2017-03-28 City Council - Full Agenda-1869o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MARCH 28, 2017, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2017
2. Approval of claim checks
5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. 2016 Annual Report - Snohomish County Fire District One (30 min.)
2. Community Transit Presentation (30 min.)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. STUDY ITEMS
1. Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles and surplus city
equipment (5 min.)
2. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Murray, Smith & Associates for the Five
Corners Reservoir Recoating Project (10 minutes)
3. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with The Blueline Group to provide Capital Project
Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services for 2017 (10 minutes)
8. ACTION ITEM
1. Shoreline Master Program (60 min.)
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1)
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
March 28, 2017
Page 1
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/28/2017
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 21, 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:
Cmd032117
Packet Pg. 2
4.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
March 21, 2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
Mayor Earling offered comments regarding the unfortunate remarks made at a recent Fire District 1
Commission meeting that have received local and regional press coverage. While he respected that FD1
was a jurisdiction independent of the City, as Mayor he felt it appropriate to offer remarks in response to
the incident. He found the comments by the two commissioners very disappointing. Whether intended to
be heard by the public or not, remarks that disparage or disrespect a group or class of people are not
representative of the culture that Edmonds aspires to, a culture of inclusivity and acceptance of all people
regardless of race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability or other
characteristics. It is in that spirit that the City created a Diversity Commission and provides training to all
City staff regarding diversity and inclusiveness. He concluded by stating he trusted these isolated remarks
did not reflect the overall principles and character of the Fire Commission and hoped this incident would
serve as a learning opportunity for the commissioners, district and everyone in Edmonds.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 1
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2017
2. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ASHLEY DORGAN
($422.55), A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM TIMOTHY S. DANAHER (AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED), AND A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KARI MIKKELSEN
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT.
4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN 2017 SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACTS
6. FIRST QUARTER AND 2016 CARRY FORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT
7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH MURRAY SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN SERVICES
FOR THE 2018 SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE 76TH AVE AND
212TH ST INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT/BIKE2HEALTH PROJECT
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no public comment.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATING PEDESTRIAN SIGN REQUIREMENTS IN CH.
20.60 ECDC
Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed:
• Sign code update in 2016
o Most recent update in August 2016
o Update focused on pedestrian signs; featured:
■ Pedestrian signs as permanent signage
■ Only one per ground floor storefront
■ Only while the business is open
■ Located within 2' of building and within 10' of entry
■ Exceptions must be approved by ADB
• Current update
0 2016 update resulted in some concerns from the business community
o Concerns gained attention of Council and were brought forward to Planning Board
o Board held work session and public hearing
o Multiple options were considered (Exhibit 3)
• Planning Board Recommendation
o Permit fees should be minimized, with blade signs costing less than pedestrian signs
(currently $75+$35 and $125 +35, respectively)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
o Pedestrian signs should count against sign area, except for those grandfathered in
o Allow Development Services Director to approve alternate sign locations under specific
conditions
o Define "governmental signs" to allow creation of a directional signage program.
o Grandfathered signs for area
New: ECDC 20.60.025(A)(5) [packet page 290-2911
a. Exception. A pedestrian sign does not count against the permanent sign area and the
number of signs permitted if:
i. A wall sign exists and was legally permitted prior to August 12, 2016; and
ii. A pedestrian sign was in place during some or all of the period between June 12 and
August 12, 2016; and
iii. A pedestrian sign permit was received by the City by October 6, 2016
b. This exception is no longer valid if an application for a new wall sign is received by the
City
c. This exception does not apply to any other aspect of the sign code governing pedestrian
signs, including the number, size and location of such signs
Options: Don't count in sign area or add 6 square feet to total allowed area
o Alternate sign location
ECDC 20.60.055 [packet page 293-294]
3. The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry and must be placed within
two feet of the building. The Development Services Director may approve an alternative
location under the following circumstances: The sign shall be leeatea within 10 fee
the building ea4y, iaaless it is plaeed in a leeation that better- preserves publie pedestfi—an-
ffem this standard n�mst be submit4ed to the ar-ehiteettifal design board for- review
approval per- ECDC 20.60.015(B)(1)
a. An alternative location in front of the building or on the property occupied by the
business is less intrusive to pedestrian movement or accessibility; or
b. The building containing the building is set back from the property line and a location
on the property can be provided such that the sign does not encroach onto a public
sidewalk.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to her suggestion last week to make blade signs free. Mr. Chave
responded that was at the discretion of the Council. One of the things intended in the code was to
encourage their use; making them free would simply require a resolution. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas recalled when blade signs were discussed several years ago, the reason they were preferred was
they attracted shoppers but did not clutter sidewalks.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Jamie Reece, Edmonds, Chair of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), highlighted
comments in the February 15, 2017 memo the EDC sent the Council. The EDC as well as a subgroup
discussed the sign code and feedback received from businesses and citizens. The goal of their discussions
was to strike the right balance between aesthetics and economic vitality of the community. The EDC
supports lowering the cost of A -board signs, not necessarily to encourage them, but to make them more
affordable for business owners. The EDC has not discussed expanding the overall sign area but supported
the concept that pedestrian signs not count toward the overall area of signage to avoid stagnating existing
signs and having different size signs on facades. The EDC supports greater flexibility in the requirement
to have A -board signs located 2 feet from the facade and making that process more affordable as well as
ongoing cooperative efforts with the community and the BID for wayfinding signs for businesses located
1-2 blocks off 5th & Main without cluttering every corner with signs and flags.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
4.1.a
Debbie Rosenfelt, Edmonds, co-owner of Snap Fitness, expressed support for reducing the fees for blade
and pedestrian signs to $85, not having pedestrian signs count against total sign area, and allowing the
Development Services Director to approve alternate sign locations under specific conditions.
Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, owner of HouseWares and President of Ed! Edmonds Downtown Alliance,
urged the Council to keep the cost reasonable and make the cost for blade and pedestrian signs the same
and he and some other businesses are unable to have a blade sign. He also supported not counting
pedestrian signs against the total sign area. He supported the proposal regarding alternate locations. He
asked what was meant by "the sign does not encroach on the public sidewalk," commenting signs would
be located on the sidewalk. With regard to wayfinding signs, Ed! is interested in assisting with a project
for a wayfinding signs throughout the City, signs that enhance the cityscape and help visitors find their
way around.
Sheila Cloney, Edmonds, Anchor Chic, spoke in favor of wayfinding signs. The building they are in has
not had a lot of activity for some time and they find the A -board signs help drive customers to their
location next to Masonic Temple.
Joy Rye, Edmonds, representing ZINC, said the removal of their A -board has impacted their business.
Their entrance is located more than 2 feet from sidewalk and when the A -board sign is not up, business is
substantially down.
Janet Hans, Edmonds, Gallery North, said they value their A -board sign and she thanked the City
Council for considering pedestrian sign regulations. She expressed support for a more reasonable cost,
having blade signs and A -boards be the same price and allowing alternative locations. She asked for
clarification of "the sign does not encroach onto a public sidewalk."
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her preference that there be no cost for blade signs, commenting
they were generally fairly small signs. Mr. Chave said if that was the consensus of the City Council, the
City Attorney could draft a resolution for Council consideration setting the fee for blade signs at zero.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will make a motion when the Council completes it deliberation.
Councilmember Teitzel recommended a group with members from Ed!, the Chamber, DEMA, EDC and
citizens consider permanent directional/wayfinding signs and report back to the Council in six months. He
anticipated permanent directional signage would lessen the pressure for A -board signs. He suggested that
project also consider wayfinding apps to assist visitors with navigating around the City. Mr. Chave said
Development Services Director Shane Hope has been meeting with members of the BID regarding
directional/wayfinding signs and several businesses have been working on ideas so it would not be
difficult to form a group and report to Council on ideas. With regard to an app, the Western Washington
University Sustainable Cities program is working on that and their report is due at the end of spring
quarter.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about funding for an app, recalling a suggestion at the Planning Board to
use the technology fee to offset the cost of developing an app. Mr. Chave said the Council would need to
budget the cost of developing an app. The WWU project is student time and a minimal cost. He suggested
waiting to see the results of WWU's project to see how useful an app would be.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the question asked by the public regarding encroachment onto the
sidewalk. He cited an example of a property on Dayton between 4th and 3rd where the building is set back
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
4.1.a
from the street but there could be appropriate locations on the property that were not on the sidewalk. Mr.
Chave said the intent of Item 3.b was if the businesses was setback from the property line, there should be
space between the business and the sidewalk to locate the sign. Alternate locations that include the
sidewalk would be addressed by Item 3.a, such as if there is street furniture at the curb, it may be less
intrusive to put a sign at the curb instead of next to the building. It will be very situational, hence the
recommendation to grant the discretion to the Development Services Director. Councilmember Tibbott
expressed support for allowing the Director that discretion.
Councilmember Johnson asked how the technology fee was used. Mr. Chave answered the technology fee
was broadly applicable to all permit applications and supports the website, electronic permitting system,
GIS, etc. It is basically at capacity for those purposes at this time. If the Council wanted to pursue some of
the suggestions that have been made, the cost could be subsidized by the General Fund, a minimal amount
added to the technology fee, etc. The technology fee is a flat fee.
Council President Mesaros asked how the $125 fee for an A -board signs was calculated. Mr. Chave said
that represents approximately 1.25 hours of staff time. When fees were established, consideration was
given to who does the review, the average amount of time the process takes, etc.
Councilmember Nelson said if the Council wanted to encourage blade signs by making them free, he did
not want the difference made up by increasing the fee for A -board signs. If the Council reduced the cost
of blade signs, he supported also reducing cost of A -boards signs, such as reducing it by half.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ed! should work on a wayfinding sign program, and the City
Council should not be involved with it. She supported the WWU project that will consider an app, noting
she often uses TripAdvisor when visiting other cities. Mr. Chave commented the fees were up to the
Council. He recommended directing the City Attorney to draft a final ordinance for Council
consideration.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF BLADE SIGNS WHICH SHALL HAVE NO FEE OR TECHNOLOGY FEE.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing blade signs for a number of
years; it was important not to have a fee since they are the preferred sign type and having no fee will
encourage businesses to choose that type of sign. She recognized some businesses did not have an
overhang to display a blade sign.
Councilmember Tibbott suggested the Council discuss either not having pedestrian signs count against
the total sign area or adding 6 square feet to the total allowed signage.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD 6 SQUARE FEET TO THE TOTAL ALLOWED SIGNAGE.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Mesaros commented his heart supports having no fee for blade signs but his head does
not. He suggested reducing the fee for blade and pedestrian sign to $40 + $35 technology fee, recognizing
that a number of businesses do not have the architecture for a blade sign.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers to pass the motion eliminating the fee for
blade signs and she would support a motion to reduce the cost of A -board signs.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO REDUCE THE FEE FOR PEDESTRIAN SIGNS FROM $135 + $35 TO $75 +
$35. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND NELSON VOTING NO.
2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the purpose of the public hearing is the four options for the Urban
Mixed Use (UMU) IV environment, basically the area around the Edmonds Marsh. He identified
similarities between all options:
• Default buffer of 110 feet with 15-foot setback
• Mechanism for establishing alternative buffer
Mr. Lien outlined the options:
Ecology Option A
• Add a reference to the interrupted buffer provision in the critical area regulations (ECDC
23.40.220.C.4) in footnote 18
Notes that an alternative buffer may be established with a shoreline conditional use permit
consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.4
ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 provides an exemption from prescribed buffer width if site is proven to be
functionally isolated from a stream or wetland
Two potential results
o Determined to be functionally isolated and exempt from buffer requirements
o Not functionally isolated and the 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback apply
o Does not provide for an alternative buffer
Ecology Option B
• Establishes buffer between 110 and 50 feet
• Buffer established through a shoreline conditional use permit process
• Buffer based on "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function"
• Lacks detailed criteria for consideration of site specific study to establish alternative buffer
• Conflicting terms in "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function"
Staff Developed Option C
• Combines elements of Ecology's Options A & B
• Keeps Council 110 buffer/15-foot setback as a default, and establishes minimum buffer of 50 feet
• Criteria from interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis
• Site specific study shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife
habitat of pre and post development conditions
• Could be modified to specifically note where buffer begins
Citizen Developed Option D — Part 1
• Modify Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Table to list buffer and shore setback
separately
• Modify footnote 18
o Note where buffer begins, "where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or
at the wetland/upland edge"
o Require buffer between railway right-of-way and marsh
• "Shore setback" to "building setback"
Railway right-of-way
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
4.1.a
o Extends up to edge of marsh
o City owns marsh next to railway right-of-way
o Mixing requirements for different shoreline jurisdictions
Option D — Part 2
• Modify definition of setback in 24.90.050 A. "Shore setback" or "setback" means the minimum
distance between a structure or use from the outer edge of a buffer, or from the edge of the
shoreline if no buffer is required.
• Has broader implications
• Suggest adding definition for "building setback"
Option D — Part 3
• Delete provisions from CAO Appendix B related to buffer reductions or exemptions
• 23.50.040 (G)(1) to (4) [Wetland Buffer Modifications], 23.50.040 (I) [Additions to structures],
and 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer]; and 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) [Additions to
structures] .
• Has broader implications
Option D — Part 4
• Add Appendix C — Scope of Work for Site -Specific Study
• Unbiased study
• If Council wants an Appendix C, should be limited to items to include in the study and criteria for
analysis
Peer review — suggest City select consultant for study
Requires analysis of past conditions,
o SMP standard of no net loss of ecological function is based on existing conditions
Mr. Lien described:
• Council Review
o Options A — C note a shoreline conditional use permit (Hearing Examiner recommendation to
Ecology); Option D notes Council approval of alternative buffer
o Both sides of marsh subject to master plan approval
■ Council approve master plan then development proposal goes through shoreline
conditional use permit process; or
■ Council approve master plan and SMP amendment
Next Steps
o Public Hearing Tonight
o Council Extended Agenda
■ March 28th
o Response to Ecology by March 30, 2107
o If not meet March 30, 2017 deadline, notify Ecology City will respond by April 30, 2017
Mr. Lien referred to letters provided to Council from the Washington State Ferries (WSF) received last
Friday and from Chevron received today, both raising concerns about the potential impacts the
amendments could have on the future Edmonds Crossing located on the old Unocal site.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the letter from WSF which states they and the City have spent a lot of
planning time and funds developing the Edmonds Crossing project and the City has included it in the
Comprehensive Plan. In their letter, WSF requested clarity regarding the City's commitment and ongoing
interest in creating that multimodal facility. He asked Mr. Lien to clarify the impacts that a 110-foot
buffer in UMU IV would have on that project. Mr. Lien displayed a drawing of the Edmonds Crossing
from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), identifying the Edmonds Marsh, an existing stormwater
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
4.1.a
pond and parking and transit elements of Edmonds Crossing. He displayed the Edmonds Crossing
drawing overlaid on an aerial photo, identifying shoreline jurisdiction and explaining the setback from the
marsh will not really impact the Edmonds Crossing project because shoreline jurisdiction extends only to
the edge of the existing stormwater pond. The impact would be from the Willow Creek outlet which is
currently culverted if buffers and setbacks are expanded. The Edmonds Crossing parking and transit
turnaround would be impacted by the Willow Creek outlet.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how far the edge of the marsh is to Edmonds Crossing. Mr. Lien identified
shoreline jurisdiction, 200 feet from the edge of the marsh, basically the edge of the existing stormwater
pond. The Willow Creek outlet and its setback will impact the Edmonds Crossing project.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to emails she received today about an Ecology recommended
100 foot buffer and 15-foot setback. The closest thing to that is Option B where Ecology recommended
50-foot buffer and 65-foot setback. She wondered where the 15-foot setback came from. Mr. Lien said he
had not seen the emails Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was referring to. Ecology's initial
recommendations last year was a 50-foot buffer with a 15-foot setback for a total of 65 feet. The two
options Ecology has now proposed are Option A, a I I0-foot buffer with a 15-foot setback and Option B
which established a buffer between 110 feet and 50 feet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified the
50-foot buffer and 15-foot setback was the old Ecology recommendation. Mr. Lien answered yes, now
Ecology is proposing Options A and B.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented in the presentation she gave with the assistance of Joe Scordino,
she had issues with the railroad and three peer reviews. She noted this was not the first time the City has
received letters from WSF and/or Unocal regarding the SMP. She recalled WSDOT favored a 100-foot
buffer in 2013. Mr. Lien agreed WSDOT has submitted a number of letters over the years; they all have
been consistent in their concern how this may impact the Edmonds Crossing project. One of their letters
that mentioned the 100-foot buffer was sent to Ecology during Ecology's comment period. That was
essentially what WSDOT proposed in the Edmonds Crossing EIS from the edge of the marsh. They
showed that buffer for the Willow Creek outlet; in the Edmonds Crossing project they identified
daylighting Willow Creek as mitigation. Assuming the Edmonds Crossing won't happen in the next 20-30
years, Willow Creek likely will be daylighted by then and will not be part of the mitigation.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the Marina Beach master plan was prepared if WSDOT is
still planning for Edmonds Crossing. She referred to another email from WSDOT stating they are really
not considering Edmonds Crossing.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the definitions of setback and buffer, pointing out Anacortes has
separate definitions for buffer and setback. She recalled a few years ago Edmonds combined them so that
the buffer and setback occurred at the same point of origin. She noted that is causing some of the
confusion; in most literature, buffers and setbacks are separated. Ecology originally recommended a 50-
foot buffer and 15-foot setback, referred to as the 65 50. Option D includes a definition of setback. Mr.
Lien explained there is a shore setback definition. Changing the definitions to have shore setback and
setback mean the same thing has implications. For those places in the table that have shore setback, there
is also a buffer required due to a wetland or stream; the setback from the buffer for the Shoreline
Residential 3 will be 35 feet. That was why he suggested adding a definition for building setback.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has reviewed numerous SMPs, many have separate buffer and
setback definitions. Mr. Lien said there is a buffer definition.
For Councilmember Teitzel, Mr. Lien confirmed the railroad right-of-way extends to the edge of the
marsh and there is no place to establish a buffer between the railroad right-of-way and the marsh. The
City of Edmonds owns most of marsh; a small sliver belongs to the Port. If the City chose, it could
improve the marsh without a requirement in the SMP.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
4.1.a
With regard to where the railroad right-of-way touches the marsh, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether
the City or Ecology would have any legal standing to require the railroad establish a buffer within their
right-of-way. Mr. Taraday referred to Mr. Lien's statement that there is no space for a buffer; even if
there were physical space, it was his understanding that that was a different shoreline environment, not
UMU IV that is being discussed tonight so it would require a different amendment to the SMP.
Councilmember Teitzel concluded for tonight's purposes the railroad discussion can be set aside and he
recommended that be removed from Option D.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Fred Gouge, President Port of Edmonds Commission, submitted the latest reports the Port had
prepared by Landau and Associates and HartCrowser. The Port has been working on protecting the marsh
around Harbor Square since purchasing the site in 1970. The Port removed all soil contamination caused
by industrial activities that existed when the Port purchased the site. The Port has spent over $1.7 million
since 2005 to stop contaminants in Harbor Square from reaching the marsh and continue to allocate funds
for any cleanup at Harbor Square as necessary. When Jacobsen Marine was built, the Port paid over
$11,000 toward marsh restoration and cleanup even though the project was west of the tracks. The Port
has been the only entity putting money toward protecting the marsh. Everyone welcomes the daylighting
of Willow Creek and the restoration of the marsh but the cleanup of the Unocal site on the south side of
the marsh has been stalled by Joe Scordino who crafted proposed options for the SMP by filing an appeal
to Ecology in October 2016 which has harmed the timeframe for Willow Creek daylighting. Since the
Port's master plan was withdrawn in 2013, the Port has invested nearly $2 million in Harbor Square, plan
to continue operating Harbor Square as it currently exists, and have no plans for a development. Nothing
has changed except making many of the 60+ businesses nonconforming with the proposed setback
including the Harbor Square Athletic Club and other buildings. Over 7,000 members use Harbor Square
Athletic Club and the Port has long term leases with tenants. He emphasized the Port has no intention of
selling Harbor Square despite all the rumors. The Port had a master plan development meeting and that
effort died. Councilmember Teitzel was present at the Port's last retreat where it was again stated the Port
has no plans to sell Harbor Square. The Port purchased the buildings in 2006 for $13.5 million; the
income from current long term leases covers the debt service which will be paid off in 33 months. When
the City Council is ready to think about the future of Harbor Square for the good of Edmonds residents,
the Port asks that the Council start a task force.
Mike Shaw, Edmonds, requested the Council support Option D, the only option that fully details what is
necessary for an independent site survey of the Edmonds Marsh and also spells out buffer and setback
specifications. In addition, he requested the Council expand their vision of Harbor Square. For too long
Harbor Square has represented the vision of the Port and a few developers. There are people in the
audience who want to make a profit at the expense of the Marsh. That is short sighted and does not take
into account the wishes of a majority of Edmonds residents. Rather than continue to hope for multistory
residences, he urged them to think about truly green and low impact development that would encourage
and restore the health of the Edmonds Marsh. The Edmonds Marsh could become a Washington State
treasure with restored salmon runs, ecotourism for birdwatchers and ecologist and not an area would be
shared with duck hunters like other tide flats. If the Council or Port thinks redevelopment always has to
be intensive or test height limits, he cited Salish Crossing as an example of what can be accomplished
with little disturbance.
Mike Schindler, Edmonds, CEO, Operation Military Family, and EDC member, speaking as a private
citizen, recognized there are strong opinions laced with convenient facts on both sides with regard to the
Edmonds Marsh and Harbor Square. He recalled one of the best assignments a high school teacher gave
him was to argue the other side of an issue he was dead set against. That assignment had a tremendous
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 9
Packet Pg. 11
4.1.a
impact on his life and made him a believer in the 1% principle of starting where we can all agree. When
the rhetoric is dropped, both sides are explored, and the focus is on the mission and outcome, mission
success can often be achieved even if parties are on opposite sides of an issue. He challenged each
Councilmember to argue the other side of their position. Everyone can agree on attracting partners and
leaders to Edmonds who contribute economically but also value the environment and natural
surroundings. What if the City could find a partner willing to build economic value, not only Port
infrastructure but also willing to invest in the marsh? Wouldn't that benefit both sides? How to find such
as partner, one willing to find economic value to the City by maintaining a world -class, award winning
marina and boardwalk that attracts residents from across the region and tourists from throughout the
northwest as well as is willing to invest millions in protecting the marsh and Puget Sound via industrial
site cleanups and effective stormwater and industrial runoff? He suggested starting by picking up the
phone and talking to the Port. Because he was interested in economic and environmental value and
preservation, he supported the original Ecology recommendation of a 50-foot buffer and 15-foot setback
if a scientific study shows no net loss of function. He recommended defining who a scientist is, it cannot
be Bill Nye the Science Guy. He believed this to be a fair and balanced proposal that protects and
potentially will enhance the marsh but also allow allows for responsible redevelopment of the Harbor
Square site.
Beth Burrow, Edmonds, thanked the Councilmembers and community members who have brought this
effort to this point and special thanks to Councilmember Buckshnis for her effort on Option D. She urged
the Council to accept Option D; this option ensures when a development proposal for Harbor Square or
the old Unocal site is submitted, an alternate buffer for the Edmonds Marsh will be derived from a site
specific study to be conducted at the time. Option D is the only option that places the needs of the marsh
and its wildlife as the driver for future site specific studies. Option D requires a rigorous scientific study;
the other three options focus more on the needs of development. The Environmental Protection Agency
may cut, among other things, its Puget Sound budget 93%, from $28 million to $2 million. The Edmonds
Marsh is one of the few remaining saltwater estuaries in Puget Sound and now, more than ever, it is
dependent on local actions to enhance and restore it. Unless the remaining marsh is protected and
enhanced, it will lose its ability to support birds and wildlife that visitors cherish. As the community
grows, she recommended working together to ensure the environment and special places remain a top
priority. Without these special places, Edmonds will lose the very things that make it a special place that
attracts visitors, developers, investors and residents. She did not want the last word on the marsh to be a
historical sign noting there was once a health marsh there.
Jon Houghton, Edmonds, marine biologist specializing in coastal ecology and shoreline ecological
functions, and owner of biological consulting company since 1989 located at Harbor Square whose
laboratory would be bisected by the II0-foot buffer, said his experience includes a lot of habitat
restoration projects, field research on juvenile salmon throughout Puget Sound, and design of a number of
coastal habitat restoration projects in Everett, Tacoma, Olympia and Seattle. He also conducted BAS
reviews for Everett and Tukwila for their SMP updates. He referred to a memo he submitted to the
Council that summarizes the science behind buffers as they apply to the north shore of the Edmonds
Marsh. It is a unique environment and having lived and worked next to it for 30 years, he appreciated the
ecological functions the marsh provides as well as the limitations. Dikes on the north side of the marsh
prohibit developing great ecology functions via construction of wider buffers. The best way to restore and
enhance the marsh would be to daylight it and preserve and enhance existing buffers and vegetation on
the north side. He pointed out shorebirds need big mudflat areas and clear lines of sight. If big trees are
planted on the north side where no trees currently exist, they will further limit shorebirds' use of the
marsh.
Larry Beard, Edmonds, an environmental engineer who has worked on a variety of projects from
cleanup of contaminated projects to designing wetland mitigation projects and stormwater treatment
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 10
Packet Pg. 12
4.1.a
facilities, expressed support for improving the quality of the marsh, but he was concerned about the
approach of establishing such a large buffer. Based on what he knows of the marsh and other projects, the
single most important thing that could be done to improve the quality of the marsh would be to treat
stormwater that discharges to the marsh. There are very good state-of-the-art treatment methods but they
are expensive to construct and operate. The only catalyst for construction of that type of facility is some
form of redevelopment. Establishing a 110-foot buffer essentially maintains the status quo which will not
improve the marsh. Responsible and thoughtful development will require a more reasonable buffer at
most what Ecology originally suggested, a 50-foot buffer and 15-foot setback. If the goal is to improve
the functionality of the marsh, the Council should establish setbacks that can support responsible
development; otherwise the overall goal is more to stop development, not improve the marsh.
Jamie Reece, Edmonds, Chair of the EDC, but speaking as a private citizen, said his family are boaters,
hikers, cyclists and outdoor enthusiasts, and feel the marsh is a treasure. He expressed concern with
establishing what would be on paper something that would protect and benefit the marsh but in reality
may not achieve that objective. Restoring the marsh and improving stormwater management and the
treatment of stormwater requires money. Therefore either taxes need to be increased to accomplish this
approach and the City needs to approach the property owner about improving their land using City funds
or the City needs to attract responsible developers. The City is demanding of those who develop in
Edmonds and has attracted developers willing work within the City's values. He encourage flexibility
rather than establishing the largest buffer possible and establishing a buffer that asks for specific
proposals such as benefits, a more walkable and attractive Harbor Square and waterfront in exchange for
the most rigorous protections for the marsh.
Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, read a letter from Port Commissioner Steve Johnston, a retired environmental
professional who spent more than 35 years helping to put projects on the ground in balance with the
environment throughout the Pacific NW And Alaska, experienced in providing onsite and offsite
mitigation to offset potential development impacts to natural resources. She summarized his 3-page letter,
the actions of the Save our Marsh (SOM) group and Councilmembers who support larger setbacks cannot
have the best interests of the Marsh in mind since the premise of their position in promoting a 125-foot
setback is not based in any way on BAS or law. Their real agenda may be to preclude options for further
development of Harbor Square. This concern is supported by recent affiliations with the SOM group by
former Councilmembers with a record of adamant opposition to the redevelopment of Harbor Square. If
this is their agenda, they should just say so; their position cannot be based on science because the science
favors smaller setbacks and buffers and it cannot be based on environmental concerns because some of
the Councilmembers who support larger setbacks have shown no real respect for the environment in some
past uninformed decisions like establishing a dog park right on the beach. The SOM group and their
spokespersons are not qualified to assess positive or negative impacts on the marsh from any action; the
qualified PhUd biologists who have spoken tonight are. Do not make the future of the marsh subject to
misdirected politics and obstruction; the marsh is too important for that. Lay the groundwork for
protecting and enhancing the marsh. Do not foreclose options for future responsible development that will
benefit marsh. The Port and the City deserves better than that.
Alan Mearns, Edmonds, expressed support for Option D and particularly Appendix C because it was the
first time he had seen a discussion from a scientific and ecologic point of view of the science. He reported
on two seminars he attended this past week, one by the USGS about citizens and scientists working
together to measure, monitor and assess the functions and future of marshes. The other was a seminar by
NOAA's National Estuarian Reserve Program, providing new tools to evaluate marshes, tidal marshes in
particular, with regard to sea level rise. He summarized BAS is continually changing.
Dianna Maish, Edmonds, referred to a Seattle Times opinion published today, written by business
officials and an attorney for Sound Partnership, Federal Funding, a Bill that Could Cut the National
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 11
Packet Pg. 13
4.1.a
Budget for Puget Sound Recovery to Zero. Over the last decade, as long as Puget Sound has been
designated an estuary of national significance, it has been recognized that the economic and environment
health of Puget Sound are bound together. The Edmonds saltwater marsh is a small but significant
contributor to Puget Sound and can be protected. Today's investment has helped hold the line on Puget
Sound degradation, but as the authors of the opinion state, that can be undone very quickly if efforts at
pursuing and sustaining recovery are not supported. For each step backward, the cost to regain lost ground
becomes many times magnified as time passes and problems increase; the same is true with the Edmonds
Marsh. Degradation of Puget Sound and its salmon runs have been occurring for more than 125 years.
Protecting the Edmonds Marsh can be part of the solution, not the problem.
George Keefe, Edmonds, retired middle school science teacher, said he lives near the marsh and
regularly walks along the marsh to go birding and to eat blackberries. The 23-acre saltwater marsh is all
that remains of the original 40 -acre marsh. There are no other saltwater marshes between Everett and
Tacoma. The Edmonds salt marsh is home to over 40 species of resident and migratory birds over the
course of a year. Historically, the marsh was a highly valuable habitat for juvenile salmonids to transition
between fresh and saltwater. Buffers are a critical tool for protecting natural areas and should be based on
BAS. He urged the Council to adopt Option D as it puts the most emphasis on BAS. The Environmental
Protection Agency may cut the Puget Sound budget 93% from $28 million to $2 million. The Edmonds
Marsh is one of the few remaining saltwater estuaries in Puget Sound. Now more than ever Puget Sound
is dependent on local community action to enhance and restore natural areas such as the Edmonds Marsh.
Community participation in decisions that protect the treasured environment is invaluable. He thanked
Councilmembers who have worked with community members to reach this point, especially
Councilmember Buckshnis.
Barbra Tipton, Edmonds, explained the Edmonds Marsh is a 24 acre estuary, a Puget Sound habitat that
is an ecological asset to the community. Less than 20% of tidal wetlands in Puget Sound remain intact;
reestablishment of proper hydrology in the marsh would improve stormwater management and lessen the
probability of damage resulting from flood events. Protecting and restoring this ecosystem benefits fish,
birds, wildlife, and people who enjoy this unique resource. The State's SMA provides jurisdictions with
the flexibility to tailor their SMP to reflect their unique attributes. Under the State's GMA, local
governments are required to use BAS when reviewing and revising policies and regulations. She did not
see a bias in Option D or any rhetorical words, phases or ideas. A retired fisheries biologist, formerly with
NOAA, collaborated in the drafting of Option D; he is an expert and the City should be thankful for his
work. The scope of work for the site specific scientific study ensures the study will be conducted by
professionals with field experience in and knowledge of wetlands and wildlife. Once the study is
completed, three peer review will be conducted by independent scientists. Those reviews will determine
researcher bias, if any, in the site specific study. The 45t1i president's anti -science bias calls for gutting the
EPA and NOAA; according to today's Seattle Times, funding for the National Estuary Program will
disappear, a program that benefits all who rely on Puget Sound for tourism, shellfish and recreation. She
provided the following quote, "The federal government has been an essential partner in restoring and
protecting Puget Sound. It would be destructive and shortsighted to walk away from this responsibility
now."
Leslie Brown, Edmonds, stated she missed Agenda Item 5 and her comments were not related to the
marsh.
Emily Paynich, Edmonds, commented she was relatively new to the marsh issue. While she appreciated
the vibrancy that comes with development, if the protective buffer is not expanded, the marsh will
disappear and then everyone will be worrying about how to bring it back and restore it. She urged the
Council to support the largest buffer possible because Edmonds Marsh is a treasure.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 12
Packet Pg. 14
4.1.a
John Paynich, Edmonds, a builder and a contractor, said when the environment is literally under attack,
it the duty of the City and citizens to protect beyond what is legally required. This is necessary for Puget
Sound, for salmon runs, for the J Pod and as a legacy for the City. This is an opportunity to make the
situation better and make it work better than it is supposed to, rather than just doing the minimum. When
he builds, he thinks about the legacy of the project; builders who are considering any development in this
area need to have that as their primary function. The marsh is unique, a necessity to the environment and
it is worth protecting.
Jason Stutes, Lynnwood, a marine scientist employed in Edmonds who has studied estuarian processes
from the Baltic to the Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound to Alaska, said he has a particular investment in the
Edmonds Marsh both for its aesthetics and ecological uniqueness. When thinking about the Edmonds
Marsh and its ecology function, he considers what could potentially impair that function. He recognized
what the marsh currently provides but believed it could provide more. Thinking from an ecosystem
prospective, the major constraints on the marsh's ecological function is processing a lot of unfiltered,
unmanaged stormwater, its high retention and lack of a natural connection to Puget Sound. In considering
the buffer options, he liked the idea that there was no one size fits all. Promoting an overly larger buffer
may preclude a more specialized, tailored approach to preserving and perhaps enhancing the marsh. He
advocated for a more tailored approach, looking at the specific issues and how a buffer might help
alleviate those issues. One of the primary goals of an overly large buffer is stormwater management,
filtration and processing for contaminants; however, a buffer of that size does not actually provide that
function and more specific stormwater management for the marsh should be the goal via a more
customized buffer options.
David Richman, PhD, Edmonds, said like many people, he finds the Edmonds Marsh a very pleasant
place to spend time reconnecting with nature in a hectic world. The marsh serves as a haven for wildlife
in a much -reduced ecosystem but also as a place for casual wildlife watching, scientific research
education and a place to maintain mental health. He expressed support for Option D, a rigorous current
best science approach to determining the best outcome of development at Harbor Square. He has over 25
years' experience as a reviewer of scientific grant proposals, a book proposal and journal manuscripts as
well as a review participant in grant proposals and journal articles. The rationale and ethical standards
involved in peer review for scientific research are pertinent to the redevelopment of Harbor Square as
both require judgment of competent professionals who have no stake in the outcome and who rely on the
understanding of best science available. Ideally such peer review of future projects should include three
reviewers and reviewers must have some knowledge of ecosystem requirements and have no vested
interest in the outcome of their review. This accomplishes two major goals, sets the most knowledgeable
basis for a given project and reassures citizens of Edmonds that all interests are taken into account when
making decisions that will affect the City for decades.
Valerie Kendall, Edmonds, spoke in favor of a course of action that helps preserve and restore the marsh
ecology. As the parent of a scientist, she supported the best scientific information but was aware science
evolves and it takes citizens with a clear commitment and stake to participate in the decision. She thanked
the citizens who attended tonight's meeting as well as staff and Councilmembers for their work. She
recognized this was a sensitive issue, and as a planner herself, she was aware not everyone was always
happy with an outcome. She believed the Edmonds Marsh is a key identifier for Edmonds and it has the
potential now and in the future to help economic development, tourism, and provide a sense of who we
are. She urged the Council to consider this opportunity to preserve, enlarge and enhance the functionality
of the marsh and not worry about where the money would come from; establish the goals first and figure
out the funding later.
Phill Butler, Edmonds, said he and his wife have been publicly, positively and proactively supportive of
the best possible scenarios for the Edmonds Marsh. Due to his work, he had the opportunity to view the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 13
Packet Pg. 15
4.1.a
interface between ancient landscapes, water features and other ecological elements in other counties, an
experience that convinced him that even in places like the European Union where ecological concerns are
draconian, it is possible to have creative solutions at the intersection of modernization, organization and
respect for the environment. There is no reason Edmonds cannot find the best possible solution for the
Edmonds Marsh. The official Ecology position was originally 65 feet; the City Council revised Ecology's
position to include multiple options. No technical, scientific study has been done by Ecology or any other
groups suggesting a setback greater than 65 feet is either needed or justified. He recalled the Harbor
Square development plan adjacent to the marsh because a highly decisive issue several years ago and an
ill-advised City Council rejected the Port's proposed plan. He feared the position of many who steadfastly
hold to the 125-foot setback is actually a Trojan horse for the old, high divisive, anti -Harbor Square
development, now cloaked in the respectability of environmental ecological concerns. As a citizen paying
taxes, he was concerned with the adversarial relationship between the City Council and the Port.
Although the City Council positions itself as authority in environmental issues, the Port, who controls
Harbor Square, has since its formation in 1948 been looking out for the best environment interest of
Edmonds citizens for 70+ years.
Janet Way, Shoreline, representing the Sierra Club Snohomish County Group, requested they be a party
of record with legal standing in this matter. She loves to visit Edmonds and when her parents visit from
New Jersey, they stay Harbor Square Inn so they can be next to the marsh. The Edmonds Marsh is a
historic regional destination for tourists, a magnet for people worldwide who come to enjoy its beauty,
wildlife, diversity, and passive recreation experiences. The Edmonds Marsh is unique in this region as a
saltwater wetland estuary especially in an urban area. The marsh is a wildlife refuge, salmonid habitat and
has over 200 birds species. She worked on a project in the Northgate area, daylighting of Thornton Creek
at Thornton Place, a long fight that resulted in the best project. Buffers are important for water quality and
wildlife habitat; Option D provides the most ecological function. Invasive development is a threat because
the integrity of the saltwater marsh and impervious surfaces are the enemy. Whatever the Council can do
to reduce impervious surfaces and expand the marsh should be done. Option D ensures the best outcome
for people and wildlife based on rigorous science and sustainability. Edmonds has an obligation and duty
to protect and defend this unique resource.
Debbie Hopkin, Edmonds, described her background in immunological disease and public health and
current pursuit of a second graduate degree in public health in the environment. She thanked the Council
for carefully considering the SMP, acknowledging the need to make changes that provide definition and
clarity. Defining who has the ecological expertise to perform scientific site specific studies and how they
are peer reviewed is essential to decision making and is consistent with best practices around the world.
There is no doubt this will provide value for future development of the shoreline. She expressed support
for Option D for its specificity, clarity and peer review. Protecting nearshore environments is critical for
two reasons, 1) the health of the Puget Sound, increasingly at risk from toxic stormwater and pollution
and how that negatively affects food webs and diminishes ecological function, and 2) as sea level rises,
water draws closer to communities and in the rapidly shifting environment where shoreline communities
worry about stormwater and sea level rise, governments are already implement policies for new green
infrastructure programs to prevent the degradation and flooding from higher than expected tides and
storm surges. Edmonds has a 22-acre salt marsh that can naturally do what the money, planning and work
seeks to do if it is protected and fortified. A rigorous study released last week values Australian salt
marshes at $7.2 billion for their ability to sink carbon. Preserving naturally occurring salt marshes is a
widely -recognized need and is a priority among governments from Massachusetts to Florida and
internationally. As shoreline communities around the world model sea level rise scenarios, they are
looking to rebuild and replace salt marshes that have been lost. Edmonds has an opportunity to
demonstrate leadership in the shared and intertwined responsibility of public health and ecosystem
preservation. As a community, the Council and citizen body should do whatever possible to preserve and
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 14
Packet Pg. 16
4.1.a
fortify Edmonds Marsh for the invaluable and irreplaceable resources it provides to both the larger
ecosystem and the health and safety of the community in future years.
Marty Jones, Edmonds, a member of SOM, asked the City Council to support Option D, commenting
on the importance of any study for an alternate buffer include the scope of work in Option D to ensure the
wildlife who depend on the marsh are protected. Peer review by experts in the subjects outlined in the
scope of work is necessary to ensure the study is done in a competent and unbiased manner. The
Edmonds City Council is the only entity qualified make the decision on how to act on the site specific
study. The Edmonds Marsh belongs to the City and its citizens; the City Council is citizen's voice, and
citizens put their trust in the Council to make the best decision. This is a critical decision for Edmonds
that will have impacts for many generations. She expressed concern with a recent comment in My
Edmonds News from a Port member who said it now appears that wider buffers will eliminate any
prospect for redevelopment of Harbor Square. She displayed a picture made from satellite images from
Google Earth to illustrate the 125-foot buffer does not impact a majority of Harbor Square and does not
eliminate it from possible redevelopment. The area impacted by the buffer is primarily parking lots and
tennis courts. Edmonds needs representatives that look for opportunities and cooperative ways to find
solutions rather than assuming every problem is an insurmountable obstacle. It is time for the Port, the
City, the Council, SOM and others to work together to find the greatest good for Edmonds.
Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, said he would like to see the marsh returned to the size it was 200 years ago
before the first white man arrived. He was tired of the divisiveness due to money. Those with financial
stakes at risk do not want to lose money, no one does. If finances were removed from the discussion, the
Port likely would not object to a wider buffer. Rather than fighting over money, he suggested mediation
such as a weekend conference with all the stakeholders concerned about money as well as everyone else.
The conference would provide an opportunity to listen and understand why there is a fight over money
and then there may be more willingness to work with those who do not have finances at risk. This process
has been inundated by facts, yet best science is a fantasy. Most decisions are based on emotion and
peoples' livelihoods. He summarized his suggestion for a facilitated weekend conference where everyone
that has a stake works together.
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, urged the Council to approve Option D without any amendment. Option D will
ensure the marsh is preserved for the long term by providing a detailed scope of work for site specific
study to ensure an unbiased study is done that values all the ecological functions of the marsh. To
Councilmember Teitzel's concerns that SOM is a special interest group, she reminded that most members
are Edmonds residents who he represents. None of the members of SOM have anything to gain
financially from their support of the Edmonds Marsh. She urged Councilmembers to consider whether
special interest groups support reduced buffers. Marjorie Fields, a SOM member, wrote an excellent
editorial in My Edmonds News last week about her support of the Edmonds Marsh. Port Executive
Director Robert McChesney replied, "it now appears that wider buffers will eliminate any prospect for
redevelopment at Harbor Square. What you see is what you get." Mr. McChesney's statement is not only
false, it is baffling. All Mr. McChesney and the elected Port Commissioners need to do is look to Salish
Crossing where the owner, Lindsey Echelbarger, redeveloped the existing building without increasing the
height, without adding condominiums, remaining code compliant and economically viable and creating a
community asset. She was sure a majority of the Council's constituents would applaud the redevelopment
of Salish Crossing, yet Mr. McChesney says it cannot be done. It is time the Port and City work with
taxpayers of the City and Port to envision appropriate redevelopment at Harbor Square, redevelopment
that excludes residential, supports existing businesses, and adds services and amenities that reflect the will
of the community. If done properly, the Edmonds Marsh will be protected now and for future generations.
Susan Pane, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their tireless service. She was excited about Option D,
explaining she moved to Edmonds for the schools but also the terrific parks and great natural areas such
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 15
Packet Pg. 17
4.1.a
as Pine Ridge, Yost, Maplewood Parks. An experience in nature is not available in many places and the
places in Edmonds should be cherished. The Edmonds Marsh offers many opportunities to connect with
the natural environment, adds continuation of the beaches, and having an active natural marsh for both
estuarian environment services and the ecology impacts provides tremendous benefit to all Edmonds
residents as well as attracts visitors and birds. She appreciated the scientific basis for decision making and
peer review. Science will declutter the issues and she supported having peer reviews. A fully functioning
salt and freshwater marsh will also attract new businesses. People come to Edmonds for the beauty, the
people, the culture and the environment. She recommended using that as the vision for any new
development near Edmonds Marsh.
Ray White, PhD, Edmonds, a member of the SOM science committee along with Alan Mearns and
Dave Richmond, retired from Michigan State University and Montana State University, said he and his
wife moved to Edmonds for the mountains and amenities like the Edmonds Marsh. His professional
specialty is ecological restoration of trout and salmon streams; he started his first job in 1957. He echoed
previous speakers' comments about the value of the Edmonds Marsh. With regard to building setback, he
recommended defining building, recognize that much else is detrimental to the Edmonds Marsh such as
roads, parking lots, other infrastructure and impervious surfaces. All engineering work such as buildings
eventually deteriorate and have to be replaced; redevelopment of Harbor Square will occur at some point.
Sarah Murphy, Edmonds, described her background as a former English and science teacher and
survivor of three floods on the east coast. The impact of poor planning has devastating effects and her
hometown in New Jersey did not recover from repeated flooding of the Delaware River. She was excited
about the idea of planning and options that include involving scientists and peer review. She applauded
the Council for their forward environmental thinking. While a middle school teacher, she witnessed the
wonder of a child visiting a marsh and identifying birds and fish as well as to learn about the impact of
plastic on the ecosystem, an experience that cannot be duplicated in the classroom. The Edmonds Marsh
is a valuable ecosystem; she feared development would result in only pictures of the former wildlife in the
marsh. The EPA identified ecosystems as the nursery of the sea, without them, there cannot be viable,
strong ecosystems that feed into places like Puget Sound. With the current administration gutting the
EPA, it will be up to the local government to save the marsh in spite of funding cuts to Puget Sound. She
summarized D was the best option.
Suzy Schaefer, Edmonds, said she was both discouraged and excited; excited about Alan Mearns'
statement about the science of today and tomorrow because she knew the science of yesterday and that
development projects do not solve environmental problems. Fortunately SOM includes scientists; Option
D was the best SOM could do; it provides flexibility and does not take anything away from the existing
marsh. She was excited the coyotes were back at the marsh. She expressed support for Option D and
saving the marsh.
Victoria Leistman, Seattle, an organizer with the Sierra Club, commented it was not often this many
citizens came out to talk about an issue they care about. As an organizer, she often has talk about what she
is against; in this case people are expressing their support for preserving the Edmonds Marsh. She had an
opportunity to meet with Ecology Director Bellon on this issue last December before the 110-foot buffer
option was submitted by the City Council. Director Bellon prides herself on giving communities the
opportunity for compromise. This is an incredible opportunity to protect the marsh in a way that is based
on a scientific site specific study but also gives the community an opportunity to work together in a way
that protects the special place but does not preclude Edmonds from growing in a manner that is
sustainable and promising for the future in spite of what is happening at the federal level.
Carin Chase, Edmonds School Board Member, said her goal was to ensure the educational opportunities
that children have at the Edmonds Marsh are protected. Given the national climate and the challenges that
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 16
Packet Pg. 18
4.1.a
Puget Sound is facing, the City has an opportunity to lead the nation in defending and protecting natural
places. She began her career as a marine field researcher biologist at the Valdez oil spill; many places
have still not recovered and are lost forever. Protecting the natural environment is the Council's
paramount duty, and she urged the Council to protect Edmonds Marsh to the upmost within their power.
David Preston, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, commented there have been coyotes at the
marsh since the late 1970s. He displayed pictures of the Edmonds Marsh in 1940 where there was no oil
dock or marina; 1947; 1955 shows the oil docks and tanks, railroad tracks and where trains would dump
asphalt and oil; 1967 which shows the marina and infill from the marina toward the future location of SR-
104; 1970 showing the footprint of Harbor Square and contaminants on the railroad tracks; 1976 where
not much is going on in marsh; 1981; 1985 post cleanup; 1989 showing a healthier marsh; and 1993. He
read a proclamation dated March 21, 2017:
Whereas by talking to each other instead of about each other, the marsh will have a better outcome,
Whereas tenants, property owners and concerned citizens need to sit together at the table to true help the
environment,
Whereas honesty and transparency will further improve the marsh,
Whereas the daylighting of Willow Creek will help improve the salmon runs in Puget Sound,
Whereas a healthy marsh and clean stormwater protects Puget Sound,
Whereas recognition that the Port of Edmonds has spent almost $2.5 million on cleanup of Harbor
Square,
Whereas 25 years and with a 25-foot buffer, the marsh has benefited.
Let's resolve to save the marsh together and keep the unity of this community together to improve the
long term condition of the marsh for our kids, grandkids of the Edmonds and Woodway area.
Laurie Johnson, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for the Port's proclamation. As she has learned more
about the marsh, how unique it is and how fortunate citizens are to have it in Edmonds, the importance of
protecting it is apparent. Citizens recognize the uniqueness of the marsh and the benefits it provides to the
community and want to put their resources put toward protecting it.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified Mr. Scordino's appeal did not stop the cleanup of Unocal. His appeal
was in regard to the closing of the gate, flooding, and overflow into the marsh. David Pater, Ecology,
said it was an appeal of the water quality and the DES permit. Development Services Director Hope
offered to provide further information at the Council's next meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in the Council having a scientific report done based on
Appendix C, removing the sentence "and in the context of an approved master plan development or
redevelopment on one or more edges of marsh." She proposed using Council contingency funds to do a
site specific report with the information in Appendix C to provide a baseline for future review when any
development is proposed.
Councilmember Teitzel thanked the audience members for their comments; they are very well informed
and care about the City, the marsh and the environment. and marsh. With regard to the obligation to
respond to Ecology by the end of March, he did not think that would happen. He has a number of
questions he wants to bring up on the record next week. He suggested a motion to extend the response
deadline to April 30. Mayor Earling suggested that decision be made next week.
Councilmember Nelson looked forward to voting next week.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 17
Packet Pg. 19
7. ACTION ITEMS
1. POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced John Fregonese, Principal, Fregonese Associates,
who provided an aerial of the project area on Highway 99 and reviewed:
• Planning Process
o March - April 2016: Understanding existing conditions
o April - June 2016:
o April - Nov 2016: Develop land use and transportation scenarios
o Oct - Dec 2016: Develop Sub -Area Draft plan
o Dec - Feb 2017: Final Sub -Area Plan
• March 2016 Public Workshop
o Identified opportunities for new housing and business, community centers and services, and
infrastructure upgrades
o What did the public want?
• May 2016 Open House
o Revealed near and long-term development and transportation opportunities and its impacts
• November 2016 Open House
o Revealed implementation strategies and policy recommendations
o Public had opportunity to review the recommendations at the Open House and online and
provide feedback
o Community values:
■ Connectivity
■ Destinations
■ Beautification
■ Safety
■ Walkability
■ Affordable housing
■ Healthy businesses
Distinct Subdistricts
o Major local and regional destinations on Hwy 99
■ International District
- Diverse restaurants, grocers and shops; major Korean business cluster
■ Health District
- Swedish Hospital and medical offices
■ Gateway District
- Identified by the community during workshop
- Desire for "gateway" and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds
• Long segments without crossings
o Central area requires 10-minute walk to find safe crossing
• Housing development
o Widespread desire for housing, particularly in south
• Mixed Use Development
o Widespread desire for mixed use, particularly in south and central
• Pedestrian Crossing
o More mid -block crossings throughout
• Key Assets in Corridor Area
o Opportunity to build on the momentum of ongoing improvements in Shoreline along Hwy 99
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 18
Packet Pg. 20
4.1.a
o High -quality transit facilities already in place providing links to housing, jobs and amenities
in the region
o Distinct districts already emerging — International and Health Districts — that provide core
services and amenities
o Already a mixed -use district with retail uses adjacent to single- and multi -family housing
o Business, developer community and residents are ready to see positive changes to create a
safe, walkable, healthy place
Mr. Fregonese reviewed Implementation Strategies, Policy Recommendations + Actions
• Draft Zoning & Development Recommendations
o Strengthen Economic Opportunity
■ Support unique business clusters such as International District and Health District
■ Major auto sales facilities remain important to the local economy. Pedestrian Activity
Zone standard will allow auto sales to continue business as usual
■ Strengthen and continue support for business orgs. in county and state
■ Pursue broadband internet throughout corridor to attract high-tech business investment
■ Consider unique designs for streetscape improvements such as signage and lighting
o Encourage Sustainable Building Practices
■ Transit and pedestrian -friendly development with less reliance on automobile trips,
should be promoted through new design standards
■ Consider requiring electric vehicle charging facilities especially within new residential
developments and bicycle facilities
■ Encourage use of solar panels and green building practices
o Map of proposed update to Comprehensive Plan designations
■ Health District
■ International District
■ Gateway District
o Current Zoning Map
■ The only difference between CG and CG2 is the height limit (CG = 60' and CG2 = 75')
■ Many current zones are remnants from the counties antiquated zoning
■ Many zones do not match with the parcel boundaries
o Proposed Zoning Map
■ The proposal is to change these zones to the consolidated CG zone
■ Incorporate design standards directly into zones to ensure scale transition into
neighborhoods
■ More predictable outcomes for community
o Comprehensive Plan Map
■ New zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map
o Strengthen current design standards
■ Incorporate them directly into the zoning code
■ Consideration of special circumstances within the corridor will be made to ensure the
standards are feasible, such as large parcels that would have multiple buildings if
redeveloped and parcels with unique access or transportation challenges may require a
modified approach to the design standards.
o Changes to Access and Parking
■ Issue Today: current standards allow too much parking in the front of buildings, which
negatively effects the pedestrian environment and hinders redevelopment potential
o Existing District -based Design Standards Hwy 99 Corridor CG/CG2 — criteria
■ Access and Parking
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 19
Packet Pg. 21
4.1.a
- Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between the
building's front facade and the primary street. Parking lots may not be located on
corner locations adjacent to public streets
o Recommended Design Standards for Urban Areas
■ Parking Predominately on Side or Rear
- Parking areas may comprise 40% or less of street frontage
- Better design than current standard: no more than 50% of total project parking spaces
may be located between building's front facade and the primary street
■ Buildings on the Street Frontage
- Primary Frontage - min. 50% of primary street frontage should have buildings within
10 feet of front property line (at the edge of Pedestrian Activity Zone)
- All Other Frontages - 50% of side and rear street frontages to have buildings, walls,
or hedges at least 4 feet in height, within 10 ft of property line
■ Ground Floor Transparency
- 50% of Primary Frontage building facade within 10 feet of frontage lot line be made
of transparent windows and doors. All other building frontages require 30%
transparency.
o Current Standards
■ Screening and Buffering - Parking lots
- Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street frontages.
➢ This standard creates landscaped barriers between pedestrians and buildings
rather than enhancing a safe and comfortable pedestrian zone
o Changes to Screening and Buffering "Pedestrian Activity Zone"
■ Replace with required 10-foot Pedestrian Activity Zone
- Allows for a range of active uses like sidewalk cafes and amenities such as public art,
street furniture, street trees, bus shelters, pavement patterns, lighting, etc.
- Expanded Sidewalk Width
■ Amenity Space
- Outdoor amenity space, such as landscaping, benches, etc. should be required in
conjunction with development
- A portion of the required amenity space should be provided as common space and
may include pedestrian areas
o New Stepback Design Standards
■ No current stepback regulations exist
■ Purpose: Ensure a transition in height and bulk between multifamily/mixed-use buildings
in commercial zones and adjacent single family zones, while enabling more housing
options to be built adjacent to Hwy 99
o Recommended Front Setback for Multifamily and Mixed -Use Adjacent to Single Family
Zones
■ GROUND FLOOR SETBACK
- For frontages on Highway 99, require a front setback of 10 feet to accommodate a
Pedestrian Activity Zone.
- For frontages not on Highway 99, reduce frontage setbacks to 5 foot and encourage
enhanced pedestrian realm (larger sidewalks, useable landscaping, etc.).
- Keep current 15 feet setback and 10' landscaping requirements for lot line adjacency
with single family zones.
o Recommended Front Stepback for Multifamily and Mixed -Use Adjacent to Single Family
Zones
■ UPPER FLOOR SETBACK
- Zero setback up to 25 feet in height (30 feet is the maximum height in RM 1.5, which
is the predominant zone surrounding the commercial zones on Highway 99).
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 20
Packet Pg. 22
- 10 foot setback beyond 25 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single
family zones
- 20 foot setback beyond 55 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single
family zones
- 8 foot stepback beyond 30 feet in height on sides across a street from single family
zones
- Stepback areas can be used for active outdoor space such as balconies.
o Recommended Transit -Supportive Parking Standards
■ Reduce minimums; follow market demand for parking
- Residential
➢ Current: Studio: 1.2 / 1-Bedroom: 1.5 / 2-Bedroom: 1.8 / 3-Bedroom: 2
➢ Recommended: One space per unit that is less than 700 sq. ft.
- Commercial
➢ Current: 2.5 per 1,000 square feet (1 per 400 sq ft)
➢ Recommended: 2 per 1,000 square feet
- Exempt first 3,000 sq ft of commercial uses within mixed -use buildings that have a
shared parking plan (parking study and management plan)
➢ Reduces cost burden for small, local entrepreneurs
➢ Staff decision on compliance
Mr. Fregonese continued his review:
• Draft Affordable Housing Recommendations
o Define Hwy 99 area as a "target area" to allow Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE)
projects
■ Pass ordinance to enable MFTE project in Hwy 99 area
■ All residential -portion of building value tax exempt for 12 years with at least 20%
affordable units
o Continue to enhance fee waiver program for affordable housing
■ Enhance its City program to allow the reduction of transportation and park impact fees
for projects that include affordable housing
o Mixed -Use, Mixed -Income Demonstration Project
■ Identify site with willing owner or City purchase/transferrable option
■ Actively recruit developers (non-profit; public -private)
■ Pilot project for new MFTE and fee waiver programs, and other possible special
assessment districts
o Other Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Finance Recommendations
■ Key Financing Tools and Funding Sources to Pursue
- City Fund for Redevelopment and Affordable Housing
- Community Renewal Area (CRA) - used in Shoreline
- Hospital Benefit Zone (HBZ) Financing Program
- Local Infrastructure Project Area (LIPA) Financing
- Landscape Conservation and Local Improvement Program (LCLIP)
- Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
- HUD HOME Program
- HUD CDBG Program
- Enterprise Community Partiers Regional Equitable Development Initiative
• Draft Signage & Wayfinding Recommendations
o Gateway Signage at Hwy 99/Hwy 104 interchange
o Transit Gateway Signage/Station at Hwy 99/228th
o Improve wayfinding signage along corridor
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 21
Packet Pg. 23
4.1.a
■ Identify downtown, Lake Ballinger, multiuse path (Interurban Trail), new regional rail,
International District, Health District, other activity nodes
o Unique District Design Identity
■ Branding, public/local art, street furniture, unique bus shelter designs, pavement patterns,
special lighting fixtures, colored crosswalks, banners, etc.
o Prohibit new pole signs
Draft Transportation Recommendations
o Improve Transit Transfers:
■ Unify/consolidate BRT and local transit stops to reduce walking distance for transfers
o Hwy 99 and 228th will be Key Intersection
■ 228th will connect Edmonds to regional rail in Mountlake Terrace.
■ Shuttle/transit service from Hwy 99 to regional rail station
■ Consolidated transit stop at 228th
■ New BRT station
■ Clear signage
■ High quality bike connection on 228th
o Incentivize Alternative Transportation Options:
■ Car Share/Bike Share
■ On -site bike parking
■ Ride sharing services (Uber, Lyft)
■ Electric car charging stations
■ Incentives: Impact fee reductions and parking requirement offsets for providing dedicated
accommodating alternative transportation options on -site
Draft Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations
o Expand use of grant programs to fund safety improvements and pedestrian facilities
■ Safe Route to School Program
■ Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
■ Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP)
■ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
o Proposed Short & Long -Term Transportation Improvements
■ Transportation Goals:
- Improve pedestrian safety and access to/from Hwy 99 corridor
- Improve pedestrian environment along Hwy 99 corridor
- Safe pedestrian crossing of Hwy 99 and access to transit
- Improved transit mobility and transit stop environment
- Improved traffic flow and general safety with access management
■ Key Recommended Transportation Improvements
- Close the most significant gap in the pedestrian crossings within the corridor
- 238th to 228th - a distance of 3,700 ft. - has no controlled pedestrian crossing
- Improve pedestrian access from the south at the SR 104 interchange
- Long-term recommendation: Reconfigure ramps to conventional 90-degree stop
control intersections
- Short-term recommendation: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's)
with high visibility crosswalk
- Encourage walking and biking to access plan Highway 99 from surrounding
neighborhoods
- "Complete Streets" - sidewalks, safety lighting, street lighting, pedestrian -scaled
lighting, drainage improvements, etc.
- Streets that can be safely traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists at night will
experience travel during the day
- Improve connections between transit and major employment centers
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 22
Packet Pg. 24
➢ Swift Stations at 216th and the Swedish Hospital Campus: Implement a
pedestrian walkway system within campus with wayfinding
o Maps of Planned Transportation Improvements and Project Supportive Transportation
Improvements, identifying the location of.
■ Improvement Index Number
■ Existing Signalized Intersection and Ped Xing
■ Proposed New Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Crossing
■ Intersection Safety & Capacity Improvements
■ New Bike Route Designation
■ New Class 11 Bicycle Lanes
■ Street Improvements for Pedestrians
■ Access Management (Raised Medians)
■ Pedestrian Hybrid Signal (HAWK)
o Photographs of:
■ Health District Gateway
- Today
- With initial public investments
- With corresponding private investments
■ SW 234t'
- Today
- With initial public investments
- With corresponding private investment
Next Steps:
o March 21 - City Council disscussion of Subarea Plan
o March 22 - Planning Board meeting for initial review/discussion of Development Code
Amendments to implement the proposed Hwy 99 Subarea Plan
o Early April - Open House for Draft EIS
o April 12 - Planning Board public hearing on Development Code Amendments and Planned
Action Ordinance (PAO)
o May 9 - City Council public hearing on Development. Code and PAO
o June 5 - City Council to consider adopting: a) Subarea Plan, b) Development Code
Amendments, and c) PAO
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commended the plan, commenting this would be an improvement to the
corridor and brighten the entire environment. She referred to the proposed zoning map, recommending the
RM-2.4 zones be changed to CG. Mr. Fregonese said they have the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Because there was development on the property that was not envisioned to redevelop, the zoning was not
proposed to be changed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas She preferred more contiguous CG zoning in
the corridor for the future.
Councilmember Johnson concurred this was a great plan but it needs fine tuning. For example at the
beginning of the plan, there are three alternatives, but at the end there are only two and there is reference
to the second alternative but the description is actually the third alternative. Mr. Fregonese agreed that
could be clarified, explaining some of the residential options were combined for the EIS.
Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in how the recommendations regarding transportation will be
translated into the Comprehensive Plan as there is already a Transportation element. Ms. Hope answered
staff is working with engineering; a number of the projects are already in the City's plans. If anything is
not, it will presented to the Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendments at the end of the year.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 23
Packet Pg. 25
4.1.a
Councilmember Johnson commented on the lack of analysis about the importance of auto dealerships in
the economic analysis but it did appear in a recommendation. The Highway 99 corridor has a number of
auto dealerships which represent the number one revenue stream for the City. She recommended that be
included in the economic analysis.
Councilmember Johnson observed there is a lot of concern about bicycle connections across Highway 99
to the Interurban Trail, yet she did not see any specific recommendations. There are projects that come
close to 76ffi but the crossing of Highway 99 is missing at key connections to the Interurban Trail such as
220t'.
Councilmember Johnson observed the plan includes three districts, Gateway, International and Health;
however, the Swift station in the Health District is the Gateway station. She recommended working with
Community Transit to change the name of that station or develop a new name for the Gateway District.
She referred to the proposed zoning map, expressing interest in establishing a strategy for Highway 99 in
Esperance.
Councilmember Tibbott liked how public input was incorporated into the plan. He asked about walkways
that move pedestrians from sidewalks along Highway 99 into the interior of projects. Mr. Fregonese
answered the code requires a pedestrian path to connect building fronts. Councilmember Tibbott
commented on the importance of pathways through parking lots. He was encouraged to see the
landscaping especially along the walkways in the pedestrian zone and separation from traffic. He
expressed interest in locating affordable housing close to transit and recommended the plan address the
importance of affordable housing in those areas, even stating a preference for affordable housing in those
areas.
Council President Mesaros referred to the zoning snap and inquired about the white area at the south end.
Ms. Hope offered to research.
With regard to Councilmember Johnson's comment about Esperance, Council President Mesaros
suggested a future presentation identify the zoning on Highway 99 in Esperance to determine if it was
compatible. Mr. Fregonese agreed that could be done. Ms. Hope assured the zoning in Esperance would
be different than Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the recommendation to allow MFTE projects and
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' suggestion about consistent CG zoning.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the statement, "encourage use of solar panels and green building
practices" and suggested changing it to "encourage and incentivize use of solar panels and green building
practices."
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Hope advised staff will return to Council with minor modifications; work will continue on next steps.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported while Edmonds was enduring rain last week, he was in Washington D.C.
enduring snow and ice. Fortunately, D.C. only got 3 inches of snow compared to 1'/2 feet of snow in New
York. He was in Washington D.C. attending a Transit Conference, paid for by Community Transit. He
also had an opportunity to meet with Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representatives Larsen,
DelBene and Jayapal.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 24
Packet Pg. 26
4.1.a
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nelson provided the following: Today we see discrimination against immigrants on the
rise throughout our country. Locally, we are not immune. Recently, we had two local fire commissioners
make discriminatory remarks about immigrants during a public meeting unaware they were being
recorded. I do not know what is more troubling, their actual discriminatory comments or their public
defense of them as jokes and that others have said worse. You can call it jokes, banter, whispers, gossip,
but every time we allow this type of behavior to go unanswered and without consequences, we will only
encourage and condone it. The City of Edmonds is in a contract with Fire District 1 for fire service with
board members who think it is funny not to hire immigrants. Tonight the commissioners decided to
reverse themselves and voted to support their own reprimand. What assurances do we have from Fire
District 1 that this discriminatory behavior does not exist elsewhere over there? What is Fire District 1
going to do to prevent these acts from happening in the future?
Councilmember Nelson continued, it is clear to me that under the current circumstances, there is little we
can do. I believe our City, our residents, deserve better. That is why I will be introducing an ordinance in
the coming weeks that requires all our city contracts to prohibit discriminatory practices. If you have a
contract with our city and you engage in discrimination, we will be able to terminate our contract with
you. Our Safe City resolution calls on our City Council to be committed against any acts of intolerance
against our community members. It is time we mean what we say.
Councilmember Tibbott echoed Councilmember Nelson's comments; the words by FD1 commissioners
are regrettable and inexcusable and would not be tolerated in Edmonds. He remind citizens that FD 1
commissioners are elected officials and some are coming up for election soon. The Council welcomes
diversity in Edmonds as Mayor Earling mentioned earlier and it was regrettable that the FD1
commissioners spoke the way they did.
Councilmember Tibbott reminded of the Town Hall that he and Councilmembers Teitzel and Fraley-
Monillas are hosting an tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. at Swedish Edmonds. He looked forward to meeting with
citizens to discuss their views and opinions.
Council President Mesaros expressed appreciation for Councilmembers Nelson and Tibbott's comments,
agreeing there was no defense for the comments made by the FD1 commissioners and he encouraged
them to resign. He relayed Chief Compaan's invitation for a Councilmember to participate on the
interview panel for the new parking enforcement officer.
Councilmember Johnson reported this is National Brain Injury Awareness Month and tomorrow is Brain
Injury Awareness Day on Capitol Hill. This is an important issue and one of the things the City can do is
require bicycle riders to wear helmets. She volunteered to work with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and
the Health District to develop a countywide policy similar to the policy in King and Pierce Counties. In
Snohomish County, only Lynnwood requires bicycle riders wear helmets.
Councilmember Teitzel encouraged the public to attend the Town Hall at Swedish Edmonds at 6:30 p.m.
in the 4th Floor Conference Room B.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Special Olympics World Games are underway; at least one
athlete from Edmonds is participating. Today is Down Syndrome Awareness Day, a day to recognize
their abilities.
10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 25
Packet Pg. 27
4.1.a
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 10:09 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 26
Packet Pg. 28
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/28/2017
Approval of claim checks
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Lori Palmer
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #224635 through #224737 dated March 23, 2017 for $1,001,548.30.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Fiscal Impact
Claim checks $1,001,548.30
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 Checks 03-23-17
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-23-17
Packet Pg. 29
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224635 3/23/2017 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
224636 3/23/2017 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
224637 3/23/2017 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
15-47707
15-48609
383211
317299
224638 3/23/2017 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000017465
224639 3/23/2017 065568 ALLWATER INC
224640 3/23/2017 070976 AMERESCO INC
031517030
A
PO # Description/Account
SOMALI INTERPRETER COURT 6ZC
SOMALI INTERPRETER COURT 6ZC
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
SOMALI INTERPRETER JAIL 6Z061'
SOMALI INTERPRETER JAIL 6Z061'
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Total
PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI
PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Total
P&R: VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS
P&R: VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
Total:
TRAFFIC - PED PUSH BUTTONS,SI
Traffic - Ped Push Buttons, Supplies
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Total
WWTP: 3/16/17 DRINKING WATER;
3/16/17 Water services (plus
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
WWTP: PROJECT C431 PH 5 ENEF
Construction Services
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
4.2.a
Page: 1
Amoun
U)
U
m
176.7E u
E
M
192.8(
369.5E 0
0
L
Q.
137.2E Q
137.2E
M
6�
94.4E r
M
N
9.2( c
103.7' y
a�
t
U
489.0( E
47.9< U
536.9:
m
E
t
U
0
r
33.6£ Q
33.61
440,733.9'
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 30
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 2
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224640
3/23/2017
070976 AMERESCO INC
(Continued)
Retainage
Y
423.100.223.400
-20,069.8E u
6
WWTP: C431 PH 5 ENERGY SRV 2(
t
Professional Services
U
423.100.76.594.39.41.10
115,134.8, 'E
Total:
535,798.81
0
224641
3/23/2017
075973 ANGEVINE, KATY
3/15 REFUND
3/15 REFUND
6
3/15 REFUND
0
001.000.239.200
37.0( rL
Total:
37.0( Q
224642
3/23/2017
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
1990065519
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
M
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
53.Z ..
1990076074
WWTP: 3/15/17 UNIFORMS, TOWEL
r
wwtp uniforms
A
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
N
5.1( A
wwtp mats & towels
N
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
115.9E
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
0.5( U
9.8% Sales Tax
E
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
11.30 V
1990076075
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
..
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
m
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
52.0< E
Total:
238.2' U
0
224643
3/23/2017
071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
1047717-IN
FLEET DIESEL 3380 GAL
r
Q
Fleet Diesel 3380 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.10
5,712.2(
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.10
1,751.7,
Regular 6620 Gal
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 31
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224643 3/23/2017 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
1054889-IN
224644 3/23/2017 012005 BALLAND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2O17-015
224645 3/23/2017 071348 BERGERABAM
224646 3/23/2017 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC
318069
8580
8622
PO # Description/Account
511.000.77.548.68.34.11
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.11
WA St Svc Fees
511.000.77.548.68.34.11
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.11
WWTP:3/10/17 DIESEL FUEL
3/10/17 ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
Total
INV 2017-015 EDMONDS PD
PRE -EMPLOY EXAM - PSA
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
PRE -EMPLOY EXAM - OFFICER
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Total
E4MB.SERVICES THRU 3/10/17
E4MB.Services thru 3/10/17
016.000.66.518.30.41.00
Total
E6GA.SERVICES THRU 2/24/17
E6GA.Services thru 2/24/17
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
ESGB.SERVICES THRU 2/24/17
ESGB.Services thru 2/24/17
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
4.2.a
Page: 3
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 32
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224646 3/23/2017 069226 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC
224647 3/23/2017 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
224648 3/23/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
(Continued)
5379 YOGA
5382 YOGA
5385 YOGA
5388 YOGA
5391 YOGA
5394 YOGA
5410 PILATES
Description/Account
5379 YOGA INSTRUCTION
5379 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
5382 YOGA INSTRUCTION
5382 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
5385 YOGA INSTRUCTION
5385 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
5388 YOGA INSTRUCTION
5388 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
5391 YOGA INSTRUCTION
5391 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
5394 YOGA INSTRUCTION
5394 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
5410 PILATES INSTRUCTION
5410 PILATES INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Total
Total:
17126175 INV#17126175 - EDMONDS PD
IR6255 COPIER CONTRACT 03/17
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
B/W METER USE 02-01-02/28/17
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
IR33251 COPIER CONTRACT 03/17
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
B/W METER USE 02/01-02/28/17
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
COLOR METER USE 02/01-02/28/17
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
4.2.a
Page: 4
Amoun
13,254.71
U)
U
m
t
491.4( U
E
.2
U
366.4: o
76
0
621.0( Q
a
Q
237.6( M
a�
364.5( r
A
N
A
O
205.2( y
a�
t
374.2E U
2,660.4, .E
M
U
34.1, r
r
Q
60.7(
7.9�
48.4z
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 33
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224648 3/23/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 5
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
IRC5240A COPIER CONTRACT 03/1
in
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
160.0( U
B/W METER USE 02/01-02/28/17
t
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
U
17.3E E
COLOR METER USE 02/01-02/28/17
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
84.8E
9.8% Sales Tax
o
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 55.4: >
17126177 COPIER RENTAL FEE o
COPIER RENTAL FEE Q-
a
001.000.23.512.50.45.00 65.3: Q
COPIER MAINTENANCE FEE
001.000.23.512.50.48.00 64.1(
17126179 CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE AND
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 03/0' r�
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 675.3E
17126180 PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON'
N
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON'
Cl)
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
305.5E
Y
17126181 CANON C5250
a�
Canon lease charges 3/17
U
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
167.6�
E
Canon lease charges 3/17
•E
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
20.9E
CJ
Canon lease charges 3/17
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
20.9E
c
BW meter charge 2/17
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
38.6E
BW meter charge 2/17
Q
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
4.8<
BW meter charge 2/17
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
4.8<
CLR meter charge 2/17
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
67.3,
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 34
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224648 3/23/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 6
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
CLR meter charge 2/17
Y
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
8.4, u
CLR meter charge 2/17
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
8.4' E
9.8% Sales Tax
M
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
26.8.
9.8% Sales Tax
o
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
3.3E >
9.8% Sales Tax
o
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
3.3E a
17126182
WWTP: 3/2017 MO CHG & 2/2017 M
Q
3/2017 MO CHG & 2/2017 METER U;
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
142.5<
17126183
CANON C2501F
Contract charge
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
26.4, M
CLR meter charge 2/17
N
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
21.1 £ o
9.8% Sales Tax
Y
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
4.6 1
17126186
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
U
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
E
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
35.Z)
17126187
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi
U
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
47.6(
17126189 RECEPTIONIST DESK CITY CLERK,
E
RECEPTIONIST DESK CITY CLERK,
U
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
30.1 < Q
17126191 INV#17126191 - EDMONDS PD
C5550 CONTRACT CHARGE 03/17
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
185.7z
B/W METER USE 02/01-02/28/17
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
28.1:
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 35
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 7
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
224648 3/23/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
COLOR METER USE 02/01-02/28/17
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 115.2(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 32.2E
224649 3/23/2017 070792 CH2O
224650 3/23/2017 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC
224651 3/23/2017 063902 CITY OF EVERETT
253468
451503-1702
117000079
117000410
224652 3/23/2017 071389 COASTAL WEAR PRODUCTS INC 6572
Total
FAC MAINT - CLEANING SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Cleaning Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Freight
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
E4GB.SERVICES THRU FEBRUARY
E4GB.Services thru February 2017
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
Total
WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB AN/
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB AN/
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
Total
UNIT 66 - BROOMS
Unit 66 - Brooms
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 36
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 8
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
224653
3/23/2017
075330 COBALT GEOSERVICES
1103
E6MB.SERVICES THRU 2/17/17
E6MB.Services thru 2/17/17
in
125.000.64.576.80.41.00
11343.2( u
Total:
1,343.2(
224654
3/23/2017
062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC
RO#32700
UNIT 284 - REPAIRS
E
Unit 284 - Repairs
U
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
3,096.E p
9.8% Sales Tax
6
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
303.4 - p
Total:
3,400.11 Q.
a
224655
3/23/2017
068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT
34686
SEWER - SQUAT CORE
Q
Sewer - Squat Core
M
423.000.75.535.80.35.00
2,180.0( ..
9.8% Sales Tax
..
423.000.75.535.80.35.00
213.6z r
Total:
2,393.61 N
M
224656
3/23/2017
069529 D & G BACKHOE INC
E4JB.Ret Release
E4JB.RETAINAGE RELEASE
E4JB.Retainage Release
421.000.223.400
103,009.8E
Total:
103,009.8E U
E
224657
3/23/2017
068190 DATEC INC
33043
INV#33043 - EDMONDS PD
M
POCKETJET 7 MOBILE PRINTERS
U
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
719.4(
POCKETJET 7 BLUETOOTH PRINT[
t
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
598.0(
Freight
r
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
12.0( Q
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
130.2E
33061
INV#33061 - EDMONDS PD
PANASONIC TOUGHPADS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
6,488.7(
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 9
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224657
3/23/2017
068190 DATEC INC
(Continued)
LIND VOLT INPUT CAR CHARGERS
in
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
258.0( u
JUMPSEAT KEYBOARDS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
750.0( E
4TH & 5TH YEAR WARRANTY EXTE
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
700.0(
9.8% Sales Tax
o
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
803.2E
Total:
10,459.7, o
Q.
224658
3/23/2017
064531 DINES, JEANNIE
17-3747
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3/14/2017
Q'
Q
3/14/2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
265.2( Cl
Total :
a)
265.2(
224659
3/23/2017
007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
1-70518
WWTP: 2 OIL FILTERS (RETURNED
T"
r
2 oil filters (returned/credited on Inv
A
CN
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
48.3, A
9.8% Sales Tax
N
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
4.7z
1-70574
WWTP: BRAKE PARTS CLN
t
BRAKE PARTS CLN
U
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
47.8E .
9.8% Sales Tax
U
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
4.6� ;
1-70739
WWTP: CREDITAGAINST INV 1-70:
y
CREDIT AGAINST INV 1-70518 - 2 of
E
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
-48.3, U
9.8% Sales Tax
r
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
-4.7z Q
Total :
52.5 ,
224660
3/23/2017
008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
6-00025
MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER
MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
166.5�
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 10
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
224660 3/23/2017 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
6-00200
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
in
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
442.7E t
6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
U
E
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
336.1 ,
6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
o
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
6
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
716.0 0 o
6-01127
WWTP: 1/15-3/16/17 200 2ND AVE S
L
Q.
1/15-3/16/17 200 2ND AVE S / METE
Q"
Q
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
166.5E
6-01130
WWTP: 1/15-3/16/17 200 2ND AVE,'
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9<
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
25.2E
6-01140
WWTP: 1/15-3/16/17 200 2ND AVE E
r
1/15-3/16/17 200 2ND AVE S / METE
N
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
1,411.5� c
6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
Y
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
166.5�
6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
U
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,132.5' V
6-01280
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
;
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
y
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
253.9E E
6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
U
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
r
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
285.2'
6-02727 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 253.9E
6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 11
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224660 3/23/2017 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
253.9E in
6-02735
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
U
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
t
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,937.8E U
6-02736
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A\j
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH Ab
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
14.41 o
6-02737
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
6
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
p
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
L
1,174.0z m
6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
Q
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
261.6, m
6-02825
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / F
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,594.7'
6-02875
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
c%4
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
A
0
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
25.2E Y
6-02885
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
t
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
237.0: )
6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
•E
FAC SPRINKLER
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
253.9E ;
6-02925
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
y
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
E
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
t
1,830.3' u
6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
r
Q
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
462.2E
6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
166.5�
6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 12
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224660 3/23/2017 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
in
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
289.9z u
6-04127
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
t
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
U
824.5( •iE
6-04128
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196T1
U
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF
o
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
14.4: 76
6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
o
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
L
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
253.9E Q
6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
480.4E v
6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
r
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
M
357.91 N
6-05155
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH :
Cl)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
Y
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
163.6E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
621.9E )
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
621.9E U
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
c
621.9E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH :
E
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
621.9E um
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH :
r
Q
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
621.9E
6-05156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
1.8(
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 13
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
224660
3/23/2017 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
6.8E in
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
U
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
6.8E t
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
U
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
6.8E 'E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
6.8E o
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
6.8 1 o
L
6-06040
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
Q-
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
a
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
44.2E
6-07775
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
as
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
v
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
318.0(
6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,119.9 1 c
6-08525
YOST POOL
y
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
258.5: U
Total:
20,841.1, E
224661
3/23/2017 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
EDH747137
CITY NOTICE - BRADY 00333546
ca
U
CITY NOTICE - BRADY 00333546
;
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
67.0E y
EDH747808
INV#EDH747808 ACCT#14126500-E
E
UNCLAIMED PROPERTYAD 3/14/17
U
001.000.41.521.10.41.40
18.9, r
Total :
86.0( Q
224662
3/23/2017 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
WAMOU40046
PM: HWH SDS 410SS
PM: HWH SDS 410SS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
29.0�
9.8% Sales Tax
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224662 3/23/2017 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
224663 3/23/2017 009880 FEDEX
224664 3/23/2017 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 14
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.8: in
WAMOU43496
PM: SUPPLIES
U
PM: SUPPLIES
t
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
12.2 - U
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1.2( U
Total:
45.4' o
5-732-76869
E4GB.CONTRACT SHIPPING
>
0
E4GB.Contract Shipping
Q.
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
29.6E Q
Total :
29.6E
0540981
WATER - FLEXNET M2 SOFTWARE
M
Water - Flexnet M2 Software Support
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
2,524.1 r
9.8% Sales Tax
N
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
247.3 0 A
0541145
WATER INVENTORY - # 0476
N
Water Inventory - # 0476
Y
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
593.7(
#0492 W-VALVCI-02-010
U
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
1,276.1( ,E
9.8% Sales Tax
f°
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
183.2E U
0541146
WATER INVENTORY - #0476 W-VAL
Water Inventory - #0476 W-VALVBR-i
m
E
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
395.8, t
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
r
38.7� Q
0542123
WATER METER INVENTORY #2024
Water Meter Inventory #2024
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
3,144.0(
#2025 M-METER-01-010
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
1,136.4(
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 15
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224664
3/23/2017
009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
(Continued)
#0577 W-RADIO-01-010
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
4,209.3(
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
419.4�
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
412.5'
Total:
14,581.0E
224665
3/23/2017
011900 FRONTIER
425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
63.0(
425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL,
FRANCESANDERSON CENTER FIF
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
131.1 E
Total:
194.11
224666
3/23/2017
075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR
18328
SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT LC
SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT LC
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
105.2 1
Total:
105.2 ,
224667
3/23/2017
068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA
5423 TAI CHI
5423 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION
5423 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
294.0(
Total:
294.0(
224668
3/23/2017
012560 HACH COMPANY
10322275
WATER QUALITY TESTING KITS
Water Quality Testing Kits
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
626.2E
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
41.6 1
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
65.4 1
10356013
WWTP: PROBE LDO MODEL 2
PROBE LDO MODEL 2
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 16
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224668
3/23/2017
012560 HACH COMPANY
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
1,533.6(
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
66.3�
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
156.8(
Total:
2,490.2'
224669
3/23/2017
070437 HARDIE, MARY ANN
2017-0321
2017 TERM 3 - TUITION REIMBURS
2017 TERM 3 - TUITION REIMBURS
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
741.0(
Total:
741.0(
224670
3/23/2017
012900 HARRIS FORD INC
169074
UNIT 947 - LINKS
Unit 947 - Links
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
22.3(
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.1
169105
UNIT 448 - HOSE
Unit 448 - Hose
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
25.7E
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.5'
169141
UNIT 452 - TUBE ASSEMBLY
Unit 452 - Tube Assembly
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
45.3(
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.4:
Total:
102.6 ,
224671
3/23/2017
010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
14436111
WATER INVENTORY #0432
Water Inventory #0432
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
2,679.4(
Water Parts
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
6,365.Z
9.8% Sales Tax
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 17
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
224671
3/23/2017 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
262.5� in
9.8% Sales Tax
U
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
623.7£ t
Total:
9,931.0E U
224672
3/23/2017 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC
1200041556
WWTP: 2/24-3/4/17 TASKS 1& 2 CM
U
2/24-3/4/17 TASKS 1 & 2 CMMS
o
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
4,747.6£
Total:
4,747.61 c
L
224673
3/23/2017 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD
5297 UKULELE
5297 UKULELE INSTRUCTION
Q
5297 UKULELE INSTRUCTION
Q
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
217.2E Cl)
Total:
217.2E
224674
3/23/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
1061675
PM: GLOVES, TRIM KIT, CAULKING
r
PM: GLOVES, TRIM KIT, CAULKING
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
50.7, M
2072448
PM: WOOD HANDLE
PM: WOOD HANDLE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
15.7z aci
5024457
PM: WOOD, CAULK BACKER ROD,
t
U
PM: WOOD, CAULK BACKER ROD,
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
215.4: .2
5593797
PM: FOAM SEL, STORANGE HANG[
U
PM: FOAM SEL, STORANGE HANG[
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
9.6:
6022854
PM: HEX KEY SET, SOCKET SET, B
PM: HEX KEY SET, SOCKET SET, B
c�v
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
153.6< Q
6082078
PM: RING, DEPTHFINDER, KEYRIN,
PM: RING, DEPTHFINDER, KEYRINi
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
42.1
6574979
PM: DRAIN CLEANING BLADDERS
PM: DRAIN CLEANING BLADDERS
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 18
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224674 3/23/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
51.9� in
7084661
PM: SCRUB BRUSH, RESPIRATOR,
m
PM: SCRUB BRUSH, RESPIRATOR,
t
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
173.4, U
7584545
PM: TRASH CANS, HOSEBIBBS, TR
PM: TRASH CANS, HOSEBIBBS, TR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
315.7E o
8014435
PM: 8011435
6
PM: TRASH CANS, HOSEBIBBS, TR
0
0
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
L
45.8< Q.
9081726
PM: SCREWDRIVERS, TOWELS, TP
Q"
Q
PM: SCREWDRIVERS, TOWELS, TP
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
99.2. m
Total:
1,173.5! v
224675 3/23/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
1031601
FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES
~
r
9.5% Sales Tax
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.5, c
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
y
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
26.4E
1094153
SEWER - SUPPLIES
Sewer - Supplies
U
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
68.8' .
9.5% Sales Tax
f°
U
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
6.5z ;
1590500
OVD TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT
m
OVD Traffic Calming Project Supplies
E
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
64.0( U
9.5% Sales Tax
r
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
6.0E Q
2011382
FAC MAINT UNIT 5 - SUPPLIES
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
119.6.
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
11.3(
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224675 3/23/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 19
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
2040782 STORM - SUPPLIES
in
Storm - Supplies
U
422.000.72.531.90.31.00
49.8 , t
9.5% Sales Tax
U
422.000.72.531.90.31.00
4.7z •iE
23782 FAC - SUPPLIES
U
FAC - Supplies
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.5( 6
9.5% Sales Tax
o
L
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.0( a
23798 FAC - SUPPLIES
Q
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 59.2E M
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
5.6:
2570035
15TH ST WALKWAY PROJECT SUP
15th St Walkway Project Supplies
N
112.000.68.542.61.41.00
28.4E c
9.5% Sales Tax
y
112.000.68.542.61.41.00
2.7'
3010776
ROADWAY - SUPPLIES
Roadway - Supplies
U
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
96.9z •Fa
9.5% Sales Tax
U
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.2'
3020225
OVD TRAFFIC CALLMING PROJEC-
m
OVD Traffic Callming Project Supplies
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
72.3E 0M
9.5% Sales Tax
r
Q
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
6.8E
4021532
CITY HALL - FURNITURE MOVERS
City Hall - Furniture Movers
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
26.9z
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 20
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224675 3/23/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.5( in
4021557
STREET - DUST MASKS
U
Street - Dust Masks
t
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
21.4 - U
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
2.0z U
5021301
WATER - SUPPLIES
o
Water - Supplies
6
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
44.5( o
9.5% Sales Tax
L
Q.
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
a
4.Z Q
5021413
FS 16 - FAUCET
FS 16 - Faucet
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
129.0( v
9.5% Sales Tax
rl-
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
12.2(
5023033
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
N
City Hall - Supplies
Cl)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
27.9E Y
9.5% Sales Tax
a�
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.6( U
5024452
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
City Hall - Supplies
M
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
21.6( U
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
c
2.0E a)
5024472
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
E
t
City Hall - Supplies
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
n:
126.7( Q
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
12.0z
562741
SEWER - SUPPLIES
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
11.91
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224675 3/23/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 21
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
9.5% Sales Tax
in
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
1.1 z U
570337 SEWER LS 14 - SUPPLIES
t
Sewer LS 14 - Supplies
U
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
22.9E •�
9.5% Sales Tax U
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.1 £ o
6021180
PS - SUPPLIES
ia
PS - Supplies
L
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.91, 0-
9.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.0z
6025627
FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
a�
v
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
26.9z r�
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.5( N
6082107
SEWER LS 4 - SUPPLIES
Cl)
Sewer LS 4 - Supplies
N
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
59.9 1
9.5% Sales Tax
U
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
5.7( E
6095338
SEWER LS 4 - SUPPLIES
.E
Sewer LS 4 - Supplies
)
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
38.9
9.5% Sales Tax
a)
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
3.7( t
7572012
SEWER LS 4 - SUPPLIES
U
n:
Sewer LS 4 - Supplies
r
Q
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
66.6,
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.3:
8011619 FAC MAINT - UNIT 5 SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Unit 5 Supplies
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
224675
3/23/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8022433
MCH - SUPPLIES
MCH - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8024085
FAC - SUPPLIES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8031920
FAC MAINT UNIT 42 - SUPPLIES
Fac Maint Unit 42 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9022221
FAC MAINT UNIT 5 - SUPPLIES
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9023979
FAC MAINT UNIT 43 - SUPPLIES
Fac Maint Unit 43 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
224676
3/23/2017 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
2931933
COPY PAPER
COPY PAPER
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
MONITOR RISERS
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
4.2.a
Page: 22
Amoun
73.8� in
U
7.0,
U
E
6.5z
0
0.6, 6
0
L
Q.
a
0.51 Q
le
5.8( c)
212.3,
N
20.1 1 Cl)
1,744.0: Q
87.8.
102.7E
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 23
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
224676
3/23/2017
073548 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
(Continued)
Total:
190.5,
224677
3/23/2017
071634 INTEGRATELECOM
768328
C/A768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
910.0�
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
8.5,
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
8.5,
Total:
927.1;
224678
3/23/2017
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
300-10021460
PM: GLOVES
PM: GLOVES
00 1.000.64.576.80.3 1.00
238.5(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
23.3 1
Total:
261.8 ,
224679
3/23/2017
067568 KPG INC
2-10117
ESDA.SERVICES THRU 2/25/17
ESDA.Services thru 2/25/17
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
1,442.9'
Total :
1,442.9'
224680
3/23/2017
069343 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC
I608345-1245
E6MB.TO 17-01.SERVICES THRU FI
E6MB.TO 17-01.Services thru Februe
125.000.64.576.80.41.00
470.3E
1608493-1283
E6MA.TO 17-02.SERVICES THRU FI
E6MA.TO 17-02.Services thru Februe
132.000.64.594.76.41.00
385.3E
Total :
855.7(
224681
3/23/2017
075260 LAU, PING
17330
MANDARIN INTERPRETER COURT
MANDARIN INTERPRETER COURT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
109.2E
Total :
109.2E
224682
3/23/2017
074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH
138
CONFLICT PUBLIC DEFENDER 7Z0
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 24
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
224682
3/23/2017
074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH
(Continued)
Conflict Public Defender 7Z0292013
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
300.0(
Total:
300.0(
224683
3/23/2017
068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
2016-128
STREET CONCRETE GRINDER AIR
Street Concrete Grinder Air Filters
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
59.5E
Freight
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
20.8�
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
7.8E
3017-124
CEMETERY: BRUSH, BUCKET, GLC
CEMETERY: BRUSH, BUCKET, GLC
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
68.8 1
9.8% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
6.7E
3017-131
CEMETERY: BUCKETS
CEMETERY:BUCKETS
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
35.8E
9.8% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
3.5,
Total :
203.31
224684
3/23/2017
075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER
April 2017
APRIL 2017 CIGNA PREMIUMS
April 2017 Cigna Insurance premium:
811.000.231.550
11,718.8z
Total :
11,718.81
224685
3/23/2017
075921 MALONE, JAKE
3/2-3/16 GYM ATTEND
3/2-3/16/17 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTE
3/2-3/16/17 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTE
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
99.0(
Total :
99.0(
224686
3/23/2017
061900 MARC
0602729-IN
WWTP: SUPER-ZYME
SUPER-ZYME
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 25
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
224686
3/23/2017
061900 MARC
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
1,695.0(
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
166.1 ,
Total:
1,861.1,
224687
3/23/2017
074099 MARTIN, GARY
3/13 YOGA SUB
3/13 YOGA SUB
3/13 YOGA SUB
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
75.0(
Total:
75.0(
224688
3/23/2017
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
186285889
WWTP: AX-SECTION COGGED V-B
AX-SECTION COGGED V-BELT
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
73.0(
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
63.5(
18887901
WWTP: BUNA-NO-RING CORDS & I.
BUNA-NO-RING CORDS & ADHESI\
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
34.1 <
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
35.4.
Total:
206.0E
224689
3/23/2017
075913 MCMILLEN JACOBS ASSOCIATES
56090001
E4MB.SERVICES THRU 2/24/17
E4MB..Services thru 2/24/17
0 16.000.66.518.30.4 1.00
235.0(
Total:
235.0(
224690
3/23/2017
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
253739
PM: OIL, SPOOL
PM: OIL, SPOOL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
204.4(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
20.0<
Total:
224.4;
224691
3/23/2017
018950 NAPAAUTO PARTS
749929
UNIT 448 - BRAKE FLUID
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 26
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
224691 3/23/2017 018950 NAPAAUTO PARTS (Continued)
Unit 448 - Brake Fluid
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.2(
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.31
Total :
224692
3/23/2017
075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING
5
WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR1
TASKS 1, 3, 4: WILLOW CREEK DA)
125.000.64.575.50.41.00
TASK 5: WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGH-
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
Total
224693
3/23/2017
067694 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO.
PSCS0584590
UNIT 101 - LATCH DOOR DROP
Unit 101 - Latch Door Drop
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
224694
3/23/2017
075838 NELSON ELECTRIC INC
32138
FAC - MAIN SWITCH BOARD INSPE
FAC - Main Switch Board Inspection E
016.000.66.594.19.65.00
9.8% Sales Tax
016.000.66.594.19.65.00
Total
224695
3/23/2017
025690 NOYES, KARIN
000 00 722
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3-8-2(
Planning Board Minutes 3-8-2017-
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
Total
224696
3/23/2017
063511 OFFICE MAX INC
124333
INV#124333 ACCT#520437 250POL-
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 27
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224696
3/23/2017
063511 OFFICE MAX INC
(Continued)
JUMBO SMOOTH PAPER CLIPS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
5.5'
SMOOTH PAPER CLIPS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
6.5(
PATROL MEMO BOOKS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
15.4£
BLUE GEL PENS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
11.8'
WITE OUT CORRECTING TAPE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
16.4(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
5.4(
132460
P&R: PRESCHOOL POUCHES, CLIF
P&R: PRESCHOOL POUCHES, CLIF
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
37.1(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
3.6z
Total:
101.9E
224697
3/23/2017
075735 PACIFIC SECURITY
18920
COURT SECURITY 3/10/2017
COURT SECURITY 3/10/2017
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
180.0(
Total:
180.0(
224698
3/23/2017
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
18-Tl004778
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
84.0(
Total:
84.0(
224699
3/23/2017
074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP
23118964
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
67.0'
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
10.01,
9.8% Sales Tax
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
224699 3/23/2017 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP (Continued)
224700 3/23/2017 075974 PATTISON, MICHAEL
224701 3/23/2017 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
PO # Description/Account
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Total :
pin20160042
REFUND FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AF
Refund for withdrawal of application
001.000.257.620
Total
L428053
WWTP: PLUGS MEL 63-14043 & 18(
PLUGS MEL 63-14043 & 18043
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
RESTOCKING FEE - (should not hav
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
L442643
FLEET PROPANE DISP. SUPPLIES
Fleet Propane Disp. Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
L494718
FAC - SUPPLIES
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
L553976
FS 16 - SUPPLIES
FS 16 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
L563486
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.2.a
Page: 28
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224701 3/23/2017 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
224702
224703
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
L60778
L642353
SC14137
3/23/2017 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 1110672
3/23/2017 064088 PROTECTION ONE
1110738
2422756
730531
4.2.a
Page: 29
PO # Description/Account Amoun
9.8% Sales Tax
in
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.9 1
WWTP: CREDIT FOR RESTOCKING
CREDIT FOR RESTOCKING FEE Cl-
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
-2.0( •�
LIFT ST - FUSE
U
Lift St - Fuse
o
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
30.6E
9.8% Sales Tax
o
L
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3.0' a
SVC FEES
Q
Svc Fees
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.7E
Total :
868.4; v
WWTP: 3/7/17 SHIPPING/POSTAGE
r
3/7/17 Shipping to: Detection
N
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
15.4< c
WWTP: 3/16/17 SHIPPING/POSTAG
y
3/16/17 Shipping to: Dept of L&I
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
50.5( t
Total :
65.9: U
E
ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIE
f°
ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIE
U
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
246.8'
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF
E
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF
U
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
34.8E 20
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF
r
Q
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.8E
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 31.3�
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 40.1'
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 30
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
224703
3/23/2017
064088 PROTECTION ONE
(Continued)
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
17.4z
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
15.7(
Tota I :
421.2'
224704
3/23/2017
030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
00000172005
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-GERETY
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-GERETY
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
160.0(
00000172006
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-CARPENTE
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-CARPENTE
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
125.0(
Total:
285.0(
224705
3/23/2017
062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY
0000050439
STORM - DUMP FEES
Storm - Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
1,680.7:
Total:
1,680.7!
224706
3/23/2017
075288 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC
E3FH.Ret Release
E3FH.RETAINAGE RELEASE
E3FH.Retainage Release
422.200.223.400
24,060.3(
Total:
24,060.3(
224707
3/23/2017
069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
00442-646979
UNIT 34 - PART
Unit 34 - Part
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
267.0�
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
26.11
Total:
293.2E
224708
3/23/2017
066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
S3-1697412
FLEET BATTERY
Fleet Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
104.5(
9.8% Sales Tax
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 31
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224708 3/23/2017 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.2E in
S3-1740246
UNIT 125 - SERPENTINE BELT
U
Unit 125 - Serpentine Belt
t
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
17.4z U
9.8% Sales Tax
M
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.7' Z
S3-1771723
UNIT 537 - TRANS FLUID
p
Unit 537 - Trans Fluid
6
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
64.5 1 o
9.8% Sales Tax
L
Q.
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
a
6.3< Q
S3-1772968
UNIT M16 - SPARK PLUGS
Unit M16 - Spark Plugs
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
54.8( v
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
5.3
S3-1784304
UNIT 36 - BRAKE PADS
N
Unit 36 - Brake Pads
0
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
67.4( Y
9.8% Sales Tax
a�
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
6.6' U
S3-1805864
UNIT 40 - INTAKE MANIFOLD GASK
E
Unit 40 - Intake Manifold Gasket Set
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
51.4: U
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
c
5.0z a)
S3-1809135
UNIT 453 - CYLINDRICAL BEARING
E
t
Unit 453 - Cylindrical Bearing, Seals
U
n:
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
42.2z Q
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.1 <
S3-1809148
UNIT 453 - SEALS
Unit 453 - Seals
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
17.8E
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 32
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224708
3/23/2017
066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.7:
S3-1809679
UNIT 40 - DIST CAP & ROTOR
Unit 40 - Dist Cap & Rotor
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
46.7�
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.5E
S3-1809837
UNIT 40 - SENSOR
Unit 40 - Sensor
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
29.4E
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.8�
Total:
545.3'
224709
3/23/2017
063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
0031-7
PM: PAINT CITY PARK RESTROOM;
PM: PAINT CITY PARK RESTROOM;
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
15.5(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1.5,
8045-0
PM: PAINT UPPER CITY PARK
PM: PAINT UPPER CITY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
34.1(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3.3z
9915-2
PM: PAINT
PM: PAINT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
26.6z
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.6'
Total:
83.7 ,
224710
3/23/2017
068489 SIRENNET.COM
0211801-IN
UNIT E107PO - PARTS
Unit E107PO - Parts
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
47.8 ,
9.8% Sales Tax
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 33
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
224710
3/23/2017 068489 SIRENNET.COM
(Continued)
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
4.6� in
0211928-IN
UNIT 10 - AMBER DOME
U
Unit 10 - Amber Dome
t
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
67.2( U
9.8% Sales Tax
M
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
6.5� Z
0212137-IN
UNIT 10 - AMBER DOME
o
Unit 10 - Amber Dome
6
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
67.2( o
9.8% Sales Tax
L
Q.
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
a
6.5� Q
Total:
200.1le
M
224711
3/23/2017 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST# 1
5464 FIRSTAID/CPR
5464 FIRSTAID/CPR INSTRUCTION
5464 FIRSTAID/CPR INSTRUCTION
r-
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
140.0( r
Total:
140.0( N
M
224712
3/23/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2002-0254-7
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
N
Y
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
16.8E
2002-6027-1
YOST POOL
U
YOST POOL
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
861.0( c°
2003-9895-6
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST :
V
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST :
c
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
m
762.E 1 E
2004-9683-4
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R
U
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R
r
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
r
94.9z Q
2006-1131-7
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
153.2E
2006-5085-1
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 34
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224712 3/23/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.1 < in
2006-5164-4
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
U
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
t
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,047.4: U
2007-2302-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
U
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
25.8E o
2007-3984-5
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
0
0
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
L
17.7 1 Q.
2008-6924-6
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACF
Q"
Q
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACF
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
40.7( m
2011-8453-8
HICKMAN PARK
HICKMAN PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
102.2' r
2013-8327-0
CITY PARK GAZEBO
N
CITY PARK GAZEBO
A
0
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
15.7< Y
2014-3123-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY
t
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
17.9E )
2014-3124-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
E
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
U
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
16.2� ;
2014-4175-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
y
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
E
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
t
219.2E u
2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
r
Q
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
95.1:
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
361.4�
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
361.4�
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 35
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224712 3/23/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH :
in
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
361.4( u
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
t
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
U
361.4� E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
361.5(
2021-1448-4
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL
o
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL
6
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
156.2z o
L
2022-5062-7
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED
a
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
16.2(
2022-9166-2
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 i
as
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 ,
v
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
5,493.6(
2025-4064-7
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
16.2� Cl)
2036-5215-1
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
y
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
a�
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
376.2( U
2044-2584-7
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
E
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
106.4 0 V
2202-1638-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
84.6, E
2205-4757-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
U
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
r
Q
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
60.1 <
Tota I :
11,622.E ,
224713 3/23/2017 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
2017-3624
INV#2017-3624 SNO CO JAIL - FEB
446.25 HOUSING DAYS @ $96.13
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
42,898.0(
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 36
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224713
3/23/2017
063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
(Continued)
61.33 BOOKINGS @ $118.23
Y
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
7,251.0E u
138.58 MED/SPEC @ $55.25
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
7,656.5E E
55.5 MENTAL HEALTH @ $133.39
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
7,403.1E u
12 VIDEO COURT @ $115.5
0
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
1,386.0(
Total:
66,594.7E o
Q.
224714
3/23/2017
063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
1000432151
INV#1000432151 CUST#SSH00095-E
Q'
Q
SCSO RANGE USAGE 9.5 HR 2/6/1 i
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
551.0( M
SCSO RANGE USAGE 10 HR 2/7/17
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
580.0(
Total:
1,131.0(
N
224715
3/23/2017
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
104757
WWTP: ROLLOFF ASH DISPOSAL
r�
Ash Disposal
y
423.000.76.535.80.47.65
3,543.3,
Total:
3,543.3,
U
224716
3/23/2017
038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
113052/1
STREET - WORK WARE - M BROWI
E
Street - Work Ware - M Brown
2
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
147.5( U
9.2% Sales Tax
c
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
13.5 1 E
113113/1
STORM - WORK CLOTHES - M JOH
U
Storm - Work Clothes - M Johnson
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
r
351.6E Q
9.2% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
32.3E
113646/1
STREET - WORK WARE T BACH
Street - Work Ware T Bach
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
322.6(
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 37
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224716 3/23/2017 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS (Continued)
9.2% Sales Tax
in
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
29.6E u
31576/4
STREET - WORK CLOTHES - D BR(
t
Street - Work Clothes - D Browning
U
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
330.5( •iE
9.8% Sales Tax
U
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
32.3� o
31598/4
STORM - WORK CLOTHES J WHAT
6
Storm - Work Clothes J Whatmore
o
L
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
343.3( 0-
9.8% Sales Tax
Q
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
33.61
31650/4
STREET - WORK CLOTHES P JOHI`
as
Street - Work Clothes P Johnson
v
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
354.4( r--
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
34.7: N
31750/4
STORM - WORK WARE K HARRIS
Cl)
Storm - Work Ware K Harris
N
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
300.9:
9.8% Sales Tax
U
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
29.4E E
31762/4
STORM WORK WARE - T MOLES
.E
Storm Work Ware - T Moles
cU
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
170.0E
9.8% Sales Tax
m
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
16.6( t
31871/4
WATER - WORK WARE R SHORE
U
Water - Work Ware R Shore
Q
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
216.2E
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
21.1 �
31951/4
STREET - WORK WARE C HIATT
Street - Work Ware C Hiatt
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 38
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224716 3/23/2017 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS (Continued)
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
281.8E in
9.8% Sales Tax
U
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
27.6,
31952/4
STREET - WORK WARE C HIATT
U
E
Street - Work Ware C Hiatt
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
115.9E Z
9.8% Sales Tax
o
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
11.3( 6
31961/4
STORM - EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE
o
Storm - Exchange Difference
L
a
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
-6.0( Q
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
-0.5�
31989/4
SEWER - WORK WARER J CLEMO
v
Sewer - Work Warer J Clemons
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
249.7E
9.8% Sales Tax
N
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
24.4E Cl)
32077/4
SEWER - WORK WARE - T HARRIS
y
Sewer - Work Ware - T Harris
a�
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
147.5( U
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
14.4( •Fa
32271/4
FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR F KEEN
U
Fac Maint - Work Wear F Keener
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
c
216.2E m
9.8% Sales Tax
E
t
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
21.1E u.
32274/4
FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR F KEEN
Q
Fac Maint - Work Wear F Keener
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
129.9E
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
12.7z
33072/4
FAC MAINT - JACKET - D HOUSLER
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224716 3/23/2017 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 39
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
Fac Maint - Jacket - D Housler
ui
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
63.9E u
9.8% Sales Tax
t
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
U
6.2 , E
33184/4
WATER - WORK WARE S LEONAR
Water - Work Ware S Leonard
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
249.7E o
9.8% Sales Tax
6
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
24.4E o
L
33323/4
FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR L LAFA)
a
Fac Maint - Work Wear L LaFave
Q
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
203.2(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
19.9'
33366/4
SEWER - WORK WEAR R WICHER
Sewer - Work Wear R Wichers
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
249.7E N
9.8% Sales Tax
c
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
24.4E Y
33494/4
WATER - WORK WEAR K KUHNHA
a�
Water - Work Wear K Kuhnhausen
U
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
228.5( E
9.8% Sales Tax
•E
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
22.3E U
33510/4 FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR S BRIN
Fac Maint - Work Wear S Brinkley
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
311.9E t
9.8% Sales Tax
U
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
30.5 1 Q
33797/4 FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR T GODE
Fac Maint - Work Wear T Godbey
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
303.2z
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
29.7,
Page: 39
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 40
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
224716
3/23/2017
038410 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
(Continued)
Total:
5,795.61
224717
3/23/2017
075009 SOUNDVIEW DESIGN STUDIO
00010617
CRAZE SUMMER DESIGN
CRAZE SUMMER DESIGN
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
1,190.5(
Total:
1,190.5(
224718
3/23/2017
068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE
45852
PW - SVC REPAIRS
PW - Svc Repairs
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
246.0(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
24.1'
45900
FS 20 - DOOR SVC AND REPAIRS
FS 20 - Door Svc and Repairs
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
447.0(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
43.8'
Total:
760.9,
224719
3/23/2017
009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
3750070
SEWER - SUPPLIES
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
79.7E
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
7.8'
Total:
87.5E
224720
3/23/2017
040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
76455
FLEET - WORK T SHIRTS
Fleet - Work T Shirts
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
358.5(
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
35.1 z
Total:
393.61
224721
3/23/2017
027269 THE PART WORKS INC
INV10456
PM: WALL PUSH BUTTON, FAUCET
PM: WALL PUSH BUTTON, FAUCET
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
665.9E
Page: 40
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 41
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
224721 3/23/2017 027269 THE PART WORKS INC (Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 65.2(
224722 3/23/2017 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
224723 3/23/2017 064423 USA BLUE BOOK
54624
180124
224724 3/23/2017 064858 VISITORS GUIDE PUBLICATIONS 17-035
17-047
224725 3/23/2017 073832 WA ST DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SVCS 9511501
224726 3/23/2017 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
57687
Total
CITY PARK BUILDING FENCE
CITY PARK BUILDING FENCE
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Total
WATER - HYDRANT METER CARTS
Water - Hydrant Meter Carts
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total
SNO CO TOURISM VISITOR'S GUID
Sno Co Tourism Visitor's Guide 1/2 pE
120.000.31.575.42.41.40
VISITOR'S GUIDE LISTING 2017
VISITOR'S GUIDE LISTING 2017
123.000.64.573.20.41.40
Total
WWTP: C457 PH 4 ENERGY PROJ -
C457 PH 4 ENERGY PROJ - PROJ h
423.100.76.594.39.41.10
Total
INV#57687 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 2001 BUICK #AXS0147
Page: 41
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 42
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
224726
3/23/2017
067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
159.0(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
15.5E
Total:
174.51
224727
3/23/2017
067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
117-211
STREET - TREE REMOVAL 76TH AV
Street - Tree Removal 76th Ave W
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
580.0(
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
56.8z
Total:
636.&
224728
3/23/2017
045912 WASPC
2017-00370
INV 2017-00370 ASSOC. DUES - MC
ASSOCIATE DUES - MCCLURE
001.000.41.521.10.49.00
75.0(
Total:
75.0(
224729
3/23/2017
070156 WATERSHED INC
0072616-IN
INV#0072616-IN CUST#ED25000 - E
STORMFORCE VECTOR VEST (STF
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
388.0(
ADDITIONAL OPTIONS (STRUM)
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
70.0(
STORMFORCE SOFT SHELL (STRU
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
207.0(
Freight
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
10.8E
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
66.2E
Total:
742.1(
224730
3/23/2017
064800 WEHOP
634296
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
1,575.4�
9.8% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
154.4(
Page: 42
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224730 3/23/2017 064800 064800 WEHOP
224731 3/23/2017 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS
224732 3/23/2017 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 43
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
Total :
1,729.81
19349
PM: TREE STAKES
Y
U
PM: TREE STAKES
t
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
229.5( u
9.8% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
22.4� 2
Total:
251.9� o
TR- 336007
STREET - WORK WEAR - B SANDE
76
>
Street - Work Wear - B Sanders
G
Q.
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
300.4�
9.2% Sales Tax
Q
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
27.6E M
TR- 336152
STORM - WORK WEAR B CLEMEN
Storm - Work Wear B Clemens
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
324.8( r
9.2% Sales Tax
N
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
29.8E A
TR- 336745
STREET - WORK WEAR - S MERBA
N
Street - Work Wear - S Merback
Y
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
384.1 £
9.2% Sales Tax
U
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
35.3E ,E
TR- 336827
STORM - WORK WEAR - R HILL
f°
Storm - Work Wear - R Hill
U
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
423.9(
9.2% Sales Tax
E
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
39.0( U
TR- 336831
STORM - WORK WEAR - J WARD
a
r
r
Storm - Work Wear - J Ward Q
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 430.0E
9.2% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 39.51
TR-336235 STREET - WORK WEAR - T HANSO
Street - Work Wear - T Hanson
Page: 43
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
224732 3/23/2017 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
224733 3/23/2017 075743 WHISTLE WORKWEAR OF SHORELINE SHO 2699
224734 3/23/2017 074672 WILLIAMS, JULIE
224735 3/23/2017 073018 WINFIELD SOLUTIONS LLC
SHO- 2728
SHO2737
SHO2738
2/28 PILATES SUB
000061379950
PO # Description/Account
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
Total :
SEWER - WORK WEAR - S MATTHE
Sewer - Work Wear - S Matthews
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
WATER - WORK WEAR - J BECK
Water - Work Wear - J Beck
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
PM: RAINCOAT & RAIN BIBS FREEE
PM: RAINCOAT & RAIN BIBS FREEE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: RAIN PANTS SIENKO
PM: RAIN PANTS SIENKO
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
2/28/17 PILATES SUB INSTRUCTIO1
2/28/17 PILATES SUB INSTRUCTIOP
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Total
PM: SUPPLIES
PM: SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.2.a
Page: 44
Page: 44
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
03/23/2017 8:18:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
224735
3/23/2017 073018 WINFIELD SOLUTIONS LLC
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
000061379951
PM: SUPPLIES
PM: SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total:
224736
3/23/2017 065179 WSAPT
Thornquist, Linda
2107 WSAPT MEMBERSHIP FOR LI
2107 WSAPT membership for Linda
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
Wayland, C
2017 WSAPT MEMBERSHIP FOR C.
2017 WSAPT membership for C. Wa.
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
Total:
224737
3/23/2017 065869 WSNLA
300000668
CPH CERTIFICATION FEE EDHOUS
CPH CERTIFICATION FEE EDHOUS
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
Tota I :
103
Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total
103
Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers
4.2.a
Page: 45
Amoun
66.2: U
t
U
244.4:
23.9E o
1,010.61 ca
0
L
Q.
a
Q
35.0(
M
6�
35.0(
70.0( r
M
N
M
O
N
60.0(
60.0(
U
1,001,548.3( E
.E
1,001,548.3( U
c
m
E
t
U
a
r
Page: 45
Packet Pg. 74
r
Q
4.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STR
E1AA
c342
Fiy&.QQrneL§.JRoundabgut (212th Street SW @ 84th AvPniu, W�
STR
El CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
unset Walkway Improvements
STM
E1 FM
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)
MELE21FA
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
E3 %B
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
H
�dmq&;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
E4DA
c453
Train Trench - Concept
STR
E4DB
c454
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
TM c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
U)
m
z
E
0
0
Q.
a
Q
M
as
Revised 3/23/2017 Packet Pg. 75
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
4.2.b
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STM
E4FE
_ c455
Dayton Street StormwatasiiWp
STM
E4FF
c459
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
'
SWRMA
E4GA
015 Sewerline Replacement Projell
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 Calm
STR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
WTR
L
2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
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
�Wovements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM
E51FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR
SWR
WWTP
WTR
WTR
FAC
UTILITIE
STR
E5GA c469
E5HA c481
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP Outfall Pine Modifications
16 Waterline Replacemer
E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Pro
E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
�pdates
ME
E6AA s014 SR99 Safet
STR 1� i015
STR E6CA i008
ents (224th to 21
Ave to 9th Ave
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
2016 Overlay Program
m
z
E
0
0
L
a
a
Q
M
as
Revised 3/23/2017 Packet Pg. 76
4.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding Number
Number
Protect Title
WTR E6CB
i009
2116 Waterline O
SWR E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
c485 -V38th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
a
ERDC
i016
2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
Norths� Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
Ave Rain Gardens
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
E 1
i
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWW
E6GB
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES
013
Utility Rate Update
WTR
E6J13
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR
2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
PRK
71MI
FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK
E6MC
c494
Yost Park Spa
STR
i021
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR
i018
2017 Overlay Progra
WTR
E7CB
i019
2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR
2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR
E7DA
i022
2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
2017 Minor Sidewalk Progra
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
276
Dayton Street Plaza
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
m
z
E
0
0
Q.
a
Q
M
as
Revised 3/23/2017 Packet Pg. 77
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/28/2017
2016 Annual Report - Snohomish County Fire District One (30 min.)
Staff Lead:
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Narrative
Snohomish County Fire District #1 (FD1) will present and provide comments on the District's 2016
comprehensive annual report to the City on fire, paramedical services, training, prevention, and public
educational activities. Fire staff will discuss FD1's emergency response performance. In 2005, the
Washington State Legislature adopted a bill (HB 1756) that requires substantially career fire
departments to maintain policy establishing the existence of the fire department, identifying the
services provided and the basic organizational structure of the fire department, and the service
delivery/response time objectives for the fire department for those emergency services. This report is
intended to provide our elected officials and the community with a true picture of how well the fire
department has performed in meeting the adopted response objectives.
Chief Reading, Deputy Chief Doug Dahl, and Fire Marshal Kevin Zweber will be the main staff presenters.
Packet Pg. 78
. .R
74
Snohomis County Fire District
n
• w.
. V. �tr
•y� v � r.
1 1�
r-'
To the City of Edmonds
00.
r
• � �`}' I tea:
J
Board of Commissioners
M.
Jim McGaughey, Chair
Jim Kenny
..g:.. David Chan
Bob Meador `
R, •.
Richard Schrock
Interim Fire Chief.
Brad Reading�'�
Headquarters ;.
2425 Meridian Ave S Everett, WA 98208
425-551-1200 r .
wwl. fi red istri ctl.org
5.1.a
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
ire District 1 provides full-time staffing at 12 fire
stations. Stations are strategically located to
provide prompt emergency response across a
45-square-mile area in unincorporated south
Snohomish County and our partner cities, Brier,
Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace. All firefighters are
certified as either emergency medical technicians or
paramedics. That's important because most of the
911 calls we receive are medical emergencies.
Firefighters specializing in hazardous material
response and technical rescue are also on duty daily.
MAJOR INCIDENTS
In Edmonds
Date Incident Location
2/23/2016 House Fire 23491 94th
3/27/2016 School Fire 9300 236th St
March 27, 2016, Madrona School Fire
Property Loss Cause
$75,000.00 Overloaded Electrical Space Heater
$200,000.00 Undetermined
4/9/2016
House Fire
931 Puget Way
$100,000.00
Still Under Investigation
5/12/2016
Motel Fire
22201 Hwy 99
$5,000.00
Accidental
5/30/2016 Car Fire
6/8/2016 City Park Car/ 600 3rd Ave S
Utility Building Fire
8123 236th ST SW $2,500.00
':1 111 11
Arson
Arson
MARCH 1 3, 2016
Firefighters rescued a woman out of
the vehicle during a March 2016
windstorm. The vehicle went over an
embankment on the 400 block of
Howell Way.
to
0
N
r_
0
Q.
d
0
c
c
a
c
d
E
t
0
M
a
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrict1. Packet Pg. 80
5.1.a
EMERGENCY MEDICAL &
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
ost of the 911 calls we respond to in Fire District 1 are for emergency medical aid. Our
commitment to providing you with the best possible care means we are constantly
scrutinizing our work, exploring the latest advances in EMS and applying what we've learned to
enhance patient care. Our efforts have earned national accolades in recent years, but more im-
portantly they've improved service to our citizens.
The Community Paramedic Program received the
Community Collaboration Award from Verdant Health
for their partnerships with Lynnwood Fire Department.
CARDIAC SAVE RATE
Snohomish County Fire District 1 is proud to
have one of the highest cardiac arrest save
rates in the county.
Our save rate for 2016 was 46%,
compared to the
national average of 33%.
The overall survival rate is 16%,
compared 8-10%
for the national average.
TOP10
EMS RESPONSES
Injury
2,047 cases
2 Chest Pain/Discomfort
649 cases
3 Generalized Weakness
525 cases
4 Altered Mental Status
383 cases
5 Respiratory Distress
378 cases
6 Syncope / Fainting
373 cases
7 Abdominal Pain
321 Cases
8 Pain (Non -Traumatic)
287 cases
9 Cardiac arrhythmia
215 cases
10 Seizures
195 cases
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 81
5.1.a
COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAMS
TOP10
INJURY RESPONSES
Fa I I
1,275 cases
2 Motorized Vehicle
434 cases
3 Self Inflicted
69 cases
4 Struck by Blunt Object
60 cases
5 Physical Assault
59 cases
6 Sports Injury
41 cases
7 Domestic Violence
37 Cases
8 Stabbing/Cutting
27 cases
9 Bicycle Accident
25 cases
10 Burns
20 cases
FALLS PREVENTION PROGRAM
In 2016, over 900 citizens were provided information
on falls prevention.
701 Falls Prevention Program Letters sent to eligible
citizens.
249 citizens are enrolled in the program.
Fire District 1 hosted the WA State Falls Prevention Net-
work Meeting with over 50 attendees.
EMS WEEK OPEN HOUSE
300 citizens attended the EMS Week Open House &
Teddy Bear Clinic at Fire Station 17 in Downtown Edmonds
CPR PROGRAM
A total of 1,038 citizens were reached
through the CPR Program! This includes CPR/
AED and First Aid education.
Maplewood School
Taste of Edmonds
Edmonds Senior Center
FILE OF LIFE
Firefighters and community volunteers distributed
1,700 Files of Life in 2016. The File of Life
contains a list of your current medications and other
medical information that would be beneficial for
firefighters to know if they ever respond to your
home for a medical emergency.
to
0
N
r_
O
a -
CD
W
c
c
Q
c
CD
E
V
W
a
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 82
5.1.a
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
EDUCATION
By the numbers for 2016
348 citizens attended Ready SnoCo and Ready Sun-
day Workshops Presentations
123 citizens attended Disaster Prep Talks focusing
on vulnerable adults and children
37 students completed the CERT class
(Community Emergency Response Team)
275 citizens attended a Map Your Neighborhood
Ambassador Workshop
300 participants attended a Count Me In Town Hall
Meeting Event at Edmonds Community College
120 citizens attended ReadyFest, an Open House for
Disaster Preparedness at Fire Station 17
0
N
le-
a
Map Your Neighborhood at Edmonds Fire Station I Wo
M
c
c
El
Q
ReadyFest at Edmonds Fire Station 17
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 83
5.1.a
TRAINING
n 2016, Fire District 1 and Lynnwood Fire Department began a blended management. This
includes a blended Training Division to provide a wide range of educational opportunities to
prepare firefighters to respond to fires, hazardous materials, technical rescues, motor vehicle
collisions, emergency medical and other incidents.
TRAINING NEW HIRES and CAPTAINS:
The Training Division provides programs to
help newly hired firefighters and recently
promoted captains, and battalion chiefs to
successfully fulfill their duties.
In 2016, The Training Division conducted
multiple five -week orientation programs for
six lateral -hired firefighters and ten entry level
firefighters prior to their assignment to shift.
This program addresses all working aspects
expected of a probationary candidate. Each
candidate received instruction in the areas of
hose deployment, engine company functions,
truck company functions, emergency medical
services, technical rescue, hazardous materials,
marine operations, inspections and comprehen-
sive information detailing the work performed
by administrative staff and programs.
In addition to this orientation, the Training
Division also provided a one -week probationary
orientation program for the position of captain.
This program is designed for personnel ready to
promote to the leadership positions and is
focused on the specific tasks and details
necessary for successful performance at each
level. The captain's orientation was provided for
five firefighters who are preparing to promote to
captain.
INCIDENT MANAGEMENT: Last year
Snohomish County initiated a new Incident
Management System Policy. The department
Battalion Chiefs are becoming certified in an
Incident Management System called Blue Card
that is nationally recognized and follows our new
county policy. Along with the Battalion Chief
training, the training division has conducted
multiple training sessions to all operational
personnel to apply the changes based on the new
county IMS policy which will continue into 2017.
ANNUAL TRAINING PROGRAMS:
The Training Division is responsible for
establishing programs to comply with local, state
and federal mandates. To ensure compliance,
each member of the department is provided with
a tracking document in which to appropriately
document their required training.
Continued on next page
a
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 84
- Continued from previous page
5.1.a
Five positional documents are created for this purpose: Administrative, Medical Services Officer,
Command Officers and Shift Battalion Chiefs, Shift Captain and Firefighter, and Volunteer Officer
and Firefighter. From this document, individual classes and expectations are derived to create the
substance of the annual training calendar and classes. Toward the end of 2016 and the first quarter of
2017, the training division is preparing to transfer these tracking tools to an electronic format using a
software called Rescue Hub. This will drastically reduce the use of paper and create a higher
efficiency for the training division.
COMMAND STAFF TRAINING: Command staff training prepares chief level officers to lead
firefighting operations at emergency incidents. Quarterly training included emergency scene
communications, firefighter rescue scenarios, and special occupancy hazards in our response area
Regional partners Everett FD and Lynnwood FD
participated with Fire District 1 in the command staff
training program. Training with our regional partners
prepares all of us to work together more efficiently and
effectively in an actual emergency.
In 2016 we also hosted a lecture by Dr. Griffin who was
the driver of the first engine to respond to the 2007 Sofa
Super Store in South Carolina where 9 firefighters were
killed. Now, Dr. Griffin has completed a Doctorate of
Education in organizational leadership and development,
Dr. Griffin command staff training
training organizations across the globe on the importance
of moving away from "the way we've always done it" mentality. He has helped promote massive
reforms in how firefighters are trained as well as how executives lead their teams.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS: Fire District 1 continued its regional partnerships in 2016 through
its participation in the county -wide annual training programs and quarterly ASCERT drills. The
county -wide program places training classes on the Snohomish County Training Officer's website
for all county agencies to access. These classes and drills help provide the substance to ensure 100
percent compliance with laws governing the minimum requirements for firefighters.
Quarterly ASCERT drill with Everett, Lynnwood,
and Mukilteo Fire
ASCERT drills bring together the training divisions of
Everett, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, and Fire District 1 to
coordinate on large scale drills and interoperability.
From these ASCERT drills we identify areas of focus
that we would like to improve upon.
This format allows for cost sharing and provides an
opportunity for our personnel to work alongside our
regional partners in a controlled environment prior to
emergency response. Topics for these drills included
vent, enter and search; forcible entry; vertical ventila-
tion; EMS -based scenarios; active shooter education;
mid -rise operations; and urban search and rescue
operations.
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrict1. Packet Pg. 85
5.1.a
VOLUNTEERS
he Volunteer Division provides support response with AIR 10, a truck equipped to provide on -
scene air bottle refills, supplemental lighting and firefighter rehabilitation. The division also
supports prevention education and community relations.
TRAINING and CAREER DEVELOPMENT: Volunteers participated in 46 weekly drills of 2-3
hours each.
ALARMS: Volunteers responded with AIR 10 to 23 alarms.
PUBLIC EDUCATION and COMMUNITY EVENTS:
Volunteers assisted with public education
activities and community events including:
• Edmonds Classic Car Show
• Edmonds Egg Hunt
• Mountlake Terrace Egg Hunt
• Volunteer Recruit Interviews
• Edmonds Waterfront Festival
• Edmonds Fourth of July Parade and
Waterball Competition
• Tour de Terrace Parade and Fireworks Show
• National Night Out Against Crime events in
Brier, Mountlake Terrace and Willis Tucker
Park
• EMS Week Open House at Edmonds Fire
Station 17
• ReadyFest at Station 17
• Count Me In Town Hall Meeting at
Edmonds Community College
• Brier SeaScare Porchlight Parade
Volunteers Ross Rumann, Larrry Slough, Alejandro Camez, and Jimmy
Disch during Fourth of July Parade
Air 10 in the Fourth of July Edmonds Parade
• Taste of Edmonds
• Fire Prevention Month Open
House
• Tree lightings in Brier, Edmonds
and Mountlake Terrace
• Station 23 Neighborhood
Holiday Party
• Santa Claus Ride -Along
to neighborhoods
• Delivery of food
and gifts to needy families
• Shop with A Cop
• Chief for A Day Tour at Station 20
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 86
5.1.a
FIRE PREVENTION & EDUCATION
n addition to standing ready to respond to a wide range of emergency situations, we're also here
to help you prevent those emergencies from happening in the first place. Your firefighters work
with full-time staff to provide fire and injury prevention services and public education.
INSPECTIONS
In Edmonds
New Business
Inspections; 234
Re -Inspections.
214
Annual
Inspections, 1001
Total plan reviews: 418
Total plan review hours: 232
PERMITS
In Edmonds
Special Event/Tank
Removal Operational
Permits.
92
EDUCATION
By the numbers in Edmonds
1121 students reached in school
presentations
656 citizens attended fire
department events
7915 citizens reached through com-
munity organized events
Q
Construction Permit
Inspections,
618
Fire District 1 Deputy Chief and Edmonds Fire Marshal,
John Westfall is retired after more than 26 years.
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 87
5.1.a
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
e're proud to be part of the communities we serve. That means getting in-
volved in events and activities that benefit our neighbors. It also means keep-
ing in touch. Social media, such as Twitter (@SnoCoFirel) and Facebook (Snohomish
County Fire District #1), our website and our FlashPoint newsletter help us communi-
cate with the citizens we serve.
KEEPING IN TOUCH
Newsletters
Our F1ashPoint newsletter is mailed to
households. We also send out targeted
mailings to neighborhoods following
fires or other emergency incidents.
Social Media
@SnoCoFirel
Snohomish County
Fire District #1
Website www.firedistrictl.org
Our website includes interactive tools
to keep citizens informed including
e-notifications about events and
meetings. We've also added a link
where you can listen to live fire radio
and dispatch.
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 88
5.1.a
OUR FUNDING
2016 DISTRICT REVENUE SUMMARY
The District receives 97% of its revenue from three sources. Property Tax revenue is the primary source at 64%, followed
by Contract revenue (26%), and Transport receipts (7%).
2016 Budget 2016 District Budgeted Resources
Property Taxes 30,493,876 —3%
Contracts for Services 12,534,775 ■PrcpertyTaxes
■ Cc nt racts fo r 5 e rvi c e5
Transport Fees 3,455,000 2646
Transport Fees
Other 1,588,976 ■ other
48,072,627 A6a
PROPERTY TAXES
GENERAL FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
In addition to an allocation of Property Taxes, the General Fund receives revenue from: the cities of Mountlake Terrace,
Property Taxes
2°'
19
20A
7n' 6 Property Tax Allocation
■General Fund Operations
■Apparatus Reserve
■Facilities Project Reserve
■Equipment Reserve
■Leoff 1 Medical Reserve
12%
■Compensated Absences Reserve
2016 Budget
General Fund Operations
28,101,982
Apparatus Reserve
770,000
Facilities Project Reserve
231,750
Equipment Reserve
530,450
Leoff 1 Medical Reserve
579,193
Compensated Absences Reserve 280,500
30,493,875
Brier, and Edmonds who contract with District 1 to provide fire suppression, inspection, and prevention services;
Transport Fees; Other Charges for Services; Grants; and Insurance Reimbursements.
2016 Budget
Property Taxes
28,101,982
City of Brier
1,035,952
City of Edmonds
8,480,198
City of Mountlake Terrace
3,018,625
Transport Receipts
3,455,000
Other Revenue
835,127
Grants
712,107
45,638,991
2016 General Fund Revenue Budget
1%
2%
7r6 ■ Property Taxes
7% ■ City of Brier
41 ■ City of Edmonds
■ City of Mountlake Terrace
19% ■Transport Receipts
■ Other Revenue
U0 Grants
2% 62%
Q
Continued on next page
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 89
5.1.a
GENERAL FUND EXPENSE SUMMARY
The District allocates its General Fund resources to five major categories, the largest being Wages which combined with
Overtime and Benefits make up approximately 81% of General Fund Expenses. Services at 15%, followed by Supplies
(4%) make up the balance of the expenses.
E
2016 General Fund Expense Budget
15%
■ Wages
a%�■Overtime
Benefits
zo% 1
■ Se ry ice s
55%
Supplies
6%
r
2016 Budget
Wages
25,190,817
Overtime
2,792,701
Benefits
9,307,751
Services
1,701,313
Supplies
6,728,876
45,721,458
Q
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 90
5.1.a
APPENDIX A:
2016
Edmonds by the numbers
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 91
5.1.a
2016
Edmonds responses by the numbers
RESPONSES BY CALL TYPE
Structure Fire Fire Other Other
1% 9% 4%
MVC_,�
4%
le ALS
29%
Lq
82 percent of calls in
the City of Edmonds are for
emergency medical services
BLS ALS MVC Structure Fire M Fire Other 0 Other
TOTAL INCIDENT IN THE CITY
6000
5000
1000
3000
2000
1000
L
5291 5216
5,216 total number of
incident firefighters
responded to in the City of
Edmonds in 2016
2013 2014 2015 2016
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistrictl. Packet Pg. 92
a
5.1.a
Response times in Edmonds
In an emergency, every second counts. That's why Fire District 1 constantly monitors and analyzes our response times
— from the time you call 911 to the time we arrive at your emergency. Fire District 1 and our partner cities have adopted
response time standards all built around assembling enough firefighters and equipment in time to effectively mitigate
your emergency. Here's a look at how we did in 2016.
Total turnout time: Better than standard
Standard: 2:45 minutes on 90 percent of all emergency
calls. Turnout time measures the time from dispatch until
firefighters leave the station in required protective gear.
2:38
s'-12
11 1 turnout time
on 90% of calls
10 2 /
9 3
18 /44r
7 b 5
Standard:
2:45 minutes
Fire District 1's turnout time was 2:38 minutes
for 90 percent of all calls, better than
standard by 7 seconds.
First arriving fire engine on
fire response: Better than standard
Standard: 6:30 minutes travel time for arrival of first
fire engine on 90 percent of fire calls.
12
10
-9 6:17 3-
response time
on 90% of calls ,
8 4
7 5;
Standard: 1.-:, _ 6
izi 1'
6:30 minutes
The average response time of the first arriving fire
engine was 6:17 minutes for 90 percent of all fire calls,
better than standard by 13 seconds.
Residential fire deployment of full first -alarm assignment: Did not meet standard
Standard: 7:45 minutes travel time for arrival of all first -alarm residential fire response vehicles and personnel (15 fire-
fighters) on 90 percent of residential fire calls.
Fire District 1 responded to three full -alarm residential
fires in the City of Edmonds in 2016. Assembly of effective
force times were:
Incident 1: 6:53
Incident 2: 8:10
Incident 3: 8:43
This element measures the last arriving unit at a house
fire. While Fire District 1 did not meet standard on two of
the three incidents, the first fire engine arrived within 6:17
minutes on 90 percents of fire calls. These firefighters
begin mitigating the emergency as soon as they arrive.
The predictable consequences for this element (last
arriving unit) are inconsequential as the first arriving units
have the greatest impact on these events.
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistri Packet Pg. 93
Commercial fire deployment of full first -alarm assignment: Did not meet standard
5.1.a
Standard: 9:00 minutes travel time for arrival of all first -alarm response vehicles and personnel (18 firefighters) on 90
percent of commercial fire calls.
Fire District 1 responded to five full -alarm commercial
fires in the City of Edmonds in 2016. Assembly of effective
force times were:
Incident 1: 5:00
Incident 2: 5:21
Incident 3: 7:23
Incident 4: 9:05
Incident 5: 11:24
Basic Life Support (BLS) response:
Did not meet standard
Standard: 5:15 minutes travel time for arrival of first
EMS unit (BLS or higher) on 90 percent of medical aid
calls requiring basic life support treatment.
andard:
15 minutes
Fire District 1 responded in 5:57 minutes to 90 percent
of all BLS calls, 42 seconds short of the standard.
Fire District 1 met the standard on three of the five fire -
alarm commercial fires in the City of Edmonds in 2016.
This element measures the last arriving unit at a commer-
cial fire. The first fire engine arrived within 6:17 minutes
on 90 percents of fire calls. These firefighters begin miti-
gating the emergency as soon as they arrive. The predict-
able consequences for this element (last arriving unit) are
inconsequential as the first arriving units have the greatest
impact on these events.
Advanced Life Support (ALS)
paramedic response:
Did not meet standard
Standard: 6:45 minutes travel time for arrival of first
Advanced Life Support (paramedic) unit on 90 percent
of medical aid calls requiring AILS treatment.
1:7
10
`9
7:11 ; S
response time
on 90% of calls C�
Fire District 1 responded in 7:11 minutes to 90 percent
of all ALS calls, 26 seconds short of the standard.
Hazardous Materials response: First apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped operations level
personnel arrived in 4:21 minutes/seconds on 90 percent of hazardous materials incidents, better than the standard of
6:30 minutes/second. Response time for trained and equipped technician level personnel at 15:46 minutes/seconds did
not meet the established standard of 12:00 minute response 90 percent of the time. There was only one incident in this
category in Edmonds in 2016.
Technical Rescue response: First apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped operations level
personnel arrived in 6:12 minutes/seconds on 90 percent of technical rescue incidents, better than the standard of 6:30
minutes/second. Response time for trained and equipped technician level personnel at 15:21 minutes/seconds to 90
percent of technical rescue incidents did not meet the established standard of 12:00 minute response 90 percent of the
time. There were two incidents in this category in Edmonds in 2016.
Response time for marine rescue and personnel: Fire District 1 responded in 4:10 minutes/
seconds with appropriately trained and equipped marine rescue and firefighting personnel 90 percent of the time, better
than the standard of 6:30 minutes/second. There were two incidents in this category in Edmonds in 2016.
Snohomish Co. Fire District 1 / 2016 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds / www.firedistri Packet Pg. 94
5.1.a
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
CITY OF EDMONDS
2016
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2006, the City of Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1133,
which adopted the performance, policy, standards, and objectives outlined in the Wash-
ington Legislature Substitute House Bill 1756, as the Edmonds Fire Department emer-
gency resource deployment and response time objectives.
On November 2, 2009, the City of Edmonds City Council approved an Interlocal Agree-
ment with Snohomish County Fire District 1 (SCFD1) that transferred Fire and Emergen-
cy Service responsibilities to SCFD 1. Section 2.5 of the Interlocal Agreement requires
SCFD 1 to report to the City performance standards as identified in RCW 35.103. The
following constitutes this reporting requirement:
2016 COMPLIANCE REPORT CONTENTS
As required by SHB 1756, the 2016 Compliance Report includes four Sections:
• Section 1: Edmonds Municipal Code Chapter 2.12 Fire Department
• Section 2: SCFD 1 Policy Statements.
• Section 3: Comparison of 2016 response times to each adopted response stand-
ard.
• Section 4: An explanation of why Council -adopted standards were not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards,
and the steps necessary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve
compliance.
SECTION1.........................................................................................2
SECTION2.........................................................................................3
SECTION3.........................................................................................4
SECTION4.........................................................................................8
Packet Pg. 95
5.1.a
SECTION 1
EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 2.12
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Sections:
2.12.010 Fire service.
2.12.020 Pre-existing rights and obligations not impaired.
2.12.010 Fire Service.
Fire service is provided to the citizens of the City of Edmonds by and through a contract with
Snohomish County Fire District 1. Whenever any reference is made in the provisions of the Ed-
monds City Code or Edmonds Community Development Code to "fire chief," "fire marshal," "fire
department," or any other reference to a firefighter or fire services, such term shall include, for the
provision of administrative or other day-to-day fire services, to reference the fire chief, fire mar-
shal and firefighting services performed for the City by contract by Snohomish County Fire District
A. The officials of Snohomish County Fire District 1, when performing services by contract to
the citizens of the City of Edmonds and to the city in its corporate capacity, shall exercise
any and all rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities in accordance with the provisions
of this code to the same extent and in the same manner as if performed by an employee of
the City.
B. Employees of Snohomish County Fire District 1 ("District") shall not be entitled to any wage
or benefit provision of this code, including but not limited to Chapters 2.06 and 2.35 ECC.
The Edmonds civil service system shall remain in effect but no employee of SCFD1shall
have recourse to the Civil Service Commission following the termination date of fire de-
partment employees by the City. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009].
2.12.020 Pre -Existing Rights and Obligations Not Impaired.
The City Council's determination to contract or not contract for fire services with Snohomish
County Fire District 1 and the provisions of this chapter shall not impair any existing vested right
or vested obligation created under the provisions of state law or under Chapter 2.50 ECC, Fire-
men's Relief and Pension System, Chapter 2.60 ECC, Reserve Fire Fighters' Relief and Pen-
sions Act, Chapter 2.70 ECC, Retirement System, and Chapter 10.30 ECC, Disability Board, as
well as the City's MEBT plan. The rights of any person under such system vested prior to the
transfer of fire service responsibility by contract shall remain in full force and effect and are not
impaired by either such or the adoption of this chapter. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009].
Packet Pg. 96
5.1.a
SECTION 2
POLICY STATEMENTS
The Fire Department maintains written policy statements that establish the
following:
1. The existence of the Fire Department is verified by Municipal Code 2.12.
X meets requirement does not meet
2. Services that the Fire Department is required to provide are addressed in the Inter -
local Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
X meets requirement does not meet
3. The basic organizational structure of the Fire Department is as depicted in the
SCFD1 Organizational Chart approved by the Fire Chief.
X meets requirement does not meet
4. The number of Fire Department employees on duty daily in 2016, at the Edmonds
stations, is 12 personnel including Battalion Chief as outlined in the Interlocal
Agreement for Fire and Emergency Services, and as adopted by SCFD1 Board of
Fire Commissioners as part of the 2016 SCFD1 Budget.
X meets requirement does not meet
5. The functions Fire Department employees are expected to perform are listed in the
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Services, and in the 2016 SCFD1
Budget.
X meets requirement does not meet
Packet Pg. 97
5.1.a
SECTION 3
STANDARDS of RESPONSE COMPARISON (STANDARD OF COVER)
To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events
of "brain death" or "flashover" occur, the Fire Department is required to establish re-
sponse -time objectives, and compare the actual department results on an annual basis
against the established objectives. The comparison began in 2007 with a comparison of
the established response objectives against actual 2006 response times for the levels of
response. This year, actual 20166 response time data is compared against the originally
established, Council -adopted 2006 standard. The following section provides the compar-
ison:
Turnout time for all emeraencv incidents:
Turnout Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a turn out time
standard of 2:45, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did
meet the turn out time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of the Fire
Department incidents experienced a turn out time of 2:38 minutes/seconds.
2A. Response time of the first -arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression
Incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first engine company at a fire sup-
pression incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of fire sup-
pression incidents had the first engine arrive at the scene within 6:17
minutes/seconds of response time.
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential
fire suppression incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 7:45 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re-
sponse to a residential fire suppression incident, which the department should
meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re-
sponse of 15 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90
percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm re-
sponding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 8:43 on all inci-
dents and had a 33% compliance to the time standard of 7:45 minutes/seconds
of response time.
* Total of 3 incidents (effective force times of 6:53, 8:10, and 8:43
Packet Pg. 98
5.1.a
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commer-
cial fire suppression incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 9:00 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re-
sponse to a commercial fire suppression incident, which the department should
meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re-
sponse of 18 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90
percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm re-
sponding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 11:24:00 on all
incidents and had a 60% compliance to the time standard of 9:00
minutes/seconds of response time.
* Total of 5 incidents. Effective force times of 5:00, 5:21, 7:23, 9:05, and 11:24
3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher
level capability to an emergency medical incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 5:15 for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with ap-
propriately trained personnel on board (BLS) to an emergency medical inci-
dent, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emer-
gency medical incidents had the first -arriving first responder (BLS) arrive at the
scene within 05:57 minutes/seconds of response time.
4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit
to an emergency medical incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:45 for the arrival of an Advanced Life Support unit with ap-
propriately trained personnel (two Paramedics) on board to an ALS emergency
medical incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emer-
gency medical incidents had the Advanced Life Support (two Paramedics) unit
arrive at the scene within 7:11 minutes/seconds of response time.
Packet Pg. 99
5.1.a
5A1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a
hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time. 100 percent of haz-
ardous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Op-
erations level personnel arrive at the scene within 4:21 minutes/seconds of re-
sponse time.
5A2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
eauiooed Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12:00 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a
hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of tech-
nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations
level personnel arrive at the scene within 15:46 minutes/seconds of response
time. Had one response in 2016
5131. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
eauiooed Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a
technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the
time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of tech-
nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations
level personnel arrive at the scene within 6:12 minutes/seconds of response
time.
Packet Pg. 100
5.1.a
5B2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12:00 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately
trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to
a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of tech-
nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations
level personnel arrive at the scene within 15:21 minutes/seconds of response
time 100%. In 2016 there were 2 incidents with 09:54 and 15:21 travel time for
Technician level personnel and equipment to arrive.
6. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine inci-
dent:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine
incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2016: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of Marine
incidents had trained and equipped firefighting personnel arrived at the scene
within 4:10* minutes/seconds of response time. (* Two incidents this year)
Packet Pg. 101
5.1.a
SECTION 4
COUNCIL -ADOPTED STANDARDS NOT MET
SHB 1756 requires an explanation when Council -adopted standards are not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards, and the steps nec-
essary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET
The Council -Adopted 2006 performance standards that were not met in 2016 are:
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential
fire suppression incident
Established: 7:45
Actual: 8:43 (100%)
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commer-
cial fire suppression incident:
Established: 9:00
Actual: 11:42 (100%)
3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher
level capability to an emergency medical incident:
Established: 5:15
Actual: 5:57
4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit
to an emergency medical incident:
Established: 6:45
Actual: 7:11
5A2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Established: 12:00
Actual: 15:46 (100% 2016 had one incident)
5132. Response time of the first-arrivina aooaratus with aoorooriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident
Established: 12:00
Actual: 15:21 (100% 2016 had two incidents)
Packet Pg. 102
5.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/28/2017
Community Transit Presentation (30 min.)
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Emmett Heath, Community Transit CEO, will share 2016 accomplishments and the plans for 2017 and
beyond.
Packet Pg. 103
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/28/2017
Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles and surplus city equipment
(5 min.)
Staff Lead: Mike Adams
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Royce Napolitino
Background/History
The city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and
equipment for several years. We have consistently received quality service and the best prices using this
approach. It has proven to be the most cost effective option to manage our larger surplus items like
vehicles and equipment.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy
Auctioneers to sell (10) surplus city vehicles, (1) riding mower, and (2) portable power generators.
Narrative
The city would like to utilize the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and
equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items.
The following equipment:
Unit# 83-SWR 1984 Onan 30 KW portable generator SN# 361184
Unit# 51-SWR 1994 Olympian 35KW portable generator SN# 2016236
Unit# 109-PRK 2006 Toro riding mower SN# 260000182
The following vehicles:
Unit# 120-PRK
2001 Dodge 1 ton flatbed Vin# 31361VIC36571M547878
Unit# 121-PRK
2001 Dodge 1 ton flatbed Vin# 3136ML36551M547877
Unit# 129-STR
2002 Ford F-450 flatbed Vin# 1FDXF46F22EL20175
Unit# 132-STR
2003 Ford F-250 flatbed Vin# lFDNX20P53EC75201
Unit# 252-FLT
2002 Dodge Stratus Vin# 1133AL36R221-1231252
Unit# 304-POL
1989 RTA SWAT bus Vin# 1TUMDT9A4KR26304
Unit# 448-POL
2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BV8BX149448
Unit# 449-POL
2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BVXBX149449
Unit# 452-POL
2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BVXBX149452
Unit# 455-POL
2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BV5BX149455
Packet Pg. 104
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/28/2017
Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Murray, Smith & Associates for the Five Corners
Reservoir Recoating Project (10 minutes)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On April 5, 2016, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Murray,
Smith & Associates.
Staff Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the April 4, 2016, City Council meeting.
Narrative
The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in March 2015 to hire a consultant to provide design
engineering services for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project. The City received statements of
qualifications from two engineering firms and the selection committee chose Murray, Smith &
Associates (MSA) to provide design engineering services for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating
Project. On August 3, 2015 the City entered into a $71,019 contract with MSA to provide evaluations
and recommendations for the Five Corners Reservoir. Although the main purpose of the project was to
recoat the two reservoirs, a preliminary study consisting of a comprehensive evaluation of the facility
was included in the scope. A structural analysis was performed using available as -built records and
seismic codes updated since the City's 2004 structural evaluation. The analysis determined that more
investigation was needed to address concerns about the structural integrity of the two reservoirs.
On April 18, 2016 the City entered into a $60,465 Professional Services Supplemental Agreement with
MSA. The contract included a geotechnical investigation to obtain information on soil bearing capacity
and ultrasonic testing on reservoir tank welds to obtain information on reservoir shell strength that will
replace engineering assumptions previously used in the structural analysis. MSA also evaluated
operational constraints to determine if reductions in storage volumes could reduce the impact from a
seismic event. MSA's technical memorandum concluded that the reservoirs could meet current seismic
codes and be operational within the City's parameters for water service by lowering the level of the
reservoir overflow pipes and making minor structural enhancements to the roof of the 1.5 MG tank.
Supplemental agreement No. 2 will provide professional services to complete the design plans,
specifications and construction documents for both reservoirs. The portion of the contract in
Supplemental Agreement No. 2 is scheduled to be completed by January 2018 with bidding and the
award of the construction contract. The fee for the Supplemental Agreement is $178,829 and includes a
management reserve of $16,000 for unexpected tasks that may come up during design. An additional
Supplemental Agreement with MSA may be required for construction support due to the specialized
Packet Pg. 105
7.2
nature of the project. Construction is scheduled to take place between February and September of
2018.
Attachments:
Murray, Smith & Associates - Supplemental Agreement
Packet Pg. 106
7.2.a
Original Contract No. 6575
Supplemental Agreement 2 No.
CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING
121 5" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 . 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR
Website: www.edmondswa.gov
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and
Murray, Smith & Associates, 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 Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project, dated August 3, 2015; and
The City and the Consultant entered into a supplemental agreement for 1) field testing
and structural evaluations; and 2) storage volume and operating level evaluation with respect to a
project known as Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project, dated April 18, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Phase 2 for final design and bidding engineering services will be added M
to the original Scope of Work; NOW, THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows:
1. The underlying Agreement of August 3, 2015 and the Supplemental Agreement 1
of April 18, 2016 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set
forth, are 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 $71,019 amount set forth in Paragraph 2A of the Underlying Agreement,
and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, and which was increased by $60,465 by
the Supplemental Agreement 1, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount
of $178,829 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this Supplemental
Agreement 2. As a result of this Supplemental Agreement 2, the total contract amount is
increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $310,313 ($71,019, plus $60,465, plus
$178,829).
Packet Pg. 107
7.2.a
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 and the Supplemental Agreement
1 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
CITY OF EDMONDS MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By: By: _
Mayor David O. Earling Title:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
SAStaff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5KA.Five Corners Reservoir Recoating\MSA.Supp 2.doc Packet Pg. 108
7.2.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:
SAStaff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5KA.Five Corners Reservoir Recoating\MSA.Supp 2.doc Packet Pg. 109
7.2.a
EXHIBIT .
SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF EDMONDS
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECT
PHASE 2 — DESIGN AND BIDDING SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA) has developed the following scope of services and
accompanying engineering fee estimate to provide final design and bidding engineering services
for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating project. The scope and fee have been developed based
on discussions with City staff and our understanding of the project from the previously
completed tasks in Phase 1 of the project, which included evaluations of both the 1.5 MG
reservoir and 3.0 MG reservoir. The results of the evaluations are summarized in a draft
technical memorandum, dated December 22, 2016.
SCOPE OF WORK
r
Task 1 - Project Management and Coordination 0)
This task provides for management of the project and coordination with the project team.
Elements of this task will include:
1.1 Correspondence and Coordination with City - Coordinate with the City Project Manager
via phone conversations and e-mail for project decisions, project status, work activities,
and issues requiring City input.
1.2 Budget Review, Invoices and Progress Reports - MSA's Project Manager will monitor
project costs and manage budget and billing tasks, including preparation and submission
of monthly invoices and progress reports.
1.3 Kick-off Meeting - Prepare for and conduct project kick-off meeting with City staff and
key team members to discuss project, review project schedule and discuss key elements
of the project. Prepare meeting agenda and record meeting summary to document items
discussed and transmit to City.
1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) - Perform in-house quality assurance
reviews of all deliverables.
Assumptions:
• MSA will prepare for and attend one (1) kick-off meeting with the City.
City Responsibilities:
• Attend kick-off meeting.
City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 2 - Five Corners R
March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 110
7.2.a
MSA Deliverables to City:
• Correspondence, a -mails and other documentation
• Monthly billing statements and activity reports
• Kick-off meeting agenda and minutes
Task 2 - Plans, Specifications and Construction Cost Estimates
Plans and specifications suitable for public bidding in accordance with City requirements will be
prepared for the proposed improvements described in the December 22, 2016 draft technical
memorandum and summarized below.
1.5 MG Five Corners Reservoir Improvements
• Lower overflow inside reservoir
• Roof improvements (intermediate rafters and welding roof plates to rafters)
• Interior and exterior recoating, including removal of all existing coatings to bare steel and
testing for lead in the coatings as
Q.
• Galvanic anode cathodic protection system
• Replace fall prevention system for exterior ladder U)
a
• Install roof access platform and railing g
• Replace and upsize roof access hatch M
• Replace roof vent
• Replace exterior base sealant, including removal of existing base sealant
a�
• Replace fall prevention system for interior ladder E
• Replace and upsize ground -level personnel access hatch
• Replace and upsize exterior overflow piping and air gap Q
M
• Relocate inlet pipe entrance through reservoir sidewall and install mixing valve system
3.0 MG Five Corners Reservoir Improvements
• Lower overflow inside reservoir
• Interior and exterior recoating, including removal of all existing coatings to bare steel
(testing for lead was accomplished in the Phase 1 evaluation work)
• Galvanic anode cathodic protection system
• Replace fall prevention system for exterior ladder
• Install railing at roof access platform
• Replace roof vent
• Replace exterior base sealant, including removal of existing base sealant
• Replace fall prevention system for interior ladder
• Replace and upsize ground -level personnel access hatch
• Replace and upsize overflow piping and air gap
• Install mixing valve system Z
• Install new site piping and valves for pump station to operate with 3.0 MG reservoir out `�°
of service and 1.5 MG reservoir in service Q
City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 2 - Five Corners R
March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 111
7.2.a
2.1 50% Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) — Develop design plans, technical
specifications, engineer's opinion of probable construction cost, and construction sequencing
schedule to approximately 50% design completion level. Submit 50% PS&E package for City
review and comment. Attend one meeting with City staff during 50% design development
and one meeting after City's completed review of the 50% PS&E package.
2.2 90% Plans, Specifications & Estimate — Develop design plans, technical specifications,
engineer's opinion of probable construction cost, and construction sequencing schedule to
approximately 90% design completion level. Submit 90% PS&E package for City review and
comment. Attend one meeting with City staff after City's completed review of the 90%
PS&E package.
2.3 Final Bid Ready Plans, Specifications & Estimate - Develop final design plans,
specifications, engineer's opinion of probable construction cost, and construction sequencing
schedule that are ready for bidding.
2.4 Constructability Review - Provide a limited constructability review of the proposed
improvements in support of the City's constructability review and identify issues that could
affect the construction of the improvements as designed or the construction schedule.
Assumptions: z
. .
• Plans and specifications will include required hazardous material handling and disposal M
procedures to address the tested lead concentration levels in the exterior primer coating of
both reservoirs.
• City's review comments will be received in a complete, single submittal. Multiple rounds of
review comments on the same design completion submittal are not anticipated.
• City's technical review of each submittal is 2 weeks.
• MSA shall apply a Washington Professional Engineer's stamp with signature and date on
the final bid -ready set of the design plans and specifications.
• Contractor shall develop traffic control and erosion control plans.
City Responsibilities:
• City to provide access to reservoirs and attend field reconnaissance with project team.
• City will provide latest standard technical specifications, standard details, and "front-end"
documents to be incorporated into the contract documents.
• City to review and provide comments on each submittal of plans, specifications, cost
estimate, and schedule.
• City will take the lead in preparing permits and coordinating project elements with key
stakeholders.
• City to coordinate and submit bid -ready contract documents to Builders Exchange or similar
service.
MSA Deliverables:
• Submission of 50% and 90% design packages to include an electronic copy in PDF format
of plan set, specifications (also in MS Word), schedule, and engineer's opinion of probable
construction cost (also in MS Excel) via e-mail. Q
City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 2 - Five Corners R
March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 112
7.2.a
• Submission of 100% bid ready package to include final stamped design plans, final
specifications, and engineer's final construction cost estimate in PDF, MS Word
(specifications), and MS Excel (cost estimate) via e-mail.
Task 3 — Subconsultant Services
This task provides for the specialty services provided by subconsultants for the project, as described
below.
3.1 Surveying and Mapping — MSA's subconsultant Duane Hartman and Associates (DHA) will
provide the utility locating, field surveying, and base mapping services for the project. MSA
will coordinate the extent of the survey and review and provide comment on the base mapping
to the surveyor. A more detailed description of services is provided below:
• DHA will utilize published City of Edmonds horizontal and vertical control to perform the
topographic mapping. All field data will be processed in accordance with MSA and the
City of Edmonds CAD standards. The horizontal datum will be Washington State Plane
coordinates, north zone NAD-83(2007). The vertical datum will be NAVD-88. The
topographic survey will be developed as a 1'=20' scale file with one foot contours and
delivered in DWG and PDF formats.
• Topographic mapping will consist of all above ground planimetric features, curbs, walks, g
fences, trees etc., and all above and underground utilities. DHA will employ APS r
Locating to paint out the existing underground utilities, as well as contacting One -Call to 0
engage the City to locate its water, storm and sanitary sewer systems. y
• The survey limits and mapping will be limited to the proposed improvements construction
areas within the easterly two-thirds of the site and not within street right of way.
• Surveying will include site utilities, elevation at top of concrete foundation of both
reservoirs (3 locations for each reservoir), calculated property boundary and right of way,
one (1) foot site contours, reservoir and pump station footprints, and all other above-
ground features.
3.2 Structural Engineering - MSA's subconsultant Peterson Structural Engineers (PSE) will
provide structural engineering services for the design of proposed improvements. A more
detailed description of services is provided below:
• Teleconferences with the project team
• Perform design and generation of 50%, 90% and final construction documents
• Assist in the generation of structural specifications sections
• Submit 100% bid ready Structural Calculations, Drawings Stamped by a Washington
Licensed Structural Engineer (SE).
• Provide bidding support services for bidder initiated questions
3.3 Corrosion Engineering - MSA's subconsultant Northwest Corrosion Engineering will
provide corrosion engineering services for the design of proposed improvements. A more E
detailed description of services is provided below:
• Review interior and exterior coating specifications prepared by MSA. Q
• Prepare cathodic protection system design drawings and specifications.
City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 1 - Five Corners Res
March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 113
7.2.a
• Collect paint sample from the 1.5 MG reservoir and perform TCLP testing (paint sample
testing of 3.0 MG reservoir was completed during the evaluation work in Phase 1)
• Participate in one design review meeting with project team.
Task 4 — Bidding Assistance (As Needed)
This task includes supporting the City on an as -needed basis in providing assistance during bidding
of the project. Anticipated elements of this task include:
4.1 Bidder Inquiries and Addenda - Respond to questions from bidders, subcontractors,
equipment suppliers and other vendors regarding the project, plans and specifications.
Maintain a written record of communications during the bidding process. Prepare and issue
any addenda as necessary to clarify the contract documents.
4.2 Pre -bid Conference - Attend a pre -bid conference, if necessary, for the project and provide
support to the City for specific agenda items.
CL
Assumptions: a
• The City will take the lead in tasks associated with printing bid documents, document c)
distribution, bid advertisement, addenda distribution, plan holder administration, bid evaluation, <
bid tabulation etc.
• MSA's support services during bidding will be performed up to the extent of the fee estimate for M
the Bidding Assistance task, unless otherwise approved in advance by the City through a budget
amendment or authorization to invoice against the Unanticipated Task Reserve budget.
MSA Deliverables to City:
Draft addenda as required for the City to distribute to plan holders.
Task 5 — Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed)
A reserve budget amount has been included in the fee estimate for work under this task, which may
include additional unanticipated work not specifically identified in the scope of work tasks defined
above. Such work items will be undertaken only after written authorization from the City.
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED SCHEDULE
MSA shall begin work immediately upon receipt of Notice to Proceed from the City and proceed
according to the preliminary estimated schedule presented below. However, factors beyond MSA's
control may require schedule modification.
Notice to Proceed
50% PS&E Submittal
90% PS&E Submittal
Final Bid Ready PS&E Submittal
Bidding and Award
Construction —
Onsite piping improvements
Construction —
3.0 MG improvements
Construction —
1.5 MG improvements
April 2017
July 2017
September 2017
November 2017
December 2017 - January 2018
February 2018
February — May 2018
June — September 2018
City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 1 - Five Corners Res
March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 114
7.2.a
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF EDMONDS
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECT
PHASE 2 - DESIGN AND BIDDING SERVICES
FEE ESTIMATE
3/6/2017
TASK
MSA LABOR HOURS
ESTIMATED FEES
PrincEV
$212
Prfncl
$198
PE VII
$173
PE III
$140
Tech IV
$136
ndmin
$95
HoursLabor
Subconsultants
ExpensesTotal
NW Corr
DMA
Peterson
Task 1- Project Management & Coordination
Task 1.1- Correspondence & Coord with City
8
2
8
18
5 3,556
S 10
S 3,566
Task 1.2- Budget, Invoices & Progress Reports
6
4
10
1
3
23
$ 4,139
$ 10
$ 4,149
Task 1.3 - Kick-off Meeting
4
4
2
10
$ 1.770
S 80
S 1,850
Task 1.4 - QA/QC
8
8
16
S 3,360
$ 10
S 3,370
Task 1 Subtotal
26
14
22
0
0
5
67
S 12,825
$
$
$
$ 110
$ 12,935
Task 2 - PS&E
Task 2 1- 50% PS&E
15
30
50
90
70
16
1 271
$ 41,560
S 1,360
S 42,920
Task 2.2- 90% PS&E
10
20
40
80
1 60
12
222
S 33,600
S 1.180
$ 34.780
Task 2.3 - Final PS&E
10
20
40
80
50
16
216
S 32,620
$ 1,000
$ 33,620
Task 2.4 - Constructability Review
4
4
8
$ 1,680
$ 20
5 1,700
Task 2 Subtotal
39
74
130
250
180
44
717
$ 109,460
$
$
$
$ 3,560
$ 113,020
Task 3 - Subconsultant Services
Task 3.1- Surveying & Mapping (DHA)
0
S
$ 5,749
$ -
$ 5,749
Task 3.2 - Structural Engineering (Peterson)
0
$
5 20,249
S
S 20,249
Task 3.3 - Corrosion Engineering (NWC)
0
S
S 7,614
$
$ 7,614
Task 3 Subtotal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
S 7,614
$ 5,749
S 20.249
S -
S 33,612
Task 4 - Bidding and Award Services
Task 4.1 - Bidder Inquiries & Addenda
2
1
2
4
2
2
13
$ 2,010
S 56
S 2,066
Task 4.2- Pre -bid Conference
2
4
6
S 1,136
1
$ 60
$ 1,196
Task 4 Subtotal 1
4
1
6
4
2
2
19
S 3,146
S
$
S
$ 116
$ 3,262
Task 5 - Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed
Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed)
0
S 16,000
S -
S 16,000
Task Task S- Subtotal
0
0
0
0 1
0
0
0 1
$ 16,000
$
$
$
$
$ 16,000
TOTAL •ALL TASKS
fig
89
158
254 1
182.
51
803
$ f4%A 311
$ 7,634
$ 5,749
S 20,249
$ 3,786
-.$ 178,829.
r
M
Cn
City of Edmonds Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Phase 2 - Five
Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 115
Exh B - Ph... 2 - Five Comers Reservau s Desip{� Fee 3-6-17 A,
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/28/2017
Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with The Blueline Group to provide Capital Project
Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services for 2017 (10 minutes)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On February 16, 2016 Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with The
Blueline Group (Blueline) to provide Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering &
Inspection Services for 2016 and 2017.
Staff Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the next Council meeting.
Narrative
The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in November, 2015 to hire a consultant to support City
staff with construction management, engineering and inspection services for various City funded capital
projects that are scheduled to begin construction in 2016 and 2017. The City received statements of
qualifications from six engineering firms and the selection committee chose The Blueline Group based
on their qualifications, experience and approach.
On February 16, 2016 Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement for
projects that were scheduled for construction in 2016. A supplemental agreement has now been
negotiated for projects beginning in 2017 and to closeout projects that started in 2016. The City has
negotiated a consultant fee of $185,800. This includes a $28,000 management reserve for scope of
work changes or time extensions during construction. This contract will be funded by the respective
utility fund.
This contract will provide professional services on the following projects:
1. 2017 Sewerline Replacement
Budget: $1.49M
Status: 90% Design
Construction: May 2017 - October 2017
2. 2016 Sewerline Replacement
Budget: $420,000
Status: Construction
Construction: July 2017 - September 2017
Packet Pg. 116
7.3
3. Northstream Pipe Abandonment Project
Budget: $633,400
Status: 90% Design
Construction: June 2017 - September 2017
In addition, these services may also be used to support staff to finalize closeout of projects that were
completed recently and were part of last year's contract. Each project will be managed by a City Capital
Projects Manager. The consultant will assist the City's project manager by providing daily field inspection
and assisting with contract administration duties such as review of contractor's progress schedule,
manage request for information (RFI's) log, change order documentation, coordinate on -site material
testing, assist with project close-out activities, respond to citizen questions and other duties as outlined
in the scope of work.
Attachments:
The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement
Packet Pg. 117
7.3.a
Original Contract No. 6716
Supplemental Agreement 1 No.
CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING
121 5" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR
Website: www.edmondswa.gov
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and
The Blueline Group, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying
agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as
Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services project,
dated February 24, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a
consulting firm to provide capital project construction management, engineering and
inspection services; NOW, THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows:
1. The underlying Agreement of February 24, 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 $128,400 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 $185,800 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 $314,200 ($128,400 plus $185,800).
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. 118
7.3.a
DONE this day of , 20
CITY OF EDMONDS THE BLUELINE GROUP
BY:
Mayor David O. Earling
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By: _
Title:
Packet Pg. 119
7.3.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:
Packet Pg. 120
7.3.a
Exhibit 'A' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services
between The Blueline Group, LLC and the City of Edmonds
for Construction Services for 2017 Projects, dated March 20, 2017.
Task 001- CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES
Fee: Time and Expense (Estimated $135,900)
Blueline will provide as -needed inspection services at the City's request during the 2017
construction season, and will coordinate construction management activities with the
City. Services under this task are anticipated to include:
1. Review plans/specifications and visit the site.
2. Review materials delivered to the site to review compliance with City approved
submittals.
3. Provide inspection for all aspects of the construction activity to review Contractor
compliance with the contract plans and specifications.
4. Coordinate compaction and materials testing with the testing agency selected
by the City under a separate contract.
5. Coordinate all testing with the City and Contractor for water and sewer projects.
G. Coordinate final connections with the City and Contractor for water main
projects.
7. Record and report the progress of the construction operations to the City
throughout the duration of the contract.
8. Furnish the City with verification of all quantities of materials.
9. Provide final project inspection including punchlists.
10. Provide as -built redlines to supplement the Contractor's redlines.
11. Monitor the Contractor's traffic control operations to review compliance with
City approved Traffic Control Plan.
12. Be responsive to requests from citizens and businesses.
Deliverables (to be submitted weekly during construction):
• Inspector's Daily Reports.
• Records of Force Account Work.
• Weekly Tabulation of Quantities Placed (with all truck tickets attached).
• Construction Progress Photos.
It is anticipated that the City will:
• Provide purity testing (with coordination provided by Inspector).
• Review submittals and project schedules.
Assumptions:
• Projects include the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement (85 working days), 2016
Sanitary Sewer Replacement (25 working days) and the Northstream Pipe
Abandonment and Repair (35 working days) projects.
• The Contractor will provide construction staking for the projects.
• The City or Design Engineering Firm will prepare as -built drawings based off of
the as -built redlines.
Mileage associated with onsite construction inspection has been included in this
task.
Packet Pg. 121
7.3.a
Exhibit 'A' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services
between The Blueline Group, LLC and the City of Edmonds
for Construction Services for 2017 Projects, dated March 20, 2017.
Task 002 - PROJECTMANAGEMENT
Fee: Time and Expense (Estimated $21,900)
This task is for general coordination and meetings on the project, including:
1. Management of all tasks and staff for construction inspection services.
2. Communication with the City of Edmonds regarding the construction.
3. Budget tracking and providing weekly updates to the City.
4. Preparation of consultant monthly invoices for work performed during the
previous month, including any pertinent backup materials.
Assumptions:
• Projects include the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement (85 working days), 2016
Sanitary Sewer Replacement (25 working days) and the Northstream Pipe
Abandonment and Repair (35 working days) projects.
• If additional inspection time is requested beyond the scope of Task 001, it may
be billed under this task.
Task 003 - MA NA GEMEN T RESERVE
Fee: Time and Expense (Estimated $28,000)
This task provides for unanticipated construction services deemed to be necessary
during the course of the project.
GENERAL ASSUMPT/ONSAND NOTES
1. Scope and fees outlined above are based on the following information (any changes
to these documents may result in changes to the fees):
a. Correspondence between the Blueline Group and the City of Edmonds on
February 24 and 27, 2017 and March 20, 2017.
2. The client shall provide The Blueline Group with approved plans, contract
documents, and any necessary inspection forms.
3. The fees stated above do not include reimbursable expenses such as large format
copies (larger than letter/legal size), and plots. These items will be billed under a
separate task called Expenses.
4. Compaction and materials testing will be billed directly to the City by the testing
agency.
5. Time and expense items are based on The Blueline Group's current hourly rates.
6. Night time work will include a 25% surcharge.
7. Night time work will be performed as full-time inspections only (8 hrs/shift
minimum).
Packet Pg. 122
Job Number: 17-014
Date: March 20, 2017
Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services
between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for
Construction Services for 2017 Projects
dated March 20, 2017
City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services
Prepared By: Deanna Martin, PE
Checked By: Ken Lauzen, PE
Project Manager
Construction
Administrator
Construction Inspector
Task #
Task
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
Total
Mileage
Total Hours
Total
Cost
Hours
Hours
Hours
001
Construction Inspection Services
0
$ -
0
$
1200
$ 132,000
3,915
1,200
$ 135,915
002
Project Management
126
$ 21,924
0
$
0
$ -
0
126
$ 21,924
003
Management Reserve
$ 28,000
Total 126 $ 21,924 0 $ 1,200
$ 132,000
$ 3,915
1,326
$ 185,839
Total Cost (Rounded)
$ 185,800
Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1932 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services)
Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services
between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for
Construction Services for 2017 Projects
dated March 20, 2017
City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services
Construction Inspection Services
001A
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
2017 SS Replacement
TOTAL
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Pre -Construction Conference & Prep
0.0
$
0.0
$
8.0
$ 880
8.0
$ 880
2
Full-time Field (17 wk @ 40 hrs/wk)
0.0
$
0.0
$
680.0
$ 74,800
680.0
$ 74,800
3
Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines
0.0
$
0.0
$
8.0
$ 880
8.0
$ 880
4
Mileage (17 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi)
$ 2,295
Total
i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 696.0 $ 76,560
696.0
$ 78,855
*Assumes 85 total working days
Construction Inspection Services
001B
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
2016 SS Replacement
TOTAL
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Pre -Construction Conference & Prep
0.0
$
0.0
$
4.0
$ 440
4.0
$ 440
2
Full-time Field (5 wks x 40 hrs/wk)*
0.0
$
0.0
$
200.0
$ 22,000
200.0
$ 22,000
3
Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines
0.0
$
0.0
$
8.0
$ 880
8.0
$ 880
4
Mileage (5 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi)
$ 675
Total
i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 21.2.01 $ 23,320
212.0
$ 23,995
*Assumes 25 total working days
Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1932 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services)
Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services
between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for
Construction Services for 2017 Projects
dated March 20, 2017
City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services
Construction Inspection Services
001C
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repair
TOTAL
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Pre -Construction Conference & Prep
0.0
$
0.0
$
4.0
$ 440
4.0
$ 440
2
Full-time Field (7 wks x 40 hrs/wk)*
0.0
$
0.0
$
280.0
$ 30,800
280.0
$ 30,800
3
Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines
0.0
$
0.0
$
8.0
$ 880
8.0
$ 880
4
Mileage (7 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi)
$ 945
Total
i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 292.01 $ 32,120
292.0
$ 33,065
*Assumes 35 total working days
Project Management
002A
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
2017 SS Replacement
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
TOTAL
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs
4.0
$ 696
0.0
$
0.0
$
4.0
$ 696
2
Review IDRs/documentation (17 wks x 2 hr/wk)
34.0
$ 5,916
0.0
$
0.0
$
34.0
$ 5,916
3
Budget Tracking & Invoicing (17 wks x 1 hr/wk)
17.0
$ 2,958
0.0
$
0.0
$
17.0
$ 2,958
4
Coordination with Staff and City (17 wks x 1 hr/wk)
17.0
$ 2,958
0.0
$
0.0
$
17.0
$ 2,958
Total
72.01
$ 12,528
1 0.0
$
1 0.0
$
72.0
$ 12,528
*Assumes 85 total working days
Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1932 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services)
Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services
between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for
Construction Services for 2017 Projects
dated March 20, 2017
City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services
Project Management
002B
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
2016 SS Replacement
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
TOTAL
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs
2.0
$ 348
0.0
$
0.0
$
2.0
$ 348
2
Review IDRs/documentation (5 wks x 2 hr/wk)
10.0
$ 1,740
0.0
$
0.0
$
10.0
$ 1,740
3
Budget Tracking & Invoicing (5 wks x 1 hr/wk)
5.0
$ 870
0.0
$
0.0
$
5.0
$ 870
4
Coordination with Staff and City (5 wks x 1 hr/wk)
5.0
$ 870
0.0
$
0.0
$
5.0
$ 870
Total
1 22.0
$ 3,828
1 0.0
$
1 0.0
$
22.0
*Assumes 25 total working days
Project Management
002C
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repair
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
TOTAL
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs
4.0
$ 696
0.0
$
0.0
$
4.0
$ 696
2
Review IDRs/documentation (7 wks x 2 hr/wk)
14.0
$ 2,436
0.0
$
0.0
$
14.0
$ 2,436
3
Budget Tracking & Invoicing (7 wks x 1 hr/wk)
7.0
$ 1,218
0.0
$
0.0
$
7.0
$ 1,218
4
Coordination with Staff and City (7 wks x 1 hr/wk)
7.0
$ 1,218
0.0
$
0.0
$
7.0
$ 11218
Total
1 32.01
$ 5,568
1 0.0
$
1 0.0
$
1 32.0
$ 5,568
*Assumes 35 total working days
003
Management Reserve
Item #
Description
TOTAL
FEE
Lump Sum
1
Management Reserve
$ 28,000
$ 28,000
Total
1 $ 28,0001
1 $ 28,000
Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1932 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services)
Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services
between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for
Construction Services for 2017 Projects
dated March 20, 2017
City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services
Construction Inspection Services
001A
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
2017 SS Replacement
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
TOTAL
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Pre -Construction Conference & Prep
0.0
$
0.0
$
8.0
$ 880
8.0
$ 880
2
Full-time Field (17 wk @ 40 hrs/wk)
0.0
$
0.0
$
680.0
$ 74,800
680.0
$ 74,800
3
Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines
0.0
$
0.0
$
8.0
$ 880
8.0
$ 880
4
Mileage (17 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi)
$ 2,295
Total
i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 696.0 $ 76,560
696.0
$ 78,855
*Assumes 85 total working days
Project Management
002A
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
2017 SS Replacement
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
TOTAL
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs
4.0
$ 696
0.0
$
0.0
$
4.0
$ 696
2
Review IDRs/documentation (17 wks x 2 hr/wk)
34.0
$ 5,916
0.0
$
0.0
$
34.0
$ 5,916
3
Budget Tracking & Invoicing (17 wks x 1 hr/wk)
17.0
$ 2,958
0.0
$
0.0
$
17.0
$ 2,958
4
Coordination with Staff and City (17 wks x 1 hr/wk)
17.0
$ 2,958
0.0
$
0.0
$
17.0
$ 2,958
Total
72.01
$ 12,528
1 0.0
$
1 0.0
$
72.0
$ 12,528
*Assumes 85 total working days
Total 2017 SS Replacement $ 91,383
Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1932 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services)
m
0
X
CD
rt
(Q
N
co
Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services
between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for
Construction Services for 2017 Projects
dated March 20, 2017
City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services
Construction Inspection Services
001B
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
2016 SS Replacement
TOTAL
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Pre -Construction Conference & Prep
0.0
$
0.0
$
4.0
$ 440
4.0
$ 440
2
Full-time Field (5 wks x 40 hrs/wk)*
0.0
$
0.0
$
200.0
$ 22,000
200.0
$ 22,000
3
Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines
0.0
$
0.0
$
8.0
$ 880
8.0
$ 880
4
Mileage (5 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi)
$ 675
Total
i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 21.2.01 $ 23,320
212.0
$ 23,995
*Assumes 25 total working days
Project Management
002B
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
2016 SS Replacement
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
TOTAL
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs
2.0
$ 348
0.0
$
0.0
$
2.0
$ 348
2
Review IDRs/documentation (5 wks x 2 hr/wk)
10.0
$ 1,740
0.0
$
0.0
$
10.0
$ 1,740
3
Budget Tracking & Invoicing (5 wks x 1 hr/wk)
5.0
$ 870
0.0
$
0.0
$
5.0
$ 870
4
Coordination with Staff and City (5 wks x 1 hr/wk)
5.0
$ 870
0.0
$
0.0
$
5.0
$ 870
Total
1 22.0
$ 3,828
1 0.0
$
1 0.0
$
22.0
*Assumes 25 total working days
2016 SS Replacementl $ 27,823 l
Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1932 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services)
Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services
between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for
Construction Services for 2017 Projects
dated March 20, 2017
City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services
Construction Inspection Services
001C
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repair
TOTAL
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Pre -Construction Conference & Prep
0.0
$
0.0
$
4.0
$ 440
4.0
$ 440
2
Full-time Field (7 wks x 40 hrs/wk)*
0.0
$
0.0
$
280.0
$ 30,800
280.0
$ 30,800
3
Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines
0.0
$
0.0
$
8.0
$ 880
8.0
$ 880
4
Mileage (7 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi)
$ 945
Total
i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 292.01 $ 32,120
292.0
$ 33,065
*Assumes 35 total working days
Project Management
002C
Project Manager
Construction Administrator
Construction Inspector
Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repair
Item #
Description
$174/hr
$156/hr
$110/hr
TOTAL HRS
TOTAL
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
HRS
FEE
1
Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs
4.0
$ 696
0.0
$
0.0
$
4.0
$ 696
2
Review IDRs/documentation (7 wks x 2 hr/wk)
14.0
$ 2,436
0.0
$
0.0
$
14.0
$ 2,436
3
Budget Tracking & Invoicing (7 wks x 1 hr/wk)
7.0
$ 1,218
0.0
$
0.0
$
7.0
$ 1,218
4
Coordination with Staff and City (7 wks x 1 hr/wk)
7.0
$ 1,218
0.0
$
0.0
$
7.0
$ 1,218
Total
1 32.0
$ 5,568
1 0.0
$
1 0.0
$
32.0
*Assumes 35 total working days
Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repairl $ 38,633 l
003 Management Reserve
Item #
Description
TOTAL
FEE
Lump Sum
1
Management Reserve
$ 28,000
$ 28,000
Total
$ 28,0001
1 $ 28,000
Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1932 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services)
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/28/2017
Shoreline Master Program (60 min.)
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The City of Edmonds spent several years (2006 - 2014) revising its SMP consistent with updated state
guidelines. The City's review of the SMP update included ten meetings before the Planning Board from
October 2011 - November 2012 and eleven meetings before the City Council from December 2012
through November 2014, culminating in the adoption of Resolution 1326 expressing intent to adopt an
update to the Shoreline Master Program.
The Department of Ecology is responsible for ensuring statewide policies are upheld and implemented
when local SMPs are adopted and must approve local SMPs before they become effective. Following
the adoption of Resolution 1326, the City's updated SMP and supporting documentation was sent to
Ecology for review in December 2014. Ecology issued a conditional approval of the City's SMP on June
27, 2016.
The Conditional Approval included eight required changes to the City's SMP and one recommended
change. Five of the required changes relate to incorporating the recently adopted critical area ordinance
into the SMP. The three remaining required changes and the one recommended change are in regards
to the Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Environment around the Edmonds Marsh. (The one recommended
change was to allow residential development within the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment.)
The Council has reviewed each of the required changes proposed by Ecology and taken preliminary
votes on each of the changes to provide direction to staff in preparing a response to Ecology.
The City of Edmonds responded to Ecology's conditional approval on October 19, 2016 accepting some
of Ecology's required changes and proposing alternatives to others (Exhibit 3). The alternatives
proposed by the City of Edmonds largely represented providing buffers and setbacks in the Urban Mixed
Use IV shoreline environment consistent with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication
No. 16-06-001). Department of Ecology responded to the City's proposed alternatives on January 10,
2017 (Exhibit 2).
Staff Recommendation
Start making decisions to refine an option for response to Ecology regarding buffers in the Urban Mixed
Use IV shoreline environment. Depending on progress at this Council meeting, staff can bring back a
final draft of the option for Council's approval at the April 4 Council meeting. If another meeting is
needed to refine the option, the City should notify Ecology that an extension is needed and propose a
response date of April 30, 2017 to provide the Council enough time to consider the public comment and
Packet Pg. 130
8.1
prepare a final option.
Narrative
Exhibit 2 contains Department of Ecology's January 10, 2017 response to the City of Edmonds proposed
alternatives to Ecology's conditional approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program. Ecology formally
accepts the City's actions and alternatives on Ecology's required changes 1- 6 (incorporation of the
critical area regulations and dropping the interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline
environment). However, Ecology has offered two options for the City of Edmonds to consider regarding
the buffer and setbacks for the UMU IV shoreline environment. Ecology staff presented the two Options
at the January 24, 2017 Council meeting. Staff developed a third option (Options C) for Council
consideration which was introduced to the Council at the February 7, 2017 Council meeting and the
Council continued discussion on the SMP update at the February 21, 2017 Council meeting. At the
March 7, 2017 meeting, a fourth option (Option D) was presented to the City Council.
The City Council held a public hearing for March 21, 2017 to receive public comment on the four options
regarding the buffer/setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment. Exhibit 1 contains the
language of the four options and staff analysis and recommendations regarding potential modifications
to the options.
Given the lateness of hour following the public testimony on March 21, no modification to the UMU IV
options were discussed before Council. Potential modifications the current four options are likely to be
brought forward for discussion at the March 28`" meeting.
Next Steps
The Department of Ecology has requested the City make a final decision on the buffer/setback issue by
March 30, 2017. If it becomes apparent that the City will need more than one additional meeting to
finalize a response to Ecology, the City should notify Ecology that an extension is needed and propose a
response date of April 30, 2017 to provide the Council enough time to consider the public comment and
prepare a final option.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1- Staff Memorandum: SMP Urban Mixed Use IV Options
Exhibit 2 - Department of Ecology's Response to City of Edmonds' October 19, 2016 Proposed SMP
Alternatives
Exhibit 3 - City of Edmonds October 19, 2016 Response to Ecology's Conditional Approval
Exhibit 4 - City Attorney Memorandum
Exhibit 5 - January 24, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 6 - February 7, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 7 - February 21, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 8 - March 7, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt
Packet Pg. 131
8.1.a
OV EDP
O
�~ Edmonds City Council
s Agenda Memo
Meeting Date: March 21, 2017
Agenda Subject: SMP Update Public Hearing — Urban Mixed Use IV Options
Staff Lead /
Author: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Initiated By: ❑ City Council ❑ Planning Board ❑ City Staff
❑Citizen Request Q Other: State Required SMP Update
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Ecology's January 10, 2017 response to the City of Edmonds proposed
alternatives to Ecology's conditional approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
offered two options for the City of Edmonds to consider regarding the buffer and setback for
the Urban Mixed Use IV (UMU IV) Shoreline Environment (Options A and B). Staff working
with the City Attorney prepared a third option (Option C) which combined elements of
Ecology's Options A and B. During public comments on the SMP options for the UMU IV
shoreline environment, some expressed that a fourth Option D was necessary. A citizen
initiated an Option D was presented by Councilmember Buckshnis at the Mach 7, 2017 Council
meeting.
A common element of all the options is a default buffer of 110 feet with a 15-foot building
setback that is consistent with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. o
16-06-001) for a total setback of 125 feet from the marsh for new development within the N
UMU IV shoreline environment. All four options also provide a mechanism for establishing an
alternative buffer (reduced or potentially increased) with a site specific study. The primary
difference between the four options is in the criteria used for the site specific study in W
determining the alternative buffer.
a�
This memorandum details the four options for the UMU IV buffer and setback and includes staff E
comments on each of the options. Additionally, staff has included a discussion on how r
r
Council review of the alternative buffer may occur. Q
Page 1 of 12
Packet Pg. 132
8.1.a
URBAN MIXED USE IV OPTIONS
Ecology Option A: 110-foot buffer/125-foot setback with clarification
This option keeps the Council's proposed alternative of applying the 110-buffer with a 15-foot
building setback that is consistent with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
(Publication No. 16-06-001), but allows for an alternative buffer width through applying the
Interrupted Buffer provision in ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 through a shoreline conditional use permit
process. A shoreline conditional use permit is decided by the hearing examiner in a public
hearing and the hearing examiner's decision is forwarded as a recommendation to the
Department of Ecology for Ecology's approval, approval with conditions, or denial (WAC
173-27-200).
Option A
24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards
Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV
All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development
Shore Setback
125/11018
Recreation
Shore Setback
15' 17
Residential Development
Shore Setback
125/11018
Transportation and Parking
Uncovered Parking
Shore Setback
125/11018
Covered Parking
Shore Setback
125/11018
All Other Development
125/11018
Footnote:
18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 15 feet from
the edge of a vegetative buffer. A 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established
when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of
the marsh. An alternative buffer width may be established with approval of a CUP and when
consistent with 23.40.220.C.4. The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a master
planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project.
Staff Comments on Option A: The interrupted buffer provision in ECDC 23.40.220.C.4
provides an exemption from the prescribed buffer width if a site is proven to be functionally
isolated from a stream or wetland. In order to demonstrate an area is functionally isolated, a
qualified profession must assess the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection
potential and the extent and permanence of the physical separation. Option A does not really
provide a means for the establishment of an alternative buffer width; it only provides an
Page 2 of 12
Q
Packet Pg. 133
8.1.a
exemption if it is determined that the areas in the UMU IV shoreline environment meet the
criteria of an interrupted buffer. Given the stormwater connections between the Harbor
Square site and the marsh, it is questionable that a qualified professional could determine that
Harbor Square is functionally isolated. Option A ultimately only provides two alternatives for
buffers, 1) it is determined the areas adjacent to the marsh are functionally isolated and thus
exempt from the buffer requirements, or 2) it is determined the areas adjacent to the marsh
are not functionally isolated and the 110-buffer and 15-foot setback apply.
Ecology Option B: Minimum 50-foot buffer/65-foot setback, after confirming through site
specific scientific study that a 50-foot buffer is appropriate for the UMU IV shoreline
environment
This option would establish a buffer between 110 feet and 50 feet with a 15-foot building
setback. In this option, the appropriate buffer would be established through a master
planned development and a shoreline conditional use permit process and a site specific
assessment. Ecology proposes the following criteria for establishing the buffer: "The
assessment shall determine the width based on the potential lift in ecological functions through
the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer and retrofitting storm water system(s) to meet
current State treatment standards. To ensure no net loss of ecological function from site
redevelopment, this study shall use the existing conditions as the baseline for assessing the
potential benefit of restoring the buffer and improving storm water treatment."
Option B
24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards
Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV
All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development
Shore Setback
125/110 to 65/5018
Recreation
Shore Setback
15' 17
Residential Development
Shore Setback
125/110 to 65/5018
Transportation and Parking
Uncovered Parking
Shore Setback
125/110 to 65/5018
Covered Parking
Shore Setback
125/110 to 65/5018
All Other Development
125/110 to 65/5018
Footnote:
Q
18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 15 feet from
the edge of a vegetative buffer. A -vegetative buffer is required to be established when an
approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the
Page 3 of 12
Packet Pg. 134
8.1.a
marsh, based on approval of a CUP and site -specific assessment. The assessment shall
determine the width based on the potential lift in ecological functions through the
re-establishment of a vegetated buffer and retrofitting storm water system(s) to meet current
State treatment standards. To ensure no net loss of ecological function from site
redevelopment, this study shall use the existing conditions as the baseline for assessing the
potential benefit of restoring the buffer and improving storm water treatment. The buffer
width shall not be less than 50 feet. The 110-foot buffer may be established in the absence of
a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project.
Staff Comments on Option B: Option B establishes a range for potential buffer widths in the
UMU IV environment from a minimum of 50 feet to the default 110-foot buffer, each with an
additional 15-foot setback on the established buffer. Option B lacks detailed criteria for
consideration in a site specific study for establishing an alternative buffer. Option B is also
contradictory in requiring both a "lift in ecological functions" (an undefined term) as well as the
Shoreline Management Act requirement of "no net loss of ecological functions."
Staff -Prepared Option C: Combination of Elements from Options A and B
Staff has developed an Option C that combines portions of Option A and Option B for Council
consideration. Option C keeps the Council's 125/110 buffer as a baseline and, as with Options
A & B, allows an alternative buffer with a shoreline conditional use permit and site specific
study. The study criteria uses the criteria in the interrupted buffer provision as proposed by
Option A, but the analysis uses the criteria to establish the existing conditions and in the
evaluation of a proposed development to ensure no net loss of shoreline functions and values
as proposed by Option B.
Option C
24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards
Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV
All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development
Shore Setback
125/11018
Recreation
Shore Setback
15' 17
Residential Development
Shore Setback
125/11018
Transportation and Parking
Uncovered Parking
Shore Setback
125/11018
Covered Parking
Shore Setback
125/11018
All Other Development
125/11018
Footnote:
Page 4 of 12
Q
Packet Pg. 135
8.1.a
18. The default setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is
125 feet. A default 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved
master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the marsh with a 15
foot setback from the edge of the vegetative buffer for a total default setback of 125 feet. An
alternative buffer width may be established after site specific environmental study and
approval through the shoreline conditional use permit process. The alternative buffer must
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values. Existing conditions shall be
used as the baseline for assessing no net loss and the site specific environmental study shall
address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post
development conditions. The alternative buffer shall be no less than 50 feet plus the 15 foot
setback. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-201(2)(e), the default buffer may be increased if the
analysis of environmental impacts indicates that an increase in necessary to assure no net loss
of shoreline ecological functions. The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a
master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project.
Staff Comments Regarding Options C: Option C appears consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act and Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, particularly WAC
173-26-201(2)(e)(ii)(A) which notes, "Application of the mitigation sequence achieves no net
loss of ecological functions for each new development and does not result in required
mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline
functions fostered by the policy of the act." By requiring a site assessment of conditions prior
to a development and evaluating the proposed development using the same criteria, the City
can assure that the proposed development will result in no net loss of shoreline functions and
values.
There have been concerns expressed about clarity as to where the buffer begins. While City
staff and the Department of Ecology have noted that the wetland boundary and ordinary high
water mark in the western portion of the marsh are equivalent, some have expressed concerns
that this is not the case and that the buffer may not begin at the edge of the marsh. Option C
could be modified to explicitly note that the buffer begins at the edge of the wetland boundary
of the Edmonds Marsh and/or the Willow Creek outlet of the marsh. More commentary and
potential changes regarding the buffer and setback locations are discussed in Option D below.
r
Citizen Drafted Option D: 110-foot fixed buffer with Council consideration of an alternate
buffer width derived from a scientific site -specific study. x
w
The following is the citizen summary of proposed Option D.
This option has a fixed 110-foot buffer for the UMU IV area at the Edmonds Marsh unless E
amended by the Council. This option clarifies that the buffer starts at the outer edge of the r
r
Marsh wetland (i.e., the buffer starts at the Marsh edge of the berm at Harbor Square). This Q
option allows the Council to consider an alternate buffer (consistent with Ecology's
recommendation) at a later date if the alternate buffer is derived from a rigorous site -specific
scientific study and the applicable legal standards stipulated in the Shoreline Management Act
Page 5 of 12
Packet Pg. 136
8.1.a
and State Guidelines. To ensure an unbiased and comprehensive study, the details for the
conduct of the scientific site -specific study are specified in an Appendix C to the SMP. The
scientific site -specific study would occur when a master planned development is approved by
the Council and the proponent agrees to pay for the scientific study as stipulated in Appendix C
with Council oversight. The science -based 110-foot buffer width or an alternate buffer width (if
approved by Council) would not be reduced or exempted by any SMP or CAO provisions (e.g.,
Appendix B or 24.40.020). This option also clarifies that the buffer is separate from the setback
for structures, and that the 15-foot setback starts at the outer edge of the buffer.
Option D is implemented by the following changes to the SMP.
1. Modify the 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table and footnote 18 as
shown below.
Shoreline Development
Shoreline Area
Designation
Urban Mixed Use IV
All Other Commercial and
Light Industrial Development
Shore Setback
15
Buffer
11018
Recreation
Shore Setback
15
Buffer
11018
Residential Development
Shore Setback
NA
Buffer
NA
Transportation and Parking
Shore Setback
15
Buffer
11018
All Other Development
Shore Setback
15
Buffer
11018
Footnote:
18. The Urban Mixed -Use IV environment has a 110-foot buffer that starts at the outer edge
of the Edmonds Marsh where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or
at the wetland/upland edge. A 110-foot vegetated buffer is required to be established when
an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the
Edmonds Marsh. On the west side of the Marsh, a vegetated buffer will be required
between the railway right-of-way and the west edge of the Marsh if railroad tracks are
added or modified in the railway area. The Council may establish an alternate buffer width
at the time of an approved masterplan for development if the alternate buffer width is
Page 6 of 12
r
Q
Packet Pg. 137
8.1.a
derived from a rigorous site -specific scientific study to determine the buffer necessary to
protect properly functioning wetland/tideland habitat and its associated ecological
functions. When determining an alternate buffer derived from the site -specific study, the
Council will adhere to the legal standards of the Shoreline Management Act and State
guidelines. The conduct of the scientific site -specific study will be in conformance with
Appendix C to the SMP. No buffer reductions or exemptions will apply to the 110-foot
buffer or alternate buffer for this UMU IV area.
2. Modify the definition of setback in 24.90.050 (A) to be:
24.90.050 A. "Shore setback" or "setback" means the minimum distance between a
structure or use from the outer edge of a buffer, or from the edge of the shoreline if no
buffer is required.
3. Delete all CAO provisions that reduce or exempt the SMP buffer in Appendix B.
This would include deleting in Appendix B sections 23.50.040 (G)(1) to (4) [Wetland Buffer
Modifications], 23.50.040 (1) [Additions to structures], and 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted
wetland buffer]; and 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) [Additions to structures].
4. Add the following Appendix C to the SMP.
Appendix C. Scope of Work for Site -Specific Study
Appendix C. Scope of Work for Site -Specific Scientific Study at the Edmonds Marsh
The site -specific study, by professionals with field experience in wetland and wildlife science,
is to provide comprehensive, site -specific scientific information that the Council will need to
consider in approving an alternate buffer width for the Edmonds Marsh. A report on the
study results will be peer reviewed by at least three independent scientists having
wetland/wildlife expertise before the report is presented to the Council and the public.
Wetlands and marshes provide three broad ecological functions that will each need to be
evaluated by the site -specific study: 1) Biogeochemical functions, which are related to in
trapping and transforming chemicals and include functions that improve water quality in the r
watershed; 2) Hydrologic functions, which are related to maintaining the water regime in a
watershed including functions as reducing flooding; and 3) Food web and habitat functions. x
w
The site -specific study should evaluate past, current and projected future ecological
functions of the Edmonds Marsh with and without development occurring in adjacent areas, E
with planned restoration efforts at the Marsh such as the Willow Creek Daylighting project r
r
or volunteer revegetation efforts, and in the context of an approved master planned Q
development or redevelopment on one or more edges of the Marsh.
Buffers provide for the protection and maintenance of wetland functions; thus the
Page 7 of 12
Packet Pg. 138
8.1.a
site -specific study will need to evaluate buffer widths adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh that
will ensure effective buffer functions including 1) removing sediment, 2) removing excess
nutrients, 3) removing toxics, 4) influencing the microclimate, 5) screening adjacent
disturbances (including noise and light), 6) maintaining habitat connectivity, and 7)
maintaining adjacent habitat critical for the life needs of wildlife that use wetlands. Each of
these buffer functions should be evaluated against past, present and projected future
ecological functions of the Marsh as affected by proximity of development and/or other
human activities.
Because of the uniqueness of the Edmonds Marsh and the diversity of wildlife species that it
supports (i.e., 191 different species of birds have been identified at the Marsh), the
site -specific study should include special focus on the life needs of the wildlife that use the
Edmonds Marsh (i.e., the wetland ecological function for providing habitat for wildlife).
Edmonds Marsh wildlife consists of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and insects.
Because of all these variables, the need for buffer zones are complex among and between
each of the species and include: 1) Refuge/shelter; 2) Food; 3) Breeding habitat; 4) Nesting
materials; and 5) Screening/distancing wildlife from human activities. It is known that the
Marsh's ecological functions in providing habitat and food web for wildlife is the most critical
component of this study in order to evaluate site -specific buffer widths necessary to
preserve/protect those ecological functions.
Diversity and abundance of Marsh wildlife depends not only on the width and extent of
vegetated buffers, but also on plant species composition and other characteristics (density,
quality, vertical structure, etc.) of the plant communities involved. Many studies have found
correlations between buffer width and wildlife diversity and function. The referenced as
follows list scientific papers are examples of salt marsh and wetland buffer literature that the
site -specific study will need to reference and utilize in the methodology and analysis for
evaluating buffer widths on each edge of the Edmonds Marsh.
REFERENCES: `o
Boyd, Lynn. 2001. Wildlife Use of Wetland Buffer Zones and their Protection under the
Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act. Department of Natural Resources
Conservation, University of Massachusetts. 30 pp plus appendices. in
Castelle, Andrew J., Catherine Conolly, Michael Emers, Eric D. Metz, Susan Meyer, Michael '
r
Witter, Susan Mauermann, Terrell Erickson and Sarah S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland
buffers: use and effectiveness. Washington State Department of Ecology, x
Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management Program. Olympia, WA. Pub. No. 92-10. w
McMillan, Andrew. 2000. The science of wetland buffers and its implication for management
of wetlands. Master of Environmental Studies thesis. The Evergreen State College, E
August 2000. 116 pp including graphical appendices. r
r
Glover, H.K., M.A. Weston, G.S. Maguire, K.K. Miller, and B.A. Chritie. 2011. Towards Q
ecologically meaningful and socially acceptable buffers: Response distances of
shorebirds in Victoria, Australia, to human disturbance. Landscape and Urban
Planning 103(3-4):326-334.
Page 8 of 12
Packet Pg. 139
8.1.a
Smith, L. A. and P. ChowFraser. 2010. Impacts of adjacent land use and isolation on marsh
bird communities. Environmental Management 45: 1040-1051.
Weston, M A., M.J. Antos and H.K. Glover. 2009. Birds, buffers, and bicycles: a review and
case study of wetland buffers. The Victorian Naturalist 126:79-86.
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley and E.
Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the
Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia,
WA.
Staff Comments on Option D: Option D contains four separate potential amendments to the
SMP. Below are staff comments on each of the potential amendments.
Option D Part 1: Option D Part 1 contains potential amendments to the Shoreline Bulk and
Dimensional Table SMP 24.40.090 and the associated footnote 18. Option D includes
separate lines for buffer and setback in SMP 24.40.090. This could add clarification as to
where the buffer starts, but staff has concerns with listing the "shore setback" at 15 feet in
conjunction with the change in definition to "shore setback" in Option D Part 2. Staff suggests
changing the setback portion in Option D to "building setback" in conjunction with adding the
definition discussed in Option D Part 2 below.
In addition to the changed buffer and setback for the UMU IV zone, Option D Part 1 also
includes a requirement for buffer establishment on the west side of the marsh between the
railway right-of-way and the west edge of the Marsh if railroad tracks are added or modified in
the railway area. As shown in Figure 1 below, the railway right-of-way is completely filled up
to the edge of the marsh. East of the railway right-of-way the majority of the marsh is owned
by the City of Edmonds (the black bolded outline) while the Port of Edmonds owns a sliver of
the marsh. There is essentially no place to establish a buffer. Since the City owns the
majority of the marsh along the right-of-way, the City may choose to enhance the marsh at this
location at any time without a specific requirement in the SMP. Finally, footnote 18 applies to
SMP regulations associated with the UMU IV shoreline environment. The language for a
buffer between the railway right-of-way and the marsh pertains to two other shoreline
environments, the Urban Railroad and Natural Shoreline Environments respectively. Staff
suggests removing the language related to the railway from Option D.
Page 9 of 12
r
Q
Packet Pg. 140
8.1.a
Fi
re 1. Railway right-of-way and Marsh Boundary
'"1.70
Option D Part 2: Option D Part 2 proposes to modify the definition of shore setback. The
proposed modification has implications in other areas of the City's shoreline environments
beyond the UMU IV environment. In particular, this change will have impacts on properties
around Lake Ballinger. The shore setback in SMP 24.40.090 for properties around Lake
Ballinger (Shoreline Residential III) is 35 feet. In several locations around Lake Ballinger a
wetland lays landward of the lake which will require a wetland buffer pursuant to SMP
24.40.020.F (See Exhibit 3 and the Council agenda item). If the shore setback definition is
modified as proposed by Option D Part 2, the setback for a wetland buffer around Lake
Ballinger will be 35 feet beyond the buffer. Rather than changing the definition of shore
setback, staff would propose adding a new definition for "building setback" based on the
provisions for building setbacks in the City's critical area regulations ECDC 23.40.280 as follows:
"Building setback" means the distance all buildings and other structure shall be set back
from the edges of all buffers. The following may be allowed in the building setback area: N
A. Landscaping
B. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the
setback area; and w
C. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; provided, that such c
improvements may be subject to water quality regulations as adopted in the E
current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building U
Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Q
Option D Part 3: Option D Part 3 proposes to except certain provisions out of the City's critical
area regulations from being applied in the SMP. While it appears this was intended to apply
Page 10 of 12
Packet Pg. 141
8.1.a
to the buffer established for the UMU IV environment, deleting these provisions from Appendix
B of the SMP means that they could not be applied anywhere within the City's shoreline
jurisdiction. These provisions were recently modified during the Council's review of critical
area regulations and were the subject of much debate. Rather than eliminating this flexibility
completely from the SMP, if the intent is to not have these provisions apply to the buffer for
the UMU IV environment, that should be specifically stated rather than eliminating these
provisions for use throughout the City's shoreline environment. Additionally, Option D Part 3
notes deleting section SMP 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) from the SMP. This section has already been
deleted from the SMP in the Council's October 19, 2016 response to Ecology (See Exhibit 3,
Attachment A of this Council agenda item).
Option D Part 4: Option D Part 4 is to include an Appendix C to detail the study requirements
for establishing an alternative buffer in the UMU IV environment. The Council has received
many comments regarding the desire for an unbiased study to establish any alternative buffer
for the UMU IV environment. Bias can run both ways. The proposed Appendix C contains
many qualitative statements and lists specific studies that must be included in any analysis of
an alternative buffer. This introduces bias into the study requirements and aims to influence
the results of any study. Should the Council choose to include an Appendix C with study
requirements for an alternative buffer, the Appendix should stick to identifying the items to be
included in the study and criteria for analysis (i.e. no net loss of shoreline ecological functions
and values).
Appendix C also notes that the study of an alternative buffer analysis should be peer reviewed
by at least three independent scientists. City peer reviews are done by hiring a reputable,
independent consultant or firm that is well -versed in the science and how the City's codes and
SMP works. An alternative to three separate peer reviews would be having the City select the
professional which will be conducting the alternative buffer analysis. By having the City select
the consultant, they will be selecting a professional (or firm) in which it has confidence in the
qualifications of that professional (or firm) to provide a scientific analysis of an alternative
buffer given specific criteria established by the City.
Finally, the proposed Appendix C notes the site specific study should evaluate past ecological
functions of the marsh. The SMA standard is no net loss of ecological functions. The no net
loss criterion is based on existing conditions. The inclusion of "past" ecological functions in
Appendix C is a vague standard. What point in time is the "past" the analysis? Pre -European
settlement? 1970? 1960? The past analysis does not add usable information to an
alternative buffer analysis under the SMA.
Cali K01I1T14IN:TUy/I iTiT1
Any proposed development in the UMU IV shoreline environment will require approval before
the City Council. Both sides of the marsh require a master plan approval in order to be
developed. Master Plans are approved by the City Council. Options A through C specifically
mention the alternative buffer be approved through a shoreline conditional use process. A
Page 11 of 12
r
x
w
c
a�
E
U
a
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 142
8.1.a
shoreline conditional use is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and the Hearing Examiner
decision is forwarded as a recommendation to the Department of Ecology for Ecology's
approval, approval with conditions, or denial (WAC 173-27-200). The conditional use process
was proposed by Ecology as a way for Ecology to have review of the alternative buffer given
that Ecology must also approve the Shoreline Master Program.
One way the alternative buffer may be approved is through a Master Plan process where the
Council approves the Master Plan for a specific development with the alternative buffer widths
and then when the development application is made consistent with the approved Master Plan,
the proposed development goes through the conditional use process. This process does not
give certainty to a proposed development in that the alternative buffer would essentially have
to be approved twice. A similar process would be for the Council to approve the alternative
buffer through a Planned Action SEPA process. But again, a subsequent development would
be subject to the shoreline conditional use process.
Another option may include an SMP amendment associated with a Master Plan and/or Planned
Action SEPA. This would require approval from the City for the Mater Plan and/or Planned
Action SEPA and the SMP update. Ecology would then have to approve the SMP amendment.
This would be a more rigorous process, but would provide more certainty for a subsequent
development application.
Page 12 of 12
r
Q
Packet Pg. 143
sTArE. o
E LY
O @ ati Cf
t�jf� 1869 boy •�
L
O
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47600 ® Olympia, WA 98504-7600 V 360-407-6000 cr)
711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
January 10, 2017
The Honorable Kristiana Johnson, President
City of Edmonds Council
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: City of Edmonds Response to Department of Ecology's .Dine 27, 2016, Conditional
SMP Approval.
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Thank you for your October 19, 2016, letter in response to the Department of Ecology's
(Ecology) conditional approval of the City of Edmonds (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
update. For required changes one through six, the City has either accepted Ecology's required
changes or offered alternatives that Ecology finds are consistent with .the SMA and Ecology
guidelines, and are consistent with the original intent of the required changes. This letter
formally accepts the City's final determination on Ecology's required changes one through six.
The amended text provided by the City in Attachment E — Revised (10/19/2016) will become
part of the approved SMP amendment through Ecology's final action.
We have only one remaining issue. The City has proposed alternatives to Ecology's required
change seven and eight concerning Edmonds Marsh buffers and setbacks. We recognize the
intense community interest and engagement surrounding the marsh. Over the past few months,
Ecology staff have attended many Council meetings and engaged in robust discussions among
citizens and Councilmembers. I have met personally with representatives of Friends of the
Marsh and the Port of Edmonds to hear their perspectives.
Ecology understands the importance of preserving and improving the Edmonds Marsh. We
believe this is a common interest among all involved parties. However, Ecology is concerned
the City's proposed alternatives must be clarified for consistency with the purpose and intent of
Ecology's original change.l The difficulty remains how to achieve this objective given the
surrounding land uses, and the near absence of a marsh buffer within the Urban Mixed IV
shoreline environment.
' WAC 173-26-120(7)(b)(ii).
®t`,a Packet Pg. 144
The Honorable Kristiana Johnson
January 10, 2017
Page 2
L
O
L
Cn
To that end, Ecology proposes two options for clarifying the SMP that would address our M
concerns, as well as the interests of the community. Please review the attached "Ecology
Response to City Alternatives." The attached document responds to the City's thoughtful
Evaluation ofScientifrc and Regulatory Consideration Related to Ecology's Required Changes 7
r
and 8. 1°
Each of these options clarify how appropriate mitigation would be established during
redevelopment of the Urban Mixed Use IV environment through site specific assessments that
acknowledge existing conditions. These suggested change are consistent with RCW 90,58.100
(use of scientific information) and WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) & (e) (protection of ecological
functions and environmental impact mitigation).
We appreciate the City's continued work on the SMP. There are many positive aspects to the
SMP update that will benefit the City's Puget Sound and Lake Ballinger shorelines. The
Edmonds Marsh issue is the last remaining issue related to the Edmonds SMP update process. I
believe all parties interested in the outcome of the SMP have a common interest in protecting and
improving the quality of Edmonds Marsh for future generations, We hope the options we have
provided will help us reach a final resolution.
We would like the opportunity to present these options to Council, answer questions you may
have, and conclude the SMP update process. Please contact Joe Burcar of our Northwest
Regional Office at (425) 649-7096 or ioe.burcar2ecy.wa,go_v.
Sincerely,
Maia D. Bellon
Director
cc: Dave Earling, Mayor, City of Edmonds.
Shane Hope, Edmonds City Development Services
Friends of the Edmonds Marsh
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment G
Options for addressing City of Edmonds Alternatives to Ecology's Required
L
Changes addressing Edmonds Marsh Buffers and Setbacks.
This document presents Ecology's response to the City of Edmonds alternatives addressing the Edmonds
Marsh Buffers and Setbacks. The City's response, dated October 19, 2016, provides an alternative to
Ecology's Required Changes (Row Numbers 7 and 8) issued during the June 27, 2016 Conditional SMP
Approval.
Under WAC 173-26-120(7), Ecology may approve the City's alternatives if they comply with the SMA and
substantive guidelines and are "consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally
proposed by [Ecology]." The purpose and intent of Ecology's original proposed amendments are found
in Ecology's Findings and Conclusions (Attachment A, p. 11), and Required Changes (Attachment B, p. 4),
dated June 27, 2016.
The City's alternatives would establish a fixed requirement for a 110' vegetated buffer upon
redevelopment within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment designation. Ecology finds the City's
alternatives could be consistent with applicable laws, rules and the intent of Required Changes,
provided they are clarified to acknowledge legally existing uses and site conditions on the landward side
of the levee that rings the Marsh. The 110-foot area the City's regulations would require to be
revegetated is historic fill, and includes paved areas, tennis courts, a Health Club, other existing
structures, and a brownfields clean-up site at the southern boundary of the Marsh.
This document outlines the background of this issue, reviews the city alternatives and rationale, and
provides two different options for addressing our common interest in establishing a legally defensible
framework for protecting and restoring the Marsh.
The City's rationale for their alternatives are provided in a memo prepared by Attorney Jeff Taraday of
Lighthouse Law Group titled "Evaluation of scientific and regulatory considerations related to Ecology's
Required Changes 7 and 8," dated September 23, 2016. The Memo is described by the City as
Attachment B. To reduce confusion with Ecology's Attachment B (Required Changes), this Evaluation
memo is hereafter referred to as the "Lighthouse Memo."
Background on Ecology's ConditionalApproval Required Changes to Rows land 8
Buffers and setbacks for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment designation for Edmonds Marsh have
been discussed extensively during the SMP update. The City Planning Commission had proposed a 50'
buffer based on an evaluation of applicable scientific information and existing conditions. A 50-foot
buffer is generally consistent with existing conditions on the intensely developed north side of the
Marsh. The Planning Commission acknowledged the presence of the levee limits the water quality
benefits that a larger buffer would provide. Requiring a vegetative buffer larger than 50' would require
significant removal of historic fill and removal of existing paved areas and structures.
In adopting the final SMP the City Council retained the 50' buffer but increased the building setback to
50' for a total buffer/setback of 100.' Ecology's Required Changes (Rows 7 and 8) did not reduce the 50'
buffer width, but amended the City's 50' setback to incorporate a 15' setback from the edge of the
vegetative buffer for a 65' combined buffer/setback. The 15' setback was chosen for internal
consistency with the City Critical Areas Ordinance that requires a 15-foot setback from the edge of a
buffer (ECDC 24.40.280, Building Setbacks). The changes also added a threshold for redevelopment to
Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment G
clarify when the requirement would apply. Ecology's changes were intended to align the SMP with the
L
planning commission draft, recognize existing conditions, and maintain consistency with the City's o
Critical Areas Ordinance.
co
M
Description of City Alternatives to Rows land 8
For Rows 7 and 8 the City provides alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV shoreline environment in
24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards. The City's alternative would establish a definitive
125' building setback and mandate the installation of a 110' vegetative buffer when approved master
plans for the area are implemented.
The City's description for the Change to Row 7:
For every instance in Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table contained in 24.90.090
where the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline indicates a shore setback of 100150, that will be
changed to 1251110. This means there will be a requirement for a 110 foot vegetative buffer
with an additional 15 foot structural setback for a total of a 125-foot shore setback measured
from the edge of the Marsh.
The City's description of the Change to Row 8:
The Harbor Square site on the north side of the Marsh has been developed in accordance with a
contract rezone. The existing development cannot be expanded as the limitations of the
contract rezone have been met. The Harbor Square site has a comprehensive plan designation
of Downtown Master Plan. In order for the Harbor Square site to be redeveloped, the
redevelopment will have to be approved through a master planning process. When an
approved master plan is implemented, the 110-buffer will be required to be established.
Likewise, the property on the south side of the Marsh has a comprehensive plan designation of
Master Plan Development and a zoning designation of Master Plan 2. Development on the
south side of the Marsh will also occur through a master plan process. When an approved
master plan implemented on the south side of the Marsh, the 110-foot buffer will be required to
be established.
While buffer establishment is required with an implemented master plan, the 110-foot may be
established prior to the implementation of master planned development through a voluntary
buffer restoration effort.
City Rationale: Legal Standards
The Lighthouse Memo includes a summary of Legal Standards to guide local decision -making. The
citations address the requirements to protect ecological functions based on available scientific
information. The memo cites WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) which states that SMPs "shall include policies and
regulations designed to achieve no net loss of [shoreline] ecological functions." The Lighthouse Memo
also cites WAC 173-26-186(8)(c) which states that SMPs "shall include goals and policies that provide for
restoration of... impaired ecological functions."
However, it is important to note that the SMP Guidelines clarify that restoration be addressed through
goals and policies, but is not intended to be achieved through regulations.
The guidelines include other citations that reinforces this distinction. For example, WACs 173-26-
201(2)(c) and (e) describe how to address protection of ecological functions and environmental impact
Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment G
mitigation. The rules require application of a mitigation sequence to achieve no net loss of ecological
functions for each new development. The rules include an important restraint on SMP authority. The
L
o
mitigation sequence may "not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that
development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions..." [WAC 173-26-201(2)(e)(ii)(A)].
M
rn
r
In other words, protective regulations can only require new developments to provide mitigation that
compensates for the impacts of new development. A fundamental principle of the guidelines is that the
>
no net loss" standard protects existing functions, and restoration to improve conditions is met through
nonregulatory means Restoration Planning WAC 173-26-201(2)(f). This was a cornerstone of the
guidelines, which were negotiated with diverse interests to resolve a legal challenge. Ecology has
a
approved SMPs that include incentive -based approaches to encourage restoration, but these cannot be (L
M
required. U)
City Rationale: Scientific and Technical Information
The Lighthouse Memo includes a summary of Ecology's wetland guidance documents (Citations A — F).
The citations correctly identify Ecology's recommended buffer widths for Category II estuarine wetlands
would be 110 feet provided minimization measures are provided.
However, buffers areas in Ecology's guidance documents are presumed to be functionally connected
and therefore capable of performing ecological functions. The City's existing CAO recognizes this. In a
section titled "Allowed Activities," a project applicant may propose to modify a standard buffer based on
a site -specific study that determines an area is functionally isolated (23.40. 220 C.4).
The Lighthouse Memo cites examples provided in Ecology's Wetlands in Washington State, Volume Z
Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands in reference to buffer requirements for "new"
development. However, any proposal in the UMU IV would be considered "redevelopment", not new
development. In addition to the wetland guidance, the Lighthouse Memo cites Ecology's SMP
Handbook chapters on Vegetation Conservation (Chpt 11) and Legally Existing Uses (Chpt 14). These
chapters recognize that tailored buffers should be based on existing conditions.
By contrast, the City's alternative establishes a fixed area that would have to be revegetated during
redevelopment that would "over -ride" the existing allowance in the City's CAO based on a site -specific
study. The regulation relies on the "default" buffer width rather than developing a tailored buffer that
acknowledges existing conditions.
City Rationale: Effects of City Marsh Restoration
The Lighthouse Memo notes "The city council appears to hold unanimously the goal of restoring the
ecological functions and values of the Edmonds Marsh. To the extent that there are differing opinions on
the city council, they appear to concern the extent to which the Edmonds Marsh can or should be
restored, and/or the best strategies for accomplishing such restoration."
Ecology fully agrees with the unanimous goal of the Council to restore the ecological functions and
values of the Marsh. It appears Port of Edmonds Commissioners also share this goal. This should be an
ideal circumstance for reaching agreement on a reasonable path forward.
Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment G
An SMP can include restoration goals and policies to improve existing conditions. As noted above the
L
SMP guidelines acknowledge improvements are to be achieved through voluntary restoration activities o
or through regulatory incentives. Cn
co
M
Ecology options based on the City's analysis of alternatives
The Lighthouse Memo includes 4 options. Option 2 (75' buffer based on City's old CAO) is no longer
applicable, as the City has already amended the CAO to include a 110' buffer for Category 2 wetlands. r
Option 4 is Ecology's original Required Changes, which the Council has indicated it does not want to c
pursue. Ecology offers the following two options based on the City's analysis of alternatives. +'
The Lighthouse Memo starts its evaluation of alternatives with the following:
"It will simplify the discussion of alternative buffer widths, if the setback from the edge of the
buffer (not from the edge of the wetland) remains consistent across the various alternatives. We
agree with Ecology that the SMP should strive for consistency with the CAO in this area. Because
the city's CAO currently requires any structure to be setback from the edge of a buffer by 15
feet, the options discussed below will all assume that structures cannot be placed any closer
than 15 feet from the edge of a buffer."
Ecology's two options below are therefore premised on the use of a 15' setback measured from the
edge of the buffer (whatever it may be). Both options include application of a site -specific study that
allows the regulatory regime to acknowledge existing conditions and adapt to anticipated impacts of
proposed development.
For either of these options, the city may want to include a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for
developments in the UM -IV designation. The intent here is to address possible concerns that a site -
specific study might not get adequate review. The requirement for a CUP adds a heightened degree of
scrutiny and projects would require Ecology formal review and approval.
Option: 110-foot buffer/125-foot setback
The City has offered this Option as its alternative to Ecology's Required Changes in Row 7 and 8. The
Lighthouse Memo cites Ecology's Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates (June 2016) as the source for the
inclusion of a 110-foot buffer with minimization measures as the appropriate buffer for a Category 2
wetland, consistent with the City's recent CAO amendments.
The Lighthouse Memo acknowledges the reality that adoption of a 110-foot buffer does not do anything
to change conditions on the ground. The Memo recognizes that existing developments could be
maintained indefinitely, and that a wide buffer could be a disincentive to redevelopment.
Ecology finds the City's alternative should be clarified to include recognition that at the project scale the
buffers are to be implemented in a manner that acknowledges legally existing uses and site conditions
and ensure the project includes necessary protections commensurate with the proposed development.
A few clarifications could remove the disincentive for redevelopment and provide an equitable
regulatory framework consistent with SMA authorities. As noted above, the Edmonds CAO already
includes a section which allows for exemptions from prescribed buffer widths for areas proven to be
functionally isolated. The provision requires a qualified consultant prepare a site assessment and
includes criteria for evaluating the assessment, as follows:
Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes 4
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment G
Edmonds Critical Areas Code 23.40. 220 C.4 (Development Proposals within Interrupted
Stream or Wetland Buffers)
L
o
Adjacent areas that may be physically separated from a stream or wetland due to existing,
legally established structures or paved areas may be exempted from the prescribed buffer
M
widths if proven scientifically to be functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. The
r
director will require the applicant to provide a site assessment and functional analysis M
documentation report by a qualified critical area consultant that demonstrates the interrupted
buffer area is functionally isolated. The director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or
biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the physical
separation.
The fixed buffer width in the City's alternative SMP provision would override the application of the CAO
which allows for adapting necessary protections at the project level.
The City's Alternative could be modified to incorporate existing CAO provisions through the following
modification to the standards table:
24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards
Shoreline development
Urban Mixed Use IV
All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development
Shore Setback
100/50 125/11018
Recreation
Shore Setback
15' 17
Residential Development
Shore Setback
4-09�50- 125/11018
Transportation and Parking
Uncovered Parking
Shore Setback
a 00� 125/1101"
Covered Parking
Shore Setback
4-09�50- 125/11018
All Other Development
Shore Setback
4-09�50- 125/11018
Footnote:
18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 15 feet
from the edge of a vegetative buffer. A 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established
when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side
of the Marsh. An alternative buffer width may be established with approval of a CUP and
when consistent with 23.40. 220 CA The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a
master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project.
Option: Minimum 50-foot buffer/65-foot setback, after confirming through site
specific scientific study that a 50-foot buffer is appropriate for the UMU4
The Lighthouse Memo identifies some of the assumptions behind Ecology's assertion that the City
Planning Commission recommendation for a 50-foot buffer is appropriate. These assumptions (and
others, including assumptions about restraints on requirements to restore during redevelopment) were
Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes
Packet Pg. 150
8.1.b
Attachment G
d
identified during the local planning process. The City notes this approach might be acceptable if these .a)
L
assumptions were tested in scientifically and/or economically supported findings. C
z
One option to build on this approach is to incorporate such a scientific study into the SMP requirements,
M
using a 50' buffer as a minimum, with site -specific determination at the project level. This could be
accomplished with the following clarifications:
24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards
Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV
All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development
Shore Setback
100/50 125/110 to
65/5018
Recreation
Shore Setback
15' 17
Residential Development
Shore Setback
10M0- 125/110 to
65/5018
Transportation and Parking
Uncovered Parking
Shore Setback
125/110 to
65/5018
Covered Parking
Shore Setback
100/50 125/110 to
65/5018
All Other Development
Shore Setback
100/50 125/110 to
65/5018
Footnote:
18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 15 feet from the edge
of a vegetative buffer. A vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved master
planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the Marsh based on approval of a
CUP and a site -specific assessment. The assessment shall determine the width based on the potential lift
in ecological functions through the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer and retrofitting storm water
system(s) to meet current State treatment standards. To ensure no net loss of ecological function from
site redevelopment, this study shall use the existing conditions as the baseline for assessing the
Dotential benefit of restoring the buffer and improving storm water treatment. The buffer width shall
not be less than 50 feet. A 110-foot vegetative buffer may be established in the absence of a master
planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project.
Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes 6
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment G
Additional changes to clarify the CUP requirement.
L
The City does not need to amend the Shoreline Development Table because Footnote 1 clarifies that
0
text in the SMP over -rides the table. However, if the City wants to clarify the CUP requirement for
alternative buffers, the table could be amended as follows:
oM,
r
24.40.080 Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation
Shoreline development
Urban Mixed Use IV
Commercial and Light Industrial Development
Water -oriented
SDP'
Nonwater-oriented
SDP'
Residential Development
Detached Residential (Single -Family)
X
Attached or stacked Residential (Multi -Family)
X
Transportation and Parking
Railroads
X
Ferry Terminals
SDP'
Parking —supporting associated water -dependent uses
SDP'
Parking — not supporting associated water -dependent uses
SDP'
Other
SDP'
1: In the event that there is a conflict between the development(s) identified in this Table 24.40.080 and the
policies and/or regulations with the text of this Master Program, the policies and regulations within the text shall
apply.
2: Artwork associate with a permitted use in the Aquatic I or Aquatic II designation may by permitted; otherwise it
is a prohibited use.
3: A CUP is reauired where the aaDlicant Droaoses an alternative buffer.
Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes 7
Packet Pg. 152
8.1.c
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
EDMONDS CITY HALL • FIRST FLOOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • PHONE: (425) 771-0248 • FAX (425) 771-0254
Inc.1890
October 19, 2016
Maia D. Bellon, Director
WA State Department of Ecology
Attention: Director's Office
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-6700
Re: City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update —
City Response to Department of Ecology's Conditional Approval
Dear Ms. Bellon,
The City of Edmonds appreciates the additional time granted by Ecology to fully evaluate and prepare a
response to the Department of Ecology's conditional approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program.
Since receiving Ecology's conditional approval with eight required changes and one recommended
change, the City has spent a significant amount of time evaluating Ecology's required changes including
discussing the proposed changes over the course of seven Council meetings and receiving many public
comments on Ecology's proposed changes.
The required changes from Ecology can be split into two categories, 1) Requires changes 1— 5 related to
incorporating the recently updated critical area regulations into the SMP and 2) required changes 6 - 8
related to the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment.
Regarding incorporating the critical area regulations into the SMP, the City Council largely agrees with
the changes proposed by Ecology with one exception. After the City of Edmonds adopted the updated
critical area regulations in May 2016 with Ordinance No. 4026, Ecology released Wetland Guidance for
CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) in June 2016. The wetland regulations in Ordinance No. 4026
and the SMP conditionally approved by Ecology were based on Ecology's Wetland & CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002). The City Council has determined to follow the
most recent guidance with regards to Best Available Science and the City's development regulations. As
a result, Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) is being incorporated
into the SMP. Please see Attachment A for the specific alternatives and the rationale for the proposed
changes.
The Urban Mixed Use IV changes apply to the area surrounding the Edmonds Marsh, which is an
important feature (ecologically and socially) of the Edmonds waterfront area. While the City Council
accepts the change related to dropping the interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline
environment, the City Council does not believe Ecology's proposed setback/buffer in the UMU IV
environment are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, Shoreline Master Program guidelines,
or the best available science and wetland guidance in Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
(Publication No. 16-06-001). The City Council is proposing an alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV
environment and establishing an alternative threshold for buffer establishment. The City's proposed
Incorporated August 11, 1890 Packet Pg. 153
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
8.1.c
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
EDMONDS CITY HALL • FIRST FLOOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • PHONE: (425) 771-0248 • FAX (425) 771-0254
fnc.18911
alternatives are included in Attachment A with an expanded rationale for the City's proposed alternative
included to required changes 7 and 8 in Attachment B.
Finally, the City acknowledges Ecology's recommended change to allow residential development with
the Urban Mixed Use IV environment but declines to implement this change at this time.
Please accept this letter along with Attachment A and B as the City of Edmonds' response as required by
RCW 90.58.090(2)(e).
The City of Edmonds appreciates the efforts of David Pater, Paul Anderson and Joe Burcar in this update
and their attendance at Council meetings as the City has worked through the SMP update process.
Sincerely,
Kristiana Johnson
City of Edmonds Council President
Cc: Dave Earling, City of Edmonds Mayor
David Pater, Ecology, Shoreline Planner
Joe Burcar, Ecology, SEA Section Manager
Paul Anderson, Ecology, Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment A: City of Edmonds Responses/Alternative Proposals to the Department of Ecology's Required Changes from the June 27, 2016 Conditional Approval
8.1.c
ITEM
SIVIP PROVISION
Topic Ecology
Required change from June 27,2016 Conditional Approval
City of Edmonds Response/Alternative Proposal
City of Edmonds - Discussion/Rationale
Format Changes [underline -additions; strikethrough-deletions]
1.
24.40.020 Critical
Critical Areas
B. The City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, as codified in
The City of Edmonds accepts this required change.
Areas
Ordinance
Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated Neyember 2-3
Referencing
2004 Ord ) (May 3, 2016, Ord 4026). are herein
adopted as a part of this Program, except for the specific
subsections list below in ECDC 24.40.020.D. All references to
the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance in this Program
are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of
the Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, the provisions of
Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions
listed in ECDC 24.40.020.D, shall apply to any use, alteration
or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a
shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required.
In addition to the critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40
through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B) of this Master Program),
the regulations identified in this section also apply to critical
areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts
between the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance and this
Shoreline Master Program, provisions of the Shoreline Master
Program shall prevail.
2.
Appendix B
SMP Critical
Replace Appendix B containing the critical area regulations
The City of Edmonds accepts this required change with
As a result of incorporating the Department of
Area
dated November 23, 2014, Ordinance 3527 with critical area
the modified exceptions list in item 4 below.
Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Regulations
regulations (minus exceptions noted in item 4 below) dated
(Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, the CAO
May 3, 2016, Ordinance 4026.
exceptions in 24.40.020 were reviewed. The
critical area regulations in Appendix B will not
include the provisions identified in item 4 below.
3.
24.40.020 Critical
CAO
4 Wetlands: a. ECDC 23.50 n��.3. ARY shoreline
The City of Edmonds accepts this required change with
The City accepts this change in that no critical area
project
Areas
provisions
neiRg heYGRd 25 buffer red In+inn through
that
minor modifications and indicated below:
provisions will require a shoreline variance.
proposes a
triggered by
the mfo!R GGr'n'r 24.40.02O.E.3 would
deSGn1h
Ghenisms ed
a shoreline
require 'a variaRGe. Noyai ia. for
of the Gri+iGa;Area OrdinanGe
G. The
Ecology's required change did not include the
shherelino
- is . equired
SpeGifiG PrOVOSOORS
variance
wetland buffer redUGtieR GORsisterlt with ECDC 24.40.020.E.3.
listed below may only be imnlomon+o`J within chnrolino
introductory sentence noting these provisions
urisdiGtion through the shoreline „arianGe
required a shoreline variance. That sentence is
PrGGe&SL,
h ECDC 23 80 n7n n h Q_ n 2: Buffer redUGtton
'I Wetlands
shown as being deleted.
and
aI+eurcer"+� aZm
Geologically Hazardous provisions were not shown
3 Fish Ernr
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
EGDG 23 50 non F 3 /any shoreline nroien++h �+
in Ecology's required change. However, allowed
and a
a �rr����z
23 90 non n ` : Re di lGed buffer widths
onion beyOR J
25% buffer red ire+inn through
activities in geologically hazardous areas (ECDC
Prnnncoc
a
the rneGhallis„,s deSGribed!R ECDC-24.^�020.E.3 ^tea
bECDC 23.90.040.D.4: Additions to
23.80.040.B.1 & 2 were moved to the exceptions
lir,
for Tonic re
No variall e r
red
list in item 4 below. The double -line strike -through
szrFGtUesrex+st'R-g within
hi
asn� a�� .
s+roam iffors
wetlaR d h, ,ffer red In+iens nerisis+on+ with C('n('
24. ^�020�3:
�rnr Qn non Q -I Q �• A11Q1A,,,,1 e,.+i„i+i„r ir,
indicates the move.
ie�d
h EGDG 23 Qn n7n 'I h A. 7: Buffer red
UG
l+ oora inns
crvna
Page 1 of 13
Packet Pg. 155
8.1.c
ITEM
SMP -• •
••
• •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• • .Edmonds•. Proposal
.Edmonds•
Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions]
3. Fish aR d Wildlife Habitat Gonoen ation Areas
�� 90 nnn.n.2: QedUGed1 bufferwidths
b. EGDG 23 90.04n n 4: ^dditienstO S#U^+�''res�;?+gig
within stream buffers
4.
24.40.020 Critical
CAO
D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area
The City of Edmonds offers the exceptions list below as an
As a result of incorporating the Department of
Areas
Exceptions
Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within
alternative:
Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
shoreline jurisdiction.
(Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, the CAO
D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical
exceptions in 24.40.020 were reviewed.
1. General Provisions:
� Drn�iicinnc of nh�pfor �z nn Crnr relating +n�r�en�c
Area Ordinance listed below shall not apply to
development within shoreline jurisdiction.
General Provisions: Two of the items in the
general provisions exemption list were left out of
1. General Provisions:
Ecology's required change item 4 (ECDC
eGenerniG use of do not apply to with
a Provisions Of ^hapt��,� ECDC
23.40.130.D Monitoring Program and ECDC
property property
i„risdiG�n• specifically C
23.40.220.C.8).
`shherolino
23.40.210(2). N TT�`pp"
i�� n; ECDC
ECDC 23.40.130.D requires a monitoring program
property with shoreline j speGifiGally
�n non and ECDC 232..
of not less than five years. SMP contains a
c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance
a. ECDC 23.40.130.D: Monitoring Program
monitoring provision that requires monitoring for a
period of not less than ten years. Given the SMP
e. ECDC 23.4&230 €xis
b. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance
contains a separate monitoring program, ECDC
G. ECDC; 23 , 27n� Tinnr cite In„e^+igati„
23.40.130.D will be excepted from the CAO in
�rnr ��.4o�S:
2. Geologically Hazardous Areas:
Appendix B of the SMP.
a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in geologically
e €�ce�,
2. Wetlands:
a. ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings
b. ECDC 23.50.040.F.1: Standard Buffer Widths
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 (which is ECDC
23.40.220.C.9 in the updated CAO) contains
provisions very similar to WAC 173-27-040(m).
WAC 173-27-040(m) exempts minor site
investigative work from shoreline substantial
hazardous areas
`n�
2. Wetlands:
ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings
a.
h ECDC 23.5 non C 9 : Standard Buffer Widths
c. ECDC 23.50.040.F.2: Required Measures to Minimize
development permit requirements. ECDC
23.40.220.C.9 allows minor site investigative work
Impacts to Wetlands
^^�rnr�� 50non n: �n�onBuffer Width
d. ECDC 23.50.040.K: Small, Hydrologically Isolated
without the requirement for a critical area report.
Given the intent of the two provisions to allow minor
site investigation in preparation for a land use or
g p p
"^y"'
,� �r,nr, ��z Fn non � Q h� ��^ci.,e [?�r�
Wetlands
G. ECDC 23 5n non n: WetlaR per Widthder
shoreline permit, and the similar language in each
gillg
�rC23�g;04n e
+
rla r�� �n nn n � Q h: o�^��TeC�eati�,�
provision, the City of Edmonds is proposing to
remove ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 from the exception
f ECDC 23 50 050 F: Mitigation Ra
����� ��,-�at+es,
e.€f'�1f' 23 50-04n.I:�Tpt�;ens
list.
ECDC 3 50 050 G: �ni���E�Eeep+
f ECDC 23 50 050 F: Mi+�+i ��
With the incorporation of the Department of
g ga
o ECDC 23 50 050 ram: Wetlands
Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Mitigation "���` as
(Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, certain
provisions of the wetlands section in the CAO
3. Geologically Hazardous Areas:
needed to be excepted from the SMP where there
a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in
was conflicts with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for
CAO Updates.
geologically hazardous areas
Geologically Hazard Areas shown as a double
underline to indicate the move from item 3 above.
5.
24.40.020 Critical
Wetlands
Delete 24.40.020.F(1) — (4).
The City of Edmonds offers the wetland section attached
After the City of Edmonds adopted the updated
Areas
Deletions are not shown in strike -through here to save space.
to the end of this table as an alternative to Ecology's
critical area regulations in May 2016 with
required change number 5.
Ordinance No. 4026, Ecology released Wetland
E
M
0
a
a
Q
0
r
=a
c
0
U
M
0
0
0
w
0
a�
0
a
N
0
N
ai
a�
0
O
c
0
w
0
r
a
a
Page 2 of 13 Packet Pg. 156
8.1.c
ITEM
SMP -• •
••
• •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• •
.Edmonds•. Proposal
.Edmonds•
Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions]
Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-
001) in June 2016. The wetland regulations in
Ordinance No. 4026 and the SMP conditionally
approved by Ecology were based on Ecology's
Wetland & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities
(Publication No. 10-06-002). The City of Edmonds
desires to follow the most recent guidance with
regards to Best Available Science and the City's
development regulations. As a result, the City is
choosing to incorporate Ecology's Wetland
Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-
001) into the SMP.
Incorporating the updated wetland guidance into
the SMP primarily involves replacing the wetland
categorizations and buffer requirements in the
SMP. Apart from incorporating the wetland
categorizations and buffer requirements into the
SMP, the City of Edmonds accepts the deletions of
the remaining sections as proposed in Ecology's
required change.
Ecology's required changed was to delete
24.40.020.F.1 — F.4; however, there is no
24.40.020.F.3 — FA in the SMP. The wetland
section in the SMP is contained within
24.40.020.F.1 — F.2.
6.
Part III Shoreline
B.
Urban Mixed -Use IV: The Urban Mixed -Use IV designation is
The City of Edmonds accepts this required change.
Environments
Designation
being established on interim shoreline designation, is
as
24.30.070
Criteria
appropriate for those areas bordering T the Edmonds Marsh.
Urban Mixed Use
5. Urban
bei-ag The marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state is
Mixed Use IV
new to this SHAD of
identified as a
update and was
„�� o .,-ter— �� shoreline
the state late in the planning process.. , W-with properties
within 200-feet of the salt influenced portions of the marsh
now under shoreline jurisdiction (where they had not
previously been so designated). SneGifig review of the effents
of establishing a shoreline environment on evicting and
nr� aroi ind the marsh must he
oposed uses studied.
The south side of the marsh has been identified as the future
site of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal which underwent
significant environment review with a Final Environmental
Impact Statement issued in 2004. On the north side of the
Marsh is the Harbor Square commercial development owned
by the Port of Edmonds. The Sono update nror�ess was
delayed to the Pert of Edmonds tome to a long
allow submit
Harbor Square Master Plall fE)r review by
plaRRed GGRGUFFellt
E
M
0
a
a
Q
0
r
r_
0
U
rn
0
0
0
w
0
aD
W
1=
0
a
N
r
O
N
r
a�
0
0
0
w
4-
0
r
i
M
x
w
c
E
r
a
Page 3 of 13
Packet Pg. 157
�1_
ITEM
SMP PROVISION
Topic•
•• Required change from1 • Conditional Approval •
Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions]
Oho City of Eidmonrdc The Port's proposer) Harbor Square
the
of Edmonds•. Proposal
of EdmondsDiscussion/Rationale
Master Plan was net by the Gity.
ultimately adopted
The Edmonds Marsh is also being studied for potential
restoration projects including the daylighting of the Willow
Creek outlet as well as the marshes role in the flooding
problem at the Dayton Street/State Route 104 intersection and
the role the marsh and play in a solution to the flooding
problem.
Establishing the Urban Mixed Use IV designation as on
interim designation will allow the City, in Geeperation With
e
pprep WRerse €GGlegy, e sgient!Sts e interested
the ihIig' to
membeFs
ageRGies/�. fo gqRzatiORS,, and of pi
illy review efforts of establishing a new shoreline
Garef
ii irisdintion for the area around the march on evicting and
planned development as well as the eneleginal role the
Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of Edmonds The City
crmvrrcrsTVTurs��ru�.r� �arrrvrra�� c-vrrp
intends to the ending the Edmonds Marsh
study issues surrounding
and related I Irhan Mixed _I Use IV designation for two dears
date of this QUAD At the end of the sfi irhi
from
rthe effe6tuye
, the City will appropriate sheF I�ceR�iir� ran
perieD adept 8Rt
designation(c) for the area si irroi ending the Edmonds Marsh
ingli irding evaluating whether a new designation is needed and
I.A.xhethei: the have the designation.
eRtire area should same
7.
Part IV General
Policies and
Regulations
24.40.090 Shoreline
Bulk and
Dimensional
Standards
Development
Standards
Table
Urban Mixed
Use IV
Shore
Setback
Shoreline Area Designation
The City of Edmonds offers the following as an alternative
for the setback/buffer requirement in the Urban Mixed Use
IV shoreline environment:
See Attachment B for the rationale behinds the
City's alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV
shoreline environment.
For every instance in Shoreline Bulk and
Dimensional Standards table contained in
24.90.090 where the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline
indicates a shore setback of 100/50, that will be
changed to 125/110. This means there will be a
requirement for a 110 foot vegetative buffer with an
additional 15 foot structural setback for a total of a
125-foot shore setback measured from the edge of
the marsh.
Urban Mixed Use IV
Shoreline Area Designation
Commercial and Light Industrial Development
Urban Mixed Use IV
Shore
Setback
100/50 65/50
Shore
Setback
100/50 125/110
8.
Part IV General
Policies and
Regulations
24.40.090 Shoreline
Bulk and
Dimensional
Standards
Development
Standards
Table
Footnotes
18. Setback for new buildings and expansion of buildings yew
develepment within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is
4-S0 65 feet. Redevelopment of greater than 50% for the
Harbor Square property within shoreline jurisdiction and
The City of Edmonds offers the following as an alternative
footnote 18:
18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed-
Use IV environment is 4-00 125 feet. A 110-foot vegetative
buffer is required to be established when an approved
The Harbor Square site on the north side of the
marsh has been developed in accordance with a
contract rezone. The existing development cannot
be expanded as the limitations of the contract
rezone have been met. The Harbor Square site
has a comprehensive plan designation of
Downtown Master Plan. In order for the Harbor
Square site to be redeveloped, the redevelopment
will have to be approved through a master planning
process. When an approved master plan is
implemented, the 110-buffer will be required to be
established.
development of the site on the south border of the marsh
within shoreline jurisdiction require the establishment of a 50-
foot vegetation buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where
the vegetative buffer is absent, in combination with a 15 foot
structural setback .
master planned development is implemented on the north
or south side of the marsh. The 110-buffer may be
established in the absence of a master planned
redevelopment through a standalone restoration project.
New development agtiVities within the Urban Mixed _I Use IV
en\/Irenment require the establishment of a 50 feet
vegetation buffer adiagent to the Edmonds Marsh -eihere
E
Ab
M
x
w
c
E
r
a
Page 4 of 13 Packet Pg. 158
�1_
ITEM
SIVIP PROVISION
Topic•
•• Required change from1 • Conditional Approval •
Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions]
of Edmonds•. Proposal
the vegetative buffer is abseRt
of EdmondsDiscussion/Rationale
Likewise, the property on the south side of the
marsh has a comprehensive plan designation of
Master Plan Development and a zoning designation
of Master Plan 2. Development on the south side
of the marsh will also occur through a master plan
process. When an approved master plan
implemented on the south side of the marsh, the
110-foot buffer will be required to be established.
While buffer establishment is required with an
implemented master plan, the 110-foot may be
established prior to the implementation of master
planned development through a voluntary buffer
restoration effort.
E
A
r
a
Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 159
8.1.c
City of Edmonds Proposed Alternative to Required Change No. 5 for Wetland
Regulations within the SMP.
24.40.020 Critical Areas
F. Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with WAC 173-22-035 that
are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and
drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990,
that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway.
Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas
to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
Wetlands shall be rated aeeefding to the Washington State wedand rating system for-
eo tains the definitions and methods for- detefmining the er-iter-ia and parameters defining
the following wedand rating aleg , Wetlands shall be rated accordingto o the
Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington
State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication
#14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and
methods for determining whether the criteria below are met.:
a. Category L Category €*hand r-elatively undis€destuarine wetlands
lafger- than 1 aer-e; 2) wetlands that afe identified by seientists ef the Washingto
Natural Her-itage Pr-ogr-am�DNR as high "ality wetlands; 3) begs; 4) mattir-e and old
gf!ovvth forested wetlands larger- than 1 acre; 5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; or 6)
wetlands that per-f many ftmetions well (see,.;n 70 p r sor- re) Category I
wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2)
wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the
Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR; (3) bogs, (4) mature and old- rg owth
forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; _ (6) interdunal
wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands
that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1)
represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than
most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are
impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of
functions.
b. Category II.
distff-bed estuarine wetlands larger- than I aer-e; 2) inter-dunal wetlands 1
aeFes; 3) disturbed coastal lagoons or 4) wetlands with a moderately high Lve-I A
Page 6 of 13
Packet Pg. 160
8.1.c
Category II wetlands are: Clestuarine
E
wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2)
a,
interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3)
°
wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22
a
points).
0
2
c. Category III. Category M wetland wetlands with a moderate evel Of
a)
fianetions between 30 50 2) inter-dunal between 0. 1
(scoring and points); or- wetlands
L
and 1 aero i size Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of
functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequatelyplaced
with a well -planned mitigation project; and 3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1
M
acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in
v
some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in
the landscape than Category II wetlands.
o
a
0.
d_Category IV. Category W wetlands have the lev,est levels of ftiet rs (s,.
Q
fewer- than 30 points) andare often heavily disturbedCategory IV wetlands have the
c
lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily
disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to
c
improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in
U
any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should
�%
be protected to some degree.
o
0
U
d-.e.Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal
c
modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant's knowledge.
N
C
2. Development in designated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction shall be regulated in
a
accordance with the following:
a. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in
N
accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland
and the habitat score as determined byqualified wetland professional using the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
o
(Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved bogy). The
adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high.
i. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in
E
24.40.020.F.2.b can be used if both of the following criteria are met:
w
0
• A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected
between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the
v
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and
w
the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation
easement.
0
a
Page 7 of 13
Packet Pg. 161
8.1.c
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified
biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, 24.40.020.F.2.b
may be used with the required measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c alone.2
• The measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are implemented, where applicable, to
minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
ii. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c
are required for the use of 24.40.020.F.2.b
iii. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c, or
is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then 24.40.020.F.2.d
must be used.
iv. The buffer widths in 24.40.020.F.2.b and 24.40.020.F.2.d assume that the buffer
is vegetated with a native plant community ppropriate for the ecoregion. If the
existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive
species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted
to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to
ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided.
b. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are Implemented and
Corridor Provided.
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Cate2ory
3-4
5
6-7
8-9
Category 1:
75
105
165
225
Based on total score
Category
Bogs and wetlands of
190
225
High Conservation
Value
Category 1:
Coastal Lagoons
150
165
225
Category 1:
Interdunal
225
Category 1:
75
105
165
225
Forested
Category 1:
150
Estuarine
(buffer width not based on habitat score)
Category II:
Based on score
75
105
165
225
Page 8 of 13
E
L
tm
0
a
L
d
N
m
as
c
LO
m
A
to
M
CD
O
L
a
Q.
Q
0
a
O
a
O
U
N
tm
O
0
u
w
O
a�
N
a
O
a
Ch
CD
0
N
r
as
O
u
O
w
m
c
O
E
m
w
0
Al
a
Packet Pg. 162
8.1.c
Category II.
Interdunal wetlands
110
165
225
Category II:
Estuarine
110
buffer width not based on habitat score)
Category III (all)
60
105
165
225
Category IV (all)
40
will "llp-Ift
will "llp-Ift
..fKsrear!se���ssss�rr��rs�fr�as��szs�ee�:�!se�r��ssss�r:r�.
_
Page 9 of 13
Packet Pg. 163
8.1.c
..
c. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Measures are required, ,=cif
applicable to a specific proposal.
Disturbance
Required measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights
• Direct lights away from wetland
Noise
• Locate activity that generates noise away from
wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native
vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source
• For activities that generate relatively continuous,
potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy
industry or mining, establish an additional 10' heavily
vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the out
wetland buffer
Toxic runoff
• Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland
while ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within
150 feet of wetland
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff
• Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads
and existing adjacent development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly
enters the buffer
• Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT
publication on LID techniques)
Change in water regime
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new
runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human disturbance
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to
delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance
using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or
protect with a conservation easement
Dust
• Use best management practices to control dust
Disruption of eoffidor-s e
0 Maintain to that
eonneetions ofAite areas are-
undistur-bed
rem
Page 10 of 13
Packet Pg. 164
8.1.c
d. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are NOT Implemented
or Corridor NOT Provided.
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland CateEory
3-4
5
6-7
8-9
Category 1:
Based on total score
100
140
220
300
Catelgory
Bois and wetlands of
250
300
Hiizh Conservation
Value
Category 1:
Coastal Lam
200
220
300
Category 1:
Interdunal
300
Category 1:
Forested
100
140
F220
300
Category 1:
Estuarine
200
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II.
Based on score
100
140
220
300
Category II:
Interdunal wetlands
150
220
300
Category II:
Estuarine
150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all)
80
140
220
300
Category IV (all)
50
Page 11 of 13
Packet Pg. 165
8.1.c
E
olnvmo,�4
n n l;vnn4nv
o
buffer
141, vo l„ 4; .r.n
(.v
nl L
ev
f wetland
-width
appr-ov
lm
O
buff-er- widths
for- wetlands
whefe existing
buff-ef
eonditio
L
a
„ffov widths)
may be granted
n
mitant to the
deyeln.v.men
d
itio, of n
..o41n,,a buff- r enhancement
plan for
Category H! and
Al
N
O
illy. Approval
of n wetland
buffer- enhaneemen4
plan shall, at
ie
�
dir-eetei,
„flow for-
buff-erwtth
to
less than 25he
c
,rthe
wetland
fedtietion
no
0-
standard
width; provided,
0
t
vin„ ;thevlomov4n4;nv
4n
n4 lonn4 40
to„ol
bybyIn n
L,,,f4o,
to1,
provided
standard
M
O
inal
T
7
v.4n
densities
for- .
o in buffer-
>
existing native plant
andprovides
O
L
:isities to
less than thfee
feet
f6f
feet
0.
no
on eenter-
shmbs
and eight
e
Q.
Q
f
m
C
O
++
20E4.n,,l
`a
O
U
N
ases in wetland
b ff ,- ft rieti
.r ing as
relate to.
�
O
O
t�
W
O
r
d
- ,;l.11;f
habitat
f
�
O
O_
a of wetland
and
N
f
N
O
etla .1 intf
sio n,-,nl ,1;n4,,,43anee
r
'
O
N
Widt
Aver-aging. The
director-
allow
modif;eation
saandaia
r
i er-
may
of a
L
4, . aeeofdanee
with an apprmoved
efit
nn1 n 0
0 n
n.v4andthe
bee
by basis
by
buffef
Only
those
O
Oft
- ease ease
a-,�efaging
widths.
v
f-erm
the v
n o
„bjeet v
of shall be
wetlandb
existing
wit1,
eet
or
ilified v n.f
nn;n.,,nl wetland
o
n M
ist
n.,,n4
dem fes
44b,n4•
c0c
C
funetion
eduee the
and value
of wetlands
of assoeia4ed
f
�
O
,l . „4n;„n
, n4ions ;
dtie
to
.,l,afuetefisties
the
sensitivity
buff-ef in
existing
physieal
the
ci
ketef of
vafies
slope, soils,
of vegetation,
and
wetlan
4t f n.m n
,iderm b,,,fferm ;
v.laees
by n,l
; b,,,
++
and
would not
ermsely
ete
,f- r ; other
places;
t
k
W
eee�rsrsrss�eas�.ressasesr�:sess�sr�:esssasseassss�srsrss�:esesrs
-
Q
Page 12 of 13
Packet Pg. 166
8.1.c
i�
ii. Wi' amaze stfuet ,.emu
iii.Fishing aeeess areas down to the watef's edge that shall be no larger- than six
few
i,e. Additions to structures existing within wetlands and/or wetland buffers may be
permitted pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.I4I. Additions to structures within wetlands
will also require state and federal approval.
Page 13 of 13
Packet Pg. 167
8.1.c
Date: October 14, 2016
To: Washington State Department of Ecology
Copy: Edmonds City Council
Dave Earling, Mayor
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
From: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Re: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Analysis regarding City of
Edmonds' proposed alternatives to Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8
and consistency of those alternatives with the Shoreline Management
Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidelines
I. Purpose of this memo
This memo demonstrates how the City of Edmonds' proposed alternatives to
Required Changes 7 and 8 are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act
and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance for Shoreline Master
Programs. The City's proposed alternatives are necessary because the
Department of Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8 would not satisfy the
SMA's no net loss standard or the City's restoration goals for the Edmonds
marsh. If the rationale set forth below is adopted by the Edmonds City
Council, this memo should be included as Attachment B to Council President
Johnson's letter to Department of Ecology, Director, Maia Bellon.
As an alternative to Required Change 7, the City of Edmonds is proposing a
110-foot buffer and a 125-foot setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV (UMU4)
environment. This will be referred to as Alternative Change 7.
As an alternative to Required Change 8, the City of Edmonds is proposing
that the 110-foot buffer be planted and established in conjunction with a
master planned development or redevelopment of the two properties within
N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com
Packet Pg. 168
8.1.c
the UMU4 environment. This will be referred to as Alternative Change 8.
Because the two properties in the UMU4 are separately owned, it is possible
that they would plant or otherwise establish their respective buffers at
different times. Until that occurs, any existing uses within the adopted buffer
would be allowed to continue as nonconforming uses.
While most of the analysis below relates to Alternative Change 7, it should be
kept in mind that Alternative Change 8 is the timing mechanism for
Alternative Change 7.
II. Findings of Fact demonstrating the consistency of
Alternative Changes 7 and 8 with the Shoreline
Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted
guidance
The following findings of fact support the adoption of Alternative Changes 7
and 8.
Packet Pg. 169
8.1.c
A. The Edmonds marsh is a shoreline of the state.
B. The Edmonds marsh is a Category II estuarine wetland and
salt marsh.
C. The UMU4 environment consists of two properties that
abut the Edmonds marsh. The property to the south of the marsh
is largely undeveloped. The property to the north of the marsh is
developed as a business park known as Harbor Square.
D. Harbor Square is owned by the Port of Edmonds. The Port
had expressed interest in eventually redeveloping Harbor Square
into a more intense development. The Port had sought a
comprehensive plan amendment to approve the Port's master
plan for Harbor Square, but later withdrew that request. There is
currently no known timeline for the redevelopment of Harbor
Square.
E. Neither the City or the Department of Ecology have
conducted detailed wildlife habitat assessments or wildlife
surveys that would provide additional site -specific information
about which species are present in the Edmonds marsh and what
the buffer those species would need to be protected from
redevelopment.
F. In the absence of such detailed site -specific studies, it is
appropriate to rely upon Ecology's guidance documents to
establish buffer widths at the planning stage.
G. The Department of Ecology has published various scientific
and technical guidance documents that are intended to be used by
cities in the development of critical area regulations and shoreline
master programs. The city council reviewed relevant excerpts
from these documents before voting to propose Alternative
Change 7. Various relevant excerpts from these Department of
Ecology publications are excerpted below.
Packet Pg. 170
8.1.c
1. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western
Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001,
Department of Ecology
This document distinguishes Category II estuarine
wetlands from Category II interdunal wetlands and
other Category II wetlands, where buffer width is based
on habitat score. Unlike the other kinds, the buffer for
Category II estuarine wetlands does not depend on
habitat score. Assuming that certain impact
minimization measures are required, the buffer would
be 110 feet. The measures include things like ensuring
that light, noise, and toxic runoff are directed away from
the wetland. If these measures are not implemented,
then the buffer would be 150 feet.
2. Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities,
Western Washington Version, January 2010, (1st Revision July
2011), (2nd Revision October 2012), Publication No. 10-06-002,
Department of Ecology
This document recommended standard buffer widths of
75 feet for Category II wetlands, with the possibility of
additional buffer width being added based on a habitat
score. The buffer table in this document does not have a
line for Category II estuarine wetlands. The 75-foot
buffer figure is for all Category II wetlands, except for
interdunal wetlands. The buffers in the city's adopted
CAO were based on the guidance from this document.
After the CAO was adopted, this document was replaced
in June 2016 by the Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates,
Western Washington Version.
3. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1, A Synthesis of
the Science, March 2005, Publication No. 05-06-006, Department
of Ecology
This document contains the following passage
discussing the importance of estuarine wetlands:
Estuaries, the areas where freshwater and salt water
mix, are among the most highly productive and complex
Packet Pg. 171
8.1.c
ecosystems. Here, tremendous quantities of sediments,
nutrients, and organic matter are exchanged between
terrestrial, freshwater, and marine communities. A large
number of plants and animals benefit from estuarine
wetlands. Fish, shellfish, birds, and plants are the most
visible organisms that live in estuarine wetlands.
However, a huge variety of other life forms also live in
an estuarine wetland, including many kinds of diatoms,
algae and invertebrates.
Estuaries, of which estuarine wetlands are a part, are a
"priority habitat" as defined by the state Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Estuaries have a high fish and wildlife
density and species richness, important breeding
habitat, important fish and wildlife seasonal ranges and
movement corridors, limited availability, and high
vulnerability to alteration of their habitat ....
4. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2, Guidance for
Protecting and Managing Wetlands, April 2005, Publication No.
05-06-008, Department of Ecology
This document contains the following sections:
A frequent concern about buffers is their applicability to
urban and urbanizing areas. The concerns generally fall
into two categories: 1) the science on buffers comes
largely from agricultural and forestry settings and is
perceived to be irrelevant to urban areas; and 2) the
need to maximize density of development in urban
areas is in direct conflict with the protection of large
upland areas around wetlands (and streams).
The concern over the relevancy of the literature on
buffers to urban areas is largely unfounded. While most
of the studies of buffer effectiveness occur in non -urban
settings, the principles are the same. Buffers do not
function any differently in urban settings than in rural
settings. The same processes of sediment, nutrient, and
toxics removal operate similarly in urban areas as they
do in rural settings. However, a good stormwater
Packet Pg. 172
8.1.c
management program can reduce the need for buffers
to perform filtration functions, with the exception of
lawns and landscaped areas which drain into wetlands
rather than into stormwater collection areas.
The role of buffers in providing needed upland habitat
for wetland species and in screening adjacent noise and
light is also performed similarly. In fact, a case can be
made that buffers in urban areas are even more
important from a habitat standpoint because there is
little other upland habitat available. The factors that
may be different in urban areas are that urban wetlands
may perform some functions at a lower level because of
degradation, and the range of wildlife species utilizing
urban wetlands may be smaller. However, remaining
wetlands (and adjacent upland areas) in urban areas
may, in fact, function as habitat islands and be critical to
many species. Generally, the protection of wildlife
habitat functions of wetlands requires larger buffers
than protection of water quality functions, particularly
when state-of-the-art stormwater management is
employed.
However, the best way to address the issue of buffers in
urban areas is to conduct a landscape analysis and
develop a subarea plan that identifies, prioritizes, and
protects the most important wetland, riparian, and
upland habitats (see Chapters 5 through 7 of this
volume for additional discussion). Maintaining and
restoring connections between wetland, riparian, and
upland habitats is key to protecting wildlife. A
landscape analysis can help identify existing
connections that should be protected as well as areas
where connectivity can be restored. Combined with
standards for low impact development and state-of-the-
art stormwater management, this kind of approach
could result in smaller buffers around the other critical
areas that are not providing vital habitat. The studies
Packet Pg. 173
8.1.c
should always be confirmed on the ground during
project review.
The issue of balancing wetland protection with
competing mandates in the GMA is a legitimate one that
can be addressed in a number of ways. A buildable lands
survey with a good wetlands inventory can provide
important information on the actual conflicts that may
exist (rather than a perceived conflict). Provisions to
allow density trading from buffers to adjacent or nearby
developable lands can help.
Chapter 8, Section 8.3.8.8.
Where a legally established, non -conforming use of the
buffer exists (e.g., a road or structure that lies within the
width of buffer recommended for that wetland),
proposed actions in the buffer may be permitted as long
as they do not increase the degree of non -conformity.
This means no increase in the impacts to the wetland
from activities in the buffer.
For example, if a land use with high impacts (e.g.,
building an urban road) is being proposed next to a
Category II wetland with a moderate level of function
for habitat, a 150-foot buffer would be needed to
protect functions (see Table 8C-6). If, however, an
existing urban road is already present and only 50 feet
from the edge of the Category II wetland, the additional
100 feet of buffer may not be needed if the road is being
widened. A vegetated buffer on the other side of the
road would not help buffer the existing impacts to the
wetland from the road. If the existing road is resurfaced
or widened (e.g., to add a sidewalk) along the upland
edge, without any further roadside development that
would increase the degree of non -conformity, the
additional buffer is not necessary. The associated
increase in impervious surface from widening a road,
however, may necessitate mitigation for impacts from
stormwater.
Packet Pg. 174
8.1.c
If, however, the proposal is to build a new development
(e.g., shopping center) along the upland side of the road,
the impacts to the wetland and its functions may
increase. This would increase the degree of non-
conformity. The project proponent would need to
provide the additional 100 feet of buffer extending
beyond the road or apply buffer averaging (see Section
8C.2.6).
Appendix 8-C, Section 8C.2.4.2.
5. SMP Handbook, Chapter 11, Vegetation Conservation,
Buffers, and Setbacks, Publication Number 11-06-010,
Department of Ecology
The following excerpts from this document should also
be helpful:
Some local governments with intensely developed
shorelines have established only setbacks from the
OHWM. Vegetation conservation is required, and
planting new vegetation, replacing noxious weeds and
invasive plants with native plants, and other habitat
improvements are required for new or expanded
development. These measures meet the requirements of
the SMP Guidelines to protect ecological functions, as
buffers do.
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 3-4.
New scientific studies conducted after the CAO was
adopted may establish the need for different -sized
buffers than included in the CAO. The SMP Guidelines
require "the most current, accurate and complete
scientific and technical information available" to be
used for development of SMPs [WAC 173-26-
201(2)(a)].
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 4.
When SMPs were first adopted in the 1970s, setbacks
were established largely to protect structures from
Packet Pg. 175
8.1.c
erosion and effects of wind and water and to prevent
new houses from blocking views. Some consideration
was given to habitat, as in Conservancy environments
with bigger setbacks than in Urban environments. We
now know more about the value of buffers in regard to
ecological functions. Recent scientific studies show that
25-foot setbacks do not protect most ecological
functions and will not meet the no net loss standard of
the SMP Guidelines.
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 7.
How do you apply these buffer widths from the
scientific literature to your local shorelines? Much of
Washington's shorelines are developed, unlike the
undeveloped shorelines discussed in much of the
scientific literature.
Those land uses include industry, commercial uses,
houses, multi -family dwellings, parks, trails, marinas,
bulkheads, parking lots, and fishing piers, among others.
Some upland areas are intensely developed, and others
are more sparsely developed. Some of our waters are
heavily used for ports, industry, marinas and
recreational piers. Many Washington lakes are intensely
developed with houses on the upland and piers and
docks in the water, while others remain undeveloped.
Tailor buffers to local conditions
Determining buffers and setbacks is a challenge. The
buffers and setbacks for marine and freshwater
shorelines should be tailored to local conditions
including existing shoreline functions and existing and
planned land use and public access. Buffers and
setbacks likely will vary within a local government's
boundaries to reflect different shoreline conditions and
functions. The inventory and characterization report
should provide a complete analysis of shoreline
functions.
Packet Pg. 176
8.1.c
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 19.
With this general guidance in mind, considerations for
determining buffer and setback width include:
What shoreline ecological functions continue to exist
and need protection or restoration?
What species of wildlife live along the shoreline, and
what buffer width will protect them?
Would smaller buffers increase nitrogen and
phosphorous levels in local waters?
How would removal of riparian vegetation affect slope
stability and hydrology?
Will future growth include new or expanded water -
oriented uses?
For developed shorelines, is redevelopment likely?
Is development projected on vacant parcels?
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 20.
6. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, Legally Existing Uses and
Development, Publication No. 11-06-010, Department of Ecology
The following excerpts from this chapter should be
helpful:
Existing legally established structures and uses are
typically allowed to continue with the approval of
updated SMPs. That means they can continue to exist,
be used, maintained and repaired. That's the case even
if the updated SMPs include regulations that would not
allow new uses or development to be configured or
built exactly as existing ones.
For example, under updated SMPs, new buildings may
need to be further away from the water, new
development projects may need to retain some
vegetation onsite, or new aquaculture projects may
need to be a specific distance from aquatic vegetation.
However, existing legal development and uses can
remain in place.
Packet Pg. 177
8.1.c
Ecology and local governments do not expect most
existing development and uses to be eliminated from
the shoreline after new SMP regulations are adopted. In
some cases, existing buildings may be expanded,
although there may be limits to the size of the addition,
the total square footage, or new impervious surfaces....
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, pp. 1-2.
Cities with densely developed shorelines may have
fewer opportunities for achieving no net loss than cities
or counties with less developed shorelines. With a
densely developed shoreline, large buffers or setbacks
may not be appropriate or feasible for various reasons -
- small lots cannot accommodate them; large buffers
would include many structures and impervious surfaces
that interfere with buffer functions; regulations
regarding structures within buffers could be
complicated.
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 3.
Traditionally, uses and structures that are not
consistent with the new regulations have been
categorized as "nonconforming" development.
Nonconforming uses and development were lawfully
constructed or established, but do not conform to
current land use regulations or standards. The
regulation of nonconforming uses and development is
an established concept, beginning early in the 20th
century, when municipalities started enacting zoning
regulations.
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4.
WAC 173-27-080 applies at the local level only if the
local SMP does not address nonconforming
development.
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4.
Some local governments are using different approaches
as they update their SMPs. They would allow existing
Packet Pg. 178
8.1.c
structures, particularly single family residences, to
continue as conforming structures even though new
shoreline setbacks, buffers, and other regulations in
their Shoreline Master Programs would typically create
nonconforming structures.
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 5.
Packet Pg. 179
8.1.c
H. The City has taken significant steps toward restoration of
the Edmonds marsh.
I. Ecology's Required Change 7 is a change to the 100/50
setback/buffer that the City had previously adopted for the UMU4
environment. The dimensions of this earlier adopted
setback/buffer were heavily influenced by the city's desire to
restore the Edmonds marsh and daylight Willow Creek and obtain
funding for such restoration. While it is true that Appendix L alone
may not support a 100-foot setback for the UMU4 shoreline
environment, the weight placed on Appendix L by the city council
demonstrates its commitment to restoration of the Edmonds
marsh. It is relevant to determining buffers for the UMU4 that the
city has a significant goal of restoring the Edmonds marsh and has
been actively pursuing that goal through grant applications and
studies.
J. As the City evaluates the existing conditions of the
Edmonds marsh and the surrounding area within the UMU4
environment, it finds the Edmonds marsh to be a valuable
environmental asset worthy of the City's ongoing restoration
efforts. This value must be taken into account when evaluating
the local conditions to which the buffers and setbacks for the
UMU4 environment should be tailored.
K. It should be noted for the record that the city council on
August 2, 2016 adopted Resolution 1366, which authorized the
submission of another grant application to RCO related to the
daylighting of Willow Creek. The December 18, 2015 final
feasibility study for the daylighting of Willow Creek was the result
of a successful grant application from 2013.
Packet Pg. 180
8.1.c
III. Conclusions of Law demonstrating the consistency of
Alternative Changes 7 and 8 with the Shoreline
Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted
guidance
The Department of Ecology has adopted guidelines for Shoreline Master
Programs. These guidelines are found in chapter 173-26 WAC, Part III (WAC
173-26-171 through WAC 173-26-251). Alternative Change 7 and 8 are
consistent with these guidelines, particularly the following excerpts.
A. WAC 173-26-186(8)(b): Local master programs shall include
policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of
[shoreline] ecological functions.
The UMU4 buffer must be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological
function, not only within the buffer, but more importantly, within the
Edmonds marsh itself. While Harbor Square is already developed and the
UMU4 buffer will render that development nonconforming, redevelopment
of Harbor Square will presumably be more intense than the existing
development. In the absence of additional wildlife habitat assessments and
surveys demonstrating that no species in the Edmonds marsh requires more
than a 50-foot buffer, the presumption should be that the habitat value of the
marsh is consistent with other Category II estuarine wetlands. Because
Ecology's guidance documents recommend a 110-foot buffer for a Category II
estuarine wetland, that is the buffer that is required to achieve no net loss in
the absence of additional wildlife habitat assessments and surveys.
B. WAC 173-26-186(8)(c): For counties and cities containing any
shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs
shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions.
The city is engaged in an ongoing effort to daylight Willow Creek, which will
have a significant restorative benefit to the Edmonds marsh.
Packet Pg. 181
8.1.c
C. WAC 173-26-186(9): To the extent consistent with the policy
and use preference of RCW 90.58.020, this chapter (chapter 173-26
WAC), and these principles, local governments have reasonable
discretion to balance the various policy goals of this chapter, in
light of other relevant local, state, and federal regulatory and
nonregulatory programs, and to modify master programs to reflect
changing circumstances.
The guidelines give the city reasonable discretion to balance various factors
in the development of its SMP. The city, in adopting Alternative Change 7, has
acted reasonably in basing the buffer for the UMU4 on Ecology's own
guidance. The 110-foot buffer is consistent with the most recent guidance
from Ecology related to buffers for Category II estuarine wetlands. Even if the
Department of Ecology or the Port of Edmonds might have weighted the
various policy goals differently, the guidelines give this discretion to the city.
D. WAC 173-26-201(2)(a): To satisfy the requirements for the
use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58.100(1),
local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into
their master program development and amendment process.
1. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate,
and complete scientific and technical information available that
is applicable to the issues of concern....
The city has identified Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western
Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of
Ecology, as the most current, accurate, and complete scientific information
available. It has also identified other resources which are set forth in the
findings of fact, above.
2. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis
incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific
or technical information available....
Ecology agrees that the Edmonds marsh is a Category II estuarine wetland.
The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 comes directly from and is consistent with
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016,
Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The 50-foot buffer in
Required Change 7 is not consistent with this recent guidance.
Packet Pg. 182
8.1.c
E. WAC 173-26-201(2)(d):... local governments shall ... apply
the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below
1. Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring
ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to
the natural environment and public health.... Local governments
should ensure that these areas are reserved consistent with
constitutional limits.
Note that there is no higher -ranking priority here than to reserve
appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions. The
UMU4 buffer can be seen as such a restoration. The fact that the existing
development is allowed to continue indefinitely as a nonconforming use
keeps this reservation firmly within constitutional limits.
WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(i): When addressing critical areas,
shoreline master programs shall adhere to the standards
established in the following sections, unless it is demonstrated
through scientific and technical information as provided in RCW
90.58.100(1) and as described in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a) that an
alternative approach provides better resource protection.
As a Category II estuarine wetland, the city must protect the Edmonds marsh
by adhering to the standards for critical areas unless it is demonstrated
through scientific information that an alternative approach provides better
resource protection. The applicable standards here include Ecology's
wetland guidance, which in turn calls for a 110-foot buffer for this class of
wetland. In other words, the default UMU4 buffer should be 110 feet unless it
is demonstrated through scientific and technical information that an
alternative approach provides better resource protection. Ecology has not
demonstrated through scientific and technical information that the 50-foot
buffer from Ecology's Required Change 7 provides better protection for the
Edmonds marsh than a 110-foot buffer. Ecology makes the point that
untreated stormwater discharge is a significant threat to the marsh and that
this threat could be corrected upon redevelopment of Harbor Square.
Ecology's logic is that a 50-foot buffer will better incentivize redevelopment
and redevelopment will fix the stormwater discharge. But this logic fails to
address whether the habitat values of the Edmonds marsh would be
adequately protected in the face of more intense redevelopment. It also fails
to address the possibility that the stormwater problem could be corrected as
a standalone stormwater improvement project that could be sponsored by
Packet Pg. 183
8.1.c
the city's stormwater utility and/or through a WRIA-8 or other grant
sponsored project. Significant additional work would need to be done to
determine whether a 50-foot buffer in the UMU4 could find scientific
justification given the presumably high habitat value of the Edmonds marsh.
G. WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(iv): The planning objectives of
shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be the
protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem -wide
processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and
ecosystem -wide processes.
Shorelines with critical areas get special treatment under the SMA. With
critical areas, the objectives are not merely protection (no net loss) but also
restoration of degraded ecological functions. The city's goal is to restore both
the Edmonds marsh and its degraded buffers. The 110-foot buffer for the
UMU4 could become restored either through a standalone restoration
project that would likely require city and port cooperation, through
mitigation requirements to offset the impacts of more intense
redevelopment, or potentially through a combination of the two.
H. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A): Local governments should
consult the department's technical guidance documents on
wetlands.
The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 comes directly from and is consistent with
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016,
Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The 50-foot buffer in
Ecology's Required Change 7 is not consistent with this recent guidance.
WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(D): Master programs shall contain
requirements for buffer zones around wetlands. Buffer
requirements shall be adequate to ensure that wetland functions
are protected and maintained in the long term. Requirements for
buffer zone widths and management shall take into account the
ecological functions of the wetland, the characteristics and setting
of the buffer, the potential impacts associated with the adjacent
land use, and other relevant factors.
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016,
Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology, addresses many of these
factors. It provides different buffer widths for Category I estuarine wetlands
Packet Pg. 184
8.1.c
(150 feet) and Category II estuarine wetlands (110 feet), recognizing that
Category I wetlands have greater ecological function. There is no lower
category of estuarine wetland than Category II. This suggests that even when
the wetland and buffer may have some suffered some degradation, an
estuarine wetland should still be afforded protection consistent with a
Category II wetland.
Ecology suggests that, because the Harbor Square portion of the UMU4 has
already been developed, a narrow buffer of 50 feet is justified. We could not
find support for this proposition in Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates,
Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001,
Department of Ecology. If anything, that publication appears to state the
opposite: "Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the
assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species
appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation
adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the buffer area
should be planted or the buffer width should be increased." Id., at 13.
J. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(A): Critical saltwater habitats
require a higher level of protection due to the important ecological
functions they provide. Ecological functions of marine shorelands
can affect the viability of critical saltwater habitats. Therefore,
effective protection and restoration of critical saltwater habitats
should integrate management of shorelands as well as submerged
areas.
Critical saltwater habitats like the Edmonds marsh require greater
protection than other critical areas. It is necessary to establish an
appropriate buffer upon the shorelands of the UMU4 in order to be able to
protect and restore these areas.
K. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(B): The management planning
should address the following, where applicable:... Protecting
existing and restoring degraded riparian and estuarine ecosystems,
especially salt marsh habitats; Establishing adequate buffer zones
around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the habitat
areas;
Here again, the guidance emphasizes that salt marsh habitats like the
Edmonds marsh warrant special protection, even when they are somewhat
Packet Pg. 185
8.1.c
degraded and that a significant component of that special protection is the
establishment of an adequate buffer to protect the special habitat provided
by such ecosystems. It should be noted here that existing development
within the UMU4 buffer does not make the habitat in the marsh unworthy of
protection. It should also be noted that even if existing development already
has some negative impact upon that habitat, redevelopment to a more
intense use could have greater impact upon that habitat if the buffer were
not increased adequately to protect the habitat from the more intense
development.
L. WAC 173-27-080 Nonconforming use and development
standards. When nonconforming use and development standards
do not exist in the applicable master program,' the following
definitions and standards shall apply:
1. 'Nonconforming use or development' means a shoreline
use or development which was lawfully constructed or
established prior to the effective date of the act or the applicable
master program, or amendments thereto, but which does not
conform to present regulations or standards of the program.
2. Structures that were legally established and are used for a
conforming use but which are nonconforming with regard to
setbacks, buffers or yards; area; bulk; height or density may be
maintained and repaired and may be enlarged or expanded
provided that said enlargement does not increase the extent of
nonconformity by further encroaching upon or extending into
areas where construction or use would not be allowed for new
development or uses....
Portions of the Harbor Square development already exist within as little as
25 feet of the Edmonds marsh. Ecology has argued that this existing
condition warrants a much smaller buffer than the 110-foot buffer called for
by the guidance. Ecology argues, essentially, that the buffers should be sized
to avoid any already developed property so that the existing development
can retain its conforming status indefinitely. If the SMA intended this result,
1 Note: the city's SNIP does contain provisions for nonconforming use. The
WAC is cited here to demonstrate what regulation Ecology would impose as a
default if the city did not have its own nonconforming use regulation.
Packet Pg. 186
8.1.c
Ecology would not have needed to adopt the above shoreline nonconforming
use rule. The fact that Ecology did adopt a nonconforming use rule renders
this argument suspect.
Similarly, Ecology appears to argue that the SMA's no net loss standard
provides not only the minimum amount of regulatory protection allowed, but
also the maximum amount of regulatory protection allowed. This argument
is not supported by the plain language of the guidance for shoreline master
programs. In fact, the opposite is true, "these guidelines are designed to
assure, at minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain
shoreline natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions
where they have been impaired." WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) (emphasis added).
The guidelines contain similar phrasing where they address wetland
regulations. "Regulations shall address the following uses to achieve, at a
minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions, including lost time
when the wetland does not perform the function..." WAC 173-26-
221(2)(c)(i)(A) (emphasis added). In short, the plain language of the SMP
guidance indicates that no net loss is the minimum standard that an SMP
must achieve. Nowhere does the guidance suggest that Ecology should deny
an SMP for going beyond this minimum standard.
IV. Consistency with the purpose and intent of Required
Change 7
WAC 173-26-120(7)(b) outlines this stage of Ecology's review procedure:
If, in the opinion of the department, the alternative is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the changes originally proposed by the
department in this subsection (7) and with the policy of RCW
90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, it shall approve the
alternative changes and provide written notice to all parties of record.
In such cases, the effective date of the approved master program or
amendments is the date of the department's letter to local
government approving the alternative proposal.
If the department determines the alternative proposal is not
consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes proposed by the
department, the department may either deny the alternative proposal
or at the request of local government start anew with the review and
approval process beginning at WAC 173-26-120.
Packet Pg. 187
8.1.c
WAC 173-26-120(7)(b). We have demonstrated in Section III, above, how
Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the applicable guidelines for SMPs.
This section addresses consistency with the purposes and intent of Required
Change 7. Certainly, the proposed buffers between Alternative Change 7 (110
feet) and Required Change 7 (50 feet) are significantly different, but that
does not mean there is inconsistency between their purposes and intents. We
look to the discussion in Ecology's June 27, 2016 Findings and Conclusions to
discern the purpose and intent behind Required Change 7. We acknowledge,
however, that, because Ecology does not succinctly state the purpose and
intent behind Required Change 7, this exercise requires some paraphrasing
and extrapolation on the part of the city. We believe the following four
statements fairly summary Ecology's purpose and intent behind Required
Change 7.
1. The city's originally adopted buffer of 50 feet was
consistent with Ecology's Required Change 7 buffer of 50 feet.
The real difference was in the amount of the setback, where the
city originally adopted a 100-foot setback (or 50 feet from the
edge of the buffer) and Required Change 7 proposed a 65 foot
setback (or 15 feet from the edge of the buffer). Ecology notes
that the city did not adequately support the additional 50-foot
setback with scientific documentation and replaced it with the
extra 15-foot setback, which is consistent with the city's critical
areas ordinance. Ecology states: "A minimum 15-foot building
setback would help preserve the integrity of a restored buffer. A
larger setback may encourage intensive uses such as parking,
which is incompatible within a buffer setback."
Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required
Change 7 because both reflect the same setback (15 feet from edge of the
buffer) that is contained in the city's critical areas ordinance. As Ecology
notes, intensive uses such as parking, would no longer be encouraged by the
larger 50-foot setback.
Packet Pg. 188
8.1.c
2. Ecology expressed concern about the city's reliance upon
Appendix L to support the originally adopted buffer/setback of
50/100. In the table, Ecology states: "Ecology acknowledges the
City Council amendments to the Planning Commission draft
were based on a concern that buffers would be need to be 100
feet to be eligible for Ecology water quality grants. As noted in a
letter from Ecology's Water program, a restoration project
would be eligible based on the science -based planning
commission setback of 50 feet (see letter from Ben Rau to Shane
Hope, August 19, 2015)."
The city acknowledges that Appendix L is not the most relevant guidance for
establishing a buffer width for a Category II estuarine wetland. In Alternative
Change 7, the city has corrected its reliance upon Appendix L and now bases
the buffer for the UMU4 environment on Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates,
Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001,
Department of Ecology. The city believes this guidance to be the "most
current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available,"
as required by WAC 173-26-201(2) (a). By basing Alternative Change 7 on
this recent guidance instead of Appendix L, the city's alternative is consistent
with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7.
3. Ecology's table regarding Required Change 7 cites to WAC
173-26-201(2)(c). That section of the guidelines contains the
following language: "Nearly all shoreline areas, even
substantially developed or degraded areas, retain important
ecological functions. For example, an intensely developed
harbor area may also serve as a fish migration corridor and
feeding area critical to species survival. Also, ecosystems are
interconnected. For example, the life cycle of anadromous fish
depends upon the viability of freshwater, marine, and terrestrial
shoreline ecosystems, and many wildlife species associated with
the shoreline depend on the health of both terrestrial and
aquatic environments. Therefore, the policies for protecting and
restoring ecological functions generally apply to all shoreline
areas. not iust those that remain relatively unaltered." WAC
173-26-201(2)(c) (emphasis added).
Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required
Change 7 by recognizing the important applicability of the language above to
Packet Pg. 189
8.1.c
establishing the buffer for the UMU4 environment. While much of the UMU4
buffer area has been developed and degraded, this language, and Alternative
Change 7, acknowledge that the Edmonds marsh retains important ecological
functions that are worthy of being protected with a buffer that is consistent
with Ecology's buffer guidance for a Category II estuarine wetland.
4. Required Change 7 may have been crafted to address the
Port's concern about excess mitigation. The table cites WAC 173-
26-201(2)(e), which contains the following language: "master
programs shall also provide direction with regard to mitigation
for the impact of the development so that: (A) Application of the
mitigation sequence achieves no net loss of ecological functions
for each new development and does not result in required
mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that
development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other
shoreline functions."
Mitigation is imposed at the project stage, not with the adoption of an SMP.
Alternative Change 7 should not be construed as a mitigation requirement.
Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the Edmonds marsh provides high
value habitat that warrants the 110-foot buffer called for in Ecology's
guidance documents. When the Port is ready to pursue a master planned
redevelopment of Harbor Square, a more detailed analysis of the presence of
wildlife and associated habitat will need to be performed to determine the
extent to which the Edmonds marsh needs to be protected from the impacts
of the master planned redevelopment. And that analysis will no doubt be
informed by details about the project itself that are not currently known. At
the project stage, it is possible that additional information about the species
in the marsh and the nature of the project itself will lead to the conclusion
that requiring a 110-foot buffer would be disproportionate to the actual
impact of the project, in which case, the city might opt to incur part of the
cost associated with establishing a 110-foot buffer as a city -sponsored
restoration project. But at this planning stage, and without that critical
additional information, it would be imprudent to establish a 50-foot buffer in
the UMU4 environment. Furthermore, we doubt that a 50-foot buffer would
be upheld under a no net loss challenge without this additional information.
Therefore, to the extent that the purpose and intent of Required Change 7
was to address a concern about excess mitigation, Alternative Change 7 is not
inconsistent with that concern in light of the discussion above.
Packet Pg. 190
8.1.d
Date: February 2, 2017
To: Edmonds City Council
Copy: Dave Earling, Mayor
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
From: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Re: City's proposed Option C:
An alternative to Options A and 8 from Ecology's January 10, 2017
Exhibit G
I. Purpose of this memo
The purpose of this memo is to provide some legal context for review of
Option C, particularly with respect to the no net loss standard.
II. Relevant legal authority
Set forth below are three particularly relevant excerpts from the Shoreline
Guidelines.
The no net loss standard in general:
Local master programs shall include policies and regulations
designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions.
(i) Local master programs shall include regulations and
mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted
development will not cause a net loss of ecological
functions of the shoreline; local government shall design
and implement such regulations and mitigation
is1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com
Packet Pg. 191
8.1.d
standards in a manner consistent with all relevant
constitutional and other legal limitations on the
regulation of private property.
WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) (emphasis added).
The no net loss standard specifically articulated toward wetlands:
Regulations shall address the following uses to achieve, at a minimum,
no net loss of wetland area and functions, including lost time when the
wetland does not perform the function...
WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A) (emphasis added).
The full text of the language referenced by Ecology with regard to its
concern about excessive mitigation:
(e) Environmental impact mitigation.
(i) To assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, master
programs shall include provisions that require proposed individual
uses and developments to analyze environmental impacts of the
proposal and include measures to mitigate environmental impacts not
otherwise avoided or mitigated by compliance with the master program
and other applicable regulations. To the extent Washington's State
Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, is
applicable, the analysis of such environmental impacts shall be
conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA, which also
address environmental impact mitigation in WAC 197-11-660 and
define mitigation in WAC 197-11-768. Master programs shall indicate
that, where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the
following sequence of steps listed in order of priority, with (e) (i) (A) of
this subsection being top priority.
(A) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain
action or parts of an action;
(B) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of
the action and its implementation by using appropriate
technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce
impacts;
Packet Pg. 192
8.1.d
(C) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected environment;
(D) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations;
(E) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or
providing substitute resources or environments; and
(F) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and
taking appropriate corrective measures.
(ii) In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to
shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only
where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or
inapplicable.
Consistent with WAC 173-26-186 (5) and (8), master programs shall
also provide direction with regard to mitigation for the impact of the
development so that:
(A) Application of the mitigation sequence achieves no net loss of
ecological functions for each new development and does not
result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure
that development will result in no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact
on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the act.
(B) When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to
the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential
consideration shall be given to measures that replace the
impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of
the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation
within the watershed that addresses limiting factors or
identified critical needs for shoreline resource conservation
based on watershed or comprehensive resource management
plans applicable to the area of impact may be authorized.
Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may
require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions as
necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions.
WAC 173-26-201(2)(e)(emphasis added).
Packet Pg. 193
8.1.d
III. Brief analysis of Option C
Option C uses the same standard of no net loss that is used in the Shoreline
Guildlines above. Using the same standard should reduce ambiguity and
confusion when it comes time to implement these regulations.
We stated the following in Section IV of our October 14, 2016 memo:
When the Port is ready to pursue a master planned redevelopment of
Harbor Square, a more detailed analysis of the presence of wildlife
and associated habitat will need to be performed to determine the
extent to which the Edmonds marsh needs to be protected from the
impacts of the master planned redevelopment. And that analysis will
no doubt be informed by details about the project itself that are not
currently known. At the project stage, it is possible that additional
information about the species in the marsh and the nature of the
project itself will lead to the conclusion that requiring a 110-foot
buffer would be disproportionate to the actual impact of the project,
in which case, the city might opt to incur part of the cost associated
with establishing a 110-foot buffer as a city -sponsored restoration
project. But at this planning stage, and without that critical additional
information, it would be imprudent to establish a 50-foot buffer in the
UMU4 environment.
Option C essentially establishes a 110-foot buffer as a default and for
planning purposes, while deferring to a later date - after more
environmental review has been done and after more is known about the
project - the ultimate determination as to whether the buffer can be smaller
while still ensuring no net loss, or conversely, whether the buffer needs to be
larger to ensure no net loss.
Packet Pg. 194
8.1.e
Councilmember Nelson commented there is a difference in what he read in the report and what he sees
happening on the ground. He recently spent a second day in the field with the professionals who provide
fire and EMS care, not the number crunchers, but the first responders who treat citizens. What he saw was
concerning; in just one day, there were five requests to send Edmonds units north to cover other stations
because the rest of FD1 was unavailable. The hope is that other stations can cover Edmonds, but they
can't. He relayed hearing on the fire radio dispatch in response to battalion chiefs request for another
paramedic, "Medic 14 not available, cross -staffed." He clarified that meant the one paramedic at that
station was not available because he was out on a fire call. This is what happens when the paramedics are
split up all over the City, asking them to respond to fire as well as medical calls. That response will be
heard over and over in Edmond with these cuts because 70% of calls are basic life support (BLS), not
advanced life support (ALS). Paramedics will be busy responding to BLS calls when ALS calls come in.
Councilmember Nelson commented, in addition, twice that morning all four Edmonds fire units were out
on calls and not available to respond to any additional calls in Edmonds. What will happen when only
three Edmonds units will be available with thee cuts? He believed everyone wants the best fire service but
doing more with less should be a last resort when it comes to public safety, especially while every other
City department is growing. There is a difference between not wanting to pay more and needing to pay
more. Healthcare demands are increasing every year and much of it has shifted squarely on first
responders. He has heard, "we're backed into a corner, we have no choice," commenting we always have
a choice. If the Council really wanted to, they could find the funding.
Councilmember Nelson questioned what other contract services the City has, a fair question if the primary
motivation is financial. For example, why does the City spend $42,000/month to contract for legal
services when the City could hire an in-house City Attorney. Nine in ten residents surveyed last year felt
safe in Edmonds and want safety to be a top priority in the coming years. He believed this agreement
would jeopardize their safety; two fewer firefighters and EMTs on duty means less people to respond to
emergencies He asked that the Council wait and find a different way to fund fire costs, put a fire/EMS
levy forward if necessary and not make these cuts to these vital services, prioritize saving lives over
saving money.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling recognized the hours Mr. Taraday and Finance Director Scott James spent on the
Agreement, commented it had been a pleasure to work with them. He was provided several briefings and
had an opportunity for input but the work they did and the cooperation from the FD1 lawyer, while heated
sometimes, resulted in a very positive outcome. Mr. Taraday commented they learned a lot.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
7. STUDY ITEMS
1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP)
Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained this is the continuation of the SMP update. The City Council sent
proposed alternatives to Ecology in October 2016 and January 10, 2017, Ecology responded to Edmonds.
Ecology representatives, David Pater and Joe Burcar, are here to present their response.
Joe Burcar, SEA Section Manager, NW Regional Office, Department of Ecology, reviewed:
■ Chronology
o June 27, 2016 Ecology issued conditional approval with several required changes and one
recommended change.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 7
Packet Pg. 195
8.1.e
o October 19, 2016 City responded to Ecology's SMP changes and provided alternatives for
Edmonds Marsh buffers
o January 10, 2017 Ecology responded to the City's Edmonds Marsh buffer alternatives
o In consultation with director, Ecology issued final response to evaluation of City's SMP
• SMP Update Principles
o The Comprehensive SMP update provides many improvements
o Edmonds and Ecology are in agreement on most of the SMP — we are very close to being
finished
o We all share a common goal of protection and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh
• Intent of Ecology's letter
o Thoughtfully consider the City's October 2016 response
o Formally accept the City's alternatives for Items 1-6
o Identify necessary clarifications to buffer provisions applicable to Edmonds Marsh
• Marsh buffer clarifications
o Recognizes I I0-foot wetland buffer + 15-foot setback
o Clarify mitigation responsibilities at the time of redevelopment to be informed by a site -
specific study
o Identify review process and criteria to determine appropriate buffer width
• Clarification Options
o Option A:
■ Adds a reference to the City's CAO (23.40.220.C.4);
• Requires a scientific study demonstrating functional isolation from critical area;
■ Would allow alternatives buffer to be established based on site specific conditions
o Option B
■ Establishes criteria to allow for a site -specific assessment to determine buffer widths;
• Requires demonstration of lift to eco-functions
■ Limits buffer reduction to no less than of 50 feet
Mr. Burcar explained under both options, the default would be a 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback. If
those provisions were built into the SMP, a development proposal would need to go through a conditional
use permit (CUP) process which is reviewed locally by the City and by Ecology to consider any reduction
in the buffer. A CUP has addition criteria under the Washington Administrative Code regarding
consistency with the Shoreline Act, with the green principles, and with accumulative impacts and would
bring Ecology's into the review process.
Councilmember Nelson thanked Ecology for agreeing that the default would be a 110-foot buffer plus 15-
foot setback. He asked about the wetland scientist's role in the site -specific review; does the scientist look
at a report, go on site, etc. David Pater, Shoreline Planner, Department of Ecology, answered given the
magnitude of the Edmonds Marsh and its importance to the City, it would include site visits in addition to
reviewing reports. Site visits would be one of the most important aspects of the site -specific study.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled at one time the City had an interim designation for the Urban Mixed
Use (UMU) W. She suggested the Council move the rest of the SMP forward and allow time to work on
the UMU IV. Mr. Pater answered the options Ecology suggested get at that issue in a more scientific
study way. Public comment seemed supportive of a rigorous scientific study with certain boundaries. It
gets the Council to the same place because it allows studies to assist in determining what will work best.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the City would still do the studies; her proposal was to proceed with the
SMP and designate the UMU IV area as interim so the City would have an approved SMP, making it
eligible for grants, and continuing to work on the UMU IV buffers and site specific report. She pointed
out it will take a while to get a site -specific report done. Mr. Pater agreed the site -specific report is an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 8
Packet Pg. 196
8.1.e
important piece of the puzzle. With regard to grants, there are statements in the SMP regarding a
standalone restoration project if the opportunity arises. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City is
currently under the existing 2000 SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified her goal was to update the SMP to 2016 or 2017 and allow time to
get the site -specific reports done to get the two questions answered. Mr. Burcar explained Ecology's
policy with comprehensive updates has been to ensure they are comprehensive and look at all elements of
the update. He clarified the site -specific study is intended to be the developer's responsibility/obligation
at the time of development. It is not the City's interim responsibility to do the site -specific study. The
site -specific study is intended to react and assess how the redevelopment proposal affects the marsh and
opportunities to build in the necessary protections at the time of development; it is a project -related study
not a planning study.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there are no plans for redevelopment at this time. She referred to
Everett's interim designation due to a lawsuit. The City doesn't have a lawsuit but has the issue of
clarifying this area. An interim designation was suggested at the beginning of this process to give the City
time to get the information completed and still have an updated SMP. Mr. Pater answered doing what
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested would require unwinding the process a little as the interim
designation was one of conditional changes. He was hopeful the Council would move forward with these
two options. Councilmember Buckshnis said her goal was to get something approved and allow time to
continue work. Mr. Pater said Everett's interim was fairly unique due to the lawsuit, a specific area and
the creation of a subarea plan for the marshlands area which they eventually received a State grant for.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her concerns including the buffer setback definition in the SMP that
has the buffer and setback starting at the same point of origin and Ecology does not have that. She asked
whether a scientist would keep the II0-foot buffer and 15-foot setback separated and assumed the
scientist would look at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Mr. Pater answered the 15-foot setback
does not change, the potential change is to the size of the buffer with a specific study. Ecology is open to
possible hybrids of the options. Ecology internally believes they start at the wetland edge. Edmonds
Marsh is complicated because of the combination of a salt and freshwater marsh. The berms make things
simpler because it is a more uniform line compared to the other, more natural side of the marsh.
Councilmember Teitzel reiterate Mr. Burcar's statement, that everyone is in support of restoring and
preserving the marsh including the Council, Port, citizens and Ecology, the question is the practical reality
of how to get there. He pointed out if the Council ultimately settles on a 125-foot setback that corporates a
110-foot buffer, that boundary would bisect three major building at Harbor Square including the Harbor
Square Athletic Club. Creating that buffer/setback combination would require destruction of those
buildings to create a natural buffer or they would remain non -conforming into the foreseeable future. That
would not be the case with a 65-foot setback which would miss those buildings, allowing it to be
implemented.
Recognizing the Port is operating in the UMU IV zone as a contract rezone with a 25-foot setback/open
space, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the 25-foot setback would remain for an undetermined
period of time absent any redevelopment activity. Mr. Taraday said the City Council always has the right
to rezone a contracted rezone area. Absent redevelopment, all of this is irrelevant; the buffers are only
relevant in the context of redevelopment. Councilmember Teitzel summarized as long as the contract
rezone remains in effect, the setback will be 25-feet. A 125-foot setback is a strong disincentive for the
Port to do anything other than maintaining the Harbor Square area as it currently exists. In that case,
everyone loses, the City, the environment, and the marsh losses the opportunity to create a buffer that
essential triples the existing buffer. He was hopeful the Council to work through this to reach something
that creates a practical and real buffer increase for the benefit of the marsh and the City.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 9
Packet Pg. 197
8.1.e
Councilmember Teitzel observed in Option B, the site -specific study shall use existing conditions as the
baseline for assessing potential benefit of restoring the buffer including stormwater treatment. He asked if
that would be existing conditions at the time the letter was written or existing conditions at the time a
redevelopment plan is submitted. Mr. Burcar answered redevelopment.
Councilmember Teitzel asked whether Ecology would be involved in approving who was selected to
perform the site -specific study to avoid conflicting studies. Mr. Burcar answered Ecology puts more
emphasis on making sure the criteria is clear. Ecology would defer to staff and the City attorney with
regard to the process of influencing who the consultant is. Most jurisdictions have a list of qualified
consultants; the emphasis would be more on the work product.
Councilmember Teitzel asked what Ecology expects of the Council by March 30, 2017. Clearly it is a
dilemma; the City cannot present a site -specific study until a redevelopment plan is submitted. Mr. Burcar
answered in a perfect world if the Council reached agreement on one of the options or a hybrid option, the
City only needs to submit a response to Ecology. Ecology is not looking for the site -specific study but
authorization for the sites -specific study to be included in the alterative for the 110-foot buffer plus 15-
foot setback.
Council President Mesaros commented there is a lot of wisdom in the two options, they get to the heart of
the matter and he anticipated the Council could reach agreement. He did not agree with Councilmember
Buckshnis about separating out the UMU IV zone and having an interim designation. He preferred to
consider the options and provide Ecology a response by March 30 and approve the entire SMP. He
initially liked Option B best because it limits the reduction to 50 feet plus the 15-foot setback. Option A
would allow a determination that was smaller than 65 feet. He liked the flexibility the options provide
especially around the Harbor Square area due to the existing building and it provides incentive to the Port
for redevelopment. He emphasized without redevelopment, the 25-foot buffer remains and the marsh
deserves more than a 25-foot buffer.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was looking for the practicality of the options. He agreed with Council
President Mesaros about Option B. Either option presents a lot of possibility for thought and if
redevelopment were proposed, there would be a significant number of steps to determine what would be
allowed. He asked whether Ecology had seen a 125-foot buffer/setback result in improvement of the
environmental situation around a wetland like the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Burcar answered the concept
incentivizes improvements that are driven by redevelopment. He has seen examples around Lake
Washington where jurisdictions have included provisions to request bulkhead removal or vegetation
enhancement on shorelines in exchange for flexibility on redevelopment. That has helped reestablish
areas lost historically to development. It is a proven concept in many jurisdictions.
Councilmember Tibbott asked for clarification, the City could establish a 125-foot buffer/setback but a
development plan could show with development the environment could be improved with a 65-foot
buffer/setback. Mr. Pater answered possibly. The scientific study will provide answers regarding what
will work, how it will protect the marsh, how will it improve habitat. The Edmonds Marsh has a unique
setup; the berm is not going away and development will need to work around the berm which is not
natural. Any study will need to look at the long term impact on the buffer; the berm will invariably impact
some buffer function.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about incentives for redevelopment and asked whether these types of
options were an incentive for development in a highly -developed area. Mr. Pater commented he and Mr.
Burcar are planners. Councilmember Tibbott asked staff if they were aware of development that had
occurred with this baseline guidance. Mr. Lien answered he was not aware of any specific proposals that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 10
Packet Pg. 198
8.1.e
had been developed with a standard buffer that could be reduced with a site -specific study.
Councilmember Tibbott said that was essential his concern. He appreciated the amount of study and
collaboration that went into this proposal and he was inclined to support it and let the chips fall where
they may. He was looking for what would be practical and usable and reduce the fog; this proposal does
not reduce the fog but rather makes it foggier until a date in the future when it either goes to court or
scientific research is done.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented clearly Councilmember have separate opinions and there is
still a majority and minority on the Council and she hated to put Ecology in the middle. She agreed with
Councilmember Buckshnis, splitting the UMU IV off and moving forward with the rest of the SMP. The
UMU IV is a small issue within the SMP and the Council could move forward more quickly if that
portion were split out. She asked if stormwater was the only water quality issue that would improve
marsh. Mr. Pater answered his understanding from the studies that have been done is that untreated
stormwater is a big problem.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if stormwater was the only problem. Mr. Pater answered probably
not, there could be some habitat value from reestablishing the buffer and over time having mature trees on
both sites. From what he's heard, stormwater is a big problem. Mr. Burcar said stormwater water quality
and quantity are issues, regulating the flows would also be helpful. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
observed there were other things that could assist the marsh. Mr. Burcar agreed there likely are; deferring
to the site -specific study, part of the scope would be to look for those opportunities, what functions could
be improved.
If the Council adopts a125 buffer/setback, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if anything stopped the
Port from redeveloping their property. Mr. Burcar said that may be a better question for the Port. The
issue laid out in Ecology's letter with the 125-foot buffer was it would require revegetation of the entire
110-foot buffer in response to any type of redevelopment which Ecology felt went the beyond
compensatory mitigation obligation under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in terms of ensuring the
impacts associated with redevelopment are adequately mitigated.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Port currently has two large buildings with 30-40 year
leases on the south end of their property. If the Council continued with the 125-foot buffer, nothing would
prohibit the Council from developing the north portion of the property. Mr. Pater said the entire site in
theory could be redeveloped. He has heard that the health club would possibly remain as a part of new
development as an amenity to a mixed -use development. The buildings could continue as they exist but
could not expand to encroach further into the marsh. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the
type of development may need to change.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the environment over the years has already lost to
development. She remembered when the marsh extended to Dayton and has seen pictures of it all the way
through the Safeway property. The marsh has shrunk over time due to development. She liked Option A
but asked if it changed the legal opinion. Mr. Taraday answered no, he disagreed with some of Ecology's
analysis. The missing piece is an assumption is being made by Ecology that new development could
occur on the marsh that would not trigger the no net loss standard and that it could be done in a buffer of
less than 110 feet, yet there is no science to prove that. The standard is no net loss; neither Option A or B
rely on the no net loss standard. The question is to what extent can the property be redeveloped and not
have a net loss. If scientists say it can be done with a 50-foot buffer, great, but that science does not
currently exist.
Mr. Taraday explained Ecology is proposing a default buffer of 110 feet; if Option A were converted to
say if scientists can show there can be no net loss with less than a I I0-foot buffer, that would be more
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 11
Packet Pg. 199
8.1.e
consistent with the SMA than referencing the CAO that has nothing to do with the SMA. For example, a
tennis court may have a very different impact on the marsh than a 3-story residential structure. While it is
true the tennis court footprint already exists, that does not mean a 3-story building on that same footprint
results in no net loss of habitat. He was disappointed in the analysis that has been done so far. Some
flexibility could be built in so that when a development plan is proposed in the future, consideration is
given to how close the development can get to the marsh and still have no net loss. There is no way to
know that now which was why he was not sure an interim designation would help because that answer
would not be provided until there was a development proposal.
Mr. Burcar pointed out the footnote in Option B references no net loss. Mr. Taraday explained the
standard he saw was the developer would have to demonstrate lift. Lift is the inverse of no net loss,
putting the burden on the people interesting in preserving the marsh to demonstrate that it would improve.
Mr. Burcar said these were suggestions for discussion. Mr. Pater reminded of the role of onsite mitigation
when redevelopment is proposed. Depending on the proposal, the purpose of mitigation is to at a
minimum bring it back to no net loss. For example, if there were a proposal to build a 10-story building
on the wetland edge and keep the buffer, that would degrade the condition of the marsh. The site -specific
study would determine how to mitigate impacts from development to achieve no net loss, depending on
the study and the willingness of the property owner go beyond no net loss. He agreed it was foggy until
development is proposed and a study is done.
Mr. Taraday said it's possible a scientist could say a I I0-foot revegetated buffer is needed just to mitigate
the impact of a new development. Mr. Pater agreed, pointing out it was also a possibility the scientist
could say 50 feet was also adequate. That is the reason for the two options, one with reference to the CAO
and the other referencing the conditional change. He summarized there are a lot of unknowns because the
type of redevelopment that will occur is unknown.
Councilmember Nelson commented the Council is hearing a lot of doom and gloom. As the author of the
amendment to the CAO which is partially providing the option for a site -specific scientific study, the
intent is for the science to speak for itself. Instead of one -size -fits -all generic buffers, the goal is to have a
scientist determine what buffer makes the most sense. It is important to look to the science and where that
science leads within these parameters whether it is up to 110 feet or as low as 50 feet. As far as this
approach being common or not, having site -specific scientific studies has been included in other
jurisdictions' SMPs. Mr. Burcar agreed it is very common. Mr. Pater said it is a more detailed approach to
mitigation requirements in the SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this is all just speculation. She relayed the citizens and the Bothell City
Council spent $11 million for a golf course that Forterra bought and plan to turn it into a natural area and
WRIA 8 provided some funding. The Port's Master Plan does not include moving the tennis courts or the
hotel, only the building housing the breweries, Blue Collar and the accountant. She anticipated
redevelopment would not happen for a while because the Port just made a lot of improvements to Harbor
Square. She cited projects that WRIA 8 has funded including the removal of mobile home parks to allow
free flowing water. Many cities have supported their environments using BAS to ensure its preservation
for future generations. She recommended the Council only consider Option A.
Council President Mesaros said Option A would allow for even a 10-foot buffer if the science supported
it. Mr. Burcar agreed there is no required dimension. Council President Mesaros said Option B does not
allow the buffer to be below 50 feet and would be more restrictive in protecting the marsh. Mr. Burcar
said the intent with Option A was a lot of jurisdictions want consistent provisions in the CAO and the
SMP because development often deals with both.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 12
Packet Pg. 200
8.1.e
Council President Mesaros asked about the process for Council to provide a response to Ecology by
March 30, 2017. Mr. Lien said he was looking for Council reaction. Staff could prepare a third alternative
that combines Option A and B for consideration at the February 7 or 14 Council meeting.
2. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR JOINT
FUNDING OF THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is the latest iteration of the agreement with
Lynnwood that has been in place for a long time; Steve Fisher has been the City's Solid Waste/Recycling
Coordinator for the past 20 years. The proposed Interlocal Agreement extends that for the next biennium.
The funding remains the same with grants that Edmonds and Lynnwood receive. The difference between
the total cost and the grants is paid by the Water Utility as Mr. Fisher works on water conservation.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled a few years ago the Council passed a motion to have all City -
owned building participate in recycling. It was her understanding that was not happening in all City -
owned buildings. Mr. Williams recalled the motion included the ability for facilities staff to use up
materials. When the City contracts with building tenants, they are encouraged to use appropriate
recyclable or made from recycled materials products. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the
Recycling Coordinator observe buildings, noting there is a major building owned by the City that does not
recycle. Mr. Williams offered to meet with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Fisher and facilities
staff. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested providing training and resources to tenants .
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled an effort to co -locate recycling containers downtown. Mr.
Williams recalled the conversation but did not recall any action. Council President Mesaros said there are
some recycling containers downtown. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said garbage cans should be co -
located with recycling containers. Mr. Williams offered to research but did not recall any specific action
or a funding source to provide publicly owned recycling containers. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
recalled there was a big push since she has been on the Council to have recycling containers co -located
with garbage containers.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN LYNNWOOD AND EDMONDS TO JOINTLY FUND THE RECYCLING
COORDINATOR POSITION AND IMPLEMENT THEIR RESPECTIVE WASTE PREVENTION
AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS, STARTING IN 2017 AND CONTINUING THROUGH JUNE OF
2019. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. PRESENTATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE
BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE 2018 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
City Engineer Rob English explained in November 2016 the City issued a Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) to hire a consultant to provide design engineering services for the 2018 and 2019 Waterline
Replacement Projects. The City received responses from nine engineering firms and the selection
committee selected Blueline based on their qualifications and experience. The proposed professional
services agreement is for preliminary design and conceptual layout for 12 sites, approximately 11,000
lineal feet of pipeline replacement. From that, final design will be done on approximately 5,000 — 6,000
feet depending on the sites which is included in the scope of work. The scope of work includes related
tasks such as geotechnical investigation, bid assistance and construction support. The total contract
amount is $361,300 which includes a management reserve of $32,800 for unforeseen conditions and
changes. The fee related to design services will be paid by the Water Utility Fund. Staff will return to
Council next year to amend the contract to complete final design for the remaining sites.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 13
Packet Pg. 201
8.1.f
pathogens as well as AED training. Staff is talking with Fire District 1 about servicing the AEDs and
possibly getting more. Councilmember Nelson recognized there are some AEDs in the City but the
problem is no one uses them.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on next week's Consent Agenda.
2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Mayor Earling advised Council President Mesaros and he agreed the presentation and discussion would
be held to the scheduled 30 minutes as further discussion is scheduled on a future meeting agenda.
Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Ecology proposed options
o Option A
Add a refence to the City's CAO 23.40.20C.4)
■ Requires a scientific study demonstrating functional isolation from critical area;
■ Would allow alternative buffer to be established based on site specific conditions
= Minimum buffer width undefined
o Option B
• Established criteria to allow for a site specific assessment to determine buffer widths'
• Require demonstration of lift to eco-functions
• Limits buffer reduction to no less than 50 ft.
• Staff -developed Option C
o Combines elements of Ecology's Options A & B
o Keeps Council 125/110 buffer as default
o Alternate buffer may be approved through a shoreline conditional use permit process
■ Alternative buffer cannot be less than 50 fee
o Criteria from interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis
o Site specific analysis shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential
wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions.
• Option C and No Net Loss Criteria
o WAC 173-25-201(2)(e) ...does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to
assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions...
o Site specific study may result in smaller buffer or lager buffer depending on the impact of a
proposed development to achieve no net loss
• Next Steps
o Scheduled on Council Extended Agenda on February 21 and March 7
o Response to Ecology by March 30, 2017
Council President Mesaros asked how Option C differed from Options A and B and whether the criteria
for interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis was the key difference. Mr. Lien explained
the interrupted buffer provision does not have a minimum buffer requirement. The criteria from the
interrupted buffer is used but also establishes a minimum buffer, it cannot be less than 50 feet and that 50
feet would have a 15-foot building setback. Council President Mesaros said that is also in Option B. Mr.
Lien agreed that was also in Option B; 50 feet is what Ecology included in their required change. Option
B has a range of 125 to 65 or 110 to 50 feet.
Council President Mesaros referred to public comments regarding the SMP; Ms. Petso stated the buffer
cannot be reduced by State law; either she is correct or the City is correct, but the Council needs to
determine who's correct and move forward with confidence. Mr. Shaw recommended having an unbiased
study; Council President Mesaros hoped all the studies the City requires are unbiased and if there is
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2017
Page 7
Packet Pg. 202
8.1.f
evidence that biased studies are being done, that should be stopped. The third comment was from Ms.
Bloom regarding development and potential contradictions between the CAO and the SMP. With regard
to Ms. Bloom's comments regarding liquefaction and allowed activities, Mr. Lien explained allowed
activity in the CAO context basically means a critical areas report is not required, it is something that is
allowed outright. In the section Ms. Bloom referenced, 23.80.040 states the following activities are
allowed in geologically hazardous areas and do not require submission of critical areas report; that is
related to an allowed activity in the CAO. Exempting that section from the SMP means a study will
automatically be required and the use is not allowed outright.
With regard to independent studies, Mr. Lien explained typically the developer pays for the studies
because they are proposing the development. The City can have those studies peer reviewed and has done
that for some areas. The City can also do a third -party contract whereby the City selects the consultant
and the developers pays for it. He assured the City was not doing biased studies. With regard to Dr.
Senderoffls comment regarding adding language to the criteria related to light and noise, Mr. Lien said
that is already captured in the existing and potential wildlife habitat and the pre and post development
condition; light, noise, etc. are types of activities that impact habitat and species.
Councilmember Tibbott asked to what extent the CAO informs the SMP and to what extent do the
regulations overlap in the shoreline. Mr. Lien responded that is a difficult question to answer. The critical
area regulations are an outgrowth of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the SMP is from the
Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the two do not necessarily work together. The City's SMP
adopted large sections of the critical areas regulation, those that apply in shoreline areas and excepted
certain some things out such as allowed activities in geologically hazardous area. With regard to buffers
and setbacks in the UMUIV environment, the buffers and setback that are being established by the
Council now or via a future site specific study will rule in the UMUIV environment versus the wetland
buffers established in the CAO. What is established here will rule in the UMUIV environment but for
geologically hazardous areas, streams, etc. in shorelines, those regulations apply. If there are other
wetlands along the shorelines, the critical area regulations apply. He summarized it was a complex
relationship. Whatever the Council establishes for the buffers and setbacks will apply in the UMUIV
environment.
Councilmember Tibbott was glad to hear there were very specific guidelines for SMP areas. The City is
on the verge of making a commitment to establish a 125-foot buffer around the marsh which in effect is a
seizure of property from the property owners. Some of property owners do not care such as BNSF; other
owners do care and they are significant stakeholder in how the marsh is managed. For that reason it was
very important be clear when a site specific study is done in the future that it can be measured against
something very specific. Because the City is asking property owners to surrender a portion of their
property for an extended buffer, the City also needs to be clear about the activities they can use to recoup
their costs as well as pay for vegetation of the property. In order to recoup the costs, there need to be
opportunities such as more taxation or grants to fund revegetation or the possibility of commercial
development.
(Councilmember Johnson discontinued her participation by phone.)
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the interrupted buffer in Option A and C, commenting since
stormwater from Harbor Square runs off into the marsh today in at least two places, how can the buffer
between the marsh and Harbor Square be considered interrupted. There seems to be a functional
connection between the two by virtue of stormwater running directly from the parking lot into the marsh
through the levy. Mr. Lien answered that may be the case. Whether there is an interrupted buffer would
be determined by a qualified professional. There are some physical connections between the Harbor
Square property and the marsh with stormwater pipes. Ecology was looking at the dike between the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2017
Page 8
Packet Pg. 203
8.1.f
Harbor Square property and the marsh and the sheet flow. Due to the stormwater pipes, it may not meet
the interrupted buffer requirement but that would be determined by the study.
Councilmember Teitzel appreciated the work done to develop Option C and felt it made sense; to consider
the full range of options and have a site specific study done. He posed a hypothetical: a site specific study
is done when redevelopment is proposed. Based on the conditions on the ground and BAS, the study
determines the number should be 75 feet. He personally liked the concept of incentive based zoning
where the developer is provided achievable goals such as rooftop raingarden in exchange for some
reduction in the buffer. In his hypothetical example where the study determined the buffer should be 75
feet, he asked whether the City could require a buffer of 90 or 100 feet and provide reasonable achievable
incentives for the developer to reduce the buffer to 75 feet. Mr. Lien answered the criteria to focus on is
no net loss, what development is proposed and the type of mitigation required to achieve no net loss. In
Option C, no net loss is the requirement that must be met, not incentives for development to reduce the
buffer but the buffer for a specific type of development, given the criteria and what mitigation is required
to achieve that no net loss requirement.
Councilmember Teitzel suggested the site specific study using BAS and considering all the factors on the
ground found 75 feet satisfied no net loss. He asked if there was anything that prevented the City from
requiring 90 feet and to provide incentives to the developer to reduce it to 75 feet. City Attorney Jeff
Taraday answered that is a complex question; it gets to the fundamental question of whether the City can
only regulate to the extent of no net loss which is a point of contention between he and Ecology. A clear
answer could not be provided to Councilmember Teitzel's question because there is a dispute regarding
that question. Ms. Hope said the other challenge would be having the study done and then changing the
rules which would be difficult from a regulatory point of view.
Councilmember Nelson asked about the property owners, relaying to his knowledge there was Chevon,
BNSF, WSDOT and the Port. Mr. Lien agreed although WSDOT is not yet a property owner.
Councilmember Nelson relayed his understanding that typically the developer does the site specific study
but they are sometimes peer reviewed and there can be a third party contract where the City selects the
contractor. He asked who makes the selection. Mr. Lien answered in peer review, if there are questions
with a study's findings, it can be send to another qualified professional for review. With a third party
contract, the City selects the consultant and the developer pays for it. Sometimes the director is involved
or the City already has professionals on the Small Work Roster.
Councilmember Nelson asked about Ecology's role in the site specific process. Mr. Lien answered in all
three options, an alternative buffer is allowed with a Shoreline CUP. In that process, the City's Hearing
Examiner approves or denies the permit. For a shoreline CUP or variance permit, Ecology has the final
say; the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to Ecology.
Councilmember Teitzel observed a site specific study would be done at the time a redevelopment plan
was proposed, not before. Mr. Lien said in order to assess no net loss, there needs to be a development
proposal to analyze the post development conditions. Harbor Square and the Unocal property are both
master planned development sites; a master plan could be done through the master planning process or via
a planned action SEPA. A site specific study could be done at the planning process stage, not a specific
development proposal, because the zoning would need to be changed, the master plan prepared but the
shoreline CUP and the site specific study would be done on the proposed development or the planned
action SEPA. As long as the proposal meets what is described in the planned action, it could proceed. Ms.
Hope said conceptually at that stage the design and general configuration and uses are known but not the
design detail.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2017
Nee 9
Packet Pg. 204
8.1.f
Councilmember Teitzel recalled hearing during public comment a suggestion to do studies to determine
habitat and declining bird species in the marsh. He asked what a study done now would look like, who
would pay for it and whether it should be done now in the context of the SMP. Ms. Hope answered any
study that would be done now would be paid for by the City as there is no nexus to make someone else
pay for a study not associated with a proposed development. A study done now would also not be able to
assess the impacts and mitigation options absent a development proposal. Councilmember Teitzel
observed if a study was done now and a development proposal was made in three years, there would be a
large gap in time. He asked how that would consider pre and post development conditions. Ms. Hope
agreed that would be problematic.
Council President Mesaros asked Mr. Taraday to comment on Ms. Petso's statement that the Council
cannot legally reduce the size of the buffer. Mr. Taraday answered he would rather not comment on it
publicly. He suspected this matter will end up in litigation regardless of what happens so it was more
appropriate to discuss risks of possible actions in executive session as matter of potential litigation.
If a study was done before a development plan, Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would be in the
Port's best interest not to do any improvements such as let non-native vegetation take over and leave the
property the way it is until a pre -study is needed. He envisioned any improvement done on that side of the
marsh would ultimately count against the Port at the time of development. Ms. Hope said there were
probably pros and cons. While one could say over the last many years things have deteriorated in certain
areas near the marsh, the information needed is the measure relate to no net loss and what does the
scientific information reveals. The area is maintained reasonably well; stormwater is a continuing issue.
Meanwhile there are other improvements planned for the marsh that will help improve the quality
regardless. Even though there may be some good points about having a study done now, there are also
disincentives for doing it now without knowing the potential project.
Councilmember Tibbott commented deferring improvements would be advantageous for future
developers. Ms. Hope answered maybe, maybe not. Maybe not because what else might occur there to
improve condition from the existing conditions is unknown. Councilmember Tibbott envisioned it would
be a disincentive to improve the area around the marsh in light of a future site specific study. Ms. Hope
answered it could be but it was not guaranteed to be an incentive or disincentive.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
3. CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT AND POTENTIAL COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
(Councilmember Johnson resumed her participation by phone.)
Council President Mesaros explained this is a follow-up to discussion at the retreat where the Council
considered reinstating Council committees. He referred to information in the Council packet, advising
Legislative/Council Assistant Andrew Pierce, City Attorney Jeff Taraday, City Clerk Scott Passey and he
met to discuss the format. The first issue is reaffirming the committees; three are proposed, 1) Finance, 2)
Parks, Planning & Public Works, and 3) Public Safety & Personnel. He referred to a draft description of
each committee in the Council packet and suggested if the Council agreed with those three committees,
each committee could review the draft description and bring it back to Council for final review and
approval. Another options would be for the Council to approve the description and the committees could
suggest amendments if necessary.
Council President Mesaros explained the second issue is how often the committees will meet and the
format. He referred to an email from staff with suggestions/ideas, explaining originally, committees met
on the second Tuesday of the month. The downside of that option is meeting once a month can cause
delays for staff. An option to address that includes not having committees review items if time does not
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2017
Paize 10
Packet Pg. 205
8.1.g
• Condition 5 — Monetary Compensation
o Westgate has submitted a check for $92,610 which is one-half of the appraised value of the
area to be vacated
• Condition 6 & 7 - Fire Safety
o Acknowledge fire access easement if necessary with future development
o Acknowledge rotating of fire hydrant if the vacated 92nd Ave becomes unusable, blocked or
removed thereby denying emergency access
o Westgate Chapel has acknowledged both of these conditions
• Conditions of Resolution of Intent No. 1375 have been met
• Draft ordinance in agenda packet to complete the vacation
o Staff recommends Council approval of the ordinance
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4061, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, VACATING THAT PORTION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF
228TH STREET SOUTHWEST AS SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT NO. 1375.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to a citizen comment expressing concern with the required compensation
when vacating the property to the church is beneficial to the public. He asked why the City was requiring
compensation to vacate the property, how the amount was determined and if there was precedent for
charging for vacations such as this. Mr. Lien answered the City's vacation ordinance allows the City to
seek monetary compensation of up to half the assessed value; the State ordinance allows the City to seek
full compensation. During the public hearing or adoption of the resolution of intent, he recalled City
Attorney Jeff Taraday stating the monetary compensation was one the aspects that made the vacation in
the public interest. He displayed how the monetary compensation was determined:
• Appraisal based on multi -family as a highest and best use
o Pre -vacation
■ 171,191 square feet
■ 114 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone)
■ Appraised value of $2,166,000
o Post Vacation
■ 191,514 square feet
■ 127 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone)
■ Appraised Value $2,355,000
o Difference in appraised value of $189,000
0 2281h Street alignment adjustment reduced compensation to $92,000
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, TEITZEL, NELSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
3. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Mayor Earling advised Council discussion would be limited to 30 minutes.
Senior Planner Kernen Lien advised Council has seen three options, two options proposed by Ecology
and one prepared by staff. Staff is not seeking a decision tonight, just discussion regarding potential
options and an opportunity to respond to Council questions.
Councilmember Johnson commented the main problem with the three options presented to Council is
they are based on a static analysis, a scientific analysis at a given point in time and do not included the
longer range planned improvements for the Edmonds Marsh. It excludes daylighting of Willow Creek,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 21, 2017
Page 19
Packet Pg. 206
8.1.g
removal of the tide gate, dredging of a new stream channel, Marina Beach and removal of sediment from
the culvert under SR-104. To be useful, any analysis must include a projection of planned improvement
for Edmonds Marsh. Option A is based in part on the interrupted buffer concept found in the COA, an
exception that was created to allow for the spray pad in City Park for an area that was physically
separated and functionally isolated, later called an interrupted buffer. Harbor Square does not fit that
categorization. There also appears to be confusion about where the buffer begins. Staff has said for
planning purposes, the edge of the manmade berm serves that purpose; however, the State statue refers to
high water mark at the edge of the salt tolerant plants which may change over time. It is imperative there
be undisputed agreement regarding where the buffer begins to avoid problems in the future.
Councilmember Johnson supported having the City Council included in the final determination. The Port
has adopted a Harbor Square Master Plan that is inconsistent with the contract rezone and focuses on a
disallowed use and heights that are above what is allowed. She questioned why the City Council and
Ecology would want a smaller buffer when it is the edges where wildlife live, build nests, find safety and
rear their young. She did not support Options A, B or C. The City Council said they wanted a 110 foot
buffer and a 15 foot setback and that should be what the Council stands on.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that if the Council moved forward with the 125-foot
buffer/setback, there was no obligation to revegetate the buffer until redevelopment of properties
associated with the marsh occurred. He asked what redevelopment plan would trigger the railroad to
revegetate the buffer on the west side. Mr. Lien displayed an aerial photograph illustrating the shoreline
environments around the marsh. The buffers and setbacks the Council has been discussing apply to the
Urban Mixed Use (UMU) IV shoreline environment located on the south and north sides of the marsh and
the Willow Creek outlet. Along the City's shoreline there is a parallel shoreline designation for the
railroad right-of-way; the railroad right-of-way has its own designation and is not in UMU IV. The
opposite side of the railroad is UMU II Shoreline Conservancy follows the Willow Creek outlet and the
marsh itself is a Natural Shoreline environment. With regard to when the buffer would be established in
the UMU IV environments, in all three options as well as the I I0-foot buffer and 15-foot setback require
establishment of the buffer with redevelopment. In this area it will be via a master planning process
because the south side of the marsh is an MP2 zone which requires it be developed with a master plan
which requires Council review and approval. Any redevelopment of Harbor Square also requires a master
plan process.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding there was no obligation to revegetate the buffer on the
south or north sides unless there was a master plan process. Mr. Lien clarified redevelopment would
trigger revegetation of the buffer. The version that the Council sent to Ecology previously said the buffer
has to be established via implementation of the master plan. It could also be voluntarily established by the
property owners outside a master plan project. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the City would work with
an entity that wanted to voluntarily revegetate the buffer. Mr. Lien answered yes. Councilmember Tibbott
summarized the City would work with a property owner who wanted to voluntarily establish the buffer;
but there was no obligation otherwise. Mr. Lien said the buffer was only required to be revegetated via
implementation of a master plan associated with redevelopment.
Councilmember Tibbott asked what would trigger revegetation of the buff on the railroad side. Mr. Lien
said there is no requirement in the SMP to establish a vegetated buffer on the railroad side. He found it
highly unlikely and was uncertain a vegetated buffer could be establish since he had never even seen a
weed growing along the railroad track. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was a trigger to revegetate
the buffer on the east side of the marsh where the highway exists. Mr. Lien explained when the marsh was
determined to be a shoreline of state, consideration was given to what portions of the marsh were salt
tolerant or tidal influenced. He displayed aerials of the marsh from 1870 to 1964, explaining when the
marsh was designated a shoreline of the state which widened the shoreline jurisdiction, consideration was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 21, 2017
Page 20
Packet Pg. 207
8.1.g
given to the extent of the salt marsh boundary. He referred to the line that identified the extent of the salt
marsh boundary in a survey of the marsh done by WSDOT in 2008 during planning for the Edmonds
Crossing project. For planning purposes the boundary was established at the 2006 level that is
approximately the same as the marsh survey. The shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet landward of the
OHWM. Only the western portion of the marsh is a shoreline of the state and the shoreline jurisdictions
extends 200 feet beyond that. The rest of the marsh is called an associated wetland. The marsh itself is
within shoreline jurisdiction but shoreline jurisdiction does not extend 200 feet beyond the marsh; it ends
at the marsh boundary. Development beyond the marsh is subject to critical area regulations and not the
SMP. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the SMP rules; outside shoreline jurisdiction, the CAO rules.
Councilmember Tibbott asked for example if inside the 200 foot jurisdiction a business in Harbor Square
wanted to add a grain tower, would any mitigation would be required assuming it was outside the buffer.
Mr. Lien answered given the constraints of Harbor Square's contract rezone, nothing else can be added.
To do anything else will require rezoning the property and a master planning process. What exists at
Harbor Square now is the extent of what can exist given the contract rezone. Councilmember Tibbott
asked about a shade shelter over an existing paved area. Mr. Lien answered the contract rezone and the
EIS for the contract rezone evaluated a specific square footage. Development at Harbor Square is already
slightly over that square footage so nothing can be added.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the new Ecology wetland guidelines address no net loss. David
Pater, Ecology, answered yes, that was one of the big differences. Mr. Lien said the wetland guidelines
are CAO guidance from Ecology. Critical area regulations are under the Growth Management Act and
neither include no net loss criteria and instead have BAS criteria. Whereas the SMA and the SMP criteria
includes no net loss, it is a different regulatory regime. Mr. Pater said there is some language in the SMP
about equivalency between the two.
Councilmember Buckshnis commended Councilmember Johnson for her comments. She agreed with Mr.
Scordino's comments about Option D. She cited some of the myriad questions the Council has received
from the public:
• The Council adopted the SMP and now Ecology is making the Council reexamine it. According
to WAC, Ecology is required to accept or reject it. Is Ecology requiring the Council to reopen the
SMP and establish new options illegal?
• Where is the OHWM? Staff states it is where the marsh begins. Fish/wildlife biologists do not
believe that is the edge. Need to have a definition of OHWM in the SMP. Mr. Lien said the
definition of OHWM in the SMP is the same definition as exists in the SMA. Councilmember
Buckshnis responded some people do not believe the OHWM is at the edge of the marsh
• Ensure setback and buffer are defined properly and that there is a buffer and a setback and not a
buffer/setback.
• The Council should be involved in the development process and the scientific specific study
should include daylighting of Willow Creek.
Mr. Pater said he and Paul Anderson, Ecology, have exchanged emails with Joe Scordino regarding his
concerns and had a conference call Friday about the high water mark. He and Mr. Anderson expressed
their position regarding whether these issues are addressed in the Edmonds SMP. One of the challenges is
every jurisdiction is expected to use the definition of OHWM in the SMA. That definition applies to a
variety of situations in other shorelines including Lake Ballinger. Therefore it is difficult to craft a
specific definition. They recommended to Mr. Scordino that the best way to tighten up the definition is to
add language within Footnote 18 in the development standards table to focus on specific issues, the
determination that will happen whenever a master planning process is triggered.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 21, 2017
Page 21
Packet Pg. 208
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Edmonds Marsh is not the same as Lake Ballinger; this is in
regard to UMU IV and what is included in the future study needs to be specified. There is confusion on
the OHWM; the definition is the edge of the salt tolerant plants which may change when the tidegate is
removed and Willow Creek is daylighted. Mr. Pater answered that was the challenge with any restoration
redevelopment; a lot of things may occur in the next 10-20 years around the Edmonds Marsh that could
make it a much different place and improve ecology functions. Whenever those projects are triggered, the
existing conditions need to be blended into what may be happening in the future but it shouldn't keep
projects to improve the marsh from moving forward.
Mr. Pater said when definitions that apply across the board are altered, they could be altered to address
one thing but in the future that definition could create a problem for another project. Councilmember
Buckshnis pointed out this relates specifically to UMU IV. She agreed there could be problems with
changing the definition but feared there could be problems on the other side related to size of the buffer.
Mr. Pater suggested the Council determine the appropriate places in the SMP to be specific whether in the
environment specific regulations or within Footnote 18. From a regulatory and implementation
standpoint, local planners need to be able to readily find that information; it would be easier to find if it
were more targeted to the areas of the SMP that are specific to the Edmonds Marsh.
Councilmember Teitzel shared the concern about the uncertainty with the OHWM as a point for
measuring the buffer. In addition to the potential changes mentioned, other events will increase saltwater
intrusion into the marsh such as sea level rise and King Tides. He supported considering the edge of the
berm as a starting point for measuring the buffer. He was aware that did not specifically comply with the
WAC and asked if an exception could be created due to the unique situation in the marsh. Mr. Pater
answered there is an opportunity to craft additional language that recognizes the uniqueness of the marsh
including the overlap of fresh and salt water. Whenever a master planning process is triggered, the
scientist conducting the site specific study will be considering a snapshot in time. He acknowledged the
marsh was one of the more complex high water mark determinations in the City. He and Paul Anderson
are comfortable with adding language to clarify that in the context of what is specific to the Edmonds
Marsh, not the OHWM definition. Mr. Lien cautioned the marsh is a big issue with regard to UMU IV but
there is also the Willow Creek outlet.
Councilmember Teitzel observed the 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback have been debated a great deal.
That buffer and setback is based on June 2016 Ecology guidance which was based on best available
science at the time. That is not specific to the Edmonds Marsh and applies general statewide guidance to a
unique situation. He supported moving ahead with a site specific requirement and favored Option B to
determine what the buffer and setback should be to improve the function of the marsh.
Council President Mesaros commented he enjoyed listening to the discussion and looked forward to
further discussion at the March 7 meeting.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she had no further comments and was tired of the repetitiveness of
the discussion.
Councilmember Tibbott asked who was responsible for stormwater at Harbor Square and on SR-104
under the current regulations. Mr. Lien answered he was not 100% sure as the stormwater in that area was
complicated and responsible parties include WSDOT, the City, Harbor Square, etc.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported he was in Olympia last week at the AWC Conference. While he was there, both
parties in both houses were beginning to polarize their talking points for the budget process. He met with
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 21, 2017
Page 22
Packet Pg. 209
8.1.h
o Incorporated Verdant bike lane project for economy of scale
• Project out to bid February 2017
o Opened bids March 2
o Received 5 bids, ranging from $4.43 million to $6.5 million
o Engineer's estimate was $6.15 million (scope of work increased to include Verdant bike lane
project)
o Low bidder: Marshbank Construction who did Five Corners roundabout project
o By comparison if the bike lane portion was removed from project, Marshbank's bid was
$3.89 million, the same as the original engineer's estimate (without the bike lane project), a
difference of $1.2 million from the June 2016 low bid
• Staff reviewed bid documents and submitted to the State.
o Expecting State concurrence by end of week.
• Intent to bring the project back to Council next week with a recommendation to award the bid
• Total project cost with bike lanes, soft costs and construction management and 10% management
reserve approximately $6 million
• Available funding $7.8 million
• Staff will evaluate how the grants fit the work and provide that information to Council next week
• Staff recommends bringing the project back to Council for further discuss and recommendation to
award at next week's meeting
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the new/replaced impervious surfaces built as part of the
project requires compliance with stormwater regulations, requiring a sizable contribution from the
Stormwater Fund for this project. With the additional grant resources, it may be possible to reduce the
contribution from the Stormwater Fund. He commented this project provided an interesting lesson on the
timing of going out to bid; bidding this project earlier in the year worked out well. He recognized
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss for obtaining the $2 million grants.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on next week's agenda.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
3. COUNCIL PROPOSED OPTION D TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Mayor Earling advised this item would be limited to 30 minutes. David Pater, Department of Ecology,
was present to answer questions.
Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained this is continued discussion on the Shoreline Master Program
(SMP). Department of Ecology provided two options for Council consideration, A) based on interrupted
buffer, and B) allowing a reduced buffer with a site -specific study. Staff developed Option C, a hybrid of
Options A and B and an Option D has been proposed that will be presented by Councilmember
Buckshnis. A public hearing is scheduled on March 21; tonight's discussion is intended to frame what
will be considered at the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis introduced Joe Scordino, retired fisheries biologist, formerly with NOAA,
who assisted her with developing Option D.
Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order. He said his comments were not meant to be pejorative to
any party. He had significant concerns about the process by which Option D has been developed and
brought forward. He had great respect for Mr. Scordino and appreciated what he has done and continues
to do in support of the local environment. However, Mr. Scordino does not represent the City of Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 7, 2017
Page 14
Packet Pg. 210
8.1.h
or Edmonds City Council; he represents a special interest group, Save Our Marsh, and in that capacity,
has worked directly with Ecology to Option D. Mr. Scordino's February 24, 2017 email to Ecology
includes his complete draft Option D, nearly identical to Option D outlined in the Agenda Memo for Item
8.3. Since Option D was developed and negotiated with Ecology by a special interest group authorized to
represent neither the City nor the City Council, he said Option D was out of order. Following a ruling on
the point of order, he was prepared to make a motion.
Mayor Earling asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday for advice on ruling on the point of order. Mr. Taraday
said there is no requirement that proposed legislation come from any particular source. Individual
Councilmembers can draft it on their own, they can draft it with constituents or work with City staff. He
recommended the point of order be overruled by the Chair.
Mayor Earling overruled the point of order in accordance with Mr. Taraday's advice.
Councilmember Buckshnis said regardless of the fact that Mr. Scordino wrote to Mr. Pater and Mr. Lien
as one of her constituents and her scientific expert, she was always in the loop and offered opinions with
regard to how Option D was framed. She presented the Option to the SMP:
• At 2/21/17 meeting, Council Members Johnson and Buckshnis publicly stated that an additional
option might be warranted.
• Mr. Scordino, (a retired fisheries biologist) stated during public comment that an Option D was
needed to address all the public concerns.
• Many citizens commented about need for specificity in the site -specific study to provide unbiased
information for future Councils and developers in the Urban Mixed Use IV area (UMU IV).
• Council Member (CM) Buckshnis decided to work with Mr. Scordino on a DRAFT Option D.
• Elaborate and detailed process using scientists to scientists for an option D ensues. (Thank -you
DOE and Mr. Lien for working with us. Emails are attached.)
• Simple Reason — why muddy the water when non-scientists start adding comments.
• CM Buckshnis and Mr. Scordino discuss and finalize Option D based on email comments.
• This option has a fixed II0-foot buffer for the UMU IV area at the Edmonds Marsh unless
amended by the Council.
• To ensure an unbiased and comprehensive study, the details for the conduct of the scientific site -
specific study are specified in an Appendix C to the SMP.
• The option clarifies the 110-foot buffer or alternate buffer (if approved by Council) start at
wetland edge and the buffers would not be reduced or exempted by any SMP or CAO provisions
(e.g., Appendix B or 24.40.020).
• This option clarifies that the "buffer" is separate from the "setback" for structures, and that the
15-foot setback starts at the outer edge of the buffer.
• This option has fixed 110-foot buffer for the UMU IV area at the Edmonds Marsh unless
amended by the Council
• To ensure an unbiased and comprehensive study, the details of the conduct of the scientific site
specific study are specified in an Appendix C to the SMP
1. Modify the 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table and the footnote 18
which will follow [notice `buffer' line added]:
Shoreline Development
horeline Area Designation
Vrban
Mixed Use IV
11 Other Commercial and
Light Industrial Development
Shore Setback
15
Buffer
11018
[Recreation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 7, 2017
Page 15
Packet Pg. 211
8.1.h
2.
0
4.
Shore Setback
15
Buffer
11018
Residential Development
Shore Setback
NA
Buffer
NA
Transportation and Parkin
Shore Setback
15
Buffer
11018
11 Other Development
Shore Setback
15
Buffer
11018
• Footnote 18:
o The UMU IV environment has a 110-foot buffer that starts at the outer edge of the Edmonds
Marsh where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or at the
wetland/upland edge.
o A 110-foot vegetated buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned
development is implemented on the north or south side of the Edmonds Marsh.
o On the west side of the Marsh, a vegetated buffer will be required between the railway right-
of-way and the west edge of the Marsh if railroad tracks are added or modified in the railway
area.
o The Council may establish an alternate buffer width at the time of an approved master plan
for development if the alternate buffer width is derived from a rigorous site -specific scientific
study (specified in Appendix C) to determine the buffer necessary to protect properly
functioning wetland/tideland habitat and its associated ecological functions.
o When determining an alternate buffer derived from the site -specific study, the Council will
adhere to the legal standards of the Shoreline Management Act and State guidelines.
o The conduct of the scientific site -specific study will be in conformance with Appendix C to
the SMP.
o No buffer reductions or exemptions will apply to the I I0-foot buffer or alternate buffer for
this UMU IV area
Modify the definition of setback in 24.90.050 (A) to be: 24.90.050 A. "Shore setback" or
"setback" means the minimum distance between a structure or use from the outer edge of a buffer, or
from the edge of the shoreline if no buffer is required.
Delete all CAO provisions that may reduce or exempt the SMP buffer for the Edmonds Marsh
in Appendix B and/or in Section 24.40.020 of the SMP. This would include deleting in Appendix
B sections 23.50.040 (G)(1) to (4) [Wetland Buffer Modifications], 23.50.040 (I) [Additions to
structures], and 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer]; and 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) [Additions to
structures] .
Add the following Appendix C to the SMP:
Appendix C. Scope of Work for Site -Specific Scientific Study at the Edmonds Marsh [key points
shown below]
• The site -specific study, by professionals with field experience in wetland and wildlife science, is
to provide comprehensive, site -specific scientific information that the Council will need to
consider in approving an alternate buffer width for the Edmonds Marsh.
• A report on the study results will be peer reviewed by at least three independent scientists having
wetland/wildlife expertise before the report is presented to the Council and the public.
• Wetlands and marshes provide three broad ecological functions that will each need to be
evaluated by the site -specific study: 1) Biogeochemical functions; 2) Hydrologic functions and 3)
Food web and habitat functions (more specifics provided in text).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 7, 2017
Page 16
Packet Pg. 212
8.1.h
• Buffers provide for the protection and maintenance of wetland functions; thus the site -specific
study will need to evaluate buffer widths adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh that will ensure
effective buffer functions (and a long list is included)
• Each of these buffer functions should be evaluated against past, present and projected future
ecological functions of the Marsh as affected by proximity of development and/or other human
activities, as well as future restoration efforts (e.g. Willow Creek Daylighting).
• Because of the uniqueness of the Edmonds Marsh and the diversity of wildlife species that it
supports, the site -specific study should include special focus on the life needs of the wildlife that
use the Edmonds Marsh.
• Because species' needs vary, the evaluation of wildlife needs for buffer zones should include: 1)
Refuge/shelter; 2) Food; 3) Breeding habitat; 4) Nesting materials; and 5) Screening/distancing
wildlife from human activities.
• Assessing the Marsh's ecological function to provide habitat and food web for wildlife is the
most critical component of this study for evaluating site -specific buffer widths that will
preserve/protect ecological functions.
Councilmember Buckshnis recommended adding Option D to the current work regarding the SMP for
proper vetting and deliberation.
Council President Mesaros referred to the addition to Appendix C, "Each of these buffer functions should
be evaluated against past, present and projected future ecological functions of the Marsh as affected by
proximity of development and/or other human activities, as well as future restoration efforts (e.g. Willow
Creek Daylighting)" and asked if that meant if the scientific study said daylighting Willow Creek should
not be done, then it would not be daylighted. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Willow Creek
Daylighting project is at 60% design. Mr. Scordino explained this statement means if anticipated changes
are occurring in the marsh such as the Willow Creek daylighting, the study must take into account how
that will affect ecological functions in the marsh as well as any other activities that may occur such as
development.
Using Willow Creek daylighting as an example, Council President Mesaros asked who decides if the
daylighting go forward. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council decides. Council President Mesaros
said in reading this statement, a future restoration project may end up harming the balance within the
marsh. Mr. Scordino clarified this statement is about evaluating functions against past, present and
projected future functions, not that an activity can/cannot occur. If the saltwater was negatively affecting
the ecological functions of the marsh, that would be noted in report. The report is a comprehensive review
and evaluation of the ecological functions of marsh; the Council will use the report to make its decision.
The report will not identify the buffer width; it will identify aspects that science revealed in the study that
need to be considered in determining the final alternate buffer width.
Councilmember Tibbott said Option D represents a vision for what the marsh could become and was a
curious amalgamation of information. It represents a vison for the marsh but other parts of the community
have not been involved in the vision statement. He felt Option D put the cart before the horse, particularly
Appendix C. He asked for clarification that the 110-foot buffer was established on best available science
(BAS). Mr. Lien answered the 110-foot buffer is from Ecology's 2016 Guidance on Critical Areas.
In response to Councilmember Tibbott's reference to putting the cart before the horse, Councilmember
Buckshnis said she has thousands of emails and public comments on this topic. Option D is an attempt to
provide exactly what a future Council will need to make a decision. She referred to the amount of time
she, the Council, Mr. Pater and Mr. Lien have spent on the SMP.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 7, 2017
Page 17
Packet Pg. 213
8.1.h
Councilmember Tibbott said there the studies in Appendix C put forth a vision for more wildlife and
more habitat than may/may not currently exist. Councilmember Buckshnis said it does exist.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if it was already known that certain wildlife exists and that they need
expanded habitat. Councilmember Buckshnis said per Dr. Alan Meares, there are 191 species of birds.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if those birds need more habitat than currently exists and whether
additional habitat would increase the number of species. While he appreciated the habitat studies in
Appendix C, he did not think it was appropriate to specify habitat studies in the document because other
habitat studies may need to be conducted or it may be appropriate have architectural design studies. He
summarized Appendix C goes too far and puts the cart before the horse.
Mr. Scordino explained the purpose of the site -specific study is to provide scientific information to the
City Council regarding the appropriate buffer width for the Edmonds Marsh. Councilmember Tibbott said
if the 110-foot buffer was BAS, why was a site -specific study needed. Councilmember Buckshnis said
Ecology provided two options which opened the door for this option. The City provided Option C, she
was providing Option D.
Councilmember Teitzel said everyone agrees a site -specific study should be unbiased. However he was
concerned that Option D Appendix C specifies the site specific study will need to reference and utilize the
seven studies in the methodology analysis for evaluating buffer widths on each edge of the Edmonds
Marsh. The unbiased vendor selected for the site specific study may/may not want to reference those
studies. He was concerned the seven specific studies may steer the results of the study in a certain
direction and may not be truly impartial. Councilmember Buckshnis said the language could be revised to
state "but not limited to." Her intent tonight was to determine whether the Council wanted to add Option
D to the public hearing and deliberations. Councilmember Teitzel emphasized whatever happened, the
overarching goal should be an unbiased study.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the specifics would be discussed at a later date. She assured
Councilmember Tibbott, Council President Mesaros and Councilmember Teitzel could not be convinced
to embrace Option D.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON, TO INCLUDE OPTION D FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Councilmember Nelson commented all the options have a default buffer of approximately 110 feet; where
the options deviate is the requirements to reduce the buffer. To the earlier comment about the Willow
Creek Daylighting, he pointed out the definition of restoration is to enhance the ecological function. He
expressed support for the motion.
Council President Mesaros expressed surprise that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas knew how he would
vote. He supported including Option D for consideration. He agreed with Councilmember Nelson that this
discussion was not what the buffer should be, there was a universal sense that 110 feet and 15-foot
setback was appropriate, the issue was the portion of the marsh that borders Harbor Square. It has always
been his contention that a 25-foot buffer is almost guaranteed due to the placement of the buildings and he
found it difficult to vote for something that guaranteed a 25 foot buffer. He was eager to consider the four
options and was keeping an open mind regarding which option would best serve the City. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas apologized for making an assumption based on the letter sent to Ecology. She was
pleased that Council President Mesaros was interested in considering Option D.
Councilmember Teitzel offered an amendment to Footnote 18 related to Option C that addresses many of
the issues and concerns that the Friends of the Marsh have expressed, clearly defines where the buffer
starts and ends, requires Council preapproval of the vendor to complete the site -specific study, discusses
how the study would be part of the CUP process, outlines factors to be add addressed in the study without
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 7, 2017
Page 18
Packet Pg. 214
8.1.h
interjecting bias. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, pointing out the motion was in
regard to including Option D in the public hearing. Councilmember Teitzel agreed to hold his comment.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO.
Councilmember Buckshnis invited amendments to Option D, noting Mr. Pater and Mr. Lien have raised
some issues that will be addressed. She clarified Mr. Scordino was representing himself, not Save Our
March.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD AN AMENDED FOOTNOTE 18 RELATED TO OPTION C TO THE SHORELINE
MASTER PLAN. SMP.
Copies of the amended Footnote 18 were distributed to Council and Councilmember Teitzel read the
amended Footnote 18:
Within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment, a default 110 foot vegetative buffer is required to be
established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of
the marsh in addition to a 15 foot setback from the landward edge of the vegetative buffer for a total
default margin (buffer and setback combined) of 125 feet. The vegetative buffer shall begin at the edge of
the wetland boundary of the Edmonds Marsh (e.g., the waterward edge of the existing earthen berm at the
margins of the Marsh) and/or the Willow Creek outlet of the marsh. An alternative buffer width may be
established after an impartial and comprehensive site -specific environmental study of Marsh ecological
and wildlife habitat functions is completed to assess the effects of a redevelopment proposal (note:
Edmonds City Council shall preapprove the vendor selected by the developer to perform the study) . The
study results must be approved as a component of the shoreline conditional use permit review when the
redevelopment proposal is considered. The alternative buffer must result in no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions and values. Existing conditions shall be used as the baseline for assessing no net loss
and the site -specific environmental study shall address hydrologic factors, geologic factors, and the
existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions. The alternative buffer shall
be no less than 50 feet, and the 15 foot setback will be incremental to the buffer. Pursuant to WAC 173-
26-201(2)(e), the default buffer may be increased if the analysis of environmental impacts indicates that
an increase is necessary to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The buffer established
pursuant to the site -specific scientific study outlined above may not be reduced unless fully supported by
an updated site -specific scientific study. The default II0 foot buffer may be established in the absence of
a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the amendment separated the buffer from the setback.
Councilmember Teitzel answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis said that would require additional
language. Councilmember Teitzel clarified the setback would be incremental to the buffer.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the buffer would be 110 feet and the setback would be 15 feet.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the statement, the alternative buffers shall be no less than 50
feet and the 15-foot setback will be incremental to the buffer, meant. Councilmember Teitzel answered
that meant the buffer starts at the waterward side of the earthen berm on the north side and 15 feet was
landward of the 50 feet for a total of 65 feet.
Councilmember Johnson asked if the amendment was only for the purpose of the public hearing.
Councilmember Teitzel said this would amend the footnote in Option C and if adopted, would obviate the
need for Option D. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed, pointing out the definition of setback and buffer
would need to be modified which was not included in amendment. If that was not done, she would not
support the amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified Option D includes modifying the definition
of setback consistent with Ecology.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 7, 2017
Page 19
Packet Pg. 215
8.1.h
Councilmember Teitzel suggested the Council adopt the amendment and it could be further amended after
the public hearing.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND TEITZEL
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
4. INITIATION OF REZONE FOR PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT REZONE R-97-28
(CONTRACT RS-8 TO RS-12)
Senior Planner Kernen Lien displayed a map of area, identifying the site in Perrinville across from the
Post Office and a City owned parcel. He described:
• Site history:
0 1996: Street Map Amendment and Street Vacation (ST-96-77 and ST-96-78)
0 1997: Contract Rezone (R-97-28) RS-12 to RS-8
0 2001: City Initiates Rezone from RS-8 back to RS-12 (R-01-168)
■ Settlement Agreement for PRD Submittal
0 2004: Site designated Single Family - Resource
0 2005: Angler's Crossing Plat/PRD (P-05-136 and PRD-05-137)
0 2017: Subdivision expired January 2017Changes since 1997
Changes since 1997
o Planned Residential Develop Code Changes
■ Requires 10% Usable Open space
■ Cannot count critical areas for usable open space requirement
o Comprehensive Plan
■ Single Family — Resource
■ Compatible Zones — RSW-12, RS-12 and RS-20
■ Current RS-8 zoning inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Lien displayed a Comprehensive Plan map identifying the Single -Family - Resource, Single Family -
Urban 3 (RS-10) and Single Family — Urban 1 (RS-8) designations. He reviewed:
• Procedural history was for a specific development that has expired
• Changes to the development code
• Changes to Comprehensive Plan make RS-8 not consistent
• Recommend initiating rezone from contract RS-8 back to RS-12
• Current property owner amenable to a rezone
Development Services Director Shane Hope clarified the Council was not deciding tonight whether to
approve the rezone, only whether to start the process. The process includes review and public hearing by
the Planning Board and a recommendation to the City Council who makes final decision.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the difference RS-8 and RS-12. Mr. Lien explained RS is single
family residential, RS-8 is a 8,000 square foot minimum lot size and RS-12 is a 12,000 square foot
minimum lot size.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the CAO required 30% native vegetation in RS-12. Mr. Lien
answered that was a requirement in RS-12 and RS-20 but not in RS-8.
Councilmember Tibbott asked why RS-20 was not considered for that area due to the topography. Mr.
Lien displayed a map illustrating the zoning for the surrounding areas; RS-8, RS-10 and RS-12. A rezone
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 7, 2017
Page 20
Packet Pg. 216