The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-05-09 City Council - Full Agenda-18801. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 9, 2017, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION 1. Proclamation for National Historic Preservation Month (5 min.) PUBLIC COMMENT (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 2, 2017 2. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 3. Settlement of Claim STUDY ITEM 1. Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment (AMD20170003) (15 min.) ADJOURN TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE WORK SESSIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF ONLY. THE MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC BUT ARE NOT PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE COMMITTEES MEET CONCURRENTLY IN SEPARATE ROOMS AS INDICATED BELOW. PARKS, PLANNING, AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE (JURY MEETING ROOM) 1. Report on construction bids for the 238th Street Walkway Project (Edmonds Way to SR99) (10 minutes) 2. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with BHC Consultants for the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) (10 minutes) 3. Presentation of a Complete Streets Grant Agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) (10 minutes) 4. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study (10 minutes) 5. Review Council Committee Descriptions and Provide Feedback (5 min.) FINANCE COMMITTEE (COUNCIL CHAMBER) 1. Proposed Business License Renewal Late Fee Reversal Policy (5 min.) 2. Present Draft 2018 Budget Development Calendar to Council (15 min.) Edmonds City Council Agenda May 9, 2017 Page 1 3. Review Council Committee Descriptions and Provide Feedback (5 min.) 11. PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE (POLICE TRAINING ROOM) 1. Amendments to Diversity Commission code provisions (10 min.) 2. Review Council Committee Descriptions and Provide Feedback (5 min.) Edmonds City Council Agenda May 9, 2017 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Proclamation for National Historic Preservation Month (5 min.) Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History For many years, May has been designated as Preservation Month by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Many state and local preservation groups organize events and programs during the month to call attention to historic preservation and its positive impact on communities. Staff Recommendation Narrative Preservation month aims to encourage increased engagement by supporters, and to reach broader audiences, in communicating the message that preservation is essential to community vibrance, identity, and quality of place. Attachments: NHPM_proclamation_5_2017 Packet Pg. 3 OIr City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor "National .historic Preservation Month" May 20.17 WHEREAS, National Historic Preservation Month was first established in 1973 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and supported by national programs such as the National Park Service and National Register of Historic Places to promote historic places and buildings for the purpose of instilling national and community pride, promoting heritage tourism, and showcasing the social and economic benefits of historic preservation; and WHEREAS, National Historic Preservation Month is supported by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation who recognizes Edmonds as a Certified Local Government and encourages local programs and organizations such as the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission and Edmonds Historical Museum; and WHEREAS, much of Edmonds' character, distinction, and community pride can be attributed to the unique heritage places and buildings saved and celebrated by our residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds recognizes the month of May as National Historic Preservation Month and honors the value and character that heritage places and buildings serve within our community by defining our future while preserving our past; NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, proclaim May as Historic Preservation Month and call upon public officials, educators, business owners, property owners, and all people of Edmonds to join us in celebrating the history preserved in our unique buildings and structures and strive to protect and preserve Edmonds heritage. David O. Earling, Mayor May 9, 2017 Packet Pg. 4 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 2, 2017 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 05-02-2017 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 5 6.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES May 2, 2017 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Thomas Mesaros, Mayor Pro Tern Michael Nelson, Council President Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Scott James, Finance Director Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Mesaros in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Earling and Councilmember Buckshnis. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested Item 4.9 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2017 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2017 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 1 Packet Pg. 6 6.1.a 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT 4. WASTEWATER TREATMENT, DISPOSAL AND TRANSPORT CONTRACT EXTENSION 5. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2017 SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT TO SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION 6. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2017 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT TO D&G BACKHOE, INC. 7. APPROVAL OF THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION DEED FROM EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR 236TH ST. AT THE MADRONA SCHOOL PROPERTY 8. RESOLUTION 1387 AMENDING THE CITY'S CONTRACTING AND PURCHASING POLICIES 10. AUTHORIZATION FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT 11. MEADOWDALE FIELDS ILA ITEM 9. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE APPRENTICESHIP REQUIREMENTS IN ECDC 18.00.050 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she pulled this item to vote against it. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE ITEM 4.9. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT AND MAYOR PRO TEM MESAROS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM NELSON AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. PUGET SOUND STARTS HERE MONTH Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros read a proclamation declaring May 2017 as "Puget Sound Starts Here Month," and encouraging all citizens to take action by attending local and regional events and to adopt behaviors in their daily lives to help protect and clean up Puget Sound and our local waterways. He presented the proclamation to Public Works Director Phil Williams. Mr. Williams accepted the proclamation on behalf all City employees and particularly Public Works employees who design and build projects to improve the quality and nature of stormwater runoff from public and private properties. He also highlighted efforts of Parks & Recreation and public safety departments to protect Puget Sound. Staff also works with citizens to do the same on their properties and with their equipment. Puget Sound Starts Here (PSSH) Month is sponsored by the PSSH organization of which Edmonds is a member along with over 700 other organizations in Puget Sound. PSSH jointly sponsors activities throughout the year including numerous events this month such as having a trained mechanic check your car for leaks, the Watershed Fun Fair on May 6 at the Willow Creek Hatchery, and discount tickets for the May 21 Mariners game. He expressed appreciation for the proclamation to inform the public staff is working on these issues throughout the year. He recognized the City Council's role in approving the budget and projects. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 7 6.1.a 2. MEMORIAL DAY PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT Joshua Brown, a sophomore at Edmonds-Woodway High School and a volunteer for this year's Memorial Day celebration and a drama student, he invited the public to a production at the museum on June 8-11 at 7 p.m. On behalf of the Cemetery Board and Chair Jerry Janacek, Program Chair Melissa Johnson, he invited the Council and the public to the 35' annual Memorial Day Ceremony on Monday, May 26, 2017 at 11 a.m. at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium. The Cemetery Board invites the public, program participants, and those in attendance to honor the memories of those who died while serving our country. A special invitation is extended to all Vietnam era veterans and their families. The U.S. Defense Department has designated 2017 as the 50t' commemorative year for all military personnel who served during the Vietnam era as a way of saying thank you. Vietnam was a time of great stress, claiming over 1 million lives including 24 with ties to south Snohomish County and 23 local high school graduates and one posthumously recipient of the Medal of Honor. The ceremony will feature a welcome home poem, personal memories and a remembrance of the 24 men who did not return. Their names are memorialized on the monument located in front of the Edmonds Museum and also printed in the program. A solemn bell ceremony will include reading of their names. This year's ceremonial flags are those of two Vietnam veterans honoring Ronald Page Paschall of Alderwood Manor who was in the U.S. Army and MIA until 1955 and a member of the 8t' Calvary as well as Richard Starr of Mill Creek, also in the U.S. Army, a first year veteran member and in the 7t' Calvary. The U.S. Defense Department presents the family a flag at the time of his/her death and the words, "from a grateful nation." The ceremony is an outdoor event, dress for the weather, seating is limited, parking inside the cemetery is limited to those with handicap permits. Refreshments will be provided. Anyone with questions regarding the ceremony is invited to call Mr. Hoggins. The cemetery is located at 820 15t'' Street SW, Edmonds, north of QFC in the Westgate shopping center. The dedication of the Veterans Plaza will follow at 2 p.m. on 5tn Avenue between City Hall and the Police Department. Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros commented as Vietnam era veteran himself, he was pleased with the selection of that veteran group this year. He thanked Mr. Brown for his involvement and the Cemetery Board for their leadership. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, said he has been receiving the Council minutes free of charge for the past 28 years. He recently received a letter from the City Clerk stating he will be required to pay for the minutes. The City Clerk informed him it was not a budget issue but was in accordance with a resolution adopted by the Council regarding fees charged for copies. He pointed out not everyone has access to the internet or cable and they will now be required to pay a $0.15/page copy charge. He requested the Council reconsider charging for copies of the minutes. 7. 1. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros advised committee meetings will begin next week following a brief Council meeting. He announced the committee members, chair and the meeting location. Finance Committee Location: Council Chambers Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 3 Packet Pg. 8 6.1.a Members: Councilmember Buckshnis (Chair) and Councilmember Teitzel Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Location: Jury Meeting Room Members: Councilmember Tibbott (Chair) and Councilmember Johnson Public Safety & Personnel Committee Location: Police Training Room Members: Councilmember Nelson (Chair) and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas Mayor Pro Tern Mesaros invited Council comments on the committee assignments and/or the ordinance related to Council meetings and committee meetings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said historically the committee chair was determined by the two Councilmembers on the committees. Councilmember Teitzel asked for clarification regarding the logistics, referring to the language in section 1.04.010.A, "Full Council. Regular meetings of City Council shall be held on every Tuesday of every month except for the fifth Tuesday of a month, a 7:00 p.m." He anticipated the norm will be not to have a Council meeting on the second and fourth Tuesdays. It was not his understanding that the intent was to have a regular Council meeting prior to committee meetings. In the past, Councilmembers went directly to committee meetings and there was no formal Council meeting proceeding committee meetings. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded this language was drafted with the assumption that there would be at least a brief meeting of the full Council on most Tuesdays. If that was not the Council's intent, the ordinance may need to be revised and brought back to Council at a future meeting. He recognized there could be an occasional Tuesday where the regular Council meeting was cancelled; if the Council thinks cancellation of the full Council meeting on the second and fourth Tuesdays will be the norm, then alternate language should be drafted to reflect the norm and avoid a great deal of cancellation notices. City Clerk Scott Passey agreed and suggested the Council decide what the norm will be although that may be difficult to determine at this point. Councilmember Teitzel said in talking with Councilmembers who have been on the Council for some time, their conclusion was that was the norm, therefore, he suggested proceeding under that assumption. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed only occasionally an urgent issue arose on a committee night, estimating a full Council meeting prior to committee meetings had been necessary only 3-4 times/year which is the opposite of the language in the ordinance. She suggested adding language such as "emergent business conducted prior to committee meetings" which would allow a full Council meeting to be scheduled prior to committee meetings if necessary. Mr. Taraday suggested if the Council's anticipated norm was not having a regular Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays, the first sentence of Section 1.04.010.A. will need to be revised. The Council President always can call a special meeting as he deems necessary. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that was her understanding when the Council agreed to proceed with committee meetings. Councilmember Johnson concurred in the past committee meetings were held without a Council meeting proceeding and on occasional a special meeting was held. She summarized it was not the legislative intent to have a regular Council meeting every Tuesday. Mayor Pro Tern Mesaros commented it was unfortunate that Councilmembers Johnson and Fraley-Monillas were not at the retreat. The discussion at the retreat was to schedule a regular meeting prior to committee meetings and when the agenda is published, citizens will be able to see if there will be regular Council meeting prior to committee meetings. That would provide flexibility so the City Clerk does not have to notice a special meeting. He acknowledged that was a change from the past practice but at the retreat it was viewed as a positive change. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 9 6.1.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented because she and Councilmember Johnson did not attend the retreat, historic practice was omitted from the discussion. She anticipated the norm would be as Councilmember Teitzel and canceling regular Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday will create more work for the City Clerk. If the interest was to allow public comment, that could still occur at regular Council meetings twice a month. Councilmember Teitzel commented if a short regular Council meeting was held on the second and fourth Tuesdays, that requires Mr. Taraday, Mr. Passey, the minute taker and the video operator to attend so there is an expense component as well. He suggested expenses could be reduced by not having a regular Council meeting prior to committee meetings. Mr. Taraday said his expense is fixed and it is his normal routine to attend Council meetings every Tuesday. Mr. Passey echoed Mr. Taraday's comments. Councilmember Johnson asked about minute taking of committee meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros advised a meeting will be held following the Council meeting to finalize that. He anticipated there will be a minute taker at each committee meeting and minutes will be prepared and approved by the City Council. The details will finalized within a half hour of the conclusion of the Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to discuss that in public, including minutes versus notes, coming traditionally notes were taken during community meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros said the methodology for producing minutes would be discussed following the meeting. Per Mr. Passey, it was his understanding the correct terminology was minutes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Teitzel that there was a cost factor. Although there may not be an additional cost to have Mr. Taraday or Mr. Passey attend Council meetings, if they or other staff are present for a regular Council meeting, they are not getting other work done which is a cost to the City. She recommended the Council discuss whether they wanted minutes versus notes and the amount of detail they wanted. She could support either minutes or notes, commenting committee meetings were intended to be informal conversations between two Councilmembers and staff. She was unsure there needed to be detailed minutes or the cost of producing detailed minutes. Councilmember Johnson commented there has been a range of techniques. She recalled in the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee, engineering staff was responsible for taking very summary notes. The Finance Committee has had the Council minute taker present taking detailed minutes and in the Public Safety & Personnel Committee, a Councilmember took notes. She preferred to discuss the type of minutes during tonight's meeting before committee meetings begin next week. Mr. Passey explained State law states minutes are produced of open meetings. They are called minutes but they can be as detailed or as brief as the Council wishes. It is up to Council whether to have minutes prepared by several people or have some consistency between each committee with one minute taker producing minutes from the audio. Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros suggested it be up to each committee how minutes were produced. Mr. Passey said if the minutes are ultimately approved by the committee, it could be up to the committee. In the past committee minutes were never approved; they were simply included in the packet and a committee member reported on the committee's actions. Council President Pro Tem Nelson suggested his handwriting was not conducive to taking minutes. He supported consistency and since the committee meetings are not televised, he suggested there be more detail, not less for those unable to attend committee meetings. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 10 6.1.a Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros said he planned to ask Legislative/Council Assistant Andrew Pierce, Camera Operator Jerrie Bevington, and Recorder Jeannie Dines to attend committee meetings, Ms. Dines will take the lead, and Mr. Passey will provide oversight. There will be recording devices in the committee meetings. Although he recognized there was a cost, these three individuals normally attend Council meetings. The details of that will be discussed in a meeting with those individuals following the Council meeting. Councilmember Teitzel suggested from a transparency standpoint, it was important to have the detail available. He suggested the committee meetings be recorded, summary minutes prepared and the recordings posted on the City's website. Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros advised committee meetings will be recorded. He asked whether the recordings could be posted on the City's website. Mr. Passey offered to research whether three separate audio recordings could be posted for one meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REVISE SECTION 1.04.010.A to read, "FULL COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BE HELD ON THE FIRST AND THIRD F171PRV TUESDAY OF EVERY MONTH, EXCEPT FOR THE FIFTH TUESDAY OF A MONTH, AT 7:00 P.M.. Councilmember Tibbott favored having a posted Council meeting every Tuesday except for the fifth Tuesday to provide flexibility. He asked what would be on the agenda for Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday. Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros said his job as Council President was to be responsive to the will of the Council. At the retreat, there was interest expressed in flexibility and this change would limit that flexibility. He preferred to have flexibility, recognizing the future was uncertain. If this is the Council's direction, he will do his best not to have agenda items requiring a regular Council meeting on the second and fourth Tuesday, recognizing this may delay things and reduce flexibility. Councilmember Tibbott pointed out the notetakers would be present either way so having a regular Council meeting prior to committee meetings would not incur additional expense. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she wished she and/or Councilmember Johnson had been at the retreat or had been consulted. The intent of committee meetings was an opportunity for discussion between Councilmembers and staff regarding agenda items. Her concern with holding a regular Council meeting prior to committee meetings was it could reduce the time available for the committee meetings or for the Council meeting. She preferred to try having just committee meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays and regular Council meetings on the first and third Tuesdays and schedule a special Council meeting for urgent issues when necessary. If so many urgent issues arise that require special meetings, she suggested the Council may want to return to one committee meeting a month which worked well in the past. She commented when urgent issues arose requiring a Council meeting prior to committee meetings in the past, they were typically short. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), MOVED, COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND TEITZEL VOTING YES; AND MAYOR PRO TEM MESAROS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM NELSON, AND COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO STATE IF FULL COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE HELD PRIOR TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THE ISSUES BE URGENT IN NATURE. Mr. Taraday commented this amendment will place restrictions on the Council that are not required by law. Including this language removes the discretion to have a special meeting instead of leaving it to those who are charged with determining whether a special meeting is necessary, something he wondered if the Council would later regret. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Mr. Taraday offer wording to achieve her intent. Mr. Taraday said the amendment offered by Councilmember Teitzel implied any Council meeting other than the first and third Tuesday would be a special meeting. He explained Council meetings are either Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 11 6.1.a regular or special; if a meeting is not a regular meeting, it is a special meeting. The language in the current ordinance was drafted this way because his goal was to provide as much flexibility for the Council as possible. A special meeting requires 24 hours' advance notice; cancellation of a meeting does not. Mr. Taraday explained if the Council is trying to decide whether to err on the side of over -scheduling regular meeting and then cancelling them versus under -scheduling regular meetings and having to issue special meeting notices, it is easier for the City Clerk and legally to cancel regular meetings instead of post notice of special meetings. In addition, final action can only be taken at a special meeting on items listed on the agenda. He summarized the current ordinance gives the Council maximum flexibility to respond to urgent matters without having to issue special meeting notices which was the goal at the time the ordinance was drafted. If the Council is concerned that that will result in four regular meetings/month plus committee meetings, that can be resolved via a discussion with the Council President regarding what is scheduled on agendas. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not aware there was a procedure for cancelling meetings versus scheduling a special meeting. Mr. Taraday said he did not believe there was a 24-hour notice requirement to cancel a meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what is required to cancel a meeting. Mr. Passey said notice is posted on the website and location is posted that the meeting has been cancelled. Many things beyond the Council's control might necessitate cancelling a meeting such as a power outage, therefore, providing 24 hours' notice may not be possible. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO POSTPONE FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING WHETHER TO CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE TO NEXT WEEK AND HOLD A REGULAR MEETING BEFORE COMMITTEE MEETINGS TO MAKE A DECISION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2- 4), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM NELSON, MAYOR PRO TEM MESAROS, AND COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday explained the ordinance regarding Council meetings and committee meetings was approved at a previous Council meeting. It was included in the packet for reference. A motion to amend the ordinance was made and failed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding no other changes have been made to the ordinance since it was approved by the Council. Mr. Taraday agreed. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros encouraged the public to take part in the Watershed Fun Fair on Saturday, May 6 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Willow Creek Hatchery, 95 Pine Street. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel relayed an observation and thank you to protestors and police through the region regarding May Day protests and exercise of free speech. He was heartened this year that there was no appreciable violence, no property destruction, and no excessive use of force by police. He was pleased citizens were able to have their voices heard and viewpoints known and the police exercised restraint and this happened peacefully. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how many citizens are provided copes of meeting minutes. City Clerk Scott Passey answered maybe five. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the cost to the City to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 12 6.1.a make those copies. Mr. Passey said the adopted fee schedule allows up to five copies for free and then $0.15 per page. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if it is only minutes that are being provided. Mr. Passey answered it not always just minutes, there have been requests for an entire agenda item. This issue arose when he discovered copies have been provided to some without charge and he wanted to be fair in the way the fee schedule was being administered with regard to public records requests. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas suggested determining a way to provide meeting minutes to citizens without cable or internet access. Mr. Passey suggested a certain number of copies be printed and available each week. Council President Pro Tern Nelson expressed support for offering free printed copies of minutes. Councilmember Tibbott announced he will be attending the Congress on New Urbanisms on Wednesday through Friday, a national conference being held in Seattle this year. The conference offers the latest thoughts on urban design and what cities are doing to accommodate growth as well as best practices for walkways and alternative forms of transportation. It is also a chance to meet other Councilmembers, legislators and staff dealing with the same issues. He offered to provide the City Council a report on the conference. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 13 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #225293 through #225422 dated May 4, 2017 for $316,360.61. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62677 through #62686 for $543,381.24, benefit checks #62687 through #62695 and wire payments of $500,124.79 for the pay period April 16, 2017 through April 30, 2017. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Fiscal Impact Claims $316,360.61 Employee checks and direct deposit $543,381.24 Benefit checks and wire payments $500,124.79 Total Payroll $1,043,506.03 Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claim cks 05-04-17 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 05-04-17 payroll summary 05-05-17 payroll benefit 05-05-17 Packet Pg. 14 6.2.a vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225293 5/4/2017 000710 ALASKAN COPPER & BRASS 225294 5/4/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 456410-1 WATER - COPPER SUPPLIES Water - Copper Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Tota 1990128844 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1990132767 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MA Page: N 1,409.6( U 138.11 1,547.71 c m T: T: T: c c� 33.3 1 o 3.41 a � •� 1.6' o � � T: 6.1' � T� o L 6.1' a Q 6.1' M 0 6.1' ti r 6.0£ 0 0.1 1 o N 0.6: 0.6< r 0.6< E t R .r r a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 15 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225294 5/4/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1990132768 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & M FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1990139377 WWTP: UNIFORMS, TOWELS & M wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1990139378 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1990143330 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MA 6.2.a Page: 2 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 0.6< ui 0.6, AT U 4- 5.6£ c m 18.4( c M 0.5� o L 1.8£ a A 5.1( 4- 0 T: � � 52.2 , ti r ' T� c 1.6' o Y 6.1' T� E 6.1' r 6.1' a0i T: E R .r r a Page: 2 Packet Pg. 16 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 225294 5/4/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 1990143331 225295 5/4/2017 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 1073990-IN 225296 5/4/2017 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON 5419 TAEKWON-DO PO # Description/Account 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 Total WWTP: DIESEL FUEL ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 Total 5419 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION 5419 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION 6.2.a Page: 3 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 6.1' ui 6.0E t U 0.1 - }' a c 0.6: 0.6< c�a 0 0.6< ca a 0.6< 0.6, w 0 18.4( Q rn N 0.5E r 346.6: 0 LO 0 N Y 2,562.5E E 263.9E 2,826.5: c m E t R .r r Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 17 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225296 5/4/2017 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 5489 TAEKWON-DO 5493 TAEKWON-DO 225297 5/4/2017 012005 BALLAND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2O17-020 225298 5/4/2017 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT 225299 5/4/2017 072696 BJORBACK, LEIF 225300 5/4/2017 074307 BLUE STAR GAS PO # Description/Account 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5489 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIO 5489 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIO 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 5493 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIO 5493 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIO 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Tota INV 2017-020 EDMONDS PD - 4/1 PRE -EMPLOY EXAM - HENDERS 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Tota 2 CONCERT FLYERS CONCERT FLYERS 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 Tota Biorback, L. CLAIM FOR EXPENSES WABO M Claim for Expenses WABO Meeting 001.000.62.524.20.43.00 Tota 7840 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 528.7 G Fleet - Auto Propane 528.7 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 7887 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 519.1 G Fleet - Auto Propane 519.1 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Tota ME 225301 5/4/2017 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING & 13813 STORM - DUMP FEES Storm - Dump Fees 6.2.a Page: 4 1,150.6< -0 N N N m 51.0( U 2/' N 4— N 0 c 76.1( I : 1,277.8: c c� — on ° 225.0( a 8.0( •� 1 : 233.0( w 0 0 551.5( a I : 551.5( Q rn M 0 N 161.5( " 1 : 161.5E r AL o 0 645.0E Y AL E 2 641.2E U I : 1,286.3: m E t R .r r Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 18 225301 5/4/2017 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING & 13813 STORM - DUMP FEES Storm - Dump Fees 6.2.a Page: 4 1,150.6< -0 N N N m 51.0( U 2/' N 4— N 0 c 76.1( I : 1,277.8: c c� — on ° 225.0( a 8.0( •� 1 : 233.0( w 0 0 551.5( a I : 551.5( Q rn M 0 N 161.5( " 1 : 161.5E r AL o 0 645.0E Y AL E 2 641.2E U I : 1,286.3: m E t R .r r Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 18 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225301 5/4/2017 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING & (Continued) 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 Tota 225302 5/4/2017 075025 BRANDING IRON LLC 3221 CEMETERY MEM DAY PROGRAM CEMETERY MEM DAY PROGRAM 130.000.64.536.20.41.40 10.3% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.20.41.40 Tota 225303 5/4/2017 067391 BRAT WEAR 21615 INV#21615 - EDMONDS PD - D.J.S LABOR TO ALTER UNIFORM ITEM 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 21658 INV#21658 - EDMONDS PD - STA NAME TAG - STANLEY 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 LABOR TO REMOVE &REPLACE T 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 LABOR TO EXCHANGE # OF SVC 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Tota 225304 5/4/2017 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 5380 YOGA 5380 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5380 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5383 YOGA 5383 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5383 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5386 YOGA 5386 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5386 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 6.2.a Page: 5 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 120.0( 1 : 120.0( Y m S U S 260.0( c m 26.7E I : 286.7E r- N o S 147.0( E 15.1, TU NL c M 16.0( c A a 20.0( Q B 5.0( M 0 N 4.2, 1 : 207.3( r 0 0 N 539.2E E 248.01 r c m E 605.4E R .r r a Page: 5 Packet Pg. 19 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225304 5/4/2017 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 225305 225306 5/4/2017 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 5/4/2017 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 225307 5/4/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 5389 YOGA 3c10-YAMOICL 5395 YOGA 5411 PILATES 14289647 PO # Description/Account 5389 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5389 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5392 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5392 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5395 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5395 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5411 PILATES INSTRUCTION 5411 PILATES INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Total WWTP: CLARIFIER 3 TSK 1+ODOR CLARIFIER 3 TSK 1+ODOR SCRUBI 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Tota 93237153 STORM - GRAVEL Storm - Gravel 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 Tota 17231347 PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CO PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CO 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 17231354 PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTR PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONT 6.2.a Page: 6 N 263.2E y t U 4- 304.3E m 302.4( R 0 432.6( a 2,695.3, U w 0 857.2E -,; 1 : 857.2E c L Q Q. Q 476.8, M 0 N 47.6E ., 1 : 524.5( r 0 N LO N• o N 424.9E Al E 67.9< r c m 80.8E t R .r r a Page: 6 Packet Pg. 20 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225307 5/4/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 17231359 WATER SEWER COPIER & USAGE Water Sewer Copier & Usage 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 Water Sewer Copier & Usage 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 17231360 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier & Usage 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 PW Office Copier & Usage 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 PW Office Copier & Usage 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 PW Office Copier & Usage 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 PW Office Copier & Usage 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 PW Office Copier & Usage 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 10.3% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.2.a Page: 7 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 8.3< m t U 73.0E aD c 73.0E 7.5z c�a 0 7.5, >`, ca a E 103.0( 'M U w 58.3 , 0 41.2( Q am 41.2( c N 41.2( r 10.6' 9 0 6.0' 6.0' 4.2z m 4.2z t R .r r Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 21 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225307 5/4/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 225308 5/4/2017 068484 CEMEX LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 0191*W*,X111 9435362169 9435376912 9435414629 9435422096 225309 5/4/2017 003515 CH2M HILL INC 381102630 381102788.01 PO # Description/Account 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 Tota STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT Roadway - Liquid Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Tota WWTP: TASK 1.2017 ON CALL EN TASK 1.2017 ON CALL ENG SERV 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 WWTP: TASK 3.2016 ON CALL EN TASK 3.2016 ON CALL ENG SERV 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 6.2.a Page: 8 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 4.2z 1,121.9E t U 4- a� c 1,455.1 c c� 287.1( o 28.7' a E M 267.1( 6 4- 0 26.7' 0 a L 144.9( Q 14.4( M 0 N ti 285.6( r 0 28.5( o I : 2,538.39 Y U G E IC 3,082.0( G c T E E 4,990.3, R .r r Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 22 6.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM City of Edmonds c ca Bank code : usbank 0 a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 225309 5/4/2017 003515 CH2M HILL INC (Continued) L_ 381102788.02 WWTP: TASK 4.2016 ON CALL ENC TASK 4.2016 ON CALL ENG SERV T Y 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,060.0( 381102788.03 WWTP: TASK 5.2016 ON CALL ENG U TASK 5.2016 ON CALL ENG SERV T 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,486.6� Total: 10,619.0' 225310 5/4/2017 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 117000824 WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB AN/ c� Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis — 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 583.2( Total: 583.2( a 225311 5/4/2017 074559 CLARK, PATRICK CLARK EXP 04-17 CLARK EXPENSE CLAIM APR 2017 E PER DIEM 4/23-4/27 TRAINING IN f° U 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 187.5( o Total: 187.5( 225312 5/4/2017 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 56277 EDMONDS CITY CODE UPDATE: 40 0 L EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRONI a 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 116.5( Q 10.3% Sales Tax rn 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 M 12.0( N Total: 128.5( " ti 225313 5/4/2017 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC RO#33053 UNIT 23 - PAINT SIDE DOOR r Unit 23 - Paint Side Door 9 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 192.0( G 10.3% Sales Tax Y 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 19.7E 0 Total: 211.7E 225314 5/4/2017 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100170920 WWTP: 4/1-4/30/17 JANITORIAL SE 4/1-4/30/17 JANITORIAL SERVICE m 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 514.0( E R .r r Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 23 6.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM City of Edmonds c ca Bank code : usbank a a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 225314 5/4/2017 075042 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON (Continued) Total: 514.0( ,L 225315 5/4/2017 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 0292185-IN FLEET UNIT 134 - PARTS ui Fleet Unit 134 - Parts m 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 34.6' 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.5 1 0292599-IN UNIT 66 - PARTS m Unit 66 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.6, 10.3% Sales Tax — 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.5' Total: 54.3' a 225316 5/4/2017 075967 CRONIN, TERESA SUAREZ 19348 SPANISH INTERPRETER 5/1/2017 C E SPANISH INTERPRETER 5/1/2017 C f° U 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 106.3, o Total: 106.3, - 225317 5/4/2017 075925 CROSSROADS STRATEGIES LLC 1011988 FEDERAL LOBBYIST APRIL 2017 0 Federal lobbyist April 2017 CL a 001.000.61.511.70.41.00 5,000.0( Q Total: 5,000.0( M 225318 5/4/2017 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 242845 STORM CONCRETE CATCH BASIN: 0 Storm Concrete Catch Basins ti 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 r 1,934.8E Freight o 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 Ln 27.5( o 10.3% Sales Tax Y 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 202.1 < Total: 2,164.5, 225319 5/4/2017 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS INC IN00016207 INV#IN00016207 - EDMONDS PD EZ-STAT COMPLETE KIT -RADAR TF m 001.000.41.594.21.64.00 499.0( E R .r r a Page: 10 Packet Pg. 24 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225319 5/4/2017 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS INC 225320 225321 225322 225323 225324 225325 5/4/2017 072174 DEMIERO JAZZ FESTIVAL 5/4/2017 064531 DINES, JEANNIE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) TPA DEMIERO 17-3762 5/4/2017 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 5789 JACKSON METZ 5/4/2017 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5/4/2017 076022 ENCLAVE 1 LLC 4-34080 7-05276 BLD20170249 5/4/2017 075505 ENGINEERED PROCESS CONTROLS 9212 PO # Description/Account Freight 001.000.41.594.21.64.00 TPA DEMIERO TPA DEMIERO 123.000.64.573.20.41.00 Tota Tota CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4/25/201 04/25/2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETI 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Tota 5789 JACKSON METZ YOUTH SC 5789 JACKSON METZ YOUTH SC 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 Tota LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 82 CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 82C 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 Tota REFUND: APPLICANT DID NOT I Refund: Applicant did not install 001.000.257.620 Tota WWTP: FOXBORO TEMPERATUR FOXBORO TEMPERATURE TRAN 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 6.2.a Page: 11 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 10.0( I : 509.0( 4) t U 4— a) c 2,000.0( 1 : 2,000.0( c 7 N( o 394.4( M 1 : 394.4( a E H( H( 0 � ,— 75.0( o 1 : 75.0( > 0 L S Q. Q. S' Q 44.2E 0 N N 160.5z r I : 204.75 0 1 c S N Y 112.0( 1 : 112.0( . c� E r � 1,766.0( E t R .r r Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 25 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 225325 5/4/2017 075505 ENGINEERED PROCESS CONTROLS (Continued) PO # Description/Account 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 6.2.a Page: 12 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 70.6 1 N 189.1E Total: 2,025.8E U 4- 225326 5/4/2017 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH754144 CITY ORDINANCE 4066 CITY ORDINANCE 4066 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 22.3( EDH754335 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CITY OF ED c� Legal Description: City of Edmonds, — 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 84.2E Total: 106.& Q 225327 5/4/2017 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 33662 FS 20 - SVC REPAIRS E FS 20 - Svc Repairs f° U 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 375.0( o 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 cu 38.6< c 33663 FS 17 - SVC REPAIR a FS 17 - Svc Repair Q- Q 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 245.0( 10.3% Sales Tax M 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 25.2, N Total : 683.81 ., ti r 225328 5/4/2017 075757 FARMERS ELECTRIC 656 SEWER UNIT 51SWR - REPAIRS Sewer Unit 51SWR - Repairs 9 Ln 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 2,485.4( w 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 256.0( E 657 UNIT E147EQ -NEW GENERATOR Unit E147EQ -New Generator Prep 1 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 12,870.0( 10.3% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,325.6' R .r r Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225328 5/4/2017 075757 075757 FARMERS ELECTRIC (Continued) Tota 225329 5/4/2017 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU43877 WATER- SUPPLIES Water- Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Tota 225330 5/4/2017 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 443-22735 CORNER PARK TAGS CORNER PARK TAGS 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 Tota 225331 5/4/2017 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0546231 PROJECT 212TH & 76TH INTERSE Project 212th & 76th Intersection 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0546737 WATER - METER READING SYST Water - Meter Reading System Part 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0547129 ROADWAY - COLD ASPHALT Roadway - Cold Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 0547424 212TH & 76TH PROJECT INTERS 212th & 76th Project Intersection 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.2.a Page: 13 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun 16,937.0, .L N m 29.8 1 41 3.0E 32.9E c c� 11.0( o 12.1E w C 0 6,821.4: > 0 L Q 702.6' 0 E� rn M 584.8< N 11.6' r 0 61.4z ,n 0 0 755.4E E 77.8' EC m E 164.3, R .r r Q Page: 13 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225331 5/4/2017 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Tota 225332 5/4/2017 076023 FISCHER, COURTNEY 4/10 5380 YOGA SUB 4/10/17 5380 YOGA SUBSTITUTE 4/10/17 5380 YOGA SUBSTITUTE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 4/10 5392 YOGA SUB 4/10/17 5392 YOGA SUBSTITUTE 4/10/17 5392 YOGA SUBSTITUTE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Tota 225333 5/4/2017 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 209330 TRAFFIC - RR HOT TAPE MARKIN Traffic - RR Hot Tape Marking Kits 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 12" White Lines 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Tota 225334 5/4/2017 075536 FREGON ESE ASSOCIATES 447-016 PROF. SERVICES: HIGHWAY 99 Prof. Services: Highway 99 Subare 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 Tota 225335 5/4/2017 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL AC LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL AC 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 253-012-9189 WWTP: 4/25-5/24/17 AUTO DIALE 4/25-5/24/17 AUTO DIALER - 1 VOI 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND F FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND F 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 6.2.a Page: 14 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 16.9< I: 9,196.4$ 0t U a� c 75.0( c c� 75.0( — 1 : 150.0( c� G Q' E 1,012.0( w 0 7,938.0( 0 921.8E a I : 9,871.8E Q Sl rn M a c N 1,700.0( " 1 : 1,700.0( r Cf � LO CE c 42.1( R C M 41.5< 6 A} A} m 132.5: E Page: 14 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 225335 5/4/2017 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 425-771-5553 425-776-6829 509-022-0049 225336 5/4/2017 075609 GABOUER, KYLE BID-2017-ED 225337 5/4/2017 012190 GORSUCH, BRUCE 5461 GENEALOGY 225338 5/4/2017 012199 GRAINGER 9414333451 9417548139 PO # Description/Account WWTP: 4/25-5/24/17 AUTO DIALE 4/25-5/24/17 AUTO DIALER - 1 BU 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL AC LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL AC 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Tota DESIGN SERVICES FOR BID/ED! Invoice #2017-ED-003 Design Servi 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Invoice #2017-ED-004 Design servi 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Invoice #2017-ED-005 Design servi 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Tota 5461 GENEALOGY INSTRUCTION 5461 GENEALOGY INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Tota PM: YOST POOL PROJECT AND S YOST POOL PROJECT: FILTER, PI 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 SHOP SUPPLIES: PADLOCK, GLO 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM YOST POOL PROJECT: SAFE PM YOST POOL PROJECT: SAFE 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 Tota 6.2.a Page: 15 c ca .y 0 0- W Amoun m L_ R SI Y 116.1E 0 P t AI 4- 132.5: c Cf � Cf � 26.4( 1 : 491.2� o L a cl 750.0( •� CE V 100.0( 0 CE 300.0( 0 1 : 1,150.0( m Q am CM 39.0( N TY Tl 1: 39.0( ti r H P C Ln 124.2£ w V Y 197.8( E 23.1 £ 1 : 345.3:� t R .r r Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225339 5/4/2017 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 184427/1 WATER PARTS - W-VALBR-01.5-03 Water Parts - W-VALBR-01.5-03 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 Water Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 184769/1 WATER INVENTORY #0429, W-SET Water Inventory #0429, W-SETTER-( 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 Water Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 184770/1 WATER PARTS Water Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total 225340 5/4/2017 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD G995240 STORM - FLEX PVC Storm - Flex PVC 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 Total: 225341 5/4/2017 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD 5295 UKULELE 5295 UKULELE INSTRUCTION 5295 UKULELE INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 6.2.a Page: 16 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 251.5, m 1,128.2E U 24.6E c m 110.5 c ca 0 1,426.0E L>% c� a 1,770.9( 146.8� U w 0 182.4( 0 L Q Q. 159.6E Q rn 16.4E Cl) 5,217.3� ti r 0 167.2E c 0 Y 17.Z 0 184.5' . c� r c m 173.8( E t R .r r a Page: 16 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225341 5/4/2017 074746 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD (Continued) Tota 225342 5/4/2017 075119 HOPE, SHANE Hope, Shane HOPE CLAIM FOR EXPENSES. S( Hope claim for expenses. SCT/PAC 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 Tota 225343 5/4/2017 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE BID-0001 BID/ED! ADMINISTRATIVE CONTR BID/Ed! administrative contract 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Tota 225344 5/4/2017 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 27354 E4MB.SERVICES THRU 3/25/17 E4MB.Services thru 3/25/17 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 Tota 225345 5/4/2017 076019 IAN ELLIOTT 8-16475 #17-72259 UTILITY REFUND #17-72259 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Tota 225346 5/4/2017 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2948761 WWTP: GLUE REMOVER,FOLDE Logitech Wireless Wave Keyboard, 6.2.a Page: 17 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun 173.8( _L N m 42.1( 1 : 42.1E 4- a� A m 1,200.0( c 1: 1,200.0( 0 L a 876.0' E 1 : 876.0' w 0 R� 15.9, o I : 15.9, a Q rn Li c 34.0z ti 3.5' 0 LO 0 133.6t Y 13.70 .E ca r 97.0' E t R .r r Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225346 5/4/2017 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 225347 225348 225349 5/4/2017 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2949723 2950260 2950287 2950949 300-10023669 5/4/2017 075646 K-A GENERAL CONST CONTRACTOR E6MA.Pmt 1 5/4/2017 075137 KELAYE CONCRETE LLC E3DE.Ret Release PO # Description/Account 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 WWTP: GLUE Glue 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 CHAIRMAT - DSD Chairmat - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 LOGITECH WIRELESS WAVE KE Logitech Wireless Wave Keyboard 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 CHAIRMAT - DSD Chairmat - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 Tota UNIT E133PO, E134PO -PARTS Unit E133PO, E134PO - Parts 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 KEY Tota E6MA.PMT 1 THRU 2/28/17 E6MA.Pmt 1 thru 2/28/17 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 E6MA.Ret 1 132.000.223.400 Tota E3DE.RETAINAGE RELEASE E3DE.Retainage Release 112.000.223.400 6.2.a Page: 18 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 286.9, N m 2.9E U 4- 0.3( c m 63.5< o D! L 92.3' a E 123.5' 1 : 851.51, o 0 L a 350.6E Q 36.1. r°)i 1 : 386.71 N ti r 0 91,080.Z c N -4,128.7E I : 86,951.41 E U r c 2,921.0� E t R .r r Q Page: 18 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 225349 5/4/2017 075137 075137 KELAYE CONCRETE LLC (Continued) 225350 5/4/2017 075692 KONCSEK PHOTOGRAPHY & DESIGN OTF KONC 225351 5/4/2017 016600 KROESENS INC 225352 5/4/2017 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 225353 5/4/2017 071901 LOVELL, GAIL 43894 80500190295 80500191177 April 2017 Description/Account OTF KONC OTF KONC 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Tota Tota INV#43894 ACCT#1320 - EDMON 3 MEDALS OF MERIT 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 A CAB SLIDE HOLDERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 Tota UNIT 66- 2 -TIRES INVENTORY Unit 66- 2 - Tires Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 Tire Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 UNIT 106 - (1) TIRE INVENTORY Unit 106 - (1) Tire Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 Tire Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 Tota REIMBURSE FOR REFRESHMENT Reimburse for refreshments for Arb 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Tota 6.2.a Page: 19 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun 2,921.0$ .L a N m 500.0( mu 1 : 500.0( 4- aD D: a m 387.0( c c� 24.0( o CU 42.3: Q" 1 : 453.3. . w 0 885.0, > 0 L Q 2.0( 0 91.1( a)0 N 816.1< r 0 1.0( ,n 0 0 84.0( I: 1,879.3" E � U or 34.1( 1 : 34.1t R .r r Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 33 6.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM City of Edmonds c ca Bank code : usbank 0 a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 225354 5/4/2017 075480 MADATH, DONNA 5290 LITTLE FISHES 5290 LITTLE FISHES INSTRUCTION L_ 5290 LITTLE FISHES INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 473.8E Total: 473.8E t 225355 5/4/2017 068443 MAIL N' STUFF SERVICES BID-3798 MAILING SERVICES FOR ANNUAL P U Lr- Mailing services for BID/Ed! annual 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 183.0z Total: 183.01 c 225356 5/4/2017 075921 MALONE, JAKE 4/4-4/25 GYM ATTEND 4/4 - 4/25/17 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATT 4/4 - 4/25/17 VOLLEYBALL GYM AT7 0 L 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 132.0( M 4/6-4/27 GYM ATTEND 4/6 - 4/27/17 VOLLEYBALL GYM AT7 o- 4/6 - 4/27/17 VOLLEYBALL GYM AT7 E 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 132.0( Total: 264.0( c 225357 5/4/2017 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 790776-00 15TH ST PROJECT - SUPPLIES f° 15th St Project - Supplies 0 112.000.68.542.61.41.00 141.5� 0. 10.4% Sales Tax Q 112.000.68.542.61.41.00 14.7< M Total: 156.3, N 225358 5/4/2017 074099 MARTIN, GARY 4/10 YOGA SUB 4/10/17 YOGA SUBSTITUTE ti 4/10/17 YOGA SUBSTITUTE r 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 62.0' 9 Total: 62.0' N Y 225359 5/4/2017 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 26436615 WWTP: ANCHORS,SCREWS ANCHORS,SCREWS E 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 162.4( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 83.3( Total: 245.7( E R .r r Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225360 5/4/2017 066878 METAL SUPERMARKETS 225361 225362 225363 225364 225365 5/4/2017 076009 MEYERS, GRIFFIN 5/4/2017 072223 MILLER, DOUG 5/4/2017 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING 5/4/2017 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 1009122 4/4-4/27 ATTENDANT 4/5-4/26 GYM MONITOR A 6.2.a Page: 21 c ca .y 0 a a� PO # Description/Account Amoun WWTP: HOT ROLLED PLATE+PLAS L_ HOT ROLLED PLATE 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 139.E 1 PLASMA CUTTING SERVICES 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 65.0( U 9.7% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 19.8E c Tota 4/4-4/27/17 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTE 4/4-4/27/17 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Tota 4/5 - 4/26/17 BASKETBALL GYM M 4/5 - 4/26/17 BASKETBALL GYM M 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Tota WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING P Tasks 1 - 4: Parks Project Mgmt an 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 Task 5: Engineering Dept Tasks 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Tota 0616465-IN FLEET BULK OIL Fleet Bulk Oil 511.000.77.548.68.34.21 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.21 5/4/2017 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S7813192.001 224.5; r � c� r o 154.0( "% 154.0( ma- 0 E d O f° U 110.0( —01 : 110.0( R, 0 a Q. 1,406.2E Q rn M 125.0( N 1 : 1,531.2E " ti r 0 Ln 1,106.9£ G N 114.0' U Total : 1,221.0•w WWTP: THERMOSTAT- CREDIT#S7 THERMOSTAT-- 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 424.9' E R .r r Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 225365 5/4/2017 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY (Continued) 225366 225367 S7813192.002 5/4/2017 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1034105 5/4/2017 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 101325 225368 5/4/2017 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0550295925 0550295926 0550295927 PO # Description/Account 6.2.a Page: 22 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ Freight %J 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.2E 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 44.7, U WWTP: CREDIT RE DELIV FEE- INS, Delivery fee should not have been 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 -9.2E 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 -0.9E c�a Total: 468.6i o UNIT 23 - DOOR ASSEMBLY Unit 23 - Door Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota WWTP: 4/14/17 SODIUM BISULFI 4/14/17 SODIUM BISULFITE 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 Tota HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY B HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY B L a 320.2E 33.4E c 36.4< o L 1 : 390.1E Q- Q. rf Q rn M 1,887.6( N ti 194.4, r 1 : 2,082.0, o Ln 0 N Y 605.4E E 309.2' c UC E UC R .r r Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225368 5/4/2017 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295928 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCK[ PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCK[ 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295929 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295930 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY 1 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295931 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BE CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295932 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY B EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY B 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295933 MADRONA SCHOOL HONEY BUCKS MADRONA SCHOOL HONEY BUCKS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295934 MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295935 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD 6TH & E CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD 6TH & E 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295936 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0550295937 MINI PARK HONEY BUCKET MINI PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 Total: 225369 5/4/2017 076000 NOVAK, NANCY 4/4-4/25 ATTENDANT 4/4-4/25/17 PICKLE -BALL GYM ATTE 4/4-4/25/17 PICKLE -BALL GYM ATTE 6.2.a Page: 23 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 218.7E N m 113.8E U 4- w c 113.8E c c� 113.8E o CU a 113.8E E 111.6: o 0 L 111.6E a 1,394.2: c N ti 113.8E 0 Ln 0 113.8E Y Page: 23 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225369 5/4/2017 076000 NOVAK, NANCY (Continued) 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Tota 225370 5/4/2017 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 922344529001 INV#922344529001 ACCT#905204 WITE OUT CORRECTION TAPE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 PATROL MEMO BOOKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 RETRACTABLE BLACK PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 Tota 225371 5/4/2017 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 271053 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES - PENS, T PW Office Supplies - Pens, Trimme 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 320162 FILE FOLDERS FILE FOLDERS 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 Tota 225372 5/4/2017 075676 OPEN TEXT INC SUS08456314 INV#SUS08456314 CUST#185411 YR. MAINENTANCE FEE -REDACT 6.2.a Page: 24 -I c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 22.0( 1 : 22.0( Y m 3; U m 14.7z c c� 35.4( o 6.3, a 1 : 67.6E RI U r c 296.2' 0 30.5' a Q. Q 317.7E CD 0 N 32.7: 1 : 677.2( r 0 - I ,n " o N 259.6( E 26.7( 'w 286.3E U r c m E t R .r r Q Page: 24 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225373 5/4/2017 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota 225374 5/4/2017 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 18-Tl007678 STREET - TOP SOIL Street - Top Soil 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 7.7% sales tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 Tota 225375 5/4/2017 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 10384429 UNIT 106 - GASKETS Unit 106 - Gaskets 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10384439 UNIT 106 - GASKETS Unit 106 - Gaskets 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota 225376 5/4/2017 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 04-21142 WWTP: 1/1-1/28/17 PROF. SERVI 1/1-1/28/17 PROF. SERVICE PH3 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 04-21382 WWTP:2/26-4/1/17 PH 5 TASK 5.2 2/26-4/1/17 PH 5 TASK 5.2016 ON 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Tota 225377 5/4/2017 027450 PAWS MAR 2017 INVOICE 4/15/17 FOR MAR-2017 - 6.2.a Page: 25 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 107.7' ui 20.7, y t U 13.2: 4" 1 : 141.6E c m c c� 110.0( o 8.4 , a I : 118.41 U w 0 108.8, 0 11.2' a Q. Q 7.8z M 0 N 0.8' I : 128.61 r C E ,ten TA o N 5,040.0( 01 E C, 3,514.4� I : 8,554.4� m C E R .r r Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor 225377 5/4/2017 027450 PAWS 225378 5/4/2017 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 225379 5/4/2017 062807 PLOEGER, KENNETH 225380 5/4/2017 075432 POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) MAR 2017 L804043 L864252 PLOEGER EXP 4-17 IF-1294368 PO # Description/Account 6.2.a Page: 26 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ RECLAIM FEES FOR 3 DOGS %J 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -60.0( � S BOARDING FOR 1 DOG 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -15.0( U MARCH 2O17 ANIMAL SHELTERING SHELTERING 3 ANIMALS @$175 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 525.0( Total : 450.0( c c� WWTP: BRKR,CU-STR — BRKR,CU-STR o 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 503.7� ma - Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 86.8( 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 60.8: o WWTP: INHIBITING BLOCKS -cu- INHIBITING BLOCKS 0 0 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 L 577.7: 0- 10.3% Sales Tax Q' Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 59.5' Total: 1,288.61 c N PLOEGER EXPENSE CLAIM APR 2C ., PER DIEM 4/23-27 TRAINING - VAN( ti r 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 187.5( c Total : 187.5( c INV#IF-1294368 - EDMONDS PD- R( N PBE GUARDIAN VEST CARRIER E 001.000.41.521.26.24.00 180.9( 'ca Freight 001.000.41.521.26.24.00 5.8E Tota Page: 26 Packet Pg. 40 6.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM City of Edmonds c ca Bank code : usbank 0 a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 225381 5/4/2017 064167 POLLARD WATER 0073624 WATER - SUPPLIES L_ Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 91.5( Freight aa) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 80.61 U 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 17.7: Total: 189.9( 225382 5/4/2017 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 1111053 WWTP: 4/25/17 SHIPPING CHG TO c� 4/25/17 SHIPPING CHG TO DEPT OI 0 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 31.6: 1111111 WWTP: 5/2/17 SHIPPING TO DEPT a 5/2/17 SHIPPING TO DEPT OF L&I 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 31.4z Total: 63.05 6 4- 0 225383 5/4/2017 074342 PROTHMAN COMPANY 2017-5865 CONSULTING SERVICES FOR FINA Municipal Consulting Services - A De 0 > 0 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 4,655.8( a Total: 4,655.8E Q 225384 5/4/2017 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( rn FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( M N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,448.8( " 200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN ~ r YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 151.9, ,n 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON N 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 222.9' E 200009595790 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 390.6( 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE t FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE R .r r Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225384 5/4/2017 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 200021829581 WWTP: 3/22-4/20/17 200 2ND AVE S 3/22-4/20/17 200 2ND AVE S / METE 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6.2.a Page: 28 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 181.9( N m 143.40 U 4- w c 593.3( c c� 296.5E o CU a 169.3E E 168.4� o 0 L 25.Z a Q 95.8E CD O 95.8E ti 95.8E 0 95.8( o N Y 95.8z E 348.5� c m E t 183.0E .r r a Page: 28 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 225384 5/4/2017 046900 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 225385 5/4/2017 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 17-1470 225386 5/4/2017 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 225387 5/4/2017 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 225388 5/4/2017 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC Description/Account Tota 6.2.a Page: 29 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun 4,803.6. .L N m 673.7E Total : 673.7E 4- a� 0000050553 STORM - SWEEPINGS DUMP FEES m Storm - Sweepings Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,555.6E c ca Total: 1,555.6E = 0 L 00446-642522 UNIT 102 - WINDOW REPLACE COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 Unit 102 - Window Replace Q- 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 124.5� E 9.8% Sales Tax .@ 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 12.2' ,- Tota S1-1963589 UNIT 134 - VALVE ASSEMBLY Unit 134 - Valve Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 S3-1957001 UNIT 127 - ANIT-FREEZE Unit 127 - Anit-Freeze 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 S3-1963181 UNIT 947 - SENSOR Unit 947 - Sensor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 S3-1963566 UNIT 132 - VALVE ASSEMBLY Unit 132 - Valve Assembly 136.8( c c� 0 L Q 0. 174.8� Q am 18.0, c N ti r 28.4E 0 Ln 2.9: G 0 38.0( Page: 29 Packet Pg. 43 6.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM City of Edmonds c ca Bank code : usbank a a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 225388 5/4/2017 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued) L 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 174.8� 10.3% Sales Tax Y 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.0, S3-1992100 UNIT 24 - OIL, TRANS FLUID U Unit 24 - Oil, Trans Fluid 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 61.8. 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.3( S3-1992516 UNIT 24 - TRANS FLUID AND FUEL ca Unit 24 - Trans Fluid and Fuel Filter o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 60.6( j, 10.3% Sales Tax a 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.2E S3-2021755 UNIT 125 - WATER PUMP Unit 125 - Water Pump U 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 50.0' o 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.1E o S5-2021241 UNIT 453 - STEERING GEAR ASSES Q- Unit 453 - Steering Gear Assembly Q. Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 473.2' '' 10.3% Sales Tax c 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 48.7z Total: 1,171.31 ti r 225389 5/4/2017 070495 SEPULVEDA, PABLO 19369 SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 4/; o SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 4/; Lh 0 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 104.9< w Total: 104.9: V E 225390 5/4/2017 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 8733-1 PM: PAINT GARBAGE CANS ca PM: PAINT GARBAGE CANS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 116.3( c 10.3% Sales Tax E E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.9� R .r r Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225390 5/4/2017 063306 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 225391 5/4/2017 068489 SIRENNET.COM 225392 5/4/2017 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 225393 5/4/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 0213834-IN 0213895-IN 0214029-IN PO # Description/Account Tota UNIT E133PO - PARTS Unit E133PO - Parts 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 UNIT E134PO - PARTS Unit E134PO - Parts 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 10.3% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 UNIT 959 - REPLACEMENT BULB Unit 959 - Replacement Bulb Kits 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota 14-348957 UNIT 903 - JACK Unit 903 - Jack 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.2.a Page: 31 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun 128.3. _L N m 3,139.6: u 41 Lr- 323.3E c m 2,872.6< r- 295.8E KI a 199.31 •E 20.5z c I : 6,851.4; 0 a Q. 97.8z Q rn M 10.0E N Total : 107.9, ti r 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W C Ln 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.3, w 2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 39.6: 2003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 57.2 - E 2003-9895-6 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; t R .r r a Page: 31 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225393 5/4/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2004-2241-8 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2004-6859-3 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2004-9314-6 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2006-1131-7 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2007-3984-5 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 2007-4860-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2009-4334-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2012-6598-0 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2013-7496-4 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.2.a Page: 32 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 767.7£ m t U 1,232.8£ 4- aD c m 306.4( c M 0 17.6( j, a E 151.8: 4- 0 16.4, 0 L a Q. 16.5' Q rn M O 80.1( ti r 40.8� c Ln 0 N Y 17.8< E 191.5( c m E 18.5z R .r r Q Page: 32 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225393 5/4/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 2015-5730-3 CEMETERY BUILDING CEMETERY BUILDING 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 2015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2015-9448-8 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2016-1027-6 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT i OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT 1 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 2016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2016-5690-7 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN,' 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2017-6210-1 415 5TH AVE S 415 5TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / ME1 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2021-6153-5 CEMETERY WELL PUMP CEMETERY WELL PUMP 6.2.a Page: 33 N 130.6: t U 4- 25.4E m 24.8z 0 18.6 1 a E 8.2 4- 0 c� 28.6: o L a Q. Q 109.2z rn M O 25.8( ti r 0 20.8: c N Y 29.0: E Page: 33 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225393 5/4/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 2022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2024-2158-2 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2026-2041-5 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2044-6743-5 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2205-4758-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 Total: 225394 5/4/2017 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE 1000435718 1ST HALF 2017 INTEREST 800 MH2 1st Half 2017 800 MHZ Billing - Intere 001.000.39.592.21.83.00 1000435719 1ST HALF 2017 SNO COM INTEREE 1st Half 2017 SnoCom Billing - Intere. 001.000.39.592.21.83.00 Tota I : 225395 5/4/2017 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT 2017 PERMIT 2017 POOL AND SPA PERMIT PS 04 2017 POOL AND SPA PERMIT PS 04 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 6.2.a Page: 34 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 80.8( N m 59.1 � U 4- aD c 113.6( c c� 3,145.6( o a 16.4! E 63.8< o 0 36.6� Q- Q. 50.5E c 7,135.21 7,383.7E c 2,020.71 E 9,404.5! 12 U Page: 34 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225395 5/4/2017 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT 225396 225397 225398 225399 5/4/2017 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 5/4/2017 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 5/4/2017 076020 STEVENS, KEVIN Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 2017 SPRAY PERMIT 2017 SPRAY PERMIT PS 2248 2017 SPRAY PERMIT 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 Tota 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 103584 WWTP: RECYCLING Recycling + taxes 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 33634/4 April 2017 5/4/2017 076018 SUSAN BAUER & STEPHEN BERNHEIM 1-11125 Tota STORM - WORK WEAR - M JOHN Storm - Work Wear - M Johnson 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 Tota EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT ACCIS conference expense reimbu 512.000.31.518.88.43.00 Tota #17-216-RDW UTILITY REFUND 6.2.a Page: 35 N 448.0( 1,177.0( U 4- a� c m 550.6E c c� 29.9E 0( a 0( 674.41 •E w 0 555.Z 0 a L 504.9E Q 1 : 2,315.2E rn M S( N 214.0( r 0 20.91 Lh 1 : 234.9 i y E rs to 21.51 U I : 21.5j m E t R .r r Q Page: 35 Packet Pg. 49 6.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM City of Edmonds c ca Bank code : usbank a a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 225399 5/4/2017 076018 SUSAN BAUER & STEPHEN BERNHEIM (Continued) L_ #17-216-RDW Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 95.1 < Total: 95.1 t 225400 5/4/2017 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 76917 WATER / SEWER - WORK SHIRTS \ U Water / Sewer - Work Shirts w/ 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 182.Z Water / Sewer - Work Shirts w/ 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 182.2, 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 0 18.7 1 10.3% Sales Tax a 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 18.7 , 77165 WATER SEWER - WORKSHIRTS LC Water Sewer - Workshirts Logo etc U 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 96.0( o Water Sewer - Workshirts Logo etc 0 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 96.0( o 10.3% Sales Tax L a 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 Q. 9.8� Q 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 9.8� c Total: 613.7, v 225401 5/4/2017 075289 THE ART OF PLUMBING BLD20170472 REFUND: PLUMBING ALREADY IN( ti r Refund: Plumbing already included it c 001.000.257.620 112.0( c Total: 112.0( w 225402 5/4/2017 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 04/13/2017 ANN SUBSCRIPTION #11897664 05j E ANN SUBSCRIPTION -DAILY PAPER ca 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 213.7� 10020498 YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION TO EVERE Yearly subscription to Everett Herald E 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 213.7� R .r r Q Page: 36 Packet Pg. 50 6.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM City of Edmonds c ca Bank code : usbank a a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 225402 5/4/2017 065459 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION (Continued) Total: 427.5( ,L 225403 5/4/2017 075139 THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC 138390 E4FE.SERVICES THRU 2/24/17 ui E4FE.Services thru 2/24/17 m 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 6,831.6' 140253 E4FE.SERVICES THRU 3/31/17 E4FE.Services thru 3/31/17 a 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 c 12,733.4, m Total: 19,565.01 c 225404 5/4/2017 027269 THE PART WORKS INC INV11938 YOST POOL HYDAPIPE SHOWER S f° YOST POOL HYDAPIPE SHOWER S o 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 2,716.9: ca INV11972 PM: KIT REPAIR FOR VALVE HAWS o- PM: KIT REPAIR FOR VALVE HAWS E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 68.1' 2 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 c 7.0, — cu Total: 2,792.0E c L 225405 5/4/2017 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC 01401486 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES a Fleet Shop Supplies Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 351.0� rn 9.8% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 N 34.4' " Total: 385.5( r 225406 5/4/2017 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 99322 MAINTENANCE FOR HP PAGEWIDE C May-17 Maintenance on HP Pagewidi LO o 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 175.0( Y 10.3% Sales Tax E 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 18.0< Total: 193.0: 6 225407 5/4/2017 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53294 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISI r m ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISI E 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 t 1,292.6( .r r a Page: 37 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225407 5/4/2017 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 225408 225409 225410 5/4/2017 070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA 5/4/2017 074471 TULEY, BRIAN Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 US53301 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F. AN ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRAN 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 US53869 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 US54073 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENT 6.2.a Page: 38 c ca .y 0 0- W Amoun m L_ 133.1� DE y CE U C C 1,175.4( V a� c 121.01 1,188.1 0 L 122.3E a OR OR � 284.2E 4- 0 29.2E I: 4,346.3! o a M, Q' Q 1,000.0( c Total : 1,000.0( April 2017 MILEAGE AND PER DIEM FOR ACC ~ r Mileage and per diem for ACCIS c 512.000.31.518.88.43.00 78.8( c Total: 78.8( 0 5/4/2017 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WP 0719837-WA STREET -DOT Street - DOT 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 Fac Maint - HEP B 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 E 99.0( r c 94.0( t R .r r Q Page: 38 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 225410 5/4/2017 068724 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OI (Continued) 225411 5/4/2017 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9784424946 PO # Description/Account Tota C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bid Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Developm 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineeri 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's O 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks De 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police De 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 6.2.a Page: 39 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun 193.0( _L N m 475.4£ 75.8£ m 75.9: c c� 300.1( o 75.8£ a ei 95.9z ng 873.2: o 187.7E o L a Q. 145.9E Q rn 16.5< c N 95.9z ti r 287.7 0 c ffi c 101.1( Y pt 80.0, . c� pt 1,347.9' r c m 1,160.2( E R .r r Q Page: 39 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225411 5/4/2017 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning De 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street C 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/, 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/, 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPad Cell Service Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 iPad Cell Service Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPad Cell Service Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.35.00 iPad Cell Service Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.35.00 6.2.a Page: 40 c ca .y 0 a M Amoun m L_ 80.0, m 26.5( U 4- 7.5� c m 26.5( c� 7.5� o L 7.5( a E 171.8< to U w 55.9: 0 130.9E o a 0. 130.9E Q rn 225.9z o N 281.8 0 r 115.9( 9 0 221.31 Y E 2211.31 794.11 m 794.1: t R .r r Q Page: 40 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 225411 5/4/2017 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) 9784551698 225412 5/4/2017 072841 VS VISUAL STATEMENT INC 26358 225413 5/4/2017 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 201128268 225414 5/4/2017 075283 WAVE 8136 50 211 00055035 225415 5/4/2017 075873 WAYLAND, CHRISTINA April 2017 225416 5/4/2017 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10066798 10071020 PO # Description/Account iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 C/A 772540262-00001 Lift Station access 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 Tota INV#26358 - EDMONDS PD TRUE PARTNER MAIN 05/06-05/0 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 Tota INV 201128268 EDMONDS PD - S PRE -SUPERVISION 4/10-4/14- 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 Tota FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SE High Speed Internet service 05/01/1 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 Tota CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - WAYLA Claim for Expenses - Wayland- 001.000.62.524.20.43.00 Tota FAC MAINT - CLEANING SUPPLIE Fac Maint - Cleaning Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FAC MAINT - PAPER TOWELS 6.2.a Page: 41 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 293.6( m 151.80 U 4- aD c 44.4 , 9,186.0( c M F 5/' 0 1,259.1( a I: 1,259.1( MI U w 0 200.0( @ 1 : 200.0( o L a 7 Q 816.0( 0)1 : 816.0( N NE ti r 195.81 9 I : 195.81 G N Y S E 472.7z 6 r 48.6� a0i E t R .r r a Page: 41 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225416 5/4/2017 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 225417 5/4/2017 073552 WELCO SALES LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Fac Maint - Paper Towels 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota 7285 BUSINESS CARDS PUBLIC WORK Finance dept #10 Envelopes -Qty 5, 6.2.a Page: 42 � c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 627.1, m 64.5� U 1 : 1,213.11 W c � O 16.7E cm DE o 86.3z U a 28.7E 15 •� 86.3z 4- 0 28.7E 0 L 1.6: a Q 8.4( M O 2.8, ti 8.4( 0 2.8. o � w D 57.0( . c� 5.5( m 0 E t R .r r Q Page: 42 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 225417 5/4/2017 073552 WELCO SALES LLC (Continued) 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 7301 UTILITY BILLING #10 & #9 Utility Billing #10 & #9 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7302 COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS 4-CASES OF X-9000 COPY PAPER 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 Tota 225418 5/4/2017 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000032786 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES FOR TRAFF Traffic - Supplies for Traffic Cabinet 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Tota 225419 5/4/2017 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR TR-338261 STORM - WORK T SHIRTS - M BR Storm - Work T Shirts - M Brown 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 9.2% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 Tota 225420 5/4/2017 064213 WSSUATREASURER 438 APRIL OFFICIAL FEES APRIL OFFICIAL FEES 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Tota 225421 5/4/2017 076021 YAMANE, EARL YAMANE 04-17 YAMANE EXPENSE CLAIM APR 2 6.2.a Page: 43 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 362.4E N 37.3: 0t U 4- 638.4E c m 65.7E c O M 0 j 141.3( , ca a 14.5E I : 1,593.7: U IC c 167.8E 0 L a 17.2� Q 1 : 185.11 rn M O, o N ti 113.3< 0 r 10.4< c 1 : 123.7E w E 2,310.0( 1 : 2,310.0( m 01 E t R .r r a Page: 43 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 05/04/2017 7:53:04AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 225421 5/4/2017 076021 YAMANE, EARL 225422 5/4/2017 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 130 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 130 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) PER DIEM 4/23-4/27 TRAINING IN 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 Tota 1103 APR-17 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 Tota Bank tota Total voucher 6.2.a Page: 44 c ca .y 0 0- W Amoun m L_ 187.5( 1 : 187.5( 4) t U W c 21,558.0( 1 : 21,558.0( c I: 316,360.6' 0 L s : 316,360.6' c1 a Page: 44 Packet Pg. 58 E .2 U 4- 0 ti r O u7 O N Y V E V r C d E t V R r a 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E51FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E61FE SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E51FA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 SWR 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 59 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STR Hwy 99 Access Management Improvements s014 E6AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 60 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SW R Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E21FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E61FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 61 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STR _ E1AA c342 Fi1&.QQrneL§.JRoundabgut (212th Street SW @ 84th AvPniu, WAMM STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements unset Walkway Improvements STM ElFM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update venue provement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) MELE2FA c318 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System E2FC d P Edmonds J J116kility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation 04 Corrido sportation Stu STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Avg STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) DA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG _ c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th E3FH � �dmq j;105th/106th Av SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E3, 224th Waterline Relocation (201 FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing E4FA STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 62 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street StormwatggWp STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines ' SWW E4GA IWO15 Sewerline Replacement Proje SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park Edmonds Fichin- STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR 01 affic Calmi STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program WTR L 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays 5DA Bikelink Projec General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis E5FA c466 015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects E5FC rovements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E51FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM r 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR E5GB Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications 16 Waterline Replaceme WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coatin FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers UTILITIE ails Update STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Access Management Improvements STR i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 63 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STR E6DC i016 A016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements 3rd Ave Rain Gardens STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update 1 SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Proiect SWR E6GB SWR UTILITIES WTR PRK PRK Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project s013 Utility Rate Update E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects V E6JC 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza E6MB E6MC STR &MULA STR E7AC c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement c494 Yost Park Spa i021 i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR i018 2017 Overlay Progra WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC 2017 Sewerline Overlays STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades 017 Minor Sidewalk Prograrp STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization c495 torm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 64 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project N Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title E PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza ° L PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor 3 STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements r o a STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives i STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement 73 STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements ui a z STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System U STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation m STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update c STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project ° ° SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project Q- E STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study o STM EYE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive > 0 PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park a WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) a FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project rn o N STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) o STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study z STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th o IL STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements a� N STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements 21 STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin r m STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration L STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects U` STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program E WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program z U SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project r Q Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 65 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project N Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title E FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab ° L FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades 3 WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals r o a WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept i STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing 73 STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station ui U z SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I U STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update m SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project ° ° STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program Q- E STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects o WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects > 0 SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects a STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System a STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming rn c N STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project o WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers z PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement o a General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis a� N STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility 21 PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza r m WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications L WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) U_ STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements E STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) z U STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements r Q Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 66 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E6FE c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E61VIC c494 Yost Park Spa STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E61FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program STM E71FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Access Management Improvements STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E61FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 67 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 6.2.b Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Reh FAC ESCO III Project c419 E31-13 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB Dayton greet Plaza PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E81VIA City Spray Park PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB �an'sdWa PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E61VIC STM12thlWpe &Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE STM 2214 Drainage Improvements 3 STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c46 STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM TM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE TM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study= c380 E2FC STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB albot Road provement c378 STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 _ STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG MOVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD Dr�rement t. SW c495 _ STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 68 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 6.2.b Funding Protect Title STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System SW Edmonds-i5th/106th Ave W Storm Improvement STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects Video Assessment of Stormwater Li STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration SIV 15th St. SV*Valkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR 2014 Chip Seals 2014 Overlay Program STR 2015 Overlay Program SIM 2015 STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades 2016 Overlay Program STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades dewalk Program STR 2017 Overlay Program STR 201 raffic Calming STR 220th Street Overlay Project Protect Accounting Number Engineerin Project Number c379 E2FB c430 c467 E5FB c45 c435 E4FC cJ c451 E4CB c43 c463 E5CA c471 i016 E6DC i008 CA STR 228th St. S\OLCorridor Improvements � STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona 04 STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) W76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project urb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR ADA Transition Plan Bikelink Project I STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 2th STR Hwy 99 Access Management Improvements wy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STR Minor Sidewalk Program STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing Sunset Walkway Improvements i022 E7DA i023 i018 E7CA c462 E4CD c425 E3DD c485 E6DA Xc36 c392 E2AB s016 E6DB i015 E6AB s014 E6AA i017 E6DD c454 E4DB c354 ow Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 69 6.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA rench - ConceQM c453 mom STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA OFW—V 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA flu-1— i007 SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA Moor2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c46 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project inl" E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i02o E7CC 2018/19 Sewerline Replacen Aroje-` SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB Lif�1 B AM61 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA Utility Rate Updat r E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC 15 Waterline Overlays E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 TR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update11111110 JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB (VTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects 6 E5JA WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays T aterline Replacement&roje=F WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project TR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) Corners P ervoir Re -coating WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring e Modifications iol9 E7CB c493 E6JC E3,113 c482 E5,113 c446 E4HA c481 Revised 5/3/2017 Packet Pg. 70 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 823 (04/16/2017 to 04/30/2017) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pav Correction 0.00 -156.28 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE -16.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 513.50 19,553.26 122 VACATION VACATION 944.75 41,162.55 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 79.00 3,192.55 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 51.00 1,698.81 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 96.75 3,368.97 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 80.00 3,425.00 130 COMP HOURS Holidav Compensation Used 0.75 28.39 150 REGULAR HOURS Kellv Dav Used 293.25 11,753.76 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 29.67 1,313.24 153 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY BUY BACK 10.00 442.62 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 90.77 3,772.95 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 400.00 17,704.60 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 215.00 9,516.22 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 10.50 631.14 170 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY 600.00 6,000.00 174 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY 100.00 200.00 175 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP 0.00 2,821.24 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,645.49 620,854.58 191 REGULAR HOURS FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 3.00 3,907.32 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 40.00 1,712.49 205 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME .5 24.50 394.87 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 1.00 40.63 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,424.62 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 15.00 1,522.86 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 265.25 16,430.27 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 8.00 617.36 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,035.67 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 2,468.95 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 73.50 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 110.50 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 3.00 0.00 m cQ -4 5/0 Z/7nl7 Attachment: payroll summary 05-05-17 (2039 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.) Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 823 (04/16/2017 to 04/30/2017) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 24.95 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 145.56 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 86.48 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 107.89 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 147.28 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 640.76 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 303.32 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 852.84 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 793.44 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 905.05 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 4,694.43 fmla ABSENT FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID 70.67 0.00 fmis SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 18.50 703.07 fmlv VACATION Familv Medical Leave Vacation 5.33 245.54 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 102.75 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 583.72 Ig10 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 5.5% 0.00 396.36 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 836.11 Ici2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 993.55 I0 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 5,662.47 Iq4 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 183.53 Ici6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 365.75 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 997.10 Iq9 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 82.46 mels SICK Medical Leave Sick 160.00 5,625.00 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 205.50 nds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 47.12 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,853.31 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 157.56 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 271.15 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 157.56 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 95.77 0.00 str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 418.92 m cQ N 5/0 Z/Onl7 Attachment: payroll summary 05-05-17 (2039 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.) N porn 2 o 0 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 823 (04/16/2017 to 04/30/2017) Hour Type Hour Class Description traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC Hours Amount 0.00 220.92 20,086.45 Total Net Pay: $806,650.09 $543,381.24 N porn 3 o 0 Attachment: payroll summary 05-05-17 (2039 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.) Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 823 - 04/16/2017 to 04/30/2017 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 62687 05/05/2017 chapl CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 940.00 0.00 62688 05/05/2017 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,219.00 0.00 62689 05/05/2017 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 104.00 0.00 62690 05/05/2017 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 889.22 0.00 62691 05/05/2017 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 744.36 0.00 62692 05/05/2017 cope SEIU COPE 102.00 0.00 62693 05/05/2017 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 4,152.01 0.00 62694 05/05/2017 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 976.00 0.00 62695 05/05/2017 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 3,087.77 0.00 12,214.36 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2548 05/05/2017 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 243,528.63 0.00 2549 05/05/2017 aflac AFLAC 5,798.17 0.00 2553 05/05/2017 us US BANK 112,627.57 0.00 2554 05/05/2017 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 101,015.19 0.00 2555 05/05/2017 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 20,040.77 0.00 2556 05/05/2017 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 4,601.10 0.00 2557 05/05/2017 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 299.00 0.00 0.00 487,910.43 Grand Totals: 0.00 500,124.79 N 'Doge 1 a Attachment: payroll benefit 05-05-17 (2039 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.) 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Settlement of Claim Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History City received Claim for damages on May 31, 2016. Claimant asserts the City and Snohomish County Public Utilities District were responsible for damages to their home during a significant rain event. WCIA denied the claim. Claimant subsequently filed a Small Claims Court case against both the PUD and the City of Edmonds. City staff, and PUD staff met with the claimant at a Small Court mandated mediation, whereas all three parties agreed to disagree and the case was assigned a Court date to hear the case. Prior to Court date, all three parties agreed to a settlement as follows: PUD will pay claimant $5,000 to settle the case, which the City will then pay $2,500 to PUD. Approve Settlement. Narrative <Type or insert text here> Packet Pg. 75 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment (AMD20170003) (15 min.) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Preparer: Mike Clugston Background/History A private applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot subdivision process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This process would apply City-wide and is not a site - specific amendment. It is a Type V legislative decision where the Planning Board holds a public hearing on the proposal and makes a recommendation to Council. The Planning Board first reviewed the project at their March 22, 2017 meeting and held a public hearing on April 26, 2017. After their public hearing, the Planning Board recommended the draft language in Attachment 1 to Council for approval. Staff Recommendation No action is required. This is an introduction of the subject prior to the public hearing before the Council scheduled for May 16, 2017. Narrative A unit lot subdivision process would allow for creation of an ownership option for multifamily development projects as an alternative to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot subdivision does not change zoning, density or other bulk requirements for a multifamily project - it simply overlays property lines on a site. A unit lot subdivision differs from a standard subdivision in that the development standards for a project are applied to the larger site (parent lot) as opposed to the individual parcels being created (unit lots). A unit lot subdivision could be applied over an existing multifamily development (if it met the requirements) or with a new multifamily proposal. The process could be used in one of several zones - Multiple Residential, both General Commercial zones, and in portions of Westgate Mixed Use. These zones allow for multifamily development on the ground floor of a site whereas several other zones such as Community Business, Planned Business and Neighborhood Business do not - the residential component in those zones must be above a ground floor commercial use. Several other local jurisdictions currently have some form of this process including Seattle, Mountlake Terrace, and Snohomish County. From 2003 to 2008, the City of Edmonds had a similar process known as townhouse subdivision. That process resulted in several projects in town. However, the City's process was based on a staff interpretation of the definition of the term 'townhouse' from 2003. During review of a townhouse project in 2008, the Hearing Examiner at the time identified some inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied and the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. After the 2008 project, no further townhouse subdivisions Packet Pg. 76 7.1 were approved. Part of the problem with processing additional applications were the concerns highlighted by the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and standards in the code. Staff believes the current proposal will allow for ownership opportunities for some multifamily projects where they otherwise might not exist while protecting owners within the project with clear requirements for future maintenance and management. The concerns of the Hearing Examiner regarding the City's former townhouse subdivision process are also addressed in the current proposal by clarifying that development standards will be applied to the parent lot rather than the individual unit lots in a unit lot subdivision. Six Exhibits are included with this packet: 1) Subdivision ordinance with draft unit lot language forwarded from the Planning Board 2) Draft minutes from the Planning Board's April 26 public hearing 3) Planning Board's April 26 packet 4) Applicant's powerpoint from April 26 5) Letter of support from Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties 6) Letter of support from Rob Michel In Exhibit 1, the applicant's original language was inserted into the existing subdivision ordinance (purple text). Staff made some additions and clarifications to that (red text). The applicant also proposed two minor changes on April 26 (blue text). This item is scheduled for a public hearing on May 16, 2017. Attachments: Ex 1- Draft unit lot language forwarded by PB Ex 2 - Draft Planning Board minutes April 26 Ex 3 - April 26 Planning Board packet Ex 4 - Applicant's April 26 PPT Ex 5 - Master Builders Letter of Support Ex 6 - Michel letter of support Packet Pg. 77 7.1.a Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Sections: o 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. 20.75.020 Purposes. 0 o 20.75.025 Scope. a 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. c 20.75.035 Compliance required. as E 20.75.040 Application. c 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment —Application. 20.75.055 Lot combination. 0 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.Mh o 20.75.065 Preliminary review. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision —Time limit. 20.75.075 Modifications. 20.75.080 General findings. 0 J r 20.75.085 Review criteria. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. M 20.75.100 Preliminary approval —Time limit. 0 20.75.105 Repealed. a. 20.75.107 Preliminary approval —Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. 20.75.110 Changes. -°'aL 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. 0Ca 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. �° 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. � 0 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. CU 20.75.145 Final plat —Accompanying material. o 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. 0 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. L o 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. x 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. w 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. c E 20.75.175 Court review. 0 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. Q 20.75.185 Penalties. Page 1 of 23 Packet Pg. 78 7.1.a 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW. 20.75.020 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are: A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land; B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways; C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements; D. To provide for proper ingress and egress; E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots. 20.75.025 Scope. This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW 58.17.040, including but not limited to: A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots; B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent; C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter. Divisions under subsections A and B of this section will not be recognized as lots for building M 0 purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met. r K 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. w r c as A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term E subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term lot includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term sale includes lease gift or Q development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to "subdivision" Page 2 of 23 Packet Pg. 79 7.1.a is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short subdivision" unless one or the other is specified. B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots. C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots. D. "Unit lot subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045 fE)rthe -yeses ,icef n9 fee-s,rv,ni eWReFshmp f d,.,,ii;n , 111-5 A tg ,.,hpr th h � tied to the�arent let(Se� €C 29 (�4 where compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot. E. "Parent lot" means the lot with legal lot status which ^reates the beYRdaFy of fe-sestablishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision. F. "Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred uaon recordine of a unit lot subdivision. 20.75.035 Compliance required. Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter. 20.75.040 Application. Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development director on forms provided by the community development department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002: A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the community development department; B. Title report; x w C. A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior c boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, E a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option; a Page 3 of 23 Packet Pg. 80 7.1.a D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC; E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the applicant; F. Source of water supply and name of supplier; G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used; H. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983]. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application. A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division. B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter. C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will: 1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division; 2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before; 3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone; r 4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, w parcel, site or division; as 5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC. r D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the Q city and shall at a minimum contain the following information: Page 4 of 23 Packet Pg. 81 7.1.a 1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the plans shall include the following: a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s); b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements; c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements; d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements); e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s); f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet. 2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing: a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted; b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in the parcel(s); c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number; d. Any encumbrances on the property; and e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property. E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. r K F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete w r application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable cause. Q Page 5 of 23 Packet Pg. 82 7.1.a G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 63, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 19981. 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision - Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses. rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional standards of Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that each newly created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) comply with those dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed. A. Applicability and PwFpese. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only in the following zones: Multiple Residential, General Commercial, and Westgate Mixed Use. A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. On the fer.. of fl-.+r.,Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located. Gettage he,;�„ exr=lusively On zenes that allew nqeFe than ene dwelling unet per let, and enly feF detached I.,..,aRY I ,.,, ,Y,+ ,f aRY .,+h r Y, + Y,+ f r ,,..+ r* r I,,.,-,,,Y,+r Y,h r Y,+ + +h e. r,s*gR eF stFu t wr s Leh as (but Pet le. .,teal + ) av ev rh- RgS g tt rr aR d SOGIO 9 (see 20.75.0415.4 " - esser., .dweliffing units a speeffifically e*El� �.de d frern this seeteen enly be i.,,-lu.de d when the unit let Gentaens all .dwellong units w4hi., en building. Ilr,., u .,i+ subdMsk)n let may contain multiple dwe!16 B. Association with Site Development — Application Timine. " 1--pit Let Sub dMs;en is a Fnethe d Af .di"i.di.,�. eWRerrhi., .,f+h h iLdi., T ., .,+ Th .,lip,+i.,.,GaR .,I" h �«. P0Pi+., w;tlh PI deuelepmeRtplaR er an ex;St*R9 develeped site. In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a development site plan as required by ECDC 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020.13.3 submitted in coniunction with or subseauent to a building permit. C. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is vested to the aaalicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030.E) in effect at the time a Page 6 of 23 x w j.i c as E z a Packet Pg. 83 7.1.a complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit lot subdivision. the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforminE with respect to the bulk and dimensional standards required by Title 16 ECDC. M 0 0 CD As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn-arounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street o will be evaluated based on the parent lot's compliance with such requirements, and not Q based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards. d E .,help bin to +hn r r,+ In+ n development ,devele ds 'a a a shall meet Rt stan.daF a .p"c C Gnnn 20.75.030.E) ,+ the +i.,,n the nn .,,i+ nli +i.,n as n4n.d nr, result .,f +hn u ni+ L,+ O E Q rdi"icinr. the *nd-i"i.d, ,-Al Iets may Fesul+ ir, .diffnrnr,+ h--IL gpir,.dgr.dq +h;;n +hngn rn.. irn.d h" d €CDC T41-e-4-6r. �°� C O y A +e the r o�i+ let fFenq /te the street shall be based the r Rt en ent r IaR fer the parent let Rd Re h-,Snrl n ,-+And-aprrl- fnr A -ihrli"i,-iAgin- n D. Future Additions and Modifications. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications r O to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes c D requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for M compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated 0 for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable a development standards. Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of „nit lets wothir, the parepel In}.of affected unit lots or approval � L of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed. Due to EGDG 2 O let eF many affect the .deyelnr,mnn+ as a •,heln ChaRgeorwqitt*Rg that- -Affeet, a� >� R 7 " the ir,+nri.,r .,f h il.din� r,i+� ,ill hn n -,I''A+n.d Ar, +n , r,li non with the r n+s C enly fer that unit. Any exteFinr changes Fn affect the r Rg4t4ng fnr the a O n .deyeier,., eRt .,ill be evaluated .,i+hir, +hn of the p nl In+ frAM whir-. C � w nwneFs ,v, the parer} In+ L E. Homeowners association ownership of common areas. Any commonly used areas or r x w facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or c parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and a maintained by a homeowners association with the rieht to assess the individual unit lot Page 7 of 23 Packet Pg. 84 7.1.a owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation regarding the rights of the homeowners association must be submitted for recording with the final plat. Aceess Easements and -PaF!(* rp,. AEsess easements; e�PR r+.,r,-,nce a ents shall be executed feF use of c.,Y,-,Y,- en garage eF arl(On . shall be r eF de d on the final I Ir F. Maintenance Agreements for building exteriors. jount use and ^^Maintenance agreements must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision Dlat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. Themaintenance agreement smust require equal participation by all owners within any one building. The weint maintepanee .,,.r,,,,Y,. ent &I+ II and must be recorded on the final Unit Lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes. G. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat. H. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot s#a-M-must be noted on the final plat. I. An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be accepted until, at PAiRiP^UPi all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are arocessed and reviewed as short subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to ECDC 20.01 and the requirements of this chapter. 20.75.055 Lot combination. x w A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, c or nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this E z code in effect at the time of said combination. Page 8 of 23 a Packet Pg. 85 7.1.a B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments. C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director finds that the combination of lots would: 1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or 2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined, negatively impact compliance with the city's urban density requirements as established pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish County planning policies. D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working days of mailing of the decision and posting thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000]. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by-11-inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat: A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision; B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision; V.- C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map; w r c D. A vicinity sketch; E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range r number; Q Page 9 of 23 Packet Pg. 86 7.1.a F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot; G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any; H. Lot dimensions and numbers; I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site; J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the owners of adjacent property; K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the community development director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision; L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of existing and proposed streets; M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any; N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director; O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to be removed; P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas; Q. A statement of improvements to be installed; R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and V.- areas subject to flooding; w r S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division, E M T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within r the proposed subdivision; Q Page 10 of 23 Packet Pg. 87 7.1.a U. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.]. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. A. Responsibility for Review. The community development director, or a designated planning staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise. B. Notice of Hearing. 1. When the director of community services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the following for a formal subdivision: a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days prior to the hearing. b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city. c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county boundary. d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to a state highway right-of-way. e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a location description in nonlegal language. C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of filing. .- w D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. E E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of community services shall review a short Q subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). Page 11 of 23 Packet Pg. 88 7.1.a F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the community development director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 1983]. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision —Time limit. The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included within said 90 days. [Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010]. 20.75.075 Modifications. A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the requested modification. B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification. C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made [Ord. 3211 § 6, 19981. 20.75.080 General findings. A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved: A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter. B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest. x w C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter. E D. Flood Plain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community Q Development Code relating to flood plain management. [Ord. 2466, 1984]. Page 12 of 23 Packet Pg. 89 7.1.a 20.75.085 Review criteria. The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions: A. Environmental. 1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact. 2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography. 3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as 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. If the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly. 2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards. 3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance 4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate. V.- C. Dedications. x w r 1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use. E M 2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of r ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from Q the planning advisory board. Page 13 of 23 Packet Pg. 90 7.1.a 3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat. D. Improvements. 1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities. 2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of: a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements; b. Chapter 19.75, 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. [Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998; Ord. 2466, 19841. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final r x plat of any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or w r do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes. E B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion r of the land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu Q fees is required unless dedication is proposed and approved. Page 14 of 23 Packet Pg. 91 7.1.a C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision. D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of adjacent land. E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval —Time limit. A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing examiner is appealed to the Edmonds city council and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the city council or judiciary. B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2014, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. The time period for short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 3925 § 1, 2013]. 20.75.105 Extensions of time. V.- Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983]. w r 20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. a E M Short plats that received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006, and would have v r expired prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall have their Q preliminary approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date Page 15 of 23 Packet Pg. 92 7.1.a of the ordinance codified in this section. Preliminary approval of such short plats shall expire and have no further validity at the end of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. Notice of the two-year extension from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be provided to the parties of record of such preliminary short plats. [Ord. 3925 § 2, 2013]. 20.75.110 Changes. A. Preliminary Plats. The community development director may approve as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of approval. If the proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of correction. [Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009]. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval, allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval. B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a licensed engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines that engineer plans are not necessary. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the r x improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. w r c as B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the E final plat is submitted for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other v r suitable surety to guarantee the completion of the improvements within one year of the Q approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the Page 16 of 23 Packet Pg. 93 7.1.a improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC. C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two years from the date of acceptance. D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the community development director determines that installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots created by the subdivision. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance with the following: A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or supervise the preparation of, the final plat. B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s). C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners, boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land, and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public works director. D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats. 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. r K The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections A through G of this w r c section shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review. Subsection G is required for formal subdivision only. r A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with: Q Page 17 of 23 Packet Pg. 94 7.1.a 1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision; 2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed; 3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided. B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they have notice of the subdivision. C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public, acknowledged by a notary. D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required improvements. E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner of direct access to any street from any property. F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be dedicated to the public. G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate. H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works: 1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of - way, design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures; 2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council, or approving the final plat of a short subdivision. I. Community Development Director. The following statements to be signed by the community V.- development director: w r 1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of the preliminary approval; r 2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city Q council or approving the final plat of a short subdivision. Page 18 of 23 Packet Pg. 95 7.1.a J. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and city clerk that the city council has approved the final plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedication. K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments for which the land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been paid. 20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material. The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each check or recheck of the final plat. B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or re-established corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet. C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and shown on the final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines. If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 3211 § 9, 19981. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required r improvement plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works. w r c B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for E correction within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include Q required environmental review. Page 19 of 23 Packet Pg. 96 7.1.a C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community development director shall review the final plat of a formal subdivision. They shall then forward the final plat to the city council for a Type IV -A decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140 or attaching their recommendation for disapproval. D. City Council Review. If the city council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval in this chapter have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall sign the statement of the city council approval on the final plat. E. Acceptance of Dedication. City council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. The community services director, through his/her designees, the director of public works and the community development director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 3736 § 68, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor and the community development department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered "approved" until so filed with the county auditor. 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. r K The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the w r purposes allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat for record, even if the property is rezoned; provided that all requirements of the community development code, other than lot area, are met. a Page 20 of 23 Packet Pg. 97 7.1.a 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the requirements of this chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord. 2623 § 1, 1987]. 20.75.175 Court review. Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of Snohomish County. The action may be brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The cost of transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless: (1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not meet the definition for "lot of record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall comply with the city's development regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding nonconforming lots. A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of record" status for a parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this status, the applicant must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that: V.- 1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in w question. If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the E innocent purchase status may not be granted; r a 2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction; Page 21 of 23 Packet Pg. 98 7.1.a 3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative; 4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject parcel as a separate lot; and 5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the applicant. B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already been constructed. C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 3982 § 3, 20141. 20.75.185 Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's fees. as a ECDC 21.30.032 "Flat(s)" means multiple family dwelling unit(s) that are horizontally separated 3 — i.e.: stacked above and/or below each other. 0 ECDC 21.100.040 Townhouse. L Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria: r x w A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically; as B. Common side walls joining units; r C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure; Q Page 22 of 23 Packet Pg. 99 7.1.a D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in the zoning code; Page 23 of 23 Q Packet Pg. 100 7.1.b PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003 Mr. Clugston advised that a private applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot subdivision process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This is a Type V Legislative Decision where the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposal. The City Council will make the final decision. He reminded the Board that they initially reviewed the proposal at their March 22°d meeting. Mr. Clugston explained that the unit lot subdivision process would create an ownership option for multi -family development projects as an alternative to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot subdivision would not change zoning, density or other bulk requirements for a multi -family project. It would simply overlay property lines on a site. A unit lot subdivision differs from a standard subdivision in that the development standards for a project are applied to the larger site (parent lot) as opposed to the individual parcels being created (unit lots). A unit lot subdivision could be applied over an existing multi -family development or with a new multi -family proposal. The process could be applied in the Multi -family Residential (RM) and General Commercial (CG) zones and portions of the Westgate Mixed Use zone. All of these zones allow for multi -family development on the ground floor of a site, whereas several other zones, such as Community Business (CB), Planned Business (BP) and Neighborhood Business (NB) require that the residential component be above a ground floor commercial use. The unit lot subdivision would not be applicable to residential development located above ground floor commercial space. Mr. Clugston referred to a letter from the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County expressing support for the proposed amendment, which would provide an alternative method of lot creation for certain types of RM development. He also referred to Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, which inserts the applicant's proposed language into the existing subdivision ordinance, along with additions and clarification made by the City Attorney and staff. Mr. Clugston highlighted that three new definitions were added in ECDC 20.75.030: • "Unit Lot Subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045, where compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot. • "Parent Lot" means the lot with legal lot status, which establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision. • "Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred upon recording of a unit lot subdivision. Mr. Clugston reemphasized that the RM development would look exactly the same, regardless of whether it is subdivided or not. There would be no difference in how the standards are applied for the development of the structures. Only the property lines would be created through the unit lot subdivision process. Mr. Clugston explained that the language proposed in ECDC 20.75.045 was altered by staff and the City Attorney to provide more details and clarify the intent of the unit subdivision process. The changes were not intended to alter the applicant's overall goal. As a result of concerns raised by the Board at their last meeting, Subsection E was added to require that homeowner's associations (HOA) be funded to manage the areas on the parent lot that are common to all unit owners in the development. Chair Rubenkonig emphasized that a unit lot subdivision would be subject to the subdivision regulations, which is no different than any other type of development. Mr. Clugston said all RM development must meet the development standards of the zone, including parking, height, bulk and design. From the sidewalk, the development would not look any different after the separate lot lines are dropped over it. There would be no physical change. John Bissell, Harmsen & Associates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Westgate Woods, LLC. He commended Mr. Clugston for his thorough Staff Report. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board Members raised some concern about why a private property owner was requesting a code amendment. He acknowledged that most code amendments are generated by staff, but the code also allows any citizen to make an application for a code amendment. He explained that the proposed change is not controversial. In fact, City staff previously utilized an interpretation to accomplish Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 101 7.1.b this same thing and was considering a code amendment at some point in the future to codify the process. However, the applicant did not want to wait for the City to move the amendment forward. Mr. Bissell recalled that, at their last meeting, there were questions about how the unit lot subdivision process would impact a development. When you think of a subdivision, you think of houses with lots that meet the standard size required for the zone. A subdivision is simply a method of dividing property so that someone can have a fee simple deed. In the case of RM development, a unit lot subdivision would simply put lot lines around each of the units. He provided some pictures to illustrate developments both before and after a unit lot subdivision, emphasizing that there is absolutely no difference. The developments do not look or function any differently after a unit lot subdivision has been applied, and the exact same code standards apply. He reiterated that the proposed amendment would not change the built environment in any way. Mr. Bissell commented that, when proposing code language, it is tricky to get it just right. He noted that staff and the City Attorney made some adjustments to the language he initially presented. Subsequently, he also made some changes to the language put forward by the City Attorney and staff in the Staff Report. He advised that staff has reviewed the proposed changes and indicated support. Specifically, he recommended that: The last sentence in ECDC 20.75.045.A be changed to read, `A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located. " The intent of this provision is to allow a unit lot subdivision to separate buildings with multiple units. The proposed change makes it clear that the provision could apply to flats, as long as they are located on a single lot. For example, a property with four buildings, each with six units, could be subdivided into four lots (one for each of the buildings), and it wouldn't matter if the individual units were townhomes or flats. • The last sentence in ECDC 20.75.045.D be changed to read, `Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed. " It doesn't make sense to require authorization from all owners of unit lots within the parcel lot if an external change would not impact the other units. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to require authorization from the owner if the work will impact his/her unit. It is also appropriate to require authorization from the HOA if a change will impact all units within the development. Susan Payne, Edmonds, said she has a background in unit lot subdivisions because she did them for the City of Seattle for eight years. A lot of questions came up as the process was refined over several years, and attorney's reviewing the applications were not consistent. From her experience, she urged the Board to carefully consider the following: • Who will do the consumer protection review, and how will the City ensure that both sellers and buyers have all the information they need? • Who will review the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) for the HOA to make sure there is adequate review when documents are filed with the assessor's office? • Are the processes and the decisions that are made transparent? All reviews done by attorneys need to be honest and somewhat independent. • Will the City allow unit lots to be further subdivided? • Is there a definition for the term "flat?" • What are the review standards for unit lot subdivisions, and will fire protection and emergency access be part of the process? • How will the City ensure that there is adequate parking that is easily accessible so that parking for the individual units will not spill out onto the streets? The public portion of the hearing was closed. Board Member Lovell commented that most of the questions raised by Ms. Payne pertain to legal or building standard matters that will be addressed during the design and permitting phase of the project. He asked Mr. Clugston to explain the review process for a unit lot subdivision. Mr. Clugston said the review process for a unit lot subdivision would be the same Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 102 7.1.b as for a short or regular plat subdivision. The development permit review process would also be the same as any other project in a CG or RM zone. Applicants would start by applying for design review and the building permits. As the building permits are moving through the review process, an applicant could apply for a unit lot subdivision. All applications would be reviewed by staff. As proposed, applicants would be required to submit CCRs as part of the application, and they would be reviewed by the City Attorney. This would be similar to the process that is used for planned residential developments. Relative to parking, Mr. Clugston said there would be no specific requirements for parking and ingress/egress attached to a unit lot subdivision. The parking standards would be based on the zone, and would be the same regardless of whether the development is subdivided or not. The same is true for ingress and egress requirements. He noted that the City's current code does not require a lot of guest parking, but this is parking code issue that is unrelated to the unit lot subdivision provision. Mr. Clugston advised that it is not likely that a unit lot subdivision could be further subdivided, however, it might be possible if the initial unit lot subdivision created lots for buildings with multiple units and a subsequent application sought to subdivide each of the individual units in the building. Regarding the concern about lot line adjustments, Mr. Clugston explained that these would be internal to the site and do not need to be addressed in the unit lot subdivision provision. ECDC 20.75.045.I will limit the need for subsequent lot line adjustments by requiring that "an application for a final unit lot plat will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record. " This provision will require that the foundations be poured and the walls built before a surveyor identifies the lines on the plat. Chair Rubenkonig noted that, generally, there is language included on a final plat that addresses the parent lot. Mr. Clugston referred to ECDC 207.75.045.H, which requires a notice on the final plat that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot. He explained that the unit lot subdivision provision could be used to separate a property into four lots, each with a six -unit townhome development. A subsequent application could subdivide each of the buildings into six separate lots. However, no further subdivision would be allowed beyond that point. Board Member Robles said he was happy to see that language was added to require HOAs and CCRs for maintenance of the common areas. He said he did not feel comfortable with how the Board's last conversation ended relative to this issue, but he is comfortable that the proposed new language would address his concerns. He commented that higher density development tends to bring people closer together and HOAs can provide an internal mitigation system where the community can work out problems. In the absence of this, the City would have to mitigate the problems. That means that the taxpayers would be subsidizing the idea of fee simple lots. He suggested that the wording in ECDC 20.75.045.E could be even more inclusive if it referred to "common issues" in addition to "common properties." Board Member Lovell asked if Mr. Bissell knows of any specific building or parcel in Edmonds where the provision could be applied. Mr. Bissell answered that he knows of several properties where the provision could be applicable. Although the amendment is being proposed by a private property owner, the Board should keep in mind that it could be applied in all other RM and CG zones, as well as the MU zone at Westgate. To further clarify, Mr. Bissell advised that the provision could only be utilized by development that is entirely residential. It would not be applicable to mixed -use development that has commercial space on the ground floor. Board Member Lovell requested clarification for when the provision could be applied to flats. Mr. Bissell answered that the provision could be applied to a subdivision that creates lots that contain entire buildings where flats are located. However, it would not be possible to further subdivide a building with flats into separate lots for each unit. To further clarify, he explained that a subdivision is a two-dimensional projection that draws a line from the center of the earth up to the sky. If units are stacked on top of each other, it would be impossible to do a subdivision because you cannot draw a line through the units below or above. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed language would allow a development that contains flats to be subdivided if the vertical boundaries of the flats coincide with each other. Mr. Bissell said that is definitely one option, but the proposed amendment would not allow this to occur. Board Member Lovell noted that the application materials provided a drawing of a building that is divided in half and each half was designated as a lot. Mr. Bissell pointed out that the example was of a townhouse development that had separate entrances for each unit. He advised that the code defines "flats" as units that are stacked on top of each other and "Townhouses" as units that are side -by -side. Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 103 7.1.b Board Member Lovell referred to the proposed provision that would allow a developer to sell individual buildings to separate property managers, who would lease out the units within each building. If this were to occur, he asked how a common construction design defect in all of the buildings within the project could be resolve? Would each building owner be on their own? Mr. Bissell answered that the entire development (parent lot) would be governed by a single HOA regardless of how it is subdivided. Board Member Robles asked if the unit lot subdivision provision would relieve a contractor's liability for construction defects in any way. Mr. Clugston answered that a contractor's responsibility would remain the same regardless of whether the lot is subdivided or not. He referred to the last sentence of ECDC 20.75.045.17, which requires all common wall construction to meet the currently adopted building codes, regardless of how the property is subdivided. The proposed amendment is not intended to absolve a developer of any responsibility going forward. Chair Rubenkonig asked if staff and the City Attorney have had an opportunity to review the new language proposed by Mr. Bissell. Mr. Clugston answered that he had a discussion with Mr. Bissell prior to the meeting relative to the proposed changes. He said he does not have a problem with the suggested revisions as they seem to be consistent with the intent of the amendment. He pointed out that the Board could also propose revisions to the draft language as part of its recommendation to the City Council. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Board could table its recommendation to a future meeting if deemed appropriate. Mr. Clugston agreed that is one option. He said staff is recommending that the amendment be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval as presented in the Staff Report and with the applicant's proposed revisions. Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that, following the Board's recommendation, the City Council will conduct a separate public hearing prior to making a final decision. The Board's role is to determine if the proposal has enough substance to move it forward to the City Council. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT TO ECDC 20.75.045.A AND 20.75.045.D. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Lovell asked if staff feels confident that the concerns expressed by Ms. Payne during the public hearing are adequately addressed by the proposed amendment. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively and reminded the Board that the amendment would not alter any of the existing development standards that are in place. While issues related to parking and housing affordability are important, they do not have any impact on the current proposal. The parent lot would be developed exactly the same whether or not a unit lot subdivision happens. Board Member Lovell thanked Ms. Payne for sharing her experience working with unit lot subdivisions in Seattle. Her questions were good, and he feels comfortable that they are addressed in the proposed language. 1 11106u tell I Illero1:R7.1101 Ix"erRe1 lu 1111M wo REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board Members to the extended agenda, but there were no comments. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig reminded the Board that their retreat is scheduled for May 24th. There was some discussion about having a potluck dinner prior to the retreat, which would start at 7:00 p.m., but no decision was made. Chair Rubenkonig expressed appreciation to the Board's Student Representative, Malia Clark, for the insightful comments she provided over the past several months. She noted that Ms. Clark will not be present at the Board's May meetings as she prepares for graduation. However, she may rejoin the Board in June. Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 104 7.1.c Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/26/2017 Public Hearing for Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003) Staff Lead: Michael Clugston, AICP Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Mike Clugston Background/History A private applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot subdivision process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This is a Type V legislative decision where the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposal. The Board first reviewed the project at their March 22, 2017 meeting. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the unit lot subdivision language as proposed in Attachment 1. Narrative As discussed last month, the unit lot subdivision process would create an ownership option for multifamily development projects as an alternative to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot subdivision does not change zoning, density or other bulk requirements for a multifamily project - it simply overlays property lines on a site. A unit lot subdivision differs from a standard subdivision in that the development standards for a project are applied to the larger site (parent lot) as opposed to the individual parcels being created (unit lots). A unit lot subdivision could be applied over an existing multifamily development (if it met the requirements) or with a new multifamily proposal. The process could be used in one of several zones - Multiple Residential, both General Commercial zones, and in portions of Westgate Mixed Use. These zones allow for multifamily development on the ground floor of a site whereas several other zones such as Community Business, Planned Business and Neighborhood Business do not - the residential component in those zones must be above a ground floor commercial use. Four attachments are included in the packet: 1) The proposed code amendment language 2) A comment letter from Edith Duttlinger discussed March 22 3) Excerpt minutes from the Board's March 22, 2017 meeting 4) The March 22 agenda memo In Attachment 1, the applicant's proposed language was inserted into the existing subdivision ordinance (blue text) and staff made some additions and clarifications to that (red text). Packet Pg. 105 7.1.c Based on the Planning Board's comments, it seemed appropriate to require a homeowners association to be formed in order to manage the common areas and jointly -owned infrastructure on the parent lot, similar to a condominium (proposed sub E). Interior maintenance of individual unit lots will be the responsibility of the owner, similar to a typical single family residence. Exterior maintenance will be subject to a maintenance agreement (proposed sub F). With the proposed changes to the applicant's original language, staff believes the unit lot process will provide ownership opportunities for some multifamily projects where they otherwise might not exist while protecting owners within the project with clear requirements for future maintenance and management. The concerns of the Hearing Examiner regarding the City's former townhouse subdivision process are also addressed in the current proposal by clarifying that development standards will be applied to the parent lot rather than the individual unit lots in a unit lot subdivision. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Applicant's proposed code language with staff changes Attachment 2 - Duttlinger Comment Attachment 3 - Excerpt minutes from March 22 Board meeting Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet Packet Pg. 106 7.1.c Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. 20.75.020 Purposes. 20.75.025 Scope. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. 20.75.035 Compliance required. 20.75.040 Application. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment —Application. 20.75.055 Lot combination. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision —Time limit. 20.75.075 Modifications. 20.75.080 General findings. 20.75.085 Review criteria. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval —Time limit. 20.75.105 Repealed. 20.75.107 Preliminary approval —Time limit extension for previously approved short plats 20.75.110 Changes. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. 20.75.145 Final plat —Accompanying material. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. 20.75.175 Court review. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. 20.75.185 Penalties. Page 1 of 23 m U M a 0 m a� c c a W N .Q a M x c a� E U ca a Packet Pg. 107 7.1.c 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW. 20.75.020 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are: A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land; B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways; C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements; D. To provide for proper ingress and egress; E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots. 20.75.025 Scope. This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW 58.17.040, including but not limited to: A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots; B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent; C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter. Divisions under subsections A and B of this section will not be recognized as lots for building purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term lot includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term sale includes lease gift or development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to "subdivision" Page 2 of 23 Packet Pg. 108 7.1.c is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short subdivision" unless one or the other is specified. B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots. C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots. D. "Unit lot subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045 feTthe-yeses f - Rgfee simple rshin f dwell;n � , n,+�yAhle,- +h ,'kT;tar; d;; rd rp toed to the -parent let (See €-- Q -- �94-55�. where compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot. E. "Parent lot" means the lot with legal lot status which +o. the h U R char „f fe-sestablishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision. F. "Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred uaon recordine of a unit lot subdivision. 20.75.035 Compliance required. Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter. 20.75.040 Application. Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development director on forms provided by the community development department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002: A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the community development department; B. Title report; C. A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option; Page 3 of 23 Packet Pg. 109 7.1.c D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC; E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the applicant; F. Source of water supply and name of supplier; G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used; H. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983]. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application. A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division. B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter. C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will: 1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division; 2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before; 3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone; 4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division; 5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC. D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the city and shall at a minimum contain the following information: Page 4 of 23 Packet Pg. 110 7.1.c 1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the plans shall include the following: a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s); b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements; c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements; d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements); e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s); f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet. 2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing: a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted; b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in the parcel(s); c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number; d. Any encumbrances on the property; and e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property. E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable cause. Page 5 of 23 Packet Pg. 111 7.1.c G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 63, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 19981. 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision - Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses. rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional standards of Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that each newlv created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) comply with those dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed. A. Applicability and Pwrn^r^. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only in the following zones: Multiple Residential, General Commercial, and Westgate Mixed Use. A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building in the form of flats., Gettag^ r,l., r +h-,+ -.IIAIN .,, r. +h-,n Apia cl azollinr. ni+ n r let Rd r,nl., f^r rl^+-4r"^r! R zeRe upits r.r fr.r � �ni+r that -.re veFtir•ally reparattedd ..,i+" nr..,I.,.,-,.,r,+ r.f -,n., eRe � �ni+ ev- r r.r halr..�, orn, olomon+ r,f .nv+hnr ni+ ^ ^n+ fr r r.v+r.rir r nl^rv.r.n+c inhnrnn+ +r. +"^ h iLJinr. ns*gR r.r structure sur,h as (but net lurn4^d te) eave everh-.nrrr gutters and sidgRg (se nccr,rrr,r., .J..,r,llinr. ni+r if„ ,IL, r,... I ded ., be incl rJr rJ .yhr.n +h^ ,nitI^+ cn n+ .inc all dwelling ''ni+r ..,i+hin r.n b YilclinrT QRe � �ni+ suhrJi.,irir,n lat n+-,in ,I+inlr, rJ..-e4ing units. B. Association with Site Development — ADDlication Timine. " Af rJi.,erJinr. r, WReFwhin r f +hr, h ilrJinr, ^ nn+ Thr, relic ,+ir n caR nl., be Tti devele;9;TeRt13laR eF aRTexost*Rg develeped site. In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site. a Dreliminary unit lot subdivision can onlv be submitted in coniunction with or subsequent to a development site plan as required by ECDC 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020.13.3 submitted in coniunction with or subsequent to a building permit. C. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is vested to the applicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030.0 in effect at the time a complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit Page 6 of 23 Packet Pg. 112 7.1.c lot subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforming with respect to the bulk and dimensional standards reauired by Title 16 ECDC. As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn-arounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street will be evaluated based on the parent lot's compliance with such reauirements. and not based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards. StandaFGIS, *RGlUdmR9 bUt AA-t ."Mit-P-01 te fire laRes, drive aisles, turp are-Updr-, and- +n then n+ In+ from /+n the street ,-hall be based A—p +hn r RtS of +hn Sete nlaR fnr the n-irnn+ In+ nrl nn+ base d nGRI stag arrlr fnr -A r--hrli"icinn I. D. Future Additions and Modifications. Subseauent r lattinE actions. additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable development standards. Anv application for such external chances will reauire authorization of all owners of unit lots within the parcel lot. -Q- -,te €EDC 20T5-04 q fn.-++he develnmmen+ a .,hnln ChaRgesFeeweFmRgmi++in..that a4eet nnl"+h nterwer of building units, y.,ill be evaluated - s to GemnliaRce %yi+h the requiremente nnl" fnr +I -,+ - -ni+ /fin" nv+nrinr Gh inrrnc m affnr++hn permitting fnr the nrinin aI rdn"nlnmmpn+ of the paFeet let (EEDC 20.75�3O.E),Ie se Eh Eases, add+tme s Ar rnAHOfOr-at-iA-.psj-tom the .dn"nlnmmen+,.,ill lac a ,-,I ,ateal ;.,ithin +hn hnM ,n.J ,pros of +hen nl In+ froe. m v.,hire. h +hn� .,i+hin then n+ In+ E. Homeowners association ownership of common areas. Any commonly used areas or facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and maintained by a homeowners association with the right to assess the individual unit lot owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation re2ardine the rights of the homeowners association must be submitted for Page 7 of 23 Packet Pg. 113 7.1.c recording with the final plat. Aeeess Easerpe.p+_r ^^d °^r'-iRg Aceesss easement gee a+W w. . tep. - pee agFeements shall be a -+erl fer use Ae f. ee.pnimeR g aFl(i.,9 amen spages fer eett one "e6Icing and ether epen e) p„J ether simiilar feat it shall herecorded en +h., fi.,-,I 1 1.,i+ F. Maintenance Agreements for building exteriors. Jeipt 1Ce aP44PMaintenance agreements &I a4must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision Dlat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. The 44PA-maintenance agreement s4a4must require equal participation by all owners within any one building. The ieiRt .,. a;pteipap,.e agFeement s" ." and must be recorded on the final Unit Lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes. G. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwellinia unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat. H. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot s#afkmust be noted on the final plat. I. An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be accepted until, at MiRffiRg,,F,., all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record. J. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are processed and reviewed as short subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to ECDC 20.01 and the requirements of this chapter. 20.75.055 Lot combination. A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, or nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this code in effect at the time of said combination. B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments. Page 8 of 23 Packet Pg. 114 7.1.c C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director finds that the combination of lots would: 1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or 2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined, negatively impact compliance with the city's urban density requirements as established pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish County planning policies. D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working days of mailing of the decision and posting thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000]. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by-11-inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat: A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision; B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision; C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map; D. A vicinity sketch; E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number; F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot; G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any; Page 9 of 23 Packet Pg. 115 7.1.c H. Lot dimensions and numbers; I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site; J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the owners of adjacent property; K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the community development director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision; L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of existing and proposed streets; M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any; N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director; O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to be removed; P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas; Q. A statement of improvements to be installed; R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and areas subject to flooding; S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division, T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the proposed subdivision; U. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.]. Page 10 of 23 Packet Pg. 116 7.1.c 20.75.065 Preliminary review. A. Responsibility for Review. The community development director, or a designated planning staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise. B. Notice of Hearing. 1. When the director of community services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the following for a formal subdivision: a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days prior to the hearing. b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city. c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county boundary. d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to a state highway right-of-way. e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a location description in nonlegal language. C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of filing. D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of community services shall review a short subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the community development director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Page 11 of 23 Packet Pg. 117 7.1.c Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 1983]. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision —Time limit. The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included within said 90 days. [Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010]. 20.75.075 Modifications. A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the requested modification. B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification. C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. [Ord. 3211 § 6, 1998]. 20.75.080 General findings. A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved: A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter. B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest. C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter. D. Flood Plain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to flood plain management. [Ord. 2466, 1984]. 20.75.085 Review criteria. The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions: Page 12 of 23 Packet Pg. 118 7.1.c 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. If the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly. 2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards. 3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. 4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate. C. Dedications. 1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use 2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from the planning advisory board. 3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat. Page 13 of 23 Packet Pg. 119 7.1.c D. Improvements. 1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities. 2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of: a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements; b. Chapter 19.75, 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. [Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998; Ord. 2466, 1984]. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final plat of any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes. B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion of the land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu fees is required unless dedication is proposed and approved. Page 14 of 23 Packet Pg. 120 7.1.c C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision. D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of adjacent land. E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit. A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing examiner is appealed to the Edmonds city council and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the city council or judiciary. B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2014, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. The time period for short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 3925 § 1, 2013]. 20.75.105 Extensions of time. Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983]. 20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. Short plats that received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006, and would have expired prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall have their preliminary approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date Page 15 of 23 Packet Pg. 121 7.1.c of the ordinance codified in this section. Preliminary approval of such short plats shall expire and have no further validity at the end of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. Notice of the two-year extension from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be provided to the parties of record of such preliminary short plats. [Ord. 3925 § 2, 2013]. 20.75.110 Changes. A. Preliminary Plats. The community development director may approve as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of approval. If the proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of correction. [Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009]. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval, allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval. B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a licensed engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines that engineer plans are not necessary. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the final plat is submitted for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to guarantee the completion of the improvements within one year of the approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the Page 16 of 23 Packet Pg. 122 7.1.c improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC. C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two years from the date of acceptance. D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the community development director determines that installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots created by the subdivision. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance with the following: A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or supervise the preparation of, the final plat. B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s). C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners, boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land, and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public works director. D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats. 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections A through G of this section shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review Subsection G is required for formal subdivision only. A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with: Page 17 of 23 Packet Pg. 123 7.1.c 1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision; 2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed; 3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided. B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they have notice of the subdivision. C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public, acknowledged by a notary. D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required improvements. E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner of direct access to any street from any property. F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be dedicated to the public. G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate. H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works: 1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of - way, design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures; 2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council, or approving the final plat of a short subdivision. I. Community Development Director. The following statements to be signed by the community development director: 1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of the preliminary approval; 2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council or approving the final plat of a short subdivision. Page 18 of 23 Packet Pg. 124 7.1.c J. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and city clerk that the city council has approved the final plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedication. K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments for which the land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been paid. 20.75.145 Final plat —Accompanying material. The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each check or recheck of the final plat. B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or re-established corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet. C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and shown on the final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines. If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998]. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required improvement plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works. B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for correction within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include required environmental review. Page 19 of 23 Packet Pg. 125 7.1.c C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community development director shall review the final plat of a formal subdivision. They shall then forward the final plat to the city council for a Type IV -A decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140 or attaching their recommendation for disapproval. D. City Council Review. If the city council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval in this chapter have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall sign the statement of the city council approval on the final plat. E. Acceptance of Dedication. City council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. The community services director, through his/her designees, the director of public works and the community development director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 3736 § 68, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor and the community development department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered "approved" until so filed with the county auditor. 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the purposes allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat for record, even if the property is rezoned; provided that all requirements of the community development code, other than lot area, are met. Page 20 of 23 Packet Pg. 126 7.1.c 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the requirements of this chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord. 2623 § 1, 19871. 20.75.175 Court review. Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of Snohomish County. The action may be brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The cost of transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless: (1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not meet the definition for "lot of record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall comply with the city's development regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding nonconforming lots. A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of record" status for a parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this status, the applicant must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that: 1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in question. If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the innocent purchase status may not be granted; 2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction; Page 21 of 23 Packet Pg. 127 7.1.c 3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative; 4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject parcel as a separate lot; and 5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the applicant. B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already been constructed. C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 3982 § 3, 20141. 20.75.185 Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's fees. ECDC 21.30.032 "Flat(s)" means multiple family dwelling unit(s) that are horizontally separated — i.e.: stacked above and/or below each other. ECDC 21.100.040 Townhouse. Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria: A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically; B. Common side walls joining units; C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure; Page 22 of 23 Packet Pg. 128 7.1.c D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in the zoning code; Page 23 of 23 Packet Pg. 129 7.1.c Clugston, Michael From: Edith Duttlinger <EDuttlinger@ci.mlt.wa.us> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 4:21 PM To: Clugston, Michael Subject: RE: Edmonds SEPA for townhouse code amendment Michael, Thank you. The City of Mountlake Terrace has a fee simple unit lot subdivision provision in code, updated in 2015. htt www.code ublishin .com WA MountlakeTerrace #! mountlaketerracel7 MountlakeTerracel7O9.html#17.09 We require unit lots to install individual sewer lateral and water service and water meter for each unit, (This can be difficult to achieve for a party interested in overlaying a fee simple on a pre-existing development. In addition, preexisting property would need to be brought up to current code such as landscaping and frontage improvements, which may have changed since original development.) Our definition for townhomes is two or more units. If Edmonds wants to assure that townhomes occur in units of 3 or more (vs., the duplex look) it would need to modify the definition. I recommend against allowing flats for fee simple. Regards, Edith Edith L. Duttlinger, Senior Planner Community dr Economic Development Dept. City of Mountlake Terrace 6100 219th St SW, Ste 200, P.O. Box 72 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-0072 Phi 425.744.6279 Fax: 425.775.0420 e-m a i I: ed uttl inger@d. rn ft,wa. u s website: www.citvofmlt.com `4 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Clugston, Michael[ma iIto: Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.govl Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:46 AM To: Edith Duttlinger <EDuttlineer@ci.mlt.wa.us> Subject: FW: Edmonds SEPA for townhouse code amendment Hi Edith, Here's the language proposed by the applicant and his application cover letter. If you need anything else, please let me know. Mike Clugston, AICP City of Edmonds I Associate Planner 425-771-0220, x 1330 michael.clu stop edmondswa. ov General permit assistance, online permits, and Web GIS: http:/./www.edmondswa.gov/handouts.htmi Packet Pg. 130 7.1.c and Member Robles recalled that the last time the proposed code amendments were presented, there was a fairly st co nt from the Board on the viability of a 10-foot activity space given the velocity of the traffic along the c ridor. However, e does not see that the proposal was adjusted to address this concern. Mr. Shipley pointed out tha evelopers would be allo d to provide amenity space along up to 50% of the street frontage, and the 10-foot activity s e between the building and the s et would be separated by a 5-foot right-of-way. However, he agreed that the pedes 'an atmosphere will not be similar to wha ists in downtown Edmonds. Board Member Robles asked if there are a ncentives to encourage this type of development, Mr. Shipley pointed out that the proposal would allow buildings be setback between 10 and 20 feet from the street, and a 5- t right-of-way buffer was added to provide an additiona ffer. Board Member Crank suggested it woaWbe helpful for the consultant to prov' mockups to illustrate how the proposed amendments would impact both existing an ew development. Mr. Shipl pointed out that existing development would not be impacted by the proposed amendments, ch only apply to ne evelopment. The only potential impact would be the proposed amendment that prohibits pole signs. Hbwever, existivL<pole signs would be allowed to remain. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the intent is to enco e w development in an existing scene. She asked where the balance would be between the current look and wh is propose as the new look. She asked how this issue would be addressed by the Architectural Design Board ( ). Mr. Shipley n d that a lot of the existing development along the corridor is located towards the back of the 1 , with parking along the str front. New development located closer to the street could take place on these prope s. Mr. Chave pointed out that the erties along Highway 99 are of varying shapes, sizes and configurations�e�rsmay property owners many just want to ref irbi an existing building or add additional buildings, and other property o want to tear down the existing buildings and r ace them with new development. The intent is to figure out ay for all of these activities to move forward but at different stag Board Member C nk said she likes the concept of activity spaces between the buildings and the sfaw, alks. However, she asked if thewglkways in front of existing buildings would be done as part of a single project or if th-eywould be done pieceme . Mr. Shipley answered that sidewalks would be done has redevelopment occurs. Mr. Chave adde at the City has me money for this purpose and it is desirable to enhance the public spaces along the frontage, but a lot mor ding ill be needed. CODE AMENDMENTS FOR UNIT -LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003) Mr. Clugston advised that this is an application by a private party, Westgate Woods, LLC, for a code amendment to add a new section to the subdivision code, which would provide for unit -lot subdivisions. The process would allow for the creation of a fee -simple ownership option in residential projects in Multi -Family Residential (RM) zones as an alternative to condominium ownership. He reviewed that from 2003 to 2008, the City had a process known as a "townhouse subdivision," which was based on a 2003 staff interpretation (Attachment 6). This process resulted in several projects, two of which are included in the packet: Cascade Cottages (Attachments 1 and 2) and Cooper's Crest (Attachments 3 and 4). He noted that the only difference between the before and after photos is the presence of internal lot lines between the individual units. The developments were designed to meet all of the requirements for the particular RM zone, just like any other RM project, but the lot lines were created to allow the fee -simple sale of the individual dwelling units. Mr. Clugston further reviewed that during review of a townhouse project in 2008, the Hearing Examiner identified some inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied based on the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. In particular, the Hearing Examiner noted conflict with three elements: minimum lot area, internal setbacks and insufficient access within the development. The City Council overturned the Hearing Examiner's decision, but the project was never built due to the recession, and the permit eventually expired. Since the 2008 decision, no townhouse subdivisions were approved because of the concerns highlighted by the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and standards in the code. Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is seeking to codify a fee -simple process for RM projects in the RM zones that is consistent with the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The applicant's narrative and proposed language was included in the Staff Report as Attachments 7 and 8. The existing subdivision code is included as Attachment 9, and the current RM zoning code is Attachment 10. In addition, the City received one comment letter in response to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) from a planner in Mountlake Terrace, who provided some good insight to consider. He noted that some local Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 131 7.1.c jurisdictions currently have a form of this process in place, including Seattle, Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County, and the applicant has worked with a number of these codes. He has reviewed their processes and created a proposed amendment that takes the best of each one and refines it to meet the City of Edmonds' needs. Board Member Lovell said he reviewed the material in the Staff Report and felt it would have been beneficial to have a graphic illustration of a project that meets the criteria outlined in the proposed amendment. His understanding is that the individual living units would need to be 1,500 square feet in an RM-1.5 zone in order to be divided into fee -simple lots. He felt that would be a very difficult task to achieve. Mr. Clugston clarified that is not really the intent of the proposed amendment. He referred to Attachments 1 and 2, which provide aerial views of the Cascade Cottage Project. Attachment 1 shows a regular RM project with detached units. Per the current code for the RM-2.4 zone, each unit needs at least 2,400 square feet of lot area. However, that does not mean that each dwelling unit needs to be that size. It is more a density number. Attachment 2 show the same aerial photograph, with the lot lines drawn as part of the townhouse process. The squares are not all 2,400 square feet. The density is based on the entire lot rather than the individual lots. This needs to be clearly addressed in the proposed amendment. John Bissell, Harmsen & Associates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Westgate Woods, LLC. He attempted to explain the concept of unit -lot subdivisions and fee -simple lots, which he agreed is very complicated and technical. He also explained the difference between a condominium project and a subdivision project. With a subdivision, lines are drawn over the ground to create separate lots, but that is not the case with a condominium. Only the units, not the underlying ground, are individually owned. He advised that State law enables jurisdictions to have subdivision laws, but condominium laws are handled by the State and local jurisdictions are excluded from the process. It is important to recognize that the processes are different, and the State's condominium statute has created unusual liability for condominium developers. Small architecture firms and many builders cannot get insurance to design and construct condominiums. When insurance is available, it is prohibitively expensive. This has resulted in a very low inventory of RM units in Washington State and rents are skyrocketing. In response to this growing problem, a number of jurisdictions are seeing the unit -lot subdivision as a solution to continue to implement their comprehensive plans in RM zones using the same density requirements and built environment as is currently allowed. Mr. Bissell explained that unless cities amend their codes in some way to support the development standards of the parent lot, they will end up creating a bunch of smaller lots. Most zoning codes have a minimum lot standard in the RM zones, which prohibits the creation of separate dwelling units. It is not possible to reach the density the comprehensive plan anticipates by using the subdivision code given the requirements for setbacks, lot area, etc. He referred to the Cascade Cottages (Attachments 1 and 2), noting that he was the planner for the project. The project was originally designed to fit the units on the site without a subdivision. The original plan looked at the exterior boundaries and how individual units could fit on the site. The units are separated from each other by six feet, as required by the building code, and the project is consistent with the required street setbacks from 75`h Avenue and 210th Street. The project was approved by the Architectural Design Board and found to be consistent with the RM development standards. Subsequently, the developer decided to sell the development as separate lots using the townhouse subdivision provision that was in place at the time. The properties were divided into 16 separate lots. Although none of the individual lots are 2,400 square feet in size, the parent lot is large enough to accommodate the 16 units based on the density allowed in the RM-2.4 zone. Although the parent lot was subdivided, the project was still required to meet all of the zoning, density, design, subdivision, and engineering standards that are required for RM development. He cautioned that any provision that allows for unit -lot subdivision and fee -simple lots should also include appropriate standards to ensure that the built environment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bissell said he has done consulting work in a number of different cities and for various developers. About 15 years ago, he contracted with the City of Edmonds to review projects under its unit subdivision code, and he has also been a development consultant for the City of Seattle and gone through the process as an applicant. The City of Seattle has had a great deal of success and very few problems with their provision, which provided a good model for him to start with. However, as well as unit subdivisions are working in other jurisdictions, there are some issues with each of the codes that have been adopted. These issues have been addressed in the proposed code amendment. He reviewed the issues/problems as follows: • There is a new trend in real estate development and investment in which a developer builds a RM site with several multiple -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management companies for future leasing of the Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 132 7.1.c individual units. This opportunity is not expressly prohibited or permitted by any of the effective codes being used by other jurisdictions. Because it is not prohibited, it is not considered contrary to the intent of the unit subdivision code and both Seattle and Snohomish County have permitted it to occur. This option would not violate Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed amendment expressly permits it as an option to avoid future confusion. A subdivision is a two-dimensional division of land that implies ownership of everything above and below the two- dimensional box described in the plat. No portion of any one unit can overhang a portion of another unit. Therefore, flats are excluded from the provision. While many codes are not clear on this exclusion, the proposed language expressively excludes them. A unit -lot subdivision includes the exterior of the building, which can create a potential problem in exterior maintenance because it might be hard to tell who owns what. Because of this, it is possible for owners to have trouble coming to an agreement over who maintains what. To address this concern, the proposed amendment includes a section requiring a joint maintenance agreement for the exterior of the buildings. • Snohomish County's provision is fairly new and has experienced problems because it is too generous with the building community stakeholders group and does not include enough controls to protect the neighborhoods or county against problems that can arise. At the same time, the provision cannot be used for detached units. They now believe that was a mistake and are in the process of amending the provision to allow attached units. • The City of Redmond's provision is also new and does not consider the relationship between the code and public works standards. For example, access requirements are not tied to the type of development, but instead to the type of permit. Therefore, if a RM development is proposed with no unit subdivision, standard drive aisles and fire lanes are required. But if a subdivision is proposed, the regulations then require the installation of roads meeting a different standard. Because the use affects the environment and not the type of permit, language was added to clarify which regulation should apply. The City of Seattle does not accept unit -lot final plat applications until at least the development foundations are installed and the surveyor of record has located the foundations to ensure that the recorded lot lines are set on the common wall. However, this is not a codified requirement in Seattle, and it is not included in the County's provision. He explained that because foundations are not always installed precisely per plan, this requirement makes sense to him. He contacted four licensed land surveyors who have experience in constructing foundations, and received a mixed response. He expressed his belief that requiring the foundations to be installed and verified by the surveyor prior to final plat is more foolproof than requiring the building to be staked and the inspector to verify. This requirement was included in the proposal. Mr. Bissell referred to the cover letter he submitted with the application (Attachment 7), which reviews all of the potential issues and explains how the proposed code amendment would address each one. The proposed language would be added to the subdivision code to give clear direction. The proposal includes specific requirements, such as maintenance agreements for the maintenance of the exterior of the building. In addition to minor amendments to correct terms, new definitions would be added for "unit -lot subdivision," "parent lot," and "flats." A portion of the definition of "townhouse" would also be amended. Mr. Bissell referred to the comment letter submitted by Edith Duttlinger, Senior Planner for the City of Mountlake Terrace, which recommended some potential changes. For example, she strongly recommended that flats not be allowed in townhouse subdivisions, and the proposal specifically excludes them from the provision and adds a definition for "flats." Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Clugston to explain how a private individual can propose a development code amendment. Mr. Clugston answered that the code allows citizens to make application for code amendments, which are Type 5 decisions that require a public hearing before the Planning Board and a Planning Board recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell referred to Attachment 5, which describes a townhouse proposal that failed the test as determined by the Hearing Examiner. He summarized that the proposed amendments are intended to revitalize the ability to do townhouse development in Edmonds. Mr. Clugston agreed that is the intent. He explained that the City does not currently have a process for unit -lot or townhouse subdivisions to create fee -simple lots for RM projects. The applicant has applied to amend the code to add that process within the code and make sure it fits with the rest of the code. He recalled that, with the 2008 project, the Hearing Examiner found a number of issues with the interpretation that staff had been relying on. The Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 133 7.1.c applicant's proposal is intended to address these issues so the process can work. He clarified that the development that was proposed in 2008 met the code requirements for RM development, but the Hearing Examiner found that subdividing the property into separate lots did not meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. She felt the minimum lot size would have to be 2,400 square feet based on the RM-2.4 zoning. This issue needs to be made clear in the proposed new language. Mr. Clugston also explained that drive aisles are typically required for dense RM development, but as soon as you have access ways that serve five or more lots, the street setbacks outlined in the code would apply. This is something the City's previous townhouse interpretation did not address. The intent is to have the same development, but allow the parent lot to be subdivided into separate lots. It is important to make sure that all of the proposed changes are consistent with the existing code. Board Member Lovell asked Mr. Bissell to share more information about the new trend of development and investment where a developer builds a RM site with several multi -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management companies. He asked if this must be done in order for the concept to function property. If so, what is the maximum of number of units allowed per building. Mr. Bissell said he is not proposing to alter the existing limit of six units per building. He suggested it is not so much about the number of units per building but the idea that you could have two buildings, each with a number of units, and the lot lines would go around the buildings rather than the individual units. He reminded the Board of his earlier comment that this type of development is a new market trend. While it would not alter the built environment, it would provide flexibility in the code for different ownership options. Board Member Lovell asked if this type of development has occurred in other communities, and Mr. Bissell answered affirmatively. He explained that the demand for apartment units is very high and this is a real change in how the economy of Puget Sound had been working for a long time. The people who own the buildings and lease them are called "legacy developers." For most of his career, he had one legacy developer and now he is working with about ten. He said the current market of building owners is not equipped to own 60 or 80-unit developments. As developers transition from a business model with a 4-year investment cycle to a business model with a 50 to 60-year investment cycle, this type of development will become more popular. Board Member Crank asked if the proposal is intended to apply to a specific plot of land or to a specific development proposal. She also asked how the provision would be applied to future requests of this nature in single-family zones. Mr. Clugston said the provision is only intended to apply to existing and future RM development, and not single-family residential zones. Even with the provision, RM development will still have to meet all design standards and the base zoning requirements. From the outside, the development will look no different whether it is subdivided or not. It is a matter of ownership of the different pieces of the site. For existing developments, owners can apply for a unit -lot subdivision and create fee -simple lots to sell off. The provision would apply to both existing and new RM development. It could also be utilized in other zones in the city where residential development is allowed, such as the CG zone along Highway 99 and the commercial zones at Westgate. Mr. Chave summarized that the proposed provision is simply an ownership option, and it does not change zoning, density or bulk requirements. It simply gives another way to divide up ownership of a piece of property. It may apply to existing buildings as well as new construction. It is not intended to be a project -specific application. It is a legislative change to the code that would apply throughout the City. Board Member Crank asked staff to clarify the Board's role in the process of moving the proposal forward. She noted that a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 26`b. Mr. Chave said this presentation was intended to be an introduction to the proposed provision before going forward with a formal public hearing. The Board is more used to applications that are quasi-judicial, and this particular proposal is legislative. That means the Board Members are free to ask questions and discuss the proposal outside of the formal public hearing. Board Member Robles noted that condominium agreements protect people, as well. For example, one person's behavior or decision could impact the value of another's property. He asked how the rights of the individual property owners would be preserved. While he understands the reasons for pulling away from the condominium concept, it is important to recognize that subdividing into separate units would result in the residents losing their collective power to defend their properties. Mr. Bissell said that most subdivisions have a homeowner's association that has certain rights, particularly when common areas are involved. A lot of protection can be obtained through a homeowner's agreement, and he always relies on his attorneys to write the covenants for his projects. Board Member Robles asked if the code could include a provision that requires the construction company to maintain a reserve or if it would that be the responsibility of the individual owners. Mr. Chave Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 134 7.1.c expressed his belief that a not all unit -lot subdivisions would have homeowner's associations, and that is why building codes are so important. Building codes require certain things in a fee -simple setup that are different than for condominiums. The assumption is that individuals would be in charge of their own lot and not rely on the neighbors or a condominium association. Board Member Robles asked if condominiums that are subdivided into fee -simple lots retain their value more or less than the traditional type of arrangement. Mr. Bissell said that unit -lot subdivisions have been done in Seattle since the early 90s, and they have held their value as well or better than traditional condominiums. He said he does not believe value will be an issue. Some people want the condominiums for protection and others prefer not to be in condominium situations. Board Member Robles observed that property owners purchase property with certain assumptions, and he voiced concern that they might not always be fully informed. Mr. Chave said the subdivision will be recorded on the legal documents that are part of the real estate transaction. It will be up to the real estate agent to know this and inform the buyer. This is outside of the government's control. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the City of Seattle requires that the developer be in charge of the homeowner's association for one year, and then it becomes the responsibility of the individual owners to govern themselves. Mr. Bissell agreed there is not clear answer for what the best approach would be. Mr. Chave referred to the provision in the draft proposal that would require a maintenance agreement for when the units are in a single building. This agreement will probably not be covenants to the extent of a condominium association, but maintenance of the buildings that are connected will be covered through the agreement. Typically, with subdivisions, there are also underlying utilities that have maintenance agreements attached to them, as well. Vice Chair Monroe asked what Mr. Bissell anticipates will be the counter argument against the proposal. Mr. Bissell said he does not anticipate a lot of opposition to the proposal. However, when he has been involved in projects that modify the lot area in some way, the standard objection is that the zoning code says you have to have a certain lot area and you are throwing that out the window. He tries to point out that the total lot area is the same as if there were no subdivision. Mr. Chave summarized that the proposal is essentially overlaying smaller ownership over a larger development. Any agreements for maintenance or agreements that otherwise apply to the development would still be there. All the provision would do is allow for the transfer of ownership of the units, but it would not absolve the owners from their responsibilities for maintenance, drainage, internal driveways, etc. It would not change density, either. Vice Chair Monroe emphasized that, as proposed, the provision would only apply to RM development. I D111 Chair Rube nig reviewed that the April 12th agenda includes a presentation on the Highway 99 Code A dments. On April 26th, there be a public hearing on Comprehensive Plan amendments for a proposed chan om Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds �to public hearing on the Townhouse Subdivision Code Ame ent is also scheduled for April 26th. The Board'stively scheduled for May 24th, pending confirmaf om the Bartell Development Company that they will bthat evening. Chair Rubenkonig thanked the Board Members for foe ' to move through the complicated proposal related to the Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendmen��TS . PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COM Vice Chair Monroe reported he attended the March 15th to Development fission meeting, but he did not have anything substanti report. meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 135 7.1.c Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2017 Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003) Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Mike Clugston Background/History This application is new to the Planning Board. It is a Type V legislative permit where the Planning Board will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council. Staff Recommendation Discuss code amendment. Public hearing tentatively scheduled for April 26. Narrative This is an application by a private party, Westgate Woods, LLC, for a code amendment to add a new section to the subdivision code which would provide for Unit Lot subdivisions. The process would allow for the creation of a fee -simple ownership option in residential projects in multifamily zones as an alternative to condominium ownership. Several other local jurisdictions currently have some form of this process including Seattle, Mountlake Terrace, and Snohomish County. From 2003 to 2008, the City of Edmonds had a similar process known as townhouse subdivision. That process resulted in several projects in town, two of which are included in the packet: Cascade Cottages and Cooper's Crest. Each project first went through the typical review and approval process for new multifamily developments (design review, building permits, construction and inspections). As opposed to a standard multifamily development, these two projects then went through the townhouse subdivision process to create fee -simple lots for each of the dwelling units. Attachments 1 & 2 show Cascade Cottages before and after platting while Cooper's Crest is shown before and after platting in Attachments 3 & 4. Note that the only difference between the before and after photos is the presence of the internal lot lines between the individual units. The developments were designed to meet the requirements for the particular RM zone like any other multifamily project (before) but then lot lines were created to allow the fee -simple sale of the individual dwelling units (after). The City's process was based on a staff interpretation of the definition of the term 'townhouse' from 2003 (Attachment 5). During review of a townhouse project in 2008, the new Hearing Examiner identified some inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied and the requirements of the subdivision ordinance (Attachment 6). The Examiner found conflict with three elements: minimum lot area, internal setbacks, and insufficient access within the development. On appeal, City Council overturned the Examiner's decision but the project was never built due to the Packet Pg. 136 7.1.c recession and it eventually expired. After the 2008 decision, no further townhouse subdivisions were approved. Part of the problem with processing additional applications were the concerns highlighted by the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and standards in the code. The current request is seeking to codify a fee -simple process for multifamily projects in the Multiple Residential zones that is consistent with the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The applicant's narrative and proposed code language are included as Attachments 7 & 8. The existing subdivision code is included as Attachment 9 and the current multifamily zoning code is Attachment 10. Attachments: Attachment 1- Cascade Cottages no lines Attachment 2 - Cascade Cottages w lines Attachment 3 - Cooper's Crest no lines Attachment 4 - Cooper's Crest w lines Attachment 5 - Arbor Court decision Attachment 6 - Townhouse subdivision interpretation Attachment 7 - Applicant Narrative Attachment 8 - Applicant's Proposed Code Amendment Attachment 9 - ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions) Attachment 10 - ECDC 16.30 (Multiple Residential Zone) Packet Pg. 137 ,'; City of Edmonds IV dP I ILIC WINK — AMP 1 �f JUL. I Attachment 1 Legend - Arc5DE.GI5.5TREE7_CENTERLINE <all other values> f. 1 + 2 4 .kff ,.,Ymo�r. ,.,Ymo�r. k i 1:564 O m I,. Notes a x Cascade Cottages (D 23.57 47.0 gee This map is a usergenerated static output from an 1nt2rnet mappingsiteand is for 2004 !Q reference only. Data layersthat appearan this map may or may not be accurate, RM-15 4 GS_1984 Web _Mercator _Auxiliary_Sph ere reliable; W p ^'urrent^orothenuise city,, ---- - Q Attachment: Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)) City of Edmonds IV dP 1 ILIC 1 1 6i Attachment 2 e E,w,M� Mdw�n�4. Legend Arc5DE.GI S.STREET_CENTE RLI NE <all other values> 1 2 S: 4 R. rl I r. II i' k - —w 1;r � ��' - �� -��T TKO— i � T .�_ •• �r '_ .. AX fl Ili- Y3 wow 1:564 O Notes a x 23.57 Ai.O gee Cascade Cottages This map is a usergenerated static output from an lntrnet mappingsiteand is for 20P4 !Q reference only. Data layersthat appear- this map may or may not be accurate, RM-15 VGS_1984 Web _Mercator _Auxiliary_Sph ere T '! •.^^ ^'1^T T^ ^r'1lT r^n ^'urrent^orothenuise reliable; W City Attachment: Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)) City of Edmonds ivi aN i ilic f Attachment 3 Notes Caope so-e� 4702 910 Feet This map isausr generated static oulput from an Internet m2pprngMeand isfor 2008 reference onfy.D]ata Ealerst h2d appear on t hismap mayor may no[ to beaccurale, RM-2.4 GS_J984 Web Mercator Auxiliary_�here currenl,orothe i�reli�fe. Attachment: Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)) City of Edmonds IV dP 1 Rit! W-- M&L, LL }r .�M _ t ` }Q14' do i` y +1r _ ��• s� Attachment 4 F4 Legend Arc5DE.GI5.5TREE7_CENTERLINE <all other values> 1 2 5; 4 % r1; 1; n 1:1,128 O Notes a x t9 47.02 94.0 ee Cooper's Cress This map is a usergeneratedstaticoutputfrom an lntrnetmappingsiteand sfor 2006 !Q i-Jer—eonly.6ata layers that appear an this map mayor may not be accurate, RM-Z4 GS 1984 Web MercaYor_Auxiliary_Sph ere current, orothenvise reliable. Attachment: Attachment 4 -March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)) 7.1.c Attachment 5 CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER `-?)C. 189v In the Matter of the Application of ) Steve Smith Development LLC ) For a Formal Plat for a ) Townhouse Subdivision ) NO. P-2008-16 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private driveway access tract in a Multifamily Residential (R-M 21.5) zone at 23800 — 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington is DENTED. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Jean Morgan and John Parsaie of Morgan Design Group LLC, on behalf of Steve Smith Development LLC (Applicant), requested approval of a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private driveway access tract in a Multifamily Residential (R-M 21.5) zone at 23800 — 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington. _Hearing Date: The Edmonds Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on May 15, 2008. The Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing. Testimony: At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Michael Clugston, Planner, City of Edmonds 2. Jean Morgan, Morgan Design Group LLC, Applicant Representative 3. John Parsaie, Morgan Design Group LLC, Applicant Representative 4. Alvin Rutledge 5. Roger Hertrich Findings Conclusions and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P 2008-16 page 1 of 14 • Incorporated August 11, .1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 142 7.1.c Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted in the record: 1. Planning Division Staff Report, dated May 6, 2008 2. Preliminary Plat Map, dated received March (illegible), 2008 3. Planning Division Staff Report to City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board, dated May 30, 2007, with attachments: 1. Land use application (ADB Review only), dated received February 15, 2007 2. Vicinity Map 3. Determination of Non -Significance, issued May 7, 2007 4. Site Plan 5. "Lighting fixtures and building colors" Conceptual plans (2 sheets) 6. Conceptual floor plans and elevations (14 sheets) 7. Landscape plan (3 sheets) 4. Architectural Design Board Public Hearing meeting minutes, June 6, 2007 5. Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plan (1 sheet) 6. Adoption of Existing Environmental Document, dated January 23, 2008 7. Notice of Application and Public Hearing Affidavits of mailing, posting, and publication 8. Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet, prepared by William Popp Associates, received November 6, 2007 9. Drainage Report and Calculations, prepared by CG Engineering, dated March 6, 2008 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested approval of a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private access easement in a Multifamily Residential (R M 21.5) zone at 23800 -- 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington.i Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 1, page 2. 2. The subject property is developed with six single -story duplexes (12 units), which would be demolished and replaced upon approval. The site is relatively flat, sloping gently towards State Route 104 (SR 104/Edmonds Way), just west of Highway 99. The property abuts SR 104 to the northeast, with its northeast corner adjacent to the intersection of SR 104 and 238a' Street SW. The site borders Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zoning to the west and south and Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5) zoning to the southeast. The RS-8 property to the west is developed with condominiums, and the RS-8 property to the south contains single-family residential development. The RM-1.5 zoned 1 The legal description of the subject property is a portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 27 North, Range 4 E, W.M.; known by Assessor's Parcel Number 004633-010-004-2. Exhibit 2, ,Site Plan, Exhibit 3, Attachment 1, Architectural Design Board application. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Play No. P-2008-16 page 2 of 14 Packet Pg. 143 7.1.c parcel to the southeast contains multifamily development. Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 1, page 3; Site Visit. 3. No critical areas, floodplain, slopes, unstable soils, or surface waters have been identified on -site. The project is not proposed within a FEMA-designated flood plain. Exhibit 1, pages 3, 5. 4. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is "Edmonds Way Corridor". This commercial land use designation is discussed in the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element, which identifies RM-1.5 zoning as compatible with the land use designation. Exhibit 3, page 4. The Comprehensive Plan promotes a "design infill" strategy for meeting population and employment targets set for the City by the County and State. The proposed project is intended to be design infill development. Exhibit 1, page 6. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following additional goals and policies that Planning Division Staff identified as applicable to the proposal: Residential Develo went Goal B: 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...:... (Goal B policies omitted) Residential Development, Goal C: 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.2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography, and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. Exhibit 1, pages 5-6, citing City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 5. The subject property is located in a Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zoning district. The purpose of the RM zones is to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment and to provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)1630, 000. Multiple- and single-family dwelling units are permitted uses in the zone. ECDC 16.30.010(A). 6. Development standards applicable to the RM 1.5 district require: 1,500 square foot minimum lot area; 15-foot minimum street and rear setbacks; 10-foot side setbacks; maximum lot coverage of 45%; and a minimum of two parking spaces per unit. ECDC 16.30.030(A). Findings Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Nearing Examiner Arbor Court lownhomes .flat, No. P-2008-16 page 3 of 14 Packet Pg. 144 7.1.c 7. The proposed site plan for townhouse subdivision was submitted to the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board (ADB) for review on June b, 2007 under file number ADB- 2007-12. The ADB reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and with the applicable design review criteria in the City's Urban Design Guidelines found in ECDC 20.10 (Design Criteria) and ECDC 20.12 (Landscaping). Exhibit 3, page 6. The ADB approved the site plan with conditions requiring: compliance with the maximum building height criteria of the zone; modification of proposed pole lights height and/or location to comply with setbacks; redesigned "more prominent" front entries to the buildings; the use of stamped concrete to "provide some type of legend about where people could park or walk"; retention or replacement of the existing fence and landscaping in order to provide screening; and identification of the specific types of bushes to be planted adjacent to buildings 5, b, 7, and 9. Exhibit 4, page 2 ofJrune 6, 2007 ADB Meeting Minutes. 8. The Edmonds Community Development Code defines "townhouse" as follows: Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria.: A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically; B. Common side walls joining units; C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure; D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in the zoning code; E. Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site. Portions of the site not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the owners of the individual units. ECDC 21.100.040. 9. The RM-1.5 zone requires a minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet. ECDC 16.30.030(A). According to Planning Division analysis, with an overall area of 55,502 square feet the subject property could contain up to 37 lots of 1,500 square feet each. Exhibit 1, page 4. The Applicant has proposed 35 lots, ranging from 1,123 to 2,273 square feet. Exhibit 3. 10. The proposed substandard lots are based on a Planning Division policy that allows townhouse subdivisions to have lots smaller than the minimum lot area required in the underlying zone as long as the density of the zoning district is satisfied. This policy is not codified in the development standards for the Multiple Residential zones or in the subdivision chapter of the Community Development Code, but is a Planning Division policy. The policy relies on the language of the definition of townhouse in the Community Development Code at ECDC 21.100.040(E) to modify the minimum development standards established for specific zones.' Exhibit 1, page 4, Testimony of Mr. Clugston. 2 Title 21 is the definitions chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Findings, Conclusions, and Recision City of Edmonds Nearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 4 of 14 Packet Pg. 145 7.1.c 1.1. Townhouse lots are defined as allowing shared common side walls joining units, which are known as zero lot lines. ECDC 21.100.040(B). As proposed, structures would be setback at least 15 feet from the edge of the SR 104 right-of-way and at least 10 feet from all other property boundaries? The 35 lots would be divided among 13 buildings, each containing two or three units (lots), organized as a perimeter ring of units surrounding a central cluster. Lots with shared walls in common would have zero lot lines, and a minimum of 10 feet would separate the buildings from each other. All land within the project would be divided among the lots and be privately owned, including the landscaping strips around the project perimeter and the internal access driveway, which would be placed within an easement over all lots. Zero setback is proposed between the dwelling units and the internal access driveway. Exhibit 2; Testimony of Mr_ Clugston; Testimony of Ms. Morgan. 12. The project would have a single point of access from SR 104 near the northeast corner of the site. The proposed internal access serving the 35 lots is characterized as a private driveway! The width of the proposed internal access easement is 24 or 25 feet (wider around the corners).' Road classification, applicable development standards, and exact proposed dimensions/design features are not addressed in the Planning Division staff report or submitted materials, except for brief information on the Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plan in the record at Exhibit 5.6 .Exhibit 2, Exhibit 5, Testimony of Ms: Morgan, Testimony of Mr. Clugston. 13. The site plan depicts "sidewalk" connecting the entrance to each unit with the access easement. Sidewalk is also shown connecting the private access easement with existing sidewalk along SR 104. (See Exhibit 2, Plat Map.) Two areas marked as crosswalks would indicate pedestrian crossing locations between the central building cluster and sidewalks connected the SR 104 sidewalks, No sidewalks are proposed along the access easement connecting units and no pedestrian connection is provided between the perimeter lots not adjacent to the highway and the sidewalk along SR 104, Exhibit 5, Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plan. 14. The project includes 35 two -bedroom units. According to the City's off-street parking regulations, two bedroom units require 1.8 off-street parking spaces each, for a total of 63 required parking places. ECDC 17. 50.020(A). However, the RM 1.5 zone requires a 3 The site plan depicts units 6 through 11 as setback 15 feet from the property's southern lot Iine, which would be consistent with the RM-1.5 rear setback. Exhibit 2; ECDC 16.30.030(A). 4 This characterization is from the Applicant's testimony. Testimony of Ms. Morgan. 5 The site plan states that the width of the "access/utilities easement" between Lots 34 and 7 is 25 feet in width. Exhibit 2, Site Plan. The dimensions of the proposed access route do not appear elsewhere in the record, and the Applicant representative testified that the road is 24 feet wide. Testimony ofMs. Morgan. 6 The drainage plane contains a diagram entitled "Parking area pavement section" depicting the layers of proposed road surface in the easement. The reference to parking in the name of this diagram is not clear, because the `parking area" on the plan is depicted immediately inside the site access. Exhibit S. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-20088-16 page S of 14 I Packet Pg. 146 7.1.c minimum of two off-street parking spaces per unit, for a total of 70 spaces. ECDC 16.30.030. As proposed, each lot would provide two parking spaces inside an attached garage, for a total of 70 off-street parking places. Exhibit 2, Site flan, Exhibit 5. 15. The site plan does not include any parking areas outside of garages. The entire internal access easement would be required to be posted "No Parking: Fire Lane" or similar cautionary signage. Planning Division Staff reported that, throughout the review process, the Fire Department (and unspecified others) expressed concerns regarding the lack of overflow parking, in anticipation that guests would park in the fire lanes. However, Planning Division Staff determined that the project is not required to provide additional off-street parking places for guests or delivery vehicles because it meets the Community Development Code's minimum off-street parking requirements! Exhibit 1, page 6; Testimony of Mr. Clugston. No Fire Department or other agency comments were included in the record. ' 16. The Applicant representative stated that the private access easement would accommodate garbage trucks and emergency vehicles. Street parking was reported to be available on 238t' Street SW; however, the number of parking spaces on 23e and the distance between the various units and available street parking were not known at time of hearing. Regarding the real -world consideration of guest parking, the Applicant representative conceded that it could be challenging for guests of residents but noted that the proposal complies with code requirements. Testimony of Ms. Morgan. 17. The site plan depicts garages facing each other across the 24-foot private access easement in the following lots: 6 and 35; 7 and. 34; 8 and 33; 13 and 32; 14 and 31; 22 and 30; 23 and 29; 24 and 28; and 25 and 27. Exhibit 2; Exhibit 5. 18. As proposed, each unit's garbage cans would be kept inside the attached garage. Testimony of Ms Morgan. 19. In November 2007, the Applicant submitted a document entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet" (worksheet).' The traffic worksheet indicates that the 35-unit project would result in a total of 205 average daily trips, including 19 PM peak hour trips. Estimating traffic counts from the existing 12 units on -site, the worksheet projected that the proposed development would result in 126 new average daily trips, including 12 new PM peak hour trips. The source of the numbers for project trip generation is not provided (no reference source is cited). The worksheet omits information and analysis regarding: sight distance assessment at the site entrance; existing and projected levels of service at area intersections; vehicle storage and queuing within the project or turning into the project off of SR 104; and local accident history. The worksheet calculates traffic impact 7 The Staff report states: it is anticipated that this inadequacy in the code will be addressed during the current code rewrite process." Exhibit 1, page 6. s This traffic worksheet references a project called "Edmonds Townhouses" owned/applied for by North West Townhomes LLC; however it considers 35 lots with a single point of access to SR 104. Exhibit 8. Findings, Conclusions, andDecision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Play No. P-2008-16 page 6 of 14 Packet Pg. 147 7.1.c assessment fees for the new units (35 less the existing 12 = 23 units at $472.24 each) to be $10,064.52. Timing of payment is not identified. Exhibit 8, Traffic Impact Worlrsheet. 20. There is no information in the record from the Washington State Department of Transportation concerning the project's potential impacts to traffic on SR 104 or nearby Highway 99, and no information concerning state highway standards with which the project must comply, if any. The traffic impact worksheet indicates: "state mitigation to be determined." Exhibit 8. 21. The Applicant submitted a stormwater drainage report on March 13, 2008. The drainage report indicates that, in the existing developed condition, site stormwater runoff drains north towards SR 104. Existing catch basins and storm pipes along the south and west property lines capture upstream runoff and convey it to the municipal storm drain in adjacent rights -of -way. Very little (to zero) off -site runoff enters the subject property currently. The proposed stormwater improvements would capture and convey stormwater from new impervious surfaces to a detention pipe that. would release through a flow control structure to an existing municipal catch basin in 238"' Street SW. According to the Applicant's drainage report, fill would need to be imported to the relatively flat site to provide the required 18 inches of cover in order to construct the required conveyances. The system would be designed to detain the 10- and 100-year storm events. All site runoff is conveyed in pipes directly to Puget Sound. Filter technology is proposed to provide water quality control. Erosion and sediment control practices are proposed during construction. Exhibit 9. 22. A homeowners' association is proposed for management of the access easement and irrigation for all landscaping on -site. Testimony of Ms: Morgan; Testimony of Mr. Parsaie. 23. No open space or parkland dedication was required for this project. No analysis of parrs and recreation impacts was conducted during review of the project. Exhibit 1, page 5, Testimony of Mr Clugston. 24. All units are proposed to connect to Olympic View Water and Sewer District services. Exhibit 2. Water and sewer availability were not addressed in the record. 25. In Washington State, ample provision for the education of children is a paramount duty of the state.' Subdivisions in Washington State are required to make appropriate provisions for the general welfare of the community, including provisions for schools and for safe walking conditions for school -aged children. RCW 58.17.110. Edmonds Community Development Code contains the same requirement. ECDC 20.75.020. The record does not contain comments from the school district. At the time of hearing it was not known which school facilities would serve children in the plat. No school impact fees were assessed for this project. Testimony of Mr: Clugston. 9 Washington State Constitution, Article 9, § 1. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 7 of 14 Packet Pg. 148 7.1.c 26. The City of Edmonds Planning Division undertook review of the proposal pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) at the time of site plan review by the Architectural Design Board. On May 7, 2007, the Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), which is a determination that the project would not result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The DNS was not appealed and became final on May 21, 2007. The DNS was based on an earlier iteration of the project consisting of 35 units in 11 buildings with a smallest proposed lot size of 1,473 square feet. On January 23, 2008, Planning Staff adopted the May 7, 2007 DNS for the purpose of subdivision review." Exhibit 3, Attachment 3, DNS, Testimony of Mr. Clugston; Exhibit 6. 27. The open record public hearing on the formal plat was advertised consistent with the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Exhibit 7, Testimony of Mr, Clugston. 28. The City received public comments expressing the following concerns: the Applicant did not enter the site into a City stormwater plan currently under review; lack of open space or recreational opportunities on -site; and lack of off-street parking for delivery drivers and guests. Testimony of Mr. Rutledge, Testimony of Mr. Hertrich. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide formal plat requests pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(B)(5). Criteria for formal plat review: Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.080 and ECDC 20.75.085, formal plats may be approved if the following findings can be entered: ECDC 20.75.080: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance, ECDC Chapter 20.75, and meets 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; D. The proposal meets all requirements of the ECDC relating to flood plain management. 10 Neither the May 7, 2007 DNS nor the January 23, 2008 Adoption of Existing Environmental Determination identify the materials reviewed in reaching the environmental threshold determination. The Applicant's traffic impact worksheet was submitted in November 2007 and the final stormwater management plan was submitted in March 2008, after the DNS was issued. Exhibit 3, Attachment 3; Exhibit 6,- Exhibit 8. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 8 of 14 Packet Pg. 149 7.1.c ECDC 20.75.085: 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. If the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly. 2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.. 3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. 4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate. C. Dedications. 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: Findings, Conclusions, andDecision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Plat No. P-2008-16 page 9 of 14 Packet 7Pg,715o 7.1.c a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements; b. ECDC Chapter 19.25, 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 E. Flood Plain. Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management. The ECDC criteria are similar to those set forth in the state subdivision statute. Section 58.17.110(2) of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) states as follows: A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: a. Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and b. the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. DISCUSSION The Multiple Residential district development standards table contains a column establishing the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. (See ECDC 16 30.030(A).) Footnote number four in the minimum lot area column directs the reader to: "See definition of townhouse" On the subject of lot area, the definition of townhouse says: Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site. Portions of the site not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the owners of the individual units. ECDC 21.100.040(E). The Applicant's proposal is based on a Planning Division policy allowing substandard lots in townhouse subdivisions. According to testimony, the Planning Division policy is based on an uncodifiied interpretation of the townhouse definition to mean that lot area may be reduced below the minimum established for the particular RM zone to be as small as proposed, so long as maximum gross density is not exceeded. This policy establishes no minimum lot size. On this theory, developers could propose 500 square foot or even smaller lots and lump excess site area into parking lots or other common areas and them would be no grounds for denial if the number Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Tovmhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 10 of 14 Packet 7pg1571 1 7.1.c of lots did not exceed the gross density calculated as available to the site. Such a policy assumes that the local government has no legitimate interest in dictating the smallest residential lot allowed. An alternative interpretation of the townhouse definition at ECDC 21.100.040(E) would be that townhouse lots may be 100% occupied by the residential structure; for example in the RM 1.5 zone, a 1,500 square foot lot would be allowed to be developed with a 1,500 square foot residential structure. Of note, the lot area subpart of the townhouse definition (quoted above in this discussion section) assumes that portions of a townhouse project site may not be encompassed within individual lots. Maximum site coverage (45 % in the RM zones) could be accomplished by retaining common areas not developed with structures. This alternative interpretation of the townhouse definition would assume townhouse lots are required to comply with the minimum lot area. The Planning Division policy requiring townhouse subdivision exterior setbacks (around the outer perimeter of the development window) to conform to the underlying zone's standards, but excusing internal front, rear, and street setbacks, has no basis in the zoning code. By the plain language of the definition, zero lot lines (called "common side walls joining units" in the townhouse definition) pertain only to side setbacks in attached dwelling units. The Planning Division policy creates a new kind of development — the townhouse subdivision — that is not established in the City Code and grants it similar flexibility as is provided in a planned residential development (PRD), which is expressly established in the City Code at ECDC 20.35. In Edmonds, PRD developments may modify the bulk dimensional standards of the underlying zoning district, subject to requirements to: 1) visually screen denser development from surrounding land uses and 2) provide a clear benefit to the public in exchange for design flexibility (among other requirements). Means of providing public benefit stated in the PRD provisions include, but are not limited to, preservation of on -site natural areas, provision of more open space or recreational opportunities than are required in the zone, and provision of additional transportation connections beyond the minimum required. ECDC 20.35. 040 and. 050. The Planning Division's townhouse subdivision policy would confer the benefits of a PRD (reduced bulk dimensional standards) without requiring the PRD's clear public benefit, screening, or review of an application seeking such modifications. The policy places the content of a definition (from the definitions chapter) in a position of higher importance than the development standard established in the zoning ordinance. Assuming no minimum lot size was contemplated by the Code's drafters is inconsistent with the plain language of both the zoning ordinance and the subdivision ordinance, as well as with the local government's legitimate interest in and obligation to regulate land use for the general welfare." The RM-1.5 zone already provides the smallest residential lot and densest residential development permitted in the City, at 29 units per acre. In order to approve even smaller lots, more explicit direction from the legislative body is necessary. ' ` See discussion of zoning as a legitimate exercise of police power, generally, in Edmonds Shopping Cm Assocs. v. City of Edmonds, 117 Wn. App. 344,352 (2003), citing Weden v_ San Juan County,135 Wa.2d 678,692 (1998). Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing _Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 11 of 14 Packet Pg. 152 7.1.c Conclusions Based on Findings: 1. The record does not contain evidence demonstrating consistency with several requirements established in ECDC 20.75.080 and .085. A. The record doesn't demonstrate compliance with the purposes of the City's subdivision ordinance. Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.020: "The purposes of this chapter are: A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land; B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways; C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements; D. To provide for proper ingress and egress; E. To require uniform monumentinp of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots." 2 1. To the extent that the record does not contain evidence of review of the following items, it is not possible to conclude that the proposal would be consistent with the purposes of the City's subdivision ordinance: traffic flow within the proposed development; compliance with City and State road standards regarding ingress/egress on SR 104 and access easement design; and adequacy of schools and parks/recreation facilities. The Examiner is also concerned that the proposed 35 substandard units accessed by a 24-foot wide access easement from a single ingress on SR 104 would constitute overcrowding. Findings Nos. 19, 20, 23, and 25. B. The proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance and no modification has been approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 20.75. 1. Criteria for subdivision approval explicitly require findings of compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, specifically with dimensional standards. ECDC 20. 75. 080(C) and ECDC 20. 75.085(B)(3). The minimum lot area in the RM-1.5 zone is 1,500 square feet. Of the 35 proposed lots, 17 would be smaller than 1,500 square feet, with the smallest lot at 1,123 square feet. 'Z These purposes are substantially the same as the purposes stated in the state's subdivision regulations in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.010, which begins with the preamble: "The legislature finds that the process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by cities, towns, and counties throughout the state. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion... (omitted) " (emphasis added) Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-200846 page 12 of 14 Packet Pg. 153 7.1.c 2. The Community Development Code defines a street as "the public or private right-of- way or access easement which provides vehicle access to five or more lots." ECDC 21.90.120 (emphasis added). Thus, for subdivision purposes, the proposed access easement is a street, and street setbacks must be provided on each lot." In the RM- 1.5 zone, the minimum street setback is 15 feet. ECDC 16.30.030(A). The proposed site plan provides no building setback from street lot lines, placing the access easement within the required street setback. 3. The subdivision code provides a process for modifications to the development standards of the underlying zone. The process requires notice, public hearing, and compliance with variance criteria. ECDC 20.75. 075. The Planning Division's uncodified townhouse policy nullifies and/or circumvents this process and is inconsistent with the purposes of the subdivision ordinance. Findings Nos. 9, 11, and 12. C. The record does not contain evidence showing the project can comply with the lot and street layout requirements at ECDC 20.75.085(B), (C), and (D). The record contains almost no information about the proposed internal access easement and no analysis of road standards with which it must comply. This access easement is the only means of vehicular and pedestrian access to 35 dwelling units containing 70 off-street parking spaces. According to testimony, the access is a `private driveway" comprised of an easement over privately owned property belonging to each lot. However, as stated above, it must be considered a street for subdivision lot layout purposes. ECDC 21.90.120. The townhouse definition cannot excuse projects from the requirement of providing street setbacks consistent with zoning standards. All subdivisions are required to set aside adequate land for roads, whether private or public. ECDC 20 75. 085(B) (3), (B) (4), (C) (3), (D) (1), and (D) (2)- As proposed, on garbage day, each unit's garbage cans would be moved into the access easement, fiirther complicating circulation. Morning peak hour conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles jockeying to exit garages that face each other across only 24 feet of roadway immediately adjacent to residential stuctures are foreseeable, as are guest and delivery vehicle parking in the fire lane. Findings Nos. 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18. D. The record contains no evidence upon which findings of compliance with public works and fire code requirements can be made. Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.085(D)(2), the Examiner is charged with determining the improvements necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of Chapter 18, Public Works, and 19.25 Fire Code." No evidence was offered and no findings may be entered. 13 Pursuant to ECDC 21..90.140, street setback means the minimum distance required by this code for a building or structure to be set back from the street lot line. 14 ECDC 20.75.085(D)(2)(b) refers to the Fire Code as being found in 19.75, which appears to be a typographical error. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 13 of 14 Packet Pg. 154 7.1.c 2. The record contains insufficient evidence to enter findings for consistency with the public health, safety, and general welfare. No analysis of open space or recreation impacts, road standards, schools or safe walking for school children, or water and sewer service availability was presented. The record contains no evidence that WSDOT was contacted about the new traffic proposed on the state roadway or that regulations relating to access to the State highway, if any, have been considered. The traffic worksheet in the record does not consider sight distance, access design requirements, vehicle queuing within the project, or queuing on SR 104 turning into the project. The project admittedly fails to address the guest, delivery vehicle, or third vehicle ownership parking that must be anticipated to accompany a 35-unit development. Parking in the fire lanes is entirely foreseeable. Based on the record presented, the project would not provide street setbacks between the structures and the right-of-way, creating 35 substandard lots, of which number 17 would be smaller than the minitpum lot allowed in the zone. The project as presented cannot be found to be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Findings Nos. 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, and 25. DECISION Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private access easement tract in a Multifamily Residential (R-M 21.5) zone at 23800 --- 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington is DENIED. DECIDED this 22"d day of May 2008. . Findings, Conclusions, curd Diecision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Arbor Court Townhomes Play No P-2008-16 Toweill Rice Taylor LLC City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners By: Sharon A. Rice page 14 of 14 Packet 7pg,155 7.1.c rh C. 1 ScJv CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER OFFICE OF THE REARING EXAMINER Cl[TY OF EDMONDS, WASFMGTON APPLICANT ) Steve Smith Development LLC } For a Formal Subdivision I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare: Case No. P-2008-16 DECLARATION OF SERVICE GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 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, 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 May 22, 20081 did serve a copy of the decision in case CU-2008-09 upon the following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail. Northwest Townhomes, LLC 1316 NE 80* Street, #203 Seattle, WA 98115 Steve Smith Development, LLC 9500 Roosevelt Way -NE, #300 Seattle, WA 98115 Jean Morgan Morgan Design Group LLC 11207 Fremont Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133 Roger Hertrich 1020 Puget Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Alvin Rutledge 7101 Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds, WA 98026 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 " Packet Pg. 156 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 7.1.c Clerk of the Edmonds City Council 121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 City of Edmonds Planning Division City of Edmonds Building Division City of Edmonds Engineering Division City of Edmonds Fire Department 1.21 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 i hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct: 1 €- DATED THIS day of MOLt42008 atu , Washington. $baron A. Rice Toweill Rice Taylor LLC Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington Packet Pg. 157 7.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER the 1S9" RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and appeals. AU person wishing to file or re§pond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should contact the Planning Division of the Development Services D artment or an attorne for further rocedural 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 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. TEWE LD TrS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The time limits for reconsideration and appeal run concurrently. For anneals 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 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. LAPSE OF APPROVAL 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). 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. Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 158 7.1.c Attachment 6 y �- MEMORANDUM Date: June 12, 2003 To: Interpretations File No. 2003-01 From: Steve Bullock Subject: Interpretation regarding Townhouse subdivisions: 4 Date Issued/Posted; JUNEX 2003 Effective Date: JULY9 2003 (unless appealed in a timely manner) The City has received a request far a formal interpretation regarding townhouse subdivisions. Code Sections: 21 100.040 Townhouse. f Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria: A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically; B. Common side walls -joining units; C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure; D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in the zoning code; E. Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site. Portions of the site not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the owners of the individual units: 21.60.050 Multiple dwelling. Multiple dwelling means a building or a group of buildings on the same site containing two or more separate dwelling units. (See also, Dwelling Unit.) Analysis: The townhouse section (ECDC 21.100.040) begins by indicating that a townhouse is a "multiple dwelling" that meets certain listed criteria. The "multiple dwelling" definition (ECDC 21.60.050) makes clear that dwelling units do not have to be attached in order to be considered multiple dwellings. While ECDC 21.100.040 sets forth a maximum number of dwelling units. (i.e., six units) that are allowed in a townhouse building, no minimum number of dwelling units allowed in such a building is specified. City of Edmonds cap Planning Division INTERPRETATION 2003. LD00194UN-43 L:ILISRARYTLANNINUECDC INT£RPREATI'ONSVNTERPRETATIONS LOGN1999 - Packet Pg. 159 7.1.c Additionally, subsections D and E of ECDC 21.100.040 imply that, in order to individually subdivide attached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines will be placed along party or common walls. However, for detached units in townhouse subdivisions, subsections D and E imply that flexibility exists to have internal lot lines placed either along the edge(s) of exterior walls of the dwelling units or anywhere between the dwelling units. For either attached or detached dwelling units in townhouse subdivisions, subsection E of ECDC 21.100.040 allows (a) residential density to be met for the overall project site rather than on a lot -by -lot basis for the individual lots to.be created by a proposed subdivision and (b) lot areas to be as small as the coverage of the proposed individual dwelling units. ECDC 21.100.040 does not directly discuss building setback reduction or elimination. However, in order for (a) lot areas to be able to be as small as dwelling unit lot coverage and (b) lot lines to be able to be placed (i) on common or party walls in the case of attached dwelling units or (ii) along the edge(s) of exterior walls of the dwelling units in the case of detached dwelling units, individual townhouse lots must be exempt from building setback requirements except in the case of required setbacks from a proposed townhouse subdivision's exterior property lines. Nothing in ECDC 21.100.040 suggests that townhouse subdivisions would be exempt from required setbacks from exterior property lines. In fact, the language of subsections D and E of ECDC 21.100.040 relating to lot coverage, lot area and density indicate an intent for a townhouse subdivision development to be considered as a whole with all of the bulk standards to be measured as if the property was not being subdivided. While the proposed garage appears to meet the bulk standards for developing an accessory building in the RS-12 zone, the definition of Accessory Building states that the garage must be incidental to the use of the main building on the property. Planning staff takes that to mean the garage must be built for andused by the primary use on the site. It can not be a storage facility for owners or tenants who do not act as the primary users of the site. THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING'II�ITERPRETATION�.ARE I lM—BY IS 1. ECDC 21.100.040 authorizes subdivision of multiple family developments provided that none of the proposed dwelling units in such a development will vertically overlap any of the other dwelling units. 2. The maximum number of dwelling units per building in a townhouse subdivision is six. 3. Because no minimum number of dwelling units is stated in ECDC 21100.040, a proposed development of detached dwelling units. may be subdivided as a townhouse subdivision. 4. In order to individually subdivide attached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines may be placed along party or common walls. 5. For detached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines may be placed along the edge(s) of exterior walls of the dwelling units or anywhere between the dwelling units. 6. Building setbacks need only be measured from a proposed townhouse subdivision's exterior property lines, not from the proposed interior lot lines.A permit for an accessory building may not be approved if the accessory building is not going to be used for the most part by the permitted primary use of the property. APPEAL PROCEDURES M 0 0 0 0 N a c a� E c m E a� 0 U c 0 .y rn 0 J Y co M 0 m Y V R !Z 0 m c •E c c,s a cc N •i CL a M x w c d M U 0 r a Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Sections 20.105.010 and 20.105.020, staff interpretations of the text of the ECDC are appealable decisions. Page 2 of 3 INTI;RPRETATION2oo3.1.1>0019-SUN-o3 - Packet Pg. 160 L:UBRARWLANNINGIECDC INT&RPREATIONS%INT£RPRETATIONS LOG11999 7.1.c Should anyone wish to appeal this interpretation, a written appeal, accompanied by the required appeal fee (see Planning Division fee handout) must be submitted within 14 calendar days .of the date of issuance of this interpretation (please see above). The deadline for filing an appeal of this interpretation is: A written appeal must contain the following: 1) A reference to the decision being appealed. 2) The name and address of the person appealing, and his or her interest in the matter. 3) The reasons why the person appealing believes the interpretation to be inappropriate. Concurrence: Cort��,urrence: Robe Chave, AICP Duane Bowman Planning Manager Development Services Director Posted: 1) Edmonds City Hall, 2nd Floor — Development Services Department 2) Edmonds Library 3) Edmonds Post Office Posting Date: 24 ec)3 Page 3 of 3 INTERPRETATION 2003-1.DOC919-JON-03 LALTHRARYIPLANNTNGMCDCRJTj:RPREAT]ONSSMERPRF.TATj0?%'5 WGU999 Packet Pg. 161 Q Packet Pg. 162 7.1.c I4MSEN Attachment 7 LAND SURVEYING*tM Q C I A 7" E 5 I N C CIVIL ENGINEERING - February 3, 2017 City of Edmonds Community Development Department Planning Division 121 51h Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Request for a Code Amendment to Create a new section ECDC 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision And to add Definitions to ECDC 20.75.030 And to Remove ECDC 21.100.040.E City Planner and Planning Board: 6 ECEIVE FEB 0 DEVELOPMENT ShVMROe_:-- M NTER In or around 2000, the City adopted an interpretation that Town House subdivision were permitted by the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) because ECDC 21.100.040.E provided instruction as to how to create such a subdivision. In this interpretation, lots could be created that were non -conforming to standards of ECDC title 16, but where the development as a whole conformed to the standards of ECDC title 16. Using that interpretation, the City approved several such subdivisions. Similar Codes that permit this type of development have been adopted by cities across our region as a response to a crisis in liability in the State Condominium law. For several reasons, the State condominium statute has created unusual liability for condominium developers. Small architecture firms and many builders can't get insurance to design and construct condos. When insurance is available, it is prohibitively expensive. This situation has artificially depressed the multiple family residential market at a time when our region is experiencing a housing crisis. In 2008, the then Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds denied an application for a townhouse subdivision and struck down the use of the Townhouse Subdivision interpretation. The discontinuance of the interpretation did not stem from a Y dissatisfaction with the process or results by staff, applicants or City residents. But rather was based on doubt expressed by the Examiner as to the legal adequacy of the use of an interpretation of a definition section to effect complete deviation from bulk standards. R 0 The solution to the Examiner's decision was either to appeal that decision as incorrect, or withdraw the interpretation and a) begin work on a new code to replace the Townhouse Subdivision interpretation and to replace the Townhouse S Subdivision definition that led to said interpretation. Neither the (then) applicant nor the City chose to appeal the Examiner's decision. a. (D Following said Hearing Examiner decision, the City withdrew the interpretation of Townhouse Subdivision and began to pursue a code amendment. The code amendment process has been tied to the overall code revision process. However, Q that process is large and has inherent issues that are slowing the process. In the meantime developers are having trouble Q moving forward with townhouse developments due to the problems with the State Condominium Statutes. C � x w In the 1980's the City of Seattle, adopted a Unit Subdivision Code. This code allows the creation of zero lot line lots that; can be as small as the footprint of a dwelling unit, so long as the overall development meets the bulk and development standards of the parent lot. This code has been very successful and has stood the test of time. Now, with the E condominium insurance crises, many jurisdictions are seeing the unit lot subdivision as solution to continue implementing r Q U:IUSeisgobnlUropboxlProjectsOMestgate Woods)code amendmen[tnarralive ooex ISLAND COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY SKAGIT COUNTY 840 SE 81h Avenue, Ste. 102 125 East Main Street, Ste. 104 603 South First Street Oak Harbor, Washington 98277 Monroe, Washington 98272 Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 tel: (360) 675-5973 / fax: (360) 675-7255 tel: (360) 794-7811 / fax: (360) 805-9732 tel: (360) 336-9199 / fax: (360) 982-2637 Anticipate / Understand / Guide / Deliver www.Harmseninc.com Packet Pg. 163 7.1.c Unit Subdivision Code Amendment Narrative February 3, 2017 their comprehensive plans in multiple family zones. Jurisdictions such as Kirkland, Redmond, and Snohomish County have adopted similar regulations. To create this code we propose to add a section to the subdivision code (ECDC 20.75.045). For coordination in the overall code several other amendments are needed. First ECDC 20.75.030 contains some definitions pertinent to subdivision. Two new definitions need to be added here. Second ECDC 21.100.040 is the existing definition of "Townhouse". Subsection E contains the directions for a Townhouse Subdivision. That section would be in conflict and should be deleted. And finally, since there is a "Townhouse" definition for vertically separated dwelling units, there should be a "flats" definition for horizontally separated dwelling units. I propose that definition as ECDC 21.30.032. As well as the unit subdivisions are working in other jurisdictions, there are some issues with each of the codes that have been adopted. In the proposed code amendment for the City of Edmonds we have addressed these issues: Issues of concern and addressed within Unit Subdivisions and proposals to address the issues: 1. How many units can be included in one unit lot? There is a new trend in real estate development and investment. That is for a developer to develop a multiple family site with several multiple unit buildings, then sell individual buildings to property management companies for future leasing of the individual units. The option to use the unit subdivision to separate multiple unit buildings within one development is not expressly prohibited or permitted by any of the effective codes being used by other jurisdictions. However, since it is not expressly prohibited, and is not contrary to the intent of the Unit Subdivision code of the Comprehensive Plan both Seattle and Snohomish County have permitted this. In Edmonds, this option would also not violate the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we have expressly permitted this option in this proposal to avoid future confusion. 2. A subdivision is a two dimensional division of land that implies ownership of everything above and below the two dimensional box described in the plat. Therefore, there can be no portions of any one unit that overhangs a portion of another unit. This excludes flats. Other codes are not clear in the exclusion of flats except by interpretation of definitions. We added a section to expressly exclude flats — except in the instance where a unit lot would contain an entire multiple family building. 3. The point made above in number 2 also creates a potential problem in exterior maintenance. When I asked a supervisor at the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) what is the one thing you would change with your unit subdivision code, this is it. In point 2 above I described the projection of the two- dimensional lot lines. When looking at the exterior of a building that is divided in this fashion, it might be hard to tell who owns what. Because of this, it is possible for owners to have trouble coming to an agreement over who maintains what. Therefore, I have added a section requiring a joint maintenance agreement for the exterior of the building(s). 4. A unit subdivision only works if it is associated with a development — either a development proposal or an existing development. As in no one can apply for a unit subdivision as a standalone the way a standard subdivision is applied for. This aspect of unit subdivision is not clear in other codes. In Seattle, this is enforced by interpretation. Snohomish County is still struggling with this issue and is now enforcing it through their Urban Residential Design Standards section. We created a section for this purpose. 5. In many jurisdictions (Redmond and Snohomish County are examples) access requirements are not tied to the type of development, but instead to the type of permit. Therefore, if a multiple family development is proposed with no unit subdivision, standard drive aisles and fire lines are required. However, if a subdivision is proposed, the regulations then require the installation of roads meeting a different standard. In Redmond's code this conflict is not addressed, and multiple family developments choosing to use a Unit Subdivision must either construct roads that are not appropriate for multiple family development (and don't comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan), or the applicant must apply for a road deviation — which the City has been approving. This was not the intent of Redmond's Unit Lot Subdivision. To insure that this result does not occur in Edmonds, we have added a section to clarify which regulations should apply. Packet Pg. 164 Unit Subdivision Code Amendment Narrative February 3, 2017 7.1.c 6. Both the City of Seattle and Snohomish County have a section discussing that this process creates non- conforming lots. Neither is explicit about how that impacts the future unit owner. Our proposal is more explicit about the impacts to future unit lot owners. Seattle required a notice to be recorded on the final Unit Lot Plat to ensure that future unit lot owners understand this impact. Other jurisdictions do not make this requirement. We believe that Seattle is right to require the notice to be recorded on the final Unit Lot Plat and have included that requirement in this proposed code amendment. The City of Seattle will not accept a Unit Lot final plat application until at least the development foundations are installed and the surveyor of record has located the foundations to ensure that the recorded lot line is set on the common wall. Snohomish County does not make this requirement. This requirement is not codified in the Seattle Code. It appears that Seattle makes this requirement based on experience. As a project manager, I have seen very few foundations installed precisely per plan, so Seattle's requirement makes sense to me. I asked four licensed land surveyors who have experience in construction staking what they thought of this. Two of them agreed that Seattle's condition makes sense. Two of them said that it should be up to the building inspector to require foundation staking in a unit subdivision. My impression is that requiring the foundations to be installed and verified by the surveyor prior to final plat is more foolproof than requiring the buildings to be staked and the inspector to verify. Therefore, I have added a section requiring that, at a minimum, development foundations are installed and located by the project licensed surveyor prior to the submittal of a final plat application. House Keeping Amendments: 1. Two Definitions should be added to ECDC 20.75.030: "Unit Lot Subdivision" and "Parent Lot" 2. With this addition, ECDC 21.100.040.E. the portion of the definition of Townhouse that give subdivisional direction should be removed. 3. ECDC 21.30.032 — Add a definition of "Flat(s)" Thank you for you considered review of this project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with any questions or concerns. Sincerely John Bissell, AICP Planning Director Harmsen Associates, INC. Packet Pg. 165 7.1.c Attachment 8 Unit Subdivision Code Amendments FEB 0 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. D. "Unit Lot Subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land for the purpose of allowing fee simple ownership of dwelling units where the bulk standards are tied to the parent lot (See ECDC 20.75.045). E. "Parent Lot" means the lot with legal lot status which creates the boundary of a development application in which the proposed_or_approved result is multiple lots. ECDC 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision (A New Section) A. Applicability and Purpose. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, rowhouse, cottage housing exclusively in zones that allow more than one dwelling unit per lot, and only for detached units and/or for units that are vertically separated with no element of any one unit over or below any element of any other unit except for exterior elements inherent to the building design or structure such as (but not limited to) eave overhangs, gutters and siding (see 20.75.045.F). Accessory dwelling units are specifically excluded from this section. Flats may only be included when the unit lot contains all dwelling units within one building. One unit subdivision lot may contain multiple dwelling units. B. Association With Site Development — Application Timing: A unit Lot Subdivision is a method of dividing ownership of the built environment. The application can only be associated with a development plan or an existing developed site. In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a development site plan as required by ECDC 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020.B.3 submitted conjunction with or subsequent to a building permit. C. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable to the parent lot (ECDC 20.75.030.E) at the time the permit application is vested. As a result of the unit lot subdivision, the individual unit lots may result in different bulk standards than those Packet Pg. 166 7.1.c required by ECDC Title 16, Access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn arounds and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street shall be based on the requirements of the site plan for the parent lot, and not based on standards for a subdivision. D. Future Additions and Modifications Due to 20.75.045.13 future additions, or modifications to the development may affect only the unit lot, or may affect the development as a whole. Changes requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated as to compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes may affect the permitting for the original development of the parent lot (ECDC 20.75.030.E). In such cases, additions, or modifications to the development will be evaluated within the boundaries of the parent lot from which the unit lot was created. Any application for such changes will require authorization of all owners within the parent lot. E. Access Easements and Parking Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as but not limited to recreation space, common courtyard open spaces for cottage housing and other open space), and other similar features, and shall be recorded on the final Unit Lot plat. . F. Maintenance Agreements Joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. The joint maintenance agreement shall require equal participation by all owners within any one building. The joint maintenance agreement shall be recorded on the final Unit Lot plat This requirement does not apply to detached single family dwelling units. G. Parking on different Unit Lots Allowed: Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is Packet Pg. 167 7.1.c formalized by an easement on the final plat. H. Notice of Unit Lot on Final Plat The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the final plat. 1. An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be accepted until, at minimum all foundations are installed and located by the land surveyor of record. 21.30 "F" Terms. 21.30.032 "Flat(s)" means multiple family dwelling unit(s) that are horizontally separated -i.e: stacked above and/or below each other. 21.100.040 Townhouse. ................................. Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria: A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically; B. Common side walls joining units; C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure; D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in the zoning code; E. ot area nnr snit as the GOVerage of the individ, -aPjn4-, se long aoveral-iensily-rneets"-ep,4h"te- Portions t e city ubdivided`#or indwic#t�akmts shall--he-held A-ssmmoF�4y-th-ewaearef-ti'ae-iAdiVid "flits- 41 m U M a L 0 m a� c c a (O N �L Q. Q M K W r-� C N E M U M r r Q Packet Pg. 168 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page I of 16 7.1.c Attachment 9 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. 20.75.020 Purposes. 20.75.025 Scope. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. 20.75.035 Compliance required. 20.75.040 Application. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application. 20.75.055 Lot combination. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit. 20.75.075 Modifications. 20.75.080 General findings. 20.75.085 Review criteria. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit. 20.75.105 Repealed. 20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. 20.75.110 Changes. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. 20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. 20.75.175 Court review. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. 20.75.185 Penalties. 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW. 20.75.020 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are: Packet Pg. 169 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 2 of 16 7.1.c A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land; B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways; C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements; D. To provide for proper ingress and egress; E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots 20.75.025 Scope. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW 58.17.040, including but not limited to: A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots; B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent; C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter. Divisions under subsections A and B of this section will not be recognized as lots for building purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term lot includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term sale includes lease gift or development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to "subdivision" is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short subdivision" unless one or the other is specified. B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots. C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots. 20.75.035 Compliance required. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter. 20.75.040 Application. Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development director on forms provided by the community development department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly Packet Pg. 170 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 3 of 16 7.1.c requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002: A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the community development department; B. Title report; C. A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option; D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC; E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the applicant; F. Source of water supply and name of supplier; G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used; H. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983]. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division. B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter. C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will: 1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division; 2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before; 3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone; 4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division; Packet Pg. 171 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 4 of 16 7.1.c 5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC. D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the city and shall at a minimum contain the following information: 1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the plans shall include the following: a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s); b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements; c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements; d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements); e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s); f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet. 2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing: a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted; b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in the parcel(s); c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number; d. Any encumbrances on the property; and e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property. E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable cause. G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 63, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 1998]. Packet Pg. 172 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 5 of 16 7.1.c 20.75.055 Lot combination. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, or nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this code in effect at the time of said combination. B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments. C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director finds that the combination of lots would: 1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or 2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined, negatively impact compliance with the city's urban density requirements as established pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish County planning policies. D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working days of mailing of the decision and posting thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000]. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by-1 1 -inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat: A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision; B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision; C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map; D. A vicinity sketch; E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number; F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot; G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any; Packet Pg. 173 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 6 of 16 7.1.c H. Lot dimensions and numbers; I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site; J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the owners of adjacent property; K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the community development director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision; L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of existing and proposed streets; M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any; N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director; O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to be removed; P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas; Q. A statement of improvements to be installed; R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and areas subject to flooding; S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division; T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the proposed subdivision; U. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.1. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. A. Responsibility for Review. The community development director, or a designated planning staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise. Packet Pg. 174 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 7 of 16 7.1.c B. Notice of Hearing. 1. When the director of community services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the following for a formal subdivision: a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days prior to the hearing. b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city. c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county boundary. d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to a state highway right-of-way. e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a location description in nonlegal language. C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of filing. D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of community services shall review a short subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the community development director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 19831. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included within said 90 days. [Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010]. 20.75.075 Modifications. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the requested modification. Packet Pg. 175 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 8 of 16 7.1.c B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification. C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. [Ord. 3211 § 6, 1998]. 20.75.080 General findings. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved: A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter. B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest. C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter. D. Flood Plain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to flood plain management. [Ord. 2466, 19841. 20.75.085 Review criteria. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions: A. Environmental. 1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact. 2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography. 3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as 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. If the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly. Packet Pg. 176 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 9 of 16 7.1.c 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. 3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat. D. Improvements. 1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities. 2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of: a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements; b. Chapter 19.75, 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. [Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998; Ord. 2466, 1984]. Packet Pg. 177 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 10 of 16 7.1.c 20.75.090 Park land dedication. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final plat of any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes. B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion of the land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu fees is required unless dedication is proposed and approved. C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision. D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of adjacent land. E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit. A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing examiner is appealed to the Edmonds city council and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the city council or judiciary. B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if preliminary short plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2014, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. The time period for short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 3925 § 1, 2013]. 20.75.105 Extensions of time. Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 19831. 20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Short plats that received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006, and would have expired prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall have their preliminary Packet Pg. 178 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 11 of 16 7.1.c approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section. Preliminary approval of such short plats shall expire and have no further validity at the end of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. Notice of the two- year extension from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be provided to the parties of record of such preliminary short plats. [Ord. 3925 § 2, 2013]. 20.75.110 Changes. A. Preliminary Plats. The community development director may approve as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of approval. If the proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of correction. [Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009]. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval, allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval. B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a licensed engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines that engineer plans are not necessary. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the final plat is submitted for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to guarantee the completion of the improvements within one year of the approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC. C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two years from the date of acceptance. D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the community development director determines that installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short Packet Pg. 179 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 12 of 16 7.1.c subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots created by the subdivision. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance with the following: A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or supervise the preparation of, the final plat. B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s). C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners, boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land, and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public works director. D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats. 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections A through G of this section shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review. Subsection G is required for formal subdivision only. A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with: 1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision; 2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed; 3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided. B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they have notice of the subdivision. C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public, acknowledged by a notary. D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required improvements. E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner of direct access to any street from any property. Packet Pg. 180 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 13 of 16 7.1.c F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be dedicated to the public. G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate. H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works: 1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of -way, design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures; 2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council, or approving the final plat of a short subdivision. I. Community Development Director. The following statements to be signed by the community development director: 1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of the preliminary approval; 2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council or approving the final plat of a short subdivision. J. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and city clerk that the city council has approved the final plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedication. K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments for which the land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been paid. 20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat: A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each check or recheck of the final plat. B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or re- established corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet. C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and shown on the final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ _ .................. Packet Pg. 181 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 14 of 16 7.1.c The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines. If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998]. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. ............. ..... A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required improvement plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works. B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for correction within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include required environmental review. C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community development director shall review the final plat of a formal subdivision. They shall then forward the final plat to the city council for a Type IV -A decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140 or attaching their recommendation for disapproval. D. City Council Review. If the city council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval in this chapter have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall sign the statement of the city council approval on the final plat. E. Acceptance of Dedication. City council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 19941. 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. The community services director, through his/her designees, the director of public works and the community development director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 3736 § 68, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor and the community development department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered "approved" until so filed with the county auditor. Packet Pg. 182 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 15 of 16 7.1.c 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the purposes allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat for record, even if the property is rezoned; provided that all requirements of the community development code, other than lot area, are met. 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the requirements of this chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord. 2623 § 1, 19871. 20.75.175 Court review. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of Snohomish County. The action may be brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The cost of transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless: (1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not meet the definition for "lot of record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall comply with the city's development regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding nonconforming lots. A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of record" status for a parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this status, the applicant must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that: 1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in question. If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the innocent purchase status may not be granted; 2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction; 3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative; 4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject parcel as a separate lot; and Packet Pg. 183 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 16 of 16 7.1.c 5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the applicant. B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already been constructed. C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 3982 § 3, 2014]. 20.75.185 Penalties. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's fees. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4056, passed December 6, 2016. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. Packet Pg. 184 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Page 1 of 4 7.1.c Attachment 10 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Sections: 16.30.000 Purposes. 16.30.010 Uses. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. 16.30.030 Site development standards. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. 16.30.000 Purposes. ......... The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.010 Uses. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; 3. Retirement homes or congregate care facilities, assisted living facilities; 4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state -licensed group homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city; 5. Boarding houses and rooming houses; 6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC; 7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. Packet Pg. 185 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Page 2 of 4 7.1.c 1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single-family dwelling; 2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The following accessory uses: a. Private parking, b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities, c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in total; 4. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Offices, other than local public facilities; 2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Day-care centers and preschools for 13 or greater children; 4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums, and assisted living facilities; 5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 7. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Day-care facilities or preschools of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential portion of a multifamily residential dwelling primary permitted structure operated primarily for the benefit of the residents thereof; 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. [Ord. 3988 § 8, 2015; Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. ...... ._ Packet Pg. 186 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Page 3 of 4 7.1.c There are established four subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site development standards for areas which differ in topography, location, existing development and other factors. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.030 Site development standards. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Table. Minimum Lot Area Minimum Minimum Minimum Subdistrict Per Dwelling Unit3 Street Side Rear Maximum Maximun Height Coverage (Sq. Ft.) Setback Setback Setback RM-1.5 1,500 15' 10, 15' 251 45% RM-EW 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25A 45% RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10, 15' 261 45% RM-3 3,000 15' 15' 15, 25,1 45% 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. 3 See definition of townhouse. 4 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 35 feet if the following apply to the site and proposed development: Y U M (a) At least two of the following techniques shall be incorporated into the building and/or site's design: a L (1) Achievement of at least LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification; m a� (2) Inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at low/moderate income as determined by Snohomish County Tomorrow. The number of affordable units must be at least 15 percent of the gross number of units proposed; a W N (3) Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but a are not limited to: bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil Q quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. M K w B. See Parking (Chapter 17.50 ECDC), Design Review (Chapter 20.10 ECDC), and Sign Code c (Chapter 20.60 ECDC) for additional standards. The following design standards shall also apply to E buildings within the RM-EW zone: c� 1. Seventy-five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with Q preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they Packet Pg. 187 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Page 4 of 4 7.1.c replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous. C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. .......................... ... ......... ....... ............... ... . A. Maximum height for accessory structures is 15 feet. B. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050. C. Setback Encroachments. 1. Eaves and chimneys and bay windows, utility lines and meters, and "similar minor improvements," etc., may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches. 2. Except as authorized by subsection (C)(3) of this section, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30 inches above the ground level at any point. 3. In the RM — Edmonds Way zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may occupy up to one-half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way; provided, that these structures or uses are located no more than 20 feet above the ground level at any point. D. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street setbacks shall be side setbacks. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3652 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4056, passed December 6, 2016. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. u http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.html Packet Pg. 188 3/15/2017 With No Unit Subdivision 7.1.d Packet Pg. 189 With Unit Subdivision 0 Awl 0 il U) m 0 1 -j D CO Cl) Q CL C14 CL CL x w (D E Packet Pg. 190 With r- No Unit Subdivision i E E a 0 U 0 �a 0 cn 0 J r w Cl) O N ,z a le x W t V a a Packet Pg. 191 With Unit Su bdivision PA MA # ; r— rFv imnr— Ad ..� w Cl) O N I — a a w N SZ a le x W r Q Packet Pg. 192 ��. r �� 'Ra' K��'i• t� '�}� �s ice'Ilk • .fir ..�f - _ .� •".,�_ _ ?. y',r� } 'fin ' � � ^ `ins a�'r• � -� 'JE 40 'C� �� • ` ... }� . � by � w.+_ � f �• �•: .� ��(,� f Ir�r� - 4•-. - fir• - "Q - 34'' �•.'%. rtS i'�'-. .t�'<-. ."fir': � .i� : 1.:: __':�'� '�$'ti-�'1� � . -r .? ='r" ' .:y ..�'+�-'yam 'rrX. u--- • �__x �.: 3�:1C3`��;:. ^_:sue:`:. '.r _ . : t`�� NO�? r. _ c:s _ - �'P• _ _%'-F'-� �� 'r--%; �5. i' .,�y �•'.. :Y_�. -.vim .� •'Li uI.-..� _ ..ti��, `��.,,� '.�. �;?� -_ - '� �C �i� +lr. { �: Cam. :'•� - 'L• �� 'L]FViEi s'^.4Y ��`-�` _ yi=-.-.i..;,acS?"`_ ^;�. - - •.� �y :`�- :ci:: _. '' ��;. 1. .�'�'�� •�' _:1::�+r:-�--.Pt.:v'u4+t�5.�1.�r��.T.aa�.... �:�-3�.s,.�r. s�.J�� ... _.. �.... _,.. _ [. ��: •�•:r. .._ � .. .. i`�='7t.- -' --�'.".•�-_x::�=:: OW7* \-00 ill Ii I 7.1.e MBAKS.COM I 01HO 425.451.7920 I 1Ak 425.646.5985 335 116TH AVENUE SE I BELLEVUE; WASHINGTON 98004 April 24, 2017 Edmonds Planning Board City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions Dear Board Members, On behalf of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties I am writing to express support for the unit lot subdivision code amendments currently before you. Unit Lot Subdivisions (also often referred to as Fee Simple) are an important tool to home builders in creating home ownership opportunities. The expense and hurdles associated with creating condominiums often precludes a builder from developing that product. It is important to note that there is no physical difference in the homes being produced. In essence, fee simple code is a legal overlay which leads to the same product, but more efficiently produced and with the benefit of ownership opportunity. All the standards that citizens of Edmonds value remain unchanged. Several other jurisdictions in our region have adopted fee simple, unit lot subdivision codes and have done so successfully. We thank you for your consideration of unit lot subdivision code changes and encourage your support. Sincerely, AT'�;k� Mike Pattison Snohomish County Manager Packet Pg. 195 7.1.f Clugston, Michael From: Chave, Rob Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 3:02 PM To: Cunningham, Diane; Clugston, Michael Subject: FW: Unit Lot Subdivision Code From: Nordling Rubenkonig, Carreen (Planning Board) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:43 PM To: Hope, Shane; Chave, Rob Cc: Nathan Monroe (Planning Board) Subject: FW: Unit Lot Subdivision Code From: Carreen Rubenkonig [carreennrubenkonig@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:40 PM To: Hope, Shane; Nordling Rubenkonig, Carreen (Planning Board) Subject: Fwd: Unit Subdivision Code Alas, this arrived this morning which was too late for last night's Planning Board meeting. I believe his comments are relevant to review of the Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment by City Council. Since it was addressed to me personally, I could ask Rob Michel-- or you could --if this letter could be included in the packet for City Council. Carreen Carreen N. Rubenkonig 0 425-275-2973 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- r L a From: Rob Michel <rwmichel nwlink.com> °- Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:28 AM Subject: Unit Subdivision Code ° L To: Carreen Rubenkonig <carreennrubenkoni mail.com> a� Hi Carreen: Z I am unable to attend the meeting tonight but would like to put some thoughts down for you to consider since I am one of the very few who had the privilege to develop some unit lot subdivisions in Edmonds. I developed both detached and co attached units in the RM 2400 zone. Some of these developments are 10 years old and looking good in the community. w 1. The Main reason I developed the unit lot subdivision was to provide individual ownership to mostly new young families r E including my niece! Affordable housing for first time home buyers. Condominiums were the only other way for these first time home buyers to have any kind of individual ownership but the financing became difficult and more expensive as many condominiums failed to keep up with maintenance and other Q regulatory requirements. Condominium associations found themselves dealing with foreclosures and mounting delinquent monthly dues. 2. Detached homes allowed more air and landscaping between structures in stead of the massive 30 foot tall single structure. This allowed individual yard area for children to play in a safe environment. Also it gave us the opportunity to have multiple house styles and paint colors in one development. Packet Pg. 196 7.1.f 3. Important to have multiple types of development available to make development attractive to developers. If I think of more I will let you know. Thank you for your consideration. Best to you, Rob Packet Pg. 197 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Report on construction bids for the 238th Street Walkway Project (Edmonds Way to SR99) (10 minutes) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History None. Staff Recommendation Reject all construction bids and re -advertise the project in fall 2017 or early 2018. Place the item on the consent agenda for action at the May 16th Council meeting. Narrative This project involves the installation of approximately 1000 feet of sidewalk on the north side of 2381n Street between Edmonds Way (SR 104) and SR99. The project will fill in the gaps in the existing pedestrian infrastructure, install a mid -block crossing with a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon, and install minor associated stormwater improvements. The project also includes an alternative bid that would install a sidewalk in the traffic island at the intersection of 238t" Street and Edmonds Way. The project costs are being funded by a Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grant and City Stormwater funds. On May 2, 2017, the City received two construction bids for the project. The apparent low bid of $505,022 was from Kamins Construction Company, and the next low bid of $523,535 was from Welwest Construction. Both bids exceed the engineer's estimate of $376,430 as well as the entire project budget for the year. The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Staff recommends rejecting both construction bids and re -advertising the project in fall 2017 or early 2018. Advertising the project during fall/winter should result in more contractors bidding the project and receiving lower prices to build the project. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Bid Summary Packet Pg. 198 9.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS Es , g90 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) PROJECT No.: E6DA City No.: c485 Bid Date: 5/2/2017 Bid Time: 2:00pm Engineer's Estimate: $376,430 CONTRACTOR BID TOTAL 1 Kamins Construction Company $505 022 2 Welwest Construction $523,535 3 4 5 6 7 c O 'm O M O N R E E 3 co m Packet Pg. 199 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with BHC Consultants for the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) (10 minutes) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On April 5, 2016, Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement with BHC Consultants for the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project (3rd to 9th Ave.) Staff Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the May 16th Council meeting. Narrative The City completed a drainage study for the North Shellabarger Sub basin. The results of the study show that various drainage pipe improvements will be needed in order to address drainage issues along Dayton St and throughout the rest of the study's basin. In addition, Water and Sewer comprehensive plans completed in 2010 and 2013 respectively show the need for replacement and/or upsizing of utilities in the downtown core either due to age, increased maintenance needs and/or additional flow needs. Since there is a need to replace/upgrade most of the utilities along the Dayton St alignment, City staff has concluded that a comprehensive utility replacement project be completed along Dayton St from 3rd to 9th. The supplement adds the following tasks: Design and specifications of sidewalk improvements for missing link located on Dayton Street between 7th Avenue and 81h Avenue. Bid documents related to the work described above. The total cost of Supplement #1 is $29,220 and will be funded via a Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) complete streets grant. The Supplemental Agreement is attached. Attachments: BHC Supplemental Agreement Packet Pg. 200 Original Contract No. 6785 Supplemental Agreement 1 No. CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 1215T"_ AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA - 425-771-0220 - FAX MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov +' C d i o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 0) as Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9t" Ave) WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and BHC Consultants, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9tn Ave) project, dated May 3, 2016; and WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of May 3, 2016 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $496,800 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $29,220 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $526,020 ($496,800 plus $29,220). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. Packet Pg. 201 9.2.a DONE this CITY OF EDMONDS Bv: Mayor David O. Earling day of , 20 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC By: Title: S:\Staff\Megan\Engineering AdminTROJECTS\E5JB.Dayton St. Utility Replacement 3rd to 9th\BHC.Supp l.doc Packet Pg. 202 9.2.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: SAStaffNegan\BngineeringAdmin\PROJECTST5JB.DaytonSt. Utility Replacement 3rdto9th\BHC.Suppl.doc Packet Pg. 203 9.2.a EXHIBIT A CITY OF EDMONDS DAYTON STREET UTILITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT (3RD AVE to 9th AVE) AMENDMENT NO. 1 SCOPE OF CONSULTANT SERVICES March 27, 2017 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT The City of Edmonds informed the Consultant that the City had recently received funds for sidewalk improvements along Dayton Street between 7th Avenue South and 8th Avenue South. This amendment is for the design services to prepare plans, specifications, and an engineer's opinion of probable construction costs for those proposed sidewalk improvements as well as updating the Storm Water Compliance Report to include the new improvements. The sidewalk improvements will be included as part fo the construction documents for the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project. This amendment includes the following revisions to Tasks 020 and 040. TASK 020 — DESIGN The following efforts are added to the scope of services for Task 20. 1. Update Storm Water Compliance Report The Consultant will review the storm water requirements applicable to the project for the additional sidewalk improvements and coordinate with other team members, as required, to address Minimum Requirement #5, Onsite Storm Water Management, for LID BMPs. The Consultant will then update the Storm Water Compliance Report to incorporate Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 from the Department of Ecology's 2014 Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington. 2. Final Design and Preparation of Bid Documents: The Consultant will prepare and deliver design plans, specifications, opinions of probable construction cost, and bid documents for the proposed sidewalk improvements along Dayton Street between 71h Avenue South and 8th Avenue South in accordance with the attached scope from KPG (Exhibit A-1) and as shown on the attached Exhibit A-2 as part of the deliverables for the remainder of the project. The fee estimate is based on the following drawing/sheet list: • One Detail Sheet • One Site Preparation Sheet • One Sidewalk Restoration Plan and Profile Sheet • 1 Driveway Plan and Profile Sheet Deliverables Revised Storm Water Compliance Report (2 hard copies, 1 PDF). 60% and 90% Design Submittal: Half size (11 "xl7") Drawing Set, Specifications and Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (Two hard copies of each, 1 PDF of each) Bid Document Submittal: Signed Half size (11 "xl7") and signed full size (22"x34") Drawing Sets, signed Specifications, and Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (One hard copy of each, 1 PDF of each) March 27, 2017 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 204 9.2.a City of Edmonds Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project Amendment No 1 Scope of Services Project Assumptions Exhibit A • The topographic survey previously provided by the City is sufficient for grading driveways at private properties. • The proposed sidewalk improvements will encroach into the street, remaining completely within the existing right of way. • No temporary construction easements will be required to complete the design and construction of the proposed sidewalks. • The City shall be responsible for obtaining rights -of -entry as necessary, for sidewalk improvements to match into existing grades at the edge of the right-of-way. • City standard details and WSDOT standard plans will be supplemented with project specific details as required. • Specifications will be based on the 2016 WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications, using the City's General Special Provisions (GSPs) provided by the City. TASK 040 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT The following efforts are added to the scope of services for Task 040. 1. Project Management: Provide project management, coordination and administration throughout the project in support of the additional activity. In addition, this task is amended to include the Consultants efforts to develop the contract amendment. Deliverables • Amendment No. 1 scope and budget. Project Assumptions • The 60% submittal schedule will be adjusted to reflect the timing of the additional activity, but the targeted 90% submittal date for the original scope will remain the same. Budget The budget for Amendment No. 1 is $29,220 (see Exhibit B for detail), raising the total project budget to $526,020. Schedule Given the timing of this amendment, the target date for the 60% design submittal may need to be adjusted to accommodate the additional activities. The Consultant will increase the previously planned effort to maintain the targeted 90% design submittal date. The Consultant will commence design activities for the proposed sidewalk upgrades immediately upon receipt of a signed contract amendment or other agreeable written authorization. Attachments: • Exhibit A-1: KPG, Inc. Scope of Services (dated March 20, 2017) • Exhibit A-2: Limits of Proposed Sidewalk (dated March 2017) • Exhibit B: Amendment No. 1 Budget (dated March 27, 2017) March 27, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 205 9.2.a Exhibit A-1 BHC Consultants Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project Supplement No. z — Final design Services for Side walk improvements Scope of Work A. Background Information The City of Edmonds has received funds for sidewalk in -fill improvements between 7''' Avenue S and 8"' Avenue S. This supplemental agreement is for final design services to prepare plans, specifications, and engineer's estimate for the sidewalk improvements between 7" and 8" Avenue, including updating the Stormwater Compliance Report to include evaluating the new improvements with the thresholds set forth by the DOE 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). Project Assumptions: Topographic survey provided is sufficient for grading driveways at private properties No temporary construction easements will be required City shall provide rights -of -entry for sidewalk improvements to match into existing grades at the right-of-way line Task 1— Management f Administration / Coordination 1,2 The Consultant shall prepare and attend up to two (2) additional team meetings with BHC andyor the City during the development of the proposed sidewalk improvements. 1.3 The Consultant shall provide internal quality assurance/quality control (QAJQC) reviews of all work products prior to submittal for City review. Task 3 — Stormwater Compliance Report 3.3 The Consultant shall review the stormwater requirements applicable to the project for the additional sidewalk improvements between 7'" and 814 Avenue S and coordinate with Landau Associates for Minimum Requirement #5, ❑n-Site Stormwater Management, far LI❑ BMPs. 3.4 The Consultant shall update the Stormwater Compliance Report to incorporate Minimum Requirements #1- #S from the DOE SWMMWW, 2014. Task 3 Deliverables r Revised Stormwater Compliance Report (2 hard copies, 1 PDF) for sidewalk improvements Task 4 — Final Design Review 4.1 The Consultant will prepare 60% Plans (scale 1"=20') to be included in BHC plan set for review and approval by the City. Plans will be formatted to provide sufficient detail for convenient field layout of all proposed facilities. City standard details and WSDOTstandard plans will be supplemented with project specific details as required. Plan information will include; City of Edmonds Dayton Street Utility Rehabilitation Project Supplement No. 1 Sidewalk Improvements KPG Scope of Work REV. March 20, 2017 Packet Pg. 206 Exhibit A-1 9.2.a ❑ Details ❑ Site Preparation Plans • Sidewalk Restoration Plans R Driveway Plans 4.2 The Consultant will prepare 90% Plans to be included in 6HC plan set for review and approval by the City. Plans will be formatted to provide sufficient detail for convenient field layout of all proposed facilities. City standard details and WSDOT standard plans will be supplemented with project specific details as required. It is anticipated that the final design drawings will include the following sheets: ❑ 1 Detail sheet ❑ 1 Site Preparation Sheet ❑ 1 Sidewalk Restoration Plan and Profile Sheets ❑ 1 Driveway Plan and Profile Sheets ❑ 4 Total Sheets 4.3 The Consultant shall prepare Bid Documents for 6HC package to the City. 4.4 The Consultant shall prepare 90% and Final Special Provisions for restoration work to be incorporated into the project specifications by 6HC far review and approval by the City. Specifications will be based on 2016 WSDOT/ APWA standard specifications, using City General Special Provisions (GSPs) provided by the City. 4.5 The Consultant will calculate quantities and prepare construction cost estimates in support of the 60%, 90% and Final Plans and Specifications. Task 4 Deliverables r 60% Review Submittal: Half Size Plans (11"x17") PDF files, CAD files for layouts, Cost Estimate, PDF file r 90% Review Submittal: Half Size Plans (11"x17") PDF fifes, CAD files for layouts, Specifications, word format, Cost Estimate, PDF file Bid Documents: Half Size Plans (11"x17") PDF files, Full Size (22"x34") PDF files, Specifications, word format, Cost Estimate, PDF file City of Edmonds Dayton Street Utility Rehabilitation Project Supplement No. 1 Sidewalk Improvements 2 KPG Scope of Work REV: March 20, 2017 Packet Pg. 207 Exhibit /f -! 9.2.a FEE SUMMARY Project: City of Edmonds IKPC t Architecture � Landscape Archiw Lure • Civil Enginearing • Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project Supplement No. 1 - Final Design Services for Sidewalk Improvements REV; March 21, 2017 Description Estimated Fee Task 1 - Project Management 1 Coordination / Administration $2,948.97 Task 3 - Stormwater Assessment Report $3,369.14 Task 4 - Finai Design $15.510.77 Total Estimated Fee $21,828,89 City of Edmonds Dayton Street Utility Project Hour and Fee Estimate KPG 312112 017 Packet Pg. 208 9.2.a O 2 a N m M• � m Y F' 4 O d /L N Cd CV tV ry❑ LA Ci LL T KQ1 LLQ'] LLQ"� r � ry w w to n n w N N n w w w n 0 w � w w �1 3 7,4 0 x IV N N n n '= r N❑ H 00 O a OONC N V ti N N I �mM qL U � D a o alo O m mLY 6 6 °� u0 Vl T -y r � o o � ❑ Y M � iU ❑ W � � Q C 0 w wh v � W C ^p I �nn ❑.� o e o oa a ❑ cs c7 0❑ v o N pq y) �mmC4 car ma I N ry�N. v rvNVN m N w w i I m n v r. o m n �•' r a M M ❑❑ ❑�c i o Q��aa N v ao U in w � w m �. dries >^'o s = m ❑ m m IC 1- x'.r-. a .o w ` a o u 3 H orb m a r s a F t- a c c F SSS gi F ❑ w �j o o m� �� o. a� n `° a�a � .a m m F ❑ _ a c m m ti m EFu y ul °` [ c m_ c d m o m n y C1 L N7 y C L O� w Q c h pp S gIm 32 O rI � � = II to 1 a L m'� a 'To wmi°'mm w m ¢1� h ❑ Y a a a` C- a en W If A ^1r nM alev(� r A N Packet Pg. 209 k 2 / S a 8§ a s' § \$ (m _! G m k § q §§ K Ln j\) </ ]G \ $ \ k b 0 - 3 ; E § i E � ] � A § / 5 ) § a o {2 2 k �m n « « §£ a 2; 7 k� C / 2 /' _ a a/} 2 12 \ \ / E \ W. 0 \ w c� k� » �� m % o I > \ g % /�/ / k' � Gcm & co% o k9; ¢£� D3�� e z E. Q: R ] o % { I in � L . � ° _ e a: A }\ - \» 2,E $/w E 00 JG= Packet Pg. 210 C6 C2 prefimin"'Iry concepf A 2 VA#TS 04c PkOflOS90 SiDfVJ*Gk ** 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — p-J LU > -Ohl -------------- ---------------------- AIL ReV►l VA PLAN 0 10 20 40 60 KAI:- N FEET-� -. -A JML- - VJ C7 �52 CAMPBEL, 4MWY F C E co tic E(D C 0 E Qi CL - - -- - - - - - - - - U) XVC6 201j EXHIBIT B - BUDGET City of Edmonds Dayton Street Utility Replacement Amendment No. 1 Budget 16-10445.00 Date: March 27, 2016 2015 Labor Rate Billing Rate Proj. Mgr Tony F. Project Engr Jordan Z. Staff Engr. Kranti M. CAD/GIS Glenn C. Accounting Uma P. $110.00 BHC Total Subconsultants Budget $214.00 $158.00 $142.00 $109.00 $145.00 hours expenses cost KPG BHC Markup Cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost hours cost Task 020: Design Sidewalk Improvements (7th Ave to 8th Ave; Subtotal 2.0 $4281 2.0 $428 10.0 $1,580 $1,580 4.0 $568 4.0 $568 4.0 4.0 $436 $436 0.0 $0 $0 20.0 20.0 $60 $3,072 $3,072 $21:829 $21829 $2,183 $27,084 10.0 $60 $2,183 $27,084 Task 040: Project Management Amendment 1/Coordinate with Team 4.0 $856 6.0 $948 $0 0.0 $0 2.0 $290 12.0 $42 $2,136 $0 $2,136 Subtotal 4.0 $856 6.0 $948 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 2.0 $290 12.0 $42 $2,136 $0 $0 $2,136 Total Budget 6.0 $1,284 16.0 $2,528 4.0 $568 4.0 $436 2.0 $290 32.0 $102 $5,208 $21,829 $2,183 $29,220 Attachment: BHC Supplemental Agreement (2034 : Dayton Street Design (3rd - 9th) - Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement) 9.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Presentation of a Complete Streets Grant Agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) (10 minutes) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History None. Staff Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the May 16th Council meeting Narrative The City secured a Complete Streets grant through the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Program in the amount of $250,000. The intent of this program is to fund Complete Streets improvements for non -motorized transportation / transit users. The selected project is the completion of a missing sidewalk link on the south side of Dayton St. from 71" Ave to 81" Ave (identified as #1 ranked project in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan). Upon completion of the project, Dayton St. will have sidewalks on both sides of the street along this stretch. This project is being combined with the Utility Improvements project along Dayton St. from 3rd Ave and 91" Ave. The agreement is approved as to form by the City Attorney. Attachments: Complete Streets Grant Agreement Packet Pg. 213 ffl' �EWashington State Transportation Improvement Board j) Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement City of Edmonds C-P-139(001)-1 Complete Streets Award STATE OF WASHINGTON TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD AND CITY OF EDMONDS GRANT AGREEMENT 9.3.a C-P-139(001)-1 THIS GRANT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into between the WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD ("TIB") and CITY OF EDMONDS ("RECIPIENT"). WHEREAS, the TIB has developed a grant program, Complete Streets, to provide for the retrofit of streets and roads ("Project") for eligible cities, towns, and counties to provide access to all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, and public transportation riders, and WHEREAS, the above -identified RECIPIENT is eligible to receive a Project grant pursuant to ordinance 3842 and that it has the legal authority to receive such grant and to perform the Project pursuant to the terms of this grant NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to chapter 47.26 RCW, RCW 47.04.320, and WAC 479-10-500 et seq, the above recitals that are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below, and in consideration of the terms, conditions, and performances contained herein, and the attached Exhibits, if any, which are made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. GRANT TIB agrees to grant funds in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($250,000) for the Project pursuant to the terms contained herein, and the RECIPIENT agrees to accept such grant funds and agrees to perform and be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. PROJECT AND BUDGET The Project shall provide for the retrofit of identified streets or roads on the RECIPIENT's approved work plan. In accordance with applicable laws and ordinances, the RECIPIENT agrees to enter into an agreement with an independent contractor and/or material providers, or otherwise provide for the Project work plan to be completed by the RECIPIENT's own forces. The RECIPIENT further agrees that it shall be solely responsible for and shall pay its independent contractor and/or material providers. If RECIPIENT uses its own forces, it shall be solely responsible for paying the costs thereof. Under no circumstances shall the TIB be responsible to any third party for the payment of labor or materials used in completing the Project work plan. The Project work plan may be amended by the Parties, pursuant to Section 7. Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 1 of 5 December 2016 Packet Pg. 214 2 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board C-P-139(001)-1 Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement 3. PROJECT WORK PLAN AND DOCUMENTATION The RECIPIENT agrees to and shall make reasonable progress and submit timely Project documentation, as applicable, throughout the term of this Agreement and Project. Required documents include, but are not limited to the following: a) Project work plan describing eligible items with estimated costs; b) Documentation to support all costs expended on the Project work plan; and c) Project work plan Closeout Form. 4. PAYMENT AND RETURN OF GRANT FUNDS TIB will pay the full grant award to the RECIPIENT after TIB approves the Project work plan and the Parties fully execute this Agreement; provided that there are legislatively appropriated funds available. The RECIPIENT agrees that it shall hold the grant funds in a separate and identifiable account and only use said funds to pay the actual direct and related indirect costs of the approved Project work plan. Grant funds not expended on approved Project work plan items within three years of the date of TIB's Grant approval shall be returned to TIB within ninety (90) days after receipt of TIB's written notification. 5. USE OF COMPLETE STREETS GRANT FUNDS RECIPIENT agrees that the grant funds shall only be used to complete the approved Project work plan. Otherwise, RECIPIENT is subject to the Default and Termination provisions of Section 9. 6. RECORDS MAINTENANCE 6.1 The RECIPIENT shall maintain books, records, documents, data and other evidence relating to this Agreement and performance of the Project work plan, including but not limited to accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all actual direct and related indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall retain such records for a period of six years after the completion of the Project work plan and TIB's acceptance of the Project work plan Closeout Form. At no cost to TIB, these records shall be provided when requested; including materials generated under the Agreement, and shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review or audit by TIB personnel, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal and state officials so authorized by law, regulation or agreement. 6.2 If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved. 7. REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT WORK PLAN RECIPIENT may request revisions to the Project work plan, including the addition or removal of items. Requests must be made in writing, and TIB, in its sole discretion, will determine whether to accept the proposed revisions. Should the TIB approve a Project work plan revision, the Parties shall amend this Agreement pursuant to Section 14. The RECIPIENT shall be solely responsible for all costs incurred in excess of the Agreement grant award. Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 2 of 5 December 2016 Packet Pg. 215 2 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board C-P-139(001)-1 Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement 8. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by the Parties and shall continue through closeout of the grant amount, or amendment thereof, or unless terminated as provided herein. In no event shall the Agreement term exceed three years, unless extended by Agreement amendment pursuant to Section 14. 9. NON-COMPLIANCE, DEFAULT AND TERMINATION 9.1 NON-COMPLIANCE a) In the event TIB determines, in its sole discretion, the RECIPIENT has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and applicable rules under WAC 479-10-500 et seq, TIB shall notify the RECIPIENT, in writing, of RECIPIENT's non-compliance. b) RECIPIENT shall provide a written response within ten (10) business days of receipt of TIB's notice of non-compliance, which shall include either a detailed plan to correct the non-compliance, a request to amend the Project work plan, or a denial accompanied by supporting documentation. An agreement to amend the Project work plan must be pursuant to Section14. c) RECIPIENT shall have thirty (30) days in which to make reasonable progress toward compliance pursuant to its Project work plan to correct or implement an amendment to the Project work plan. d) Should RECIPIENT dispute non-compliance, TO will investigate the dispute and, in its sole discretion, TIB may require the RECIPIENT to stop incurring additional Project work plan costs during the investigation. Should TIB require the RECIPIENT to stop incurring additional costs to be paid with the grant funds, the RECIPIENT shall be solely obligated for paying any additional costs incurred by such suspension of work, contractor claims, or litigation costs; such costs cannot be paid for with grant funds. 9.2 DEFAULT RECIPIENT is in default if TIB determines, in its sole discretion, that: a) RECIPIENT is not making reasonable progress toward correction and compliance with this Agreement and the Project work plan; b) TIB denies the RECIPIENT's request to amend the Project work plan; and c) After investigation, TIB confirms RECIPIENT'S non-compliance. 9.3 TERMINATION a) In the event of default as determined pursuant to Section 9, TO shall serve RECIPIENT with a written notice of termination of this Agreement, which may be served in person, by email or by certified letter. Upon service of notice of termination, the RECIPIENT shall immediately stop incurring costs chargeable against the grant funds and/or take such actions necessary as may be directed by TIB to protect TIB's grant funds. b) In the event of termination, the RECIPIENT may be liable for damages as authorized by law including, but not limited to, repayment of all grant funds. c) The rights and remedies of TIB provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 3 of 5 December 2016 Packet Pg. 216 2 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board C-P-139(001)-1 Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION a) The Parties shall make good faith efforts to quickly and collaboratively resolve any dispute arising under or in connection with this Agreement. The dispute resolution process outlined in this Section applies to disputes arising under or in connection with the terms of this Agreement. b) Informal Resolution. The Parties shall use their best efforts to resolve disputes promptly and at the lowest organizational level. c) In the event that the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute, the Parties shall submit the matter to non -binding mediation facilitated by a mutually agreed upon mediator. The Parties shall share equally in the costs of the mediator. d) Each Party agrees to participate to the fullest extent possible and in good faith in resolving the dispute in order to avoid delays or additional incurred cost to the Project work plan. e) The Parties agree that they shall have no right to seek relief in a court of law in accordance with Section 11, until and unless the Dispute Resolution process has been exhausted. 11. GOVERNANCE, VENUE, AND ATTORNEYS FEES This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington and venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County. The Parties agree that each Party shall be responsible for its own attorneys' fees and costs. 12. INDEMNIFICATION, HOLD HARMLESS, AND WAIVER 12.1 RECIPIENT, shall protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless the TIB, its officers, officials, employees, and authorized agents, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages (both to persons and/or property), arising out of, or in any way resulting from, RECIPIENT'S negligent acts or omissions which may arise in connection with its performance under this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall not be required to indemnify, defend, or save harmless the TIB if the claim, suit, or action for injuries, death, or damages (both to persons and/or property) is caused by the sole negligence of TIB; provided that, where such claims, suits, or actions result from the concurrent negligence of the Parties, or involves those actions covered by RCW 4.24.115, the indemnity provisions provided herein shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of RECIPIENT's own negligence 12.2 RECIPIENT agrees that its obligations under this section extends to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its officers, officials, employees or authorized agents. For this purpose, RECIPIENT, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to TIB only, any immunity that would otherwise be available to it against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. 12.3 The obligations of this indemnification and waiver Section shall survive termination of this Agreement. 13. ASSIGNMENT The RECIPIENT shall not assign or transfer its rights, benefits, or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of TIB. The RECIPIENT is deemed to consent to Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 4 of 5 December 2016 Packet Pg. 217 2 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board C-P-139(001)-1 Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement assignment of this Agreement by TIB to a successor entity. Such consent shall not constitute a waiver of the RECIPIENT'S other rights or obligations under this Agreement. 14. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by persons authorized to bind each of the Parties. 15. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY The RECIPIENT shall be deemed an independent contractor for all purposes and the employees of the RECIPIENT or any of its contractors, subcontractors, and employees thereof shall not in any manner be deemed employees of TIB. 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement, together with the Exhibits, if any, the provisions of chapter 47.26 RCW, chapter 479 WAC, and TIB Policies, constitute the entire Agreement between the Parties and supersedes all previous written or oral agreements between the Parties. RECIPIENT agrees to abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, and rules when performing under the terms of this Agreement. City of Edmonds Transportation Improvement Board Chief Executive Officer Date Date Print Name Print Name Approved as to Form Bv: ANN E. SALAY Senior Assistant Attorney General NOTE: Any changes to the terms of this Agreement shall require further approval of the Office of the Attorney General Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 5 of 5 December 2016 Packet Pg. 218 9.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study (10 minutes) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On May 5, 2015, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study. Staff Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval the May 16th Council meeting. Narrative Lift Station #1 is the City's largest sewer lift station and serves over 25% of the City's sewer service area. The lift station was originally built in 1957 and was upgraded in 2002. The lift station is located in City right of way north of the Edmonds ferry terminal. Effluent from the lift station is pumped to a gravity sewer main that flows to Edmonds' Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant is located in Edmonds at 200 2nd Ave South. As part of the original scope, Tetra Tech will provide a basin analysis and flow study of Lift station #1. The analysis will determine: If load/flows directed to the lift station can be reduced; If an increase in wet well storage is possible; If modifications to the existing Sanitary Sewer overflow and associated tie in to the storm system pipe basin are needed, including assessing the outfall in Puget Sound; The viability/location of a scalping lift station; The benefit/possibility of installing/replacing sewer mains so that a larger portion of this basin drains by gravity directly to the treatment plant; Schematic level design and construction costs for each alternative. Supplement #1 adds the following tasks: Geotechnical investigation services to determine: O Soil types along the project alignment; O Determine groundwater levels; O Recommended project alternatives based on geotechnical boring results. Staff and consultant have agreed upon a scope of services for Supplement #1. The total cost of Supplement is $49,880. The Supplemental Agreement is attached. Packet Pg. 219 9.4 Attachments: Supplemental Agreement with Tetra Tech Packet Pg. 220 Original Contract No. 6524 Supplemental Agreement 1 No. CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 1215T"AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov a+ C 90 igg° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT E Engineering Division >v SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Tetra Tech, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study project, dated May 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified; NOW, a THEREFORE, r In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties J thereto as follows: o N 1. The underlying Agreement of May 7, 2015 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 0 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $173,702 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $49,880 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $223, 582 ($173,702 plus $49,880). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. DONE this day of , 20 Packet Pg. 221 9.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS BY: Mayor David O. Earling ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE : TETRA TECH, INC. By: _ Title: Scott Passey, City Clerk L ♦2 r APPROVED AS TO FORM: N J M M O N Office of the City Attorney S:\Staff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E4GC.Lift Station l.Basin & Flow Study\Tetra Tech.Supp l.doc Packet Pg. 222 9.4.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: J Cl) M O N SAStaff\Megan\Engineering AdminTROJECTS\E40C.Lift Station ].Basin & Flow Study\Tetra Tech.Supp Ldoc Packet Pg. 223 9.4.a Exhibit A City of Edmonds Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study Amendment 1 — Geotechnical Investigation SCOPE OF WORK Project Overview The options analysis undertaken as part of this project identified a gravity sewer alternative which would convey the current Lift Station #1 basin flows to the Wastewater Treatment Facility and allow removal of the lift station. A section of the potential diversion gravity sewer would likely require use of a trenchless installation method. Various trenchless methods considered include microtunnel, open -shield pipe jack and pilot tube auger bore. The open -shield pipe jack may be more cost effective but is most applicable with little or no ground water and in suitable soil conditions. Preliminary review of soils information at the Lift Station #1 site suggest that the water table may be �* below the elevation of the potential diversion sewer. This scope of work provides geotechnical � exploration to better understand the soil conditions and the groundwater elevations. Shannon and Wilson (S&W) will conduct the investigation as a subconsultant to Tetra Tech as part of this amendment. c N A telephone discussion with the City regarding the general soil and groundwater conditions observed and implications for feasible trenchless methods is included in the scope. No geotechnical data report is included in this scope but can be provided as part of a future design phase if the diversion gravity sewer ° alternative is selected. The tasks and associated subtasks are as follows: Task 1 - Project Management Task 1 includes the effort required to manage the project. This task includes monitoring budgets, preparing and reviewing invoices. In addition it includes Tetra Tech time for a telephone conversation about the raw geotechnical data determined by the geotechnical investigations and the implications for the diversion sewer alternative. Task 1- Assumptions: 1. NA Task 1- Deliverables: 1. None 412712017 1 Exhibit A Scope of Work Packet Pg. 224 9.4.a SCOPE OF WORK— LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDYAMENDMENT 1 Task 2 — Geotechnical Investigation Subtask 201 — Work Plan S&W will prepare a Geotechnical Exploration Work Plan that includes: • Description of the selected drilling methods and sampling procedures. • A site plan showing the location and designation of the boreholes. • General description of quality control procedures for each of the field tasks. • Site plan of the drilling locations showing conceptual drill rig, support vehicle, and traffic control (as applicable) layout for the City's use in issuing necessary permits. • Schedule for completing the fieldwork. Subtask 201- Assumptions: 1. All S&W communication will occur by phone or email. No in -person meetings with Tetra a� L Tech or the City will be required. a Subtask 201 -Deliverables: 1. Geotechnical Exploration Work Plan J M M O Subtask 202 — Geotechnical Investigation v Holt Services, Inc., under subcontract to S&W, will drill four borings to depths of 35 to 45 feet below the 0 ground surface (bgs) at approximately the locations shown in Figure 1. w The proposed depths for the individual borings are also shown in the figure. The borings will be completed using rotosonic drilling methods, and a standpipe well will be installed in each boring. The following steps will be completed to advance the borings: • S&W will visit the site, observe any visible obstructions or utilities, and mark boring locations. • S&W will make the One Call Utility Locate, as required by law. • For borings that impact parking spaces, S&W will visit the site the day before drilling is scheduled and set up "No Parking" signs in the affected spaces. E • The proposed locations of borings LS1-1 and LS14 are near existing subsurface utilities. a) Therefore, the upper 5 feet of the two boreholes will be vacuum -extracted using a vactor truck. Q • Rotosonic coring will be performed using a 4.9-inch outside diameter, 3.85-inch inside diameter core barrel. Water may be used as a drilling fluid to advance the casing over the sonic core barrel. Water also may be added to the inside of the casing to mitigate heave. The rotosonic coring will retrieve continuous core samples, generally in 5-foot lengths (runs). The core will be extruded from the core barrel into plastic bags. The bottom and top of the core will be observed in the field, and the core will be boxed and transported to S&W laboratory for further observation, classification, photographing, and storage. • In boring LS1-2 at the launch shaft site, S&W will perform Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs), in general accordance with ASTM D1586 generally at 5-foot depth intervals bgs. The retrieved Q 412712017 2 Exhibit A Scope of Work Packet Pg. 225 9.4.a SCOPE OF WORK— LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDYAMENDMENT 1 samples will be placed in jars sealed with a lid. The samples will be transported to S&W laboratory, and selected samples, as described below, will be tested. A standpipe well will be constructed in each boring in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology standards. Borings will be capped at the ground surface with a steel flush - mount monument. Holt Services, Inc. will containerize and dispose of all investigation -derived waste (IDW) off -site at an appropriate facility. Site cleanup of staging areas will be to the requirements and to the satisfaction of the City. Samples removed from the boreholes shall be logged and collected for geotechnical laboratory analysis by S&W. S&W will enter all boring log data into S&W gINT boring log database. Subtask 202 - Assumptions: All S&W communication will occur by phone or email. No in -person meetings with Tetra Tech or the City will be required. 2. Proposal assumes free and open access to the boring sites five days per week between the hours of 0700 and 1900, Monday through Friday. 3. Proposal assumes that the City will apply for and secure, or has secured, all necessary permits to accomplish the drilling. J 4. Traffic control for all borings will consist of traffic cones. Extensive signage and/or flaggers will not be required. c N 5. All IDW will be non -hazardous. _ 6. Survey of the well monument locations is not included in this proposal. Subtask 202 Deliverables: 1. None Subtask 203 — Geotechnical Testing S&W will perform geotechnical laboratory testing on samples retrieved from the borings. S&W will prepare draft boring logs following laboratory review of the rotosonic core and disturbed samples. S&W will perform the following laboratory testing, as appropriate, based on the actual materials encountered: Up to four Particle Size Analyses in accordance with ASTM D6913 These will be performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs or on the retrieved rotosonic core, as appropriate. • Up to four Atterberg Limits tests in accordance with ASTM D4318 These will be performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs or on the retrieved rotosonic core, as appropriate. Up to 35 Moisture Content Determinations in accordance with ASTM D2216 These will be performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs and on the retrieved rotosonic core at approximately 5-foot intervals, as appropriate. On two occasions after well installation, S&W will measure the groundwater elevation in the installed groundwater monitoring wells in each of the four borings. Results of these measurements will be m E documented in the report (as part of a subsequent work phase not in this amendment), and the highest elevation measured will be depicted on the final boring logs. r Q 412712017 3 Exhibit A Scope of Work Packet Pg. 226 9.4.a SCOPE OF WORK— LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDYAMENDMENT 1 The final boring logs, raw test results, and core photos will be transmitted with a letter of transmittal, but no associated report or letter. One teleconference between S&W and Tetra Tech to discuss results will occur. S&W will participate in one telecon with Tetra Tech and the City to discuss the results of the borings, laboratory testing, and groundwater monitoring, as they relate to trenchless construction feasibility. Subtask 203 - Assumptions: All S&W communication will occur by phone or email. No in -person meetings with Tetra Tech or the City will be required. 2. Groundwater level monitoring will occur on two dates following borehole completion. These dates will be two weeks and four weeks after borehole completion. If these assumed dates change, it will affect the delivery schedule of the boring log. 3. No report or letter containing the boring log, associated laboratory data, groundwater monitoring measurements, or analysis or recommendations is included. 4. Cores will be stored for up to 3 months following testing and can then be delivered to the City if desired for future reference or can be disposed of. Subtask 203 - Deliverables: 1. Final Boring logs, raw test results and core photos (Electronic copies) 4/27/2017 Exhibit A Scope of Work Packet Pg. 227 9.4.a SCOPE OF WORK— LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDYAMENDMENT 1 412412017 Exhibit C Shannon & Wilson Proposal Details [01 Exhibit A Scope of Work Packet Pg. 228 9.4.a 'III SH►4NNON 6WIL.SON, INC GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS April 27, 2017 Mr. David Scott Tetra Tech, Inc. 1420 51h Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: REVISED (REVISION 3) PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL STUDY, CITY OF EDMONDS SUNSET AVENUE INTERCEPTOR - TRENCHLESS ALTERNATIVE, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Scott: We are pleased to submit our revised proposal to provide geotechnical engineering services for a the Trenchless Alternative of the City of Edmonds (City) Sunset Avenue Interceptor project. We r previously prepared a proposal that presented a scope of services including four rotosonic J borings, associated laboratory testing, and a geotechnical data report. The City then requested a reduced scope of services for a high-level feasibility assessment. Specifically, the City requested M o a proposal to perform one mud rotary boring, water level monitoring in that boring, and N transmittal of those results. We understand that the City is now requesting a scope that includes c the initially proposed four rotosonic borings, but no report. This proposal presents our scope of services and time -and -expense cost estimate for those tasks, as you and Shannon & Wilson, Inc. as (Shannon & Wilson) discussed in our recent telephone conversations regarding this project. In addition to those conversations, we previously received a plan and profile markup from you showing the potential pipe alignment (modified to show the exploration location and enclosed as Figure 1). The contract for this work is to be determined. PROPOSED APPROACH Our scope of services will include the following tasks: Task 1: Work Plan Shannon & Wilson will prepare a Geotechnical Exploration Work Plan that includes: ■ Description of the selected drilling methods and sampling procedures. ■ A site plan showing the location and designation of the boreholes. ■ General description of quality control procedures for each of the field tasks. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET, SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103-8636 206-632-8020 FAX: 206-695-6777 www.shannonwilson.com 21-2-63193-001 Packet Pg. 229 9.4.a Mr. David Scott Tetra Tech, Inc. April 27, 2017 Page 2 of 5 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. ■ Site plan of the drilling locations showing conceptual drill rig, support vehicle, and traffic control (as applicable) layout for the City's use in issuing necessary permits. ■ Schedule for completing the fieldwork. Task 2: Geotechnical Investigation Holt Services, Inc., under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, will drill four borings to depths of 35 to 45 feet below the ground surface (bgs) at approximately the locations shown in Figure 1. The proposed depths for the individual borings are also shown in the figure. The borings will be completed using rotosonic drilling methods, and a standpipe well will be installed in each boring. The following steps will be completed to advance the borings: ■ We will visit the site, observe any visible obstructions or utilities, and mark boring locations. ■ We will make the One Call Utility Locate, as required by law. ■ For borings that impact parking spaces, we will visit the site the day before drilling is scheduled and set up "No Parking" signs in the affected spaces. ■ The proposed locations of borings LS1-1 and LS1-4 are near existing subsurface utilities according to the drawing provided by Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech). Therefore, the upper 5 feet of the two boreholes will be vacuum -extracted using a vactor truck. ■ Rotosonic coring will be performed using a 4.9-inch outside diameter, 3.85-inch inside diameter core barrel. Water may be used as a drilling fluid to advance the casing over the sonic core barrel. Water also may be added to the inside of the casing to mitigate heave. The rotosonic coring will retrieve continuous core samples, generally in 5-foot lengths (runs). The core will be extruded from the core barrel into plastic bags. The bottom and top of the core will be observed in the field, and the core will be boxed and transported to our laboratory for further observation, classification, photographing, and storage. In boring LS 1-2 at the launch shaft site, we will perform Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs), in general accordance with ASTM D1586,1 generally at 5-foot depth intervals bgs. The retrieved samples will be placed in jars sealed with a lid. The samples will be transported to our laboratory, and selected samples, as described below, will be tested. ' ASTM International (ASTM), 2011, Standard test method for standard penetration test (STP) and split -barrel sampling of soils, D1586-11: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and rock (I): D420 - D5876, 9 p., available: www.astm.org. 21-2-63193 -001-L 1-Rev/wp/]k 21-2-63193-001 Packet Pg. 230 9.4.a Mr. David Scott Tetra Tech, Inc. April 27, 2017 Page 3 of 5 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. A standpipe well will be constructed in each boring in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology standards. Borings will be capped at the ground surface with a steel flush -mount monument. Holt Services, Inc. will containerize and dispose of all investigation -derived waste (IDW) off -site at an appropriate facility. Site cleanup of staging areas will be to the requirements and to the satisfaction of the City. Samples removed from the boreholes shall be logged and collected for geotechnical laboratory analysis by Shannon & Wilson. Shannon & Wilson will enter all boring log data into our gINT boring log database. Task 3: Geotechnical Testing r Shannon & Wilson will perform geotechnical laboratory testing on samples retrieved from the J borings. Shannon & Wilson will prepare draft boring logs following laboratory review of the ; rotosonic core and disturbed samples. Shannon & Wilson will perform the following laboratory N testing, as appropriate, based on the actual materials encountered: Up to four Particle Size Analyses in accordance with ASTM D6913.2 These will be performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs or on the retrieved rotosonic core, as appropriate. Up to four Atterberg Limits tests in accordance with ASTM D4318.3 These will be performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs or on the retrieved rotosonic core, as appropriate. ■ Up to 35 Moisture Content Determinations in accordance with ASTM D2216.4 These will be performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs and on the retrieved rotosonic core at approximately 5-foot intervals, as appropriate. On two occasions after well installation, we will measure the groundwater elevation in the installed groundwater monitoring wells in each of the four borings. Results of these 2 ASTM International (ASTM), 2009, Standard test methods for particle -size distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analysis, D6913-04(2009)el: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.09, soil and rock (II), D5877-latest, 34 p., available: www.astm.org. 3 ASTM International (ASTM), 2010, Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils, D4318-10el: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and rock (1): D420 - D5876, 16 p., available: www.astm.org. 4 ASTM International (ASTM), 2010, Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil and rock by mass, D2216-10: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and rock (1): D420 - D5876, 7 p., available: www.astm.org. 21-2-63193 -001-L 1-Rev/wp/]k 21-2-63193-001 Packet Pg. 231 9.4.a Mr. David Scott Tetra Tech, Inc. April 27, 2017 Page 4 of 5 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. measurements will be documented in a report as part of a subsequent work phase, and the highest elevation measured will be depicted on the final boring logs. The final boring logs, test results, and core photos will be transmitted to Tetra Tech with a letter of transmittal, but no associated report or letter, per your request. We will follow up with one teleconference with you and one with you and the City to discuss the results of the borings, laboratory testing, and groundwater monitoring, as they relate to trenchless construction feasibility. ASSUMPTIONS We have prepared the following list of assumptions that we used to develop our cost proposal as it is currently presented: �* J ■ All communication with Tetra Tech project staff will occur by phone or email. No M in -person meetings with Tetra Tech or the City will be required. N ■ Our proposal assumes free and open access to the boring sites five days per week between the hours of 0700 and 1900, Monday through Friday. ■ Our proposal assumes that the City will apply for and secure, or has secured, all necessary permits to accomplish the drilling. ■ Traffic control for all borings will consist of traffic cones. Extensive signage and/or flaggers will not be required. ■ All IDW will be non -hazardous. ■ Tetra Tech or others will survey the well monument locations after the completion of drilling. Surveying is not included in this proposal. ■ Groundwater level monitoring will occur on two dates following borehole completion. We assume these dates will be two weeks and four weeks after borehole completion. If these assumed dates change, it will affect the schedule outlined below. ■ No report or letter containing the boring log, associated laboratory data, groundwater monitoring measurements, or analysis or recommendations is included. ESTIMATED COST The enclosed Fee Proposal Spreadsheet (Tables 1 through 5) consists of a cost breakdown and a combined time -and -expense summary for all the proposed tasks. The scope of services will be performed by Shannon & Wilson and our subcontractors. 21-2-63193 -001-L 1-Rev/wp/lk 21-2-63193-001 Packet Pg. 232 e 10 u011B1u8s8ad - �# S-1 : ££OZ) [L uoisinON] y00l ea;al LJJ!M Juaua88.16V je;uawaiddnS :;u9wg3eJJV Mr. David Scott Tetra Tech, Inc. April 27, 2017 Page 5 of 5 SCHEDULE We propose the following schedule to complete the project tasks: SHANNON WILSON, INC. ■ Submit the Draft Work Plan within two weeks after the notice to proceed. ■ Submit Final Work Plan within seven calendar days after receipt of comments. ■ Complete the Geotechnical Investigations within one week after starting the explorations. ■ Complete the Laboratory Testing three weeks after the drilling is completed. ■ Submit the boring logs five weeks after the drilling is completed. Shannon & Wilson has prepared the enclosed "Important Information About Your Geotechnical/ Environmental Proposal" to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our proposals. Please contact me if you would like to discuss our proposal. I can be reached at (206) 695-6856 or by email at msk@shanwil.com. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Michael S. Kucker, PE Vice President MDH:MSK/mdh Eric: Table 1 — Fee Estimate Summary Table 2 — Labor Costs Table 3 — Other Direct Costs Table 4 — Drilling and Laboratory Testing Schedule Table 5 — Drilling Estimate Figure 1 — Proposed Boring Locations Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Proposal 21-2-63193-001-L1-Rev/wp/lk 21-2-63193-001 CO) M N d a Y U M a 9.4.a SHANNON & WILSON, INC. TABLE 1 FEE ESTIMATE SUMMARY ESTIMATE OF ARCHITECT -ENGINEER SERVICES Date: Revised Original Project: Sunset Interceptor Location: Edmonds Washington Est. by: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Sheets of Drawing Required: NA 4/27/2017 CONTRACT NO. TBD City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor Trenchless Alternative Item a. Total Labor Costs (See Table 2) DISCIPLINE Hours Rate Total Principal 6 $ 245.00 $ 1,470.00 Project Manager 13 $ 170.00 $ 2,210.00 Senior III Geotech 0 $ 151.00 $ - Senior I Geotech 2 $ 122.00 $ 244.00 Geotech Engr IV 0 $ 111.00 $ - Senior III Geologist 2 $ 151.00 $ 302.00 Senior I Geologist 38 $ 122.00 $ 4,636.00 Geologist IV 80 $ 111.00 $ 8,880.00 Laboratory Technician 19 $ 65.00 $ 1,235.00 Drafter/Computer Drafter 0 $ 108.00 $ - Clerical 12 $ 103.00 $ 1,236.00 SUBTOTAL 172 - $ 20,213.00 Item a. TOTAL LABOR COST Item b. Subcontractors, Reproduction, Travel, and Lab Tests (ODCs): Details: See Table 3 (rounded to the nearest dollar) TOTAL FEE $ $ $ 20,213.00 24,369.23 44,582 Notes: Engr = Engineer Est. = established No. = number ODCs = other direct costs TBD = to be determined 21-2-63193-001-Ll-Rev-T1-T5/wp/lk 21-2-63193-001 Packet Pg. 234 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 9.4.a TABLE 2 LABOR COSTS CONTRACT NO. TBD City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor Trenchless Alternative SHANNON & WILSON, INC. LABOR COSTS Subtasks Hours Descriptions Principal Project Manager Senior III Geotech Senior I Geotech Geotech Engr IV Senior III Geologist Senior I Geologist Geologist IV Laboratory Technician Drafter/Computer Drafter Clerical Total Hours Cost Work Components Task 1. Work Plan Geotechnical Exploration Work Plan Description of the selected drilling methods and sampling procedures. 1 2 3 $366 Prepare Activity Hazard Analysis. 1 2 3 $366 Schedule for completing the fieldwork. 2 1 3 $347 Project Management Task 2. Geotechnical Explorations Planning 1 1 2 $273 Site visit. 4 4 $444 Call in locates (one). 2 2 $222 Set up "No Parking" signs. 4 4 $444 Subcontractor coordination. 2 2 $244 Field Explorations Coordination with field personnel (one hour per day for one day). 4 4 $488 Drilling observation (including daily logs). 56 56 $6,216 Prepare Boring Logs Prepare Revision 0 (Rev. 0) logs. 1 2 2 5 $550 Check field log data (depths, SPT, core recovery, and water levels). hiput field information and produce Rev. 0 log. Prepare Rev. 1 Logs 1 19 2 19 4 45 $4,338 Back -check Rev. 0 log. Review and photograph soil core (assume 70 feet per day). Collect grab samples from sonic core. Input information and produce Rev. 1 log. Prepare Rev. 2 Logs 1 2 2 5 $601 Back -check Rev. 1 logs. Review laboratory test results and incorporate into logs. Prepare Rev. 3 Logs 4 4 $488 Back -check Rev. 2 logs. Review logs for consistency relative to the generalized subsurface profiles. Final check on geology, syntax, and format. Transmittal of Boring Log 1 1 1 3 $518 Telephone Discussion with Tetra Tech to Discuss Results 2 2 4 $830 Telephone Discussion with Tetra Tech and City to Discuss Results 2 2 4 $830 Project Management 1 7 1 9 $1,538 Task 3. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory Testing Sample Check -in 2 2 $222 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring two observations 8 8 $888 Total Hours Category Rate Labor Costs 6 13 2 2 38 80 19 12 172 $ 245.00 $ 170.00 $ 151.00 $ 122.00 $ 111.00 $ 151.00 $ 122.00 $ 111.00 $ 65.00 $ 108.00 $ 103.00 $1,470 $2,210 $244 $302 $4,636 $8,880 $1,235 $1,236 $20,213 Total Labor Costs $20,213 21-2-63193-00I-LI-Rev-TI-TS/wp/lk Packet Pg. 235 9.4.a SHANNON & WILSON, INC. TABLE 3 OTHER DIRECT COSTS CONTRACT NO. TBD City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor Trenchless Alternative SHANNON & WILSON, INC. OTHER DIRECT COSTS Description Unit Cost Units Quantity I Direct Cost Subtotals Task 1. Work Plan Xerox 8 '/2" x 1 F $ 0.10 each 200 1 $ 20 Xerox 11" x 17" $ 0.20 each 50 $ 10 Subtotal Task 1. Work Plan $ 30 Task 2. Geotechnical Explorations Drilling Subcontractor $ 21,012 lump sum 1 $ 21,012 GPS Rental $ 50 day 4 $ 200 Sample Jars (Box of 12) $ 40 box 1 $ 40 Jar Box Receiving and Handling $ 10 box 1 $ 10 Sonic Core Receiving and Handling $ 35 box 33 $ 1,155 Mileage $ 0.54 mile 288 $ 154 Subtotal Task 2. Geotechnical Explorations $ 22,571 Task 3. Geotechnical Testing Particle Size (ASTM D6913) $ 135.00 each 4 $ 540 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) $ 175.00 each 4 $ 700 Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) $ 16.00 each 33 $ 528 Subtotal Task 3. Geotechnical Testing S 1,768 Total (Tasks 1 through 3) $ 24,369 Notes: = inches ASTM = ASTM International GPS = global positioning system 21-2-63193-001-L1-Rev-T1-T5/wp/lk 21-2-63193-001 Packet Pg. 236 SHANNON & WILSON, I TABLE 4 DRILLING AND LABORATORY TESTING SCHEDULE CONTRACT NO. TBD City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor Trenchless Alternative SHANNON & WILSON, INC. DRILLING AND LABORATORY TESTING SCHEDULE Total Depth Moisture Below Ground Shelby Tube or Surface Thick-walled SPT Particle Size Atterberg Limits Content Boring feet Sam les Tests (ASTM D6913 (ASTM D4318) (ASTM D2216 LS1-1 35 - - 1 1 1 1 7 9 LS1-2 45 - 9 LS1-3 45 - - 1 1 9 LS1-4 40 - - 1 1 8 Totals 165 0 9 4 4 33 Notes: ASTM = ASTM International SPT = Standard Penetration Test TBD = to be determined 21-2-63193-001-Ll-Rev-T1-T5/wp/]k 2 Packet Pg. 237 SHANNON & WILSON, I TABLE 5 DRILLING ESTIMATE CONTRACT NO. TBD City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor Trenchless Alternative SHANNON & WILSON, INC. DRILLING ESTIMATE Item Holt Services, Inc. - February7, 2017 Bid Unit &_L2_sL1 Quantity Extended Unit Cost Sonic Drilling Mobilization Drilling Equipment $ 1,000 1 each $ 1,000.00 Setup/Cleanup $ 450 4 hours $ 1,800.00 Washington State Department of Ecology NOIBoring Log $ 50 4 each $ 200.00 Daily Travel $ 200 2 days $ 400.00 Auger/rotary Drilling 0 to 50 feet $ 40 165 feet $ 6,600.00 Drive Extra Standard Penetration Test Sample $ 100 9 each $ 900.00 2-inch Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Well Construction $ 20 165 feet $ 3,300.00 Investigation -derived Waste Disposal $ 125 4 drum $ 500.00 8-inch Flush Surface Completion $ 300 4 each $ 1,200.00 Vacuum Extract $ 250 6 hours $ 1,500.00 Wooden Core Box - 5 feet of Sample $ 50 33 each $ 1,650.00 Subtotal Cost $ 19,050.00 Sales Tax 10.30% $ 1,962.15 Estimated Cost Per foot $ 127.35 Estimated Production Rate 165 ft/da Total Days Drilling 1 days Quoted Price $ 21,012.15 Cn J r� M O N 21-2-63193-001-Li-Rev-Ti-T5/wp/lk 2 i Packet Pg. 238 A?j IM IF j, - --------- 0-� 7- ------- -=ML 7, Aff k ill '3F, i%'SF k-ill—d LSI 2 M N ti ---------- 7 ---- ------ ---- - t. 04 .......... v.. LS1 I FIGURE 1 _w_ Edmonft Sunset Avenue Overbok Troll Topagph. s..ey Edmonds Sunset Avenue O�HGOk Trail �1-- Topogmphic S—V 2 Edmonds S`tlunset �ven, Edmonds Sunset Avenl�a Overlook TIM To, og,.Phi. sum. T" :77 3 9.4.a SCOPE OF WORK— LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDYAMENDMENT 1 412412017 Exhibit B Price Proposal 5 Exhibit A Scope of Work Packet Pg. 240 9.4.a 0 Price Proposal Labor Plan Price Summary / Totals 4Resource Task Pricing Totals 1 49,880 Lift Station #1- Amendment 1- Geotech Geotechnical Investigations to provide information relevant to trenchless design methods. Bill Rate > Prof Area> 22038 175.58 216.69 75.64 SpecifyAdd'I Fees on Setup 49,88( M Technology Use Fee Total Price Submitted to: City of Edmonds (Attn: Mike DeLilla) Contract Type: T&M Pricing p by Resource o o _ vo m d o. a o _ a _ _ — ,E v a w Labor Rate E- Labor Subs Travel Mat'ls & Equip ODCs Task Pricin aa) (n Total N Project Phases / Tasks Schedule > 3 0 > 3 Total Labor Hrs From Thru Moths 16 3 4 7 z 0.00% 3,032 46,811 37 L 49,881 d Task 1 Project Management 11 3 4 2 2 1,948 19 1,96 PM 5 1 z z 723 19 74 r Telecon w/City 61 z z z 11,225 1,22 Task 2 Geotechnical Investigation 5 5 1,083 46,811 19 47,91 J Task 201 Work Plan z z 433 1,451 7 1,8S Task 202 Geotechnical Exploration 1 1 217 42,338 4 42,55 M Task 203 Geotechnical Testing z z 433 3,022 7 3,4E O N C O A N L V N H Totals I I 1 1 16 3 4 7 1 z 11 0.00% 1 3,032 1 46,811 - - 37 49,88i M a Tetra Tech - Confidential and Proprietary Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 241 9.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Review Council Committee Descriptions and Provide Feedback (5 min.) Staff Lead: Council President Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Council President Mesaros requests that each Council Committee review the attached committee descriptions and recommend any revisions or edits to the full Council. Attachments: Committee Descriptions Packet Pg. 242 Proposed Committee Descriptions 9.5.a Finance Committee Shall exercise general oversight with respect to city revenues and expenditures. The committee may report to the council the cost of implementation of any order, ordinance, program, or other initiative pending before the body, and shall make such report whenever requested by another committee or directed to do so by the council. The committee shall have referred to it all matters concerning appropriations, the city budget, expenditures and loans. The committee shall review city policies and actions involving the purchase of financial services, deposits, borrowing, and investment. The committee shall concern itself with issues related to all city owned or leased facilities. Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee Shall concern itself with open space conservation and access to recreational facilities and opportunities, as well as, the physical development of the city, including financing, zoning, licensing, land use policy, and the effects of development on the city. The committee shall have oversight of public parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities and matters generally impacting the Parks Department including but not limited to accessibility, maintenance, design and construction of new and existing public parks in the city. The committee shall exercise oversight with respect to all commercial, medical, research, educational and large scale residential development and building projects, as well as historic preservation programs. The committee shall work to ensure community participation in the planning and development process, that residents and their institutional neighbors are both able to share in the city's benefits, and that the delivery of financial services are accessible, non-discriminatory and promote both small and large business and development throughout all neighborhoods. The committee shall exercise oversight with respect to the care, management, custody, and use of public lands and buildings. Public Safety and Personnel Committee Shall concern itself with the adequate delivery of police and fire protection to the City. The committee shall be responsible for evaluating, encouraging, and facilitating resident -driven efforts to prevent crime. The committee shall coordinate and work with other City agencies and community organizations to evaluate, explore and develop strategies, policies, and recommendations aimed at ensuring the public's safety. Shall concern itself with matters relating to personnel policies and practices, compensation and benefits, labor relations and collective bargaining, employee relations, staffing and organizational structure. r a Packet Pg. 243 10.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Proposed Business License Renewal Late Fee Reversal Policy (5 min.) Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History City of Edmonds business licenses are renewed annually. The City Clerk's office mails out license renewal notifications in December of each year, and the business license payment is due by January 31 of the license year. A late fee of $50 is assessed if license payments are received after January 31. Each year, the Clerk receives several requests from business licensees to waive or reverse a late fee. Currently, the Clerk's office will only waive a late fee if it receives a return -to -sender envelope, evidencing that the business never received the renewal reminder. Staff Recommendation Review the proposed license renewal late fee policy and recommend it be placed on the consent agenda for approval by the full Council. Narrative Rather than making arbitrary decisions regarding late fee waivers, the Clerk would rather rely on a policy which provides clear direction regarding when a late fee waiver is warranted. According to the proposed policy, a late fee may be waived once every three years if the account has been in otherwise good standing for that period of time, or if the late payment was beyond the control of the customer. It should be noted that many cities, utility companies and agencies have adopted similar policies; the City of Edmonds Utilities Department has a similar policy, as does the Department of Revenue. The proposed policy borrows many of the same provisions as those other policies. Attachments: 2017 Exhibit A Late Fee Reversal Policy Packet Pg. 244 10.1.a Exhibit A Business License Renewal Late Fee Reversal Policy A late payment fee for Business License Customers may be waived one (1) time every 36 months if the account has been in otherwise good standing for that period of time, or if the late payment was beyond the control of the customer as outlined below. An exception may be made to this policy if circumstances are beyond control of the customer. Circumstances beyond the control of the customer must actually cause the late payment. These reasons are generally those which are immediate, unexpected, or in the nature of an emergency. Such circumstances result in the customer not having reasonable time or opportunity to obtain an extension of the due date or otherwise pay. These instances include but are not necessarily limited to the following: A. The payment was mailed on time but inadvertently sent to someone else. B. Erroneous written information given to the customer by an employee caused the delinquency. C. The delinquency was directly caused by a death or serious illness of the customer, or a member of the customer's immediate family. D. The delinquency was caused by the unavoidable absence of the customer (this does not include business trips or vacations). E. The delinquency was caused by the destruction by fire or other casualty of the customer's home or place of business. F. The delinquency was caused by an act of fraud, embezzlement, or theft through no part of the customer. Each occurance will be considered on a case -by -case basis. Documentation may be required, and any more than one exception due to emergency during a 36-month period must be authorized by the Mayor. The following are examples of circumstances that are generally not considered to be beyond the control of the customer: A. Financial Hardship B. A misunderstanding or lack of knowledge C. The failure of the customer to receive a notification D. Reliance upon unpublished, written information from the City that was issued to and specifically addresses the circumstances of another customer City of Edmonds Business License Fee Late Payment Reversal Policy - DRAFT Packet Pg. 245 10.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Present Draft 2018 Budget Development Calendar to Council (15 min.) Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History Every year, Mayor presents his Proposed Budget to Council, whereas Council begins their deliberations on the Budget. Staff Recommendation Review Draft 2018 Budget Development Calendar Narrative Dates of Note for Council Budget Meetings and Public Hearings: October 10, 2017 - Mayor presents his Proposed 2018 Budget to Council Council Meeting Deliberations on the 2018 Budget: October 17 & 24, November 7. Public Hearings or the 2018 Budget on November 14 & 21 and Public Hearing on the 2018 Property Tax on November 14. Attachments: 2018 Draft Budget Calendar For Council Packet Pg. 246 10.2.a 2018 Draft Budget Calendar Pre -Budget • Council Retreat • Capital facility plan • Mayor communicate May -July (optional) updates budget objectives to staff July August September October November December 2018 Budget Expenditure Preparation Mayor Council Adoption Kickoff and revenue of 2018 presents continues of 2018 estimates Preliminary 2018 review of Budget (If submitted to Budget Preliminary Preliminary necessary) finance Budget to Budget Council Department Council Two Public heads begins Hearings on prepare review of Budget estimates of Preliminary revenue and Budget expenditure Public Hearing on 2018 Property Tax Potential Adoption of 2018 Budget Packet Pg. 247 10.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Review Council Committee Descriptions and Provide Feedback (5 min.) Staff Lead: Council President Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Council President Mesaros requests that each Council Committee review the attached committee descriptions and recommend any revisions or edits to the full Council. Attachments: Committee Descriptions Packet Pg. 248 Proposed Committee Descriptions 10.3.a Finance Committee Shall exercise general oversight with respect to city revenues and expenditures. The committee may report to the council the cost of implementation of any order, ordinance, program, or other initiative pending before the body, and shall make such report whenever requested by another committee or directed to do so by the council. The committee shall have referred to it all matters concerning appropriations, the city budget, expenditures and loans. The committee shall review city policies and actions involving the purchase of financial services, deposits, borrowing, and investment. The committee shall concern itself with issues related to all city owned or leased facilities. Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee Shall concern itself with open space conservation and access to recreational facilities and opportunities, as well as, the physical development of the city, including financing, zoning, licensing, land use policy, and the effects of development on the city. The committee shall have oversight of public parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities and matters generally impacting the Parks Department including but not limited to accessibility, maintenance, design and construction of new and existing public parks in the city. The committee shall exercise oversight with respect to all commercial, medical, research, educational and large scale residential development and building projects, as well as historic preservation programs. The committee shall work to ensure community participation in the planning and development process, that residents and their institutional neighbors are both able to share in the city's benefits, and that the delivery of financial services are accessible, non-discriminatory and promote both small and large business and development throughout all neighborhoods. The committee shall exercise oversight with respect to the care, management, custody, and use of public lands and buildings. Public Safety and Personnel Committee Shall concern itself with the adequate delivery of police and fire protection to the City. The committee shall be responsible for evaluating, encouraging, and facilitating resident -driven efforts to prevent crime. The committee shall coordinate and work with other City agencies and community organizations to evaluate, explore and develop strategies, policies, and recommendations aimed at ensuring the public's safety. Shall concern itself with matters relating to personnel policies and practices, compensation and benefits, labor relations and collective bargaining, employee relations, staffing and organizational structure. r a Packet Pg. 249 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Amendments to Diversity Commission code provisions (10 min.) Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History The Diversity Commission is established pursuant to ECC Chapter 10.65, which contains provisions regarding required attendance and appointment to fill vacancies. Two provisions in particular are at issue: 1. Sec. 10.65.020(D) states the following: In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings, that position will be deemed vacant, and a subsequent appointment will be made by a vote of the seated commission, subject to council confirmation. The Diversity Commissioners have discussed this provision and believe that additional provisions should be added: 1) that no more than four meetings may be missed in a year; and 2) reference to "excused absences" as set out in ECC 1.05.010(B), which reads as follows: 1.05.010(B). The chairperson of the particular board, commission or committee may excuse any member from attendance at any particular meeting or meetings for reasons that are (1) work related, (2) due to illness or death in the family, or (3) extended vacations in excess of two weeks in length; provided, however, each such excused absence shall be so noted by the chairperson at the meeting from which the member is being excused and such fact shall be recorded in the minutes along with the reason given for the excused absence by the member. Excused absences shall not be counted for purposes of removal from office, but only if so noted in the minutes as set forth herein. In the absence of the chairperson, the member acting in the chairperson's behalf, such as vice -chairperson or pro tem, shall make the determination of whether the absence is excused, and announce the same for recording in the minutes of the meeting from which the member is excused. 2. Sec. 10.65.020(F) states the following: Members may be removed by the mayor with the approval of city council after a public hearing before the city council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Any vacancy on the commission shall be advertised, and the new appointee shall be selected from the applications received. Any appointment to a position vacated other than by the expiration of the term of the appointment shall be to fill the unexpired portion of the term. Packet Pg. 250 The Diversity Commissioners wish to be able to interview and/or appoint from recently received applications when a new vacancy arises, without having to readvertise. There have been recent incidents when vacancies have been advertised, new appointments have been made, only to be followed very shortly by a new vacancy. With willing, qualified, recently interviewed applicants in the wings, they would like to be able to expedite the appointment process and select from these recent applicants. Staff Recommendation Forward proposed code amendments for approval on the 5/16/17 Council Consent Agenda. Narrative The attached draft Ordinance contains proposed amendments to Chapter 10.65 that would fulfill the Diversity Commissioners' proposed actions regarding member attendance and filling of new vacancies. The specific changes, recommended by a consensus of the Diversity Commission at its 5/3/17 regular meeting, are itemized below: Sec. 10.65.020(B) would be revised to read: In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings, or four total commission meetings in one calendar year, without such absences being excused (pursuant to ECC 1.05.010(B)), that position will be deemed vacant, and a subsequent appointment will be made by a vote of the seated commission, subject to council confirmation. Sec. 10.65.020(F) would be revised to read: Members may be removed by the mayor with the approval of city council after a public hearing before the city council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Vacancies ARY vaeaRGY on the commission shall be advertised, and the new appointees shall be selected from the applications received, except that commissioners may elect to interview and/or appoint from applicants received in response to an advertised vacancy within three months prior to any new vacancy. Any appointment to a position vacated other than by the expiration of the term of the appointment shall be to fill the unexpired portion of the term. Attachments: 2017-05-9 Ordinance - Diversity Commission code changes Packet Pg. 251 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATED TO ATTENDANCE AND NEW APPOINTMENTS FOR THE EDMONDS DIVERSITY COMMISSION. WHEREAS, Chapter 10.65 establishes the Edmonds Diversity Commission and contains provisions related to attendance requirements and the filling of vacancies; and WHEREAS, the Diversity Commission wishes to encourage regular and frequent attendance by its members; and WHEREAS, the Diversity Commission wishes to make timely and efficient new appointments to fill emerging vacancies; and WHEREAS, the Diversity Commission recommended the amendments to Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.65, detailed below, at their regular meeting of May 3, 2017; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection D of section 10.65.020 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled, "Appointment, membership and terms of appointment," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough): 10.65.020 Appointment, membership and terms of appointment. D. In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings, or four total commission meetings in one calendar year, without such absences being excused (pursuant to ECC 1.05.010(B)), that position will be deemed vacant, and a subsequent appointment will be made by a vote of the seated commission, subject to council confirmation. Packet Pg. 252 Section 2. Subsection F of section 10.65.020 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled, "Appointment, membership and terms of appointment," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough): 10.65.020 Appointment, membership and terms of appointment. F. Members may be removed by the mayor with the approval of city council after a public hearing before the city council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Vacancies Any vaeaney on the commission shall be advertised, and the new appointees shall be selected from the applications received, except that commissioners may elect to interview and/or appoint from applicants received in response to an advertised vacancy within three months prior to any new vacancy. Any appointment to a position vacated other than by the expiration of the term of the appointment shall be to fill the unexpired portion of the term. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING Packet Pg. 253 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 254 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATED TO ATTENDANCE AND NEW APPOINTMENTS FOR THE EDMONDS DIVERSITY COMMISSION. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2017. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 4 Packet Pg. 255 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2017 Review Council Committee Descriptions and Provide Feedback (5 min.) Staff Lead: Council President Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Council President Mesaros requests that each Council Committee review the attached committee descriptions and recommend any revisions or edits to the full Council. Attachments: Committee Descriptions Packet Pg. 256 Proposed Committee Descriptions 11.2.a Finance Committee Shall exercise general oversight with respect to city revenues and expenditures. The committee may report to the council the cost of implementation of any order, ordinance, program, or other initiative pending before the body, and shall make such report whenever requested by another committee or directed to do so by the council. The committee shall have referred to it all matters concerning appropriations, the city budget, expenditures and loans. The committee shall review city policies and actions involving the purchase of financial services, deposits, borrowing, and investment. The committee shall concern itself with issues related to all city owned or leased facilities. Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee Shall concern itself with open space conservation and access to recreational facilities and opportunities, as well as, the physical development of the city, including financing, zoning, licensing, land use policy, and the effects of development on the city. The committee shall have oversight of public parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities and matters generally impacting the Parks Department including but not limited to accessibility, maintenance, design and construction of new and existing public parks in the city. The committee shall exercise oversight with respect to all commercial, medical, research, educational and large scale residential development and building projects, as well as historic preservation programs. The committee shall work to ensure community participation in the planning and development process, that residents and their institutional neighbors are both able to share in the city's benefits, and that the delivery of financial services are accessible, non-discriminatory and promote both small and large business and development throughout all neighborhoods. The committee shall exercise oversight with respect to the care, management, custody, and use of public lands and buildings. Public Safety and Personnel Committee Shall concern itself with the adequate delivery of police and fire protection to the City. The committee shall be responsible for evaluating, encouraging, and facilitating resident -driven efforts to prevent crime. The committee shall coordinate and work with other City agencies and community organizations to evaluate, explore and develop strategies, policies, and recommendations aimed at ensuring the public's safety. Shall concern itself with matters relating to personnel policies and practices, compensation and benefits, labor relations and collective bargaining, employee relations, staffing and organizational structure. r a Packet Pg. 257