Vegetation and Wildlife [VW]
Goal B (ensure woodlands/natural vegetation preserved); VW Policy B.3 (minimize
removal of trees); VW Policy BA (restrict grading to preserve vegetation); Urban Design.
[UD] Goal B (high quality, well -designed, and sensitive projects); UD Objective C.
(streetscape, vehicle access/parking, pedestrian connectivity, building design, landscape
etc.); UD Objective D (building form — height, roof and wall modulation, variations).
City of Edmonds, Comprehensive Plan, Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 6-8,
Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
19. Appellant Petso asserted that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
pointing to various statements pertaining to a need for open space, parks, and wildlife
habitat. Testimony of Ms. Petso; SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal; Testimony of Ms. Petso.
20. Testimony was submitted in regard to the demolition of the school buildings on the city -
owned property (Tax Parcel 270336-003-032-00) adjacent to the eastern border of the
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 12 of 43
Packet Page 143 of 303
subject property and the potential for airborne pollutants. Based on the Existing
Conditions Plan, it appears that 2.7 feet of an obsolete one-story concrete school building
encroaches into Proposed Lot 19. The bulk of this structure is located on city -owned
property and must be demolished prior to issuance of building permits for this specific
lot. The City and the School District have entered into a Temporary Demolition
Easement [TDE] for the City's property. The TDE contains language pertaining to the
proper demolition and disposal of all on -site improvements in compliance with federal,
state or local law so as to limit the disbursement of hazardous substances and materials.
Plat Exhibit A(4), Sheets 1 and 2; SEPA Appeal Exhibit B(3), TDE; Testimony of Ms.
Marks.
21. Appellants and members of the public testified that development of the site would result
in the loss of recreational space for the community and that this loss was not adequately
addressed during SEPA and Plat review.12 Appellant Petso points to the City's Park
Need Assessment, contained within the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan [Parks Plan], and to a Park Inventory within the same document to
support her assertion. The Parks Plan notes that, in regards to neighborhood parks, the
City needs approximately seven additional sites.13 SEPA Exhibit D(26), City's Parks
Plan; Testimony of Ms. Petso; Testimony of Mr. Southcote-Want; Testimony of Ms.
Marks.
22. The Applicant proposed a 7,350 square foot recreational area within Tract C. The
proposed recreation area would contain playground equipment (`tot lot'), picnic tables,
benches, open lawn area, and a paved walking trail. Due to the central location of this
area, access to this area would be available from both the eastern and western portions of
the Plat. Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4), Sheet I and Conceptual
Landscape Plan.
23. Additional open space is provided within the plat. Tract A (4,913 square feet) and Tract
F (3,466 square feet) are located at the entrance to the Plat. These areas would be
landscaped and may provide for additional recreational area. Tract E (9,356 square feet),
located in the northeast corner of the site, would remain a natural vegetative state. Plat
Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4), Conceptual Landscape Plan.
24. A BPA easement runs the entire length of the northern border of the subject property.
This easement is vegetated with mature trees and serves to provide both a buffer between
12 ECDC 20.75.090 requires dedication of park land, subject to City Council approval, or payment of an impact fee
in -lieu of dedication. The. City's Park Plan notes that the City does not utilize the park impact fee funding
mechanism at this time. City of Edmonds, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, Page 104.
Nothing in the record denotes that the City seeks dedication of park land from this Applicant
" Formulation of this need was based on the City's desire to provide a neighborhood park within walking distance
(one-half mile) of most residences. Parks Plan, Page 4-4.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Peiso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 13 of 43
Packet Page 144 of 303
single-family residences to the north and a wildlife habitat corridor. Plat Exhibit A(2),
Project Narrative.
25. Located in the northeast corner of the subject property is a cluster of mature Douglas Fir
and Western Red Cedar trees. A majority of these trees would be retained within Tract E
with some removed to accommodate development on proposed Lots 17 and 18. A
rockery would delineate the boundary of the open space with Proposed Lot 17 and assist
in stabilizing the slight slope within this area. Resident access to this area would provide
for passive recreation and continued wildlife habitat adjacent to the BPA easement. Plat
Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4), Sheets 1 and 2; Plat Exhibit A(10),
ARB Report.
26. Public testimony was submitted that a portion of the property (Tract E) is encumbered by
a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area [FWHCA]. Applicant's Project Narrative
and Environmental Checklist supports this assertion. ECDC 23.90.010(10) defines
"urban open space and land usefid or essential for preserving connections between
habitat" as FWHCA for the City. Tract E appears to satisfy this definition due to its
linkage with the BPA easement along the subject property's northern border. ECDC
23.90. does not preclude development within a FWCCA rather it permits alteration so
long as the alteration, or proposed mitigation, does not degrade the quantitative and
qualitative functions and values of the habitat. ECDC 23.90.030(A); ECDC 23.40,
ECDC 23.90; Plat Exhibit D, Petso Brief; SEPA Exhibit D(2) --- FWHCA Maps overlay,
SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Brief (Aerial photo with overlay); Testimony of Ms. Petso,
Testimony of Mr. Southcote-Want; Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
27. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.010(A), the Edmonds Development Services Director
[Director] has the responsibility to enforce Title 23. ECDC 23.90.010(C) provides that
the City's critical areas inventory (i.e. map) designates the approximate location and
extent of FWHCA and is to be used as.a guide rather than a final critical areas
designation. A Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report [CARR] was prepared by the City
based on the application, file review, and inspection of the subject property. The City
determined that there was a. wildlife habitat conservation area on the. parcel to the north
but not on the subject property itself. ECDC 23.40.060(B) states that if the proposed
project is adjacent to or is likely to impact a critical area than a Critical Areas Report
[CAR] is required. The City determined that the Applicant's proposal would not impact
the adjacent FWHCA and, therefore no Critical Areas Report was required. ECDC
23. 40.010, ECDC 23.40. 060; ECDC 23.90. 010; SEPA Exhibit C, CARR
28. The Existing Conditions Plan denotes 51 `significant trees' with 35 of those trees
proposed to be retained. With the exception of this tree removal and the installation of a
rockery to stabilize a slope, the Applicant does not propose any development within Tract
E. MDNS Condition No. 1 states that tree removal/replanting shall be supervised by a
certified arborist. Plat Exhibit A(4), Existing Conditions; Plat Exhibit A(9) MDNS..
In the Master of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007 18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007--2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 14 of 43
Packet Page 145 of 303
29. Appellant Petso asserted that Tract E, as a FWCHA, requires a buffer but fails to cite to
the section of the ECDC that makes such a provision. ECDC 23.40.040(D) provides that
areas adjacent to critical areas are considered to be within the jurisdiction of ECDC 23.40
so as to ensure protection of the functions and values of the critical area. Although other
sections of ECDC Title 23 mandate buffers (i.e. ECDC 23.50.040(F) Wetland Buffers),
ECDC 23.90.030(E) states that buffers are established by the Planning Director, when
needed, to protect FWHCA. ECDC 23.40.280 provides that all buildings and other
structures- shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edge of all critical areas, if no
buffer is required. The rear yards of all lots (proposed Lots 11 thru 17) would provide a
15 foot rear yard. Side yards for .both Proposed Lots 17 and 18 abut Tract E and the
Applicant seeks a PRD alternative standard so as to reduce this required setback to 5 feet.
In order to protect this open space_ from encroachment, thereby ensuring protection of the
adjacent FWHCA located within the BPA easement, conditions of approval will require
that the Applicant provide a 15 foot building side -yard setback for proposed Lots 17 and
18 where these lots border Tract E. ECDC 23.50, 23.90, 23.40, Plat Exhibit A(5), Site
Plan, Testimony of Als. Petso.
30. The Fire Marshal for the City of Edmonds evaluated the proposal based on the 2003
International Fire Code and ECDC Title 19. The Fire Marshal provided requirements
for fire hydrant installation, roadway design (including no parking areas), and street.
name/house numbering which are included as conditions of approval. Plat Exhibit A(13),
Fire Marshal Comments; Plat .Exhibit A(14).
31. Testimony was received in regard to stormwater drainage issues, both on the subject
property and within the surrounding community. All parties — the Applicant, the City,
and members of the public — stated that public infiltration. facilities within the area have
historically had problems with handling the stormwater conveyed to it. Testimony of Mr.
Miller; Testimony of Mr. Clarke; Testimony of Mr. Sanderlin; Testimony of Mr. Fiene;
Testimony of Ms. Brown; Testimony of Ms. Hernandez; Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
32. Associated Earth Sciences [AES] conducted infiltration testing based on the 2005 King
County Surface Water Design Manual. The subject property is relatively level but slopes
to the south and west. The Natural Resources Conversation Service [MRCS] depicts
mapped soils to include Alderwood Urban and Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam. The
Geologic Map of Edmonds East and Part of Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington
indicates that the area is underlain by Vashon Advance Outwash Sediments [Vashon
Outwash]. On -site exploration pits denoted poorly developed, surficial organic topsoil
with a thickness of up to 0.5 feet above approximately three feet of fill consisting
generally of loose to medium dense, moist sand with variable silt and gravel contents,
which is then underlain by Vashon Outwash. Plat Exhibit A(5), Appendix — AES
Stormwater Infiltration Testing; Testimony of Mr. Kindred.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Dearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 15 of 43
Packet Page 146 of 303
33. AES determined that both the topsoil and fill was not suitable for foundation support,
structural fill, or infiltration. The Applicant anticipates approximately 20,000 cubic yard
each of cut and fill would be required for development. Public concern was raised in
regard to the volume of trucks entering and exiting the site during construction and
airborne pollutants resulting for construction (particularly grading). The Applicant
testified that soils suitable for non-structural portions of the site would be retain on -site
with unsuitable soils removed, thereby reducing the total number of trucks. Compliance
with City rules and regulations and the application of Best Management Practices
[BMPs] would assist in controlling airborne pollutants and lessening impacts. Plat
Exhibit A(4), Preliminary Grading Plan; Plat Exhibit A(5), Appendix — AES Stormwater
Infiltration Testing; Testimony of Ms. Brown; Testimony of Mr. Sanderlin; Testimony of
Mr. Kindred; Testimony of Mr. Miller,
34. Exploration pits provided measured infiltration rates ranging from 11.4 inches per hour to
14.4 inches per hour. AES determined that based on the soil composition, measured
infiltration rates, and applying a 3.5 safety factor for infiltration and 80 percent for
capacity, an infiltration rate of 10 inches per hour may be utilized for stormwater design.
The Applicant retained the Blue Line Group to prepare a Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan [DECP]. The proposed stormwater collection, infiltration, and treatment system
would conform to the 1992 DOE Manual with all on -site and upstream runoff from
landscaped areas, roads, and driveways being treated and conveyed to an on -site
underground infiltration facility located in Tract C. A sstem of catch basins and piping,
to collect and convey stormwater runoff is proposed. 4 The vault would be sized to
infiltrate the 100-year, 24-year storm event at a rate of 10 inches per hour with a safety
factor of 3.5, consistent with ECDC 18.30.060. Roof and footing drains would be
infiltrated on each individual lot. Hyrdological modeling, based on group `B" soils and a
Type I storm, demonstrated a required storage volume of 15,673 cubic feet for a 100-
year storm event. The storage capacity of the proposed vault is 15,840 cubic feet. Based
on this design, subsurface explorations, and infiltration testing, AES opined that the
potential for standing water and uncontrolled runoff would be significantly reduced. Plat
Exhibit A(4), Utility Plan; Plat Exhibit A(5), Section 3; Plat Exhibit A(14); SEPA Exhibit
B(1), AES Comments; Testimony of Mr. Kindred.
35. Water quality treatment would be provided via a Vortechs System which provides for 80
percent or greater of Total Suspended Solids [TSS] removal, including floating
hydrocarbons, from the on -site and off -site tributary stormwater runoff. Plat Exhibit
A(5), Section 3; Plat Exhibit A(14).
14 The Applicant and the City have discussed the possibility of designing a joint -use facility which would be located
on the adjacent City -owned site. Although this option is still under consideration, the analysis contained in the
DECP is for an on -site facility sized to accommodate the impacts of the proposed plat and the tributary upstream
basin. Plat Exhibit A, Attachment 5, Page 4.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APL-2007 1 (Petso) and APL-2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page Its of 43
Packet Page 147 of 303
36. In conjunction with the preparation of the DECP, the Applicant performed analysis of
both the downstream drainage path and the upstream basin. An off -site tributary drainage
basin was delineated to contain adjacent properties to the north (both city and privately -
owned) with stormwater runoff from this area include within the drainage analysis.
Current downstream flow follows grass lined drainage swales that are located along the
western and southern property lines and, if not fully infiltrated, continues southwesterly
along the fence line of two privately -owned parcels to a public storm system located at
237th Place. This storm system drains west/south along 107'� Place to a public
infiltration facility just beyond the road's terminus at a cul-de-sac. Plat Exhibit A(5),
Section 2; Testimony of Ms. Stewart, Testimony of Mr. Fiene; Testimony of Ms.
Hernandez; Testimony of Mr. Clarke; Testimony of Mr. Kindred
37. Testimony was submitted as to the presence of wetlands and"a stream on the subject
property. According to Appellant Petso, the existing drainage ditch qualifies as an
intermittent stream which, over the years, has become a wetland, and this is demonstrated
by the Southwest Edmonds Drainage Plan [SW Edmonds DP] and, according to
Appellant Marks, certain plants. SEPA Exhibit E, Petso Appeal; SEPA Exhibit F, SW
Edmonds DP; Testimony of Mr. Clarke; Testimony of Ms. Petso; Testimony of Ms.
Marks.
38. The SW Edmonds DP, dated March 2002, was developed to evaluate drainage problems
and recommendldevelop solutions to mitigate these problems within a 300-acre area
located in SW Edmonds. The subject property is depicted on Figures 2.1 and 4.11. The
SW Edmonds DP terms the drainage ditch as a "drainage swale" which collects runoff
from the playground area and adjacent residential yards and dissipates the water via
infiltration. No reference to a stream is contained within the document. The SW
Edmonds DP recognizes the significant drainage problems experienced in this area and
sets forth several recommendations including, the installation of drywells, catch basins
with overflow pipeline connections, or a new infiltration facility. The SW Edmonds DP
notes that on -site soils are suitable for infiltration rates between 2 to 10 inches per hour,
with 6 inches per hour considered sustainable. SEPA Exhibit F, SW Edmonds DP, Pages
4-2 — 4-4, 4-9 — 4-11; Figures 2.1 and 4.1 L
39. Wetland Resources Inc: [WRI] conducted a wetland determination based on the 1997
Washington State Dept. of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual.
WRI performed a site investigation on November 20, 2006, in order to locate and
evaluate potential wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the subject property.
Based on its investigation, including core samples, WRI determined that there were no
wetlands or streams located on the subject property. WRI noted that grass -lined drainage
swaies run along the western and southern property lines but determined that these swales
do not meet the criteria for a stream. Plat Exhibit A(5), Preliminary Storm Drainage
Report, Plat Exhibit A(5), Appendix — Wetland Reconnaissance Report; SEPA Exhibit
B(2), WRI Comments; Testimony of Mr. Emenhiser.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction .
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD 2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APU2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlfn) .
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 17 of 43
Packet Page 148 of 303
40. Concern was raised as to the maintenance responsibility for the proposed stormwater
system. The Applicant developed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions [CC&Rs] for
the Woodway Elementary site which provides for maintenance of common areas and
facilities, such as the stormwater system, by the homeowners' association [HOA] and
includes provisions for the collection of homeowners' dues. Appellant Petso asserted
that the HOA would not adequately maintain the system based on the schedule set forth
in the SW Edmonds DP and overflow would adversely impact the surrounding
neighborhood. SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal; SEPA Exhibit D(45), CC&Rs; Testimony
of Ms. Petso; Testimony of Ms. Brown; Testimony of Ms. Hernandez
41. The DECP includes an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan [ESOP] in order to minimize
erosion and sedimentation during and after construction. Protective measures include, but
are not limited to, the installation of filter fabric fencing, a rock construction entrance,
catch basin protection, and sediment traps. Plat Exhibit A(5), DECP, Page 8, Plat
Exhibit A(4), Sheet 3 — Preliminary Grading/TESC Plan; SEPA Exhibit A(5),
Environmental Checklist.
42. AES prepared a Geotechiucal Report in regard to a steep slope located on the adjacent
BPA easement to the north. AES determined that the slope was about 30 feet high with
an average slope gradient of 2.2H:1 V or roughly 45 percent. The toe of the slope is
approximately five feet from the rear property line of proposed Lot 11. Vegetation is
disturbed in the upper 10-15 feet of the slope, the remainder consists of mature second
growth coniferous and deciduous trees with undergrowth. Observations made by AES
concluded that there were no indications of past or on -going slope movement or ground
water seepage. Based on these observations, AES determined that the risk of landslides
and surficial debris flow -type failures is low. Plat Exhibit A(5) — Appendix, AES Report;
Plat Exhibit A(7), Steep Slope Map.
43. ECDC Chapter 23.80 addresses geologically hazardous areas, such as steep slopes.
ECDC 23.80.070(A)(1) provides that the Director, consistent with the recommendations
provided in the geotechnical report, shall determine the size of the buffer. AES
recommended a combined building setback and buffer of 15 feet from the toe of the slope
unless a retaining wall is utilized. The City determined that due to the large size of
proposed Lot 11 (8,050 sq feet), a 15 foot building setback on both the west and north
exterior property lines should be provided. Application of this requirement would still
provide for an. adequate building envelope. Plat Exhibit A(5) — Appendix, AES Report,
ECDC 23.80.050(C)(4); Plat Exhibit A(7), Steep Slope Map.
44. Both Appellants and several members of the public voiced concerns regarding
transportation impacts. Testimony was submitted asserting that the proposed mitigation
fee was "totally inadequate" to solve traffic problems in the area, that already congested
intersections would be adversely impacted by the development, an that the Applicant, in
conducting its transportation study, failed to perform the study during a period of time
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007 l8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City ofEdrnonds
Page 18 of 43
Packet Page 149 of 303
that best reflects traffic flow. SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal; SEPA Exhibit E, Marks
Appeal, Testimony of Mr: Clarke; Testimony of Mr. Sanderlin; Testimony of Mr.
Southcote-Want; Testimony of Mr. O'Leary; Testimony of Mr. Hertrich, Testimony of
Ms. Marks.
45. The Applicant retained Transportation Engineering NorthWest LLC [TENW] to prepare
the Traffic Impact Analysis [TIA]. The proposed development is expected to generate
approximately 20 new AM peak hour trips and 27 new PM peak hour trips, representing
less than a two percent increase in traffic volumes. The TIA also conducted a capacity
analysis to determine the Level of Service [LOS] for the four major intersections
impacted by the proposed development. This analysis determined that the LOS would
not be impacted, maintaining either a LOS A or LOS B at impacted signalized and
unsignalized intersections. TENW's analysis evaluated intersections using standard
engineering practices and were based on weekday PM peak hour conditions. The
analysis was conducted on December 12, 2006 and January 9, 2007, with no abnormal
traffic patterns identified. Plat Exhibit A(6), TLI — Tables 2, 3, and 4, Plat Exhibit
A(15), TU Comments; SEPA Exhibit B(4), TENW Comments.
46. Pursuant to ECDC Chapter 18.82 — Traffic Impact Fees, a payment of $22,699.55
[$840.72 per residential unit — ECDC 18.82.120(D)] is required to mitigate anticipated
impacts. All new developments are charged a road impact fee applicable to the type of
development proposed. The rates established in ECDC 18.82.120 were adopted by the
Edmonds City Council pursuant to a rate study (See Ordinance 3516 (2004)) and
determined by the Council to adequately mitigate potential impacts.15 Modification of
this fee structure is the province of the City. Council.16 The required impact fee is
provided as Condition 5 of the April 19, 2007 MDNS. Plat Exhibit A(6), TM, Page 19,
Exhibit A(9), MDNS; SEPA Exhibit E, Marks Appeal, Testimony of Ms. Marks.
47. Access to the development would be via 237h Place SW with all residences gaining
access from a new internal road ("105d' Place West"). Proposed Lots 1, 2, 3, and 12
would be served by joint -use driveways connected to the proposed internal roadway. The
internal roadway, designed to City standards, would be a developed 50 foot right -of --way
terminating in a cul-de-sac sized to accommodated emergency vehicles. The roadway
would provide rolled curb/gutters, five foot wide sidewalks, street lighting, and 31.5 feet
of pavement with an 8.5 foot wide parking lane providing 14,on-street parallel parking
spaces along the roadway's frontage with Proposed Lots 22 to 26. Plat Exhibit A(2),
15 These rates may be reviewed and adjusted by the Council as it deems necessary and appropriate. ECDC
18.82.110
" ECDC 18.82.130 does provide that if in the judgment of the Director of Development Services no fee category or
amount accurately captures the impacts of a proposal, the Applicant may be required to conduct independent fee
calculations and the Director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on these calculations.
The Director did not require this.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD 2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL20072 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 19 of 43
Packet Page 150 of 303
Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4), Road Profile, Plat Exhibit A(6), TM, Pages 11 and
J& Plat Exhibit A(14); Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
48. Testimony was received in regard to the proposed access point. Appellants and members
of the public asserted that due to the curvature of the road and illegal on -street parking,
safety was a concern. An analysis of Site Access Sight Distance determined that the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASTHO] sight
distance standards are met at the proposed site access point. AASHTO requires 200 feet
of stopping sight distance and 335 feet of entering sight distance for a 30 mph design
speed. TENW conducted field measurements and determined that sight distances onto
237M Place are in excess of the required distances, with a sight distance of approximately
350 to the southwest and 485 feet to the east of the proposed access point. Entrance
radius improvements at the internal roadway's intersection with 237th Place must meet
required geometrics. In addition, the monument proposed for the entrance to the
subdivision must not impact sight -line distances. Plat Exhibit A(6), TIA, Page 18, Plat
Exhibit A(14); Plat Exhibit A(150 SEPA Exhibit E, Marks Appeal, Testimony of Mr.
McGrady, Testimony of Mr. Clarke; Testimony of Ms. Brown; Testimony of Mr.
Sanderlin; Testimony of Ms. Petso; Testimony of Ms. Marks; Testimony of Mr.
Southcote-Want, Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
49. Public transit service is currently available within a reasonable walking distance. A
Community Transit stop is located approximately 1/3 mile east of the subject property at
the intersection of 100d' Avenue W and 238t' Street SW. Plat Exhibit A(6), TIA, Pages 11
and 18.
50. The proposed development would be connected to Olympic View Water and Sewer
District [OVWS] for the provisions of domestic water and sanitary sewer. OVWS issued
a file number indicating that capacity is available subject to the Applicant providing a
development extension and payment of fees (facility, meter, R.O.W., and sewer). Plat.
Exhibit C, 0VWS Confirmation; Plat Exhibit A(14).
51. The project is located within the Edmonds School District. In Washington State, ample
provision for the education of children is a paramount duty of the state.17 This
requirement is further stated in the laws of the State. RCW 58.17.110 requires that
subdivisions make appropriate provisions for the general welfare of the community,
including provisions for schools and for safe walking conditions for students. RCW
36.70A.020(12) states that when a County is plans for growth, it is to ensure that public
services, such.as schools, that are necessary to support development are adequate to serve
the development. ECDC 20.75.020 states that a subdivision must make adequate
provisions for the general welfare of the community, including schools. The proposed
plat would be served by Sherwood Elementary, College Place Middle School, and
17 Was1>ingion State Constitution, Art. 9, § 1
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007718 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APL 2007--1 (Petso) and APL-20072 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Nearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 20 of 43
Packet Page 151 of 303
Edmonds-Woodway High School. All students attending these schools would be bused.
A school bus stop is located east of the subject property at the site of the Old Woodway
Elementary School. The proposed subdivision would include sidewalks on both sides of
the internal roadway connecting to the sidewalks currently existing on 237" Place SW.
These sidewalks would provide safe -walking for school -aged children. Plat Exhibit B,
School District Comments, Testimony of Mr. Clarke.
52. As part of the SEPA Appeal, Appellant Marks alleges that the "residents of the area will
be impacted by the increased property taxes this development will cause to support
additional public services for the 27 homes." This assertion is based on the economic
interests of the residents. SEPA Exhibit E, Marks Appeal.
53. ECDC 20.35.050(D) requires that PRDs provide usable open space and recreation
facilities of at least 10 percent of the gross lot area For this 5.61 acre parcel, the
Applicant must provide a minimum of 24,423 square feet of open space. The Applicant
has proposed four tracts to satisfy this requirement — Tract A (4,913 sq feet), Tract C
(7,350 sq feet), Tract E (9,356 sq feet), and Tract F (3,566 sq feet) — for a total of 25,185
sq feet. In addition to open space, Tract C would serve as a recreational area (tot lot,
walking trail, etc). Appellant Petso asserts that critical areas may not be counted towards
satisfaction of this requirement — specifically Tract E — which the Appellant alleges is a
FWHCA. Although Ms. Petso is correct in her assertion, as noted supra, the City
determined that Tract E is not to be a FWHCA and, therefore, the PRD's design for open
space satisfies the City's requirement. ECDC 20.35.060(D); SEPA Exhibit D, Petso
Appeal.
54. ECDC 20.35.050(C) requires that a PRD shall either conform to the bulk zoning criteria
for the underlying zone (front, side, and rear yard setbacks) for all lots adjacent to the
perimeter or it shall provide a buffer (landscape, open space, or passive recreational)
equal to the rear yard setback which, for the RS-8 zone, is 15 feet. The Applicant seeks
alterations to the bulk zoning criteria (front and side yard) for lots adjacent to the
perimeter but fails to provide a perimeter buffer designed in conformance with ECDC
20.35.050(C). City Staff stated a "proposed 15 foot setback around the perimeter of the
site would help to separate and buffer the proposed PRD from the surrounding
neighborhood." The Applicant's Preliminary Plat Map does not denote this distinct
setback requirement. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 5-6. Plat Exhibit A(4),
Preliminary Site Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan,
55. A neighborhood meeting about the project was conducted on November 14, 2006.
Written notice of the development application was sent to interested residents and
property owners and published in The Herald on April 19, 2007. Written notice of the
public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet and posted on the site,
in the Civic Center, and in the Library on June 6, 2007. Notice of the public hearing was
In the Matter of the Application ofBurnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007 1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds .
Page 21 of 43
Packet Page 152 of 303
published in The Herald on June 7, 2007. ECDC 20.91.010; Plat Exhibit A, Staff
Report, Page 5, Plat Exhibit D, Affidavit ofNotice.
56. Appellant Petso asserted that the posted notice was inadequate and failed to include a
description of the alleged critical area that might be affected as required by ECDC
23.40.080. The section Appellant quotes is applicable only if the Director determines
that critical areas may be affected and a critical area report is required. ECDC
23.40.080(C). For this proposal, the notice issued on April 19, 2007, denoted a "Critical
Areas Determination" under the permit information heading, providing sufficient notice
to members of the public regarding potential on -site critical areas. As for the on -site
posting, the Hearing Examiner performed a site visit. and observed the signage,
concluding that it was posted on the subject property and adjacent to the public right-of-
way. SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal; Plat Exhibit D, Notice.
57. If not stated elsewhere in these findings, the Hearing Examiner notes the following
concerns raised generally by members of the public during testimony and considered by
the Hearing Examiner in formulating her decision: stormwater drainage, view and
aesthetic impacts, resident traffic, site access, grading/filling, construction traffic,
lighting, water quality, neighborhood compatibility, lot size/width, critical areas, open
space, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Testimony of Mr. Miller, Mr. Clark, Mr. Sanderlin,
Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hertrich, Ms. Petso, Ms. Parks, and Mr. Southcote-Want_
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to review and make a final decision on applications
for preliminary plats for formal. subdivision, pursuant to ECDC 20.100.01 o(B)(5); to review and
make a final decision on applications for a planned residential development, pursuant to ECDC
20.35.080(4); and to issue a final decision on the appeal of an environmental threshold
determination, pursuant to ECDC 20.15.A.240(C).
Criteria for Review: Subdivisions
To approve a preliminary plat for formal subdivision, the Hearing Examiner must find that the
following general findings set forth in ECDC 20.75.080 can be made, as approved or as
conditionally approved:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance, ECDC
Chapter 20.75, and meet requirements of the chapter;
B. The proposal is consistent with the' comprehensive plan, or other adopted city policy, and
is in the public interest;
C. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, or a modification has been
approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 20.75;
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P 2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007 18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APE2007 2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 22 of 43
Packet Page 153 of 303
D. The proposal meets all requirements of the ECDC relating to flood plain management.
The following criteria for review, set forth in ECDC 20.75.085, shall be used to review proposed
subdivisions:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such . as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife
habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the
resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by
relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to
be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep slopes or
unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied
unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs A(1) and
(2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, views and so
forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. 1f the building area would be
difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions
can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other
feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or
frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public
facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public
use.
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements
of ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from
the planning advisory board.
In the Matter of the application of Burnstead Construction .
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL 2007-I (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 23 of 43
Packet Page 154 of 303
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. ECDC Chapter 19.75, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community
development director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed
subdivision, from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to
be divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20.
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and
slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC 248-
96-090 are met.
E. Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth
in the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management.
Criteria for Review: Planned Residential Development
To approve a Planned Residential Development with alternative standards, the Hearing Examiner
must find that the following criteria for review set forth in ECDC 20.35.040 and 20.35.050 are
satisfied:
ECDC 20.35. 040 Criteria for establishing alternative development standards.
Approval of a request to establish an alternative development standard using a PRD differs from
the variance procedure in that rather than being based upon a hardship or unusual circumstance
related to a specific property, the approval of alternative development standards proposed by a
PRD shall be based upon the criteria listed in this section. In evaluating a PRD which proposes to
modify the development standards of the underlying zone, the city shall consider and base its
findings upon the ability of the proposal to satisfy all of the following criteria, if applicable:
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007 17 (Plat) and PRD 2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Peiso and Mark s/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 24 of 43
Packet Page 155 of 303
A. The proposed PRDs shall be compatible with surrounding properties in the following
respects:
1. Provide landscaping for projects seeking to cluster lots under ECDC
20.35.030(A)(1)(b) through the design review process and greater buffering of
buildings, parking and storage areas than would otherwise be provided through the
subdivision process,
2. Providing safe and efficient site access, on -site circulation and off-street parking, and
3. Architectural design of buildings and harmonious use of materials as determined by
the ADB in accordance with ECDC 20.35.060;
B. No setback from the exterior lot lines of the PRD may be reduced from that required by
the underlying zoning unless a variance or subdivision modification is approved;
C. Minimize the visual impact of the planned development by reduced building volumes as
compared with what is allowable under the current zoning or through landscape or other
buffering techniques;
D. Preserve unique natural features or historic buildings or structures, if such exist on the
site; and/or
E. Reduction of impervious surfaces through the use of on -site or common parking facilities
rather than street parking.
ECDC 20.35.050 Decision Criteria far PRD
Because PRI)s provide incentives to applicants by allowing for flexibility from the bulk zoning
requirements, a clear benefit should be realized by the public. To ensure that there will be a
benefit to the public, a PRD which seeks alternative bulk standards shall be approved, or
approved with conditions, only if the proposal meets the following criteria:
A. Design Criteria. The project must comply with the city's urban design guidelines set forth
in subsection (A)(1) of this section and provide two or more of the results set forth in
subsections (A)(2) through (A)(5) of this section:
1. Architectural design consistent with the city's urban design guidelines for multifamily
projects or ECDC 20.35.060 for single-family projects for the design, placement,
relationship and orientation of structures;
2. Improve circulation patterns by providing connections (a) to the city's street system
beyond those which may be compelled under state law, or (b) to the city's alternative
transportation systems, such as bike or pedestrian paths accessible to the public;
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and l rks/Sanderlin
Appeal AP-2007-1 (Petso) andAPL-2007--2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing .Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 25 of 43
Packet Page 156 of 303
3. Minimize the use of impervious surfacing materials through the use of alternate
materials or methods such as grasscrete or shared driveways;
4. Increase through the addition of usable open space or recreational facilities on -site
above the minimum open space required by ECDC 20.35.060(B)(6);
5. Preserve, enhance or rehabilitate significant natural features of the subject property
such as woodlands, wildlife habitats or streams, historic or landmark structures or other
unique features of the site not otherwise protected by the community development code.
B. Public Facilities. The PRD shall be served by adequate public facilities including streets,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, fire protection, water, stormwater control, sanitary sewer,
and parks and recreation facilities.
C. Perimeter Design. The design of the perimeter buffer shall either:
1. Comply with the bulk zoning criteria applicable to zone by providing the same front,
side and rear yard setbacks for all lots adjacent to the perimeter of the development;
and/or
2. Provide a landscape buffer, open space or passive use recreational area of a depth from
the exterior property line at least equal to the depth of the rear yard setback applicable to
the zone. If such a buffer is provided, interior setbacks may be flexible and shall be
determined pursuant to ECDC 20.35.030. When the exterior property line abuts a public
way, a buffer at least equal to the depth of the front yard required for the underlying zone
shall be provided.
D. Open Space and Recreation. Usable open space and recreation facilities shall be provided
and effectively integrated into the overall development of a PRD and surrounding uses and
consistent with ECDC 20.35.060(B)(6). "Usable open space" means common space
developed and perpetually maintained at the cost of the development. At least 10 percent of
the gross lot area and not less than 500 square feet, whichever is greater, shall be set aside as
a part of every PRD with five or more lots. Examples of usable open space include
playgrounds, tot lots, garden space, passive recreational sites such as viewing platforms,
patios or outdoor cooking and dining areas. Required landscape buffers and critical areas
except for trails which comply with the critical areas ordinance shall not be counted toward
satisfaction of the usable open space requirement.
Criteria for Review: SEPA Appeal
A determination of non -significance is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, which
means that the Hearing Examiner must be left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake
has been committed. Cougar Mountain Assocs. v King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 765 P.2d 264
(1988); RCW 43.21C.090. The Hearing Examiner will not substitute her judgment for that of the
lead agency, but will examine the record in light of public policy contained in the legislation
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Pelso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-.2007-,2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 26 of 43
Packet Page 157 of 303
authorizing the decision. Moss Y. Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 13, 31 P.3d 703 (2001). In
deciding this appeal, the Hearing Examiner must accord the City's SEPA determination
substantial weight. RCW 43.21 C. 090.
A MDNS will be upheld under the clearly erroneous standard if (1) environmental factors were
adequately considered in a manner sufficient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA, (2)
it is based on information sufficient to evaluate the development's probable environmental
impacts, and (3) the mitigation measures are reasonable and capable of being accomplished.
Anderson v Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 936 P.23d 432 (1997).
Conclusions Based on Findings in regard to the preliMhM plat for formal subdivision
1. The purpose of the ECDC 20.75, the Subdivision Ordinance, is to promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare to prevent overcrowding of land, to lessen
congestion on roadways, to facilitate the adequate provision of water, sewer,
utilities, parks and recreation, and other public requirements, to provide proper
ingress and egress, and to require uniform monumenting. The Applicant's proposal
substantially satisfies the purposes of ECDC 20.75. The proposed residences will be
connected to potable water and sanitary sewer; stormwater drainage has been designed to
accommodate runoff generated by the proposed development and accommodate an off -
site tributary area; impacts to roadways have been addressed and mitigated through the
imposition of impact fees; recreation space has been provided for residents of. the
subdivision; a pedestrian -friendly streetscape will provide safe walking for school -aged
children and residents; and open space has been preserved with areas protecting adjacent
wildlife habitat areas. The design of the subdivision takes into account the only wooded
portion of the site and preserves this area, limiting impacts to the removal of trees along
the border but providing for re -vegetation to preserve the integrity of the area. Grading
and filling will be limited to ensuring that the residences will be constructed on soils
suitable for supporting structural foundations. Public transportation is available.
Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31$ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
40, 41, 44, 45, 56, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 43, and 57.
2. The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan policy of "Urban
Infill," The Applicant's proposal will preserve the single-family character of the city by
providing for infill development with design standards ensuring that the new
development will conform to the single-family residential character of the surrounding
neighborhood. The use of a PRD allows for efficient use of land to accommodate
allocated growth while providing high quality residential development that is supported
by a variety of comprehensive plan goals and polices. Although the Comprehensive Plan
does recognize a variety of park, open space, and wildlife needs; as Appellant Petso
points out, the Plan also recognizes the need to provide housing within the community in
fulfillment of the City's duty under the GMA to accommodate allocated population
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P--2007-17 (Prat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petsa) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 27 of 43
Packet Page 158 of 303
growth. The general welfare of the public, which is noted as a purpose of the
comprehensive plan, is not served solely by the provision of parks and open space. It is
served by planned, coordinated growth that maintains the residential character of the city
and is served by adequate public facilities (water, sewer, roads, emergency response, etc).
The Record adequately reflects that these public services are available. The GMA
permits a local jurisdiction, at its discretion, to weigh and balance the goals and policies
set forth in that jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, which serves to guide development of
the community. RCW 36.70A. 3201. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34-35, 37-39, 40, 42-43, 44-48, 50, 51, and 53.
3. With conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision will meet all of the
requirements of the zoning ordinance, as modified by the PRD alternative standards
provisions. ECDC 16.20 sets forth the requirements for Single -Family Residential
development. Single fancily dwelling units are permitted outright in this zoning district.
Application of the PRD process permits modifications of the development standards
established for the RS-S zoning district. Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 22, and 23.
4. With conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision has been designed to
minimize significant adverse impacts to environmental resources. The design of the
plat retains a grouping of large trees in the northeast corner (Tract E) in an open space
tract. Conditions of approval require that a. certified arborist supervise tree removal, root
systems of retained trees be protected, a planting plan for the re -vegetation of disturbed
areas be prepared, and fencing and signage of the area to prevent encroachment and
deposition of debris. Protection of future residents from the adjacent steep slope area
will be provided. The stormwater infiltration system will contain run-off on the site,
thereby minimizing if not eliminating off -site impacts. Although adjacent property
owners view of what was a previously open field will be impact; however, no evidence
was submitted that any property owner owns view rights or that such views are of the
type to be protected by this provision. It should be noted, that due to the impervious
coverage requirement applicable to this site and the reduced lot size, the bulk or volume
of residential units will be reduced, thereby minimizing any visual or aesthetic impacts.
Findings of Fact Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 54
and 57.
5. With conditions of approval, lot and street layout conform to ECDC requirements.
All lots, as modified by the PRD alternate standards, provides for an adequate building
envelope. All lots will be access via the new internal road, with several lots sharing
driveways. Off -site parking will be provided at each residence. Fourteen on -street
parking spaces will be provided on the internal road. Road design conforms to city
standards for providing emergency vehicle access, sidewalks and lighting for pedestrian
safety. All AASHTO sight distance requirements have been satisfied. Each lot, as
modified by PRD alternative standards, shall comply with the applicable dimensional
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007--17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD) "
In the Matter of the Appeals ofP,etso and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APD-2007-1 (Petso) andAPL-2007--2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 28 of 43
Packet Page 159 of 303
requirements of the RS-8 zoning district. Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 44,
45,56,47,48.
6. No dedication of land is proposed. ECDC 20.75.090 requires that before or concurrent
with the approval of the final plat of any subdivision, the Applicant, for park and
recreational purposes, shall dedicate land, pay an impact fee in -lieu of dedication, or do
both. The City is not currently utilizing the impact fee funding mechanism and has not
required any dedication of land. Findings of Fact No. 21, Footnote 12.
7. Improvements necessary to provide for health, safety, and welfare of the residents of
the plat are provided. All proposed residences will be connected to sanitary sewer and
domestic water service provided by Olympic Water and Sewer District. No septic
systems are proposed. The District has indicated that adequate capacity is available.
All proposed residences will be served by a new internal road built to City standards,
including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The internal road will be constructed to ensure
safe ingress/egress, emergency access, and a pedestrian -friendly streetscape. Internal
sidewalks will link to existing sidewalks so as to ensure safe -walking for school children
being bussed to area schools. The plat will provide open space and recreation facilities,
including a walking trail, playground, and picnic area. Off -site traffic impacts would be
mitigated through the payment of fees to the City of Edmonds. Stormwater runoff will be
collected by a series of catch basins and conveyed via underground piping for treatment
and detention in an on -site underground infiltration vault. - All proposed infrastructure
must comply with applicable city codes specifically Title 18 Public Works and Chapter
19.75 Fire Code. As proposed, the plat is consistent with the City of Edmond's
Comprehensive Plan pertaining to. high quality residential infill development. Public
transit is available within a reasonable walking distance. Findings of Fact Nos 12, 20,
21, 22, 23, 30, 33, 34, 35, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, and 53.
8. The subject property is not located in a Flood Plain Management Area.
Conclusion based on Findings in regard to the PRD
1. The propose supports the purposes of the Planned Residential Development as set
forth in ECDC 20.35.010. The proposal provides for a variety of housing styles with a
site layout which promotes flexibility and creativity, while providing both open space and
recreational opportunities, protecting significant trees, and maintaining the single-family
residential character. The application of PRD alternative standards allow for efficient use
of the land and integrate the site with the surrounding area. Findings of Fact Nos. 7 and
9.
2. The proposal complies with the urban design guidelines for single-family projects
contained in ECDC 20.35.060. Findings of Fact Nos 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-200747 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRIG)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1(Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 29 of 43
Packet Page 160 of 303
3. The proposal satisfies two provisions of ECDC 20.35.050(A)(2) - (A)(5). The
Applicant proposed to minimize imperious surface through the use of shared driveways.
Access to proposed Lots 1, 2, 11, and 12 will gain access through the use of two shared
driveways. The Applicant proposed to preserve 35 of the significant trees located in the
northeast corner of the site. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval will require
re -planting of disturbed areas and protection of this area. Findings of Fact Nos. 12, 25,
and 28.
4. The proposal is served by adequate public facilities, including streets, hire
protection, water, stormwater control, sanitary sewer, and park and recreational
facilities. Olympic View Sewer and Water District has indicated that adequate capacity
is available to serve the proposed PRD with potable water and sanitary sewer services.
A stormwater infiltration system has been designed to accommodate rim -off generated by
the proposed development and the off -site tributary area to the north. The system has
been designed to accommodate the 100-year, 24 hour storm event. An internal roadway
will be constructed to City standards and impacts to off-street transportation
infrastructure have been mitigated through the imposition of fees. On -site recreational
facilities and open space have been provided. Findings of Fact Nos. 12, 20, 21, 22, 23,
30, 33, '34, 35, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50 51, and 53.
5. The proposal fails to provide a perimeter design in conformance with ECDC
20.35.050(C). Although the Applicant has indicated that trees will be planted at points
along the exterior boundary, this does not satisfy the requirement. ECDC requires a
buffer that is distinct and separate from rear yards so as to buffer the higher density
development from the surrounding community. Findings of Fact Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, and 54.
6. The proposal provides usable open space and recreational facilities which are
integrated into the overall development of the PRD. A PRD must provide a minimum
of 10 percent useable open space. The Applicant has provided several areas throughout
the subdivision which include landscape areas, native vegetation areas, and recreational
areas. The primary recreational area is centrally located with access provided from both
sides of the subdivision. Findings of Fact Nos. 22, 23, 25, and 53.
Conclusion based on Findings in regard to SEPA Appeal
The State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA], RCW 43.21C, seeps to "promote the policy of
fully informed decision making by government bodies when undertaking 'major actions
significantly affecting the quality of the environment."' Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Assn v. King
County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 272, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). Contrary to popular belief, "SEPA
does not demand a particular substantive result [i.e. preclude development] in government
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P 2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Pelso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 30 of 43
Packet Page 161 of 303
decision making"; rather, it ensures that environmental values are given appropriate
consideration. Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 300, 936 P.2d 432 (1997).
Before a local government processes a permit application for a private land use project, it must
make a "threshold determination" of whether the project is a "major action significantly affecting
the quality of the environment." RCW 42.31C.030(2)(c). The lead agency must make its
threshold determination based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the
environmental impact of a proposal. WAC 197-11-335. The decision whether or not to require
an EIS is based on an evaluation of the environmental consequences of a proposal to determine
whether it is likely to have any probable, significant adverse environmental impacts. An EIS is
required if mitigation would not reduce environmental impacts to a non -significant level. WAC
197-11-782 defines "probable" as "likely or reasonably likely to occur." WAC 197-11-794
defines "significant" as a "reasonable likelihood or more than a moderate adverse impact on
environmental quality" and speaks to both context and intensity. Generally, if all significant
impacts have been or will be mitigated to a non -significant level through the requirements in
local, state, or federal regulations, or with the use of SEPA substantive authority (i.e. mitigation
measures), an EIS is not required. A MDNS is an alternative threshold determination that
involves changing or conditioning a project to eliminate its significant adverse environmental
impacts. Anderson, 86 Wn. App. at 301; WAC 197-11-350.
In February 2007, the Applicant submitted an environmental checklist that described the project
in detail and discussed its impacts on the earth, air, water, plants, animals, energy and natural
resources, environmental health, land, housing, light and glare, recreation, historic and cultural
preservation, transportation, public service and utilities. The environmental checklist and
supplemental documentation was submitted to the City for its review. A copy of this checklist
was mailed to state and local agencies including Washington State (Dept. of Ecology, Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife, Dept. of Natural Resources, Dept. of Transportation, etc.); Snohomish County
(Public Works, Planning & Development Services, Health District, etc); Regional Agencies
(Puget Sound Regional Council, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, etc); Municipalities
(Cities of Lynwood, Shoreline, Woodway, etc), for their review and comment.
The City based its threshold determination on information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the proposal, including reports addressing stormwater, transportation,
and critical. areas. The fact that the environmental checklist may have contained some errors
(i.e. incomplete listing of flora/fauna) does not warrant reversal of the threshold determination as
this document was only one piece of information the City used to assess the impacts of the
development.
Transportation Impacts
Traffic generated by the development has been thoroughly reviewed, and significant mitigation
is required by the MDNS and the ECDC. The mitigation has been determined by the City
Council to be adequate for ensuring that the traffic would not have a probably, significant
In the Master of the Application of Burnstead Construction
ProjectP-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007--18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Peiso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds.
Page.31 of 43
Packet Page 162 of 303
adverse effect on the environment. Traffic analysis -- both as to volume and sight distances —
were based an industry -accepted methodology.
Soormwater Management
The Applicant reviewed soil types, infiltration rates, topography, and drainage basin flows prior
to developing a proposed stormwater infiltration system based on standards established by the
City of Edmonds and on industry -accepted methodology. The Record reflects that drainage
issues pertained to the flow of stormwater off site. With the proposed design, stormwater runoff
will be retained on -site, thereby potentially eliminating off site impacts.
ECDC Chapter 18.30 sets forth the rules and regulations for stormwater management within the
City with ECDC 18.30.100 providing maintenance requirements. The Applicant's proposed
design meets standards required by the City and is designed for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event.
with infiltration at 10 inches per hour, which is in excess of the rate recommended by the SW
Edmonds DP. Utilization of the Vortechs Water Quality System will add in the removal of
sediment, thereby permitting better performance of the system.
The concerns of the public and the Appellants as to the future maintenance of the stormwater
system are noted. However, although ECDC 15A5.000(C) states that "Edmonds Drainage
Basin Studies" are incorporated by reference into the City's Comprehensive Plan, this does not
transform the recommendations provided for in the SW Edmonds DP in to mandatory
requirements. The Hearing Examiner notes that maintenance of a. stormwater facility by a HOA
is common and it must be presumed that the HOA, acting to protect the property interests of its
members, will act in accordance with the ECDC in regard to proper maintenance of the facility.
Open Space and Recreation
Although the Hearing Examiner concurs with Appellants that the City could have provided better
information as to the wooded area contained within proposed Tract E, a review of the record
indicates that the City considered sufficient environmental factors in analyzing the application
and environmental checklist, and in formulating mitigation measures. Further study of wooded
area in Tract E, in addition to conditions of approval, will ensure that the area is afforded the
protection required under ECDC Chapter 23.40.
In addition, it should be noted that the determination of the Director as to the lack of the presence
of a FWHCA on the subject property should be accorded substantial weight by the Hearing
Examiner and her judgment will not be substituted for the Director's professional knowledge and
expertise. Although, on the surface, it would appear that the northeast corner of the site meets
the City's definition of FWHCA, the site does not provided linkage to any other woodland
habitat. Aerial photographs depict forested areas along the northern border of the site and
continuing onto the city -owned parcel to the east. However, the area denoted as Tract E does not
serve to provide connectivity to habitat rather this is accomplished by the east -west corridor
spanning the northern border of both the subject property and the city -owned parcel to the east.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007 I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarkslSanderlin
AppealAPL-2007-I (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 32 of 43
Packet Page 163 of 303
Land south of Tract E is developed with single-family residences and related infrastructure and
does not meet the definition of a FWHCA for which wildlife connectivity should be preserved.
Development of the site will result in the unavoidable loss of an area that has been utilized for
recreation. However, the Hearing Examiner notes that this site was never a city -owned park but
was merely School District property which .the public was permitted to utilize for recreation
purposes until the School District made a decision on the future of the property. Reference to the
site within the City's Parks Plan was simply an error by the City and does not act to transform
the property into a city park. The concerns of the residents are understandable, and have been
voiced to the City Council on many occasions, but SEPA does not operate to preclude
development based on citizen dissatisfaction. The Record demonstrates that the City has stated
its desires in regard to providing parks for its citizens but nothing denotes that the City has
defined concurrency standards for parks. Due to the history of this site, it is unfathomable to
conclude that the City did not consider the impact on recreational use during its SEPA review.
Property Values.
As part of the SEPA Appeal, Appellant Marks alleges that the "residents of the area will be
impacted by the increased property taxes this development will cause to support additional
public services for the 27 homes." SEPA Exhibit E, Marks Appeal. The Washington Supreme
Court has defined the "zone of interests" protected by SEPA:
SEPA is concerned with `broad questions of environmental impact, identification
of unavoidable adverse environmental effects, choices between long and short
term environmental uses, and the identification of the commitment of
environmental. resources.
Kucera v. Washington State Dept of Transportation, 140 Wn. 2d 200, 212-13, 995 P.2d 63
(2000), quoting Snohomish County Property Rights Alliance v. Snohomish County (Property
Rights Alliance), 76 Wn. App. 44, 52-53, 882 P.2d 807 (1994).
Economic interests are not within the "zone of interests" protected or regulated by SEPA. Harris
v. Pierce County, 84 Wn. App. 222, 231, 928 P.2d 1111 (1996). Purely economic includes
include "the protection of individual property rights, property values, property taxes, [and]
restrictions of the use of property." Property Rights Alliances, 76 Wn. App. at 52 (emphasis
added).
Intermittent Stream
Nothing within the Record supports the assertion that the drainage swales located along the
western and southern edges of the site can be classified as an intermittent stream. Rather, both
evidence and testimony characterized the swales as drainage ditches that were constructed in an
attempted to remedy drainage issues occurring on the site and impacting the surrounding
community. The SW Edmonds DP, the Applicant's Stormwater Design, and testimony of
Senior Wetland Biologist Louis Emenhiser support this finding. In fact, even public testimony
supports the `drainage ditch' nature of these swales. Although these swales will be removed to
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRO-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 33 of 43
Packet Page 164 of 303
accommodate development, the stormwater drainage system will retain run-off formerly
channeled through these swales.
Miscellaneous Allegations (i.e. Noise, Airborne Pollutants, Aesthetics)
Most, if not all, of these impacts will be mitigated through the application of both state and local
laws and best management practices. The City has ordinances in place pertaining to noise
control, land clearing and grading, sediment control, and limitations on construction hours which
are intended to mitigate these unavoidable impacts. See e.g. ECDC 5.30, 17.50, 18.30, 18.40,
18.45, 19.10. Although residents immediately adjacent to the subject property have enjoyed an
open area behind their residences (what they term as "their view), it should be noted that
application of the alternative PRD standards will result in residential units with significantly less
bulk then would have been permitted under standard RS-8 zoning.
Conclusion
A review of the Record adequately demonstrates that the City considered evidence which was
sufficient for the City to evaluate the probable impacts of the proposal and to mitigate those
impacts so that they will not have more than a moderate effect on the environment. Although the
Appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to
cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project, as mitigated, will cause
significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. Rather, Appellants simply disagree with
the methods of mitigation proposed in response to those impacts and, more generally, the
development of what they view to be a city park.
The Appellants failed in demonstrating that the City's action in issuing the April 19, 2007
MDNS was clearly erroneous.
DECISION
1 Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the appeal of the April 19, 2007
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance by Lora Petso is DENIED:
2. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the appeal of the April 19, 2007
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance by Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin is
DENIED.
3. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for approval of a formal
plat to subdivide 5.61 acres of land into a 27-lot single family lots and five tracts to
provide for open space, private driveways, and drainage facilities on property located
within the City of Edmonds at 23708--104th Avenue West is GRANTED, subject to the
conditions listed below.
In the Matter of the Application of Burmtead Construction
Project P 2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007--1 (Petso) and APL-2007--2 (Marks/Sanderlln)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 34 of 43
Packet Page 165 of 303
4. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner concurs with
the recommendation of the ADB. The alternative development standards, except as
modified by conditions of approval, are GRANTED as follows:
Lot Area: 5,700 — 8,361 square feet
Lot Width: 60-70 feet
Setbacks:
Street: 15 feet
Side: 5 feet
5. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for approval of a
Planned Residential Development on property located within the City of Edmonds at
23708-100 Avenue West is REMANDED, for the limited purpose of the Applicant
demonstrating compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.35.
Remand Requirements
1. ECDC 20.35.050(C) requires that a perimeter buffer be provided. This
may be satisfied by providing the same front, side, and rear yard setbacks
applicable to the RS-8 zone for all lots adjacent to the perimeter of the
development. The Applicant has sought to modify the RS-8 required
setbacks for this proposal and therefore is required to provide a landscape
buffer, open space, or passive use recreational area of at least 15 feet (rear
yard setback of RS-8 zone) along the exterior property line. Preliminary
plat maps do not depict this.
The Hearing Examiner fin Cher finds that the intent of this perimeter buffer
is to screen the PRD from lower density residential development. Given
this, the Hearing Examiner concludes that such a buffer would not
necessarily be required along the northern border of the site, due to the
BPA easement serving this purpose, or along the eastern border of the site,
adjacent to the city -owned parcel.
2. The City/Applicant has failed to provide adequately documentation in
regard to the potential for impacts to the off -site Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area located along the northern border of the subject
property. The City, as lead agency for the review of environmental
impacts, shall submit adequate documentation to ensure that the functions
and values of the adjacent FWHCA are protected
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-I8 (PAD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Peiso and Marks/S'anderlin
Appeal APG-2007-I (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/S'anderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 35 of 43
Packet Page 166 of 303
Conditions of Approval
1. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.35 — Planned
Residential Development. Failure to comply with this section of the ECDC will result in
remand of the formal plat for design consistent with the developments standards of the R-
S zoning district.
2. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth in the "City of Edmonds
Engineering Requirements for Plats" submitted as Plat Exhibit A, Attachment 14.
Required conditions pertain to rights -of -ways for public streets, easements, street
improvements, street turnarounds, sidewalks, street lights, water system improvements,
sanitary sewer system improvements, storm sewer system improvements, on -site
drainage, underground wiring, excavation and grading, signage, survey monumentation,
as -built drawings, and other requirements. These requirements shall be met prior to
recording of the final Plat/PRD.
3. Fire hydrant installation and spacing shall comply with ECDC Chapter 19.25.
4. All street names and address numbering shall comply with ECDC Chapter 19.75
5. In order to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access, joint -use driveways shall be
designated as "No Parking" areas by providing striping and signage for these areas.
b. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City in regard to demolition of the obsolete one-
story school building that encroaches into proposed Lot 19. This building shall be
demolished, at least in regard to that portion which encroaches onto proposed Lot 19,
prior to issuance of building permits for proposed Lot 19,
7. The Applicant shall provide a 15 foot side yard setback for proposed Lot 17 and proposed
Lot 18 along those lots border with Tract E.
8. The Applicant shall delineate the border of proposed Lots 17 and 18 with Tract E by
installing a two -rail fence (minimum height of four feet) along the property lines. The
fence shall not prohibit access to. Tract E. Signage denoting that this is open space
intended to provide for wildlife habitat shall be posted conspicuously on the fence,
9. No individual lot shall exceed 35 percent impervious lot coverage. Impervious coverage
includes the residence's footprint, driveways, patios, and sidewalks.
10. Proposed Lot 11 shall provide a 15 foot building setback on both the northern and
western exterior property lines in order to ensure protection to and from the adjacent
steep slope. Final building design should endeavor to locate the residence to the
southern portion of the lot.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P 2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APLL2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 36 of 43
Packet Page 167 of 303
11. A certified arborist supervise tree removal, root systems of retained trees be protected, a
planting plan for the re -vegetation of disturbed areas be prepared, and fencing and
signage of the area to prevent encroachment and deposition of debris.
12. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to
ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
13. The Applicant shall comply with all of the conditions set forth in the Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance, issued April 19, 2007.
14. The Applicant shall submit an approved landscape plan for the subdivision entry signage,
landscaping and street trees. These features shall be maintained by a Homeowners'
Association consistent with the recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
15. Prior to Final Plat/PRD approval and recording, the Applicant shall complete the
following requirements:
a. Civil plans must be approved prior to construction and recording. In completing
the civil plans, the Applicant shall address the following:
(i) During the construction of the required plat improvements temporary
fencing must be installed between the construction areas and the protected
grove of trees in open space Tract E. The Planning Division must approve
these protection measures prior to any clearing or grading.
(ii) All PRD improvements including perimeter and street landscaping, entry
landscaping, protected critical areas, fencing and signage should be
included in the civil plans. These improvements shall be installed or
bonded for prior to requesting final plat and PRD approval.
b The Applicant shall submit copies of the recording documents to the City for
approval. These documents shall have the following information included:
(i) The following statement shall be placed on the face of the plat mylar:
"The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under this
PAD/Formal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicates'
setback areas without a variance being approved."
(ii) A "no disturbance" fifteen (15) foot building setback line on both the
north and west is established for the northwest corner of the site depicted
as Lot 11 on the May 3, 2007 Preliminary Plat/PRD site plan.
In the Matter of theApplication of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007 17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL 2007-1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 37 of 43
Packet Page 168 of 303
(iii) A secondary street setback for non -habitable portions of the residences to
allow porches and other entryway type features to be subject to a
minimum 15 foot setback and garages to a minimum 18 foot setback from
the street property line.
(iv) The maximum lot coverage is 35 percent.
(v) The following statement shall be placed on the face of the plat mylar:
"All construction on the site, both plat improvements and home
construction must comply with the Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
geotechnical report dated 211312007. "
(vi) The following statement shall be placed on the face of the Plat:
"Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final
approval for the subdivision located in files P-2007-17 & PRD-2007-
18. "
(vii) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's
certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff approval blocks.
(viii) Provide emergency access requirements, fire hydrants and fire suppression
to the specifications required by the Engineering Division and the Fire
Department.
(ix) Designate joint driveways as "No Parking" areas that are required_ to
remain clear for use as fire apparatus access turnarounds.
(x) . Submit a one-year performance security bond in accordance with the
requirements of ECDC 20.75.130(B) for any required improvements,
including landscaping, which have not been completed.
(xi) Submit to the Planning Division a title report which verifies ownership of
the subject property on the date that the property owners(s) sign the
subdivision documents.
16. After recording the plat, the Applicant shall complete the following:
a. Provide the City Planning Division with three copies of the recorded plat with the
recording number written on them.
b. Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building
Permit" found on Attachment 14.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007--1 (Petso) and APL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the Cily of Edmonds
Page 38 of 43
Packet Page 169 of 303
17. Prior to any construction for the plat improvements or issuance of individual building
permits for each lot complete the following:
a. Consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the home.
b. Building plans must be consistent in type and style with those submitted with
the PRD.
18. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth in the Architectural Design Board's
recommendation of May 2, 2007 and incorporated as Plat Exhibit 11.
19. Approval of the preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant from compliance with all
other local, state and/or federal approvals, permits, and/or laws necessary to conduct the
development activity for which this permit is issued. Any additional permits and/or
approvals shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
20. All development on the site shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plat. Any
alteration of this site plan will require approval of a new or amended plat.
21. The Applicant shall comply with best management practices for the minimization of track
out and windblown dust. Provisions shall be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by
construction vehicles onto paved, public roads. If sediment is deposit, the area should be
cleaned every day by shoveling or sweeping.
.22. Erosion control measures, including source control best management practices, shall be in
place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. Control measures shall be effective to
prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants (including sand, silt, clay
participles, and soil) into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the State of
Washington. Cut and/or fill slopes shall be designed to minimize erosion.
23. Any stockpiled soil shall be stabilized or protected with sediment -trapping measures to
prevent soil loss. Clearing limits and/or required buffers shall be identified and marked in
the field, prior to the start of any clearing, grading, or construction.
Decided this 20th day of July, 2007.
A6
YllRice Taylor LLC
ulie Ainsworth -Taylor
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P--2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of theAppeals of Petro and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL 2007-I (Petro) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the. City of Edmonds
Page 39 of 43
Packet Page 170 of 303
APPENDIX A
The following documents were submitted as attachments to SEPA Appeal Exhibit D — Appellant
Petso's Brief. The relevancy of each document is provided in the table below.
Document
Relevance
Basis
1. Figure 4.11 SW Drainage
Already included within the Record
Full document Relevant as SEPA
Basin Study
Appeal Exhibit F
2. Maps of Fish & Wildlife
Relevant
Habitat Conservation Area
3. City of Edmonds
Irrelevant
Superseded by City's current
Comprehensive Park Plan,
Comprehensive Park Plan
dated Set 1967
4. Excerpt of 1993 Park Petition
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Determination
5. 1993 correspondence RE:
Irrelevant
irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Potential sale of Woodway
Determination
Elementary
6. 1997 Interlocal Agreement
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
(ILA) between City and
Determination
Edmonds School District
7. Listing of Sno-King Youth
Relevant
Soccer Fields
8. 1999 ILA between City,
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Edmonds School District, and
Determination
Snohomish County
9. E-mail correspondence
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
between Appellant Petso and
Determination
Snohomish County, July 2006
RE: ILA
10. Memo between City
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
/Snohomish County, dated
Determination
8/2/06 RE: ILA
11. E-mail correspondence
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
between Appellant Petso and
Determination
Snohomish County, Nov 2006
RE: ILA
12. E-mail correspondence to City,
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Nov 2006 RE: ILA
Determination
13. E-mail correspondence to
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
County, Nov 2006 RE: ILA
Determination
14. E-mail correspondence to
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
County, Nov 2006 RE: ILA
Determination
15. E-mail correspondence to
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
y, Nov 2006 RE: ILA
C2!!pt
Determination
16. Minutes of Snohomish County
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Council 12/13/06 meeting, RE:
Determination
ILA
17. Excerpts of 3/20/07 Edmonds
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
City Council Minutes, RE: I
Determination
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-I8 (PRIG)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
AppealAPL-2007-1 (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 40 of 43
Packet Page 171 of 303
ILA
18. Mayor's Column for
Irrelevant
irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Enterprise, dated 6/17/05. RE:
Determination
ILA
19. Memo between Mayor and'
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
City Council, dated 6/24/05
Determination
RE: Woodway Elementary as
a park site
20. Excerpts of 1118/05 Edmonds
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
City Council Minutes, RE:
Determination
Sherwood Park site
21. Excerpts of 4/11/06 Edmonds
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
City Council Minutes, RE:
Determination
Woodway Elementary School
22. Statutory Warranty Deed,
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
recorded 9/14/06 RE: Sale of
Determination
`Parcel B' to City of Edmonds
23. Statutory Warranty Deed,
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
recorded 9/21/06 RE: Sale of
Determination
`Parcel A' to Burnstead
24. Title Insurance Policy for
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Burnstead Property, dated
Determination
9/21/06
25. Minutes of 12/4/06 Snohomish
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
County Council Committee
Determination
Meeting, RE: ILA
26. Excerpts of City's Park,
Relevant
Recreation, and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan (undated)
and Edmonds Park and
Recreation Plan (2001
27. 9/9/04 Edmond Beacon article
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
RE: Sherwood Park
Determination
28. Cites in Attachment 20
Irrelevant
29. Correspondence between City
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
and Edmonds School District,
Determination
dated 7/16/05 RE: Potential
purchase of Woodway site
30. E-mail correspondence 6/16/06
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
and Brief of Appellant Petso
Determination
RE: Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
31. Correspondence to City, dated
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
6/23/06 RE: Comprehensive
Determination.
Plan School Overlay
designation
32. Notice of Comprehensive Plan
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Amendment, dated 7/24/06
Determination
33. Correspondence to City, dated
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
3/24/06 RE: Acquisition of
Determination
Sherwood Park
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction,
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marksl8anderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 41 of 43
Packet Page 172 of 303
34. Photograph of Cherry Tree on
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Old Woodway, undated and no
Determination
tax parcel reference
35. Excerpts of Edmonds City
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Council Minutes 3/21/06, RE:
Determination
Potential purchase of
Woodwa site
36. Edmonds City Council
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Minutes 3/25/06 RE: Potential
Determination
purchase of Woodway site
37. Excerpts of City's 2005
Irrelevant
Current version of Comprehensive
Comprehensive Plan
Plan is dated December 2006
38. No document provided
39. No document provided
40. Permit Information for Permits
Relevant
2/13/07 correspondence is included
PLN20070017/PLN20070018
as Plat Exhibit A(5)
with attached 2/13/07
correspondence from AES
41. Edmonds City Council
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold.
Minutes 6/7/05 RE: Potential
Determination
purchase of Woodway site
42. Map — Public Needs for
Relevant
Neighborhood Parks and
Trails, undated/Grant
43. City's Planning Department Irrelevant
Consultant Listing (i.e.
Wetlands and Stream
Consultants) as of 7/2006
44, Appellant Petso's Request for Relevant
Public Records, dated 6/12-
14/07 RE: Critical Areas
45, Covenants, Conditions, and
Relevant
Restrictions for Woodway
Elementary Site (Burnstead)
46. Correspondence to Edmonds
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
School District, dated 7/7/83,
Determination
RE: Maintenance of
Woodway School Site
47. E-mail correspondence to City
Relevant
from Appellant Petso, dated
6/12/07 RE: Critical Areas —
Fish & Wildlife Habitat
49. Notice of Development
Relevant
Application — Burnstead for
Woodway Plat, dated 4119/07
49. Wetland Resources Inc. —
Relevant
Correspondence is included as Plat
Wetland Determination, dated
Exhibit A(5)
11/21/06
50. Excerpts of Architectural
Relevant
Final Minutes of 5/2/07 meeting are
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P2007-17 (Plat) and PAD-2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007--1 (Petso) and APL-2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 42 of 43
Packet Page 173 of 303
Design Board Meeting, dated
included as Plat Exhibit A(I 1)
5I2/07 (Draft) RE: PRD
51. Photograph A-7 from Drainage
Already included within the Record
Full document relevant as SEPA
Basin Study
Appeal Exhibit F
52. Development Standards -- Fish
Relevant
& Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas —
CoTpliance Requirements
53. Excerpts of Edmonds City
Relevant in Part, Irrelevant in Part
Relevant as to public comments
Council Minutes, dated 8/1/06
received pertaining to Critical Areas
RE: Critical Areas Checklist
Checklist
and ILA
Irrelevant as to public comments
received pertainin to the ILA
54, Site area photographs (1983,
Irrelevant
1984, and 1996) RE: Drainage
Ditch
55, ECDC 21.90.150 — definition
Relevant
Official Notice of ECDC
Of structure
56. ECDC 21.15. I I0 — definition
Relevant
Official Notice of ECDC
of coverage
57. "Miller Memo", undated RE:
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Acquisition of Woodway
Determination
Elemen
58, Correspondence from
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Appellant Petso, potentially
Determination
dated 11/15/06 RE: No
trespassing signs and access to
Woodwa Elementary site
59. Correspondence from
Relevant
Appellant Petso, dated
11/14/06 RE: Potential
development of Woodway
Elementary
60. SEPA Comments filed with
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Edmonds School District
Determination
9/8/06 RE: DNS in connection
with School District's CFP
2006-2011 and Excerpts of
Edmonds City Council
meeting of 8/24/04 RE:
Potential acquisition of
Woodway Elementary site
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD-2007-1 S (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Pets6 and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1 (Petso) and APL 2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 43 of 43
Packet Page 174 of 303
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
`1�c. 189"
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an anneal should
contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Department or an attorney for furkher
procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing
Examiner to reconsider his or her decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10)
working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the
attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of
land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite
specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
APPEALS
The Hearing Examiner's decisions on preliminary plat applications, preliminary PRD applications, and
appeals of SEPA threshold determinations may be appealed. The appeal procedures vary according to
decision type.
Preliminary Plat
The Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary plat may be appealed to the Edmonds City Council
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC (see ECDC 20.105.010(B) and ECDC
20.100.010(B)(5)). Pursuant to Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the
Applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the
application prior to or at the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections
20.105.020(A) requires appeals to be in writing and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the
project applicant, and the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group)
appealing the decision, and his or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing
believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the
Director of the Development Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision
being appealed. The appeal must be accompanied by any required appeal fee.
Preliminary PRD and SEPA Appeal
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD or an appeal of a SEPA threshold
determination must be taken to superior court under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) (Chapter 36.70C
of the Revised Code of "Washington (RCW)) (see ECDC 20.35 080(4)(4), ECDC 20.15A.240(C), PCW
20.105.030(D), and ECDC 20.105.070). Appeals must be filed within 21 calendar days of the final
decision. Please refer to the applicable statutes for additional procedural information.
THE LBMS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for reconsideration and appeal run concurrently. For appeals to City Council, if a request
for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing
an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing
Examiner has issued his or her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
Office of the Hearing Examiner — City of Edmonds
Reconsideration and Appeals
Page I of 2
Packet Page 175 of 303 • Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day five of
the appeal period, an individual would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing
Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
In regard to the appeal period for filing a LUPA action and the impact of a request for reconsideration, the
parties are advised to refer to RCW 36.70C or consult an attorney for guidance.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Preliminary Plat
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.100, preliminary plat approval shall expire and have no further validity if the
applicant does not obtain final plat approval within five years of the date of decision (or, if appealed, the
date of final confirmation by the appeal body).
Preliminary PRD
Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.090, preliminary PRD approval shall become void if the applicant does not
apply for final approval within five years of the date of preliminary approval.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a change
in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
Qf,Jice of the Hearing Examiner — City of Edmonds
Reconsideration and Appeals
Page 2 of 2
Packet Page 176 of 303
CITY OF EDMONDS
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH -Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
1nc.1Fi��
In the Matter of the Application of
BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION CO.
For Approval of a Formal Plat
And Planned Residential Development
In the Matter of the Appeal of
LORA PETSO,
Appellant
Of a SEPA Threshold Determination
NOS. P-2007-17
PRD-2007-18
NO. APL-2007-1
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Woodway Elementary Plat
On July 20, 2007, the Hearing Examiner issued the decision in the above -referenced matter
(Final Decision). The Hearing Examiner granted, subject to conditions, the Burnstead
Company's (Applicant) request for approval of a Preliminary Plat for the Formal Subdivision
(Plat) of one parcel of land located within the City of Edmonds at 23708 —104" Avenue West.
In conjunction with the Plat, the Applicant requested approval of a Planned Residential
Development (PRD). This request was remanded to the Applicant to demonstrate compliance
with ECDC 20.35 in regard to perimeter design.
Consolidated with the public hearing for the development applications were two appeals of the
April 14, 2007 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. One of these appeals was brought
by Lora Petso (Appellant). The Hearing Examiner determined that based on the Record
presented, evidence. sufficiently demonstrated that the City evaluate the proposed development's
probable environmental impacts, that these impacts were adequately considered, and that
proposed mitigation measures, including compliance with state and local laws, are reasonable
and capable of ensuring that these impacts will not have more than a moderate effect on the
environment. Therefore, the Appellant's appeal was denied.
On August 2, 2007, the Appellant, pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010(G), filed a Request for
Reconsideration (Request). The Request seeks reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's
denial of the Appellant's SEPA Appeal (APL-2007-1) and the Hearing Examiner's
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-18, APL-2007-1
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 1 of 9
Packet Page 177 of 303 Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
determination that the Applicant's PRD application (PRD-2007-1 S), with the exception of the
perimeter design (ECDC 20.35.050), complied with the PRD Ordinance, ECDC 20.35.
The Hearing Examiner finds that the Appellant's Request was timely filed and that the Appellant
has standing to bring such a request.
DISCUSSION
The Appellant alleges several errors with the Hearing Examiner's determination. The Request
states a variety of errors but requested particular attention to the following: underground utility
wires, PRD ordinance provisions, ADB evaluation, SEPA review, site visitation, critical areas,
environmentally sensitive areas, access, zoning district purpose and standards, park plan
designation, site design, impervious coverage, comprehensive plan consistency, park dedication,
open space, and stormwater drainage. Despite the fact that ECDC 20.100.010(G) requires that a
Request for Reconsideration must make "specific references to the findings and/or the criteria
contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed" and that many of
the Appellant's allegations did not cite to a specific finding or code provision, the Hearing
Examiner can adequately decipher Appellant's concerns and will respond accordingly. Several
other general allegations are noted by the Hearing Examiner but the Appellant fails to provide
supporting argument and, as such, these allegations will not be addressed.
Prior to addressing Appellant's specific concerns, the Hearing Examiner would like to address
the exhibits and testimony, specifically those pertaining to playfields and Interlocal Agreements,
offered at the public hearing. First, the mere fact that a Finding of Fact does not cite to a specific
exhibit or testimony presented by a party or a member of the public does not mean the Hearing
Examiner did not review and consider this evidence in making the final decision. Second, as the
Appellant correctly states, exhibits submitted at the open record hearing were not objected to by
the parties but the Hearing Examiner noted that these exhibits would be accorded the necessary
weight and relevance based on the issues presented in regard to the development proposal and
SEPA appeals. Final Decision, Footnote 3, Page 6.
As stated in the "Preliminary Matters" section of the Final Decision, most of the exhibits
pertained to the transactional history of the subject property and were simply not relevant to the
instant matter. Final Decision, Pages 3-4_ In addition, the Hearing Examiner noted that she did
not have jurisdiction over determining the validity of actions taken by any of the parties involved
in those transactions which these documents represented, that this determination was for the
Washington Courts and, neither the Appellant nor any other member of the public submitted
evidence that a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled that these actions were improper. Id.
As to the items that Appellant requested "particular attention" to:
1. Underground Wiring: Appellant alleges that the Hearing Examiner failed to require utility
wires to be underground. Condition of Approval No. 2 of the decision sets forth this
requirement and provides:
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-I8, APL-2007-1
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 2 of 9
Packet Page 178 of 303
The Applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth in the "City of Edmonds
Engineering Requirements for Plats" submitted as Plat Exhibit A, Attachment 14.
Required conditions pertain to rights -of -ways for public streets, easements, street
improvements, street turnarounds, sidewalks, street lights, water system
improvements, sanitary sewer system improvements, storm sewer system
improvements, on -site drainage, underground wiring, excavation and grading,
signage, survey monumentation, as -built drawings, and other requirements.
These requirements shall be met prior to recording of the final Plat/PRD.
Final Decision, Page 36 (Emphasis added).
2. Perimeter Buffer: This specific issue has been remanded to the Applicant to demonstrate
compliance with ECDC 20.35 and further application of this provision will occur at that time.
Finding of Fact No. 54; Condition of Approval No. 1, Remand Issue No. 1.
Appellant asserts that perimeter buffer requirements set forth in ECDC 20.35.050(C)(2) require a
minimum 25 foot buffer from the city -owned property to the east because a perimeter trail,
which according to the Appellant is a "public way," is planned for this area. The phrase "public
way" is not defined in the ECDC. Even if a trail could be defined as a public way, no trail
currently exists on the city -owned property nor was a finalized site plait for development of that
site submitted into the Record. The Hearing Examiner views the perimeter buffer requirement
to provide separation for existing uses and not for speculative future development.
3. Architectural Design Board: Appellant is under the misunderstanding that the application
for PRD approval was remanded to the Architectural Design Board. The Remand. Order was
directed to the Applicant, who carries the burden of proof, to demonstrate compliance with
ECDC 20.35. Although design modifications may result, the proposal submitted to the ADB
was subject to final approval by the Hearing Examiner and any subsequent modifications may
actually reduce impacts (e.g. fewer residential units). If after subsequent review, the Hearing
Examiner determines that the proposed modifications warrant a remand to the ADB, then that
action will be taken.
4. SEPA Appeal: Appellant asserts that denial of the SEPA appeal was improper. As noted in
the Final Decision, the Record presented to the Hearing Examiner sufficiently demonstrated that
the City. evaluated the proposed development's probable environmental impacts; that these
impacts were adequately considered, and that proposed mitigation measures, including
compliance with state and local laws, are reasonable and capable of ensuring that these impacts
will not have more than a moderate effect on the environment. Final Decision, Page 2. The
City evaluated the site for application of the Critical Areas Ordinance, specifically in regard to
FWHCA, such that the Hearing Examiner concluded that although the City's evaluation in this
regard was not a model to be followed in subsequent actions, it was not fatal to the MDNS as it
was clear from the Record that this information was before the City and that the City considered
the impact of the proposal on this area.
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-18, APL-20071
Before the (fearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds .
Page 3 of 9
Packet Page 179 of 303
5. Site Visit: As noted in Footnote 1, Page 3, of the Final Decision, the Hearing Examiner
acknowledged that. ECDC 20.100.010(C) labels the site visit as a "pre -hearing" activity but that
given the context of this matter a post -hearing site visit was more appropriate. Although access
to the site may have been limited, the purpose of the Hearing Examiner's site visit is not to
conduct analysis better left to experts (i.e. wetland delineations, wildlife habitat, stormwater
drainage) but to observe the general character of the subject property and surrounding
neighborhood. Appellant appears to assert that this post -hearing visit amounts to a procedural
error that should invalidate the proceedings. As was noted in the original decision, ECDC
20.105.050 provides that no procedural irregularity or informality shall affect the final decision
unless substantial rights of a person with demonstrable beneficial interests are adversely affected.
Therefore, any "pre -hearing" irregularity was cured by the subsequent visit and never adversely
affected the substantial rights of the Appellant.
b. Purpose of Planned Residential Development (PRD). The Appellant asserts that the
purpose of the PRD ordinance is not flexible development but flexible development which will
protect the environmental and critical areas through the use of open space above the
requirements of other provisions of the ECDC. Particular emphasis was given by the Appellant
to 20.35.010(H) (encourage preservation of existing natural site amenities) and 20.35.050(A)(5)
(preserve, enhance, or rehabilitate significant natural features not otherwise protected by the
ECDC).
ECDC 20.35.010 sets forth 12 purposes of the PRD with these purposes ranging from promoting
flexibility and creativity in design, protecting the environmental and critical areas; incorporating
a variety of housing types, architectural styles and forms; promoting the efficient use of land;
coordinating development with the value, character, and integrity of surrounding areas;
integrating new development with the existing community while preserving and protecting the
value of the surrounding neighborhood; providing affordable housing; encourage preservation of
existing natural amenities; creating permanent, usable, and commonly -owned open space;
clustering structures to preserve or create open space; promoting efficient street and utility
systems; and implementing comprehensive plan policies. These purposes are reflected in the
Decision Criteria provided for in ECDC 20,35.050.
Appellant disregards all other purposes of the PRD emphasizing the preservation of natural
features such as an alleged on -site wetland, FWHCA, trees, and topography should be protected.
With the exception of some grading to ensure structural integrity, the topography will not be
altered. The northeast corner of the site, the only wooded location, will be retained in an open
space tract (Tract E) which will be monitored during development by a certified arborist and
protected from subsequent encroachment after development. No wetland was delineated on the
subject property and it was determined that FWHCA was not located on the site.
In addition, Conclusion No. 1, in regard to the PRD, found that:
The proposal supports the purposes of the Planned Residential Development as
set forth in ECDC 20.35.010. The proposal provides for a variety of housing
styles with a site layout which promotes flexibility and creativity, while providing
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-I$, APL-2007-1
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 4 of 9
Packet Page 180 of 303
both open space and recreational opportunities, protecting significant trees, and
maintaining the single-family residential character. The application of PRD
alternative standards allow for efficient use of the land and integrate the site with
the surrounding area.
Final Decision, Page 29.
7. Critical Areas: Appellant asserts that evidence was submitted that the drainage ditch was, in
fact, a wetland and that the site contained a FWHCA. Appellant argues that neither of these
items was properly evaluated under SEPA and that relevant city codes were disregarded.
Findings of Fact Nos. 26, 27, and 29 address FWHCA and Findings of Fact Nos. 37, 38, and 39
address the drainage ditch and alleged wetland.
The Applicant submitted a Wetland Determination which stated that, using Ecology's 1997
Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, no wetlands existing on or adjacent to the
subject property. Senior Wetland Biologist Louis Emenhiser testified to this fact.
Although the City's Critical Areas Inventory Map designates the area contained within Tract E a
FWHCA, subsequent review by the City determined that the FWHCA was not located on the
subject property but on the parcel to the north. As noted in Finding 26, ECDC 23.90 does not
preclude development so long the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the habitat
are not degraded. The Final Decision required further evaluation of this requirement. Final
Decision, Remand Issue No. 2.
In addition, Appellant states that City Staff found a critical areas report was required, however,
as noted in Finding of Fact No. 27, the City determined that the Applicant's proposal would not
impact the adjacent FWHCA and, therefore no Critical Areas Report was required.
8. Environmental Sensitive Areas: Appellant asserts that a park is an environmentally
sensitive area. WAC 197-11-330 specifies the criteria and procedures for determining whether a
proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact. Appellant cites to WAC 197-11-
330(3)(e) to support her assertion. This section of the WAC provides (emphasis added):
A proposal may to a significant degree: (i) Adversely affect environmentally
sensitive or special areas, such as loss or destruction or historic, scientific, and
cultural resources, parks, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or
wilderness.
Environmentally sensitive areas are not defined by either RCW 43.21 C, SEPA, or WAC 197-11,
the SEPA rules.' Whether or not a park is an environmentally sensitive area is not at issue in this
matter as the subject property is not a park but rather is property formerly owned by the
Edmonds School District, zoned Residential Single Family, designated as Single -Family Urban 1
on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map, and now owned by the Applicant. Although the
f WAC 197-11-748 "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" was repealed in 1995.
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17 PRD-2007-18, APL-20071
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 5 of 9
Packet Page 181 of 303
site has been permitted to be used for recreational purposes, subject to a variety of jurisdictional
restrictions, this did not and does not transform the subject property into a park.
9. Access to Park and Environmental Summaries required by WAC 197-11-235(5) and
197-11440: Appellant asserts that the Hearing Examiner omitted discussion of her concerns
regarding unsafe access to the park and the application of WAC provisions. As noted supra,
omission from the Final Decision of exhibits or testimony does not mean that the Hearing
Examiner did not review and consider the information.
Park Access: It is unclear what park is being referenced by the Appellant as she refers to the
subject property as a park in addition to the city -owned property to the east of the site.
Assuming that her reference is to the city -owned property, as noted in Finding of Fact 48, the
entrance to the proposed Plat/PRD conforms to AASHTO standards for sight distance and will
be designed to City road standards including sidewalks and street illumination. Condition of
Approval No. 2 addresses road design.
WAC Provisions: The stated WAC provisions are not applicable to the matter. WAC 1979-11-
235(5) pertain to the integration of SEPA-related documents to GMA planning actions (i.e.
comprehensive plan amendment; implementing development regulation). The proposal is a site -
specific development proposal, not a GMA planning action. WAC 197-11-440 sets forth the
required contents for an environmental impact statement (EIS). No EIS was prepared for this
matter.
10. Purpose of the Single -Family Residential (RS) Zone: The Hearing Examiner noted that
the R.S zoning district seeks to provide for family living in single-family dwellings and that the
City's Comprehensive Land Use Designation of Single -Family Urban 1 supports this conclusion
(see Findings of Fact Nos_ 6, 7, and 8). As Appellant correctly notes, parks are a permitted use
within this zoning district but the Examiner's finding does not amount to a "mischaracterization"
of the zoning district.
11. Park Plan Designation: The Comprehensive Land Use Designation for the site is Single -
Family Urban 1 and therefore development of the site for single-family uses is consistent with
the comprehensive land use designation. The fact that the City's Park Plan denotes a desire on
the part of the City to acquire the site as a neighborhood park does not modify this designation or
transform the property into a city park. The subject property may have been under consideration
for purchase by the City as a park but the Edmond School District, as legal owner of the
property, elected to sell the property to the Applicant who now seeks to develop it under the
applicable development regulations.
12. Retention of Woodlands and Architectural Design. Appellant asserts error with Finding
of Fact No. 12 which provides:
The Applicant submitted architectural renderings of proposed residence which
depict a strong connection between the street and the house by utilizing
architectural elements such as walkways, porches, main entrances oriented to the
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-I8, APL-2007-1
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 6 of 9
Packet Page 182 of 303
street, and modulation of roof lines and building fronts so as to visually diminish
garages. The new internal roadway would provide sidewalks, illumination, and
street trees. Several lots would be served by shared driveways. Site design
retains the only wooded portion of the site (Tract E) as a separate and distinct
open space tract. The Hearing Examiner concurs with the ADB's
recommendation, subject to the stated conditions.
The Appellant asserts that the proposal does not retain the woods and that all homes are design to
minimize garages and provide walkways. Tract E retains the only wooded portion of the site,
although a few trees will be removed to accommodate development, most of the area will be
retained. Condition of Approval No. 11 provides that a certified arborist supervise development
of this area, Condition of Approval No.13 requires 'compliance with the conditions set forth in
the MDNS, which includes tree protection, and Condition of Approval 8 provides for a fence to
delineate property lines and prevent encroachment.. Proposed architectural renderings presented
to the ADB denote a variety of home styles, all with walkways, and utilizing architectural
elements to reduce the emphasis of garages. See Plat Exhibit 10. Condition of Approval 18
requires that the Applicant comply with all conditions set forth in the Architectural Design
Board's recommendation of May 2, 2007 (Plat Exhibit 11) which includes the requirement for all
building plans for individual lots be evaluated at the time of building permit application review
for consistency with ECDC 20.35.060 design criteria.
13. Impervious Surface Coverage: Appellant asserts that impervious coverage will exceed-35
percent. The Hearing Examiner noted, in Finding of Fact No. 14 and Footnote 11, that
calculation of impervious coverage is based on individual lots and not on the project as a whole.
Condition of Approval No. 9 provides:
"No individual lot shall exceed 35 percent impervious lot coverage. Impervious
coverage includes the residence's footprint, driveways, patios, and sidewalks."
14. RS Zoning District — Standard Subdivision Lots: Appellant asserts error with Finding of
Fact No. 17 which stated that 30 lots would be permitted for the subject property if the Applicant
was filing for a standard subdivision. ECDC 16.20.30 Table of Site Development Standards
provides that when calculating the maximum density within a zoning district that "Density
means `dwelling units per acre' determined by dividing the total lot area by the density allowed
by the underlying zoning; the number or lots or units permitted shall be rounded down. to the
nearest whole number." The calculation is therefore based on gross acreage not net acreage as
Appellant appears to assert. The subject property is 5.61 acres (244,371.6 square fee?).
Dividing this figure by the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size for the RS-8 zoning district
results in 30.54 dwelling units or, rounded down, 30 units.
15. Inconsistency with comprehensive plan: Appellant asserts inconsistencies based on plan
provisions regarding open space, playfields, parks, drainage, trees, habitat, and wetlands.
Appellant fails to cite to the Comprehensive Plan Policies to support these allegations. All of
2 Based on 43,560 square feet per acre.
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-18, APL-2007-1
Before the Hearing Examinerfor the City of Edmonds
Page 7 of 9
Packet Page 183 of 303
these items have been considered by the Hearing Examiner during review of the proposal.
Specifically, Conclusion No. 2 found:
The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan policy of "Urban
lnfill." The Applicant's proposal will preserve the single-family character of the
city by providing for infill development with design standards ensuring that the
new development will conform to the single-family residential character of the
surrounding neighborhood. The use of a PRD. allows for efficient use of land to
accommodate allocated growth while providing high quality residential
development that is supported by a variety of comprehensive plan goals and
polices. Although the Comprehensive Plan does recognize a variety of park, open
space, and wildlife needs ... the Plan also recognizes the need to provide housing
within the community in fulfillment of the City's duty under the GMA to
accommodate allocated population growth. The general welfare of the public,
which is noted as a purpose of the comprehensive plan, is not served solely by the
provision of parks and open space. It is served by planned, coordinated growth
that maintains the residential character of the city and is served by adequate
public facilities (water, sewer, roads, emergency response, etc). The Record
adequately reflects that these public services are available. The GMA permits a
local jurisdiction, at its discretion, to weigh and balance the goals and policies set
forth in that jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, which serves to guide
development of the community.
Final Decision, Pages 27-28.
16. Parkland Dedication: Appellant asserts that the Applicant must dedication land for a city
park. ECDC 20.75.080 provides that the City Council may require dedication of land in a
proposed subdivision for public use. ECDC 20.75.090 states that a developer shall dedicate land,
pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes.
The City is not currently seeking fees nor has the City Council required dedication. The
Applicant is providing commonly -owned land for park and recreational purposes within the plat,
primarily through Tract C. ECDC 20.75 does not require that this dedication be to the public at -
large.
17. Open Space Calculation: Appellant asserts that some of the open space provide by the
Applicant is not "useable" (Tract A and Tract F) and that Tract E may not be included within the
calculation because it is a FWHCA. ECDC 20.35.060(D) sets forth the open space requirements
for a PRD and defines "usable open space" to mean common space developed and perpetually
maintained at the cost of the development and includes, among other things, garden space. The
Applicant submitted a conceptual landscape plan, which denotes that both Tract A and F will be
landscaped with lawn, shrubs, and trees — essentially creating a garden space in satisfaction with
the PRD requirements.
As for Tract E, as noted with Findings of Fact 26 and 27 and infra, this area has been determined
not to be a critical and therefore is available for inclusion within the open space calculation.
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-18, APL-2007-1
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 8 of 9
Packet Page 184 of 303
ECDC 23.90.010(A)(10) includes "urban open space and land useful or essential for preserving
connections between habitat" as a critical area for the City. The key wording for this definition
is the phrase — useful or essential for preserving connections between habitat. As noted in the
Final Decision, the BPA easement along the subject property's border provides this essential
linkage. The approximate 9,000 square feet "protrusion" from the BPA easement does not serve
this purpose and therefore does not meet the definitional requirements.
18. Stormwater Drainage: Appellant asserts that the proposed'drainage is inadequate based on
infiltration rates and future maintenance and,, that development would adversely impact the
surrounding neighborhood. Findings of Fact 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 address drainage
for the subject property with Finding of Fact 40 specifically related to future maintenance of the
facility. The Applicant's preliminary design conforms to the City's requirements and will
address stormwater generated from the development of the site as well as the upstream drainage
basin. Testing and methodology were in accord with accepted- industry standards. Maintenance
of the on -site facility through a Homeowners' Association is a common practice and nothing in
the ECDC prohibits this type of maintenance provision.
ORDER
After further review and consideration of the allegations made by the Appellant, the Record for
the instant matter, and the Findings and Conclusions set forth in the July 20, 2007 Decision of
the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner finds:
1. The Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
2. The Hearing Examiner's July 20, 2007 Decision in the matter of the applications of the
Burnstead Company (P-2007-17/PRD-2007-18) is AFFIRMED.
3. The Hearing Examiner's July 20, 2007 Decision in the matter of the appeal by Lora Petso
of the City's Mitigated' Determination of Non -Significance (APL-2007-1) is
AFFIRMED.
Decided this 8"' day of August, 2007..
fill Rice Taylor LLC 1.
Julie Ainsworth -Taylor
ing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P2007--17, PRD-2007-I8, APL-2007-1
Before the Hearing Examiner far the City of Edmonds
Page 9 of 9
Packet Page 18.5 of 303
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Application of
BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION CO.
For Approval of a Formal Plat
And Planned Residential Development
In the Matter of the Appeal of
LORA PETSO,
Appellant
Of a SEPA Threshold Determination
DECLARATION
NOS. P-2007-17
PRD-2007-18
NO. APL-2007-1
DECLARATION of SERVICE
(Woodway Elementary Plat)
I, Julie Ainsworth -Taylor, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
I. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a
professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision
of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to
be a witness and make service herein;
3. That on the 8th day of August, 2007, I did serve a copy of the "Order on Request for
Reconsideration"— Application P-2007-17/PRD-2007-18 and Appeal APL-2007-1 upon
the individuals reference on the attached document at the addresses stated.
Packet Page 186 of 303
4. Service was made by.
❑ By facsimile transmission to (Phone)
❑/ By electronic transmission (e-mail) to (e-mail address).
By mailing to the person named at the address of service via US I" Class
Mail.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct:
DATED THIS Sth day of August, 2007 at Kirkland, Washington.
ie worth -Taylor
ill Rice Taylor LLC
:wing as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
Packet Page 187 of 303
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Lora Petso City of Edmonds
10616 — 237th Place SW 121 — 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Tiffany Brown
Robert Chave, Planning Director
Burnstead Construction Company
City of Edmonds
11980 NE 120 Street, 4200
121- 5th Avenue North
Bellevue, WA 98005
Edmonds, WA 98020
Clerk for the City Council
Nicole Hernandez
City of Edmonds
The Blueline Group
121 Fifth Avenue North, 2nd Floor
25 Central Way, Suite 400
Edmonds, WA 98020
Kirkland, WA 98033
Karen Stewart, Project Planner
Jerry Lutz
Reid Middleton
Perkins Coie
728 134th Street SW, Suite 200
108$5 NE 4th Suite 700
Everett, WA 98204
Bellevue, WA 98004
Diane Cunningham, Admin Assist.
City of Edmonds — Planning Dept.
121— 5tn Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Packet Page 188 of 303
CITY OF EDMONDS
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
rho Is913
In the Matter of the Application of NOS. P-2007-17
PRD-2007-1 S
BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION CO.
For Approval of a Formal Plat
And Planned Residential Development
In the Matter of the Appeal of
HEATHER MARKS and CLIFF SANDERLIN,
Appellants
Of a SEPA Threshold Determination
NO. APL-2007-2
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Woodway Elementary Plat
On July 20, 2007, the Hearing Examiner issued the decision in the above -referenced matter
(Final Decision). The Hearing Examiner granted, subject to conditions, the Burnstead
Company's (Applicant) request for approval of a Preliminary Plat for the Formal Subdivision
(Plat) of one parcel of land located within the City of Edmonds at 23708 —1040' Avenue West.
In conjunction with the Plat, the Applicant requested approval of a Planned Residential
Development (PRD). This request was remanded to the Applicant to demonstrate compliance
with ECDC 20.35 in regard to perimeter design.
Consolidated with the public hearing for the development applications were two appeals of the
April 19, 2007 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS). One of these appeals
was brought by Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin (Appellants). The Hearing Examiner
determined that based on the Record presented, evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the City
evaluate the proposed development's probable environmental impacts, that these impacts were
adequately considered, and that proposed mitigation measures, including compliance with state
and local laves, are reasonable and capable of ensuring that these impacts will not have more than
a moderate effect on the environment. Therefore, the Appellants' appeal was denied.
On August 3, 2007, the Appellants, pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010(G), filed a Request for
Reconsideration (Request). The Request seeks reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's
denial of the Appellant's SEPA Appeal (APL-2007-2).
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRO-2007-18, Appeal APL-2007-2
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 1 of 4
Packet Page 189 of 303 ' Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
The Hearing Examiner finds that the Appellant's Request was timely fled and that the Appellant
has standing to bring such a request.
DISCUSSION
Appellants assert the following errors and/or omission with the Hearing Examiner's July 20,
2007 Final Decision:
1. Addressing: Appellants assert that the address issued by the City was in violation of ECDC
19.75.005. This is a new issue and was not raised before the Hearing Examiner at the public
hearing or within Appellant's submitted materials. The address for the subject property stems
from the original school site. Application of ECDC 19.75 will occur upon development of the
residential units. See Condition of Approval No. 4.
2. Notice -- Posting of Site: Appellants argue that notice posted on -site was not adequate.
Posted notice was located on the property at the point of the proposed entrance to the plat. The
Hearing Examiner noted the signage during the site visit, and considered testimony submitted at
the hearing in this regard, but concluded that posting adequately advised the public of the
pending matter. In addition, posting of the site was only one method utilized for notification.
Notice of the proposed development was in conformance with ECDC 20.91.010 with the City
providing written notice, published, and posted notice in addition to holding a neighborhood
meeting. Findings of Fact Nos. 55 and 56.
3. Traffic Impacts: Appellants assert that the required traffic impact mitigation would only
address impacts within the PRD. Traffic impacts are discussed in Findings of Fact Nos. 44, 45,
46, 47, 48, and 49 with mitigation set forth as Condition of Approval No. 13 (compliance with
MDNS conditions). The Applicant utilized industry -standard methodology in developing the
Traffic Impact Analysis and the Hearing Examiner found no error in the analysis in regard to
both volume and. sight distances.
Appellants misunderstand the required mitigation fee of $22,699.55, asserting that it is intended
to construct the internal roadway and sidewalks within the development. The cost to construct
the internal roadway system including sidewalks and street illumination is solely bore by the
Applicant. The purpose of the mitigation fee is to assist the City in funding improvements to
impacted transportation facilities. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 46, ECDC 18.82 establishes
the applicable fee based on the type of development proposed, with this rate established by the
City Council to address impacts. Variation of the rate is not the province of the Hearing
Examiner.
In regard to site access, as was noted in Finding of Fact No. 48, the entrance to the proposed
Plat/PRD conforms to AASHTO standards for sight distance and will be designed to City road
standards including sidewalks and street illumination to ensure pedestrian safety.
4. Purpose of ECDC 20.75 — Subdivision Ordinance: Appellants assert that the Hearing
Examiner's conclusion in regard to ECDC 20.75 is in error, citing primarily to off -site traffic
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-18, Appeal APL-2007-2
Before the Hearing Examiner far the City of Edmonds
Page. of 4
Packet Page 190 of 303
impacts and pedestrian safety. These concerns were adequately addressed in the Final Decision
and clarified in this Order on Reconsideration supra (see Reconsideration No. 3).
S. Long -Term Performance Bond — Stermwater Drainage: Appellants assert that the
Hearing Examiner should have required the Applicant to post a long-term performance bond to
address stormwater drainage issues. Appellants fail to cite to a specific ECDC provision which
requires this although Condition of Approval No. 15(b)(x) requires a one-year performance
security bond in accordance with ECDC 20.75130(B) for any required improvements.
ECDC 18.30.110(D) provides that property owners (in this situation, the Homeowners'
Association) are responsible for the maintenance, operation or repair of storm water drainage
systems with all activities being in compliance with the requirements of ECDC 18.30 and the
Storm Water Management Manual. Condition of Approval Nos. 12 and 19 requires compliance
with all applicable laws --- including ECDC 18.30. In addition, Condition of Approval No. 2
states that the Applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth in the "City of Edmonds
Engineering Requirements for Plats" which includes entering into necessary Maintenance
Agreements prior to plat recording.
The Hearing Examiner reviewed and considered all testimony and exhibits pertaining to
stormwater drainage issues and made extensive findings in this regard (Findings of Fact Nos. 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40). The Hearing Examiner found no error in the Applicant's
design or future maintenance provisions for the facility.
6. Invalidation of AWNS and requirement for EIS: Appellants reiterate their original basis
of appeal invalidation of the MDNS and requirement for preparation of an EIS. Further
review and analysis of the evidence presented does not modify the Hearing Examiner's original
determination - the Record adequately demonstrates that the City considered evidence which was
sufficient for the City to evaluate the probable impacts of the proposal and to mitigate those
impacts so that they will not have more than a moderate effect on the environment. No facts or
evidence in the Record demonstrate that the project, as mitigated, will cause significant
environmental impacts warranting the preparation of an EIS.
ORDER
After further review and consideration of the allegations made by the Appellant, the Record for
the instant matter, and the Findings and Conclusions set forth in the July 20, 2007 Decision of
the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner finds:
I. The Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
2. The Hearing Examiner's July 20, 2007 Decision in the matter of the applications of the
Burnstead Company (P-2007-17/PRD-2007-18) is AFFIRMED.
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-18, Appeal APL-2007-2
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 3 of 4
Packet Page 191 of 303
3. The Hearing Examiner's July 20, 2007 Decision in the matter of the appeal by Heather
Marks and Cliff Sanderlin of the City's Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance
(APL-2007-2) is AFFIRMED.
Decided this 8th day of August, 2007.
ce Taylor LLC V
Julie Ainsworth -Taylor
acing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Order on Reconsideration, Applications P-2007-17, PRD-2007-18, Appeal APU2007-2
Before the Hearing Examiner far the City of Edmonds
Page 4 of 4
Packet Page 192 of 303
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Application of
BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION CO.
For Approval of a Formal Plat
And Planned Residential Development
In the Matter of the Appeal of
HEATHER MARKS and CLIFF SANDERLIN
Appellant
Of a SEPA Threshold Determination
DECLARATION
NOS. P-2007-17
PRD-2007-18
NO. APL-2007-2
DECLARATION of SERVICE
(Woodway Elementary Plat)
1, Julie Ainsworth -Taylor, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a
professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision
of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to
be a witness and make service herein;
3. That on the 8th day of August, 2007, 1 did serve a copy of the "Order on Request for
Reconsideration" —Application P-2007-17/PRD-2007-18 and Appeal APL-2007-2 upon
the individuals reference on the attached document at the addresses stated.
Packet Page 193 of 303
4. Service was made by:
❑ By facsimile transmission to (Phone)
❑ By electronic transmission (e-mail) to (e-mail address).
By mailing to the person named at the address of service via US It Class
Mail.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct:
DATED THIS 8th day of August, 2007 at Kirkland, Washington.
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
Packet Page 194 of 303
Heather Marks
Cliff Sanderlin
10522 — 235'a' Place SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tiffany Brown
Burnstead Construction Company
11980 NE 120 Street, ##200
Bellevue, WA 98005
Clerk for the City Council
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North, 2"d Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Karen Stewart, Project Planner
Reid Middleton
728 134th Street SW, Suite 200
Everett, WA 98204
Diane Cunningham, Admin Assist.
City of Edmonds — Planning Dept.
121— 5 h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
City of Edmonds
121— 5"' Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Robert Chave, Planning Director
City of Edmonds
121— 5" Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Nicole Hernandez
The Blueline Group
25 Central Way, Suite 400
Kirkland, WA 98033
Jerry Lutz
Perkins Coie
10885 NE 4 h, Suite 700
Bellevue, WA 98004
Packet Page 195 of 303
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: H aring Examiner
L:+From:
Kar Stewart, AICP
Project Planner
Date: JUNE 13, 2007
Files: P-2007-17 & PRD-2007-18
27 lot Formal Plat and Planned Residential Development (PRD) known as Woodway
Elementary PRD
Hearing Date, Time, and Place: June 21, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.
Brackett Room --3rd floor Edmonds City Hall
121 -5th Avenue North, Edmonds
Applicant: Burnstead Construction Company
11980 NE 24"' St., Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
page
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2
A. Applications..........................................................................................................................................
2
B. Recommendation...................................................................................................................................3
11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................5
A. Application Review Chronology...........................................................................................................
5
B. Site Description............................................................................................_.....................................
5
E. Compliance with Chapter 23.40-90 ECDC--Critical Areas Review........................................................
8
F. Compliance with Chapter 20.35 ECDC Planned Residential Development ..............................................
9
G. Compliance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC--Subdivisions..........................................................................
13
III. RECONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................13
A. Request for Reconsideration...................................................................................................................
13
B. Appeals....................................................................................................................................................14
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals........................................................................................ 14
IV. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR......................................................................................14
V. SEPA APPEALS......................................................................................................................14
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD..........................................................................................................14
VII. APPENDICES........................................................................................................................15
I
Packet Page 196 of 303
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 5.61 acres and develop a 27 lot, single family Planned
Residential Development (PRD). The subject property is developed as a soccer field and a
baseball field with a cluster of large trees in the northeast corner of the site and along the entire
northern property boundary. City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the site as
Single -Family -Urban 1. The site is zoned Residential Single Family — 8,000 square feet
minimum lot size (RS-8). The applicant is proposing a 27 lot PRD with 4 open space tracts
and 2 joint use driveways serving two homes each.
The site was previously owned by the Edmonds School District and developed as ball fields
adjacent to the Old Woodway Elementary School. The entire former school site consisting of
approximately 11 acres was surplused by the Edmonds School District after the school was
closed. In 1999, an interlocal agreement between Edmonds School District #15, the City of
Edmonds, and Snohomish County was signed with the agreement "to improve the playability
of the baseball fields". In December 2006, the interlocal agreement was terminated. The
eastern 5.56 acres were purchased by the City of Edmonds to develop as a neighborhood park.
The western 5.61 acres were purchased by the Burnstead Construction Company and is the
subject of these development applications.
The following is the Planning Department's review and analysis of the proposed subdivision,
and Planned Residential Development.
A. Applications
1. Applicant: Burnstead Construction Company
2. Site Location: 23708 104t" Ave. W. (see vicinity map Attachment 1).
3. Request: Consolidated applications for a proposed formal plat (P 2007-17) and a
Planned Residential Development (PRD 2007-18) to divide a 5.61 acre site into a 27
lot subdivision in the RS-8 Single -Family Residential zone (see Attachments 2, 3 and
4).
4. Review Process. The consolidated Formal Plat and PRD applications shall be
processed as follows: The Architectural Design Board reviews the project and makes
recommendations to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner then conducts a
public hearing and makes a final decision. SEPA appeals are also heard by the
Hearing Examiner at a combined open record public hearing on the proposed action.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
16.20, RS- Single Family Residential.
b. Compliance with Title 18 ECDC--Public Works Requirements.
c. Compliance with Chapter 20.15A ECDC--Environmental Review (SEPA).
d. Compliance with Chapter 23.40-90 ECDC--Critical Areas.
e. Compliance with Chapter 20.35 ECDC-- Planned Residential Development's
(PRDs).
£ Compliance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC --Subdivisions.
g. Compliance with Chapter 20.100 ECDC--Hearing Examiner, Planning Advisory
Board and City Council Review.
2
Packet Page 197 of 303
B. Recommendation
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Attachments and Exhibits submitted with
the applications and during the comment period, the following is the recommendation of the
City of Edmonds Planning Division:
The proposed Formal Plat (P 2007-17) and Planned Residential Development (PRD
2007-18) should be APPROVED with the following conditions:
This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
1. The applicant shall comply with the final Environmental Determination consistent with
the Hearing Examiner's decision on the SEPA appeals.
2. There shall be an approved landscape plan for the subdivision entry signage, landscaping
and street trees. These features shall be maintained by a Homeowners' Association
consistent with the recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
3. Prior to Final Plat/PRD approval and recording, the applicant must complete the following
requirements:
a) Civil plans must be approved prior to construction and recording. In completing
the civil plans you must address the following:
(1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required Prior
to Recording" on Attachment 14.
(2) During the construction of the required plat improvements temporary
fencing must be installed between the construction areas and the
protected grove of trees in open space Tract E. The Planning Division
must approve these protection measures prior to any clearing or
grading.
(3) All PRD improvements including perimeter and street landscaping,
entry landscaping, protected critical areas, fencing and signage should
be included in the civil plans. They will also need to be installed or
bonded for prior to requesting final plat and PRD approval.
b) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These
documents shall have the following information included:
(1) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "The
setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under this PRD/Formal
Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicated setback areas
without a variance being approved."
(2) A "no disturbance" fifteen (15) foot building setback line on both the
north and west is established for the northwest corner of the site
depicted as Lot I I on the May 3, 2007 Preliminary Plat/PRD site plan.
(3) A secondary street setback for non -habitable portions of the residences
to allow porches and other entryway type features to be subject to a
minimum 15 foot setback and garages to a minimum 18 foot setback
from the street property line.
Packet Page 198 of 303
(4) The maximum lot coverage is 35%.
(5) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "All
construction on the site, both plat improvements and home
construction must comply with the Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
geotechnical report dated 2/13/2007."
(6) Add to the face of the Plat "Conditions of approval must be met and
can be found in the final approval for the subdivision located in files
P-2007-17 & PRD-2007-18."
(7) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's
certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff approval blocks.
(8) Provide emergency access requirements, fire hydrants and fire
suppression to the specifications required by the Engineering Division
and the Fire Department.
(9) Designate joint driveways as "No Parking" areas that are required to
remain clear for use as fire apparatus access turnarounds.
(10) Submit a one-year performance security bond in accordance with the
requirements of ECDC 20.75.130.13 for any required improvements
including landscaping which have not been completed.
(11) Submit to the Planning Division a title report which verifies ownership
of the subject property on the date that the property owners(s) sign the
subdivision documents.
(Please note that Applicants are responsible for recording their own documents
once they have been approved.)
4. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Provide the City Planning Division with three copies of the recorded plat with
the recording number written on them.
b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building
Permit" found on Attachment 14.
5. Prior to any construction for the plat improvements or issuance of individual building
permits for each lot complete the following:
a) Consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the
home.
b) Building plans must be consistent in type and style with those submitted with
the PRD.
0
Packet Page 199 of 303
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Application Review Chronology
The subject land use applications were submitted to the City of Edmonds
Development Services Department on February 28, 2007. A preapplication
meeting with City staff had been previously held on September 27, 2006 and a
neighborhood meeting about the project was conducted at Sherwood Elementary
School on November 14, 2006. The application submittals were found to be
complete on April 5, 2007. A Notice of Development Application was issued by
the City on April 19, 2007. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
(MDNS) was issued on April 19, 2007. Two appeals of the MDNS were filed on
May 16, 2007 and May 17, 2007. The Architectural Design Board considered the
proposed PRD subdivision at their public meeting on May 2, 2007.
B. Site Description
Size: The subject property is nearly a square shaped 5.61 acre parcel. with
proposed access off of237`h Place SW,
Land Use: The majority of the site is developed as athletic fields with one
soccer field and one baseball diamond with a back stop. The site is enclosed
with a chain link fence. A wooded area exists in the northeast corner of the site.
There are also several trees along the northwest property line.
Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential, RS-8.
Under the existing zoning, the approximately 244,227 square foot site could
potentially be subdivided into thirty 8,000 square foot lots. The applicant is
proposing to develop 27 lots with a range of lot sizes from 5,700 to 8,361 square
feet.
Terrain and Vegetation: The site is generally flat and the existing vegetation is
primarily grass with some exposed dirt for the infield of the ball field. Along the
northern boundary, there are some existing trees with the largest cluster in the
northeast corner of the site.
Surrounding Uses_,and Zoning: To the east of the subject property is the closed
Old Woodway Elementary School that is proposed to be redeveloped as a
neighborhood park and is zoned RS-8. The property is surrounded on the north,
south and west by residentially zoned (RS-8) and developed properties. A
cemetery, called Restlawn Memorial Park, is located to the southeast of the site
across 237"' Place SW.
Consistency with neighboring development: A single family residential
neighborhood is proposed where the individual lots range in size from 5,700 sq.
ft. to 8,361 sq. ft. Neighboring developed homes are constructed on larger lots
although the existing zoning allows for 8,000 square foot lots. The proposed 15
foot setback around the perimeter of the site will help to separate and buffer the
5
Packet Page 200 of 303
proposed PRD from the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed
neighborhood park located to the east of the subject property will also be
separated from the proposed subdivision by a 15 foot landscaped setback as
well as by the trees in open space tract E. In addition, there is a wooded area to
the north of the site that will provide a vegetated buffer for the existing homes
to the north.
C. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
The 2006 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan includes the following goals and
policies related to residential development which appear to apply to this project.
Residential Development
Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
lifestyle of Edmonds' residents should be maintained and promoted. The
options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all
citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and
aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and
construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to
harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community
identity and desirability.
B.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new
construction or additions to existing structures.
B.S. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through
the careful control of other types of development and
expansion based upon the following principles:
B.5.c Sable property values must not be threatened by view,
traffic or land use encroachments.
B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse
environmental impacts of development including noise,
drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with
the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and
drainage.
C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be
encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all
Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies:
C.1 Planned Residential Development. Provide options for planned
residential development solutions for residential subdivisions.
C. La Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where
significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated
(trees, view, open space, etc.).
C
Packet Page 201 of 303
Vegetation and Wildlife
General. As Edmonds has urbanized, the natural vegetation has become
increasingly scarce. The city's woodlands, marshes and other areas containing
natural vegetation provide an important resource which should be preserved.
Woodlands help stabilize soils on steep slopes, and act as barriers to wind and
sound. Natural vegetation provides habitat for wildlife. Plants replenish the
soil with nutrients. They generate oxygen and clean pollutants from the air.
The beauty of the natural growth provides pleasing vistas and helps to buffer
one development from another. Areas where natural vegetation exists provide
good sites for nature trails and for other recreational and educational
opportunities. "People pressure" continues to destroy many organisms and
their habitats each year. The number and species of organisms is diminishing
yearly. Underdeveloped wooded areas and city parks provide habitats for
many birds and mammals.
Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas
containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following
policies:
B.I. Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best
available science pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172.
B.2. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are
located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts,
buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are
preserved.
B.3. Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed.
BA. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only.
Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved.
Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: The City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan pages 16-23 reviews the land capacity of the City
and addresses the City's strategy for meeting the population and employment
targets set for us by the County and the State. The preferred strategy is called
"Design Infill". Due to the overwhelming feedback to the City from its citizens
which stated generally "Preserve the single family character of Edmonds. Don't
rezone areas to higher densities." The City adopted this strategy. At its core,
"Design Infill" encourages infall development under the existing densities with
design controls to ensure that new development will fit into established
neighborhoods.
Planned Residential Developments (PRD) are an identified tool to allow this policy
to be implemented. The subject proposal, a PRD, allows a property to be developed
with efficient use of the site while at the same time protecting natural features and
taking significant steps to ensure its compatibility with the surrounding existing and
planned Iand uses. The orientation and landscaping of the homes and yards should
help preserve the privacy of adjacent properties.
7
Packet Page 202 of 303
Compliance with the Vegetation and Wildlife goals and policies: The
application appears to meet the goal and policies of the vegetation and wildlife
section of the Comprehensive Plan. These policies form part of the basis for the
city's critical areas regulations, and the use of the PRD design approach for the
subdivision layout has allowed the applicant to set aside the major wooded portion
of the site while still achieving the planned density consistent with the existing
zoning and comprehensive plan designation.
D. Compliance with Chapter 20.1 5A ECDC--Environmental Review
Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
(MDNS) was issued by the City's SEPA Responsible Official on April 19"', 2007.
Two appeals of the Environmental Determination were filed. Responses to these
appeals are addressed in a separate report and staff recommendation.
E. Compliance with Chapter 23.40-.90 ECDC--Critical Areas
Review
A Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report (CRA-1994-197) was conducted by
City staff and a "Study Required" Determination was issued on March 20,
2007. The required study was to identify the extent and proximity of a steep
slope located to north of the northwest corner of the site. The applicant
completed the study requirement by submitting a geotechnical report (see
Attachment 5) prepared by a professional geologist and a professional engineer
that identifies and describes the steep slope on the adjacent property. The
applicant also provided a contour map indicating the toe of the steep slope that
is located northwest of the site (see Attachment 7).
The geotechnical report states that the subject property is located near to an off -
site landslide hazard area that is just to the northwest corner of the
development. The area slopes downward to the south-southeast and is
approximately 30 feet high with an average slope of about 45 percent. Existing
homes to the north of the steep slope are generally located 30 feet from the top
of the slope with associated decking and walls located up to the edge of the
slope. The ground surface in the upper 10 to 15 feet of the top of the slope
adjacent to the existing development is disturbed and denuded of vegetation in
some areas. The remainder of the slope is vegetated with large fir, cedar and a
mixture of deciduous trees with an extensive undergrowth of shrubs. The
geotech report states that there are no indications of past or ongoing slope
instability or ground water seepage. The report concludes that the risk of
landslides and surficial debris flow -type failures is low for static conditions
under current site conditions.
There are minimum buffer and building setback requirements from geologically
hazardous areas pursuant to 23.80.050 (C) (4) ECDC. The minimum "no -
disturbance buffer and minimum building setback are based upon a geotechnical
analysis.
Packet Page 203 of 303
For this proposed PRD subdivision, a professional geologist has recommended
a 15-foot building setback from the off -site landslide hazard area. The entire
steep slope is located to the north and northeast of the subject property with the
toe of the slope approximately 5 feet from the property boundary at its closest
point. Proposed Lot 11 of the PRD subdivision is in closest proximity to the
landslide hazard area. This lot is also one of the larger proposed lots in the
PRD-- at 8,050 square feet-- so there is ample area for a 15 foot building
setback on both the west and north exterior property boundaries and still
allowing sufficient area to accommodate the building footprint of a future home.
To ensure compliance with ECDC chapters 23.40-90 Critical Areas, a fifteen
(15) foot building setback line along the northwest corner of the site depicted as
Lot 11 on the May 3, 2007 Preliminary Plat/PRD site plan should be a condition
of approval consistent with the recommendation in the geotechnical report dated
2/ 13/07.
F. Compliance with Chapter 20.35 ECDC Planned Residential
Development
The applicant submitted a project narrative describing the proposed Woodway Elementary
PRD preliminary plat. They also submitted a statement of compliance that explains
conformance with the following purposes of this type of subdivision.
Purposes of a Planned Residential Development (ECDC 20 35 010)
The purposes of this chapter are to:
A. Provide an alternative form of development which will promote flexibility and
creativity in the layout and design of new development and which will protect
the environment and critical areas through the use of open spaces above
requirements of other provisions of city code;
B. Provide for small and large scale developments incorporating a variety of
housing types and related uses that are planned and developed as an integral
unit;
C. Promote the efficient use of land by allowing flexible arrangement of
buildings and lots, circulation systems, land uses, and utilities;
D. Promote the combination and coordination of architectural styles, building
forms, and building relationships within a development;
E. Coordinate development with the value, character, and integrity of
surrounding areas which have been, or are being, developed under the city's
comprehensive plan;
F. Provide for the integration of new development into the existing community
while protecting and preserving the value of the surrounding neighborhood to
the extent consistent with the Growth Management Act;
G. Provide the opportunity for affordable housing to meet the needs of a wide
range of income and age groups;
H. Encourage the preservation of existing natural site amenities such as trees,
watercourses and wetlands, topography, and geologic features beyond the
requirements of the code;
9
Packet Page 204 of 303
1. Create permanent, usable and commonly owned open space for both active
and passive recreation which serve the development and which are maintained
at its expense;
J. Cluster structures to preserve or create open spaces, especially where steep
slopes or other environmentally sensitive areas exist;
K. Promote a more efficient street and utility system by clustering units, in an
effort to promote affordable housing, land development and maintenance costs
and reducing the amount of impervious surfaces; and
L. Implement policies of the comprehensive plan.
Architectural Design Board review of the PRD:
The ADB reviewed the proposed PRD subdivision on May 2, 2007 and recommended
approval of the project with the following four conditions (see Attachment 11):
1. A VARIETY OF MATERIALS OR BUILDING FORMS MUST BE USED ON ALL
SIDES OF THE HOMES;
2. BUILDING PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS MUST BE EVALUATED AT TIME
OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW FOR CONSISTENCY WITH
ECDC 20.35.060 DESIGN CRITERIA;
3. THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND
THE PLANTINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED;
4. THE DESIGN BOARD WOULD SUPPORT THE INCLUSION OF A SECONDARY
STREET SETBACK FOR NON -HABITABLE PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING TO
ALLOW PORCHES AND OTHER ENTRYWAY TYPE FEATURES TO PROJECT
WITHIN 15 FEET OF THE STREET PROPERTY LINE;
BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PRD SUBDIVISION IS
FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER
ADOPTED CITY POLICIES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SATISFIES THE
CRITERIA CONTAINED IN THE CODE 20.35.060, SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN
CRITERIA.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Architectural Design Board's recommended conditions of approval Items 1, 2 and 4
should be included as a condition on the plat that informs potential builders of their
obligation to work with staff on their final home designs to ensure compliance with these
issues.
10
Packet Page 205 of 303
Alternative Standards, ECDC 20.35.030:
Alternative development standards may be established through the PRD process. The
applicant proposes to modify street and side yard building setbacks that are interior to
the proposed PRD subdivision. The street setback would generally be 20 ft. with a
further reduction down to 15 ft, for enclosed porches/entryways and 18 ft. for garages
to allow for some design variation. Side setbacks would be 5 feet.
Density for a PRD is determined by Gross Lot Area/Min Lot size of underlying zoning
and round down to the nearest whole number. For the subject proposal, the calculation
is: 244,227/8,000=30.53 which rounds down to a total of 30 lots. The applicant is
proposing a 27 lot PRD subdivision. A variation of lot widths of either 60 or 70 feet is
also proposed to provide some variety in the type of single family home.
Conclusion: The proposed alternative standards are in keeping with other recently
approved planned residential developments and would comply with the International
Residential Code requirements and the International Fire Code for fire safety.
Criteria for establishing alternative development standards ECDC 20 35 040:
Providing more landscaping and greater buffering: A conceptual landscape plan for
the proposal illustrates the extent of landscaping on the site perimeter, along the internal
neighborhood street, between the proposed lots, and in the common open space areas.
Efficient and safe circulation: A new neighborhood collector with a 50-foot ROW
terminating in a cul-de-sac would serve the new homes and meet public safety
requirements without significantly affecting traffic levels or patterns in the neighborhood.
Architectural Design: The Architectural Design Board reviewed the proposed homes
for compliance with the PRD single family design criteria. As indicated in their
recommendation, they find the proposed residences to meet these criteria.
Exterior setbacks: All standard exterior setbacks have been maintained with enhanced
landscaping.
Reduced visual impact: The utility lines will be buried consistent with ECDC 18.05.
The landscaping and open spaces would also serve to reduce visual impacts.
Preservation of Natural Features: The majority of the existing significant trees will be
preserved in a common open space.
Reduction of impervious surfaces: Minimization of the road area and building
footprints would result in an overall reduction of impervious area for the proposed
development as compared to a standard subdivision.
I
Packet Page 206 of 303
Conclusion: Staff believes that all of the PRD alternative standards approval criteria
have been met.
Decision Criteria for PRDs, ECDC 20,35.050
A PRD must demonstrate that it meets the following five Decision Criteria to be
approved.
Design Criteria: This criterion is met by complying with the Single Family Design
Criteria and providing at least 2 additional criteria listed as follows:
Criteria 1 is met. The ADB has reviewed the proposal for compliance with
ECDC 20.35.060 for single family projects and have recommended the project be
approved with several recommended conditions.
Criteria 3 is met. The proposal includes two shared driveways.
Criteria 5 is met. The existing grove of large trees in the northeast corner of the
site would be set aside as open space. The applicant is proposing to preserve the
majority of the trees.
Public Facilities: The proposed residential development would be served by public
facilities and services available in the area. In addition, the development will
construct a public roadway and cul-de-sac, detain stonnwater and provide an active
recreation area to serve residents of the new neighborhood. Energy efficient homes
are proposed.
Perimeter Design: An enhanced landscape area at the entry and along the perimeter
will assist in providing separation from adjacent areas.
Open Space and Recreation: The proposed site plan indicates the creation of 4 open
space tracts A, C, E and F. Tracts A and F are 4, 913 SF and 3,566 SF respectively
and are located at the entrance to the proposed subdivision. Tract E is 9,356 SF and
is located in the northeast corner of the site where the majority of the existing trees
are growing. Tract C is 7,350 SF and is located in the central area of the site. Tract C
is proposed as the location of the stonnwater vault as well as the area for the active
recreation component of the proposed development. The conceptual landscape plan
shows a tot toy, several benches, a picnic table and paved walking trail to serve the
neighborhood and to be maintained by the new Homeowner's Association.
Street and Sidewalks: The proposed PRD subdivision would necessitate
construction of a neighborhood collector to provide access to the 27 new homes. The
development would be served by 5 foot sidewalks and fourteen onstreet, parallel
parking spaces in an 8.5 parking lane on one side of the street. The City's Traffic
Engineer reviewed the project and indicated any requirements that will be made of
the applicant as part of Attachment 15.
Conclusion: The proposed PRD meets the decision criteria. Conditions
recommended by the Engineering Department and the Traffic Engineer should be
included in any approval.
12
Packet Page 207 of 303
G. Compliance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC--Subdivisions
Subdivision Review Criteria (ECDC 20.75.085)
Environmental
The Critical Areas ordinance will ensure that Environmental Resources are being
protected in the City of Edmonds. The off -site Landslide Hazard Area will be
addressed by the establishment of a 15 foot "no disturbance" area from the toe of the
slope. The majority of the mature trees in the northeast corner of the site will be
preserved in a common open space tract.
Lot and Street Layout
This criteria requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots would
ultimately be buildable. Based on a review of the PRD project application, each of the
lots appear to be buildable.
Lot sizes and dimensions
These criteria don't apply to individual lots in a PRD.
Setbacks
All of the proposed setbacks are acceptable through the PRD process.
Dedications
See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 14).
Improvements
See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 14).
Floodplain Management
This project is not in a FEMA designated floodplain.
III. RECONSIDERATIONS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing
reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a
recommendation -or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further
procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
ECDC Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider
her decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the
posting of the notice required by this section. The reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the
ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed.
13
Packet Page 208 of 303
B. Appeals
Chapter 20.105 ECDC describes how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision
shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the
decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their
interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be
wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director
within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time Iimits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request
for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has
expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the
reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued
his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration
request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more
days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision
on the reconsideration request.
IV. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the staff request a
change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
V. SEPA APPEALS
There are two appeals of the SEPA threshold determination that was issued April
19, 2007.
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD
Please see the attached parties of record list.
14
Packet Page 209 of 303
VII. APPENDICES
List of Attachments
1. Vicinity reap
2. Woodway Elementary Project Narrative and Statement of Compliance, 2/28/07
3. 11 "x 17" Preliminary Plat/PRD Site Plan dated 5/9/07
4. 11"xl7" Five project plans dated 2/28/07
5. Storm Drainage Report w/ technical appendices
6. Traffic Impact Study
7. Map depicting Toe of Steep Slope on adjacent parcel to north of site
8. Termination of Interlocal Agreement
9. SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
10. Architectural Design Board staff report
11. Architectural Design Board Recommendation
12. Letter from The Blue Line Group dated 5/9/07
13. Memo from Fire Marshal
14. Engineering Division Report
15. Traffic comments
16. Parties of Record
15
Packet Page 210 of 303
CITY OF EDMONDS
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: My name is Julie Ainsworth -Taylor. I'm a member of the firm Toweill, Rice, Taylor. Our firm has
been appointed by the Edmonds City Council to provide land use hearing examiner services for land use applications and
appeals in the City. It's about 3:10 in the afternoon on Thursday, June 21, 2007. We've got three items on the docket today
that are all consolidated as one interest matter. The first one is File Number AP-07-1, which is an appeal by Lora Petso of the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued for a 27-lot plat and PRD. We have a second matter on the docket, File
Number AP-07-2, the appeal of Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin, also the MDNS for the plat. Finally, we have File
Numbers P-07-17 and PRD-07-18, which is an application by the Burnstead Corporation for a 27-lot preliminary plat and
planned residential development of 5.61 acres in the City of Edmonds located at 23708 — 104`h Avenue West, which is in a
residential (RS-8) zone.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So if we could just start out by introducing yourselves and spell your last names so we can know
the parties of record on this matter.
Ms. Brown: I'm Tiffany Brown, B R O W N, and I represent the applicant, Burnstead Construction Company. I have my
consultants here to answer any questions about this hearing. Would you like me to introduce them, as well?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yes, please.
Mr. Lutz: Jerry Lutz, an attorney with Perkins Coie, L U T Z.
Ms. Hernandez: Nichole Hernandez, civil engineer with the Blue Line group.
Ms. Enenhisel: Louis Enenhisel, Wetland Ecologist with Wetland Resources.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can you spell that?
Ms. Enenhisel: E N E N H I S E L.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: One more time.
Ms. Enenhisel: E N E N H I S E L.
Chesterfield: My name is Lane Chesterfield of the City of Edmonds. I'm the stormwater engineering program manager.
My last name, C H E S T E R F I E L D.
Ms. McConnell: Jeanie McConnell, M C C O N N E L L, City of Edmonds acting engineering program manager.
Mr. McGrady: My name is Patrick McGrady, M C G R A D Y. I'm a transportation engineer with Reid Middleton.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And Reid Middleton is acting as consultant to the City on this?
Packet Page 211 of 303
Ms. McGrady: Yes.
Ms. Stewart: I'm Karen Stewart, senior planner at Reid Middleton, and I'm the project planner for this review.
Ms. Cunningham: I'm Diane Cunningham and I'm from the Planning Department.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And the appellants on this matter?
Ms. Petso: I'm Lora Petso, last name's P E T S O.
Ms. Marks: I'm Heather Marks, last name, M A R K S.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Will Mr. Sanderlin be joining us today?
Ms. Marks: He's back there; he's not going to come to the stand.
Ms. Stewart: Madame Hearing Examiner. There are a couple of additional City staff, individuals in the audience who did
review these applications. I'm wondering if you would like to include them at this time.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yeah, I would put add them when they come up and talk. Go ahead.
Ms. Stewart: We have Brian McIntosh, M C I N T O S H. He's the Parks and Recreation Director for the City. And John
Westfall, W E S T F A L L, Fire Marshal. And that last gentleman?
Ms. Cunningham: Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer.
Ms. Stewart: Don Fiene
Ms. Cunningham: F I E N E, Assistant City Engineer
Ms. Stewart: And have we missed anybody else from the City staff who will be testifying today? Okay, I believe that's
everyone. Thank you.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. I do need to open up with one thing, a disclosure statement for myself. Along with my
contract with the City of Edmonds and other cities and counties throughout the State, I'm in a contract with the State of
Washington, working with the Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. Ms. Petso, one of the appellants, did file a
?? with the Board. The case has been closed and is no longer open for the Board, and I participated in no way in that decision
at all. I just wanted to disclose that, if Ms. Petso has any objections or any parties have any objections tome proceeding over
this hearing to address it.
Ms. Petso: You didn't participate in the Growth Management Hearings Board?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I did not in the ?? of that decision because the Board Members ?? their own decision. I'm aware of
your matter. I'm aware of the facts behind the matter, but I had no decision making authority before this.
Ms. Petso: Did you do research on the matter?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, I did not.
Ms. Petso: Okay. What were you're duties?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: My duties with the State is I serve as a law clerk for the board, and I do assist in research ...
(inaudible)
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 2
Packet Page 212 of 303
Ms. Petso: So you didn't research ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, I did not.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So seeing as there is no objection to .... We can go ahead and proceed.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MICROPHONE AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS ON.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: In doing this matter, having both the appeals and the plat applications before us at the same time, I
would like to go ahead and set up the hearing, just have the City do their presentation first on their review of the plat and how
they deal with compliance of the codes and what processes they went through in developing that review. In other words,
make a presentation on that. Then I will have the applicant give their presentation and do whatever supplementation of what
the City provided encountering any further information on that. That will set the grounding of the facts of the matter so that
then the environmental analysis that was done and the concerns of the appellants we'll have a clear understanding of what's
going on instead of just jumping into the appeal portion of the matter. So is everybody clear on that?
Ms. Petso: Does that mean that for all three matters today, all I need is one set of exhibits and one opportunity to make my
appeal, and then it would apply to the PRD, the subdivision, too, to the extent of the ?? matters.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So you want to address both your appeal and the actual underlying plat, as well?
Ms. Petso: Well, yeah. Otherwise, I would have to go through some of the material twice.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: There's no need to go over it twice. You can make one single presentation and you can counter ??
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: What I would like to ask for now, since there's a lot of people in the room and a lot of people will
be talking or addressing me. Everybody who plans on providing testimony, testifying, you may. If you could go ahead and
stand right now, and we'll do a group oath so everybody's sworn into testify under oath. If anybody's going to provide facts
or analysis or comment probably should. So raise your right hand. Everyone hereby swears and affirms the testimony you
will be giving today will be the truth?
Everyone responded positively.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Thank you. You can have a seat. Anybody else who did not take the oath who decides later on
when they hear things that they'd like to testify, please just let me know on the honor system basis a little bit, that you didn't
take the oath and we can affirm you at that time. When you are speaking, I would like you to go to the podium because I
think that mike wise, the tables don't have mikes on them, but the staff it looks like there is a mike on each one. Okay, so
you will need to go to the mike to make your presentation, and it appears there are mikes on the tables. The same, of course,
applies to the appellants when they make their presentation. If you're a member of the public, when you step forward to the
mike, please give your name and your address, so we can assign that, in fact, you came.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So let's start actually with some of the exhibits that we've received from the City so far so that
everybody knows how the exhibits are being handled by me and so when you make reference to them we can all get on the
same plane. From the City I have already received Exhibits in regards to the plat, it, being proposed by Burnstead and the
SEPA appeal uphold from Ms. Petso and Ms. Marks. In regards to the plat, I have a staff report prepared by the City and it
has 16 separate attachments to it. These should be available in your packets, as well. I believe the staff report is Exhibit A,
which has the corresponding exhibits behind it, 1 through 16. In the SEPA appeal, I also have the staff report, and labeled
the appeal Exhibit A and distinguish that some the exhibits are separate from those of the plat and some of them may be dual
exhibits. Along with that staff report, there were nine attachments to that staff report. In addition to that, labeled as Appeal
Exhibit B, I have a letter dated June 11, 2007 drafted by Perkins and Coie in response to the appeal issues. With that there
were six separate exhibits.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And then in addition to that, on the appeal today there is it looks like another copy of the June 11t'
letter, so I already have that submitted into the record. I will just set that off to the side. It looks like I have enlarged versions
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 3
Packet Page 213 of 303
of the plat maps and design maps for the plat. I am assuming these are the same ones as the reduced versions within the
plats.
Ms. Cunningham: Yes.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So these are just enlarged and they will be referenced as enlarged attachments supplementing those
smaller attachments. Then I have an aerial photo of the map. Can you explain the context of the aerial photo? I thought
there were some aerial photos in the exhibit already.
Ms. Stewart: This is Karen Stewart. This is an exhibit that we were hoping to display today. We weren't aware that ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So this is for ?? purposes only?
Ms. Stewart: Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Any objections from the applicant or the appellants on the use of this as an enlarged view of an
exhibit to demonstrate the property?
Ms. Marks: I do have to ask that you don't have any electronic ways of showing our materials.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I know your objection, but also that problem could be rectified by you calling ahead to the City and
letting them know that you needed equipment. That's kind of the usual course unless you have your own equipment that you
bring with you. I understand your objection, but a little preparation would have been better on that.
Ms. Marks: On the exhibits, I prepared, I believe I included their map as part of my Exhibit 2, so I obviously can't object to
having it used today, but I did want to let you know. I also can at least tell you where I obtained the map from so there's
some context to it. I obtained it from the City's grant application packet for the half million dollars from the State to acquire
the portion of the property that the City bought.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Thank you. Okay, Ms. Stewart, if you want to go ahead and make your presentation.
Ms. Stewart: This is a proposed consolidated application involving the formal plat, as well as a planned residential
development. The application is to divide, subdivide a 5.61 acre site into a 27-lot subdivision. That's in the RS-8, single-
family residential zone. Consistent with the City's procedures, these consolidated applications have already been at a public
meeting before the Architectural Design Board, and I believe that you have the findings of that Board. In the staff report, it's
Attachment 10.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And what were the findings of the Board in that matter?
Ms. Stewart: The Board recommended approval of the proposal with a number of conditions.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I believe there was four conditions that they ...
Ms. Stewart: That's correct. Would you like me to read into the record the actual conditions?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Please. Yes, I do.
Ms. Stewart: The Architectural Design Board reviewed the proposed PRD subdivision on May 2, 2007 and recommended
approval of the project with the following four conditions. Number 1 — A variety of materials or building forms must be used
on all sides of the homes. Number 2 — Building plans for individual lots must be evaluated at time of building code
application review for consistency with ECDC 20.35.060-Design Criteria. Number 3 — The conceptual landscape plans shall
be implemented and the plantings shall be maintained. Number 4 — The Design Board would support the inclusion of a
secondary street setback for non -habitable portions of the building to allow porches and other entryway type features to
project within 15 feet of the street property line.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 4
Packet Page 214 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, I missed that.
Ms. Stewart: The fourth condition?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, the four conditions, I have a variety of materials, building plans for individual lots evaluated
at time, site plan consistent with maximum coverage, 35%, and conceptual landscape plan implemented. That's the only four
that I have in the decision. Oh, that's the staff report. Sorry.
Ms. Stewart: There was a modification at the public meeting.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, that's actually Exhibit 11. The actual decision of the Design Review Board.
Ms. Stewart: Oh, correct. I apologize. That's right.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I was paying attention. That's the staff report.
Ms. Stewart: And then after the findings, after that meeting, the applicant did submit a letter, and I may need a little help, I
believe it's Attachment 12, it's the letter signed by the Blueline Group, representative for the applicant dated May 9, 2007.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Dated May 7tn, received May 12tn
Ms. Stewart: Okay, that requests modification of their proposal consistent with this Condition 4.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And that's the reduced front yard setback from 25 to 15 feet? Is that what you are referencing
there? They had said to 20 feet, and then they wanted 15.
Ms. Stewart: Correct. For the non -habitable portions. For the porches and entryways, and this would allow some
modulation of the building and some flexibility in design, show some variation as you headed down the street.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: This is varying the streetscape ??,
Ms. Stewart: Correct. And allowing for different housing types design, too.
Ms. Stewart: Staff also conducted a review of consistency of these proposals with the City's comprehensive plan, and I
have a staff report that's discussed and put together goals and policies related to residential development. There's a specific
policy addressing planned residential development, and then the goals and policies related to vegetation and wildlife were
evaluated. These proposals compared and staff determined that the project would comply with the residential development
goals and policies of the City's comprehensive plan, as well as those related to preservation of vegetation and wildlife
habitat. The latter one we'll be discussing more as we get into the issue of the SEPA appeal, but in general, the existing trees
on the site consistent with the MDNS conditions are recommended to be preserved to the greatest extent possible.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And these are the trees within the northeast corner of the site, contained within Tract E that you're
referencing?
Ms. Stewart: Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And this was the heaviest concentration of trees it appears by your preliminary plat.
Ms. Stewart: That's correct.
Ms. Stewart: We also evaluated compliance of the proposed actions with Chapter 20.35 ECDC, which addresses planned
residential development. In particular, there's decision criteria for approval of planned residential developments, reference to
what the Architectural Design Board considered and ECDC 20.35.060, regarding design criteria for single-family
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 5
Packet Page 215 of 303
developments of this type, as well as A-3 in this section deals with minimum impervious areas and advocates shared
driveways. The subject applications propose two such shared driveways. Criteria A-4 requires open space of at least 10% of
the entire site, and the applicant is proposing 25,185 square feet of open space, which slightly exceeds the required
requirement, which would be 24,423 square feet. And then another criteria relates to preservation of the site natural features
such as the woodlands, which we just mentioned the growth of trees in the northeast corner in particular. The applicant is
proposing to retain 64% of the existing trees on this site in an open space tract.
Ms. Stewart: The applicant is also proposing alternative standards that affect building setbacks. That's outlined on the site
plan. They're proposing side setbacks. What would normally be required would be 7.5 feet, and they are requesting
allowance down to 5 feet. The street building setbacks, as modified by their proposal, typically would be 25 feet, and with
this proposed PRD, allowing 20-foot street setbacks, with the additional allowance for the porches and entryways of 15 feet.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And the rear yard setbacks?
Ms. Stewart: The rear yard setbacks would be maintained at the 15 feet. The proposed lot sizes would vary from 5,700
square feet up to 8,361 square feet. Lot widths would range from 60 to 70 feet.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And this varies from the RS code requirements?
Ms. Stewart: That's correct. This would be under the alternative standards, PRD alternative requests, consistent with
ECDC 20.35.030. The criteria for allowing these alternatives relates to the proposal's conceptual landscape plan, which is
providing more landscaping and greater buffering from the adjacent areas. Efficient and safe circulation, the proposed new
neighborhood collector terminating in a cul-de-sac is proposed to be a 50-foot right-of-way, and this would serve the 27 new
homes and meet public safety requirements without significantly affecting the existing traffic patterns in the area.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And the internal street structure is a 50-foot wide right-of-way, inclusive of sidewalk, planter strips,
design, or ...
Ms. Stewart: I believe so, but I might let Patrick answer that. Would you like the answer right now, or ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yeah, Go ahead. Step up to the microphone. Basically, Ms. Stewart mentioned that the internal
road system would be a 50-foot right-of-way. Is that inclusive of the design standards? Is that 50-foot right-of-way inclusive
of the sidewalk, planter areas, how is the City street design standards for this residential.
Mr. McGrady: Yes, all of the public improvements to it would include sidewalks and the curbs and any buffer area that
would be between the curbing and sidewalk. That would all be within the City's right-of-way, yes.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And I did note while you were standing up there, I did note that in the file there was reference to
on -street parking, specifically made available within the plat; 14 parallel parking spots. I am unsure exactly where those
parking locations were, you know whatever I'm missing.
Mr. McGrady: I know what you're referencing, but I can't tell you off the top of my head exactly where they're located.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can you tell me what document that you're looking at?
Mr. McGrady: I'm looking at Sheet 105 of the preliminary plat. Yes, that same one. And, if you look along the edge of the
roadway, that borders Lots 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, so they're all on the inside of that U shape. That's the area of the
parking.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And that will be designated as a parking area there?
Mr. McGrady: Yes.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 6
Packet Page 216 of 303
Ms. Stewart: We are reviewing criteria for establishing alternative development standards. Next, is architectural design,
which we've already discussed. The Architectural Board ahs recommended approval of this project, the proposal, finding
that the proposed residence would meet the criteria. Regarding exterior setbacks, they are proposed to be maintained within
enhanced landscaping consistent with the landscaping plan. Reduced visual impact, the utility lines will be buried consistent
with ECDC 18.05. The landscaped and open spaces would also serve to reduce visual impacts.
Ms. Stewart: The next criteria is preservation of natural features. The majority of the existing significant trees will be
preserved in a common open space.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Would that be dedicated to homeowners in this location?
Ms. Stewart: Correct. In a little bit, I will talk about the open space and recreation components of this proposal. Open
space will be used in a couple of different ways. The next criteria is reduction of impervious surfaces. Minimization of the
road area and building footprints by the clustering would result in the overall reduction of impervious area for the proposed
development as compared to a standard subdivision. So with that, staff believes that all the PRD alternative standards
approval criteria have been met.
Ms. Stewart: Next, turning to decision criteria for PRD's, ECDC 20.35.050, and I am in the Staff Report, Page 12, for those
who are following along. The PRD needs to be consistent with five decision criteria. The staff, in doing our evaluation,
found that Criteria 3, Criteria 1, and Criteria 5 are met by this proposal. Criteria 1 relates to the Architectural Design Board's
review of the proposal for compliance with 20.35.060 in the code, calling for design review of these single-family projects.
Criteria 3 is met by the proposal, including two shared driveways, and Criteria 5 is met with the existing growth of large trees
in the northeast corner of the site that would be set aside as open space. That was the design criteria.
Ms. Stewart: Next are public facilities, and this is proposed residential development, site plan and vicinity map shows that
it's surrounding, in general, on the west and south by existing residential development. There to the southeast is an area
that's a cemetery, Westlawn Memorial Park, I believe it's been named. Immediately adjacent to the east of this subject
property is the old Woodway Elementary School facility, which will eventually be developed into a City park. To the north
of the parcel, on your aerial photo depicted as Parcel B, is a treed area that is not subject to this particular application but does
have existing vegetation.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And would that be an easement area?
Ms. Stewart: Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And it's vegetated, it's not like a transmission line?
Ms. Stewart: No, I'm not aware that there's a transmission line in there when I visited the site. The public facilities are
available in this area because of the existing residential development, so water and sewer, this is an area within the City
limits, so it would be served by public facilities. One thing that would look a little different, perhaps, would be the
underground utility wires in the area.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Is most of the surrounding area now underground or exposed wiring?
Ms. Stewart: I'm not sure. I'm looking at our engineers.
Mr. McGrady: There's a fair amount still overhead.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So it's in the process of being ...
Ms. Stewart: Yeah, new development consistent with the City code now would require undergrounding of the wiring.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 7
Packet Page 217 of 303
Ms. Stewart: The development is proposing to construct a new public roadway with a cul-de-sac, and would be responsible
to contain stormwater on site, as well as provide an active recreation area to serve the residents of the new neighborhood. As
part of their, and they'll probably elaborate on the types of homes that they're planning on constructing, it's described in
some of their materials that they would be energy efficient homes. A perimeter design and enhanced landscape area is
proposed at the entry, as well as along the perimeter to assist in providing separation from the adjacent areas.
Ms. Stewart: Another important criteria for PRD's is to provide open space and recreation. The proposed site plan indicates
the creation of four open space tracts, and Tract C is in the center of the site and this would also be the proposed location for
a future stormwater vault. That would be subgrade, and then above that would be located the active recreation compliment of
the proposed development. A conceptual landscape plan shows that this area would consist of a tot toy, several benches, a
picnic table, and a paved walking area to serve the neighborhood. It would be maintained by the new homeowners
association.
Ms. Stewart: Streets and sidewalks. The proposed PRD subdivision would necessitate construction of a new neighborhood
collector. The development would be served by 5-foot wide sidewalks and, as we already had discussed, 14 on -street parallel
parking spaces in an 8.5-foot width parking lane on just one side of the street. It would terminate at proposed Lot 26, before
it would get into safety considerations of the turnaround for a fire truck in towards the cul-de-sac.
Ms. Stewart: So staff, in reviewing these decision criteria for PRD, have found that the proposal does meet these criteria,
with conditions as recommended by the Engineering Department and the Traffic Engineer.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Are those incorporated in your conditions of approval noted in the Staff Report?
Ms. Stewart: Yes, they are.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Could you point to which ones those are?
Ms. Stewart: It's on Page 3 of the staff recommendation, and I believe it's all of the conditions, with the exception of the
SEPA and MDNS, those conditions are ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You'll come to the MDNS ...
Ms. Stewart: Correct. Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Was there separate documents submitted in the exhibit, because I can see it basically setting forth
from transportation, their recommendations?
Ms. Stewart: Those have been combined in the Staff Report. There is ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: They must have sent an internal memo saying, this is what we recommend as conditions. That's
what I'm looking for.
Ms. Stewart: Right. That's two places. There's Attachment 15 to the Staff Report that are the traffic comments, and then
there's the engineering requirements for plats from the Engineering Department.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: What I have is Exhibit 15, which was submitted to me at a later date. At the original time, it wasn't
available, at time of valing. I have a memorandum from Reid Middleton, with a letter attachment from Transportation
Engineering Northwest.
Ms. Stewart: Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: But I'm not seeing laid out condition conditions, like Condition 1, Condition 2. I'm seeing more
just general comments to responses to public comment that was raised on the traffic issues, and then I've seen a statement
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 8
Packet Page 218 of 303
saying the traffic study's satisfactory. I don't see our conditions of approval are, streets will be designed to City of Edmonds
residential standards, blah, blah, blah.
Ms. Stewart: Where that is detailed is in the Engineering Division Report, which is listed as Attachment 14 to the Staff
Report, which is a matrix. Item 3 lays out the required street improvements, and there's 6 items under Item 3 that are
required to be features of the street engineering for this proposal. Item 4 addresses the requirement for the street turnaround,
in this case a cul-de-sac, to be consistent with adopted City standards. Item 5 addresses sidewalks, and Number 6 addresses
street lights. And then Item 14 does address providing street signs, so it would be contained in that attachment, the
requirements.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Stewart: Uh huh. Then I'm turning to Page 13 of the Staff Report, compliance with the subdivision code, which is
Chapter 20.75 ECDC. I believe there's seven items here that were relevant to this project, or at least needed to be considered.
First of all is the environmental. The critical areas ordinance will ensure that environmental resources are being protected in
the City of Edmonds, and one of the things that we'll certainly be talking about with the SEPA appeal will be the off -site
landslide hazard area that is located on Parcel B of your aerial photo so that EPA easement property. So we're talking off the
northwest corner of this site. The City has asked for the identification of the toe of the slope, and the applicant is proposing a
15-foot setback for that lot, the proposed Lot 11 of the site plan, there would be a 15-foot setback both in the north, as well as
on the west. This would maintain at least a 20-foot setback from the toe of the slope of the identified off -site landslide hazard
area.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Looking at your Exhibit 7 to the Staff Report, I'm seeing that that's your delineation of the toe, that
steep slope here.
Ms. Stewart: That's correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Is that slope sloping towards the property or sloping towards the property...
Ms. Stewart: Sloping towards the property.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So from the toe of the slope, the back property on 11 is 5 feet, correct?
Ms. Stewart: Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay.
Ms. Stewart: And then in further discussion of the environmental subdivision review criteria, the site primarily is a cleared
level site, with existing ball fields. However, on the northerly portion there are some existing trees. The majority of the
mature trees in the northeast comer of the site are proposed to be preserved and set aside in a common open space tract.
Ms. Stewart: Then moving to the criteria of lot and street layout, this requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. Based on review of the PRD code and conformance
with this application to that, each of the lots appear to be buildable. Lot sizes and dimension, because this is a planned
residential development, and I've already addressed the alternative site proposal, alternative standards rather, related to
setbacks and lot sizes and widths. Those are for your consideration and supersede the standard lot size and dimensions and
setbacks that would be consistent with the RS 8000 zone. For dedications and improvements, we're referring to staff
Attachment 14, which is the City Engineer's Report. And flood plain management, the last criteria, the project is not in a
FEMA designated flood plain, so that's not relevant.
Ms. Stewart: So those conclude my comments. If you've got questions at this time, we do have other staff here to address
your concerns and comments.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 9
Packet Page 219 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The State law also requires that every subdivision demonstrate that schools will be addressed,
enhance the schools, safe walking to schools. Will the children be bused to school or walk to school. I'm not aware if the
City of Edmonds collects impact fees for schools.
Ms. Stewart: I'm going to double check with the code on that.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: In general, I need to, for subdivision we have to, regardless of whether you take impact fees or not,
whether provisions have been made for safe walking and student access to schools. So I guess my question is threefold.
Within the Edmonds School District, the nearest elementary school is where, and will the children be bused. If they are being
walked, does 237`h provide a safe walking area for them. If they are bused, where's the bus service. Do they have a safe bus
waiting area. That's not under Edmonds code. That's under State law.
Ms. Stewart: Okay.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So I do need that. If you haven't researched that, I can hold the record open for that specific
submittal, because it is a specific requirement of the State.
Ms. Stewart: Okay. I will need to submit that at a later time.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. So we will note that at the close of the record to hold that ... The one thing I didn't notice
in the exhibits that were provided, which I also like to have, is affidavit of notice of this public hearing, so that I can make
sure it's done within the allocated, I believe that Edmonds Code has 10 days prior to the public hearing. Do we have any
affidavit of posting, let's see posting, publication, mailing to I believe it is 300, maybe 500 feet, whatever your code.
Ms. Cunningham: I don't have that with me, but I will provide them.
Ms. Stewart: So we will provide that information. We did comply with those requirements.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: But you're testifying that you provided publication, posting and mailing 10 days prior to the
hearing.
Ms. Cunningham: Yes.
Ms. Stewart: We do.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. I just wanted clarity with you, because just how the lines are drawn, Lot 3 will gain access
from the cul-de-sac, itself, and not from the shared driveway of 1 and 2, correct?
Ms. Stewart: That's correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: This looks like the line almost cuts across, but it's kind of dashed. They will access that way?
Ms. Stewart: That's my interpretation is that they will have a long driveway. So the share driveways that I was referring to
would serve Lots 1 and 2 in the proposed site plan, and ...
Ms. Stewart: On the proposed preliminary plat PRD site plan, the shared driveways are shown to serve in the southeast
corner, Lots 1 and 2, and then in the northwest corner, Lots 11 and 12.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And I did see ... You made a statement, both in your staff report and in your presentation, that
adequate public services were available, specifically in regard to public sewer and water, which is being served by Olympic
View Water and Sewer District, as noted on your plat map. Do you have a letter of availability from this jurisdiction that
they have the capability to provide water and sewer to the area and at a rate that would meet Edmonds....
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 10
Packet Page 220 of 303
Ms. Stewart: I do have a letter from the Snohomish Public Utility District regarding providing electricity to the plat, but I'm
not aware that the other agencies, other service providers, have actually commented. They have been sent the materials, and
we'll need to follow up on that. So you're interested specifically ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Usually, in most jurisdictions I work, the purveyor of water and sewer will provide a letter, an
actual certificate, that they have the capability to serve this development at the time of development. Just so that we know for
sure they can do it. And it could be a simple letter on their letterhead that says we have the ability to serve the 27-lot plat at
the time of development.
Ms. Stewart: Okay. That could be something that the applicant has acquired. In our engineering requirements for the plat,
it was noted that they do need to meet the requirements of Olympic View Water and Sewer District for connection to public
water and sewer. But I understand you are asking for a letter of service availability...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: From the agency, actually the purveyors, that they do have the availability of it. Just so that we
have something in the record that makes them aware of it. There's a question on the PRD requirements in regards to the
reduced proposed lot sizing. In a cursory review of the code, I noticed that one of the parameters, too, was that they were
similar to the surrounding lot developments, nothing too far off. In the Staff Report you made reference, I believe it was in
your Staff Report, but I read a lot of documents yesterday, that the surrounding area is primarily larger than 8,000 square foot
lots. So I guess can you just touch on how you feel that 5,700 to 8,300 square foot lots sizes and the narrowing widths would
be compatible to the surrounding character of the neighborhood?
Ms. Stewart: Yes. Two comments on that. One is that the majority of the lots that are proposed under 6,000 square feet are
in the northern area, so it would not be immediately adjacent to a developed residential property. In addition, that is part of
the rationale for requiring additional landscaping in maintaining that 15-foot setback along the perimeter of the development
to ensure compatibility.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. I wondered if you could try to touch on briefly the stormwater drainage design. My review
shows that it's going to be an underground tank, underground vault, in Tract C, and that everything will be a catch basin
designed to close that area with a water quality separator, as in two points in your stormwater here, public works...
Ms. Chesterfield: Yes, I'm Glen Chesterfield. I'm the stormwater program manager. When I looked at that, it was in a
preliminary state. I looked like they were going to have three point drains in the bottom of the vault. But again, this is all
preliminary so ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: But you will agree that right now, the preliminary draft shows the storm drainage is to go to Tract C
in an underground vault?
Mr. Chesterfield: Yes.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And all the street runoff will be collected and moved to that single facility?
Mr. Chesterfield: Yes.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And where the drains will be ...
Mr. Chesterfield: The last time I looked at it, it looked like the roof and footing drains were going to go to that facility, as
well.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Has the applicant addressed the hazard area in their design?
Mr. Chesterfield: Yes.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Given the topography and soil drainage of that land, will that one catch basin or one drainage
facility be sufficient?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 11
Packet Page 221 of 303
Mr. Chesterfield: Yes. The soil types are consistent with a system that should be able to infiltrate fairly rapidly.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, great. Thank you. Anything else you want to add at this time, Ms. Stewart?
Ms. Stewart: Not at this time.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, we will go ahead and move to the applicant's side of the room. You can do your
presentation however you would like, whether you want to fill in some of the blanks, respond to some of the questions or
concerns that have been raised...
Ms. Brown: Tiffany Brown, Burnstead Construction, representing the applicant. First of all, I agree with Karen's
description of the project. I think she did a very good job; I think it was very thorough, so I have no objections. We read
through the Staff Report, we understand the Staff Report, and we have no objections to complying with the Staff Report and
the conditions and recommendations involved.
Ms. Brown: There were a couple of questions that came up during Karen's presentation. One of them was the water and
sewer letter. That was submitted with our application. It was on the utilities consortium form that's required as part of the
City of Edmonds application. We met with the Olympic View Water and Sewer District, in which we received project
numbers, and those were also put on the form so that they are aware of it, and they gave us availability of the utilities.
Ms. Brown: The second item that I remember is the school letter, which we will look into and we'll figure why it's not part
of the record now. We'll have to leave that open and get that to you, but we are aware of it and understand what needs to be
part of it.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Have you had any communications with the school so far?
Ms. Brown: I have had communications. I'm aware that there are no impact fees, but exactly where the approval is at, I do
not know. More importantly, I understand that there are a few people in the community that have questions and concerns
regarding this plat, and so I have everybody here that I can think of. Hopefully, we can answer some questions and get
everything straightened out and move forward. With that, that is all I have to say.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can you fill me in on the stormwater design. Is it still slated for Tract C as it reads in the
documentation right now? At one point there was a potential to do joint drainage with the City of Edmonds on the other
parcel that has existing structures on it, but that seems to have been abandoned, that idea.
Ms. Brown: It had not been abandoned. What we have tried to do is show that we can stand alone by ourselves so that we
understand that we can take care of our own impacts. However, we are very open in working with the City in trying to come
to terms, if its workable, on creating a joint facility should they choose to do so. But we wanted to make sure that our site
first complied with the code. That's where we are now, and in that plan that you have in front of you, it's underneath the
park in a vault.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Underneath where you have the tot lot?
Ms. Brown: That is correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: That active rec area. In the far northern corner where there's the tree preservation area, let's call it,
and you have a rockery that's going along Lot 17, is this a grading aspect?
Ms. Brown: That's correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Would there be any delineation or separation of that tract or a description that would be fencing and
signage that that says it's an open space preservation area? Is anything like that proposed for that area to preserve it in more
it's current state?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 12
Packet Page 222 of 303
Ms. Brown: I'm unaware of any City code that requires a split rail fence to protect the treed area, but we would have no
objection to putting that up should they choose to request that.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, great. Do you have anything else to ...
Ms. Brown: No.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay.
Mr. Lutz: Can we reserve response to the statements of the appellants?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yes, don't worry. Actually, before we move to the appellant section of this, though, I do want to
give members of the public who are specifically addressing the plat concerns, themselves, not in support or opposition for the
appeal of the SEPA documentation, the environmental analysis, but if you have questions or concerns for the City, for the
applicant, in direct relation to the design, to the subdivision, itself, this is not an opportunity to address any concerns that
were raised by the appellant. If anybody wants to give public testimony on that aspect, they could go ahead and take the
microphone. At this point, how I usually run the meeting, it is a question and answer period, so if you have questions in
regards to the proposal or questions I can answer, ask them and I will address them to either the City or the applicants to
answer the questions so that you can get your concerns addressed and see how their designing it. Hopefully, it might
alleviate some of the concerns that you have. So is anybody wanting to speak on that? Why don't we start in the back corner
and move on. So when you come to the podium, once again, state your name and your address.
Mr. Miller: My name is Richard Miller. Address is 23623 — 107th Place West in Edmonds. Our home borders the
Burnstead property; we are located on the west side adjacent to lot, I think it's 11 or so, I just looked through the material
now, so I ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. It's 10
Mr. Miller: I support all the concerns that have been raised in these appeals. In particularly, I'm concerned about water
drainage in the area. This entire area has a long history of very poor drainage, not just in the installed street systems, but on
the current baseball fields, themselves. Particularly during heavy rains, I don't know if you are aware of it, but there's a ditch
and a drainage area to the very northwest portion of that property. Those areas fill up or become near filled during the very
heavy rains, and I'm very concerned about what will be done in the grading process. Will the homes that will be adjacent to
ours on the left side force water into our yards. I would ask that you and/or the City require that the elevation of that property
not be raised at all at this point so there's no impact of water draining into the adjacent homes.
Mr. Miller: Second, this is a more minor point, but just reading through the material quickly, I noticed there was the
determination that no views have been obstructed. I would take issue with that. We've lived there for 26 years, and one of
the main reasons we purchased that home was to be able to look out across those fields and enjoy the open space and the
trees, and that is going to be entirely decimated and the view is going to be probably at the side or back of a house, and that's
a significant change. I would ask you to consider all of those issues raised in the appeals very carefully.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: For the applicant, in response to that question, both in your grading design for the property and,
once again, in your stormwater drainage, the site is relatively flat, as I understand it now. So how much grading, I think I
saw 20,000 cubic yards.... I'll have the Nicole, the civil engineer, look for an answer to this technical detail of drainage.
Yes please.
Ms. Hernandez: Nicole Hernandez, with the Blueline Group. First, I would just like to, I guess, address Mr. Miller's
question or concern about drainage.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Now, I'm using as reference Sheets 3 and 5, which is labeled preliminary cut and fill grading plan.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 13
Packet Page 223 of 303
Ms. Hernandez: Okay. Yes, we will be utilizing a catch basin and conveyance system to collect the stormwater from the
new street. That will all be conveyed into, I believe, Tract C, is the tract letter. That will go into an open bottom infiltration
vault that will also incorporate some point drains that will be approximately 20 feet deep to allow the stormwater to get to the
soils that are very conducive to infiltration and should help alleviate some of the, I guess, the neighbors concerns about the
current site not having good drainage. The existing ball fields that are out there now are heavily compacted soils, and you
know, are almost kind of act as impervious surfaces because of the compaction. I think that's why some of the drainage
issues are coming about now.
Ms. Hernandez: To address your question, and also Mr. Miller's question about grading, we're not proposing very much
grading for the site. The cut and fill quantities that you had mentioned from our temporary erosion control and grading plan
are predominantly from the excavation of the infiltration vault, and just minor excavation of unsuitable soils and things like
that. We're not proposing to really raise the site, except for a little bit along the western boundary, where there is an existing
storm drainage type swale there, just to kind of level out the lots along that western boundary.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: In the corner western area, would grading be done to level with the adjacent properties, or would
you be grading away a little bit?
Ms. Hernandez: Just kind of filling in that swale area is primarily the grading we're going to be doing there. Then also, the
other grading would be adjacent to the open space tract that contains the trees, which is why we have the rockery there.
Currently, that portion of the site is higher than the rest of the site, and that's why we have the rockery along there.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And your storm drainage system is designed for a 100-year flood, a 100-year storm event.
Ms. Hernandez: Yes, it's designed to meet the City's stormwater code.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Which I'm assuming is a 100-year storm event.
Mr. Chesterfield: Yes.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, anything else?
Ms. Hernandez: No, unless you had additional questions.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, that's all for now. Thank you.
Ms. Brown: My soils engineer is also here. He was no here when we did the swearing in, so that will need to be done. I
asked him to share information specifically on infiltration and the reasons behind the direct complaints from the nearby
neighbors about groundwater puddling, and I would like him to speak now.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You want to come the podium and raise your right hand, and we can go ahead and swear you in.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth?
Mr. Kindrid: I do.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And can you give us your name?
Mr. Kindrid: My name is Scott Kindrid, and I'm with Associated Earth Sciences.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: What can you tell us about the soils on this site. I remember in the soils report, you did a couple,
six or seven, exploration pits.
Mr. Kindrid: Yeah, we did a number of exploration pits and conducted infiltration testing on three of those. And the soils
that were encountered in the six pits were what we refer to as advanced outwash, which is a combination of gravel and sand,
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 14
Packet Page 224 of 303
with a trace of silt. These soils were relatively consistent across the site, at least in the general grouping, the percentages of
gravel and sand do vary in different types and in different locations.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Just so I have my records clear. The results of your testing were submitted as being an attachment
to Exhibit 5, which was the storm drainage report. There's a letter dated February 13, 2007.
Mr. Kindrid: That's correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It was authored by you, no it was authored by Frank Walker.
Mr. Kindrid: Frank and myself and Curtis are all on design. Frank is a geologist, and he mostly did the field explorations
and wrote up the geological descriptions. I wrote up the engineering sections of the report.
Mr. Kindrid: As I was saying, we also conducted three infiltration tests. Again, the results were relatively consistent in
those three tests. The soils fall into a category of what I would call moderately permeable. The one element that I want to
touch on are the point drains in the infiltration facility and the advantage of those drains as they allow the water to get deep
into the subsurface and bypass any layers that may be impermeable near the surface. It provides essentially a better
infiltration condition than the existing ground surface.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Anything else?
Mr. Kindrid: It's probably just a general summary, and I would be happy to address any questions you might have.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I don't at this time, but we may come up with some more for you later.
Mr. Kindrid: Okay.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, other members of the public. Who would like to speak now?
Mr. Clarke: Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Clarke, C L A R K E, and I'm a resident at 23924 — 1071h Place West. I
live in the southwesterly most home in Woodway Meadows, which is the adjacent subdivision. I'm here representing myself,
although I think I represent the neighbors who live at the south end of 107t Place West, which is a cul-de-sac. As a way of
background and disclosure, I think it's fair that I disclose that in a professional capacity, I have represented the City. I am a
state certified general real estate appraiser, I have the ?? designation. In my professional capacity, I have analyzed
subdivisions such as proposed here at the subject property, as well as a wide variety of mixed -use properties and complex
commercial developments. I understand the public process we're going through; I understand your challenge. I also
understand the challenge the developer's going through with the development timelines and obtaining grandfathering and
permits through the City.
Mr. Clarke: I've been impressed with the developer's public meetings and working with the public on addressing issues. I
am not opposed to this development; that's not the purpose of my being here. I have concern that if this project is approved
as proposed, there's no guarantee that some of the efforts to work with the City with respect to some issues associated with
stormwater drainage and traffic and signage to the development with, indeed, be worked out through the parties. So let me
give you a little background. I've lived in this neighborhood since 1984, and I hate to admit that in second grade I attended
the elementary school that's currently closed. I've lived here all my life.
Mr. Clarke: The house that I currently live in is at the south end of the subdivision, and as this stormwater study indicates
presently the stormwater system carries water through 107`h Place West southward and it enters into a catch basin that's at my
driveway and then runs through an easement across my property to the current vault that's located behind my property in an
emergency access lane that's about 20 feet wide. Every year since we have lived there, several times a year, the cul-de-sac
floods to the point where at least a half dozen residents are unable to get into our homes, and two of the residents, our
property and Mr. Feltman, the adjacent land owner to the east of me, our properties flood significantly to where there's
significant damage that's created, even to the point where the water goes into his home.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 15
Packet Page 225 of 303
Mr. Clarke: We have been working with the City of Edmonds since our annexation to this area in 1995 to fix this
stormwater problem, and they have been very diligent in trying everything to fix this problem, which included creating and
installing a new underground storage vault in an excess right-of-way that is off 107th Place West. It still continues to flood,
and the reality is, and Mr. Don Fiene is who we have been working with, he's acknowledged to our neighborhood that our
system has failed. The drainage system in our current subdivision that services over 50 homes has failed. It's important to
note that this system connects to 237`h and 104`h, which is where the elementary school is right now. So all of the water that
comes from the east drains down to a large culvert or catch basin right there at the corner of 237`h and 104`h. It's at the
northwest corner of that intersection. That incurs a significant flooding problem throughout the year.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: As I understand the presentation both by the City and the applicant, the storm water runoff is rated
by the parcel as flowing down towards your parcel as I see on a map within Exhibit 5 as showing the drainage pattern
currently existing on the property would be eliminated because the stormwater that's being generated by the parcel, itself,
would not be retained and infiltrated within. It should no longer be impacting the downstream flow from the property.
Mr. Clarke: I don't believe that's true. Part of the issue is when Woodway Meadows was originally platted through
Snohomish County.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Which is the residential area you live in?
Mr. Clarke: Correct. We were in unincorporated Snohomish County. My particular lot was preserved as a drainage
wetland area for this entire community because of the drainage issues that have occurred for years and years and years. This
was a gravel pit. This whole area was. And Woodway Meadows Subdivision was created on excess cemetery land to the
west and to the north. The playfields at the elementary school have over the years been improved, but this entire area has had
a drainage problem. After a period of time, which was less than 24 months, the developer went back to Snohomish County
and said, just like this study, gee, it's dry, there's no problems, and they obtained approval to build on that wetland area,
which is where my house is right now. And so this neighborhood, this whole community, including the elementary school,
has suffered from some type of underground water migration or some type of drainage issue where the water has never been
able to absorb into the soils and be able to dissipate through the neighborhood.
Mr. Clarke: There's never been a study done that I've ever seen, either by the City or any other agency, that addresses this
issue. I understand how the vault is proposed, and you've referenced the exhibit where it shows the off drain flow, but that
drain flow comes 107t". It comes right down to my house.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I see that you're in the corner and that's where ...
Mr. Clarke: And the issue is, when this property was owned by the school district, the City promised the neighbors that
they would work with the school district to create a vault at the front of the subdivision, our subdivision, which is on the park
property, to alleviate this whole problem so we don't have the easterly flow of stormwater and we don't have the problem
with our failed system. We stop it before it comes into our system. All I'm asking is, and the developers indicated that they
would do this, that we would work with the City to make sure that this is cured. Because if it's not, the neighbors of his
subdivision, at that cul-de-sac, have no choice but to initiate some type of legal action because of the diminishing value
associated with this stormwater problem that we will have to disclose if we sell our homes. And it's a real problem, and we
fight it. Right now, there are times of the year where ambulance, a fire truck, a police car, they can't get down there to
service. If somebody's having a heart attack, they couldn't get in there. We can't even get into our homes without hiking
across each other's yards to get to our front doors.
Mr. Clarke: It's a real problem, so I have made this a priority with the City. They've seen photographs that have been
entered into the City Council meetings. Again, Mr. Fiene has been really good at working with us, but there's been no
representation in any of these reports presented to you today by either the City or the applicant, the seriousness of this issue.
In fact, if you actually read the one report, it talks about ponding or pooling. I think that is a very mild understatement. But I
recognize that, as professionals, we go out and make our field views, and they did this on December 8, 2006, and it could be
a dry day and they didn't interview anybody to find out what the issues are. So that's really important. Do you have any
questions of me on that?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 16
Packet Page 226 of 303
Mr. Clarke: The next issue is the traffic study. The traffic study only focuses on two intersection points. One is 237th and
104th and the other is Firdale Way and 237th or 100th and 237th, which is the intersection to the east because that's a signalized
intersection.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm showing 237`h, 238th, 100th, and 104th.
Mr. Clarke: 100th and 238th that's the easterly signalized intersection where the current Woodway Mini Mart, used to be a
Texaco Gas Station, is, and the small little clinic. And then to the west of that is the intersection of 237th and 104th. Okay.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So you're saying the report only addresses those two because I have four intersections evaluated.
Mr. Clarke: You only have two intersections.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I have four, at 104th and 237th. I have 104th and 238th. I have ...
Mr. Clarke: 104th and 238th and 104th and 237th are the same intersection, basically. I mean, they're 25 feet apart. They are
separate intersections, but they handle ... Three intersections. The problem that we have suffered with as neighbors, and we
have been working with the City on this, and it's still a continued problem, in on 237th currently from 104th westerly to the
very entrance point of the proposed subdivision entrance point, on the other side of that street, there are no parking signs. As
the Women's Tennis Club, which is located just east of the intersection of 238th and 104th, you can see it on your map, and as
the park uses its property, the excess demand for parking spills into this street and people illegally park on this street, even to
the point of parking on that bend, which is right where the access point is for this proposed subdivision. Right now, there's a
blind spot that's created by the S configuration of the road on 237th where if you were going eastbound on 237th towards
100, you cannot see the oncoming traffic if they're traveling at a speed limit that's typical, which is about 25 miles per hour.
When roadside parking occurs on that location, it creates real safety issues, and we have not been able to solve this problem
as residents because most of these people come from outside of our area. These are not neighbors who live in the
neighborhood; these are people who are coming to use the park or to use it as spill over parking for either the Klahaya Tennis
Club or if there's a soccer game up there, like in the fall when soccer occurs up there and you have one team playing, or two
teams playing and two teams waiting, it is just a parking lot within the parking lot and in the public street. It's a real public
problem. Unfortunately, as neighbors, when we ask people to move, we get all kinds of nasty comments to us and gestures
and statements. It's a real frustrating problem.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: But won't the developer's proposal actually cure that problem?
Mr. Clarke: No, because what they ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Since the overflow parking onto the street is generated by soccer and the ball fields themselves,
there is a good chance that removing those will, in fact, cure the parking problems associated with off -site parking.
Mr. Clarke: There will be a park created on the easterly portion of the school, which now has a building on it.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And is there not on -site parking there?
Mr. Clarke: That is filled up.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Because of the use of soccer and ...
Mr. Clarke: So now people overfill the proposed park, which we haven't seen the plan yet. So we don't know what the
park is going to be yet. So we don't know what type of use is going to be generated and what the parking demand is going to
be.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: But we're looking at the development impacts of this proposal, and we're not looking at the
development impacts of what the City may plan on doing with their park. We're looking at ... My decision is based on
impacts generated by this facility here.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 17
Packet Page 227 of 303
Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that, but the traffic study has to recognize the existing uses that are adjacent to the neighborhood
that generate traffic both in and out of the neighborhood and the traffic generated by the proposed development. The access
point that's currently proposed is right on the bend, so you're going to adding more cars dumping onto a street that is already
congested because the majority of the homes in Woodway Meadows are west of that access point. So we're talking 50 some
homes that are flowing easterly; there's only one way to go in and out of our subdivision. And so now we're dumping in 27
new homes from the north coming into that bend, and I think it's going to be a problem. I think it's going to be a major
problem, particularly on weekends and nights when the recreation occurs. If they have a soccer field at the park, you haven't
eliminated the soccer field. The problem is still there except you've eliminated parking. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Unless you can visualize how this has operated for years and years and years, it's really hard to get the flow of ... But
you're doing well.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I understand the parking issues related to soccer and baseball; I experience those.
Mr. Clarke: And the Klahaya Women's Tennis Club which is down there, which is a private club. But more importantly, I
really am concerned about that ingress and egress point being on the bend. I really believe if the developer and the City and
the community would work together, I think there could be a great win/win created of redirecting how their entrance point
comes onto that street, 237th, with working lands that will not diminish the number of units they have, the open park area in
the northeast corner of this site. For example, part of that park area that is there, that they have set aside in the northeast
corner of their site, that's their private property. If that was exchanged with the City of Edmonds portion that is next to their
proposed driveway; so the City gives them part of the park property, their park property comes part of the park property.
You could reconfigure that just a little bit east and it won't be a problem.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Just because it's not on the bend.
Mr. Clarke: That's right. More importantly, the gentleman who lives across the street from that proposed driveway, he is a
disabled individual. Though you wouldn't know it, but he is confined to a wheel chair, and he is on that sidewalk more than
any of us doing gardening and working in the neighborhood and community. It's just an unsafe condition, and I think there
are solutions if we work together. But I understand that the developer wants to get their project permitted and grandfathered
and moving forward so they can make their timetable. But I think this could be really looked at in a meeting or two, and it
could be just a real win/win. So that traffic issue, the study does not address the fact that they single ingress and egress point
to that proposed subdivision is on the bend, and I don't believe the current City of Edmonds zoning code would allow a 27-
lot loop to be built on the bend if there was any other place that they could put the access point. The way the property was
sold and divided, that's the only point because there's private property to the west. It's bordered all the way by private
property, well the park, and they can't access their subdivision northward because of the easement, but also because of the
configuration of 104th that has that sharp bend at the north end of the school property.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: On the residential development on the other side of the easement.
Mr. Clarke: That's right. When Echelbarger looked at creating the development points for Woodway Meadows to begin
with, they looked at various access points, and that was one of the points that they looked at. Snohomish County wouldn't
allow them to have access up there.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: We're not dealing with Snohomish County. We're dealing with the City of Edmonds right now.
Mr. Clarke: I realize that, but it's a physical issue. And then you have the legal issue of the private property owners that
surround the property. I empathize with the developer only having a single ingress and egress point. You couldn't have
designed the subdivision any other way to have vehicles go in and out, but I think we can be flexible if we really look at it.
Mr. Clarke: Obviously, the next issue, and I really like their signage at the front, their entrance is very attractive. I love
their subdivisions; they do quality work. But I am a little bit concerned. I know there is a setback. There's a landscape area
to the monument signage that's proposed, and the monument signage is very attractive. But I think it may create a blind spot
for those who are coming out of there to see the traffic that's going eastbound on 237th. I think by moving that to the east and
doing that land swap kind of an idea, it may take away that problem. So that's that area.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 18
Packet Page 228 of 303
Mr. Clarke: Next, though I'm not an expert, my kids went to the school, I can tell you where the elementary school is and
the sidewalk capacity and where they go. Sherwood Elementary School services this area, and it's located directly north of
the proposed subdivision. Currently, the access road that provides vehicle access to that school features a black top sidewalk
on the west side of the street. Kids have the choice of walking to the school, or they can catch the bus at the front or at the
old elementary school site, which is at 237"' and 104`h. There's also a middle school bus stop at that location, and it's been
there for years and years and years. So it's serviced well, the kids walk, Sherwood Elementary has adequate capacity for the
kids, so this isn't going to pose a burden or any kind of an issue.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Anything else?
Mr. Clarke: Yeah, finally, I want it to be clear that I'm not opposing the project. I think there's some enhancements that
could make it really a quality improvement for all of us and then also alleviate this drainage issue that we've been struggling
with for almost two decades now. That's my comments.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, great. Since we have kind of a question and answer period going here, asking the applicant
or the City, however, best you feel, once again on the drainage aspect of it, if you can address some of those concerns that
were raised. Also, on the traffic study, specifically the site distance on that bend for safe ingress and egress of vehicles,
which also, I guess, will be in conjunction with the monument site blockage problem that you might address. So I think
that's really the two things: stormwater aspects again and traffic, the traffic study. Do you have a transportation engineer
here?
Ms. Stewart: No, he isn't here. He's on vacation.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Thank you Mr. Clarke. Specifically his concerns seem to be primarily on the parking on 2371h and
the impact on site distance and relative safety there. I think you could address the monument sign, as well.
Mr. McGrady: My name is Patrick McGrady and I appreciate Mr. Clarke's comments; they're very insightful. Indeed,
when the studies were done you go out and observe the conditions. When you have a snapshot of the conditions that you use
in your analysis, issues like the illegal parking for events is not always obvious. So I appreciate that. Having been to the site,
I can see that, indeed the parking on that side of the road would impair a driver's vision as you come around the roadway on
237'b. Okay, when they're looking at the driveway being on the bend, or a curb, typically, the issue with the access points is
indeed sight lines, sight distance, so you can see left and right and see sufficient distance down the roadway in order to see if
I have a safe gap in traffic or not. Typically, when it's on the outside of the bend on this one, and the roadway is curving,
you know, it typically enhances that sight line somewhat, depending on how share the bend is. If the bend is considerably
sharp, then what gave you a benefit initially can turn into a detriment. I can see that with that illegal parking, that would
indeed impair that sight line there. In the same manner for that sight line, the monument would have to be in consideration as
to high that could be and where it is located to ensure that that doesn't impair it as well. That's a good point.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Does the City have standards in regards to subdivision monument signs having any interference
with sight lines, to be setback, height limitation, vegetation limitation, etc.
Mr. McGrady: What would be used is the standard AASHTO requirements for sight lines, and that is just ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And I believe the traffic study, the traffic engineer did analyze the sight lines, comparing them to
the actual standards of how that, given the illegal parking aspect of it, that curvage of the road met with actual standards.
Mr. McGrady: That's correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It actually exceed actual standards, if I remember.
Mr. McGrady: That was one of the items in the field, myself, that I measured out to see that it was within the sign
standards.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 19
Packet Page 229 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Although you did not prepare the transportation study, in your role with the City, I assume you
reviewed it.
Mr. McGrady: Yes, I did.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And you found that the analysis the transportation engineer developed utilizing the intersections
that they did utilize for the study, the number of intersections, and the alignment of those intersections. And their analysis
was up to typical standards for developing the study. In other words, you evaluated enough intersections...
Mr. McGrady: Yes, I looked at that as far as content, methodology and conclusions of the analysis. The number of
intersections that were selected was a result of the preparer of the study meeting with the City prior to doing the study.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So in conjunction, the City and the traffic engineer that developed the study basically concurred on
which intersections he/she should be basing the opinion and the study on?
Mr. McGrady: The study was based upon the guidance of the City.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. And just while we're on traffic studies, 260 daily trips and either with or without the
proposed project, it looks like the level of service would maintain an A or B standard.
Mr. McGrady: Yes, there's considerable reserve capacity in there. And part of that, too, is the main roadway's a free
flowing roadway and those side streets are still getting sufficient gaps. So yes, there is a good deal of capacity left.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Is 237th also classified as a residential collector, or is that an arterial?
Mr. McGrady: I would be very surprised if that's an arterial. I don't believe so. I would have to look on the City's map to
answer that, but I would not expect it to be an arterial, not at all, since it is a contained community. When I went through it, I
looked and drove through all those roads, and I counted 59 homes currently on there.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The classification of the internal street and the plat is a residential collector if I remember hearing
right?
Mr. McGrady: I don't have an answer.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I am assuming it would be since it is dumping into a bigger neighborhood collector, but what your
street classifications are, I'm not sure.
Mr. McGrady: Okay.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. And so in response to the drainage issues.
Ms. Brown: Can I further add to the traffic component?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Sure.
Ms. Brown: Two issues. Let me make sure that I have everything here. One of the questions was the fact that the
intersections weren't four but two because of the relative proximity. A comment from my engineer, and you do have these as
part of our response, as well. But I would like to read it for the record. We would agree that the intersections of 238th Street
Southwest and 100th Avenue Northeast are non standard and that they're closely spaced, but they operate in coordination.
Our traffic analysis evaluated these intersections using standard engineering practice during, and were based on weekday pm
peak hour conditions.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can you tell me what letter you are referencing, which document?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 20
Packet Page 230 of 303
Ms. Brown: This is in our response to you from our attorney.
Mr. McGrady: It's dated June 8th
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The June I Ph letter?
Ms. Brown: June 81h. It would be in our response to the appeal that was sent to you, let's see...
Mr. McGrady: It's Exhibit D.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Exhibit B?
Mr. McGrady: D as in Delta. D as in Dog.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, I see it.
Ms. Brown: So I would like to just make sure that you knew that we took ... This is also handled in the appeal, so I
suppose these are a lot of the same answers that would be given, so I wanted to make sure that you understood that we
addressed these and took them seriously when the neighbors mentioned them to begin with.
Ms. Brown: The second item was, in fact, the AASHTO requirements. AASHTO requires 200 feet of stopping sight
distance and 335 feet of entering sight distance for a 30-mile per hour design speed onto 237th Place Southwest. Field
measured sight distance onto 237th are estimated to be approximately 350 feet to the southwest and 485 feet to the east, both
of which exceed AASHTO minimum sight distance requirements. So we did understand their concern about sight distance,
and we did do the study to verify that we exceeded AASHTO requirements.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And that's part of the traffic study?
Ms. Brown: Yes, that's on Page 18 of the traffic study.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And it's also noting on there, too, is traffic impact fees due to the City in the amount of $20,699.44.
Ms. Brown: Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Based on the City's impact fee rate?
Ms. Brown: Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay.
Ms. Brown: The last concern that Mr. Clarke mentioned was the monument into the entry of the subdivision and Burnstead
Construction's monument must abide by the building setbacks. I have not personally read the Edmonds City Code on sign
permitting, but that is something that we understand, and it cannot obstruct views as you come out onto 237"'
Ms. Brown: Should I speak on behalf of the drainage while I am up here?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: If you want to, or you could let your consultant.
Ms. Brown: I'll take a stab at it, and then if you would like to add, please let me know. We understand Mr. Clarke's
concern on the flooding. We did a downstream analysis. Unfortunately, when we went to the City to obtain the records on
what they might have based on his complaints, they didn't have any records available to us. We are putting the vault on our
property, which is in the pathway to the cul-de-sac that he is referring to. We are required, and code is very strict when it
comes to detention standards, to maintain the downstream rates, if not improve the downstream rates. The way we have it
designed, we are not increasing the downstream rates to his property at all, or in that vicinity.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 21
Packet Page 231 of 303
Ms. Brown: Furthermore, I think it's important to note that we are willing to work with the City. However, in case the City
does not develop the park or does whatever they choose to do or doesn't do it in the time that we do ours, we must show that
we can stand alone. And we are detaining the detention water, or detaining the water runoff per code. So I guess I'm not
understanding where we're not meeting code, where people are expressing their concerns. I understand their concerns, but
we're abiding by code, we have met code, and if I'm misunderstanding somebody, I would be more than happy to have my
engineer express more detailed information.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I don't think they're denying that you're probably not meeting code standards for the City. Their
issue was that the code standards for the City aren't apparently rectifying or remedying the problems that existed in the past.
Ms. Brown: Which we feel that we have done the extensive amount of research to show that this will substantially improve
the downstream rate, so that's I guess where, I guess I didn't see somebody disputing the numbers that we have given.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, I didn't see that, as well.
Ms. Brown: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. That's all I have to say.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, good. Mr. Sanderlin, right?
Mr. Sanderlin: Cliff Sanderlin. I'm a co -appellant with Heather Marks. I wanted to just add...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can I get your street address?
Mr. Sanderlin: Oh, I'm sorry. 10522 — 235th Place Southwest, 98020. 1 would like to add something to the very thorough
report from Mr. Clarke, especially about traffic. As he mentioned, there are fluctuations in parking in the area and traffic
fluctuates a lot depending on whether there's a swim meet or whatever happening in the neighborhood. However, no one has
addressed the issue of traffic during the construction of the site. According to the information I have from the City of
Edmonds, approximately 20,000 cubic yards will be graded and there'll be fill. Not knowing exactly where that's going to
housed, I understand from engineering friends that the standard method is to truck all of that off site and store it somewhere
and then bring back an equivalent amount of perhaps better soil, top soil, that sort of thing. If the standard dump truck, I
think is maybe five yards, maybe five cubic yards capacity, that translates to 4,000 trips each way. So there's 8,000 dump
trucks coming and going in the dangerous intersection that Mr. Clarke and others have described.
Mr. Sanderlin: I think that the builder and the City should give serious consideration to the land swap that Mr. Clarke
suggested. I guess it was raised at an earlier date and no one expressed any interest. But it seems like a sensible approach,
and I urge you to take another look at that. Thank you.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Did you want to address the fill, if I remember right, from your temporary erosion control.
The grading was going to be stored on the site and additional fill may be brought in. But the target is to utilize on -site
grading as fill, itself. But you can clarify that if I misspoke what I read.
Ms. Brown: The excavation from the vault area will have to be dispersed, and it's actually 18 yards per truck load; it's not
5, so we're down to 1,100 trips, I guess, for the record. They are very large trucks. I just wanted to make that correction. If
we can disperse and spread over as top soil, we will do so. But if not, that vault area will need to be excavated and taken to
an off -site location. That is how we do construction.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And you haven't determined on your soils analysis whether any of that can be used on site yet
based on soil analysis you've done so far to date?
Ms. Brown: Did we look at what could be dispersed back over on site?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 22
Packet Page 232 of 303
Ms. Hernandez: Well, with our cut and fill, we're trying to balance the site as much as we can, so it's 20,000 cubic yards of
cut and 20,000 cubic yards of fill. So unsuitable material will have to be hauled off site, but we're trying to balance as much
as we can with the grading.
Ms. Brown: So worse case scenario if all 20,000 yards had to be removed, it would be 1,100 truck loads.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And then that's all. Any other public comments in regards to the plat, itself?
Ms. Marks: Some of my testimony will refer to it, but I would rather keep my testimony all in one piece.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: That's fine. We did have somebody in the back. Yes, go ahead. That's you.
Mr. O'Leary: Hello my name is John O'Leary, and I live at 10606, 23l't Street Southwest.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: John O'Leary?
Mr. O'Leary: That's correct. Of course, I've got a whole mess of concerns about this, but I'm going to focus primarily on
two. One is just street lighting. It wasn't very well addressed in the plan. In Attachment 14, Page 1, Number 6 in the
Engineer's Report, it was mentioned, but nothing specific was designed. Also, in the Woodway Elementary Statement of
Compliance, Page 2, Paragraph 2, and that's in Attachment 2, it also wasn't addressed specifically. My concern with that is
that light pollution is definitely an issue in the urban areas and suburban areas, and my hope would be that it would be
designed so that there'd be a minimum of light radiating upwards.
Mr. O'Leary: The other issue is the soil in the area, and this might be something that the gentleman from Associated Earth
Sciences may wish to address. But he described the soil as advanced outwash, and my understanding is that would most
likely be considered Vashon Advanced Outwash, is that correct?
Mr. Kindrid: Probably yes.
Mr. O'Leary: Yeah, and I believe that that would be the same aquifer that is recharged for Deer Creek, which is the primary
water source for Olympic View Water and Sewer. In Attachment 5, Page 5, which was the stormwater drainage report, they
did not design for a very significant storm event and a lot of materials, let's see, I believe the number was around 65%, would
be filtered out that would go into that aquifer. Anyway, so that is also a concern if we're channeling street runoff directly
into that aquifer. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So you testimony is that there's an aquifer that underlies the property?
Mr. O'Leary: I would expect so, yes. I mean, I am certainly not an authority. I haven't had a chance to look at a lot of well
logs, and there aren't a lot of well logs for the area, at least that I've found.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And then, just for the record, I'm seeing an Exhibit 5, Page 5, that you denoted, the design is for a
100-year storm event, and the water quality analysis, using the vortex system, is at 80% or greater sediment removal into the
system.
Mr. O'Leary: Okay, so I misspoke on the 65%, 80%.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: 64% is the water quality design ... If I could have the soils engineer come back up and maybe
address some of his concerns on the aquifer of the Vashon glacial period soil till...
Mr. Kindrid: Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the ground water aquifer in that area, so I can't speak to that.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: But in regards to soils for the area and infiltration, is it conducive to filtering prior to an aquifer?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 23
Packet Page 233 of 303
Mr. Kindrid: In general, the wells for the ground water aquifer system would be quite deep; they're probably several
hundred feet deep. I believe the treatment before the infiltration vault, as it mentioned, would remove 80% of the sediment.
Certainly, the remaining sediment would be filtered out within several feet of the bottom of the facility. So, I don't know if
Blue Line might have anything else to say about the treatment, because we actually weren't involved with that.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Any further comments? Another comment, Mr. Sanderlin, you're limited to two.
Mr. Sanderlin: I just wanted to mention that Mr. O'Leary, I believe is a civil engineer. Anyway, you work in the field of
water.
Mr. O'Leary: I'm not qualified.
Mr. Sanderlin: Not qualified, okay, sorry.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Either that or he's not going to confess up.
Mr. Sanderlin: The other point I wanted to make is regarding the runoff, stormwater runoff. I worked at People for Puget
Sound, which is very concerned with the condition of the Sound and it's in deep trouble. One of the concerns I have about
the water quality is that people will be putting fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides on their lawns to keep them perfect.
When this storm comes along, it's going to wash all of this down into the aquifer. It will find its way into Puget Sound.
There's also the issue of dissolved copper and other elements that don't filter out using just standard filtration equipment.
They are best filtered through loam with grass growing on it. I'm not an engineer either, but I hang out with them. Anyway,
thank you.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Any other public comments at this time.
Mr. Hertrich: Excuse me, am I too late.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No you're not. Did you just slip in the door on me? Did you take the oath? You will take it?
Thank you. Do you hereby swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth?
Mr. Hertrich: Yes, I do.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Go ahead and give your name and your address.
Mr. Hertrich: My name is Roger, last name is Hertrich, H E R T R I C H. Haven't had a lot of preparation time, I'm sorry,
but I am familiar with PRD's and how they work. I must say it's very logically laid out and it appears that everything fits,
but there seems to be some problems, in my mind, when I thought out code calls for no variances granted for, well I guess it's
no height variances, I'm sorry. I misunderstood that when I read it. Of course there are variances, and that's what the PRD is
really all about. My concern is how does it fit within the existing community.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You mean compatibility with the surrounding community?
Mr. Hertrich: Yes, exactly. Thank you for the help. On one side, of course, you have a hillside, so anything can fit up to
that, that's not a problem. But when you have homes that are adjacent, right along the lot lines on the south and on the east,
especially, what you're seeing up on those lots, is well, maybe there might be 9,000 square feet, but they might be 90 foot in
width. So one house, if I look on the south side, now has the ends of two residences or possibly one long residence. But the
thing is that these houses have less than standard setbacks. In other words, where you would normally have a setback
between buildings that's being reduced, and if you allow porches, etc. to stick out into that setback, pretty soon you have, it's
like a wall of houses and very little space in between.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: If I could stop you right there, because you did come a little bit late. The rear yard setbacks will be
maintained at code.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 24
Packet Page 234 of 303
Ms. Stewart: Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So those are the same rear yard setbacks.
Mr. Hertrich: Rear yard. All right. It's 15 feet, I believe. Is that correct.
Ms. Stewart: Uh huh.
Mr. Hertrich: But the side yard setbacks are less than what you would normally find in an RS-8. Consequently, the
compatibility with the adjoining lots, where there's generally openness and considerable more space in each lot, what the
people enjoy. Now they're surrounded by more or less continuous. That would be the effect that you have, and of course,
the closer you get together and the closer you are as far as the way they line up, it really eliminates light at certain times of
the day as the light tries to come in at a sharp angle at later times of the year or in the mornings possibly. Whichever way the
sun happens to be going according to where you're standing, you can create quite a shadow affect, and that effects the quality
of living for the people adjacent to those properties. So, that's number one concern.
Mr. Hertrich: The idea that we're putting all these lots together, and I believe, what do we have, 6,000 square foot lots
compared to like 8,000 or 9,000 in the neighborhood. So they don't quite measure up. It seems odd to me that someone had
said you could take a put 30 lots on this property under a normal subdivision. Well, I don't know under a normal
subdivision, of course, it wouldn't allow lot sizes of this size, so I don't understand how you could fit 30 lots into it. To me,
even though you have square footage allowable for x number of lots, by the time you get done laying out a normal
subdivision, you would actually end up with larger lots and less of them. I think that certainly would fit the neighborhood
much better.
Mr. Hertrich: Let me plow through my notes here for a minutes. I believe the lot coverage, there was an indication that,
and the ADB did discuss it, that the lot coverage definitely has to be 35% or less, and I understand it's 35.8 according to what
I read on one of the notes, unless it's been corrected.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm showing on the preliminary plat map a 35 percent maximum lot coverage.
Mr. Hertrich: But somewhere in the literature I found, as far as the report goes, it will take me a while to find it again, it
said 35.8, so I would question that.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Is that based on the comments at the ADB meeting?
Mr. Hertrich: Well I read several reports very quickly, okay. So I can't tell you the source at the present time. Of course,
the idea, again when I mention setbacks, normally it would be 7'/2 between lots, and that would be a total of 15 feet. Today,
they are proposing five, which is 2 lots together, that's only 10 feet. That's quite a reduction. That's 30%, and in other
words, it makes a very narrow alley and light lane.
Mr. Hertrich: The ADB also noted, and there was some concern about the porches that protrude out into the front of the lot.
They suggested that that all looked good; I understand they wanted to reduce the setback to 20 feet because the whole project
would be normally the portion that would stick out more or be closer to the street. But at the same time, there was a concern
that several projected further than looked proper. So I take that observation, whether they mentioned it in their decision as to
a decision, I don't know, but it was raised as a question.
Mr. Hertrich: Excuse me while I look again. By the way, I did like the character of the houses; the looks of them are very
pleasant. I can't be more complimentary for what you're getting on such a small lot. Again, I would like to question how far
you are actually from the critical area. There was some mention in my quick reading that there was a variable distance of
setback from that, and I understand the code requires 15-foot setback from the edge. I got the idea that ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Are you talking about steep slope within the easement?
Mr. Hertrich: Yeah, I'm talking about the critical area, right. You must have read this.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 25
Packet Page 235 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I did.
Mr. Hertrich: Okay, so we're not getting anything by you, but maybe that draws some recollection. The variable was, I
can't remember the exact numbers, but it didn't look like it was the same all the way, and I would question that.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The code wanted 50 feet from the base of the toe on a steep slope, but you can reduce it down to 15
feet, I believe...
Mr. Hertrich: Yeah, quite a change. As a matter of fact, the degree of change is probably not evident to the neighborhood
because it's on the back side, but there are rules that need to be complied with for environmental reasons. If I'm talking
environmental things, I hope that's alright because I understand that's part of this.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: That's why I'm here is to make sure that we follow the right rules.
Mr. Hertrich: Okay. I don't quite understand, when they say a variance request, do they really have to go through a
variance, or does the PRD take care of those in the application.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The PRD takes care of it.
Mr. Hertrich: Okay, question, there are no variances being requested after the fact. We've been surprised a few times when
all of a sudden eight out of 15 buildings want new building heights after the fact.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: What I approve will be what's being presented in the application and the documents that are being
submitted today, and everything will be delineated out. If they choose to want to change any of those, they will have to go
through an amendment process.
Mr. Hertrich: The City, I think, in the present PRD process, requires some indication that variances will be applied for, and
generally, those are height variances that concern most people, and that's the one part of the code that says no variances in a
PRD for heights. Yet, after the fact, you can't keep someone from coming in and requesting a variance in height. You just
can't disallow it after they've been granted. So the last time the City discussed PRD's they wanted to make sure that
everything was up front and so I would appreciate that question being asked and having it being put on record that there will
be no height variances requested. You can't keep it from happening, but at least we can get it out and have it on the record.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I know coming before me is a variance, and I will remember your statement.
Mr. Hertrich: Good. Is there going to be any more public testimony as we go along here?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You may be called as the SEPA appeal, but this is pretty much your time to get out your ...
Mr. Hertrich: If I read quick, I might find something extra. Would that be allowed?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yes.
Mr. Hertrich: Thank you.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, thank you. City staff, if you could respond to once again, the comments in regards to the lot
size, versus traditional platting, traditional subdivision comparison to the PRD requirements for smaller plats. I know that
was referenced. And then maybe anything on the Architectural Review Board, any of those changes.
Mr. Hertrich: Excuse me. I found that thing I was forgetting. May I?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Sure.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 26
Packet Page 236 of 303
Mr. Hertrich: Thank you. Roger Hertrich. As shown on Attachment 6, 20-60, it talks about our code, and it says that the
critical areas ordinance cannot be counted towards the satisfaction of useable open space. My question to you, is that
particular part of the code being satisfied? That's 20.35.060.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'll be reviewing that in decision, but as far as I'm aware, no critical area, itself, is located on the
site. The critical area is off site, though under the Edmonds Community Code, critical areas and areas immediately adjacent
to critical areas are controlled by the regulations, as well, or subject to the rules and regulations, as well.
Mr. Hertrich: How about the treed area in the corner?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Wooded areas are not classified as a critical area under the development code.
Mr. Hertrich: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: But that will be in my review. Ms. Stewart.
Ms. Stewart: Regarding, there was some mention of 35.8% impervious cover. That number was in the checklist.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: That's been modified?
Ms. Stewart: Correct. 35%. Regarding the height limitations, there are no proposals to exceed the standard 35-foot height
limit for a new development in this area. Or is it 25, I'm sorry. Then, there was a question about the lot sizes and the
compatibility and the side setbacks. It's 7.5 feet is the standard side setback for 8,000 square foot lots, and what is proposed
and part of the benefit of a planned residential development is clustering of the homes, allowing open space, both for passive
and active uses. So it's a different way of developing a neighborhood, basically, and so what is proposed are slightly closer
side setbacks, so five feet is the difference there. There was some concern about the shadowing effect for off -site properties.
I can check how that was addressed in the checklist. There weren't particular shadowing studies done, so if there are some
particular residences that are of concern, that might be helpful, and we might be able to look at some additional conditions.
But again, the perimeter 15-foot setbacks are what's called for in the code, and the applicant is abiding by that.
Ms. Stewart: Then there was some discussion comparing and contrasting the standard subdivision based on the 8,000 square
foot lots and contrasting it with this proposal, which would have lots ranging from slightly over 8,000 square feet down to
slightly under 6,000 square feet. The difference again, is accounted by the open space areas that are left to compare those
two.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown: There was a concern about the architectural control board and their decision in giving us a 15-foot street
setback for porches or I guess uninhabited areas of the home. Just to clarify, we initially went in with a 20-foot setback; they
granted us that. They gave that to us. That was not in question, nor was it ever requested by us. That was granted to us by
the Architectural Design Board. Second of all, the 35.8%, I want to make this very clear, that is site coverage. That is the
whole parcel, as its proposed will cover 35.8%. The 35% is individual lot coverage, which will be followed at the time of
building permit, that we cannot cover more than 35% of the actual lot. So the 35.8% is still correct, but it is a site coverage.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Brown: And again, we did not apply for any variances, nor do we plan to. The design alternative standard request is
what is allowed in accordance to the PRD code, and that is what we have put forth. I believe some of the residents may be
looking at an older site plan that titled it variance. A new updated site plan was submitted where that was crossed off and the
correct verbiage is alternative standard request.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yeah, actually the preliminary plat I have still has it PRD variance request.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 27
Packet Page 237 of 303
Ms. Brown: That has been updated and it was given to the City and it should be forwarded to you, as well. Variance is
incorrect; we are not applying for a variance.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Actually, Mr. Clarke and then ...
Mr. Clarke: Kevin Clarke. I know this may be my last bite at the apple, but I am a little concerned with the dialogue and
how it's being presented. Regarding storm drainage, I appreciate Ms. Brown's response. She said the City didn't provide us
a study or any file associated with problems in the area. That may be a fact, but I know there is a file that is inches thick.
There is even a proposal in the City budget for allocating monies to the storm drainage problem. There is a file; it needs to be
recognized. Mr. Fiene, unfortunately, just left, but we have worked with him. I am on the record saying Mr. Fiene knows
about this problem. He's come out to our house several times, and we've worked drawings and talked about budgeting. We
can't just say that the record says they asked the City, and the City didn't give them anything so they're clear. I think that is a
misrepresentation of the facts. But there is a drainage problem in this area. The City needs to recognize it. The developer,
now that they know it, clearly on the record, and this was mentioned at the public meeting that they held at Sherwood
Elementary School, it wasn't recorded, but it was mentioned to them by myself. They need to address it. The study doesn't
address it. In fact, the study says specifically, the excess drainage will come down 107th into my property. That's what the
study says.
Mr. Clarke: Next, if you look at that drawing that is part of that Blue Line group exhibit, and unfortunately it doesn't have
title, but it's that drainage, little map. I would appreciate you looking at that map and then looking on Page 18 of the traffic
impact study that deals with site distance analysis. As a professional, I appreciate the words that are used, but if you look in
the second paragraph in the site distance analysis, Page 18, it says, "field measured site distances onto 237th Place Southwest
are estimated to be approximately 350 feet." It's impossible for them to be 350 feet in a southwesterly direction, recognizing
the curve of the street and the lots that are there. There's three lots, actually 2'/z lots when you go on the next side of the
bend. But this traffic study does not say that there's no parking signs on the north side of that street and the reason why those
no parking signs were put there. Because of site distance issues relative to the existing curb cut that's part of the parking lot
of the playfield of the existing school, which is the exact location where the proposed ingress and egress is for the
subdivision. So there's a problem.
Mr. Clarke: You can read the signs. The signs are there. No parking from 104th westerly to that bend in the road. The
problem is from the bend of the road where the applicant's southeast property line is, that corner westerly on 237'h, it is not a
no parking zone. So the home that is adjacent to the entrance, if they have visitors, which they do, they park on the north side
of the street and you can't see coming around there the traffic that's coming westbound, as it is right now. That's not
including people coming out of a subdivision. Just put cars out there. Take City cars out there and look at it. It's not... The
problem is that this has been addressed and then the gentleman gets up here and reads out of the traffic study that says that,
well it complies, but it doesn't. It's not 350 feet; it's an impossibility that's 350 feet of unobstructed site if there's cars
parked there. Those people have the right to park, and that's a 50-foot right-of-way. It's not wide enough at the bend to have
the level of traffic that's going to go in and out of that subdivision. At 59 homes and 27 lots, we're increasing the traffic flow
at that bend to 50%. And it's a dangerous problem already. So it needs to be addressed, and not just say well the traffic
study addressed it because it didn't. There's no where in this document is that concern or that issue raised. So I think that
needs to be clearly put on the record in relationship to the traffic study.
Mr. Clarke: It's also to know the rest of that sentence says that's 480 feet and there's no qualifiers of estimated or
approximately, and that's because it's a straight shot. So now I ask you, if 480 of straight roadway up 237th was determined
to be a site distance issue to the City that put no parking signs up there, how could that bend, at "350 feet" not be a site
distance issue. It has to be. It's just common sense, and it's a physical reality of the configuration of the subdivision.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Ms. Brown, in your transportation engineer's comments, I don't see any specific reference to site
distance. Do you remember any ... I'm looking at the one that is an attachment to the SEPA appeal; it's one of the letters
that was provided.
Ms. Brown: No site distance would not have been in that actual letter. It was just in the traffic report.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 28
Packet Page 238 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, because he just maybe, when he comes back from vacation, a short paragraph on how in
terms of site distance (inaudible). Do you have any further comments.
Mr. Lutz: Yes, just to give some sort of legal response to the challenge that Mr. Clarke made, just for a point of
clarification.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Let's go ahead and finish with Mr. Clarke's comments and then we'll ...
Mr. Lutz: Sure. Jerry Lutz with Perkins Coie for Burnstead Construction. Mr. Clarke's comments, I think reflect a
fundamental misunderstanding of what we're trying to consider with this application. To talk first about drainage. The
Burnstead project is designed to handle the drainage from the Burnstead property in a way that complies with code and
because it complies with current code, it will as a matter of fact, improve the drainage situation for the relatively impervious
hard fields that exist now. So the neighbors will experience somewhat less, hopefully, drainage problem. But Burnstead, as
the developer of this PRD, is not proposing and is not obligated to fix a failed off -site drainage system that's part of the
City's system. That being said, as we mentioned at the start, Burnstead has been willing to talk to the City and it's my
understanding that the City, when it goes through its own development plans for the adjacent park that it's planning, is trying
to figure out additional solutions that might provide some additional relief. If that happens, great, and we're going to try and
be good neighbors and support those things, but to suggest that somehow it is an obligation of this development to fix an
existing off -site problem is just a fundamental understanding of the obligations of the developer and the law that applies.
Mr. Lutz: And I guess the same thing, and it was just striking to me to listen to Mr. Clarke's concerns about traffic because
I guess I can understand them. He mentioned that people don't really drive the speed limit, people are parking illegally and
ignoring signs. It's all associated with some fields that are going away. Your point was, well at least when these fields go
away, that parking problem should be ameliorated for a while. Mr. Clarke's point is well, the City's going to build new fields
next door. We hope that's true and we assume that's true. That's the City's plan. When they do that, if there are problems
associated with the parking associated with those fields or parking on the street that's a problem, the City can address that at
least to the extent it can control illegal behavior as part of that process. Again, it doesn't really affect the proposal that we're
making, and it's not something that Burnstead on his property can control. So it just seemed to me that it was important to
try and clarify the scope of what we're talking about. There are some people who really want a larger park, a different
proposal, but that's not what we're doing. Burnstead owns this property, and he's moving forward with a development
proposal and wants to be a good neighbor but wants to help people have a clear understanding of what it is we're proposing
and what we're obligated to do. Thank you.
Mr. Fiene: Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer. I would just like to make some comments about the drainage situation in
that area. First of all, I think even before it annexed into the City over 11 years ago, we knew there was quite a bit of
problems as far as their was virtually no drainage system. What drainage system there was put in at Woodway Meadows was
very poor and it failed. So subsequently, since it's come into the City, we have been steadily putting in infiltration systems,
which for the most part do work well in that area. We did have a basin study for that area, a Southwest Edmonds Basin
Study. We had public meetings.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Did that include the Burnstead property?
Mr. Fiene: Yes, it included that whole area. I think it's over a 100 acre area. We had public meetings, we took public input,
and one of the main concerns was the area that the Clarkes mentioned. I think that for the most part, Mr. Clarke gave a pretty
accurate assessment of the area. However, a couple of points I guess I should make is we did install the new infiltration
system he mentioned and the drainage problems, the flooding in that intersection, that cul-de-sac, is quite a bit less than it
was before. Whereas it used to flood several times a year, now it's every year or two. That's one of the aspects of drainage
laws that you're supposed to make sure things don't get worse. However, we have had a long-term plan that was in the
Southwest Edmonds Basin Study to put a facility in at what's now a park site. It was the school site before. We tried to get
an easement to build that system in when the school still owned the property. However, they were holding us up because
they said we may be doing something there, we may be selling the property. Eventually, they did so we are planning on
building that facility in conjunction with the park. We think that's going to be a great help for that situation.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 29
Packet Page 239 of 303
Mr. Fiene: The one inaccuracy, I would say as far as the consultant, is the issue of records. We have the record for the
Southwest Edmonds Basin Study. I either provided it or I certainly would have if it was asked for. There's no problem with
us providing records, and we do have a pretty detailed record there at the school site. I think that pretty much covers the
issues we have.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: We need to kind of move along a little bit to Ms. Stewart. Do you have a comment?
Ms. Stewart: I need to make a correction to one of the attachments to the Staff Report. In assembling these documents, I
didn't have an opportunity to see them ahead of time, and it came to light when you were talking about whether or not there
were variance requests. The Attachment 2 to the Staff Report, addressing the SEPA appeal, is the correct site plan, and
should be substituted for Attachment 1, which is in the Staff Report, which is an older version of the site plan. You will
notice in the attachment listing, it did refer to the May 9, 2007 document. So the correct version is the May 9th site plan. It
appears right now as Attachment 2 in the SEPA appeal staff report.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay.
Ms. Stewart: And it uses the correct phrase, PRD alternative standards request as opposed to variance.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Mr. Clarke, I'll let you testify only if you are going to provide me something new. I'm not going to
allow it to just keep going back and forth.
Mr. Clarke: It is new. Thank you. Page 3, outside analysis of the downstream drainage path. The second paragraph
specifically says, if the water on site did not fully infiltrate the flow would continue southwest along dot, dot, dot, and it's on
the map. This study specifically says that that if that system does not handle the water, it's coming my way. They need to
indemnify, they need to guarantee that my property will not decrease in value because of their iffing and their what iffing
statement. That is weasel words. It doesn't say this system is designed to guarantee to take care of all drainage associated
with this development. And it doesn't compare the difference between drainage now, unimproved, and drainage improved
with 27 houses. With all of those roof and footing drains coming right into the stormwater system, they testify that the roof
drains are going to the storm system rather than hook into the individual lots of the homeowners. That's a lot of water. If
this system doesn't, we're back to where we are. And that's a concern. We don't have the opportunity to fix this after they
develop it. We don't. There's no going back. We can fix and design it now. Let's design the quality into the proposal.
Let's make sure it's going to work and professionals will testify that it will work, guaranteed. Maybe the system needs to be
over capacity to guarantee there will not be any additional demand on the system. That report doesn't say that.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Thank you. Anybody else?
Mr. Hertrich: Sorry about that. This is new. Actually one of the comments I'd like to make is I heard someone from staff
or whoever it was got up and said a PRD is clustered housing. Well, I call this a block layout, linier. There is no clustering.
They are all the same dimensions from each other and it occupies literally the whole property except for a few little spots of
open space. So I know what clustered housing looks like. You have a steep slope and you put them all in the little plateau in
one area, they get clustered. But here, the property all looks the same.
Mr. Hertrich: In regard to that neighborhood feel, I wonder what neighborhood we're trying to compare this to because
none of the other neighborhoods have anything less than 25-foot front yard setback. Now if the developer wanted to propose
20 feet, and now staff, and I do not understand why Steve Bullock would suggest that we ought to reduce it even more.
Because if they want to reduce the setback in the front to get the so called neighborhood feel, it makes it look more like
apartment rows more than anything else, in my mind. That's my own personal feeling. At the same time, if you're going to
give up ... And if the developer's happy with the shorter front yard, then have him put the five feet on the back of the
property where you adjoin the residents that are going to be affected by this long, massive bunch of buildings.
Mr. Hertrich: Also, at the same time, we had the ADB, and I want to quote them from Page 12 of the May 2nd meeting.
They talk about consistency with the design criteria 20.35.60. In this they say the design board would support the inclusion
of this secondary setback after the City Planner proposed it. And it goes on to allow porches and stuff to be within 15 feet.
Now they say that all of the things that they made a decision on are consistent with the comprehensive plan. There is nothing
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 30
Packet Page 240 of 303
in the comprehensive plan that discusses short little front yards. No where in our City does it suggest that. Secondly, it's not
an adopted City policy to allow that specific dimension. The Board is not in position to create ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yes, the Board is in a position. They are in the position to make a recommendation through the
staff and based on comments to me on what they feel should be applied.
Mr. Hertrich: I heard the presentation say we were granted, we were granted the 15 foot. There is no granting by staff at
that point. So that total statement is incorrect. They made a suggestion, and I'm suggesting that the developer was closer to a
reasonable adjustment rather than a radical adjustment.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Thank you. Any other public comments in regards to the plat? Any other comments, anything
new.
Mr. Clarke: May I offer an illustration into the record?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Is it already in the record, per chance?
Mr. Clarke: It's a modification of something that's in the record.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: For what intent?
Mr. Clarke: To show a proximity to Deer Creek.
Ms Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Anything else on the plat? Okay, then we're moving on to the appeal. We are done with the
plat. We have everything else on what's going on with the plat; traffic, drainage, schools, roads, everything we've always
wanted to know but were afraid to ask.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So for the appeal, we'll have the appellants start, whoever wants to be the first of you to start, it
doesn't matter. You can each present any witnesses you want to present for your case, any exhibits you want to present.
Have you provided these exhibits to staff? You have now provided these exhibits to the parties and to the City?
Ms. Petso: Oh yes. This is not like a lawsuit or anything. This is just items for the public record.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: But they're also exhibits that you're using to support your case, that they have the right to basically
challenge and object to.
Ms. Petso: I don't understand. How do you object to public comment? I thought this was a public hearing combined with
my appeal.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It is a public hearing combined with an appeal, but you've got lots of documents like CC and R's
and whether those are applicable to those matter.
Ms. Petso: Well those are CC and R's.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm only prepared to listen to the appeal that I have records for, which was the written appeal that
they had a deadline to get all evidence and comments.
Ms. Petso: That's not the way the processes have worked before, nor is it my understanding. My understanding is that this
was noticed as a public hearing, and also the document deadline was the 20, which is today, so I submitted them today. I
ask that you take a recess while staff runs some copies for us, but there's no way that this can be excluded without providing
a serious error of process that's going to result in we know aware.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: How is the appeal handled? I understood that there had to be a deadline after an MDNS was
issued, and the appeals themselves were filed in a timely manner, so these additional things become ...
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 31
Packet Page 241 of 303
Ms. Petso: She's given both Heather and I permission to address the plat in our regular proposal, and so if you want to
consider that all of these exhibits address the plat only, that's fine with me.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: As long as they're applicable to the plat, but if they're applicable to your appeal... The way the
appeal, at least, works for me, maybe historically it hasn't worked this way in the City of Edmonds before I started working
here, it is done similar to a trial situation. You are appealing, you filed your appeal to the City, and you did it in a timely
manner. Typically, I'll be offering the City and applicants a chance to respond to that review.
Ms. Petso: Well, just a month ago, we just did it. We went through apparently an entirely different process, and it was
considered an open record hearing, and I provided all of the exhibits because after this it's apparently a closed record hearing.
So obviously, you bring your exhibits to the open record hearing, and I have done so.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, different ground here. Before you start speaking, I would like to finish up with what I have
to say so ... The appellants will give their presentation, it will be limited. If you want to address plat based issues, note that
you are addressing plat based issues. You set forth in your appeal certain items, certain claims that you had, issues in regards
to the Mitigated Determination of Significance. Those are your appeal issues, and only those items are addressed on your
appeal issue.
Ms. Petso: I don't understand then what I would be expected to do with something like drainage issues, which is both an
appeal and a plat issue and everybody so far has talked about it.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, in your appeal you said you appealed for failure of public notice, so that's an issue on appeal.
You're going to be arguing how the City failed to give public notice. You said they failed to evaluate environmental impacts,
identify environmentally significant features, require an EIS, and provide adequate information. So those are your issues on
appeal, and that's what you're arguing. So if you want to in your argument say they didn't properly evaluate the drainage
issues and this is how so, and these also apply to the plat. That's fine.
Ms. Petso: Okay.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Those are your issues, so don't go beyond those.
Ms. Petso: I'm sorry, do you have a copy of my appeal letter?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yeah.
Ms. Petso: Okay so, on Page 3, we have drainage. On the bottom of Page 3 we have aesthetics. On Page 4 we have traffic
and safe access to the park, lack of emergency exits, lack of street design safety and aesthetics, and put visitor parking and the
fish and wildlife habitat conservation act. Okay so Okay let's perhaps we could just go along with this and if ... Okay,
anyway. It totally lost track of where I was going to start.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So you will have an opportunity to present your case, using any witnesses you may want to call.
The City will have the opportunity to cross examine those witnesses, to challenge any of your exhibits and then you will have
time to rebut. I would like to, given the time of the day, I'd like to limit your presentation to no more than an hour if
possible.
Ms. Petso: I have no idea if I can do that or not. But given that people were previously being given numerous shots at the
mike, I would like to just go through my presentation and see how we do.
Ms. Petso: I believe according to the code for these hearings in Edmonds, I read that people can talk as long as they want
and if necessary, the hearing can be continued. But those people talking aren't V, especially the presenters.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The rules of procedure do allow me to limit time on the person speaking if necessary. It's normally
done in the public format where we're having all the people come up to the mike so that we're not having people just keep
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 32
Packet Page 242 of 303
talking and talking and talking. But an hour of argument time in court, I mean, in Supreme Court you get 15 minutes. So
this is a pretty good time limit. I'm saying an hour of time, because otherwise, we are going to be here an awful lot of time.
Ms. Petso: I could really do with a 2-minute recess which we would like to have the staff make copies of the exhibits before
we get going?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Do you want to see the copies of the exhibits?
Mr. Lutz: Okay, I will probably allow you to voice any objections, and staff as well because you are a party to this, as well.
Ms. Petso: Okay, to start off with this, I do want to mention because it came up earlier, that I am a commissioner with
Olympic View, and so I can't testify to staff matters like how they're going to get the water there and that sort of thing, but I
will let you know that yes, it is the aquifer that drains to Deer Creek, and no, Deer Creek is not a low-water source. It's
considered ground water under the influence; it runs down and hits the famous clay layer of Woodway and then runs over to
Deer Creek and comes out the side of the hill. We treat it in a plant at that site. There's a watershed study for Deer Creek
and Olympic View will have a copy of it. It shouldn't take any great effort for anybody to pick one of those up.
Ms. Petso: I would also like to ask, were you able to make your site visit, and did you do it today?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No I haven't.
Ms. Petso: Oh, you have not done the site visit. Okay, it's my understand that's supposed to occur before the hearing and
new fences have gone up today, which are going to make that a lot more difficult for you to get in. I would recommend the
Marks residence as perhaps the easiest access to the site at this time.
Ms. Petso: So looking at the exhibits, on Page 3 I've provided for you on the back of that same map showing ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Are these the documents that you submitted just earlier?
Ms. Petso: Yeah, right there with the big paper clip. The top page. The colored map of this site, which shows the full-sized
athletic fields. It actually shows the entire property. The green is what the City bought. The little yellow circle is an
ornamental cherry tree.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: We're only concerned with what's in the pink lines.
Ms. Petso: Okay, so in the pink lines are the two full-sized playfields and also the drainage ditch that the Millers were
referring to is along the far left of that photo.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And is it on the plat?
Ms. Petso: Well, it varies. It's on a different spot on the plat than it is on the study which Don referred to. The 2003
Edmonds Drainage Basin Study locates that drainage ditch at a different spot. So it depends which set you read, where it is.
For sure it's at the northwest corner of the property. The ditch is a deliberate part of the existing drainage system. It was
shown in Exhibit 1. In Exhibit 1 of my materials, I have the Southwest Drainage Basin Study Map of that ditch. By the way,
the Drainage Basin Study is part of the comp plan for the City. The ditch was expanded in 1983 at citizen request, and that
letter's attached at Page 46 because the ditch was overfilling. I've enclosed another exhibit, which shows that when the ditch
was first expanded, there was no vegetation. Today, if you look at the packet of materials, jumping to Page 35, you can see
now what the drainage ditch looks like today. When you go do your site visit, it's at the far northwest corner of the property
that you will see this vegetation. One concern, of course, that's been raised in the appeals is that the wetland report didn't do
any soil samples. Part of our definition of a wetland is that the soil is saturated. So if you're going to determine whether
that's wetland vegetation and that soil is continually saturated, you would need to probably sample it rather than just say,
gosh, I didn't see standing water. For all I know, the wetland consultant didn't even walk onto the property and locate the
ditch because it's in the furthest possible point from the parking lot.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 33
Packet Page 243 of 303
Ms. Petso: There's also a portion of the building area, if you look back on Page 3, the existing structure extends over into
the property in pink. That existing structure does contain asbestos, and the asbestos has to be mitigated. There's been an
appeal because of the demolition of the buildings, in order to determine the asbestos mitigation plan. Last week I filed a
public records request seeking the plan.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Isn't that building on the City's property?
Ms. Petso: No, there's 2'h feet of it in the pink property, which puts it on this property.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And whose liable for the removal of the building? Is not the City?
Ms. Petso: The demo work will be done by the City, but the environmental impact will be everywhere.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: But then, isn't that concern of that environmental impact addressed to the City in their mitigation
determination for that parcel of land and that removal?
Ms. Petso: I doubt it because the Hearing Examiner probably said the same thing you just did. I'm more concerned with the
stuff in the green line. So it probably wasn't addressed. The SEPA had a demolition plan for that item, and to be honest,
there is even some question as to whether or not it's a constitutional gift of public funds to be giving the demolition service
away free to Burnstead. I don't have a resolution on that. The Blue Line denotes a portion of a fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area. By the way, that is a critical area under our ordinances, and it is not only adjacent to the property, but as
you can see from my rough map, it's on the property.
Ms. Petso: If you look at Exhibit 2, I've taken a photocopy of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area as it appears on
the City's Critical Area Map, and I have brought, my husband made some nice scale overheads for us, overlaying the
Burnstead property with the critical areas. It shows on the overheads that a critical area is on the Burnstead property. As
you pointed out earlier, even if it wasn't, the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and the Critical Area Ordinances
apply to this. As Roger Hertrich pointed out earlier, if the land is in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, it cannot be
counted towards the open space of the development, which means that the development does not meet the 10% requirement
of the PRD.
Ms. Petso: This fish and wildlife habitat conservation area was identified in the checklist, the environmental checklist at
Page 9. Although I was somewhat confused for a while because at Page 11 it said there's no environmentally sensitive areas.
It's right at the top, Page 9, Question C, is the site part of the migration route? If so, explain. The answer is not to our
knowledge. However, a portion of the property is within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. Now I'll discuss later
the requirements that come from that, but one of the immediate requirements that come from that, and I think that applies
even if it's adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, is an environmental assessment is triggered.
Ms. Petso: I have attached the flow chart from our minutes, from our board minutes, which shows how this fish and wildlife
habitat environmental analysis is supposed to occur. What's supposed to happen is if there's one in your City property ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: What exhibit are you referencing?
Ms. Petso: Ali hang on two seconds, and then I can put an exhibit number on it. Okay, the flow chart, and it's a very tiny
print but I'm sure you can get bigger print from the City. It's amazing how quickly things can disappear. The flow chart's
Exhibit 52. Basically, it provides if there's a Fish and Wildlife Area, you check and see if it's within 300 feet. If it's within
300 feet, you do an assessment of the habitat. The assessment will include a detailed map and a report from a biologist. If it
is determined by that assessment that the habitat is degraded, then you proceed with such steps as a mitigation plan or you
simply protect the area. In the case of our PRD ordinance, I believe it requires you just to totally protect the area. I needs
owns designation as a critical area protection area or something.
Ms. Petso: On Page 24 of the materials I gave you, there's a photograph of the area showing the variety of habitat available
there, and it includes tall grasses, bushes, smaller trees, taller trees, and even downed logs. These are all quality habitat
elements. I have a copy if you want, we can walk through this. So I have the critical areas ordinance, maybe I have the
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 34
Packet Page 244 of 303
wrong version, but I have a Chapter 23.40.040, the designation of critical areas. Number B.5, well no. Critical areas
regulated by this title include, Number 5, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as designated in Chapter 23.90. When
you go to Chapter 23.90, you will find that not only do they have to meet the requirements of the critical areas ordinance, but
they also need to provide additional studies and follow additional procedures specific to a fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area.
Ms. Petso: In trying to put together my materials for this, I made a number of public records requests to the City regarding
this critical area, and this ties in, by the way, to one of the notice violations. One of the requirements is that the notice
indicate critical areas on the property. If the notice had done so, and if I had known that the City was going to disregard the
regulations and not have a detailed map or a biological assessment of this area, I would have been able to take care of those
things myself, although at my own expense. But as it is, I didn't realize until I started doing public records requests about the
week of June 12t', and this I my Exhibit 44. I submitted a public records request for the for the official fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area assessment, and I got the steep slope report or soil samples. I submitted a second request, and still
didn't come up with it. So I submitted a third request, specifically for the biologist's report. They haven't come up, and I
suspect it hasn't been done. And it needs to be done.
Ms. Petso: You know, one of the things that we ran into with our last SEPA appeal is the City likes to say, well we can do
that later. Well, this ordinance is specifically tied to SEPA. It says do this report when you do the SEPA. Okay, so the thing
needs to be done.
Ms. Petso: Also, I noted in my appeal about the playgrounds in the park. This is one of the environmentally sensitive areas
by the way.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: How is a park an environmentally sensitive area.
Ms. Petso: Now the park is an environmentally sensitive area because the WACs define it that way. It's 197-11-330-3-E-1.
You know, it makes sense because SEPA defines recreation as part of the environment. So obviously, a park or sports field
is part of the environmentally sensitive areas.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: A park is not defined as environmental sensitive area.
Ms. Petso: No, it's not a critical area. It's an environmentally sensitive area.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Under the Edmonds Code? It has no special designation under the Edmonds Code.
Ms. Petso: Edmonds code doesn't have environmentally sensitive areas. The WAC does. I assume the checklist was based
on the WAC. Okay, so anyway. Boy this is jumping around a lot more than I intended it to. I'm very sorry. The property is
an existing City park.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The Burnstead property is owned by ...
Ms. Petso: The ownership doesn't matter. It's always been a park and it's never been owned by the City. We have dozens
of parks that are not owned by the City. The property is an existing City park.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm going to stop you right there because the property is owned by the Burnstead Corporation.
Ms. Petso: That's correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It may have existing ball fields and soccer fields on it that had been previously utilized as a public
park by City and County residents, but Burnstead now owns it. They purchased it and it is not a City park.
Ms. Petso: They purchased it subject to the interlocal agreements that provided for the park. That's in Exhibit 22 or it's
probably easier if you look on Page 11 of my materials. The restriction is detailed as follows: Snohomish County Regional
Recreational Task Force Interlocal Agreement, the purchase was done subject to this restriction. It's on both the City
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 35
Packet Page 245 of 303
transaction, it's on the sale to Burnstead, and it's on the Bumstead title insurance policy. The signs on the property do
continue to designate the property as a City park. It's listed in the comp plan, and comp plan consistency is going to be one
of the requirements. This is hard to present when you're so totally not agreeing, but anyway, Page 12 please.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I guess my question is, in reading the rebuttal from Mr. Lutz is that the ILA that you're referencing
in your documentation on Page 11 has been terminated.
Ms. Petso: No it hasn't. It was ... It requires that it can only be terminated by agreement of all three parties, with the
formalities used to put it in place. The formalities used to put it in place were under RCW 39.34 or vice a versa 34.39, I can't
remember which one it is, covering interlocal agreements. It says that government agencies can't do this sort of thing
without approval of their legislative bodies. The County went through a process to approve it, which you actually know
because you said you worked on the Management Hearing Board case. I challenged the Counties process as violating their
comp plan. The Growth Management Hearings Board never decided on the merits. They basically said the property's in the
City of Edmonds, take it up with them.
Ms. Petso: So the County did go through a termination process on this, but that's only one of the three parties. The City, on
the other hand, didn't. In fact, on March 20th of this year, just a couple of months ago, the Mayor came to City Council and
said would you please ratify my accidental oops attempt at terminating this contract without your approval. The Council said
no. That information is basically on Page. Oh it's tough to get out of order. The Council basically said no, we can't see
what's in it for the City. To quote Council Member Dawson, she understood the school district's motivation to terminate the
ILA, but was uncertain of the benefit to the City. Again, she made here comment again, and this is all in the materials.
Ms. Petso: The other item in the materials that I think you need to be aware of is that even the County's termination was
illegal. At the County hearing, it was pointed out that the termination provisions, Paragraph 0.4 said the contract continues
for 10 years. Paragraph 0.5 said it can only be terminated on the agreement of the parties of such.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm actually going to stop you here because although I understand your premise that the ILA is still
in, if in play, in part, or if the Burnstead Corporation is held to the restrictions of it, my jurisdictions isn't to determine
whether the County or the City acted appropriately to terminate or not terminate the ILA. I have no jurisdiction over making
that determination.
Ms. Petso: No, your jurisdiction is, however, to determine the environmental impacts, and one of the environmental impacts
of this is that they are going to up homes on not only a property planned for a City park, but property that is an existing City
park. So I need to present this evidence because you apparently didn't believe it was a City park.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I completely understand that should be the basis of your SEPA appeal, but once again, to go into the
details of the ILA agreement and what the Mayor said and what the City Council said, that goes to the validity of the ILA,
which I have no jurisdiction over. I have no determination of its validity, Snohomish County's actions, the City's actions or
the school district's actions.
Ms. Petso: Okay, I'll approach it from the perspective, then, that you have jurisdiction over deciding if this is consistent
with the City plan.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yup.
Ms. Petso: So on Page 12 the City Park Plan is shown, well one page from it. The subject property is delineated down at the
bottom of the left hand corner, and as a big purple star. You may not be able to read, but I'm sure the staff can get you the
full blown up size. It says proposed neighborhood park. The little arrow beside the property stands for trail connection, as in
a proposed trail connection to the other nearby property. The map also shows the desperate need for neighborhood parks in
this part of town. There are no parks. The parks are denoted in green, so you can see that about 115 of the town is completely
lacking in parks. Even the nearby green spot that's labeled R-44 on your picture isn't a park either. It's a cemetery. So it's
really the bottom quarter of the town has no parks.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 36
Packet Page 246 of 303
Ms. Petso: The baseball field is listed in the field inventory of the comp plan, as is the soccer field. Let me show you just
one picture of how these fields are counted because it's really interesting. On Page 5.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Page 5 of...
Ms. Petso: Of the materials, the smaller packet. This photo was taken last spring of 2006, demonstrating how the playfield
is used. Even though it designates that there's only a baseball field there, the comprehensive plan also counts it as a soccer
field. As you can see, there's only one team practicing on the baseball field, but there's also two teams of T-ball kids also
practicing on the soccer field. So the impact of the loss of this planned use, the environmental impact, will be huge because
of the lack of fields. Let me see if I can locate the area... I have to do this from memory because I can't find it. The field
shortages documented in the comprehensive plan currently, 38 acres of open space.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can you once again reference for me where you're ...
Ms. Petso: I'm sorry. Page 14. We're short 30 acres of open space, although I think 2 acres of what the City has already
purchased would reduce that down to 28 acres. We're short 28 acres of neighborhood park, and I suppose we can drop that
down by three because of the small park the City acquired. We're short seven baseball field, half a softball field, and four
soccer fields, as well. The loss of planned fields and existing fields in a town already facing a shortage, renders this
inconsistent with the comp plan. I understand the zoning, I saw something in the letter about the zoning. But the purpose of
creating an actual zoning ordinance is to provide for houses and compatible uses. They're equal purposes under our zoning
ordinance.
Ms. Petso: If you look at the zoning ordinance, it also provides not only that those two are equal uses, but that they're
equally important under the purpose section. So both are allowed uses. However, under the comp plan, the park is the
planned use. I would like to give a personal illustration of this because this is the kind of thing you can't get from the plans
and documents. The church league softball that a couple of us has participated in for about the last 15 years typically use
OWestgate Elementary as a field. This year some T-ball teams took it over, and we've played, in fact, near Roger's house.
The field at Roger's house is not full sized like the field in the photo is, and so it involves a drop off of about 5 feet halfway
out to left field. It also involves an enormous safety hazard to children on the big toy because somebody cleverly located the
big toy right behind first base.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm going to stop you once again and ask you how that relates to the Burnstead property and the
environmental analysis. I understand that that part of the environmental analysis, recreational aspects of the environment
need to be analyzed.
Ms. Petso: Okay, and full-sized playfields are needed suitable for safe adult play, and these are full-sized playfields.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It's true, but the only way to maintain them as a full-sized playfield would be for Burnstead not to
develop his site.
Ms. Petso: That's correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The site was available for development and purchased by the City.
Ms. Petso: No, the site was available for sale and was purchased by Burnstead.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And the City, I'm sure, had the ability to make that purchase, as well
Ms. Petso: No, the City had the opportunity and made several full -price offers for the property, excuse me, not full price.
The City made several offers for the property. The second to the last offer was to buy all 11 acres. It was declined. The City
requested rights of first refusal. The City offered them $1.7 million, and the school district said no, $7.3.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, regardless of all that...
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 37
Packet Page 247 of 303
Ms. Petso: The final offer. .
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The final offer stayed somewhere in the middle. The property owner, the school district, has every
right to sale their property to whoever they would like to sell it to, just like you as a homeowner can sell your house to
whoever you would like to sell it. They decided to sell part of the property to the City and part of the property to the
Burnstead Corporation.
Ms. Petso: Correct.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And so how does the Burnstead developing this property so impact recreational aspects?
Ms. Petso: Because the contract for the playfields was to run to 2009, and Burnstead accepted the contract.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Keep out of the contract since it is out my jurisdiction.
Ms. Petso: Okay. Because the property is planned by the City for acquisition to meet park needs, we are deficient in park
needs; we are not deficient in housing.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It sounds to me that the argument that should be made in the Legislature for the City to encourage
them to purchase the property. It doesn't have any impact ...
Ms. Petso: Oh, it was when it was bought. Six of the seven Council Members voted to buy it at the last one, and you
haven't let me talk about the last one. At the last meeting, and it's in the exhibits, six of the seven Council Members wanted
to purchase the 5'/z acres because that's what they could get a yes on. They also, at the same time, asked the school district to
give them the opportunity to the end of the year to come up with the money to purchase the remainder. It is not a policy
change in the comp plan that occurred. It was simply the inability to get the school district to give them another few months.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And that's totally within the discretion of the school district.
Ms. Petso: Absolutely, but the development impacts are not. In much the same way as they're not supposed to cut down the
trees and put a rockery in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, they're not supposed to build houses on playfields in
the City with a documented shortage of playfields that is meeting it's growth management goals.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And do you have case law citation for that? I mean where is that, your personal statement?
Ms. Petso: No, I have it. It's the Weyerhaeuser versus Pierce County. What says is that while the comprehensive plan is
usually just a guiding document...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: A guiding framework.
Ms. Petso: Thank you, that's the words. When the ordinances, the development ordinances...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Development regulations.
Ms. Petso: Thank you, development regulations
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: When there's a conflict with the development regulations...
Ms. Petso: No, no, there's no conflict here. But when the development regulations require consistent with the comp plan,
then you can look at the comp plan, so that's what I'm doing.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: When there's inconsistency between the comp plan and the development regs, the development
regs always control.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 38
Packet Page 248 of 303
Ms. Petso: No, there is no inconsistency. The RS zoning allows either park or houses. It's our Com Plan that, in this case,
I'm saying determines which it is. The reason you don't disregard the comp plan is that Weyerhaeuser case which says, if all
the little statutes say look to the comp plan, then you may. It was to overturn the over reading of the Mount Vernon case, I
forgot what that's called, citizens versus ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Citizens versus Mount Vernon.
Ms. Petso: That one.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Citizens of Mount Vernon ...
Ms. Petso: But I think the Board said something like that was being read over broad and we don't mean that you totally
blow off the comp plan at all times. You do when the developer regs say look to the comp plan, that's what you do.
Ms. Petso: The school district did try to get a comp plan amendment, but it they withdrew it. Actually for the reason that
I've been saying, because one of the criteria to get a comp plan amendment would be maintaining the appropriate balance of
land uses in the City.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Again, we're looking at the appeal and the appeal.
Ms. Petso: All right, I'll get on to the plat in just a second. Because we're jumping around I have to take just a second to
figure out what we've skipped. Well, okay. I guess as long as we're looking at consistency with the comp plan, I should
address the comp plan provisions other than the map that provides for a park, and I guess I'll do other than the promote
health, general welfare and values of the community because that's probably related to the park.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: That's actually related to the zoning ordinance as a whole to benefit the public safety and welfare.
Ms. Petso: Policy C would be conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources, so my contention would be
that the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area would fall as a beautiful and natural resource and ought to be preserved. It
certainly shouldn't be half designated for Lots 17 and 18 and then a rockery/retaining wall inserted into it. Oh, I can't talk
about Policy E because it says to provide adequate public services, including parks. So, I'll move onto drainage for a second,
if I can find it in here.
Ms. Petso: By the way, the drainage issue is, I think, one that we determined at our last SEPA appeal was probably fully
well ready for an environmental impact statement, and the reasoning there is it's just guaranteed to create an impact. When
we say that, staff says, well, we can only regulate to the extent of our code. But the SEPA law says if you have a significant
adverse environmental impact not covered in the codes and not capable of mitigation, that's when you do the study. So this
is when you do the study, when you have the situation we're in now.
Ms. Petso: There we are. I found it. Okay, there's two separate sections to my drainage issues. One is the elimination of
the existing drainage ditch because, to me, that's guaranteed to put water in the Miller's back yard. Now you heard from
them earlier. It was fascinating, when the Millers said don't raise your property so that the water floods into our yard, the
builder came up and said, oh no, no, we're just going to kind of fill in the ditch. But then, when Kevin came up and was
worried about all the dump trucks and stuff leaving the site, the builder said, oh no, we're leaving the dirt on the site. Well, if
the dirt's on the site from excavations and things, it's probably going to raise the property behind the Miller's house. If that
occurs, and even perhaps if it doesn't occur, then the water's going to land in the Miller's back yard.
Ms. Petso: Now, there's some speculation that since the facility was being sized however it is being sized, that that would
eliminate the need for this drainage ditch, but it's not going to happen because, for example, and it's in the 2003 drainage
basin study, some of the water in this ditch comes from off site, down that steep slope. Other water in the ditch, of course,
doesn't. It comes from the property. But the ditch is in this area, where the water collects off the steep slope. It isn't going
to be connected to the drainage facility that Burnstead is building. And so, you know the way the land slopes there. It will,
in fact, wind up in the Miller's back yard if that drainage ditch is eliminated. That drainage ditch, by the way, is not an
informal drainage ditch. It was done on purpose, and it's in the City's Southwest Drainage Basin Study. I strongly encourage
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 39
Packet Page 249 of 303
you to get a copy of that from staff because all I've done in my materials is to quote the study. I haven't actually got a copy
of it. Although I drew a couple of exhibits from it, like Exhibit 1 there.
Ms. Petso: If you look on Page 31, for a moment please, of the materials, you can see an overview of where the flooding and
ponding occurs. I'm sorry, Kevin, I know its flooding and not ponding, but the study calls it ponding. I want to read some of
the comments. Page 4-9 of the drainage basin study, numerous drainage problems exist within the Woodway Meadows 238"'
catchment. The problems are summarized as limited drainage facilities ponding on the right-of-way and multiple private
properties. Another way I have right here to describe the problem is to say that our children grew up playing in the flooded
cul-de-sac on the south end of 107`h, and I have a feeling that, if you would like, we could probably provide some nice video
tape of the kids riding their bikes through the flood.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I guess my question is following on the presentation earlier is that, I understand and based on the
testimony and everything given, that in the Woodway Meadows to the south of this site has some issues in drainage. I don't
think the City is even disputing that.
Ms. Petso: Okay.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: They've agreed that there's flooding issues, but as Mr. Lutz said how the Burnstead property is not
required to correct Woodway's problems, or Woodway Meadows' problems.
Ms. Petso: Okay.
Ms Ainsworth -Taylor: They're required to address their impacts that their own development's going to be creating. So can
you try and keep your testimony to what you feel their impacts may be.
Ms. Petso: Sure, and they're also not allowed to let it get worse.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Right.
Ms. Petso: Okay, so according to the drainage basin study, it modeled using an infiltration rate of six inches per hour.
Somewhere in here in my materials...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I believe Burnstead has modeled at a 100-year storm, with a detention of...
Ms. Petso: You know, 10 inch, and I'm not a drainage expert, but I gather that that's probably faster as it anticipates 10
inches per hour rather than six, but I could be wrong. Anyway, the six inches was chosen by our plan because it was long-
term and sustainable. Our plan does say that short term, you could probably do, and I can't find it in here, but it's in here,
you could probably do eight to twenty inches of infiltration short term. But after a couple of years, because of the effect of
the sediment in the system, it can't dissipate that much any more. So what we have in place is a comprehensive plan that
says for this area of town, we use six inches per hour.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The comprehensive plan you're referencing in that regard is that southwest drainage plan.
Ms. Petso: Yes, the 2003 Southwest Drainage Basin Study. It says that that's a sustainable rate for the area. Now, if they
were able to come in and say, well, but we did a study right here, exactly where we're doing the thing and its billion inches
per hours, that would be different. But actually, if you look at their little schematics of where they dug their holes, none of
their holes were dug where they're putting the drainage facility. And I don't know why that is, but it is.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, I guess I question you saying that the Southwest Drainage Basin Study says six inches is a
good number.
Ms. Petso: It is. It says what to use for building and siting...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And they're using 10.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 40
Packet Page 250 of 303
Ms. Petso: These guys are using 10 inches per hour, assuming that's how fast they can dissipate water, when in fact they can
only dissipate or infiltrate it at 6 inches per hour. Let me go on. So their facility winds up undersized as a result. For
example, the studies show that for a 2-year event, properly constructed 48-inch diameter dry well could infiltrate the runoff
for 1,600 square foot tributary area without overflowing. The 5-year event could handle only 1,300 square feet. I guess we
didn't study the 100-year event. The applicant is proposing to drain 6,500 square feet into a single -facility, and we're
showing these other facilities can only cover 1,600 and 1,300.
Ms. Petso: The study, by the way, also specifically says, no way, no how, do you channel water in this part of town into a
single facility. You spread it around into smaller facilities. Okay, on to a larger infiltration facility, then. The studies show
that if 100-foot pipe, I believe the applicant's suggestion is a 132 foot vault, the 100-foot pipe can infiltrate 14,000 square
feet for a 2-year event and 11,000 square feet for a 5-year event. Again, the applicant has 65,000 square feet of roadway to
drain. So if a 100-foot pipe is only doing 11,000, then I guess they're going to need a much larger facility. Probably the 10
inches per hour accounts for the difference, but that's not the rate you're supposed to use there.
Ms. Petso: Two more concerns that will probably really scare Kevin. Apparently, according to the ADB minutes, the
facility, and by the way, this comp plan I'm talking about sets out a maintenance schedule for this part of town, specifically,
as in here's how you're going to maintain this part of town because we have issues. The applicant is proposing this be
maintained by the homeowners association, and ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: A stormwater maintenance agreement is entered with the homeowners association.
Ms. Petso: Actually, the document I saw claimed it was in the CC and R's, and I can find it, that's why I attached the CC
and R's. Actually, it's because I wanted to waste a lot of money on photocopies. The other problems is that the emergency
drainage from this facility...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The proposed facility that Burnstead is proposing?
Ms. Petso: Uh huh, the proposed facility that Burnstead has in mind, in the event they can't infiltrate at 10 whatevers per
hour and does overflow, the overflow goes onto 237`h. That's the existing street into the neighborhood, which then runs
down to Kevin's house. It's interesting. It would be nice if this was only just about Kevin, because he's well trained in
sandbagging and stuff like that. Although perhaps not quite as well as Mr. Feldman. But I've talked to some folks who
because of the elevation rise in this neighborhood isn't all that much, it doesn't take much before a flood at Kevin's house
becomes a flood at my house. So even though I live a little bit up stream and at a higher altitude than Kevin, it could still be
a problem.
Ms. Petso: Oh, I finally found the other part. Concentration of drainage runoff should be avoided wherever possible by
employing large numbers of small distributed infiltration facilities as compared to using pipes and dishes that route flow to a
few large facilities, or in this case, one.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: This is once again coming from the drainage basin study?
Ms. Petso: Yeah. Page 4-10.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I don't have the study.
Ms. Petso: I know, but if you jot down the page, I bet you could see it. Otherwise, you can read it on Page 34 of my
materials. Again, on Page 4-11, a dispersed infiltration facility concept, using dry wells and infiltration pipes, is the
recommended method for disposing of stormwater runoff in the drainage system. The intent of this concept is to keep runoff
water dispersed in low quantities rather than collecting and concentrating water in large volumes at a single location. So I
think that since the facility doesn't comply with the comp plan and doesn't look like it's going to be able to do the job, and
since, although nobody cares we already have existing problems, the environmental study is the appropriate answer to the
drainage issue.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 41
Packet Page 251 of 303
Ms. Petso: Plat issue. I don't know if this a plat or an environmental issue. I put it in my appeal as an environmental issue;
it's probably both because the PRD ordinance requires a buffer. There is none, at least I couldn't find one, but it sounds like
there's a number of site plans floating around, and maybe I don't have the right one. But in the early days of PRD's we used
to do perimeter buffers, and they were outside of the lots; they weren't on the lots, you know. And they had like space so if
somebody was running a weed whacker or mowing a lawn, you weren't 2 feet away from it if you were walking on a path in
the proposed City park. You were like 20 feet away from it because there was buffer there. It doesn't look like we're going
to get that. It looks like the buffer is a fence, and that they'll be a couple of trees. I'm particularly concerned about the east
side of the development, bordering the City park, because at the park planning meetings, people have requested a perimeter
trail to the park. Walking is one of the main forms of recreation that people are seeking.
Ms. Petso: Do you need a citing for the buffering requirement or not?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, go ahead. I'm a multi-tasker.
Ms. Petso: Okay, and landscaping, it looks to me on that stretch of, I can't remember, it's three or four lots... I know I
think it's going to be reduced by at least one lot because of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, but even so, you
still have three or four lots left with a couple of trees along them, and that's supposed to be a buffer. That's not what it
should be.
Ms. Petso: Undergrounding of utilities. We're supposed to rely on the code. Somebody cited the code section 18.45, I think
I heard, I'm not sure. It says that if you can show it's going to be expensive to put the utilities underground, you can have a
variance. So that isn't going to help. So if you would kindly turn to Page 36 of the packet, I'll show you a photograph.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, I believe Bumstead has proposing to underground.
Ms. Petso: Well, the proposal is to underground, but as Mr. Hertrich told you, if you don't write it in now as a condition of
what we're doing, it won't happen because they'll come in through a variance hearing and say well, we can show it's going
to be more expensive to underground, and they won't be undergrounded. So on Page 36 of my materials, there's a photo
showing the existing Woodway Meadows neighborhood. On Page 37 is a photo of exactly the area that Kevin was concerned
about. This brings up, by the way, the photo on Page 37 brings up another concern with the public notice. That's your land
use sign.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: On Page 37?
Ms Petso: On Page 37. Do you see the three or four yellow cones on the ground?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Oh, so it's facing out towards the street as people are going ...
Ms. Petso: There's a sign leaning up against the fence there. I gather the cones are to prevent people from walking by when
its windy and getting hit with the sign. I don't know. It wouldn't prevent it by the way because if the sign blew over you
probably would get hit, but anyway, yeah, so that's another concern about the notice. One, they didn't tell us about the fish
and wildlife habitat conservation area, which has to be in the notice of application, which I attached as one of my exhibits.
And two, the sign is hidden so nobody knows about this anyway.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I thought they all came to see me.
Ms. Petso: They probably did. There's an aesthetic issue, as well, which will probably be taken care of when somebody
does the required study of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. But if you look on Page 38, this photo is taken
from what will become the City park property, and that is everything pretty much you see to the right and in front of you in
this picture is the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, with the possible exception since we don't have a detailed map
made yet of the area, of the four tree on the left, which land in Lot 17 or 18. It's obvious which lot they're going to land in,
and they're scheduled to be cut down. So the point of this photo is that if you take off the four trees in the far left,
aesthetically, you lose about 1/3 or possibly half of the backdrop to the park. Independent of whether you decide if there's a
fish and wildlife habitat conservation area there, the aesthetic value of those four trees is obvious.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 42
Packet Page 252 of 303
Ms. Petso: Staff, in their reply to my appeal, claims that mitigation addresses the trees, but obviously, you know, those are
like 65 to 80 feet tall, and you can't just plant a tree there, and you know, have mitigated the aesthetic impact. The staff also
claims that more trees will be retained than if it was developed as a subdivision, but because it's a fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area, I doubt that's true. It's a critical area, and it's going to be protected, and so there's no benefit in that sense
to the proposal.
Ms. Petso: The drainage ditch intermittent stream, I've already talked about, that the wetland consultant needs to determine
if what was started out as a man made drainage ditch is now a critical area. This was really interesting. I had a concern, of
course, of displaced playground users, and there was a question in the EIS about people who would be displaced by the
proposal. And the answer is all those kids on Page 6 or whatever would be displaced by the proposal because they won't be
able to get out there and do their thing.
Ms. Petso: Oh, speaking of which, if you would turn to Page 24, I think, no I can't find it, oh rats, okay. There's some new
fencing gone up in the area that will probably make your site visit, which ought to have already been done, by the way, a
little more difficult because the first set of fences was apparently put on the Bumstead property. Although baseball practices
and such other park uses have been going on behind the fences ... Oh here we are, Page 21. As you've heard, our neighbor
in a wheelchair, Gary, all residents can get into the property, except the three parents who were too lazy to hike around
through the trees, in the photo on Page 21. But the baseball team had no problem getting out there. So Gary went down to
the Council on June 5th and got access to the property as shown, as he raised an ADB issue. On Page 22, you can see where
the access to the property now is. The only way to get there now, because the demolition people have put up their fences,
would be to hike through the woods. But that's okay, you'll probably want to see the critical area, anyway. Okay, back to
where I was.
Ms. Petso: So displaced, staff says usually the dwelling units, but my contention is all these kids are going to be displaced.
Staff contains that the setbacks from the plan are consistent with City code. But they're not because the code requires greater
building setbacks from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area than what's in the proposal. The proposal's probably
okay for PRD boundary setbacks, but it's not okay for setbacks from a critical area. And so, any lots that wind up, I think 17
and 18 are toast, but whatever's next to them, if they wind up next to a critical area, they can't be 5 feet from the property line
or whatever the ADB approved. They have to be further than that.
Ms. Petso: Okay, back to drainage again. Staff says if it meets codes, it doesn't matter that it's not big enough or floods
Kevin's house. I think Kevin would disagree. And under SEPA, the existence of a drainage code isn't what justifies a DNS,
or an MDNS, particularly in this case. It's not a mitigating condition to stop the drainage. Rather, the City has to show that
the codes will minimize or eliminate the impact or that the impact has been legislatively accepted. Neither is the case here.
There's no mitigation proposed, and we specifically have the Southwest Drainage Basin Study telling us no, we don't want
flooding in that area, here's our proposed improvements, here's what our strategy is going to be. It's going to be dispersed
infiltration facilities, and here's the study rates we're going to build for. And you know, it's probably not in the plan, but I'm
sure it doesn't plan to channel overflow down to an already ponding cul-de-sac.
Ms Petso: Subdivision ordinance. It has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and I've tried to show you it's not,
both on parks and on drainage. Zoning ordinance. Oh, hang on, I found some more parks stuff, but maybe I'm not allowed
to say it. It will be a second. Oh good, I am allowed to say this. Where environmental resources exist, this is under our
subdivision ordinance, 85.81, such as trees streams, oh trees is good enough, let's stop there, oh, or wildlife habitats, the
proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts to the resources. Permanent restrictions
may be imposed to avoid impact. And of course, my contention would be that the stand of trees counts as that, even if you
don't want to go through and dig out the critical areas map, except the code requires you to deal with the critical areas map,
so I hope you do or direct staff to do so.
Ms. Petso: The subdivision ordinance also provides for minimal grading and street and house and lot placement consistent
with the existing topography. The existing topography is like 95% dead flat, and again, the PRD allows you to shift around
lot locations a little bit, but you're not minimizing grading if you take the one tiny portion of the property that has a slight 6-
foot incline and decide that you need to cut right through it and create a retaining wall. So I would say it fails to meet that
requirement.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 43
Packet Page 253 of 303
Ms. Petso: It shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, view and so forth. If you look at the Miller
property, which as a view right now through what will become the City park, through and to the City park, they will be
looking at two or three tracts that are separated, well 10 feet by the time you count everybody's setback, two or three chunks
that separate the homes. So it's solid house, 10 feet, solid house, 10 feet, solid house. I think I was very clear understanding
Mr. Miller complaining about that as obstructing his view. It should also minimize outside drainage impacts, and I suspects
you wouldn't let Kevin get up here again, but filling in the existing drainage ditch and providing that the emergency overflow
drainage runs into Kevin's house, is probably not a good way to minimize. In my opinion, failing to underground utilities, if
you don't require it for us, will also create an off -site impact because we can't get in or out without the visual impact of this
neighborhood.
Ms. Petso: The proposal has to be consistent with the comp plan, and I think I've already gone through most of that. It also
has to be consistent with the zoning ordinance, and I don't think it is because under the zoning ordinance, they're supposed to
list the modifications on the subdivision application form. They weren't listed and it's still hard to tell even what
modifications have been made.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Modifications meaning PRD specifications?
Ms. Petso: Yes, some of the PRD specifications. Others I can't tell if they've been modified or not. For example, there was
some discussion of the 35% lot coverage area. And then somebody produced a document that says no actually, it's 35.8%,
and the numbers show it's even more than that because the environmental impact checklist response only talked about half of
the impervious surfaces. The checklist speaks of about 66,000, and I have on here 65,927 square feet in driveway and road.
What was left out was the 60,258 for dwelling units. So I hope this is wrong, but if I add those two together, then we're
going to have what, 70% lot coverage. No I hope I don't get that. I hope I'm wrong there, because that's just, I mean it's
horrible. That would be awful. I would be concerned that it's not consistent with the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Petso: The other concern I have, which Mr. Hertrich raised, was that there's this like random secondary street setback
created at the ADB hearing. And by the way, I think that you may not know this because of two comments you've made
today, but there was no opportunity for public comment at those meetings. This is our first opportunity to comment on what
the ADB did and approved. They just sit there, and them and the staff and the applicant all have a discussion, and so the
comments we make now are being made at our first opportunity to say, whoa, where did this random variance come from,
that's not allowed under the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Petso: Okay, PRD issues. You've heard preservation of existing site amenities such as what I like to say, preserve a
portion of the trees. Oh, create permanent useable and community -owned, oh, commonly -owned, sorry, open space, which
serves the development. This is obviously served to an extent because they put in a big toy by the drainage pond, but there'll
probably be one of those in the park, anyway. But useable open space does not meet the 10% requirement because they can't
count the stuff in the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area.
Ms. Petso: Clustered structures. As Roger said, this hasn't really happened. And implement the policies of the comp plan,
and I think you'll probably hit me if I tried to talk about either the park or the drainage again, but I'll mention the comp plan
also protects fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
Ms. Petso: Criteria. Requires landscaping and greater buffering than would otherwise be provided through a subdivision.
This proposal offers no greater buffering on the site perimeter. In fact, a subdivision would be much preferable because the
buildings would be further apart. Also, you mentioned earlier about the green strip along the street when you were asking
staff about the right-of-way. I don't see a green strip along the sidewalk.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: A planting strip.
Ms. Petso: A planting strip, thank you. And if they're going to underground utilities, that would be a good place to put
them. Kevin brought this one up under A-2, they're supposed to show that site access is not safe. And you can deny the
PRD if they can't. It's very unusual in its configuration and is situated on a curb. It not only poses a hazard for the reasons
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 44
Packet Page 254 of 303
Kevin stated, but it poses a hazard to existing residents who will have to cross it to access the park. Right now, we can access
the park by staying safely on the sidewalk, and we won't be able to if that becomes some sort of access.
Ms Petso: Another requirement. These are not optional. These are requirements. The visual effect must be minimized
through reduced building volumes or through landscape or buffering techniques. In his proposal, there is no change to
building volumes, and there is no landscape buffer. The PRD process must preserve unique, natural features if such exist on
a site. But instead, they want to run a rockery through the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area.
Ms. Petso: Reduction of impervious surfaces is one of the requirements, believe it or not, and it has not been achieved in this
project. In fact, the roof areas may have been maximized and lot coverage probably exceeds code. That's the 35% plus the
other 35%. When compared with a standard subdivision, I am absolutely certain, and I'll sit and do the calculations and
submit it as a supplemental exhibit, that you couldn't possibly cover 70% of the site with impervious surfaces in the standard
subdivision. It couldn't happen.
Ms. Petso: Another PRD requirement is a clear benefit should be realized by the public. Here there isn't one. Like I said
just a moment ago, a subdivision would probably be superior. Staff materials claim that this benefit is from, A-3, two shared
driveways, which doesn't seem to help a whole lot, and A-5 because they're saving some of the trees in the fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area. Now that requirement says that if they want to claim that's their benefit, they need to preserve
significant natural features of the subject property not otherwise protected by the community development code. And let's
see, I think that's 20.35.060, and it's A-5, hopefully, although I may have my citations wrong. My contention would be that
the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area is already protected by the community development code, and in fact, would
not doubt be better protected than what the applicant has proposed here.
Ms. Petso: To follow along with that, when the site is probably mapped in the critical areas study and evaluated by a
biologists, I have a feeling that the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area will be seen to desire a buffer if any of the
existing tree area is outside of the mapped area because some of the highest quality habitat, some of the variations, are on the
edges of that area.
Ms. Petso: Okay, the PRD must be served by adequate facilities, and this includes stormwater. It also includes, of course,
the playfields. And the playfields are being displaced, so there's already a shortage, so the PRD will not be served by
adequate playfields no matter what because we don't have them in this town. Nothing in this town is served by adequately
playfields, but that situation is hardly improved by adding homes on top of one of the existing playfields.
Ms. Petso: Perimeter buffer. This one's good. I like this one. It is clear that this one intended to have a natural buffer and
not just a fence with a couple of trees. The perimeter buffer shall either provide the same front, side and rear setbacks for all
lots along the perimeter, that would be to create the subdivision kind of effect, you know, not go house to house like we've
been talking about with 10 feet between each, or so if you want to cluster, if you want to knock it down to 10 feet between
homes, you should provide a landscape buffer, open space, or recreation area of a depth equal to the rear setback. I don't
know, if the rear setback might be 15, 20 or 25 feet, but a fence doesn't provide a 15, 20 or 25 foot buffer. I would give it
four to six inches max. So this proposal fails that buffering requirement in all respects. The landscape plan, as I read it,
shows just three deciduous trees and six evergreens scattered in the backyards along the proposed park. And I guess I'm only
addressing that because I don't happen to live where the Miller's do, but I have a feeling that... The same concern I have for
buffering along the edge of the park is probably shared by the homeowners on the south and west of the property.
Ms. Petso: 10%, that would be 10% of the gross lot area shall be set aside for usable open space and recreation facilities
shall be provided and effectively integrated into the development. Actually, having so much of the open space up there with
the entry monument, I'm not sure that's really effectively integrated, but anyway. Required landscape buffers and critical
areas do not count towards the useable open space requirement. So I reran the numbers for the open space, taking out the fish
and wildlife tract. Actually because you can't really tell where the map is, I took out only 80% of Tract E because we don't
have the detailed map that the study will provide to know exactly. But taking out 80% of Tract E and using Tract A, C and F,
the total is now 17,700, and the project has a deficit of 6,700 square feet of useable open space.
Ms. Petso: Oh, yeah, this one's great. Since individual site plans have not been submitted, because the ADB seemed to
think it was okay to wait on those, then the criteria that the ADB is supposed to say is satisfied isn't satisfied. It can't be
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 45
Packet Page 255 of 303
because we don't have the individual site plans. What we do have, at most, are some pictures. There's four pictures of
homes, and I have no idea what exhibit number those appeared in. I know they're in the staff document somewhere. Staff
claims several architectural techniques have been used to minimize the prominence of the 2-car garages. I think in one case,
it was an artistic technique. I think they drew the house picture from the side, that makes a 3-car garage look like a 2-car
garage. If the house picture is looked at from the other side, it's probably a 3-car garage.
Ms Petso: Another of their drawings actually steps the garage forward towards the street. It jets out. That is not a
minimizing technique, and the ADB should never have approved it and I don't know why they did unless they... Well, I
don't know because there's no public comment at ADB meetings.
Ms. Petso: Homes must have a strong connection between the street and the house, which can be accomplished by providing
a pedestrian walk. Garages facing the street should be no wider than half the width of the house. If you look at the pictures
provided, there's, at least the first of the home, plainly, the garage takes more than half the width of the house. The garage is
accentuated from the street and sticks out from the side of the house, totally dominating the front exposure. Oh yeah, and
then there's the design that sticks it out. The fourth home appears to lack a pedestrian connection the street. Rather, it has a
circular driveway.
Ms. Petso: 06-013, significant trees and topography should be retained. I am not going to talk about it too much more except
to say fish and wildlife habitat area and the drainage ditch, those are useful portions of the topography.
Ms. Petso: Here's a bit about the designation for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. It needs a separate open
space, and it needs to designated critical area open space to distinguish it from the useable open space.
Ms. Petso: Planting strips. Ali, I knew this would come up. In 10.06.013.7 that they ought to happen, so there you go. And
gee I don't get two or three tries like Kevin or Roger got, but ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can you wrap it up please.
Ms. Petso: Uh huh. I'm just checking to make sure, since I probably don't get two or three tries.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You will have a short rebuttal after.
Ms. Petso: Oh good, so I will get one more try. Okay, great. Thanks.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'll ask the applicant and staff. Would you like the other appellants to give their presentations now
or do you want to respond to Ms. Petso's remarks first?
Ms. Brown: We only have a few comments on what she proposed. We're confident that all of her concerns are addressed in
the letter that was written to you. However, I did want to express in further detail on the fish and wildlife habitat conservation
area that she referenced.
Mr. Lutz: So I think the answer is, at your direction, we feel comfortable we can be pretty quick if you would like us to
respond to Ms. Petso now.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, let's see. Maybe we can combine responses. Let's have Ms. Marks go ahead a do her
presentation, and will be given an opportunity to respond. Then we've got a bunch of exhibits to consider.
Mr. Lutz: Can we ask questions of Ms. Petso?
(Inaudible)
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: We need to look at the exhibits to make sure there's no... Could you provide them with your
stack... I would assume both your briefing and your stack of potential exhibits.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 46
Packet Page 256 of 303
Ms. Petso: Do they just want to look at it right now, and then give it back.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yeah, if you just want to look at it ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, do we have a mike. Okay. We are back on after entertaining a brief recess on the case
before us. It is time for Ms. Marks, who is appealing the MDNS for the City's determination.
Ms. Marks: My name is Heather Marks, and I live at 10522 — 235th Place Southwest, also known as Robbers Roost Road,
Edmonds, 98020. I might mention that the name of this road goes back to an earlier development of the Sherwood Park
Neighborhood, when people on that road didn't cooperate with the developer, since it had been there a long time. So he
named it Robbers Roost. So I guess we have a history behind this.
Ms. Marks: I'm going to call three people, I actually had already decided I was going to have Mr. Clarke be my Exhibit B
because he put forth the thing very well. So I will ask him, do you want to come up and speak?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Why don't you actually start with your remarks and comments, and then as you need your
witnesses to come in and support your testimony or have it addressed further, you can call them forward.
Ms. Marks: Okay, and I'll let them let me know... So I'm appealing the MDNS. I live on the buffer side of the area. I've
lived there for about 21 years, and get out there at least twice a day for that period of time, walking the dogs and you know,
kids and stuff like that. So I want to have the EIS on this environmental statement done because while, yes, I would like to
have the whole thing for the park and I, you know, I'm still, you know, wishing that we could, you know, have that donated
to us, and we would call it Burnstead Sunshine Park, but... Anyway, regardless, they have an environmental impact
statement. Because of what we've already heard today, I don't know if you've picked up on the themes so far, it's been
drainage and flooding, safety, traffic, and loss of the trees in that middle portion. And those are the things that I'm. .
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Your appeal that you filed with the City addresses these three issues: drainage, drainage safety, and
the combined environmental hazards which are directed specifically to demolition and waste removal and asbestos and then
traffic congestion.
Ms. Marks: And I will ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So those are where you need to ...
Ms. Marks: Correct. Okay, but I want you to realize that what has been said actually is what I planned to talk about
anyway. Because when I'm talking about the cumulative impacts, and I'm talking about the 11 acres, it's only where those
11 acres, by nature, do not observe property lines That's drainage. Drainage is actually the big one because any of the
infrastructure that I've dealt with here goes back to the drainage. So when I, let's see, in one of the replies to my statement,
my appeal, it said that Ms. Marks incorrectly alleges that and EIS should be required. I do contest that because ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You're looking at the Perkins Coie letter of June 1 lt'?
Ms. Marks: Uh huh. Right. Where it talks about significant or reasonable likelihood. And that's true ... But reading
through the SEPA checklist, I see things that are going to happen, and they are going to have an impact on the community
surrounding the development, and I don't mean just the minimal little, I won't say little, but the Woodway Meadows and
people in Robbers Roost and so forth. I'm talking about a larger area as it pertains to the drainage and also the traffic. Those
are the two things. But anyway, this development proposal for the ball fields at the Old Woodway Elementary is likely to
have probably significant adverse environmental impact on the surrounding community based on the proposed action as
specified in the WAC blah, blah, blah, 330 and blah, blah, blah, 444. The cumulative impacts, both direct and indirect, are
adverse, and they're actually demonstrated in the SEPA checklist by the acknowledged increase in taxes for the current
residents of the area.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, I'm going to stop you there because economic impacts are not considered environmental
under SEPA.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 47
Packet Page 257 of 303
Ms. Marks: No, but I said that they're demonstrated by. I didn't say the taxes, themselves, were. But they are indirect. I
mean, the taxes are an indirect result of ... I'll continue, residents of the area will be impacted by these increased property
taxes this development will cause so that we can support the additional public services of the 27 homes in the development,
in addition to the fact that our land values are going to rise. But... So that's an interim cost and that has to be considered as
a part of the SEPA because it relates to the drainage issues and the other infrastructure that will be needed, roads and so forth.
Any development in the community also involves health hazards, such as the dust and so forth when the construction starts.
Residents will also lose the use of the prime wildlife and plant habitat area for them, their children, and pets to continue
enjoying.
Ms. Marks: The builder will be gone, but the mitigation fee of the $22,000 plus to handle all the traffic impacts in the large
area will not cover transportation infrastructure, which will have to be developed and built to solve the problems as specified
in the WAC 197.11.444.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You understand where that $20,000 figure came from?
Ms. Marks: Yes, it came from, what was it, $840 some dollars per house.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And that's set by your City Council.
Ms. Marks: Yup, that's right. That's right. However, it is not going to mitigate the large traffic problem. One of the
things, and I'll bring it up here, that is missing, critical information that is missing from this, is that of the residents who
already live there because while it's good to have the numbers for traffic studies and soil samples and how drainage patterns
are supposed to go, if you don't talk to the residents, serving, I don't mean have a community meeting, because you didn't
get any information out of there that was addressed in any of the things. In fact, I don't remember of seeing the minutes from
that. But the thing is, people here can actually, even if end up building, can do things, give you information that's going to
keep you from having a problem later on. But once again, once the developer is gone, they don't have to deal with that.
We're the ones that do. And that's why this hearing is taking so long, because it is very important to us. If we can't get
things across now, as somebody else said, it's not going to happen, and we're the ones who are going to get stuck with it.
Ms. Marks: So the full and accurate consideration was not given to all the required elements of the environment, as
specified in the 444, so I do request an environmental impact statement to help determine what will really be needed if the
development is made so it can mitigate any problems that the surrounding community is going to have to endure for the rest
of their lives or for however long they live there. And I plan to live there for a while.
Ms. Marks: In terms of the significant part, which was nicely defined in the letter from Perkins Coie, I think that the current
community is significantly impacted. And as I said, as an example, our taxes will rise based on the hidden development costs
that the developer is not required to cover. And I will get to what those need to be. In fact, in the WAC in 330, it mentions
that the same proposal for one area may not have a significant adverse impact, but it would for an other area, and that is the
case here, both with drainage and with the traffic and the safety problems that have already been mentioned actually.
Ms. Marks: The other part is that several marginal impacts, when considered together, may result in a significant adverse
impact, which is why I am using the cumulative impact. And let's see, so anyway, that's why I have stayed for this whole
meeting. I wanted ... Okay, so anyway, the context of these may vary with the physical setting, the significance involves
context and intensity, and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test. The context may vary with the physical
setting. Intensity becomes of a magnitude and duration of an impact. The severity of an impact should be weighed along
with the likelihood of its occurrence. Since we know our taxes are going to rise, and we know the things that always happen,
taxes and everything, this is an inevitable result that we will end up paying for these infrastructure additions. So an impact
may be significant if its change of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it
occurred.
Ms. Marks: I support my appeal, as I said already. As far as getting into the cumulative impacts, I went through the SEPA
checklist, and I'm addressing specific things, but they fall within my general concerns. The residents in the area would be
impacted, as I mentioned, by these hidden development costs. And so with B, environmental elements checklist, in dealing
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 48
Packet Page 258 of 303
with earth, the drainage issue is one that we've talked about. I think I can still add a few things, maybe. I had noticed in one
of the drawings that as a part of the drainage, there was an infiltration pond on the park property, and I know that...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You are now referring to the City's parcel?
Ms. Marks: Yeah, right. Right. The current City owned property. So actually, I thought maybe you could help explain
what's really going on with that. I brought that up in my appeal because that does, once again, combine the two tracts, if
drainage ends up going over and into an open pond on the currently City owned property. I know that you also have set it up
so that all of the water draining from your property would go into storm drains underneath, but since this is a preliminary
plan and said that this still could happen, I really want to address this because this is a really big issue. So maybe you can
help me understand this better.
Ms. Marks: I was wondering, this is still a possibility, right. I mean you said you weren't ruling it out. I heard that today.
Ms. Brown: If we could meet City code requirements to do a joint facility, and the City would like to work with Burnstead,
that is still an option.
Ms. Marks: And it would be an open pond?
Ms. Brown: Engineering has not been completed on that. We could not even tell you right now.
Ms. Marks: Because the way it looks, well the way it...
Mr. Lutz: We are not proposing an open pond. We're proposing an infiltration pipe at the park.
Ms. Marks: So it wouldn't be taking up property on top of the land that we would be using for a park.
Ms. Brown: It would not be above ground.
Mr. Lutz: Just to be clear, Burnstead is not proposing that joint development. It's something that we're going to work with
the City on outside of this proceeding if it makes sense.
Ms. Marks: Okay, I realize that I shouldn't just let things go by without questioning them, though. If that's the case, then
who pays for the infiltration pond.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Those would all have to situations worked out during the design of the facility to make sure that it
worked. Burnstead's responsible for handling the stormwater that they generate from their property. How they go about that,
whether its by containing it completely and paying for all the infrastructure themselves, or whether they work out a joint
agreement, sharing costs with the City, is up to them. All that matters is that they are handling what they're supposed to for
the project. So it's separate. Whether they are going to do this, whether they're going to work with the City really isn't up
for consideration here. All that's for consideration is are they handling the water from their property.
Ms. Marks: Right, except that as it would impact me. If they would end up building a pond up there, which is what it
looked like, I think they used an infiltration pond, and little kids playing in the park, that is not a good situation. So that is
what I wanted to address. Also, if I was going to end up having to pay for that, as a part of the hidden development costs, I
wouldn't be happy about that, either.
Ms. Marks: The other thing I was wondering, with the drainage, we're talking about how ... People were talking about
how the ditch up here, and it's ... This was in your packet, but there isn't any explanation with it as far as what it was
actually showing. I was wondering if somebody could explain that.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It was showing the downstream water flow. It shows how the water flows southward out of the
parcel towards Mr. Clarke's property.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 49
Packet Page 259 of 303
Ms. Marks: Right, so.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The flow currently existing on that seems to be how the water flowed, and that's what the engineer
was trying to convey. At least that's how I interpret it.
Ms. Marks: Okay, so does that mean, then that when you have the underground water retention areas, that then that will be
drained down through here? I mean will there be ... Where will it go once it's in those underground vaults.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, it's my understanding, you know, based on the geotechnical engineer's report, that we will
have the point drains in the vault, which will direct the runoff into the subsurface area about 20 feet deep, and he doesn't
anticipate that it's going to surface someplace somewhere else.
Ms. Marks: So it's not going to go into a storm drainage system of the City's?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, no.
Ms. Marks: Okay, it's going to go back down...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Down into the ground.
Ms. Marks: Okay, all right, so you've already clarified two things here, okay. Let's see, another part of that with the
infiltration was, let's see if I can find it. When Mr. Miller was talking about how the water drains down and floods his
basement or, actually it's not a basement, it's a lower level, when that 20,000 cubic yards of soil is removed and put back in
some fashion, even though they're going to try and level out that playing field, so to speak, there will also be concrete
foundations in there. Because of that, if you put the 20,000 cubic yards back, that land is going to be a little bit higher than
what it is right now. Right? I mean, how can you compress all of that into the same elevation.
Ms. Brown: Well, some of the soils that are excavated will have to be hauled off site because they would be unsuitable for
construction uses. But we're not anticipating, based on our preliminary grading plan, and we haven't done extensive
earthwork calculations yet at this point, but based on our preliminary grading plan, we are anticipating essentially a balanced
site, because there's not a lot of earthwork that needs to happen to get level pads for the homes we would build. The
earthwork would be stripping and soil excavation for the vault.
Ms. Marks: But you will have to put in foundations?
Ms. Brown: Correct, which will be hauled off site.
Ms. Marks: Okay, but it said you are also putting back 20,00 cubic yards.
Ms. Brown: The cut and fill, there may be some soils that need to be hauled off.
Ms. Marks: I guess my main concern here is that if land or the development ends up being elevated, even six inches or
something like that, it can end up causing flooding problems for the people in Woodway Meadows. I mean, you read stories
about this all the time where somebody's property, the water is running off and it's flooding somebody elses. So this is a
really big concern for this area. And we know that Burnstead does quality work. I've heard it from others and I've heard it
from you. So rather than just trying to meet the minimal code for the City of Edmonds, it just seems like it would be in your
best interest if you deal with this to go a little beyond that, which is why I think it would be good to have an environmental
impact statement.
Ms. Marks: As far as the emissions during construction, the current residents of the neighborhood, I think this is a project
that's planned for about two years, the completion.
Ms. Brown: The construction or the home building?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 50
Packet Page 260 of 303
Ms. Marks: Well the whole thing. We're living there, so we'll see just the whole thing.
Ms. Brown: Well, from start to selling the last home, it could be over multiple years.
Ms. Marks: Okay so for however long the construction is going on, and I know there'll be different kinds of things going
into the air. In the beginning it will be more from the soils and so forth, but there'll be vehicle and tool, diesel and gas
emissions, and then large amounts of dust from the excavation, which will be airborne. And I know that you plan to water
the sound, but there isn't a real plan that's mentioned here, as far as specifically how it's going to be taken care of. I know
you have a lot of confidence in what you're doing, but to those of us who are hearing this, it's like vapor ware because we're
being promised things, but then there's nothing behind it to let us know that it's actually going to happen. From my own
experience, I know that when the City of Edmonds tells a developer they should only cut down a few trees, the developer will
go in and clear cut the entire thing. And then they get a slap on the wrist, and the trees are gone forever. That happened in a
lot across from me, and it happened in a big way down here at the waterfront. So it may seem like we're whining, but we
also know that that has happened in the past. So with the emissions and so forth, we really need to have a plan because there
are people with allergies and asthma.
Ms. Marks: I don't know if you realize it, but for probably more than 20 years, there have been herbicides and so forth put
on that playfields, and the residue is still in the dirt. I don't know if you've done any studies to determine just how much it
is. I really think it would be good to have a third party come in and do a test of that because just in the last year and a half,
after they put supposedly non -toxic pesticides on there, our dogs have been up there, and one dog go so ill it almost died. So
there really is, it's worth looking into. There was a case in Seattle about a month ago where a couple on Queen Anne Hill at
a hearing like this where it's dealing with demolition, raised some of the same issues about toxic airborne things. And in that
case, the Hearing Examiner decided that the developer needed to take care of that before the permits put together.
Ms. Marks: So I noticed that you mentioned your best management practices in there, and I'm wondering when will we
know what those terms of specific measures taken to make sure we don't have toxins in the air and so forth from the
construction. When will we know what the actual procedure is for taking care of that?
Ms. Brown: Best management practices are industry standards that are set by the industry and sometimes by state and local
laws that set certain things they have to do like reducing traffic coming in and out, sweeping the streets to reduce the tracked
out dirt, watering down soils, etc. And those are all just industry standard practices that the Department of Ecology requires.
And also, with toxic clean up and removal of infill, those are standards that are set by the industry or the state laws,
themselves.
Ms. Marks: Right. I understand.
Ms. Brown: It's not like we need to develop an individual plan.
Ms. Marks: Except that for each site, it seems like they would need to use whatever the best management practices are and
adapt it to that site since not everything is a cookie cutter. When you're talking about the water and with drainage, you said
that the source of the runoff, including the storm water, would only be answered... That it was only the on -site water. So
I'm wondering. You kind of addressed this, I think, earlier, but since that area, that playfield area is actually kind of a
collection point for the water that drains off of the hills and so forth, are you really addressing the water that will be draining
off of the hills because that's off site.
Ms. Brown: We actually did include an off -site tributary area that included the back of the lots at the top of the hill, that
hillside and along that ... And we did account for that flow in our drainage design, and the flow that goes into that swale
now. This is also addressing Ms. Petso's concern, too, about the drainage ditch being filled and where would the water go.
That has been accounted for in our preliminary designs. You know, it may require something along the back of the lots that
border that easement to pick up that water, but that water has been accounted for in our preliminary design.
Ms. Marks: Why is it only the back half of the lot that you include in there?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 51
Packet Page 261 of 303
Ms. Brown: It's just based on topography and the existing stream out there, and assuming that when that plat was put in that
storm drainage was put in and that stream wasn't flowing ...
Ms. Marks: It wasn't. Anyways, I was just curious about that. I know that there used to be a stream, this would be in the
30's that ran right along the edge of our property. Our neighbor has lived at that house for more than 60 years, and she
actually gave us a picture of a sawmill that was in our backyard, with a goat tied to it. So I know that there are water issues
there.
Ms. Marks: Anyway, I feel that the mitigation dealing with these things is just inadequate so far. In terms of the wetlands
report, the area where the playfields are, I know is not a wetlands, but up in the forested area, and I know that in the area that
is the wooded area just to the north of the playfields.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: This is the area contained within the easement?
Ms. Marks: Yeah, and that's wetlands. If you look at the plants, the site includes, but is not limited to, alder willow, maple,
madronna, ash, hemlock fir, cedar, pine, cottonwood, and also salal, huckleberry, Oregon grape, Indian plum, wild currant,
bitter cherry, sword fern, bracken fern, twin flower, liver wart, dove geranium, and curly everlasting. I know that twin
flower, well there's several that indicate that it tends to be a wet area, but twin flowers tend to grow in the wet areas, too.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Could I get a copy of the report?
Ms. Marks: I gave it to you there.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You're biologist report's in here?
Ms. Marks: No, I can give you a copy of the books that I used and I could have you copy them...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, that's fine. I just wanted...
Ms. Marks: Anyway, it's like I said, I go out there today because I'm a amateur naturalist. I have my bird card with me. I
carry it with me all the time, so that I'm not school in it officially, but I do go out hiking. And I've hiked with a biologist, so
I've learned a lot.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Your plant and animal analysis is your own?
Ms. Marks: It's my own, but actually it's based on, what is it, the northwest, it's that book by, is it Pojar and McKinnon.
As far as the animals, we have more than song birds and rodents there. And you do acknowledge that part of this is within a
fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. The birds are including, but not limited to great horned owls, eagles, robins,
swallows, kill deer, hawks, Canadian geese and piliated woodpeckers are frequent visitors to the property. In addition to the
songbirds, among them wren and winter wren and chickadees. Every year, swallows feed on insects they catch in the grassy
area where the baseball diamond is. While they're not birds at night, there are bats out. As we know, bats help to provide
flowers and so forth.
Ms. Marks: For noise on B-2 and 3, the current residents of the property. The two years is not a short-term project. It's two
years of some kind of noise and problems going on. So it would be good to have a specific plan to help mitigate this problem
for the neighbors.
Ms. Marks: Let's see here, I've already addressed the fish and wildlife habitat. In terms of the recreation part, which is the
wooded area, which his a good part of the cumulative impact, the proposed measures really don't reduce, or excuse me they
do reduce the recreation opportunities for the area around the development. I don't mean just the adjacent neighbors. There
is, I'd say, a radius of about five miles. There area lot of people who come up from Shoreline, and since we use their parks, I
think it's okay if they use ours. Come from Shoreline, and they go north and east up into Edmonds. And you can see that
with the petitions we collected more than a year ago to have the City buy the whole property. So the proposal mitigation isn't
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 52
Packet Page 262 of 303
going to reduce the impact on the current community and park users, so the trees that are on that point of leased land, that's
going to be for the homeowners to enjoy, right?
Ms. Brown: That's correct.
Ms. Marks: Which means that that is being taken away from the people who already use it. That is a huge impact. I mean,
I think you got a bit of a sense of how people feel about those trees, and I think that if ... Well, we still would like to call it
Burnstead Park, but if that doesn't happen, I think the idea of swapping land would also be in the Burnstead's best interest.
In fact, it would even go along with the address because the address of the place is on 104t" Street, 23708 — 104t" Street, and it
doesn't empty onto 104t" Street. It empties onto 237t". I can't figure out how that address came to be. But if you swap, if
you swap, you know, it would set things right.
Ms. Brown: Can I clarify one thing. The trees will remain, and it will also be a part of the easement that's already there for
the homeowners association to use. Just like the public can use the rest of the easement. The easement on the far side of the
property, that stays.
Ms. Marks: I know. I know the BPA easement does, but I'm talking about ...
Ms. Brown: On the north side of the property, there's no easement on the north side of the property.
Ms. Marks: No, because it's owned by the City.
Ms. Brown: Yeah, the City owns that, I understand that.
Ms. Marks: Right, but I'm talking about the trees where, right, that point. So that's going to be open to the neighborhood,
surrounding neighborhood to use?
Ms. Brown: It's based on City requirement, but right now it's on our property.
Ms. Marks: I know it's on your property, but you're listing it as an open space.
Ms. Brown: Usually the open space would be dedicated to the homeowners, and so that corner of the property would
technically be owned by the residents of that development. But in a lot of situations, other people walk through.
Ms. Marks: Right, but if there's a fence around it, it makes it hard.
Ms. Brown: We can't put a fence through that because it is trees.
Ms. Marks: The other thing that is really big is the transportation and traffic. One thing I want to clarify. Kevin was talking
about the parking problem along the streets. That is not because of the use of the soccer fields and baseball fields. That
hasn't been a problem. It is because of the Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club across the Street. So just because the soccer
fields and baseball fields might not be there, the parking problem will still be a problem and the safety issues that were
mentioned will still be safety issues. So, as I had mentioned before, the proposed mitigation fees, they're only going to deal
with what's happening right in the cul-de-sac, and probably they'll just be administrative costs.
Ms. Marks: But the real problem, and this was addressed earlier, the intersections, both of 237t" and 104t" and 238lb and
104th, as well as the light at 238t" Southwest and 100t" Avenue. I had addressed this fairly extensively in my appeal, and there
was a letter in the response to that, which said that according to the statistics, it was not a problem. But this is where you
really need to listen to the people who live there because right now, people are upset about the way the traffic is there. And
when you end up adding an additional 270 trips a day to that area, it's going to be really bad, because that area, that route is
the only way out, as I've shown in my earlier appeal with the map. It's the only way out, not just for Woodway Meadows or
for where I live. It covers a huge area. We're talking a lot of square miles and thousands of people. And I can tell you,
when that traffic light at 238th and 100t", when you're trying to go from west to east and you need to catch a bus, and that
traffic green light is only five seconds long...
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 53
Packet Page 263 of 303
Ms. Marks: I took pictures of it before I came here, and I found that you can get 2'/2 cars through that light. If they're
already standing there, and this is a really big issue. The reply to me said that, well, they're coordinated. Well, I can tell you,
those lights are not well coordinated. When you try to make a right hand turn from 238th onto 104th and get through the
second light, which is barely a block away, it's actually not a whole block, you can't do it I'd say 75 or 80% of the time. You
have to stop for two traffic lights, and that is without the additional traffic. So you know, I realize that the traffic analysis
was, you know, the books and everything treat standard, probably municipal areas, okay, this is not standard. And all you
have to do is talk to anybody who has to use that route, and they will tell you the same thing. So the intersection of 238th
Southwest and 104th is inadequate and unsafe for traffic and pedestrians. Residents in the area are on record with the City of
Edmonds noting the problem. Before we became part of Edmonds, the county of Snohomish kept hearing from us. In fact,
have a series of folios that one of the people living further south on 104th gave me where he an email trail with Edmonds,
talking about this problem, and it was a year ago. The problem still isn't fixed, even though they said that they were going to
take care of it. So that's what I'm putting in there for my Exhibit A.
Ms. Marks: Somebody was mentioning that intersection, well, it's 238th coming up to 104th, kind of like a T intersection.
237th comes out so that it's, I don't know how far away, 20, I don't know, I mean it's really, so it makes that a very complex
intersection for all of the reasons that were mentioned earlier. It needs to be addressed. It said that there were only three
accidents in five years, this was in the response to my appeal, and there was only one injury. Well, does it take a person
getting killed to have to do something about it. That's what usually happens, I know. They usually have a quota and you
have to have like three people killed at a site or something before it happens. So I'm wondering, what's your quota for what
has to happen. Are we looking at...
Ms. Marks: Isn't the City supposed to be taking are of its citizens? Is it supposed to be preventing health hazards, taking
care of their health? So this thing about well, there have only been three accidents, they didn't count how many near misses
there were. The other thing is, the lighting at that intersection is terrible, so when you were doing the traffic study and so
forth, and there also weren't very many cars using that intersection at that time because of the severe weather we had. As far
as the traffic light at 238th and 100th, the analysis does not address the congestion at this non-standard intersection. I can
appreciate the statistics make it look okay, but it doesn't work that way in real life. The double intersection at 238th and 100th
Avenue provides the only practical exit and entrance for commuters to a much wider area, as I've mentioned. And I have a
map with my appeal, showing that area. And that includes not only Edmonds, but people from just five blocks over the line
into King County and Shoreline, who use that a lot.
Ms. Marks: So a direct count of the morning commute, that's to be ignored. It wasn't... They didn't do a count of the
morning commute, I don't think. And I would say that those intersections are pretty heavily impacted in the morning. At
night, when you're coming in, the people are coming from the south down 8th and then have to make a left hand turn to try to
get into the left hand turn lane of the intersection at 104th. There are often cars that are obstructing the intersection because
there is not enough room to get more than about three cars into that left hand turn lane. So that is a big problem. And as I
said, engineers from Snohomish County and Edmonds have worked with this lagging system for years. I'm talking about, at
least, well let's see, we've been in the City of Edmonds for at what, 11 or 12 years, and Snohomish County was working with
it before that, so it's been at least 15 or 16 years.
Ms. Marks: The other thing was that the study was done during this period when winter storms had reduced traffic flow.
While the actual day that the traffic analysis was done, it may not have been snowing that day, but that whole period from the
end of November, up through the middle of January, was not a regular traffic pattern because, even if it wasn't snowing at the
time, other roads were icy or a lot of people stayed home to work. A lot of them worked from home, I did that. So the traffic
pattern and the quantity were not the average ones. In fact, I think there was something the reply to my appeal that said there
wasn't an abnormal traffic pattern. I was wondering what you used for the normal traffic pattern at that site, since you'd only
been there, I think it was once or maybe twice.
Ms. Marks: So the SEPA requires that the indirect and direct cumulative impacts all be evaluated. The other thing that was
not taken into consideration was the Brightwater construction that's going to be going on just south of, well right there at the
County line. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Brown: Oh yeah.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 54
Packet Page 264 of 303
Ms. Marks: Okay, well this route is the only route that the skilled craftsman, and what I mean by that, just anybody working
on it, will be taking to get to the job site. So that construction will last until the year 2010. So yes, yes, that's the route
they'll take. And maybe if you don't believe me, it would be a good idea to research that because if that is in there too,
during the construction on the Burnstead property, our community's toast. I am getting close to the end.
Ms. Marks: So anyway, as I keep mentioning, the survey that's missing, well all this information is of the residents who live
there now, and they can tell you where there are holes in the information you have, and there are holes. So I really would like
to know how the current mitigation measures that are in the current report are going to resolve the problems, both that I
brought up and that other people have brought up today. And as I said, there are fumes here. Drainage, traffic, safety,
woodlands, Burnstead Park. That does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it? I'm not done here, okay. So residents of the area
are going to be impacted by this, and I, you know, it's not just residents who are living right around the area. It is in a large
area.
Ms. Marks: Let's see here, so I will, before I totally conclude here, I will have my other witnesses come up
Mr. Southcote-Want: My name is Colin Southcote-Want. I live at 10616 — 237th Place Southwest.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can you spell your last name please?
Mr. Southcote-Want: Yes, S O U T H C O T E — W A N T. And I'm going to be speaking in support of some of the issues
that have been raised. First of all, I agree absolutely that both ends on 238th Street are a problem right now, and will be
exacerbated by the increase in traffic, and that subdivision definitely needs to be looked at to improve that. I want to take a
moment, having mentioned the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, and I want to make sure you understood the maps
that were provided previously.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Actually, Mr. Marks didn't provide any maps.
Mr. Southcote-Want: Oh, sorry. They're in all those materials. This was a portion of the City's critical areas map, and this
big area here was the old Edmonds Woodway High School. As you can see, the map includes a little leg sticking out, which
goes into the property, which was the old Edmonds Woodway Elementary School. We wanted to see how far that
overlapped, both portions of the property, so we blew that up and made a transparency. We blew the leg up, and you have
these materials. Basically, they show that the area does, in fact, go into the Burnstead property. So you know, that's
something, we did it twice. Actually we did it on our map, with basically the same results. So that's something to be looked
at. It guess, you know, the habitat area is critical, and we do enjoy the birds. Particularly we enjoy the eagles and the hawks.
I watch the dogs frighten them away, and it's quite an amazing thing to see.
Mr. Southcote-Want: Heather also mentioned the reduction in recreational opportunities, and I wanted to bring back again
in front of you one topic which I know you don't want to deal with and Burnstead definitely don't want you to deal with, and
that's the issue of these interlocal agreements, the 1997...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You don't need to talk about them. Once again, I have no jurisdiction over them, so I can't decide
anything on it. They're not before me, and they really have nothing to do with this appeal.
Mr. Southcote-Want: Well, there is an important point, a very important point.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You get one important point and then. .
Mr. Southcote-Want: The important point is that with their eyes fully open, the Edmonds City Council voted not to...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Purchase the property.
Mr. Southcote-Want: Excuse me.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 55
Packet Page 265 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm going to stop you right there because it has nothing to do with it and is not in play for my
jurisdiction.
Mr. Southcote-Want: It is perfectly in play.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It is not in play for my jurisdiction.
Mr. Southcote-Want: I told you you didn't want to bring this up and they don't want you to. But you've got to free
yourself to look at it.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I have no authority over whether there is an agreement or not.
Mr. Southcote-Want: Well, it will certainly be brought up on further appeal, which is my final question to you. Would you
please make sure that you let us know exactly what the appeals process is that follows this because in the last few months,
we've been dealing with an appeal on the other property. We were told by the hearing examiner, specifically, that we have to
appeal within 21 days. So we appealed it in 21 days and then the City came along and said, by golly, you're too early. And
it was thrown out of court because we followed the hearing examiner's specific instruction. So I would ask you, please, don't
lead us down the road here on the appeals process. And I would ask if you would require the City to let us know, really let us
know because the Mayor came out with an article in the newspaper saying that it cost $20,000 for the City to defend itself
against an appeal that we wouldn't have brought if we had been given instructions on how to appeal a hearing examiner.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm assuming, based on the 21 days, that he was referencing, the prior hearing examiner, he was
referencing the 21 days that's required if this appeal goes forward to court. It's under a LUPA Action, a Land Use Petition
Act, and there you do have to file within 21 days. You may have been thrown out of court, and this is hypothetically and
completely off the record, because you had exhausted your administrative process.
Mr. Southcote-Want: No, we were thrown out because it wasn't connected with the permits not being issued.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Well the final action had occurred and ...
Mr. Southcote-Want: That's what they ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I don't know the code completely, I mean I've only been here, this is my second time here, but I
would assume that this appeal doesn't go up to City Council. It goes right to Superior Court. I think it does go direct to
Superior Court, and you would have a 21-day appeal. But you will get in the decision. There will be an attachment to the
decision explaining the appeal process.
Mr. Southcote-Want: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Ms. Marks, did you have another witness to speak?
Mr. Clarke: Kevin Clarke, 23924 — 107`h Place West. To enter the record, I would like the record to show that the sun is
setting and it's shining on your face, and I think we all owe you a professional hats off. I have had the opportunity of being
in Federal Court and Superior Court and the Tax Appeals Board and bankruptcy court, and I've never seen a charter of facts
sit through four hours of non stop without a break, being the stenographer and the charter of facts. So thank you for your
efforts. Sometimes more is less and less is more. I would appreciate your professional discretion to include my prior
testimony relating the preliminary plat to be included as my testimony with respect to the drainage and the traffic issues, and
I won't go through that again.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It's all incorporated by virtue of your testimony that you gave on the plat as appeal evidence for
Ms. Marks.
Mr. Clarke: Thank you. That's it.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 56
Packet Page 266 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Anybody else, Ms. Marks.
Ms. Marks: One more. Roger.
Mr. Hertrich: Roger Hertrich, again. I have to concur entirely with Laura's effort and as Kevin mentioned, any of the
previous testimony, I would like to do as he just did. I'd appreciate that. And I'd like to just cover a couple of items that
you've probably already heard about, but I think that need to be. The checklist, obviously, was somewhat deficient. Some of
the issues that had been brought up, of course, basically really weren't addressed well enough, and that has to do with
drainage. Naturally, the developer says I'll do mine as prescribed, but the City will have to do their own, or they can work
with us, or we can work together. But I believe the decision on accepting, on the appeal, is that there are basic questions to
be determined, and part of that, there has to be some sort of a judgment for an answer. And I think the answer really is one
where the City is responsible for completeness, and that completeness, this project cannot go forward until you have that
completeness. It has to be like an ordered court because you have, and I suggest as part of my thought on it, that there needs
to be an independent person to deal with that drainage issue, a consultant, agreed upon by both parties, that would look at the
whole issue and determine if more investigation needs to be made and come up with a mitigated answer that forces both
parties, the City and the developer, to participate as they agreed they would. And the City participate as we don't know if
they will. The City has their budget and they have their engineers, and they do what they want to do. We'll do it in the
future or we have a problem there as described by the City, I think. They recognize that something exists, but they don't
seem to be moving forward. I don't see how this project can move forward without the combination of both because you
have an area -wide problem.
Mr. Hertrich: I have questions about lot coverage, again, please.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The lot coverage isn't part of the appeal.
Mr. Hertrich: Well I'm putting it in as part of the appeal.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, you don't get to do that ... (inaudible)
Mr. Hertrich: You don't have that?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: We've heard about lot coverage. The issues on appeal that we're discussing now are the issues
raised by Ms. Marks and Ms. Petso, and specific lot coverage was not addressed in either of those appeals. We did hear it in
the open testimony for the preliminary plat, and there were people who spoke on whether it was 35% or 38%. Ms. Petso did
address it. When she was speaking, she was speaking in reference to the plat. It was not specifically delineated in the appeal.
So I'm not going to let you talk about that one. And we have had information coming out so I'm satisfied with that.
Mr. Hertrich: And we're not going to deal with open space, either.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, if you feel you can add anything more to the open space argument that has been presented by
Ms. Marks and Ms. Petso in regards to ...
Mr. Hertrich: Well, let me suggest this. That the dimensions that were submitted or have been dealt with by the applicant
are basically, I consider deficient because we have the new evidence of fish, wildlife areas, and the deductions from the
original coverages. And because of that it changes the whole scenario both on lot coverage and open space. That's the
reason I was mentioning lot coverage, right. You start with a new dimension, and now you've reworked the problem. And
my suggestion is that part of that coverage, we're talking about how much of a lot you cover, are we talking about.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I said we're not getting into lot coverage.
Mr. Hertrich: May I ask this? Are we talking about, when you use those figures, are we talking about the roof coverage or
are we talking about the foundation dimension, because I think that's important. If for example, anything that's been brought
UP...
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 57
Packet Page 267 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm going to say, you can specifically ask the Building Department for the Edmonds City Council
or the City of Edmonds, tomorrow you can call them and ask him how they calculate their numbers.
Mr. Hertrich: No, I'm asking how this was calculated. That's my question.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: How this was calculated would have been based on how the City of Edmonds code reads.
Mr. Hertrich: Is there some way I can provide you with that answer, and then from that...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, I'm hoping it's in this book right here, but...
Mr. Hertrich: I hope so too. But we have to have people working from a set of set numbers, and we need to know what
those numbers are and what they were from. And then we have to look at new calculations completely on all the dimensions.
This is a wide open situation. So I'm suggesting, as part of the appeal, that there's a problem here.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: That's no what's being appealed. The design of the plat is not what's being appealed. What's
being appealed is their environmental determination. Their determination that you just need to mitigate ...
Mr. Hertrich: Okay. I've discussed the drainage. Now I will discuss the traffic because it is obvious that the traffic
impacts haven't taken into consideration the usage on the park, and the combination of the two traffics in that area. I think
were deficient on information. I'll just leave it that way. And is there any part of the ADB that we can deal with on this.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Remember, you're looking at just their environmental analysis, and not the planned use.
Mr. Hertrich: Because I already, I think, appealed the ADB decision to you earlier in my discussion.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yes. Besides, their decision is just a recommendation.
Mr. Hertrich: The reason I bring this up because without public participation when you have a single hearing for multiple
things, you are the decider on the ADB.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The burden lies heavy.
Mr. Hertrich: Yeah, well it does because we've had no participation with the testimony given, no arguments being able to
be made to this. I find...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I understand your concern about the ADB process, and once again, I'll say for the ADB process,
they make a recommendation to me that I can either accept or deny depending on how I feel about it. If you, as a citizen, are
unsatisfied with how the ADB process works, you need to address your City Council and change that process. That's not my
process to change.
Mr. Hertrich: Okay, at what point do I appeal the ADB decision.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, personally, I don't even think the ADB decision is appealable because it's not a final
decision. It's a recommendation.
Mr. Hertrich: It's a recommendation.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Uh huh. So you don't need to appeal it.
Mr. Hertrich: Unfortunately a recommendation without equal testimony, equal weighted.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You can do as you did today and voice your opinion on the recommendation to try and get the
decision maker to ...
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 58
Packet Page 268 of 303
Mr. Hertrich: I don't think it was correct. Thank you.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay.
Ms. Marks: I conclude that this development proposal on the ball fields of the old elementary is likely to have an significant
adverse environmental impact on the surrounding community, direct and indirect, based on the proposed action as specified
in the WAC 330, 444 and everything else that you can think of So, I really, I still will favor the park, the whole thing.
However, you know, to help make the whole neighborhood believe in the process and understand, I really think an
environmental impact study should be done because it will help us settle a lot of these issues that have been brought up today.
That doesn't mean that the development doesn't go forward, but it certainly can answer a lot of problems, a lot of questions,
I'm worry. And since Burnstead prides itself on a quality product, I've heard them say that here, and I've also heard them
say this at the community meeting, and I've heard other people say that they have a quality product, and I've heard you say
today that you want to be a good neighbor. But if you only comply with the minimal amount of the ordinance, just what the
ordinances say you have to do minimally in order to get your permits to build, then is that really being a good neighbor when
all of these other things are getting brought up. Is that going to help you keep your reputation for quality if you don't treat
the neighbors in a quality way? Thank you.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. Mr. Lutz.
Mr. Lutz: I'm sorry. One of my questions was how you prefer the order to go in terms of response. Because I know we
both have hopefully very short responses.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It' doesn't matter to me whether the City wants to defend their actions first and then supplement
with the documents that you've provided and the analysis you provided.
Mr. Lutz: Thank you.
Ms. Stewart: Just a couple of general responses to both of the SEPA appeals. The staff report, with the attachments, dated
June 8, 2007, is a response to the appeal. Attached to the staff report is Attachment 7, which is the threshold determination
and mitigated determination of nonsignificance. It mentions six recommended mitigation measures that these should become
conditions of approval. The threshold determination was reached based on a review of the available checklist submitted by
the applicant, as well as additional application submittals, including the traffic impact study and the preliminary storm
drainage report, which included appendices which are key to this project.
Ms. Stewart: There were questions about what staff relied upon in terms of the impervious area calculations, and it is
contained in the storm drainage report. There are two different tables. One's entitled Woodway Elementary Impervious
Area Calculations. And there's notes regarding the calculations. So staff reviewed those.
Ms. Stewart: In addition, there's been mention of another type of critical area, and it's been characterized as a fish and
wildlife habitat conservation area. Prior to issuing the threshold determination, staff also reviewed a critical areas
recognizance report, dated and signed March 20, 2007, and I'm going to enter that into the record. I'm not quite sure if that
has been entered.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I do not see that one in the record. It will be submitted as part of the reports that were relied on for
the MDNS.
Ms. Stewart: And this is summarizing a staff site visit early on in the review of this proposal. And on Page 2, I'd like to
direct your attention to the middle of the page, where there's a statement that says that this site does not appear to be located
within the conservation. It appears to be located on the adjacent parcel to the north, is where the fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area is understood to be.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So then, hence, you're disputing the map that was prepared by the appellant Petso, who had the
map area overlaid into that northern section of the property?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 59
Packet Page 269 of 303
Ms. Stewart: That's correct. Lastly, I would like to mention what the appeal procedure are for your determination here.
There's essentially three actions. The first is your decision on the planned residential development application and as per
information from the City Attorney, Scott Snyder, that decision is appealable to Superior Court under the Land Use Petition
Act, and that's according to ECDC 20.35.080.A.4. Then the second decision that you will be making relates to the
subdivision preliminary plat approval. That is appealable to the Edmonds City Council pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010.B.
And then, finally, your decision on the SEPA appeal is appealable to the Superior Court. This concludes my comments.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. (inaudible)
Mr. Lutz: I would like to introduce our wetlands expert.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can you remind me who you are.
Mr. Enenhisel: Yes, my name is Louis Enenhisel, I'm a senior wetland ecologist of wetland resources and a professional
wetlands scientist. I also have a minor in botany from a masters degree. I guess first, to address the thoroughness of our site.
It says that we walked the entire site, that we took core samples of the soils and looked at the plants. Both per my assessment
and from Mrs. Marks assessment, most of the plants on this site are ?? or ??, meaning they don't grow in wetlands. There's
no wetlands on the site. He intermittent stream is not an intermittent stream, it's a ditch. 1 doesn't convey any hydrology. It
doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't convey...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The internttent stream is the swale ditch?
Mr. Enenhisel: Yeah, the swale ditch is not an intermittent stream. They mentioned that it might be an intermittent stream,
but it's not. As far as, I guess the next issue is the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, and I walked through there...
My understanding is the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area is associated with wetlands or streams. You know, it
protects fish and wildlife. There's no wetland or stream in that area. As far as the wildlife, I don't dispute the species that
Mrs. Marks said are there, but there's no ... The habitat species maps that the Department of Fish and Wildlife in
Washington provides state where all of the species and habitats of concern are, and there's none within two miles of this site.
So while there's wildlife there, undoubtedly, it's not a concern. And in addition, most of that area is not going to be
disturbed. The map they based it on the critical areas study, or excuse me, City's critical area maps are generally broad scale
overview maps, sort of give you a first idea. They are usually superseded by a site visit. So I would dispute that there's even
a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area on this site. I think that does it.
Mr. Lutz: At one point, in Ms. Petso's Exhibit 52, there is a flow chart that she referred to. And in that flow chart, if you do
a site visit and determine that it's not a critical area, then there's no further action. So I just wanted to make that point.
Mr. Lutz: The next issue, and hopefully I can just make this really short.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Do you have questions?
Mr. Lutz: I have no questions.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I know you can have the last chance...
Ms. Petso: Yeah, it's that halo. I was wondering, who on the checklist said there was a wildlife conservation area. Who put
that into the checklist?
Mr. Lutz: I believe it was the City. I'm not sure who...
Ms. Petso: I don't think the City filled out the SEPA checklist for you, did they?
Ms. Brown: In the pre application meeting, the City indicated that it would be their preference if we stayed, if any of those
trees could be saved in the corner.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 60
Packet Page 270 of 303
Ms. Petso: But that is ...
Ms. Brown: Because it was adjacent to a potential fish and wildlife area.
Ms. Lutz: I think the question is how did we get it wrong in the first place if it's determined not to be a ... The initial
checklist said it might be a fish and wildlife habitat area, and then subsequently, the City looked at it and said, no it's not.
The question, I think, is how did you come up with it in the first place.
Ms. Petso: Right, and therefore, how can we believe anything? How did it get in there and it wasn't changed in any of the
other information we had since that time. So we're going by what the checklist says.
Mr. Lutz: Yeah, and I think the answer was that somebody went and looked at it and said, no, whatever broad scale
information source was the source of that statement in the checklist was not accurate and so .. .
Ms. Petso: Could we get some documentation on how that determination was made or not made? Whoever is making the
determination officially is not here. I would like to know ...
Mr. Enenhisel: It wasn't. I didn't see anything when 1 wrote the report that would indicate it was a fish and wildlife area, so
I didn't address it.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Any other questions by the appellant of the wetland biologist?
Ms. Petso: Well, yeah, if we're allowed to ... Are we allowed to ask the attorney a question too, or just him?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: He wouldn't be a witness.
Ms. Petso: Okay, I can only ask this guy. You said you took some soil samples. How do we get a copy of the results of the
soil samples?
Mr. Enenhisel: When you do a reconnaissance it's sort of a quick fast look at the site, and so I didn't take the edits. The
soils in general on site where it wasn't filled are of sandy loam about ?? 44.
Ms. Petso: We know that from the other report. But your soil samples, you're not doing a report for them.
Mr. Enenhisel: No.
Ms. Petso: Okay, how many did you take?
Mr. Enenhisel: I didn't document any soil samples. I just walked and take a look at the area to investigate.
Ms. Petso: Did you take any from the ditch?
Mr. Enenhisel: Yes, I took some in the bottom of that ditch because that was the first... When we looked at this site, it was
when Burnstead was in feasibility, so because I realized our liability, I realized it was in my best interest to know whether
there were wetlands or streams or anything on the site.
Ms. Petso: But you don't do a report on the soils. I mean, did you even note somewhere in your notes whether they were all
dry.
Mr. Enenhisel: Yeah, they were all dry.
Ms. Petso: Okay.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 61
Packet Page 271 of 303
Mr. Enenhisel: You know, it's a determination of what's there and not the detailed site conditions.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Any other questions.
Ms. Petso: Yes. When you did your walk through of the fish and wildlife habitat area, were you just looking for streams?
Mr. Enenhisel: I was looking for streams, as well as wetlands.
Ms. Petso: Okay, so you weren't looking for Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
Mr. Enenhisel: As I said earlier, there's trees which make habitat, but there's no reasons per the Edmonds Code that this
would be a fish and wildlife habitat area.
Ms. Petso: Except that it appeared on the critical area map, right, of the City.
Mr. Enenhisel: I haven't seen the map, and I assume that's the case.
Ms. Petso: How did you determine, then, that in your opinion the parcel on the Burnstead property wasn't official wildlife
habitat but the immediately adjacent City property was?
Mr. Enenhisel: I didn't say that. I don't think either of those are. I don't think there's ...
Ms. Petso: You think the map is so general that it's actually wrong and that it even jumped across the street from the other
high school to call it a fish and wildlife habitat.
Mr. Enenhisel: You know, a lot times those maps show sites that don't show wetlands on them, and when you go on site,
there's wetlands. Everytime, it's regulated as a wetland if that's the case. Site visits generally supersede broad scale maps.
Mr. Petso: Oh that's right, because you were looking for wetlands.
Mr. Enenhisel: No, I was looking for wetlands and streams, which comprise critical fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas.
Ms. Petso: Okay.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Anything else.
Mr. Lutz: On the question of the comprehensive plan's requirement and the consistency with the comprehensive plan, I
don't think I need to introduce this, but in our letter we provided a single page as Exhibit S, which has an asterisk next to the
entry for old Woodway Elementary, Edmonds School District, and it says 3.3 acres acquired developed. And so, as we
understand the City's current comprehensive plan park element, there's only a 3 acre parks requirement, which the City
satisfied by acquiring 5 plus acres. And again, in Ms. Petso's exhibits, you will find, and I didn't write down the number, but
quite a bit of correspondence which shows, at least, the Mayor's interpretation of the comprehensive plan being that
interpretation. I suspect she disagrees with the Mayor's interpretation, but it is in the exhibits which were submitted.
Mr. Lutz: For the question of infiltration and drainage dispersal, I would like to ask Nicole to quickly address that if you
could. The on site ...
Ms. Hernandez: Oh, okay.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Am I talking loud enough. I hope I'm being picked upon some of these...
Mr. Lutz: I'm sorry.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 62
Packet Page 272 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Definitely, Ms. Hernandez needs to be there, I my mind. We don't want to just hear one side of
everything.
Ms. Hernandez: Hi, Nicole Hernandez, with the Blue Line Group again. I think what you're asking me to address is one of
the items that Ms. Petso said regarding the City's Drainage Basin Analysis Report, not wanting all of the stormwater to be
directed to one concentrated area for infiltration, but to kind of spread out the infiltration throughout the larger area. And I
think it may have been incorrectly stated earlier by someone here, that the roof and footing drains would also be directed into
the catch basin and pipe system that will be in the street that then goes into the large infiltration vault. And that's not actually
what we're proposing. We are proposing that the roof and footing drains for the individual homes be infiltrated on each lot in
some sort of a dry well type system and that the runoff from the right-of-way, the roads and sidewalk, would be what is
directed into the infiltration vault.
Ms. Hernandez: With regards to the 6 inches per hour infiltration rate that Ms. Petso is referring to from the City's drainage
analysis, you know, we feel confident with our geotechnical engineer's analysis using the 10 inches per hour for our design.
That also included a factor of safety of 3'/2. I don't know what type of infiltration system the City's report was referring with
the 6 inches per hour if they were utilizing point drains and things like that, because those do change the infiltration rate. I
think that was it.
Mr. Lutz: That was all I have to say, but you will allow cross examination?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Ms. Marks, Ms. Petso, any questions in regards to Ms. Hernandez' testimony on the drainage?
Ms. Petso: On drainage.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: On drainage. That's what Ms. Hernandez was testifying on.
Ms. Petso: So were you saying that the homes, themselves, take care of the 60,000 square feet that are not draining into the
road system?
Ms. Hernandez: Correct.
Ms. Petso: So the central facility only takes in the 66,000?
Ms. Hernandez: Correct.
Ms. Petso: And how does the outside flow get into that main system, that central system?
Ms. Hernandez: Well, it hasn't been totally determined yet, but as I stated earlier, that we would likely put some sort of
French drain type system along the back of the lots that the, I guess, panhandle of the City property there, to collect the flow
that's coming off that hillside.
Ms. Petso: When are you going to make that determination?
Ms. Hernandez: During our final engineering design.
Ms. Petso: And so, if it's insufficient and if .. .
Ms. Hernandez: If what is insufficient?
Ms. Petso: If you decide not to put a French drain in and then the guys have big pines in their back yard, what's the
recourse?
Ms. Hernandez: Well, we need to account for that off -site flow in our drainage design, per the City code. So we will be
accounting for that.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 63
Packet Page 273 of 303
Ms. Petso: You're not going to do that during the SEPA process. When do you do it?
Ms. Hernandez: It has been accounted for in our vault design, we just haven't shown the detail of design on the back of the
lot.
Ms. Petso: Okay, a minute ago, you were going to do a French drain on the lot. Now you're going to run it back to the vault
again?
Ms. Hernandez: No.
Ms. Petso: Why don't the French drains collect it and connect to the vaults.
Ms. Hernandez: To the vaults, correct.
Ms. Petso: Okay, so what happens to the Millers, say, who are like two houses down from the ones you say you might have
extra drainage too. Too late, or were you not going to include them. I mean, they're like the closest people to the deepest
part of the ditch. They're the ones that called in 1983 and said, fill it up. They aren't going to make it deeper because it's
filling up.
Ms. Hernandez: Well, we are required to collect and deal with the flow that's coming off the hillside.
Ms. Petso: Right, I guess my point is it comes off the hillside and it goes to Miller's house. It doesn't just stop on the lots
that are long the north end of the property. We have this little map that shows it flowing along the west edge of the property.
Ms. Hernandez: Correct. We will intercept it before it gets to the west edge of the property with the drains that run along
the backs of the lots.
Ms. Petso: Okay. So you're saying it can't get to ...
Ms. Hernandez: That's what, I mean it's in our best interest to do that for Burnstead, as well. Because obviously you don't
want their homes flooding or anything happening there.
Ms. Petso: You know, to be honest with you, Ms. Hernandez, it was because based on what happened with the Clarkes, I
assumed that nobody took care of it, they bought a house and surprise, now they are underwater. That's why I'm wondering,
if she approves this thing and you decide later, after she approves it environmentally, to not put those storm drains in, what
recourse do people have.
Ms. Hernandez: The City still needs to review and approve our final construction. The City code will require us to collect
and deal with that stormwater that's coming onto our site, because it is an off -site tributary area to our property.
Ms. Petso: But we can't require French drains?
Ms. Hernandez: No, but we would have to deal with it in another way then, and you know, as part of our engineering
review, they may require us to put in French drains, but we have not done a detailed design yet.
Ms. Petso: And if they don't, there's no recourse for the property owners.
Ms. Hernandez: If it's not a French drain, it will be something.
Ms. Petso: Could you also tell me, you mentioned preparing for a 100-year storm. Which City code requires you to do that?
Do you know.
Mr. Fiene: It's 18.30.230.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 64
Packet Page 274 of 303
Ms. Petso: I mean which provision? Because in 18.30, I don't see anything in there about the 100-year storm.
Mr. Fiene: The 100-year storm is actually spelled out 100-year storm. 2, 10 and 100 for a system that drains to a stream, 10
and 100 for a systems that don't go into streams. I don't have the actual, it's under 06.1.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: 18.30.60?
Mr. Fiene: Yes.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And all developments greater than or equal to one acre that discharge directly or indirectly to a
stream, it talks about that in Part B, so it is 060.1.A,B,C,D,E,F, talks about the different standards for different areas.
Ms. Petso: I guess my concern is, since this doesn't discharge to a stream, and somebody decides they don't have to meet
any standards. So I just wanted to make sure it was in the code somewhere because...
Mr. Fiene: If it doesn't drain into a stream, you don't have to do the 2-year, but you still have to the 10 and 100.
Ms. Hernandez: 10 — 24 hour, 100 — 24 hour designed storm systems. That's in sub part C, all other development.
Ms. Petso: Thanks.
Ms. Hernandez: The all inclusive all others.
Ms. Marks: Would the flow control and water quality facility support the analysis, and I think several other ... It's based
on a 1992 Washington State Department of Ecology Manual, and there's also a 2001 or 2005 manual, right.
Ms. Hernandez: Yes, there's a 2005.
Ms. Marks: So I was wondering why it's based on an old manual.
Mr. Fiene: We're not comfortable with the newer one.
Ms. Hernandez: That manual was adopted by the City of Edmonds, and they have chose, for right now, not to adopt the
2005 manual.
Mr. Fiene: A lot of cities are reluctant to adopt that, but it's a whole other subject and I'm not going there.
Ms. Marks: Okay, that explains that.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Any other questions at this time for Ms. Hernandez? Mr. Lutz.
Mr. Lutz: I actually, if he would indulge me, I just have one question for Mr. Fiene, and Mr. Fiene thank you. Based on
your responses earlier to Mr. Clarke, it's clear that you have a good understanding of the drainage issues that are in the area
surrounding this project.
Mr. Fiene: Yes.
Mr. Lutz: Do you believe that an EIS is necessary in order to study drainage from this plat to avoid significant adverse
impacts to off -site properties, or can we rely on the City's code for drainage?
Mr. Fiene: I'm not an expert on the EIS. From my perspective, that's more of a planning issue. But what I can say is that
our code requirement is that Bumstead takes care of their drainage, and I wouldn't think that we need to go to that detail for
that aspect of it. And the City is dealing with the drainage problem there, and I would like to comment, there was one
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 65
Packet Page 275 of 303
comment, I guess by Mr. Hertrich, that it's an area wide problem, and he's wondering about the City's efforts to do
something. I could show a map of all the different systems we've put in in that area. We've spent a disproportionate amount
of time, you know, involved in that area taking care of drainage problems. So we're diligent, and we do intend to build a
system at the new park. It's going to be part of that project. I'm going to be at the meeting next week discussing that, so it's
an answer to your question. I thought I'd make that comment, as well.
Mr. Lutz: All right, thank you. I'm through.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I guess it's back to Ms. Marks and Ms. Petso.
Ms. Petso: I guess I'll start with the rebuttal. Would you say that this is consistent with the drainage basin study, the comp
plan, that says assume 6 inches per hour for long term, and don't use a centralized facility.
Mr. Fiene: Okay, the basin study, I mean, it did say the 6 inch as an average to be used for the long term infiltration rate.
But it also said it could vary between 2 and 10 and that you should do a site specific analysis. And that's what we'll hold
Bumstead to.
Ms. Petso: Except that this is site specific, I mean the Southwest Drainage Basin Study is site specific to this area of town.
Mr. Fiene: Right, but it's a study. We didn't do infiltration rate analysis in every individual site throughout the area. It's an
overall for the area to give us some benchmark on what to be looking for.
Ms. Petso: Are you comfortable with the fact that none of their infiltration testing is at the location where they're going to
put the infiltration thing, facility.
Mr. Fiene: We'll review that, you know, when it comes to that point during the storm drainage report, when it's submitted
to the City.
Ms. Petso: Can I ask why we shouldn't review that in an environmental impact statement?
Mr. Fiene: Once again, I'm not an environmental impact statement expert. I think that's more of a planning question for the
planning manager than it would be for me, but once again, I think they're responsibility, as far as the drainage laws to take
care of the drainage on their site, and make sure it's no worse than it was before under the criteria.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Just to clarify. As part of the environmental review, I show that there was a stormwater drainage
report submitted, the one that's in the record.
Mr. Fiene: We need a more detailed report than what's there before we ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The other one that Ms. Hernandez referenced before.
Mr. Fiene: I think that she did refer that there's going to be a more detailed report to follow and that's what we expect.
Ms. Petso: Now, why would you have the emergency overflow go out on 237th where it already floods Kevin's house?
Because you can be sure that if this new project is flooding, Kevin's house is already under stress, if not under water.
Mr. Fiene: It has no where else. I mean, it really has nowhere else to go. I mean that's the downstream system. That's
what's happening now. Right now, there is a situation. We can't make it any worse than we did before, once again.
Ms. Petso: So how are you not making it worse by routing emergency extra water to Kevin's house?
Mr. Fiene: I don't know where you're getting this statement that we are doing that. What we're doing, are you talking
about the Bumstead development?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 66
Packet Page 276 of 303
Ms. Petso: Yeah, the project, somewhere in this, the project says that the vault that's going to go under the play area will be
set up so that if it can't handle the water on site, the water will first overflow into the street on the new development, which,
you know, may not bother Kevin much. But after it rises, it will topple over into the drainage system currently on 237t'.
Mr. Fiene: Well actually, their overflow should go in the same pattern it does now. That will be a requirement. So if it goes
towards, I think it was Mr. Miller in that area, that would be where it would go now. You do not want to send drainage into a
direction it's not already going. So it would flow in that matter. So if that's not what they're showing, that would probably
be something we would address on our review.
Ms. Petso: Here's my concern then, is that the water currently going to Mr. Miller's house, I have been assured, will be
collected and conveyed to this other facility. And I've been told that that facility will then drain on 237`h.
Mr. Fiene: Once again, we're looking at the design storm. You're talking about emergency overflow, which could be for a
500-year event. It could be for a much larger event. But whatever it is ... I mean, the drainage law, the way it is, is that you
have to maintain natural drainage patterns, and that's what we're going to hold them to.
Ms. Petso: But you said there's no where else for the water to go a couple of minutes ago. So if you don't put it on 237tn
and it isn't getting there right now. It's being sucked up by some tree in the drainage ditch. What do we do then?
Mr. Fiene: I don't know what else to say. I mean...
Ms. Petso: Can we talk about the maintenance. In that study, what's the recommended maintenance for this part of town?
Do you remember?
Mr. Fiene: Maintenance. Our requirement for City systems?
Ms. Petso: Yeah, what you would do if you had this thing.
Mr. Fiene: Our City code regarding maintenance as far as on municipal operations is that we inspect the system once a year
and factor as necessary. We also are required to inspect private systems of a certain size or bigger, such as this one, on a
yearly basis and report if there's any problems.
Ms. Petso: If you were to find a problem, since this isn't your system, what do you do?
Mr. Fiene: You would notify them and put them on report that they need to maintain their system.
Ms. Petso: No, not them, because they'll be gone.
Mr. Fiene: Right, it would be the homeowners association.
Ms. Petso: And if the homeowners association would rather spend their money on other things because it isn't there house
that floods, it's Kevin's, what do we do?
Mr. Fiene: They could get fined.
Ms. Petso: Is this like the fines for accidentally cutting down trees, or is this a fine that would provide for ...
Mr. Fiene: The fine is per the code.
Ms. Petso: Oh, per the code. And you don't know how much those are?
Mr. Fiene: Not off hand. I'd have to look that one up.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 67
Packet Page 277 of 303
Ms. Petso: Okay. In that document over there, it suggested a more heightened maintenance for the southwest Edmonds area
no doubt due to the existing problems. Is the one year normal, or is the one year more heightened.
Mr. Fiene: I would have to double check on that.
Ms. Petso: Okay thanks.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Anything Ms. Marks?
Ms. Marks: I don't know if I should ask him or... I guess... That is what kind of enforcement procedure is there ... I
have to make sure I really understand this so that when Burnstead has completed the homes and they've left, and then the
system doesn't work, I mean by chance, maybe inadvertently it was the Corps of Engineers, the same ones who built the
dykes down in New Orleans or something like that, so they really were sure that it was going to work, and you can be really
sure something is going to work, but we are human and we make mistakes. But if two years after or a year after we've
completed the project, so they don't have any legal liability for it, you know, the idea of the homeowners association having,
and not just the homeowners association, but the people around it that are flooded.
Ms. Brown: It's actually pretty standard for the homeowners association to be responsible for maintenance.
Ms. Marks: That may be, but I mean there's no enforcement for say, Burnstead to come back and two years later and make
good on a plan that we are... This is the thing. We are to accept it now. We are to trust, and that's what it boils down to, is
that we are to trust the City and Burnstead that all of their calculations are right and then if something goes array, we're the
ones to get stuck with it.
Mr. Fiene: That's just like any development ...
Ms. Marks: That's why we're saying this development...
Mr. Fiene: On the other hand, if you go back to 1977, the City didn't even have a stormwater management code. I mean,
the progress has been enormous. I mean, it will probably continue to be more aggressive over the years, but the bottom line
is this is the City code, and this is what we go by.
Ms. Marks: So that's why it is so critical to this whole area that we have an environmental impact because, 1 mean, we are
being asked to accept this on faith. And I know that they have all the best intentions. They have good workers and
everything, but we've been burned before when the City has said, trust us.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Thank you, Ms. Marks. Anything else in closing?
Mr. Lutz: My only closing is that we appreciate your time. We appreciate the appellants' concerns. From the perspective
of the requirement of an environmental impact statement, the question is, have we provided the information that the City
needs to reasonably determine, if they enforce their code as it's written, and if we do the work we're supposed to do, which if
we don't we'll get in trouble, they are confident that there's not likely to be a significant environmental problem caused by
this development. And the answer is, based on all the evidence, that there is no potentially significant adverse impact that's
been identified by any of the studies that won't be handled by code and proper code enforcement. So for that reason, the
appeal should be dismissed. And then as far as the PRD application is concerned, we have to follow up on the school district
issue.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yeah, there's a few things. We'll go through the list.
Mr. Lutz: And really, apart from that, we're very confident that the proposal meets City code and we are comfortable with
staff s recommendation. We're comfortable with the Architectural recommendation if you choose to accept it. We look
forward to your decision. Since I just did that, I'm the lawyer, and I want to give the last word to Ms. Brown, since this is her
project.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 68
Packet Page 278 of 303
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Any final comments, Ms. Brown, in response to the appeal?
Ms. Brown: I would. On behalf of the applicant, I respect you for being here. I know that you guys have concerns, and just
like everybody, you have the right to speak your opinion based on your experiences. 1 get that. As the developer, what I'm
required to do is prove to you, based on county codes and hired professionals trained to do their job, and I'm going to do the
best I can to make sure that your concerns are met. I feel that I've done that here today. I know you see differently, and we
can sit here and view opinions for another six hours, but I know none of us want to do that. But I just need you to know and
have it be on record that I do understand and appreciate your concerns, and I respect the fact that you have the right to voice
them.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Any rebuttal closing comments, Ms. Petso and then Ms. Marks, or you can switch around, if you
would like.
Ms. Petso: Regarding the assertion, I guess, that the Mayor chooses to interpret one small portion of the comp plan to mean
it was supposed to be a 3-acre neighborhood park on the site, you're right. I don't agree with that interpretation. In fact,
there's text in the comp plan which indicates that the 3-acre number is derived by taking seven sites needing neighborhood
parks and dividing the 20-acre shortage of neighborhood parks, and you get the number 3. It has no significance in terms of
somebody saying that's how it should be. In fact, that's pretty much the minimum size neighborhood park for the City.
When you combine that 3-acre neighborhood park with the 2-acres of open space, you're still left with trail deficits and
playfield deficits, which the City's grant application indicates could be met and better met by following the comprehensive
plan, which says acquire the property.
Ms. Petso: With regard to the Mayor's interpretation, another concern is for Exhibits 18, 19, 20 and 21, that deeply indicate
the Mayor's not entirely total enthusiasm for this project. I mean he's enthusiastic for the houses, not to acquire the property
for a park. He has a column in the Enterprise in 2005, a memo to Council in 2005, both saying well, if you insist, I have to
follow Council policy. The City Council minutes of January 18, 2005 are even funnier. They say something...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Once again, how does this apply to your appeal of the environmental issue on what the Council
wanted and what the Mayor was saying. That's a done issue. They've done what they've done and...
Ms. Petso: I'm sorry. I was rebutting his comment that the Mayor's interpretation of the comprehensive plan was
appropriate. I'm trying to show it isn't appropriate based on his conduct. For example, on 4/11/2006, he threatened to veto
Council if they voted to buy the entire property for a park. Now, on the other hand, Council's attitude is different, and they're
the ones who set policy. On March 20, 2007, just a couple of months ago, Deanna Dawson said, no we haven't amended the
comp plan. Not a problem. The comp plan says what it always says, the properties a park.
Ms. Petso: The other comment by the attorney I would rebut is that there were no significant adverse environmental impacts
not addressed by the code. And I think that probably above all people, Don made that most clear. Just one example from his
testimony was that we can't change the direction water's going to flow, even if we take the water from the drainage ditch
behind the Miller's house and either dump it on the Miller's property or convey it out to 237th instead of letting the trees in
the current drainage swell suck it up. We've changed that water. Don said there's nothing he could do about it; there's no
where else for the water to go. The overflow will have to go onto 237th, the system that I think even you can see it earlier,
appears to be overburdened. Now what that gives us is a significant, as in flooding, adverse, as in flooding, environmental
drainage impact not addressed by the code. And that's in the EIS.
Ms. Petso: Oh, one other comment about the Attorney's rebuttal. I've pulled out Exhibit 52 or whatever, and this is
incredibly tiny type so I urge you to force staff to give you big copy that can actually be read. If there may be a fish and
wildlife habitat conservation area on or near the subject property, a critical area report is triggered to determine if the critical
habitat is within 200 feet of the adjacent parcel. Now, using the City's critical area map and the scale on the map, not merely
my overheads, which apparently Council doesn't like, but if you take the City's critical area map and measure it on the scale,
this actually intrudes into the Burnstead property over the 200 feet. Never mind, the critical area is within 200 feet of the
property. It doesn't say anything on here about a site visit finding no stream means you don't have to do this stuff. In fact, it
says if you go to the next step, then, and the critical area report does identify an area within 200 feet, then you have to
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 69
Packet Page 279 of 303
provide an assessment of habitat and identify proposed impacts from the potential development. And then if there are any
proposed impacts, you then have to take the next step, dealing with mitigation.
Ms. Petso: The problem is here, that the report requirement wasn't even satisfied. The code lays out very specifically in two
places what the report has to require. One is the critical area ordinance and the other is in the fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area ordinance. The evidence of most concern that I've been trying to get from the City for about a week now
are a detailed map of the critical area, and a biologist's opinion on the value of the habitat and what kind of buffers are
needed. So it didn't say anything about doing a site visit and skipping the report. That's not a part of our code.
Ms. Petso: The comprehensive plan, oh, and that reminds me too. In the critical area ordinance it says that actually the fish
and wildlife habitat one it says any urban open space is a critical area, a fish and wildlife habitat area, which is cute. I don't
probably agree with it, but at least it will get the ball rolling on analyzing the actual fish and wildlife habitat that is there. I'm
not going to insist that the ball fields make good habitat, but certainly the wooded area does.
Ms. Petso: Under our comp plan, all feasible means shall be used to preserve the following open spaces: lands which have
unique suitability for future recreational uses, both passive and active. Now, you guys can build your homes on any dinky
little parcel in the City. Instead of 27 in one place, you might get 27 in 13 different places, but you can build them there.
Playfields can't be put there. These lands have unique suitability for future recreational uses, both active and passive.
Ms. Petso: Okay, and I need to get my materials here. Under the fish and wildlife habitat conservation ordinance or the
critical areas ordinance, it's the critical areas ordinance actually, the applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the
functions and values of critical areas. Now when we get the biologist's report, we're going to know the effect of cutting
down a bunch of trees, installing the rockery and other impacts on the critical area, and that's in the critical area ordinance,
and this property's designated in our critical areas map as being a critical area.
Ms. Petso: One more shot at drainage that we probably didn't deal with fully before is the high ground water aspect.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You never raised higher ground water as part of your appeal.
Ms. Petso: Oh that's right. So I can't do it now. Okay. As Don indicated the long-term infiltration rate, he said 6 inches
could be okay and 10 could also be okay, but that's not what the drainage basin study says. The drainage basin says that the
short-term rate could be as high as 8 to 20 inches, but it should be reduced by a safety factor to account for the progressive
clogging. It specifically says the average infiltration rate of 6 inches per hour is considered to be a long-term rate that can be
sustained over a multiple year period. And believe me, that's what we want. I don't care how good the consultants are, I
don't want a report for our neighborhood that is relied upon that can't be sustained for more than a couple of years, and then
the flooding is gone. It works okay for Burnstead; they'll have the houses sold by then. But it doesn't work okay for the
neighborhood.
Ms. Petso: Okay, anyway, it can be sustained over a multiple year period, assuming the facilities are maintained by sediment
removal. Again, it's not in the CC and R's yet, you know when it's in, I very seriously doubt any homeowners are going to
choose to maintain the facility when the flooding is directed not at their house but at Mr. Clarke's. Furthermore, infiltration,
oh I can't read that sentence, because it's not rebuttal. Oh well, it's in the materials on Page 32.
Ms. Petso: At the Architectural Design Board Meeting, we apparently had some sort of a drainage expert serving on the
committee because he evaluated specifically the vortex separator that's planned for pretreatment and said quote, it does a
good job in terms of overall mass sediment removal, but it does not get the fine particles based on the modeling he has seen
and the ?? he has reviewed. It will have a tendency to plug the surface code, press over the surface, and reduce the
infiltration capacity. As a way to address, he suggested a more rigorous maintenance program. He assumed the City would
be responsible for maintenance and when he was told it wasn't, he said he saw an obvious enforcement concern and
suggested that perhaps oversizing the facility would be a way to give more reliability. You can't really do that here because
the amount of space allocated on Parcel C can't be changed if a larger facility is needed, and he noted that in his comments in
the ADB minutes. In fact, he was specifically concerned that he didn't want to see them not have set aside enough space at
this point and then find that this facility isn't bit enough.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 70
Packet Page 280 of 303
Ms. Petso: It's interesting that so much has been deferred, for example the determination of whether the houses are going to
comply. The ADB says we'll look at them when we have actual housing plans, and yet they're issuing their PRD approval
now. That's an unacceptable deferral. The plans, under the conditions of the PRD ordinance, you have to approve the plans
now. Under SEPA, SEPA has to occur before the City commits to a particular course of action. As I've just explained with
the drainage, let's suppose we defer the rest of the drainage analysis and don't do an EIS, and then we find out, when we're
doing our detailed engineering work, that gee, the facility needs to be bigger after all. Petso was right all those months ago.
It will be too late; the City's already approve the PRD. There's no where else with 70% lot coverage to stick a drainage
facility and Don's already said there's no where for the excess water to go now.
Ms. Petso: I somehow get the feeling that the intention here is to just blow off all the SEPA concerns and not do an EIS, but
I think that if we do that, we're going to get committed to a particular course of action and not be able to fix it if the detailed
engineering suggests we should. If the information... Well, the other thing is they have to provide the information. For
example, if the information is essential to a reasoned choice and the cost is not exorbitant, then it needs to be provided. That
was WAC 197-11-158. Under that, we should be looking at the habitat assessment and we should be looking at the detailed
drainage picture. We should actually have a study that talked about what infiltration might do on Parcel C rather than here
and here. I mean I'm much more confident in the City's number that says this whole area of the town typically drains like
this because we studied it. And they don't have vested interest in making the study one way or another. That is like an
objective consultant report.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Can you wrap up your rebuttal so this other person has a chance to offer hers. And we've got
procedural issues to finish up, too.
Ms. Petso: Okay. The impervious surface calculation was brought up in the rebuttal and I wanted to make sure you take a
look at that. Because the PRD requirements are for reducing impervious surfaces, and these numbers here show 66,000
square feet that will be drained by vault C, the vault on Parcel C, and another 60,000 square feet that will be drained on each
individual home. This can't be said to reduce the impervious surfaces. I also want to mention that there is no clear benefit
from this PRD because the features that are being protected are protected by other... Well, in the first place, they're not
fully protected, and in the second place, they're protected by the parts of the code.
Ms. Petso: For your reference, the definition of lot coverage has been provided in one of my exhibits, as has the defmition of
structure, and yes the answer is that driveways are included in lot coverage under our code. They are not included in lot
coverage under the proposal. I guess your only option here is to do the math, but if the houses are already at 35% and then
you add the driveways, you're over.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, you have one minute.
Ms. Petso: Oh dear. Okay, this is actually kind of important. The wetland guy got up here and said he couldn't find a
wetland, but if you check our definition of a wetland, the wetland doesn't mean you look at it and see a stream, it means
when you take soil samples, they're moist. And there's evidence that there is frequently standing water on the location, and
we've certainly provided that evidence. It's actually recognized as a drainage ditch. So I'd like you to consider not just
whether the fish and wildlife habitat conservation is a critical area, but also the wetland.
Ms. Petso: Oh, a final note is that the critical areas report is required whether the critical area is on or just adjacent to the
property, so whatever piece of evidence that the staff came up with, here it is recognizance report, that says the critical area
appears to be located on the adjacent parcel to the north. Well, that parcel's only 92 feet wide. So the critical area is
certainly within the 200 feet if it's located on the parcel to the north. So it still needs a map. And like you said earlier. The
critical areas are treated under the code here the same whether they're on the property or within 200 feet adjacent to the
property. And I guess finally...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Last point.
Ms. Petso: Okay, I have to conclude with the appeal issues, in part because the site visit is required by you prior to this
hearing. When we did the appeal last time, we were told we had to appeal within 21 days, like you heard. And then we were
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 71
Packet Page 281 of 303
told to wait for the permits. And so when you give us our instructions on how to appeal, could you tell us what permits to
wait for? I mean, do we wait until the tree cutting permits are issued, or do we wait until the site permits are issued?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The appeal information that I'll provide you is appeal to my decision, and my decision alone. I
mean, it is a final decision of the City at that point, and 1 can't be giving you legal analysis on whether everything that's been
done by the City. That's up to you, it's not up to me.
Ms. Petso: Could you ask the City to notify the parties of record when the final decision has been taken.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You will all get a copy of a final decision mailed to you.
Ms. Petso: No, not your final decision. The City's.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, the issue that I'm doing here, the appeal issue, is a final determination by me. The PRD is a
final determination by me. The only one is the plat, and that goes to City Council. The two that appeal to Superior Court are
final decisions for the City, and you have no other recourse than the court.
Ms. Petso: Oh, I understand that, but the difficulty that you've just noted comes in in figuring out what's final when.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: That's, I can't hold your hand through that. That's not my responsibility.
Ms. Petso: Okay, so appeal instructions will not be included?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: There will be simple appeal instructions just saying this decision is final and this is how you appeal
it, either to City Council or to court.
Ms. Petso: Okay, that's a start. Thanks.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Ms. Marks, your final comments.
Ms. Marks: This whole thing isn't my final comment, I assure you, okay. I just wanted to, for the record, say that the
infiltration, we're talking about the stormwater, that it must be treated so that downstream there isn't going to be particulates,
it's called, they should have a downstream analysis of the granulate. The other thing is that Edmonds has outdated standards,
and I want to have that just in the record. I know you can't do anything about it, but I want it in there. And that apparently,
part of what's in the newer versions has to do with the Everett Soils, which are mentioned in here, and they're no longer
looked at with the same characteristics in the new standards, as with the standards that were used for this. So I hope that
there's an EIS. I think that we should have a third party who would do it because, you know, not have scientist who are
working for Burnstead. We need to have something where we have an outside third party look at the whole situation. I hope
that what people have said here, that is those residents, is really taken into consideration, even though they may not be soil
experts or they may not be an expert in this or that. They are an expert in where they live, and their experiences are real. It
would be like having a doctor tell the father of a son that he doesn't know what it's like to be a father, just because you have
credentials. But it's living it, so anyway, that's my two bits. Thank you.
(Inaudible)
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, we need to enter these exhibits into the record. We're going to start with the exhibits that
were submitted to me by the City, which I noted earlier, I had designated as plat exhibits with Exhibits A and B in the staff
report, having 16 separate attachments to those. They will be delineated in my decisions, each of those described by name.
They're also included in on Page 15 of the staff report. And I have separate on the appeal exhibits. Exhibit A, the City's
response to the appeal, with 9 exhibits.
Mr. Lutz: Is that Exhibit A or B?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It's Exhibit A to the appeal.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 72
Packet Page 282 of 303
Mr. Lutz: Oh, okay.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And the separate listing of the items on the exhibit are listed on Page 7 of the report. Exhibit B to
the appeal matter is the Perkins Coie letter dated the I Ith, and that's the copy I would need. And with that, there was 6
attachments to that. Also coming in, just noting that I have large versions of the plat, site plans that are pretty much included
as Exhibits 4 of the main plat. I would like to make two ??, in regards to the plat, itself, Exhibit B would be would be a letter
from the school district. Exhibit C is going to be the sewer and water availability letter, and Exhibit D, which will be more
from the City is the notice affidavit that says the code was complied with in some regards.
Ms. Brown: Can I have clarification on Exhibit C, the utility letter?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Yes.
Ms. Brown: The way the sewer and water district handles this is they give us progress numbers.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: If that's how they handle notifying you of the availability of sewer and water for this development,
then that is fine.
Ms. Petso: I have a question too, on the exhibit about the school issues. When does the public get an opportunity then to
respond to that issue. I know a lot of the people testified tonight about how it's not a great roadway, and to be honest the City
park eliminates the current bus stop pick up. So I'm wondering, when that letter comes, what opportunity we have to tell you
what we call the local information about...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Well, I guess any issues you wanted to address on whether this plat had impacts on schools within
the area were available to be addressed a, at the plat matter, which we've heard, or under your SEPA appeal. Neither times
have ... All I'm asking for the school impact, and based on testimony I heard, the way I interpreted it is that student
walking and sidewalks was adequate and school bus stops are provided on that road. So my response to you is you don't
have a rebuttal.
Ms. Petso: So won't we even be given a copy of Exhibit B?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You can get one through the City.
Ms. Petso: Okay, but not as parties of record to having spoke on the plat issues, you're not going to give us one.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I'm not going to copy the entire exhibits and send them out to you, no. You'll get a copy of the
decision, not of all the exhibits. Any supplemental exhibits that we're talking about now that you would like copies of, the
City holds the official record.
Ms. Petso: Why would you say that we had to address school issues prior to them having been addressed by the City, you
know what I mean. If it's a requirement, shouldn't they have presented on it, and then we get a chance to ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: They should have presented on it. They didn't. It is a concern that normally comes up when I hear
plats. I hear traffic, I hear wildlife impacts, I hear open space and I hear schools. If somebody has a concern, we have to
raise that.
Ms. Petso: We didn't know what they had said about it?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: If you want to let that, go ahead. You can get a copy from the City as soon as we submit it. Seeing
that, I'm assuming, also, Ms. Petso, that the environmental checklist, the MDNS went out to the school district. Notice of
this hearing is usually sent out to those type of agencies, along with it being published in the newspaper. If the school district
had any problems about it, they would have a representative here. Moving on to other exhibits. There will was the
illustrative exhibit which I'm not going to really enter as anything other than an illustrative exhibit, so it doesn't come in.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 73
Packet Page 283 of 303
The same with the other map that the gentleman submitted to note where Deer Creek was in relationship to the property,
since this is also an illustrative exhibit.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Moving on to the SEPA official documents that came in. Exhibit C will be the City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Recognizance Report that they provided. Exhibit D is Ms. Petso's briefing on the issues on her appeal, which
had with it a total of 60 Exhibits. Do you have any objection to any of those exhibits, Mr. Lutz?
Mr. Lutz: No, but we would, at the City's convenience, like to get copies of the exhibits
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay. No objection from the City on anything? I haven't reviewed each of these individually, and
I don't where they pertain to exactly on the appeal, so I'll go ahead and submit them into the record and give them the weight
that I feel in my review of them. I will notice that numerous testimony was received in regards to the 2003 Southwest
Edmonds Drainage Basin Study, and is that in here?
Ms. Petso: Only in excerpts.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Are the excerpts that you relied on for your argument in here?
Ms. Petso: They're in the main brief and Exhibit 1,1 think.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Exhibit 1 is just one figure.
Ms. Petso: Yeah, it's the map that shows the existing drainage swale.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: The sites that you're referencing in your brief are those from the plan?
Ms. Petso: Yes, and they have page numbers.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Excerpted in here?
Ms. Petso: No.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Then you need to provide me with those excerpts of that plan because you're using it as supporting
argument.
Ms. Petso: Okay, how do I get that to you.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You will be submitting it to the City. Diane will you take it? And then they will forward it on to
me. The same will hold true with that. So also, if there's anything that you're referencing, any detailed document that you're
not providing an exact excerpt in there. At the same time, you might as well provide another set of copy for the City to pass
on to the applicant.
Ms. Petso: Do you want a large form of the critical areas map, or do you just need the small picture that I provided?
(Inaudible)
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So any excerpt that you bring in of the 2003, what I'm going to do, is your Attachment 1 or your
Exhibit 1, that will all become 2003 basin study, Attachment 1 to your brief you don't have to keep adding. The whole
excerpt things would be that one exhibit.
Ms. Petso: So if I get the whole book, we're all going to call it Exhibit 1?
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You can make copies of the pages that you want studied. In other words, you don't have to provide
the entire booklet or manual, whatever it is. Just those pages you're citing as reference. Then I have Exhibit D, which is Ms.
Marks...
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 74
Packet Page 284 of 303
Ms. Petso: Actually, I think I was D. You're going to have to make her E, unless I didn't hear right.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: You're right. E is the letter that you prepared dated today, June 21, 2007, and that goes through the
arguments that you presented. In addition to that, you have one attachment, which talks about ...
Ms. Marks: It's the email that I mentioned about a neighbor who tried to work with the City on ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So an email attachment to demonstrate traffic issues on that spot.
Ms. Marks: I had planned to show pictures, and I don't know that you would actually look at them anyways. I could email
them to you if you want.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Okay, so I'm just thinking of a deadline for you getting the documents. The notice should be no
problem. You have indicated you already have something with the sewer and water availability, so just primarily in regards
to the school impacts. Do you think by next Thursday, you could have something filed with the County? We are getting up
into the holiday time coming up.
Mr. Lutz: I'm not sure how long the hearing could be held open, but I would expect to be able to track down this letter.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: So you think there's a letter floating around out there.
Mr. Lutz: It's not entirely clear.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Is it possible to set a deadline for Thursday?
Ms. Brown: I'm concerned that we're working a vacation time, so people I need to talk to, I'm not certain they're available.
Could we put a timeline on it from a week from now and ...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: And notify me, but I'll officially try to set the date at 6/28. You're under the same parameter, 6/28,
that's next Thursday, to having the excerpts of that basin plan that you want to have submitted in support of that. So that
would be the tag date for the official close of the record at the close of business on the 28th. Under the City's code for doing
plats and somehow SEPA appeals, they give me 10 working days, which is not going to happen on this case, maybe on
straight plats, but not on a SEPA appeal. So I would like to have ... (Inaudible)
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Friday, the 13th is officially the loth working day, minus the 4th. I'm actually thinking, based on the
extensive record and the other things going in, that I'm going to need at least 15 to 20 days.
Mr. Lutz: Can I ask a question of the City staff. Do we know if there is a piece of this that goes to the Council, what the
Council's August schedule is and if there's any ... I mean, they don't call a recess for a month or anything like that?
Ms. Cunningham: No, no they don't.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: I guess I'm going to propose maybe by the 20th, if that works.
Ms. Petso: That's for your decision.
Mr. Lutz: You have no objection.
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It's really controlled by the applicant. No objections from the City or anybody on that. Okay. So
we're going with July 20th. If I happen to get it done earlier, it will be submitted to you earlier. I don't hold it until the actual
due date. If I need any further clarification or find in my review I need an additional document, I will issue an order on that,
and I will have you submit those documents, once again, to the City if there's clarification that I'm needing on that. If I'm
asking for clarification, I will allow a rebuttal of anything that's been presented, that will be said in the record, as well.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 75
Packet Page 285 of 303
Ms. Brown: I have one thing to clarify. Your decision on the SEPA appeal and the PRD will be issued...
Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: It will all be a consolidated decision. I really can't issue a plat without making a SEPA
determination. And noting that, my standard review on this matter, the plat and the PRD is conformance with the code. For
the SEPA appeal, it's looking at their determination that they made, the City's determination, and I look at it based on the
standards to determine if they made an error in their judgment in my opinion. So a little bit different. But that's it. If you
have nothing further, it's 9:45.
I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS.
Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers AP-07-1, AP-07-2, P-07-17, and PRD-07-18
June 21, 2007 Page 76
Packet Page 286 of 303
R. Gerard I,utz
PHON]it (425) 635-1403
PAX. (425) 635-2403
1 MAIL J1.utzgperkinscoie.coin
August 24, 2007
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Edmonds City Council
121 5t" Avenue North, 1st Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Perkins
Coie
The PSE Building
to885 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 700
Bellevue, WA 98004-5579
PHONE: 425.635.1400
FAX; 425.635.2400
www.perkinscoie.com
Re: Response to Request for the Edmonds City Council to Review Hearing Examiner's
Decision regarding File No. P-2007-17 (Burnstead Construction)
Dear Council Members:
We submit this letter on behalf of applicant Burnstead Construction ("Burnstead") in response to
the request for a closed -record review by the Edmonds City Council ("Council") of the Hearing
Examiner Decision dated July 20, 2007 (the "Examiner's Decision") regarding the above
referenced project ("Project") filed by Lora Petso.
The Project includes a proposed subdivision and Planned Residential Development ("PRD") on
property Burnstead purchased last year from the Edmonds School District, which is a portion of
the School District's old Woodway Elementary School site. The City of Edmonds ("City")
purchased the remainder of the School District's old Woodway Elementary School site with
plans for a City park. In conjunction with the Project, Burnstead submitted a request for
approval of a preliminary plat for the formal subdivision of land ("Preliminary Plat") and
approval of a PRD. The City issued an MDNS for the Project and Ms. Petso appealed. An open
record public hearing was held before a City hearing examiner ("Hearing Examiner") on June 21,
2007. The Hearing Examiner issued the Examiner's Decision, approving the Preliminary Plat,
subject to conditions, and remanding the PRD for compliance with ECDC 20.35.
On August 2, 2007, Ms. Petso filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Decision.
On August 8, 2007, the Hearing Examiner issued an Order on Request for Reconsideration
("Reconsideration"), affirming the Examiner's Decision. Ms. Petso now requests that the
Council review the Examiner's Decision. According to ECDC 20.105.040(D)(1), the Council
must consider such request as a closed -record review. Thus, the Council should refine its review
to the record as preserved below and no new evidence should be allowed. The only parties to
65693-0001 /LEGAL 13489437.1
ANCHORAGE B E I I I N G BELLEVUE BOISE CHICAGO DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES
Mi:NI�) PARK OLYMPIA PHOENIX PORTLAND - SAN FRANCISCO . SEATTLE WASHINGTON, D.C.
Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates
Packet Page 287 of 303
Edmonds City Council
August 24, 2007
Page 2
this review are Ms. Petso, Burnstead and City staff, and the Council should not permit others to
present argument regarding the merits of Ms. Petso's claims. Section 20.105.040(D)(1) permits
the parties to the review to submit written statements and arguments. It does not permit others to
do so. Burnstead respectfully requests that the Council only allow Ms. Petso, Burnstead or City
staff to be heard at its review.
Also, in such a closed -record review the Council may consider those issues raised by Ms. Petso
that concern the Preliminary Plat. ECDC 20.105.010(B), 20.100.010(B)(5). However, the
Council may not review the Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD or SEPA
threshold determination, as the Hearing Examiner makes final decisions for the City on those
issues, subject only to appeal to the superior court. ECDC 20.35.080(A)(4), 20.15A.240(C),
20.105.030(D) and 20.105.070. The bulk of Ms. Petso's concerns relate to SEPA or PRD issues
and are outside the scope of the Council's review of the Hearing Examiner's, preliminary plat
decision. Burnstead respectfully requests that Council limit argument at the review to the
preliminary plat issues only.
As discussed below, the Hearing Examiner correctly approved the Preliminary Plat after
carefully considering the evidence presented at the public hearing, including numerous studies,
exhibits, reports, and testimony from a variety of experts. Ms. Petso's issues with the
Preliminary Plat are without merit. The Council should therefore affirm the Examiner's
Decision.
LORA PETSO'S CLAIMS:
1. Drainage for the proposed subdivision is adequate.
The Council cannot consider the Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD or SEPA
determination in a closed -record review. As the Examiner's Decision notes, stormwater control
and stormwater management are PRD and SEPA issues. See Examiner's Decision, pp. 30 and
32. Thus, the Council should not consider the drainage issue during its review.
However, Ms. Petso's concerns are based primarily on a pre-existing drainage problem.
Burnstead's proposed drainage plan provides for stormwater infiltration on each lot and for an
infiltration system to handle driveway and street run-off. The Project will not exacerbate the pre-
existing drainage problem in the adjacent cul-de-sac, and should modestly reduce the magnitude
and frequency of problems.
Moreover, the Drainage Plan Ms. Petso references states that the site is suitable for infiltration
rates between 2 to 10 inches per hour. See Examiner's Decision, p. 30. Associated Earth
Sciences ("AES"), a qualified environmental and engineering consultant, determined that an
infiltration rate of 10 inches per hour was an appropriate assumption for the stormwater design at
65693-0001/LEGAL13489437.1
Packet Page 288 of 303
Edmonds City Council
August 24, 2007
Page 3
the Project site. The City's independent engineers agree with AES. The Hearing Examiner
found no error in AES' assumption, the Project's drainage design, or future maintenance
provision, including maintenance of the stormwater facility by an HOA. See Examiner's
Decision, pp. 27-29 (Conclusion Nos. 1, 4 and 7) and p. 32. "[T]he Applicant's preliminary
design conforms to the City's requirements and will address stormwater generated from the
development of the site ... " See Reconsideration, p. 9.
Lastly, Condition Nos. 12 and 19 of the Examiner's Decision were created to ensure that
drainage at the Project site would in fact be appropriately managed. Burnstead fully intends to
comply with these conditions.
2. Project contains adequate open space and recreation areas.
The Council cannot consider the Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD or SEPA
determination in a closed -record review. As the Examiner's Decision notes, for this Project,
open space and recreation are PRD and SEPA issues. See Examiner's Decision, pp. 30 and 32.
Thus, the Council should not consider the open space or, recreation issue during the Council's
review.
However, substantively, the Project provides adequate open space and recreation facilities,
including a walking trail, playground, and picnic area. Ms. Petso incorrectly asserts that
approval of the Project is contrary to the City's park plan. The City's park plan called for a park a
minimum of three acres in size at the former Woodway Elementary School site in order to satisfy
its level of service ("LOS") for parks, and the City purchased over five acres of the former
School property as its park site.
Ms. Petso also incorrectly alleges that approval of the Project is contrary to the City's policies
and regulations regarding the creation of parks. The Central Puget Sound Growth Management
Hearings Board has held that jurisdictions have "full discretion in deciding what level of
[recreation] services is adequate, and when, where and how parks will be developed." Gig
Harbor v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0016, Final Decision and Order (Oct. 31,
1995), at 9. The Examiner's Decision also states "recreation space has been provided for
residents of the subdivision." See Examiner's Decision, p. 27 (Conclusion No. 1).
The Hearing Examiner properly restricted evidence concerning the ILAs that Ms. Petso
references, as both were terminated.
3. The Project does not contain a wetland.
The Council cannot consider the Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD or SEPA
determination in a closed -record review. The Examiner's Decision characterizes wetlands as a
SEPA issue. See Examiner's Decision, p. 17. The Reconsideration notes Ms. Petso herself
65693-0001/LEGAL13489437.1
Packet Page 289 of 303
Edmonds City Council
August 24, 2007
Page 4
stated that the wetlands issue was not properly evaluated under SEPA. See Reconsideration, p.
5. Ms. Petso also now claims that the wetlands decision'violated the PRD ordinance. Thus, the
Council should not consider this issue during its review.
However, if considered, no wetlands exist on the site. Wetland Resources, Inc., a company that
specializes in the identification, delineation, restoration of legal wetlands, conducted a wetland
determination based on the Department of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation
Manual. The report determined that no wetlands or streams were located on the site: "No critical
areas were located on or adjacent to the subject property."
Nothing in the Record supports Ms. Petso's assertion that an intermittent stream is located on the
site. See Examiner's Decision, p. 33. There is a drainage ditch that will be modified as part of
the development of the PRD.
4. No FWHCA exists on the site, and the FWHCA issue was remanded to ensure that
the habitat was protected.
The Council cannot consider the Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD or SEPA
determination in a closed -record review. The question of the presence of a FWHCA is a PRD
and SEPA issue. See Examiner's Decision, pp. 32 and 35. In fact, the Examiner's Decision
remanded Burnstead's request for PRD approval to ensure protection of the FWHCA. Thus, the
Council should not consider this issue during its review.
However, as to the substance of the issue. The Edmonds Development Services Director
determined that the FWHCA existed on the parcel to the north. See Examiner's Decision, p. 14.
In addition, the City determined, according to ECDC 23.40.060(B), that the Project would not
impact the adjacent FWHCA and did not require a Critical Areas Report. See Examiner's
Decision, p. 14.
No intermittent stream exists on the site. See Section 3 above.
5. The Project adequately preserves trees.
The Examiner's Decision correctly concludes that "the design of the subdivision takes into
account the only wooded portion of the site and preserves this area, limiting impacts to the
removal of trees." See Examiner's Decision, p. 27 (Conclusion No. 1). Condition Nos. 11, 13
and 14 of the Examiner's Decision also require that retained and landscape trees be adequately
protected at the site. See Examiner's Decision, p. 37.
65693-0001/LEGAL 13489437.1
Packet Page 290 of 303
Edmonds City Council
August 24, 2007
Page 5
6. The Project complies with ECDC 20.75.085 and minimizes grading.
The Examiner's Decision correctly concludes that the Project complies with grading
requirements, noting that "grading and filling will be limited." See Examiner's Decision, p. 27
(Conclusion No. 1). As previously stated, no wetlands or intermittent stream exist on the
Property. See Section 3 above.
7. The Hearing Examiner properly considered underground wiring and conditioned
the Project accordingly.
Condition No. 2 of the Examiner's Decision requires Burnstead to comply with underground
wiring requirements. See Examiner's Decision, p. 36. Burnstead fully intends to comply with
this Condition.
The Council should not consider the views described by Ms. Petso. The Examiner's Decision
concludes that "no evidence was submitted that any property owner owns view rights or that
such views are of the type to be protected..." See Examiner's Decision, p. 28 (Conclusion No.
4). The evidence also supports the Examiner's Decision that due to the coverage requirements
and reduced lot size, the visual impacts will be minimized.
8. The public hearing process contained no procedural errors.
Ms. Petso alleges that "required notice and hearing procedures were not followed." The City
provided all public notice required for this Project, including a written notice of the public
hearing that was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet and posted on the site, the Civic
Center, and in the Library on June 6, 2007, as well as published in The Herald on June 7, 2007.
See Examiner's Decision, p. 21 (Finding of Fact No. 55). Proper notice was provided.
The Hearing Examiner also conducted a post -hearing site visit, as indicated in Finding No. 56 of
the Examiner's Decision. ECDC 20.105.050 states that "[n]o procedural irregularity or
informality in the notice ... shall affect the final decision, or any other action leading to the final
decision, unless substantial rights of a person with demonstrable beneficial interests are
adversely affected." The post -hearing site visit cured any procedural irregularity regarding site
visitation, and the timing of the site visit did not adversely affect Ms. Petso's substantial rights.
Ms. Petso does not specify a basis for her remaining procedural error allegations.
9. The City did not require Burnstead to dedicate any land for park purposes.
Ms. Petso erroneously relies on the subdivision ordinance. ECDC 20.75.085(C) states that the
City Council may require dedication of land in a proposed subdivision for public use. The
65693-0001/LEGAL13489437.1
Packet Page 291 of 303
Edmonds City Council
August 24, 2007
Page 6
Council did not require Burnstead to dedicate any land for public use. The Project does provide
commonly owned land for park and recreational purposes within the plat.
Moreover, any dedication of land that may be required in connection with the development of a
subdivision must be reasonably related, and roughly proportionate, to impacts created by the
subdivision. Ms. Petso's desire that the entire Burnstead property be used for park purposes is
not the type of dedication a City may require as a condition of (or more accurately in lieu of)
development of a subdivision; rather, such an exaction would be a taking.
10. The Project complies with zoning ordinances.
The Council cannot consider the Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD in a closed -
record review. Ms. Petso's allegations regarding zoning compliance clearly challenge certain
PRD decisions. Thus, the Council should not consider these issues during its review.
However, substantively, the Project complies with zoning. The current zoning of the Project site
is RS-8. It is not zoned Public Use or Open Space. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
designates the site as Single Family — Urban 1. The Project is consistent with both the RS-8 and
the Single Family — Urban 1 designations.
No wetlands or FWHCA exist on the site. See Section 3 and 4 above.
11. The Project complies with the PRD Ordinance.
The Council cannot consider the Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD in a closed -
record review. All of Ms. Petso's allegations here concern application of the PRD ordinance.
Moreover, the Examiner's Decision remanded the perimeter buffer issue based on PRD
standards. See Examiner's Decision, p. 35. Thus, the Council should not consider this issue
during its review.
However, the Examiner's Decision correctly concludes that with conditions, the subdivision will
meet all of the zoning requirements, as modified by the PRD alternative standards. See
Examiner's Decision, p. 28 (Conclusion No. 3).
12. The Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Examiner's Decision concludes that "[t]he proposal is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan policy of'Urban Infill."' See Examiner's Decision, p.27 (Conclusion No.
2).
Ms. Petso alleges that no park should be abandoned without a hearing. However, the Project site
was never a city -owned park. See Examiner's Decision, p. 33. The Examiner's Decision also
65693-0001 /LEGAL13489437.1
Packet Page 292 of 303
Edmonds City Council
August 24, 2007
Page 7
found no error with respect to the Project's open space, parks, and other recreational facilities.
See Section 2 above.
The Examiner's Decision also correctly concludes that "the proposed subdivision has been
designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to environmental resources." See Examiner's
Decision, p. 28 (Conclusion 4). No critical areas exist on the site. See Section 3 above.
Thank you for your consideration of Burnstead's comments. We look forward to the closed -
record review and your decision. _
Ver�tr
erard Lutz
cc: Lora Petso
W. Scott Snyder
Tiffiny Brown
65693-0001/LF.GAL13489437.1
Packet Page 293 of 303
AM-1141 8.
SeaShore Transportation Forum Agreement
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date: 08/28/2007
Submitted By: Sandy Chase
Submitted For: Council President Olson Time: 10 Minutes
Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Information
Review Committee:
A rtinn
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding the SeaShore Transportation Forum Agreement.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Review and discuss the attached agreement.
Previous Council Action
On January 16, 2007, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Agreement for the
SeaShore Transportation Forum.
Narrative
Council President Pritchard Olson and Councilmember Marin represent the City Council at the
SeaShore Transportation Forum meetings. Both Ms. Pritchard Olson and Mr. Marin will discuss
proposed changes to the Agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum. A copy of the
Agreement that is marked to show changes is attached.
Fiscal Impact
Attarhmante
Link: SeaShore Transportation Forum Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox
Approved By
Date
Status
1 City Clerk
Sandy Chase
08/22/2007 03:57 PM
APRV
2 Mayor
Gary Haakenson 08/22/2007 04:42 PM
APRV
3 Final Approval
Sandy Chase
08/23/2007 08:34 AM
APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Started On: 08/22/2007 10:10
Chase
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/23/2007
Packet Page 294 of 303
AGREEMENT
For the
SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION FORUM
Parties to Ajzreement:
City of Bothell
City of Kenmore
City of Lake Forest Park
City of Shoreline
City of Woodinville
City of Edmonds
City of Mountlake Terrace
King County
Snohomish County
City of Seattle
Puget Sound Regional Council
Sound Transit
Community Transit
Transportation Improvement Board
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Port of Seattle
Approved by the Seashore Transportation Forum on December 13, 2006 with
amendments approved in principle on July 18, 2007
Transmitted to participating members on
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and among the CITY OF BOTHELL,
hereafter called "Bothell"; the CITY OF KENMORE, hereafter called "Kenmore"; the
CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK, hereafter called "Lake Forest Park"; the CITY OF
SHORELINE, hereafter called "Shoreline"; the CITY OF WOODINVILLE, hereafter
called "Woodinville"; CITY OF EDMONDS, hereafter called "Edmonds"; CITY OF
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, hereafter called "Mountlake Terrace"; the CITY OF
SEATTLE, hereafter called "Seattle"; KING COUNTY, a legal subdivision of the State
of Washington, hereafter called "King County"; SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a legal
subdivision of the State of Washington, hereafter called "Snohomish County; the PUGET
SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL, hereafter called the "PSRC' ; the CENTRAL PUGET
SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, hereafter called "Sound Transit";
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA, hereafter
called "Community Transit"; the WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, hereafter called "WSDOT' ; the TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT BOARD, hereafter called "TIB.' ; and the PORT OF SEATTLE.
WHEREAS, each of the jurisdictions in the north King County -south Snohomish County
area has experienced significant population growth and economic development in the last
decade, and projects continued growth and development in the future; and
Deleted: 2006
WHEREAS, many of the transportation issues faced by the cities in north King County Deleted: 08/16/07
and south Snohomish County are similar to those faced by the City of Seattle; and / Deleted: 08/15/07
SeaShore Agreement 200.7
/ Inserted 008/16/07
9 22/07 /
Packet Page 295 of 303
WHEREAS, King County and cities in other portions of urbanized King County have
found that benefits can be achieved by multijurisdictional coordination, including a
cooperative approach to the planning, financing, and construction of needed
transportation improvements; and
WHEREAS, this coordination is facilitated by continuing forums for discussion and
recommendations on common issues; and
WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan for Public Transportation —Long
Range Policy Framework, originally adopted in 1993 and updated in 2002, divided Metro
service into three geographic subareas for the purpose of allocating new transit subsidy;
and
WHEREAS, the Six -Year Transit Development Plan, adopted in 1995, calls for the three
subarea transportation boards (the Eastside Transportation Partnership, South County
Area Transportation Board, and Seashore Transportation Forum) to review, refine, and
recommend service priorities to the King County Executive; and
WHEREAS, King County, Seattle, Bothell, and Lake Forest Park formed a SeaShore
Transportation Forum and began discussions about common transportation issues in 1995
to develop recommendations on transit service; and
WHEREAS, the new cities of Shoreline and Kenmore have been formed since that time,
and have been participating in SeaShore discussions; and
WHEREAS, the Cities of Woodinville, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace have agreed to
join as members of the Forum; and
WHEREAS, Community Transit and Snohomish County also have been involved in
discussions of inter -county coordination and other common issues through SeaShore;
and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit relies on the three subarea transportation boards to review
and recommend modifications to Sound Move Plan implementation -related services and
projects, and to participate in future phase (Phase II) high capacity transit plan
development -efforts; and
WHEREAS, the "North King County" subarea for Sound Transit consists of the cities of
Seattle, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park; and
WHEREAS, the Cities of Seattle, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park, and King County are
included in the "Seattle -North King County" subarea designated by the King County
Metro Long Range Development Plan and Six Year Plan for transit planning and service Deleted: 2006
allocation (Attachment A); and Deleted: 08/16/07
SeaShore Agreement 200.7
/ Deleted:08/15/07
/ Inserted:08/16/07
0W22/07 /
Packet Page 296 of 303
WHEREAS, the boundaries of the "Seattle -North King County" subarea are not altered
by changes to the membership of the Forum (Attachment A); and
WHEREAS, the SeaShore Transportation Forum is expected to continue to provide
valuable input on numerous planning and implementation decisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
1.0 Purpose of Agreement
The purpose of the Agreement is to identify the members of the SeaShore Transportation
Forum (SeaShore) and provide for the continuation of SeaShore as the Seattle -north
King -south Snohomish County forum for information sharing, advocacy, consensus
building and coordinating to resolve transportation issues.
2.0 Role of SeaShore
The SeaShore is the forum established by King County for the Seattle -North King
County transportation subarea of King County at which elected officials may provide
input into the following decisions, and such other transportation -related issues as the
members determine:
a) development of the King County Metro Six Year Transit Development Plan
b) implementation of transit service priorities
c) recommendations for the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act -Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) regional project identification and
Countywide project selection
d) recommendations to Sound Transit on its services and projects
e) coordination with the Eastside Transportation Partnership and the South County Area
Transportation Board on countywide and regional transportation issues.
The SeaShore Transportation Forum also serves as a central forum for information
sharing, consensus building, and coordinating to resolve transportation issues, and
discuss priorities for implementing transportation projects and programs on a subregional
basis for the north part of King County and the south part of Snohomish County_
The other two subareas have similar forums: the Eastside Transportation Partnership and
the South County Area Transportation Board
3.0 Membership and Representation
3.1 The members of SeaShore shall be the following counties and cities (hereinafter
referred to as "jurisdiction(s)": King County and Snohomish County, and the cities Deleted: 2006
of Seattle, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, Woodinville, Edmonds, Deleted: 08/16/07
Mountlake Terrace and Bothell; the following transportation agencies (hereinafter / Deleted: 08/15/07
SeaShore Agreement 200.7
/ Inserted:08/16/07
9 22/07 /
Packet Page 297 of 303
referred to as "agency(ies)": the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT), Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Sound Transit, Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB), Community Transit and the Port of Seattle.
Membership may be extended to others at a later date as Seashore may later
determine.
3.2 Each member city and county -("jurisdiction") shall be entitled to two positions on
SeaShore. Each agency shall be entitled to one position on Seashore. Each
jurisdiction should appoint two representatives, and each agency should appoint one
representative, each for one-year terms. Alternates may also be designated. For the
jurisdictions, the representatives should be elected officials; the alternates may be
elected officials or high-level staff members as best serves both the jurisdiction and
SeaShore. For agencies, their representatives and alternates may be either elected
officials or other high-level staff members as such agencies may deem appropriate.
3.3 Each jurisdiction's representatives, or their altemate�in their absence, shall have one Deleted:
vote. Representatives of agencies shall be non -voting representatives.
3.4 The "Seattle -North King County" subarea is recognized as one of three subareas in
King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit policy decisions allocating service or
capital resources. The SeaShore Transportation Forum is established as the body
responsible for making recommendations on these issues. For actions relating to
these issues, only those jurisdictions in the "Seattle -North King County" subarea
shall vote.
3.5 No jurisdiction shall cast a vote for funding recommendations of federal funding
allocated by the Puget Sound Regional Council in more than one forum or
recommending body. Snohomish County cities shall not have voting rights in
SeaShore for allocation of resources in King Count -All jurisdictions may vote on
other issues, unless an agency requesting a SeaShore recommendation specifies that
different voting boundaries or criteria shall be used, or a decision is otherwise
specifically required by law or rule to be made by other boundary or criteria.
3.6 If a case arises where voting boundary or criteria is in question, all jurisdictions
may vote. If the outcome is not unanimous, the detailed results shall be recorded by
jurisdiction and forwarded to the agency requesting the recommendation for their
information.
4.0 Conduct
4.1 SeaShore shall endeavor to make decisions by consensus. If consensus cannot be
reached, final decisions will be made by majority vote of the voting members
present at the meeting at which action is taken. Dissenting opinions may also be
provided to the appropriate decision -makers. Deleted: 2006
SeaShore Agreement 200.7
Deleted: 08/16/07
/ Deleted:08/15/07
/ Inserted:08/16/07
9 22/07 /
Packet Page 298 of 303
4.2 SeaShore will be responsible for overall program direction, approving staff
recommendations, and on -going communication with the governing body of each
member jurisdiction and agency.
4.3 SeaShore may establish its own bylaws and rules of procedure and may modify
these as appropriate. Such bylaws and rules shall be consistent with the provisions
of this Agreement and modifications to such bylaws and rules will not alter this
Agreement.
4.4 A Chair or two Co -Chairs shall be chosen by Seashore to serve a term of one-year
from January 1 through December 31. The Chair(s) shall conduct the SeaShore
activities and are responsible for setting meeting agendas, ensuring fair opportunity
for discussion, signing correspondence and speaking on behalf of SeaShore. At least
one Chair shall be a representative of a jurisdiction located in whole or in part in the
Seattle -North -King -County Subarea.
5.0 Committees
The SeaShore may establish committees as are necessary to carry out its purpose. A
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of jurisdiction and agency staff shall be formed
to advise SeaShore of emergent transportation issues and provide recommendations for
action. Each jurisdiction and agency may designate a representative (and an alternate) to
the TAC. Other committees may be formed on an ongoing or ad hoc basis as determined
by SeaShore from time to time.
6.0 Lead Agency
King County shall provide general administrative and program support for the SeaShore
and will be the Lead Agency for the purposes of coordination and receipt of any funds or
contract administration. King County assumes wage and benefits cost of its staff
performing Lead Agency responsibilities.
7.0 Member Agency Staff Support
Each member jurisdiction and agency is expected to contribute such staff as is necessary
to accomplish the work program adopted by the SeaShore.
8.0 Work Program
The SeaShore may undertake activities consistent with its purposes and shall prepare an
annual work program for the following year, and progress report on the year just
completed for submittal to its members.
9.0 Financing and Cost Sharing Guidelines:
Deleted: 2006
Deleted: 08/16/07
9.1 SeaShore Yearly Dues -- Each member jurisdiction will contribute $500 annually to
/ Deleted: 08/15/07
remain members in good standing. The designated Lead agency shall not be required to
/ Inserted: 08/16/07
SeaShore Agreement 200.7
Y/
9 22/07 /
Packet Page 299 of 303
pay yearly dues. This revenue shall be used for special events, public education, or other
expenses authorized by the SeaShore Forum.
9.2 The following guidelines shall generally apply:
(1) Annual Review of Financing: The Forum shall determine by June 30 of each year
whether an additional financial contribution will be requested of the member jurisdictions
and agencies.
(2) Member Jurisdictions: Costs shall be shared among member jurisdictions other
than King County by a method as determined by action of the Forum. Unless agreed to
otherwise, King County's share shall be limited to the costs of providing staff support.
(3) Non -voting Member Agencies/Organizations: The member agencies shall not be
expected to make a direct funding contribution. However, subject to the availability of
member funding, in -kind contributions may be necessary as determined by an action of
SeaShore.
(4) Modification to Agreement Required: A modification to this agreement
specifying cost -sharing, purpose, scope of work and other details is required to obligate a
member jurisdiction to a change in funding participation.
10.0 Withdrawal of a Party from this Agreement
Each party, for its convenience and without cause or for any reason whatsoever, may
withdraw from participation in this Agreement by providing written notice, sent certified
mail, return receipt required, to all of the other parties at least thirty (30) days in advance
of the effective date of the withdrawal. A withdrawing party shall not be entitled to a
refund of any dues or other payments to support SeaShore activities and shall make any
contributions required to be paid to other parties under this Agreement for costs which
had been obligated prior to the effective date of the withdrawal. In the event a party
withdraws, the remaining parties shall amend this Agreement as necessary to reflect
changes in the named parties and cost and revenue allocations. In the event of
withdrawal by a party, this Agreement shall terminate as to that party but shall continue
in effect with respect to the remaining parties. However, the termination of this
Agreement with respect to one or more parties shall not affect any of the parties' rights or
obligations, including any rights or obligations of a withdrawing party, that are expressly
intended to survive termination.
Each parry's funding to perform its obligations under the Agreement, beyond the current
appropriation year, is conditional upon appropriation by the parry's governing body of
sufficient funds to support said obligations. Should such an appropriation not be
approved for a future year, a party may exercise its right to withdraw as provided herein. Deleted: 2006
Deleted: 08/16/07
11.0 Duration / Deleted:08/15/07
/ Inserted:08/16/07
SeaShore Agreement 200.7 _ _ _ 6 _ _ _ _ _ 0W22/07 /
Packet Page 300 of 303
This Agreement shall take effect upon being duly adopted by the governing bodies of all
parties and executed by the authorized representatives of all parties. This Agreement
shall remain in effect until December 31, 2008, unless terminated earlier or extended in
accordance with Section 18.0.
12.0 Termination
All parties to this Agreement must agree to terminate this Agreement in order for such
termination to be effective. If all parties desire to terminate this Agreement, they shall
execute a Statement of Termination. Upon termination, no party shall be required to
make any additional contributions. Any remaining funds shall be refunded to the parties
to this Agreement according to Section 14.0.
13.0 Real and Personal Property
The acquisition of real property is not anticipated under this Agreement. Any personal
property acquired pursuant to this Agreement shall be held by the Lead Agency. In the
event this Agreement expires or is terminated in accordance with Section 12.0, any
personal property other than cash shall remain with the Lead Agency.
14.0 Return of Funds
At such time as this Agreement expires or is terminated in accordance with Section 12.0,
any unexpended and uncommitted funds shall be distributed proportionately to those
parties to this Agreement at the time of termination based on each parry's percentage
share of the original contribution.
16.0 Filing
This Agreement shall be filed with the King County Department of Records and
Elections.
17.0 Legal Relations
17.1 The parties shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
17.2 This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to
any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement.
No employees or agents of one party or any of its contractors or subcontractors shall be
deemed, or represent themselves to be, employees of any other party.
17.3 Each party shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other parties and all of
their officials, employees, principals and agents from all claims, demands, suits, actions, Deleted: 2006
and liability of any kind whatsoever which arise out of, are connected with, or are Deleted: 08/16/07
incident to any negligent acts of the indemnifying party, its contractor, and/or employees, / Deleted: 08/15/07
SeaShore Agreement 200.7
/ Inserted:08/16/07
9 22/07 /
Packet Page 301 of 303
agents, and representatives in performing the indemnifying party's obligations under this
Agreement. The parties agree that their obligations under this paragraph extend to claims
made against one party by the other party's own employees. For this purpose, the parties,
by mutual negotiation, hereby waive, as respects the other party only, any immunity that
would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance
provisions of RCW Title 51. In the event any party incurs attorney's fees, costs or other
legal expenses to enforce the provisions of this section, against the other party, all such
reasonable fees, costs and expenses shall be recoverable by the prevailing party.
17.4 The provisions of this Section 17 shall survive and remain applicable to each of the
parties notwithstanding any termination or expiration of this Agreement and
notwithstanding a party's withdrawal from this Agreement.
18.0 Entirety and Modifications
18.1 This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and
agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and constitutes the
entire agreement between the parties.
18.2 This Agreement may be modified or extended only by written instrument signed by
all parties hereto.
19.0 Counterparts
The signature page of this Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be signed and delivered by its duly
authorized officer or representative as of the date set forth below its signature.
CITY OF BOTHELL
KING COUNTY
COMMUNITY TRANSIT
By
By
BY
Date
Date
Date
CITY OF KENMORE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
CITY OF SEATTLE
By
Date
By
By
Date
Date
CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL
WASHINGTON STATE
COUNCIL
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
By
By
Date
By L
SeaShore Agreement 200.7
Deleted: 2006
Deleted: 08/16/07
Deleted: 08/15/07
Inserted: 08/16/07
08/22/07 /
Packet Page 302 of 303
Date
Date
CITY OF SHORELINE
SOUND TRANSIT
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT BOARD
By
By
By
Date
Date
Date
CITY OF WOODINVILLE
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE
CITY OF EDMONDS
TERRACE
By
By
By
Date
Date
Date
PORT OF SEATTLE
By
Date
Attachment A (map)
SeaShore Agreement 200.7
Deleted: 2006
Deleted: 08/16/07
/
Deleted:08/15/07
/
Inserted:08/16/07
9 22/07 /
Packet Page 303 of 303