2016-09-13 City Council - Full Agenda-17481.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
SEPTEMBER 13, 2016, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016
3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. National POW/MIA Recognition Day (5 min.)
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
STUDY ITEMS
1. Shoreline Master Program Update (30 min.)
2. Presentation of the Utility Rate Analysis (15 minutes)
3. Presentation of an Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code (ECC), amending parking
provisions on Sunset Avenue. (10 min.)
4. Interlocal Agreement with City of Lynnwood for Biosolids Disposal (10 min.)
5. Presentation on the Madrona Walkway Project (10 min.)
6. Setting a date and time for a a public hearing on adoption of a resolution expressing intent to
dissolve the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (10 min.)
7. HR Director, Request to waive three interview requirement (10 min.)
8. Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.04.020 related to Concession Agreements (10
min.)
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
COUNCIL COMMENTS
CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1)
RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
Edmonds City Council Agenda
September 13, 2016
Page 1
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
September 13, 2016
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
09-06-2016 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 6, 2016
The City Council Special Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council President Pro Tern
Mesaros in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The Council then convened
in the Jury Meeting Room.
Elected Officials Present
Kristiana Johnson, Mayor Pro Tern
Mike Nelson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Tom Mesaros, Council President Pro Tern
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Others Present
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Andrew Pierce, Council Executive Assistant
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR
POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I).
The City Council adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room to discuss pending or potential litigation
per RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(i).
At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Johnson emerged from the Jury Meeting Room to announce that
the executive session would be extended for an additional five minutes.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
09-06-2016 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 5
4.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 6, 2016
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Kristiana Johnson, Mayor Pro Tern
Thomas Mesaros, Council President Pro Tern
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
K. Crystal, Police Officer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Johnson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor
Earling and Councilmember Teitzel.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2016
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2016
3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DIANE M.
LOBAUGH (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND FROM JACKIE L. STUDIOSO ($240.00)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 6
4.2.a
4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT DIRECT DEPOSIT, CHECKS AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
5. JULY 2016 MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
6. APPROVAL OF UPDATED INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY FOR THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP
7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE RESOLUTION FOR THE 2017-2022
SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. PRESENTATION ON 2016 SCARECROW FESTIVAL -EDMONDS MUSEUM
Dave Buelow, representing the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society, aka Edmonds
Museum, thanked the city, citizens and businesses for their support of the museum and the Scarecrow
Festival. This year is the fourth annual festival; the reasons the festival was started and continues include:
• Provide a free, fun, family friendly event for the City
• Provide a segue into the fall, trick -or -treating and the Museum's Heritage Day Dinner
• Attract visitors to the City and its businesses
• Website includes a map of scarecrows
• Decorate the City
• Promote the museum
He provided the following:
• Statistics for the 2015 festival:
0 85 scarecrows registered on website
0 2300 votes cast on website
o Over 5000 unique visitors to the museum website
Basics of the festival
o Handmade
o Family friendly
o Categories
■ Residential
■ Food & beverage
■ Retail
■ Service providers
■ Financial, insurance and real estate
■ Government, art, school and civic organizations
o Key dates
■ October 1 - 22: Scarecrow registration
■ October 23 - November 4: Voting
■ November 5: winners softly announced at Heritage Day Dinner
■ November 7: Formal presentation to winners at museum at 7:00 p.m.
- 1st prize: 2017 Museum membership
- 2nd prize: Certificate
- 3rd prize: Bragging rights
He encouraged the public to attend the museum's Heritage Day Dinner at Holy Rosary at 7:00 p.m. on
November 5 that will feature Glen Farley, KING TV newscaster. He described differences between last
year's and this year's festival:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 2
Packet Pg. 7
4.2.a
Announcement of top vote getter
Social media presence on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
Signs for people/businesses with scarecrows to place in a window or next to scarecrow
He provided the museum website and festival hotline:
• www.historicedmonds.or%z
• 425-774-6507
He referred to flyers regarding the festival that were distributed to Councilmembers and encouraged the
Council to consider participating in the creation of a scarecrow. Their goal is 100 scarecrows; several
businesses have found building a scarecrow to be a great teambuilding exercise.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled former Councilmember Petso's grandson's scarecrow No Noggin. She
posted her hockey scarecrow on her Facebook page to remind people of the festival.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the museum dinner on November 5. Mr. Buelow said flyers
are available now, invitations will be sent out soon and tickets will be available soon on their website. The
dinner on November 5 is at 5:00 p.m.at Holy Rosary
2. PRESENTATION ON HOMELESSNESS BY CITY OF LYNNWOOD COUNCIL
PRESIDENT M. CHRISTOPHER BOYER
Christopher Boyer, Lynnwood Council President, explained he is also the Pastor of Good Shepherd Baptist
Church in Lynnwood. When he took the position approximately 12 years ago, the church was looking for
a pastor with non-profit management experience due to their interest in building low income senior housing
on their excess property. That project has been a great success and an asset to the community. Until he got
involved with that project, he did not know much about homelessness. As a result of that work and seeing
on a day-to-day basis the number of homeless in Lynnwood, many who come up 196' or Highway 99 from
Edmonds, he realized homelessness was a real issue in Snohomish County particularly in south Snohomish
County.
After being elected to the Lynnwood City Council, at the Council retreat he urged his colleagues to do
something about homelessness. The second year, the Council gave him the go ahead and a Council task
group on homelessness was formed. The task group began by listening to City employees whose work was
regularly impacted by the homeless, social service organizations who were working with the homeless, and
talking to homeless people to learn what they needed. They quickly reached some understandings, first,
homelessness is not a monolithic problem; there is not a single profile of who is homeless in south
Snohomish County. There are men, women, children, entire families, educated people, people without high
school diplomas, people who formerly had high paying jobs, people who have always worked for minimum
wage, a profile that matches all the other neighbors in Lynnwood.
Mr. Boyer relayed when talking to someone who is homeless they often say they are living outside, in their
car or another situation but their home is Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, etc. and they want to
stay as close as possible to the place they think of as home, often the last place they were living. Another
thing the task group learned, one can think of homeless neighbors in two broad categories, first, temporary
unsheltered, people who through an accident, loss of job, outstanding medical bills, etc. have not been able
to keep up with the financial demands and have fallen off the edge. For this group, it is usually a matter of
helping them find temporary shelter, a new job, discharging their financial obligations and getting them
back on their feet. The second category is the chronically homeless, people who have been homeless for
many years. Most have addiction or mental illness issues or physical disability that prevent them from living
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 3
Packet Pg. 8
4.2.a
a "normal life" and they need extra services such as social security disability, DSHS, etc. as well as help
navigating a pathway to stability so they can the address their underlying issues.
Mr. Boyer referred to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, relaying someone's mental illness or addiction cannot
be addressed if they are cold and hungry. As a result of the task group's findings, Lynnwood distributed an
RFP to social service providers who were already working with the homeless in the area. The RFP stated
the social service provider would provide in Lynnwood for one year some interaction with the homeless,
establish a path to provide more services, do a community needs assessment regarding homelessness and
begin working with other municipalities around Lynnwood and Snohomish County and begin to form
alliances to address the issue together. No one city in south Snohomish County can solve the issue of
homelessness within its boundaries without the help of others jurisdictions and agencies.
At the beginning of 2016, Lynnwood contracted with the YWCA of King and Snohomish County who
provide an excellent staff member for $75,000/year. He acknowledged it is not a complete solution to the
problem but it is a beginning. He invited the Council to seriously considering joining Lynnwood as they
continue working with YWCA and to get someone imbedded with the police department as Lynnwood,
Everett and Snohomish County have done and start working on identifying homeless neighbors, finding out
what they need and getting them moved toward homes.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Boyer to describe the work the imbedded social worker does,
relaying her understanding an imbedded a social worker gives people information regarding mental health,
drug/alcohol treatment, etc., forms relationships with people and trains members of the police department.
Mr. Boyer said the imbedded social worker first has to overcome the barrier of trust. People who are
temporarily unsheltered are embarrassed and not want their neighbors to know they are homeless;
overcoming those barriers requires establishing trust. For those who are chronic homeless, their initial
response to someone trying to help is that they are a mark or someone out to get them; overcoming those
barriers requires showing them the social worker is truly interested in working with them to address their
problem but not allowing them take advantage.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the YWCA and Trinity Place have done wonders for women in
transition and their children and are working with Rick Steves to identify another facility for families. She
asked how the imbedded social worker assists the homeless such as does the person locate temporary
housing. Mr. Boyer responded the embedded social worker has the ability and authority to reach out to
various programs and agencies that provide housing; the overall problem is there is not enough transitional,
emergency or truly affordable housing. He noted there is a difference between what is truly affordable and
what the building industry calls affordable. In the long term his personal hope was Edmonds, Lynnwood,
Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Woodway and Mill Creek could put money together to build either a shelter
and/or transitional housing to address the immediate need of the homeless until they can get into affordable
housing which is beginning in Lynnwood and there are plans for in Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis
asked if that would be similar to SHARE in King County. Mr. Boyer agreed SHARE was a good resource
in King County but they have not expanded to Snohomish County.
Councilmember Nelson commended Mr. Boyer, his fellow Councilmembers and the City of Lynnwood for
taking the initiative on something that is so overwhelming, taking the initiative to hiring someone and
providing an inspiring model. He asked how Lynnwood tracked/measured success. Mr. Boyer responded
the imbedded social worker and the YWCA have developed rubrics and are providing quarterly reports. He
offered to provide the Council the reports. Councilmembers Tibbott and Teitzel have all the task group's
records and findings which they could share.
Councilmember Tibbott commented it was interesting to hear how Lynnwood got started and their
perspective. He inquired about affordable housing facilities and treatment centers in Lynnwood including
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 4
Packet Pg. 9
4.2.a
how they were funding. Mr. Boyer answered a new 20-bed detox facility will be opening in Lynnwood in
the next year via Evergreen Mental Health network. A 40-unit housing complex for homeless veterans
recently opened just outside Lynnwood (within Lynnwood's municipal urban growth area). Funding for
that complex was provided by a variety of sources including federal. Two more very large projects are
underway in Lynnwood, a senior housing complex where some units will be affordable and a workforce
development project across from the convention center that fits into the affordable housing spectrum.
Council President Pro Tern Mesaros asked how the embedded social worker worked administratively. Mr.
Boyer responded originally the social worker was to report to the Council's homelessness task force. A new
commission was established, the Human Services Commission, staffed through the Community
Development Department and the social worker now reports to that commission and department. Lynnwood
is working on its biennial budget and considering its ability to continue that program and add others.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented on the difference between affordable housing and the
homeless; people who are homeless do not quality for affordable housing for many reasons, primarily
because many of them do not have jobs. Without a home, it is difficult for people who are homeless to
shower, wash clothes or locate other resources to get a job. She summarized affordable housing and housing
the homeless are two separate issues. She recalled the Police Chief saying the police department is lean and
mean with regard to the number of staff. She asked what resources the embedded social worker has taken
from the Lynnwood Police Department. Mr. Boyer answered the Lynnwood Police Department did not see
it as taking resources. Among the findings of the homeless task group, they discovered the chronically
homeless residents of Lynnwood in particular demand a great deal in the way of services from emergency
rooms and first responders. The Fire and Police Chiefs feel addressing the homeless' problems, helping
them get healthier, getting them into housing, getting them stabilized, will reduce their incessant call on
911 which has been shown in a number of other cities and studies. He assured an imbedded social worker
will reduce the drain on police department resources.
With regard to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' comment about affordable housing, Mr. Boyer agreed a
spectrum of housing was necessary. There will always will be a need for housing for people with nothing,
those with limited income as well as the affordable housing for young people and those who are working
minimum wage jobs; people who may be housed and stable but cannot afford rapidly increasing rents. He
referred to successes in other communities where affordability spectrum housing is created that
encompasses people on social security to high -end condominiums and single family dwellings in one
neighborhood and the vitality and synergy that creates in a neighborhood and the impact it has on children
to grow up with other classes, races, creeds, etc.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she found his information very, very valuable as Edmonds is
looking at how to address homelessness. Mr. Boyer said another of the homelessness task group's findings
was a lot of people think there is no hope for the chronically homeless which is simply not true. He referred
to a presentation they had from Union Gospel Mission regarding their program that is seeing low recidivism
rate where they work with and provide housing and food for homeless individuals for a year as long as they
pledge to involved in their mentorship program for a year. The Center for Disease Control found
homelessness, similar to alcoholism and drug addiction, is linked to adverse childhood experiences. Many
of the chronically homeless had some event in their childhood that derailed normal childhood development
and as a result they are functionally unable to form good, healthy relationship with family, friends,
employment, etc. When they receive mentorship and training on how to be in a healthy relationship, their
world changes; they are no longer defensive and bitter, they no longer rely on drugs and alcohol to self -
medicate and they are able to become fully contributing members of society. As the Council considers how
to help with the issue of homelessness, he encouraged them to think beyond the temporary unhoused to
include the chronically homeless.
3. JUNE 2016 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 5
Packet Pg. 10
4.2.a
Finance Director Scott James provided questions and multiple choice answers to a quiz that would be
revealed at the end of his presentation. He displayed a General Fund — Funds Revenue comparison, pointing
out the General Fund is $1,411,682 higher than last year. He displayed a General Fund Revenue Budget to
Actual comparison, advising taxes are 3.1 % higher in 2016 compared to last year and license and permits
which are 13.5% higher than last year.
He reviewed a pie chart analyzing sales tax by category June 2016 YTD, pointing out retail automotive is
the largest source of sales tax revenue followed by contractors and retail eating and drinking. He displayed
a bar graph of Change in Sales Tax Revenue June 2016 compared to June 2015, pointing out the total is
$154,185 ahead of last year and contractor sales tax is $95,000 below last year. The 2016 budget projected
contractor sales tax would decline $170,000 for the year.
Mr. James displayed a General Fund — Funds Expenditure Comparison, advising General Fund expenditures
are approximately $217,000 higher in 2016 compared to 2015. The General Fund Department Expense
Summary illustrates 48% of the budget has been expended halfway through the year. He displayed a Special
Funds Revenue Comparison, advising special revenues are 121.8% above last year, due primarily to $3
million more in grant revenues. A comparison of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues illustrates MVFT is
4% higher than last year and a comparison of Hotel/Motel Tax illustrates an increase of 12.1% over last
year. A comparison of Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues shows a 12.1% increase over last year.
Mr. James displayed a Special Revenue Funds Expenditure Comparison, highlighting a 99.6% increase in
2016 compared to 2015 due to increased grant expenditures, increased spending on streets and the purchase
of Civic Field. He provided a comparison of Utility Fund Revenue, advising revenues are 20.3% higher in
2016 than 2015; water sales are approximately $251,000 higher, stormwater sales approximately $71,000
higher and sewer sales increased approximately $286,000 over 2015. The Utility Funds Expense
Comparison illustrates utility expenses are approximately $900,000 higher than 2015 primarily due to
capital expenses.
He revealed the answers to the quiz questions (answer in bold):
1. The City has beautiful parks, open spaces, a spray park and beach access, playgrounds, walking
trails, picnic shelters, scenic views of Puget Sound and more! Our 23 city parks include more than
325 acres of parkland and X# feet of waterfront shoreline for our citizens to enjoy. How many feet
of beach are available for our citizens to enjoy?
a) 1,000 Feet
b) 750 Feet
c) 2,250 Feet
2. In addition to the many park amenities our citizens get to enjoy, our City also offers numerous and
different restaurants for our citizens and visitors to Edmonds to patronize. Our 2nd quiz question
is: How many Eating & Drinking establishments are operating in Edmonds today?
a) 97
b) 102
c) 122
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson remarked 1,000 feet or 115t1i of a mile of beachfront is not a lot.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the financial impact of paying off the Public Safety bond. Mr. James
answered it is a $950,000 savings. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the bond refunding process. Mr.
James answered responses were solicited from eight banks; responses are due at the end of this week.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 6
Packet Pg. 11
4.2.a
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the risk reserve had been replenished after using those fund to
pay Fire District 1. Mr. James answered the policy for the risk reserve is 2% of General Fund revenues as
well as the contingency reserve. Last year there was a request to transfer $800,000 from that fund to the
General Fund. This year he likely will recommended via a budget amendment not transferring that
$800,000, primarily due to strong sales tax revenue.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Carolynne Harris, Edmonds, representing the housing task force, relayed her plans to organize a group,
possibly a high school art class, to create several homeless scarecrows. She relayed a nation or a community
is judged on how they treat those with the least. Edmonds has not done a good job because we don't see
homeless in Edmonds. She has been taking care of a family in her church for over a year, three boys and
their mother who happened to become homeless. They are living in affordable housing; the mother earns
$24,000/year and pays $14,500/year in rent which she subsidizes because there is no assistance available
from HUD. The mother she is assisting is not a good candidate for affordable housing due to bad credit,
requiring she cosign. Another problem has been cockroaches but she is hesitant to complain. She questioned
why HUD is no longer available and why the system is broken. She encouraged the City to do more and
figure out a political way to take action.
Marlin Phelps, Edmonds, said a way to make a person homeless is to take a guy with a good job and a
small business who is not guilty of any crimes and mount an action against him. He displayed a folder
containing his defense of two misdemeanor crimes that he did not commit. Two juries found him not guilty
with less than an hour's deliberation. He had a home in Edmonds, a successful small business, but was
beaten up and his arm broken by the police. He agreed the police department was lean and mean. He has
asked Mr. Taraday to listen to the tapes of his hearings, commenting it was a lot like what happened to
Hitler; they did horrible things to him. Mr. Taraday has told him the order must come from a
Councilmember and he asked the Council to order Mr. Taraday to obtain the recordings of his appearances
in court. He relayed 15 people have conspired to have him found guilty of 2 misdemeanor crimes that he
was clearly innocent of, the words of Judge Fair, Rachel Hunter and James Zachor would appall the
Council. He said people have a right to earn a living, not to be beat up for no reason. The only person who
maintained their decorum, honesty and respect for the law was him; Mr. Taraday would find that to be true
if the Council directs him to get the tapes. Whenever he has ordered the tapes, they are blank, redacted or
edited. If the Council believes in right and wrong and are not malicious or weak, they will order Mr. Taraday
to obtain and listen to the tapes. He concluded the police department made him homeless.
7. JOINT DISCUSSION - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. JOINT DISCUSSION WITH THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
The following Planning Commissioners were present: Phil Lovell (Chair), Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
(Vice Chair), Matt Cheung, Todd Cloutier, Nathan Monroe, Daniel Robles, and Alicia Crank.
Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed the Planning Board was interested in speaking with
the City Council and getting direction/input. The information in the Council packet reflects the Planning
Board's discussions in the recent past. The Planning Board has provided reports to the Council on their
activities and have discussed topics for tonight's discussion. The Planning Board's primary focus in
addition to their regular business and an issue that arose in their recent retreat was housing.
Ms. Hope explained the Comprehensive Plan includes a housing chapter related to housing needs/issues in
Edmonds and the housing profile includes details regarding housing types. The housing element of the
Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 7
Packet Pg. 12
4.2.a
housing and meeting diverse housing needs. She identified three topics the Planning Board would like
Council feedback on:
• Should the Planning Board provide input in the development of a housing strategy?
• And if so, what are the Council's thoughts related to housing?
• What other issues should the Planning Board prioritize for 2016 and 2017?
Ms. Hope identified topics on the Planning Board's extended agenda:
• Hwy 99 planning
o Past #1 priority for City Council
o Planning Board will make recommendation to City Council by end of year
• Civic Field Master Plan
o Planning Board will provide a recommendation to Council
• Development code updates
• Five Corners
• Comprehensive Plan amendments
Ms. Hope relayed it may be appropriate to begin developing the housing strategy in 2017 along with other
issues that arise.
Planning Board Chair Phil Lovell commented housing is a very important issue and there are a number of
aspects, one of the major is homelessness. The Planning Board's sense with guidance from Ms. Hope is its
focus should be on ways to implement strategies in Comprehensive the Plan; the Comprehensive Plan
should be the guide for the Planning Board does. There are two things the City can do, first, create enabling
mechanisms to increase affordable housing in City via via land use, regulations, zoning, etc. The Planning
Board has not reached a consensus regarding how to prioritize or implement a program that would enable
the development of more affordable housing. The second, which is more challenging and difficult, is
making affordable housing happen in Edmonds. Due to his background with building and developers, he
believes private property owners have the right to do whatever they want with their property as long as it
complies with the regulations. For the City to make something happen, it needs land or money to build
housing, possibly via a public/private partnership to create an affordable housing project, possibly targeting
a specific group such as the homeless, seniors, or certain income level. He summarized the City needed to
provide tools to make affordable housing happen.
Vice Chair Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig said the Planning Board is concerned with the target of 21,168
units by 2035 or 112 additional units annually. The Planning Board has discussed what can be counted as
a unit, what prevents the City from reaching that number and the status of achieving that number. A housing
strategy to achieve that is required by 2019. As the Planning Board's schedule is often filled with issues on
which they must provide recommendations to the City Council, someone needs to develop an approach.
There is also a need for a consultant to guide them in reviewing the regulatory environment and whether
the existing regulations will allow the City to meet the 112 units/annually. The Council has already taken
action in Westgate to create housing opportunities. The Planning Board is seeking direction and support.
The Planning Board is fortunate to have the assistance of Ms. Hope, Mr. Chave and Mr. Lien. Housing is a
broad issue and includes things such as aging in place and how do regulations allow people to remain in
Edmonds. She summarized the Planning Board is seeking direction from the City Council regarding what's
next. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson anticipated a dialogue tonight rather than answers.
Council President Pro Tern Mesaros referred to Chair Lovell's comment about how to get the ball rolling,
commenting he has worked with several not -for -profit organizations who know how to do that. He was
encouraged to learn about the YWCA's involvement with Lynnwood and with developing housing in King
County. He agreed not everybody needs affordable housing because they are not ready to move into
affordable housing. The model he has seen when working with the Mennonites, the Salvation Army, Union
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 8
Packet Pg. 13
4.2.a
Gospel Mission and Compass Housing Alliance is providing emergency housing (people who need housing
tonight) and once that stability is provided, moving them into transitional housing for 4-12 months and once
they develop skills, get jobs, etc., moving them into affordable housing. Having a partner that understands
that concept and knows how to put a package together is crucial. Partnerships help leverage financing.
Planning Board Member Todd Cloutier agreed with the importance of emergency housing. Although it's
easy to say the City needs to work on affordable housing, that is only part of the housing problem. There is
a lot of housing in Edmonds and issues include building heights, density, setback, view corridors, solar,
multi -family versus multiuse, etc. He agreed with moving up development of the housing strategy and
referred to existing strategies to promote affordable housing in the Comprehensive Plan (pages 86-88) and
housing goals and policies (pages 89-92). He pointed out the issue of aging in place includes people with
enough money but whose current housing may no longer be appropriate for them. The Planning Board is
seeking direction regarding the housing strategy and making that a budget priority. Other things the
Planning Board wants to consider include PRDs, and accessory dwelling units (ADU).
Councilmember Buckshnis cautioned the Planning Board against getting stuck on a number. Ms. Hope and
Mr. Chave are GMA experts and Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) looked at all numbers and last year
determined they were not realistic. She agreed with looking at strategies; growth includes bringing in people
as well as increasing diversity. SCT will continue to address employment, housing, and growth as well as
the Affordable Housing Alliance. She urged the Planning Board to think globally from a strategic
standpoint, as Mr. Boyer said, consider a spectrum of housing.
Planning Board Member Alicia Crank appreciated the Planning Board's diverse perspective on housing due
to their different backgrounds. As someone who has lived through change in a small city that dealt with
growth, she encouraged the City to be proactive and provide appropriate tools. She referred to a below
market rate (BMR) program created by other cities that requires developers to either dedicate a certain
number of units to affordable housing or BMR or pay an in -lieu fee to the City that is used to create
additional BMR housing. Some cities have purchased lots and created their own BMR housing which may
be a mechanism for creating housing. In addition to adding housing for growth, the City should think about
retaining residents, not just those who are aging but also young adults who grew up in Edmonds. When the
focus is on creating housing for growth, these others groups may find themselves needing to move further
out. Because most Councilmembers and Planning Board Members are homeowners, they may not have a
renters' perspective. Affordable housing is not low income housing but affordable to a person in that area.
For example, when she lived in Silicon Valley, she was middle class salary -wise but because housing was
so expensive, she qualified for affordable housing. There is negativity associated with affordable housing,
linking it to low income, she cautioned the use of that terminology.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed meeting with Seattle's Mayor Murray yesterday and his indication
that Seattle required some level of housing affordability in some areas. She asked if that could be done in
Edmonds. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered whatever Seattle is allowed to do, Edmonds is allowed to
do. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if it was possible to create zones for affordable housing and
below. Ms. Hope answered creating zones for particular income levels may be problematic as it assigns
people of certain income levels to live in certain areas. She preferred finding ways for inclusionary housing.
Mayor Murray was talking about a mix of housing so there is not a ghetto feel where everyone in the
neighborhood is low income. One of the programs the Council is considering, tax abatement, would provide
a mix of affordability, incomes and backgrounds to encourage diversity. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
commented development in Seattle is often hundreds of units which allows provides more flexibility.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented in Lynnwood, a church provided property for development.
One of Edmonds' biggest problems is finding vacant land. The City can always encourage developers but
finding land for development is tricky except on Highway 99 where undeveloped land exists. Edmonds has
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 9
Packet Pg. 14
4.2.a
never not met its GMA requirements and it has occurred via natural growth. She recommended the Planning
Board look to Highway 99 as a location for affordable housing, low income housing, mixed use
development; the question is how to get developers to do it with the way Highway 99 looks today. Chair
Lovell advised the Planning Board's extended agenda includes an update on the Highway 99 subarea plan
on September 28. At the beginning of that process the Planning Board strongly suggested the consultant
talk to property owners. He emphasized the need to educate property owners regarding the opportunity for
developing affordable housing. The Planning Board is anxious to hear what the consultant learned and
whether there is potential for mixed use development on Highway 99.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the growth target of 21,168 housing units by 2035, commenting of that
number the additional housing units Edmonds is required to provide is 2,790 and of that amount Edmonds
currently has the capacity for 2,646. The Council can provide priorities such as affordable housing.
Planning Board Member Daniel Robles agreed with Chair Lovell that either money or incentives are needed
to make something happen. The question is whether to incentivize developers or the citizens of Edmonds.
Many options such as community housing or micro -housing would not be allowed under the existing code;
an opportunity would be to update the code to allow them to happen. He explained homelessness is typically
not a steady decline, it is usually people falling off the edge, a fast event for most people. People allowing
an adult child, a parent or a friend to move in redefines family and the number of people allowed in a
residence. Another issue is using certain condition as a proxy such as aging in place; many of those
individuals have the same needs as young people. When providing incentives for developers, he referred to
the transit corridor in Los Angeles that became gentrified and he cautioned against relying too much on
Highway 99 because it had the potential to become expensive housing. He supported opportunities to
modify the code, change definitions, and develop the right mix of incentives for developers and the private
sector.
Councilmember Tibbott appreciated the questions the Planning Board asks and the insight they provide
which assists the Council in formulating direction. When ideas arise, he encouraged the Planning Board to
identify potential changes to zoning or the code changes that might open opportunities not previously
considered. That information helps the Council prioritize a code change or a rezone that will help expand
housing stock. For example, transition zones between single family zone and multi -family in Five Corners
and Highway 99 where some rezoning could occur. It would also be helpful for the Planning Board to
simplify the rezoning process to higher density for a property owner in a transition zone. He also encouraged
the Planning Board to help the Council identify best practices such as rezone or code changes that would
allow ADUs to provide supplemental housing or affordable housing. He looked forward to working with
the Planning Board.
Planning Board Member Matt Cheung said the Planning Board has discussed a code change to allow
detached ADUs. This would accommodate aging in place by allowing a person living in a large house to
build a smaller unit on their property that they or another person could occupy to supplement their income.
That is an opportunity to add affordable housing in singe family neighborhoods.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Planning Board consider development agreements as a way to
address unique situations such as Westgate. Development agreements may assist with development on
Highway 99 by providing incentives for developers. To Board Member Cheung's comment, she said there
are more rentals occurring than one would think, and the City should consider ways to allow everyone to
have an ADU.
Councilmember Nelson said it is important to consider what housing makes sense for Edmonds. Aging in
place is relevant to the current population; Edmonds has the highest percentage of seniors of any city in
Snohomish County. The City could make that a priority.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 10
Packet Pg. 15
4.2.a
To Board Member Cheung's comment, Council President Pro Tem Mesaros agreed detached smaller
houses on larger lots was an opportunity to accommodate aging in place and provide more affordable
housing. He acknowledged that was a huge shift in some people's thinking. The church he attends in Seattle
is building a small house on their campus; fortunately, the neighbors are responsive and accepting. A
detached housing unit could provide an opportunity for a senior to rent their house and live in the smaller
unit or have a caregiver live in the smaller unit. That model would be a positive thing and would fit
Edmonds.
Chair Lovell suggested the Planning Board develop a menu of things the City could do. Ms. Hope suggested
developing a draft housing strategy that identifies the priorities and needs and could include a list of things
the City could do such as regulatory, partnerships, incentives, etc. The draft strategy could then be fine-
tuned using that list.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson observed some of the other issues on the Planning Board's agenda are related to
housing and some are not. Ms. Hope suggested the Council provide input regarding topics on the extended
agenda or a topic that is missing.
Board Member Crank was enlightened to hear the Council's opinions about rezoning. She invited the
Council's input regarding Civic Field Master Plan.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Planning Board fit into the public process regarding the
Civic Field. Ms. Hope explained the Planning Board is also the Parks Board; they will conduct a public
hearing on the Civic Field Master Plan and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The final
decision is made by the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson advised the consultants will make a
presentation to the Planning Board on September 14 regarding the results of the last public meeting where
two options were presented.
Councilmember Buckshnis recommended taking more time on Five Corners based on what happened with
Westgate, noting although not as difficult as Westgate, it is a passionate and contentious issue. Ms. Hope
advised the agenda item in October is only an introduction of the topic.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson declared a brief recess.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. REJECTION OF BIDS FOR THE EDMONDS VETERAN'S PLAZA PROJECT
Public Works Director Phil Williams reported the bid opening for Veteran's Plaza was financially
disappointing. Two bids were received which suggests the bidding climate was not particularly strong and
contractors may be tied up. The low bid was $227,000 over the funds raised by the private citizen's
committee that sponsored the project. The City is partnering with that group, providing project management
and conducting the bid process. Staff s recommendation is to reject all bids. Meetings have been held with
City staff and the committee and a decision was made to raise additional funds and hopefully rebid the
project in late 2016/early 2017 when there is a better bidding climate.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO REJECT ALL BIDS FOR THE EDMONDS VETERAN'S PLAZA PROJECT.
Council President Pro Tem Mesaros said he has been helping with the project and the fundraising. Although
this was disappointing, it is a minor setback that will be overcome. He encouraged citizens who have not
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 11
Packet Pg. 16
4.2.a
yet contributed to do so. Mr. Williams advised there were two ways to reduce the deficit, raise additional
funds and rebid and hopefully get lower prices when the project is rebid.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the discrepancies, asking either the architect's estimate was way off
or was this not the season for competitive bids. Mr. Williams answered SiteWorkshop is trying to identify
whether the bidders had a misunderstanding, whether there was something they did not understand about
the project which means higher risk and high bids, whether it was a bad time of year to bid, or if there were
miscalculation in the cost estimates. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it was possible to eliminate the
ambiguity. Mr. Williams answered first the ambiguity needs to be identified and then eliminated if possible
in the plans and specifications. The biggest single item is the purchase of the stone which has been
identified; much of the project is the labor to install the stone. More will be known once SiteWorkshop
completes their investigation.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed it is a minor setback. The K-9 statute for the plaza was originally $6,000,
then $8,000 and then $8,500. The statue will not be finished until next year so now it may all be completed
at the same time. She encouraged the public to contribute; the website is EdmondsVeteransPlaza.com
Councilmember Nelson asked whether the City could make up difference, particularly if the gap was
smaller with better bids. Mr. Williams answered that would be entirely up to the Council. Councilmember
Nelson commented that may be a possibility if fundraising is difficult and has to be extended 6-12 months.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ROW ACQUISITION RELATED TO THE 228TH ST.
SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
City Engineer Rob English explained this agreement is related to the property owner at the southwest corner
of the intersection, RJ Willy/Country Farms site. The original offer made to the property owner was $14,600
for 491 square feet, 1556 square feet of temporary construction easement and damages. The City entered
discussions with the property owner; damages were identifying in negotiations related to parking; an
agreement was reached with the property owner for $65,000 primarily for damages related to parking. Staff
recommends approval of the settlement agreement.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACQUISITION RELATED TO THE 228TH STREET SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. STUDY ITEMS
1. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CODE UPDATE, EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.30
City Engineer Rob English recalled there were two public meetings in July, a public hearing on August 2
and further discussion with Council on August 23. Since August 23, several questions were submitted by
Councilmember Buckshnis; responses are included in the Council packet. Staff and the consultant, Craig
Dubberstein, CPD Solutions, are present to answer questions. Once the Council is ready to move forward,
the next step is to prepare an ordinance for approval on in early October. Parallel to this is a SEPA process
that will be finished mid -September and review by State to be completed in late September.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for the responses to her questions, noting she did not necessarily
agree with the responses, particularly the first one related to the critical area requirement and why it was
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 12
Packet Pg. 17
4.2.a
removed. Staff response was, "Nothing in the existing or proposed new Stormwater code changes City
Critical Area requirements." She referred to the redline version in a previous packet related to financial
liability as it applies to stormwater systems constructed in or adjacent to critical areas or critical area buffers
which indicates critical areas were part of the previous stormwater code. She said the stormwater code
should have something to do with critical areas and questioned why it was removed from the new code.
Mr. Williams responded the new code is very different than the existing code and there is no mention of
critical areas. The critical areas section of the code still exists parallel to the proposed stormwater code. The
definition of "critical areas" was removed from the Stormwater code since the term is not used in this
section and does not have a unique definition for the purposes of this section. Councilmember Buckshnis
pointed out stormwater in critical areas is not addressed in new code. For example, she asked how runoff
from SR-104, Chevron, etc. at Harbor Square is addressed in the new code. Mr. Williams answered
compliance with both the critical areas and the stormwater sections of the code would be required.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the removal of the definition of "watershed." Mr. Williams said
the term "watershed" is not used in the new stormwater code. The stormwater code applies to all watersheds
regardless of which one a property is in. There are site specific issues in each watershed that impact the
solutions but the definition of watershed is not needed in the stormwater code.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the stormwater code does not differentiate between new development or
redevelopment. Mr. Williams advised the applicability depends on the amount of new and/or replaced hard
surface; regardless of whether it is redevelopment or development of a green site, the requirements are the
same. Councilmember Buckshnis used redevelopment of Harbor Square as an example, and the ability for
director discretion for buffers. Mr. Williams said buffers are not an issue in the stormwater code.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed buffers are very important in the critical area ordinance (CAO) and
the CAO allows discretion for redevelopment. Mr. Williams said the stormwater code dictates what needs
to be done to comply with runoff requirements; the location in the critical area would be a decision made
by the process outlined in the CAO.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about replacing the City's former stormwater expert Jerry Shuster. Mr.
Williams advised a new employee, Robert Edwards, started yesterday.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about underground utility projects, relaying her understanding that is
an exception and the City does not have to comply with the code when doing an underground utility project.
Mr. Williams answered the proposed code did not change the current requirements. Councilmember
Buckshnis relayed her understanding underground utility projects currently do not have to comply with the
stormwater code. Mr. Dubberstein said the strikeout text in green indicates it was moved; it was previously
in the threshold or applicability section and was moved to the exemption section. Mr. Williams said that is
100% consistent with the NDPES stormwater discharge permit language.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about enforcement and penalties, recalling the CAO includes
notification to the Council. Mr. Taraday recalled the CAO included notice to Council for certain types of
critical area decisions. Mr. Williams said if there were a project that proposed to locate a stormwater
treatment or detention facility that complied with the stormwater in a critical area, the Council would be
notified via the requirement for notification in the CAO. Typically, when development/redevelopment
occurs, compliance with the stormwater code is an administrative function. Councilmember Buckshnis
referred to comments about improving the Sunset Avenue pump station and said she would like to made
aware of that. Mr. Williams assured that due to the cost, the Council will be informed via the budget, CIP,
contracts, etc.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 13
Packet Pg. 18
4.2.a
Councilmember Tibbott asked staff to identify the major changes to the existing stormwater code. He
learned there were no stormwater regulations before 1970 and assumed this was an upgrade from the
previous code. Mr. Williams answered the biggest is the state's requirement that low impact development
(LID) be the standard way of development in every city in Puget Sound. The state passed very prescriptive
requirements that need to be incorporated into the local code. The proposed stormwater code retains the
best of the existing code which was slightly ahead of minimum environmental protections, and incorporates
LID into the code as well as the rest of development code which will be presented later this year.
Councilmember Tibbott assumed one of the major changes was handling stormwater on individual
property. Mr. Williams agreed that was the preference and was possible on some properties but not on
others. The applicant will need to demonstrate to the City that onsite is not feasible.
Mr. Williams will be on agenda when finish SEPA process and Department of Commerce process.
1[1�:1DI01:14RK E11"1ki117us:317.1RIff.110IXOMOV1071100'I06uMDID1IQlmi
Councilmember Tibbott reported the Economic Development Commission who is making tremendous
progress on creative solutions to parking and are dedicated to identifying priorities and metrics for
measuring their progress.
Council President Pro Tem Mesaros reported the SeaShore Transportation Forum had a presentation from
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) regarding changing transportation trends. The presentation was so
good that he has recommended Council President Johnson invite the presenter to give a similar presentation
to the City Council. He reported the SnoCom Board meeting included approval of the 2017 budget. A joint
SnoCom/SnoPac meeting on September 15 will focus on the potential SnoCom/SnoPac merger.
Council President Pro Tern Mesaros reported the two new board members that the Council appointed in
July were in attendance at the Edmonds Public Facilities District meeting which included discussion
regarding their upcoming season and tickets sold. He and his wife plan to attend the season kickoff show,
Bruce Hornsby & the Noisemakers on September 29. The EPFD's fundraising gala and fundraising auction
is September 29; further information is available on their website. He announced the EPFD's Executive
Director Joe McIalwain was appointed to the Western Arts Alliance Board of Directors.
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson reported she as well as Councilmember Tibbott and Mayor Earling attended the
Hekinan welcome dinner and the farewell dinner for the host families and student delegation. She also
attended the Old Settler's Picnic and the Civic Field open house.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on the Tree Board's Arbor Day project on October 15, planting trees
from 10:00 — 2:00 at Main Street & 85'. A couple Tree Board Members recently graduated from Tree
University and she and Ms. Hope updated the Tree Board's website. The Tree Board Members are very
energetic and plan to have a table at the Saturday Market. She announced the Bird Fest this weekend.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported Councilmember Tibbott and she attend the Edmonds Affordable
Housing Task Force meeting and she and Councilmember Teitzel attended the Mayor's Town Hall meeting.
She participated in the Human Resources Director interviews as the Mayor's appointee; candidates will be
presented to the Council soon. The Diversity Commission continues to work on goals and events. The
Health District met 2-3 times in August and continues to work on the heroin and opioid issue in Snohomish
County. She encouraged Edmonds and Lynnwood citizens to attend a forum on Snohomish County's heroin
problem sponsored by the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office and the Snohomish Health District at
Edmonds Community College on October 13 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Interviews were held and a fifth
Disability Member was appointed which will make voting easier.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 14
Packet Pg. 19
4.2.a
Councilmember Nelson reported the Snohomish County Emergency Radio System (SERS) meeting
included an announcement that a copper thief was apprehended in a neighboring city, an update on the
discussions regarding the potential SnoCom/SnoPac merger and the expectation of a recommendation to
the SERS Board by yearend, and a report on upgrading the SERS radio system with costs ranging from $30
million to $40 million. Options include merging with King County or Washington State Patrol's emergency
radio system. He reported on the Waterfront Access Task Force, advising of the final open house on
September 14 at 6:00 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room where the top scoring alternatives will be unveiled
and public input can be provided. He attended the Mayor's Pedestrian Task Force whose focus is on
education, targeting the most vulnerable, older adults and children.
i flu EV01:v6YKl]u lu M DIeI V
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson thanked Mayor Earling for the opportunity to fill in for him while he was in Cabo
San Lucas. She reported the Civic Field Master Plan online open house is open until September 8. She
announced Bird Fest this Friday, Saturday and Sunday; the Edmonds Classic Car Show from 10 to 5 on
Sunday that brings 10,000 visitors to the City, the Scarecrow Festival beginning October 1 and the Edmonds
Museum's Harvest Dinner on November 5.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas congratulated Mayor Earling for being one of the elected officials who
gets to be a hurricane this year; a Category 1 hurricane hit Cabo today.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled being in Hurricane Iniki. She agreed the Edmonds Car Show attracts
10,000 people; she planned to attend the car show because her husband wants to purchase another Jeep.
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson recalled she endured Hurricane Hugo.
Council President Pro Tern Mesaros said growing up on Long Island Sound, he survived several hurricanes
and always enjoyed having school cancelled. He reported Edmonds Community College is celebrating its
50t' anniversary on Friday, September 16 at 4:00 p.m. at Triton Field with live music and local food trucks.
Councilmember Tibbott reported this is a busy time in his household as his wife is a teacher and his kids
are in high school. He welcomed the kids back to school and wished them and the teachers a great year. He
looked forward to a lot of energy in the City with elementary, middle and high school activities.
13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
15. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 6, 2016
Page 15
Packet Pg. 20
4.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Lori Palmer
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #221673 through #221791 dated September 8, 2016 for $312,937.15.
Financial Impact
Claims $312,937.15
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
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:
Claims Checks 09/08/16
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09/08/16
Packet Pg. 21
4.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 N
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM City of Edmonds U
a�
t
y
Bank code : usbank G
Q.
m
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun -0
7
221673 9/7/2016 074651 SNO CO CLERKS OFFICE E7AC.RJ Willy E7AC.RJ WILLY SETTLEMENT (COl L
E7AC.RJ Willy Settlement (Country F =a
112.000.68.595.20.61.00 50,400.0(
Total: 50.400.0( c
221674 9/8/2016 065568 ALLWATER INC
081916033
090216045
090216046
221675 9/8/2016 068857 AMEC FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRO S22721753
221676 9/8/2016 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
221677 9/8/2016 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING
221678 9/8/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
21822
W4-101046
1988742588
FINANCE DEPT WATER
Water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
FINANCE DEPT WATER
Water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
WWTP: 9/2/16 DRINKING WATER
9/2/16 Water services (plus
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
TO 16-01.PERRINVILLE CREEK - F
TO 16-01.Perrinville Creek - Fish
422.000.72.531.40.48.00
Tota
MILLER PLAQUE
MILLER PLAQUE
127.200.64.573.20.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
127.200.64.573.20.41.00
Tota
WATER WATCH PAGER FEES
WATER WATCH PAGER FEES
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
Tota
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
a�
c
c�
10.9( o
c�
a
23.1:
S
U
26.2: o
60.2E @
O
a
Q.
Q
2,197.9(
2,197.9( r
m
130.2z c
as
0
12.7( N
143.0( U
a�
t
U
N
4.5.
4.5, V
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 22
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221678 9/8/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
1988753202
WWTP: 8/24/16 UNIFORMS, TOWE
8/24/16 wwtp uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
8/24/16 wwtp mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
1988753204
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
1988763909
WWTP: 8/31/16 UNIFORMS, TOWE
wwtp uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
wwtp mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
1988763910
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVIC
4.3.a
Page: 2
0
lie
a�
Amoun m
m
24.9(
=a
2.4z +'
a�
c
a�
5.1(
c�
115.9E o
0
0.5( a
E
w
0
24.9( >
0
L
2.4z a
ti
5.1(
E
E
�
�
T:
115.9E W
r
Go
0.5( R
0
11.30 �
U
�
U
56.2E
U
1.6'
�
a�
6.1' E
t
0
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 23
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221678 9/8/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
221679 9/8/2016 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT
4.3.a
Page: 3
N
lie
a�
�
T:
T:
T:
Amoun m
m
aUi
L
6.1' =a
+'
6.1'
�
6.1'
ca
6.0£ o
L
0.1( a
E
0.6(
'co
w
710M,
0.6( Q
r
c
a�
1,055.0( E
t
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 24
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221679 9/8/2016 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
221680 9/8/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Tota
89538
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILL
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
9.6% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
9.6% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
9.6% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
89605
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
9.6% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
4.3.a
Page: 4
Amoun rL
m
U
a)
103.3� =a
1 : 1,158.3$ V
a�
S �
116.9(
0
116.9(
c�
a
120.4z
421.2� Z
4-
0
421.2E 0
0
L
11.2. a
Q
11.2, ti
11.51
m
r
Go
90.9E c
a)
0
90.9E e
U
W
93.7E V
N
327.2E .
0
U
327.2E
c
a�
8.7z E
t
c�
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 25
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221680 9/8/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
9.6% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
9.6% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
89722
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILL
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
9.6% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
9.6% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
9.6% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
89765
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
9.6% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
4.3.a
Page: 5
0
lie
W
Amoun m
0)m
L
8.7z •a
8.9�
123.6E c�a
0
123.6E `>,
ca
a
127.4, w
445.1( U
0
445.1E >
0
L
11.81 a
Q
m
r
Go
89.7: rn
0
89.7: �
U
a�
t
92.4( V
N
321.9(
U
321.9( r
c
a�
8.6, E
c�
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 26
4.3.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 6
09/08/2016
7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
a�
Bank code :
usbank
};
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
221680
9/8/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
(Continued)
9.6% Sales Tax
i
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
8.6' =a
9.6% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
8.8£
89826
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
c
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
22.9z M
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
o
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
22.9, >`,
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
a
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
23.6z
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
102.3( u
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
4-
G
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
102.3(
9.6% Sales Tax
o
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
2.2( a
9.6% Sales Tax
Q
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
2.2( ti
9.6% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
2.2-,
Total:
4,711.2E
221681 9/8/2016 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 45224 ROUGH BOX - VANVODEGRAVEN
00
ROUGH BOX - VANVODEGRAVEN
o
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
460.0( Y
Total:
460.0(
t
221682 9/8/2016 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON 21088 TAEKWON-DO 21088 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOl'
V
N
21088 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOl'
E
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
126.0( 2
21092 TAEKWON-DO 21092 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOl'
V
21092 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOl'
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
102.0( E
t
c�
Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 27
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221682 9/8/2016 061659 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON (Continued)
221683 9/8/2016 072455 BEAR COMMUNICATIONS INC 4507823
221684 9/8/2016 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 701
221685 9/8/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 6559
6584
6614
221686 9/8/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR 19688
PO # Description/Account
Tota
WWTP: MOT XPR7550 UHF 4W 4
MOT XPR7550 UHF 4W 403-512-F
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
Tota
ANNUAL SERVICE AGREEMENT
Annual Service Agreement- Bitco S
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
Tota
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 707.6 GA
Fleet Auto Propane 707.6 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 655.8 GAL
Fleet Auto Propane 655.8 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 320.1 GAL
Fleet Auto Propane 320.1 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
Tota
INV#19688 - EDMONDS PD - GAG
S/S CONTEMPORY SHIRTS - GAG
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
S/S CONTEMPORARY SHIRT - RO
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
EMBROIDER NAMETAGS - GAGN
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
EMBROIDER NAMETAG - ROTH
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
4.3.a
Page: 7
U)
lie
a�
L
Amoun m
m
1 : 228.0(
a�
03
=a
KI
4"
1,598.0( c
a�
26.0E
c
c�
159.1( o
I : 1,783.21
ca
a
of E
6,588.0( TU
I: 6,588.0( o
0
a
636.1� o.
2
ti
590.8:
m
r
300.7: c
I : 1,527.71
0
NI Y
N
164.0( V
T
82.0( •�
EF V
16.0(
c
a�
8.0( E
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 28
4.3.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 8
09/08/2016
7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
a�
Bank code :
usbank
};
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun r
221686
9/8/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
i
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
17.6z =a
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
8.8.
19691
INV#19691 - EDMONDS PD -
COMPS
S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
59.0( c�a
EMBROIDER NAMETAG
o
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
8.0( >`,
9.8% Sales Tax
o-
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
6.5 1 E
Total : 370.0: 'm
U
221687 9/8/2016 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 20941 YOGA
20941 YOGA INSTRUCTION
p
20941 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
190.3( o
20950 YOGA
20950 YOGA INSTRUCTION
a
20950 YOGA INSTRUCTION
Q'
Q
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
473.8E
20953 YOGA
20953 YOGA INSTRUCTION
~
20953 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
229.3, m
20956 PILATES YOGA
20956 PILATES YOGA FUSION INST T"
20956 PILATES YOGA FUSION INST o
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
179.5E c
Total : 1,073.01 u)
U
221688 9/8/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 16400431
PW ADMIN COPIER
PW Office Copier for Aug
V
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
N
68.5E E
PW Office Copier for Aug
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
.2
38.8E V
PW Office Copier for Aug
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
38.8E
PW Office Copier for Aug
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 29
4.3.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 9
09/08/2016
7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
a�
Bank code :
usbank
};
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun r
221688
9/8/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
27.4,
L
PW Office Copier for Aug
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
27.4,
PW Office Copier for Aug
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
27.4'
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
6.7, c�a
9.8% Sales Tax
o
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
3.8' L>%
9.8% Sales Tax
a
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
3.8'
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
2.6� u
9.8% Sales Tax
4-
G
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
2.6� >
9.8% Sales Tax
o
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
2.61 a
16400432 WATER SEWER COPIER AUG
Q
Water Sewer Copier Aug
ti
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
70.6E Zn-
Water Sewer Copier Aug
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
70.6E m
r
9.8% Sales Tax
00
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
6.9z c
as
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
6.9. Y
16400445 FLEET COPIER - REPLACEMENT C
(D
Fleet Copier - Replacement copier foi
V
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
64.6E
9.8% Sales Tax
E
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
6.3z V
16403672 CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USE I
Contract charge and meter useage- C
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
1,639.4E E
Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 30
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221688 9/8/2016 073029 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
221689 9/8/2016 003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 439031
221690 9/8/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC
9433901661
9433901662
9433901663
9433909388
9433909389
9433915943
PO #
Description/Account
Tota
PM: YOST POOL PUMP MOTOR
PM: YOST POOL PUMP MOTOR
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Tota
ROADWAY - SHEET MIX
Roadway - Sheet Mix
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - SHEET MIX
Roadway - Sheet Mix
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - SHEET MIX
Roadway - Sheet Mix
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - SHEET MIX
Roadway - Sheet Mix
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT
Roadway - Liquid Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - SHEET MIX
Roadway - Sheet Mix
4.3.a
Page: 10
0
lie
a�
t
.y
Amoun m
m
2,116.6'
a�
=a
3,033.3, c
a�
297.2 i
3,330.6'
0
L
c�
268.5(
E
25.5'
4-
0
0
150.0( o
a
14.2E Q
ti
150.0(
W
14.2E
co
0
a)
0
193.5( u)
U
18.3E t
U
N
E
55.0( 'M
U
5.2'
a�
E
t
0
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 31
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221690 9/8/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
9433915944
ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT
Roadway - Liquid Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433915945
ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT
Roadway - Liquid Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433940586
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433940887
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433940888
ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT
Roadway - Liquid Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433948203
ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT
Roadway - Liquid Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433948204
ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT
4.3.a
Page: 11
0
lie
M
t
.y
Amoun m
m
187.5(
=a
17.8'
a�
c
a�
110.0(
c�
10.4E o
L
c�
a
110.0(
10.4E u
4-
0
359.8( o
a
Q.
34.1E Q
ti
110.0(
m
10.4Eco
0
CD
0
110.0( Y
U
a�
10.4E V
N
E
110.0( U
r
10.4E
E
t
0
Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 32
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221690 9/8/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC (Continued)
9433948205
9433955970
9433955971
9433955972
221691 9/8/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 237062
RN08161026
PO # Description/Account
Roadway - Liquid Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - SHEET MIX
Roadway - Sheet Mix
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT
Roadway - Liquid Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - SHEET MIX
Roadway - Sheet Mix
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - SHEET MIX
Roadway - Sheet Mix
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
4.3.a
Page: 12
lie
U
a�
Amoun m
m
U
0
L
110.0( =a
10.4E c
a�
160.5( c�a
38.2E W
r
Go
3.6: rn
Total :
2,790.61,
lie
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
U
Traffic - Supplies
U
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
1.0( y
9.8% Sales Tax
E
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
0.1( U
WWTP: 8/31/16 CYLINDER RENTAL
..
8/31/16 nitrogen, oxygen, carbon
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 64.0( E
9.8% Sales Tax
0
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 33
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221691 9/8/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
221692 9/8/2016 063902 CITY OF EVERETT
221693 9/8/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
116002098
12478
221694 9/8/2016 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 23K-123739
221695 9/8/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS
PO # Description/Account
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB A
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
Tota
WWTP: AUGUST 2016 M/O & SE
August 2016 M/O & SEWER
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
Tota
FAC - SUPPLIES
FAC - 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
Tota
GW2884752-8 PM: TT
PM: TT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
GW2905013 WWTP: PREFERENCE FACIALTI
PREFERENCE FACIAL TISSUE B
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
NW2903861-1 PM: SOAP
PM: SOAP
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.3.a
Page: 13
Amoun m
m
6.2 1 aUi
1 : 71.3,
N, a
c
a�
469.8(
I : 469.8(
WE 0
L
ca
27,602.0(
1 : 27,602.0( .
U
w
0
130.E 1 >
0
a
23.0: Q
15.0E ti
r
I : 168.7E
S�
m
r
co
143.1, rn
0
14.0: Y
aUi
Ok
U
50.1( E
.2
4.9, V
r
c
a�
42.9. E
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 34
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221695 9/8/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS
221696 9/8/2016 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING
221697 9/8/2016 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC
221698 9/8/2016 074444 DATAQUEST LLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.3.a
Page: 14
Amoun m
m
U
a)
4.2' 'a
Total : 259.3E V
a�
AUGUST 2016 DRY CLEANING JULY/AUGUST-EDP a0i
CLEANING/LAUNDRY JULY/AUG '1E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 306.9( C
Total : 306.9$ _
0284847-IN UNIT 8 - SUPPLIES
Unit 8 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
CIEDMONDS-20160831
221699 9/8/2016 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 90112016080047
221700 9/8/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
16-3689
Tota
INV CIEDMONDS-20160831 - PRE
TWO PRE -HIRE CREDIT CHECKS
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Tota
CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#009
Scan Services for August 2016
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
Tota
INV#16-3689 - EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #16-1569
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #16-1534
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE 16-3 (SM
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #16-1811
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
20.9, E
2.0E -0
22.9E @
F 0
a
Q.
40.0( Q
1 : 40.0( ti
r
8
5
2
m
r
11231.4( ao
I : 1,231.4(
lie
3 U
a�
237.6( V
y
82.5( .
AF
U
277.2(
�
a�
201.3( E
t
0
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 35
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221700 9/8/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
221701
221702
221703
9/8/2016 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL
9/8/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
16-19540
00010058482
9/8/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001766
001774
001775
001776
001777
PO # Description/Account
TRANSCRIPTION CASE IA 16-003
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Tota
WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMP
Water Quality - Water Samples Mo
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
Tota
WWTP: LED BULBS, 3/8 HEX BIT
LED BULBS, 3/8 HEX BITS + tax.
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
PM: NYL BASTER, ALK BATTERY
PM: NYL BASTER, ALK BATTERY
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
PM: U-BOLT
PM: U-BOLT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: U-BOLT
PM: U-BOLT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: FISHING PIER BULK FASTEN[
PM: FISHING PIER BULK FASTEN[
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: FISHING PIER BULK FASTEN
4.3.a
Page: 15
U)
lie
a�
L
S
Amoun m
m
U
a)
79.2( =a
1 : 877.8( V
aD
E a0i
nit
1,096.0( cm
I: 1,096.0( o
0
- cC
a
42.2: E
I: 42Z
4-
0
0
12.9E a
Q.
1.2-� Q
ti
22.9( "
m
r
2.2: c
as
0
-3.9E
a�
t
-0.3� U
N
E
a
!11:1;(lk
c
0.4:
El
0
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 36
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221703 9/8/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC (Continued)
221704
221705
9/8/2016 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 153922
9/8/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR47963
AR47964
PO # Description/Account
PM: FISHING PIER BULK FASTENEI
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
RADIX MONTHLY MAINTAGREEME
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement -
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
Total
WATER SEWER COPY USE
Water Sewer Copy Use
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Water Sewer Copy Use
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
PW COPY USE
PW Copy Use
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
PW Copy Use
111.000.68.542.90.31.00
PW Copy Use
422.000.72.531.90.31.00
PW Copy Use
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
PW Copy Use
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
PW Copy Use
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
4.3.a
Page: 16
0
lie
a�
Amoun m
m
a�
13.3� =a
1.3'
54.81 M
c
M
0
152.0(
152.0( a
E
0
U
5.3: c
5.3< c
L
a
0.5< Q
0.5'
W
22.5E --
Go
0
12.7£ c
U)
lie
12.7E U
t
9.01 y
E
9.01
U
9.0: c
a�
E
2.2'
0
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
221705 9/8/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota
221706 9/8/2016 066004 ESRI 81829283 WATER/STORM/SEWER - ARCGI
Water/Storm/Sewer - ArcGIS Deskt
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
Water/Storm/Sewer - ArcGIS Deskt
422.000.72.531.90.48.00
Water/Storm/Sewer - ArcGIS Deskt
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
Tota
221707 9/8/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH717890 LEGAL NOTICE PLN2016-0027
LEGAL NOTICE PLN2016-0027
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Tota
221708 9/8/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU40953 HYDRANT - MAINT GREASE
Hydrant - Maint Grease
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
4.3.a
Page: 17
U)
lie
W
t
.y
Amoun m
m
U
am
L
1.2E =a
1.2E
a�
0.8£
c�
0.8£ o
L
0.9( a
I : 94.2E
S[ U
oK o
1,003.3. 76
oK o
1,003.3, a
)K Q
1,003.3(
98.3<
m
98.3<
Go
98.3. c
3,304.91 Y
v
a�
t
U
N
70.5, E
70.5,
U
c
a�
284.5, t
c�
Q
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221708 9/8/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
221709
221710
221711
9/8/2016 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
0516938
0516939
0520137
9/8/2016 062193 FIELD INSTRUMENTS & CONTROLS 162597
9/8/2016 072453 FIRST CLASS CARPET SERVICE 0369
PO # Description/Account
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Tota
WATER METER - M-METER-02-01
Water Meter - M-METER-02-010 #2
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
WATER METER - M-METER-02-01(
Water Meter - M-METER-02-010
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
WATER METER - M-METER-01-01
Water Meter - M-METER-01-010 #2
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
Tota
WWTP: PROGRAMMABLE UNIVE
PROGRAMMABLE UNIVERSAL TR
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
Tota
GYMNASTICS CARPET CLEANIN
GYMNASTICS CARPET CLEANING
001.000.64.571.28.41.00
Tota
4.3.a
Page: 18
0
U)
lie
a�
Amoun m
am
a�
27.8E =a
1 : 312.4( V
aD
c
0:
3,056.0( cm
0
299.4E
�
a
3,056.0(
299.4� o
0;
0: p
L
1,478.0( c-
Q
144.8z
1 : 8,333.91
m
A
1,260.0( o
as
0
25.7' lieU
126.0(
I: 1,411.7' y
E
G M
U
249.0(
1 : 249.0(
t
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221712
9/8/2016
069469 FLINT TRADING INC
201073
TRAFFIC- WHITE LINE PKGS
Traffic- White Line Pkgs
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Tota
221713
9/8/2016
075536 FREGON ESE ASSOCIATES
439-008
HWY 99 SUBAREA PLAN
Hwy 99 Subarea Plan
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
Tota
221714
9/8/2016
011900 FRONTIER
253-003-6887
LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL AC
LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL AC
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PH
4.3.a
Page: 19
Amoun m
m
U
a�
L
8,295.6( =a
812.9( c
9,108.5E
c
c�
or
0
9,550.0(
I: 9,550.0( Q
CE E
CE U
41.9. o
�
or 'o
91.6' a
Q.
Q
10.9E
1 : 144.5' r
9
m
19.91 c
as
1.91 N
I : 21.81, v
a�
or
U
r y
308.0( -9
I : 308.0( V
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 40
r
c
a�
E
t
0
Q
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221717 9/8/2016 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
221718 9/8/2016 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 133093
221719 9/8/2016 072515 GOOGLE INC
221720 9/8/2016 012199 GRAINGER
3361835710
PO # Description/Account
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Tota
FLEET -TIRE INVENTORY (12)
Fleet -Tire Inventory (12)
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
State Tire Fees
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
Tota
BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908
Google Apps - Aug-2016
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
9176810134 FS 16 - SUPPLIES
FS 16 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9177616977 FS 16 - EXIT SIGNS
FS 16 - Exit Signs
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9204627286 SR CENTER - BATTERIES
Sr Center - Batteries
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
Tota
4.3.a
Page: 20
Amoun m
m
427.0( aUi
=a
16.7 V
W
c
43.4�
487.2E
c�
0
1,306.8( a
12.0(
128.0 c
1,446.81
0
a
Q.
Q
31.0(
31.0( r
49.9z V
0
E
4.9( 'M
U
c
41.2E
t
0
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221720
9/8/2016
012199 GRAINGER
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
221721
9/8/2016
074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS
679059
OLD PW SECURITY
Old PW Security
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Tota
221722
9/8/2016
069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC
175409/1
SEWER - SUPPLIES
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
175436/1
SEWER - SUPPLIES
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
175645/1
SEWER - SUPPLIES
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
176257/1
WATER 1" METER SETTER INSTA
Water 1" Meter Setter installed at -
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Tota
221723
9/8/2016
074141 HAMILTON, LISA
9/6 REFUND
9/6/16 REFUND
9/6/16 REFUND
001.000.239.200
Tota
4.3.a
Page: 21
Amoun m
m
4.0z
174.5E
a�
c
a�
55.0(
55.0(
0
L
495.3
E
48.5E
4-
0
0
74.0z c
a
7.2( Q
ti
728.9:
m
71.4z
Ll 00
0
a)
0
992.8E u)
U
97.3( t
1 : 2,515.71, y
E
U
126.0(
1 : 126.0( E
t
0
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 42
4.3.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 22
09/08/2016
7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
a�
Bank code :
usbank
};
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
221724
9/8/2016
012900 HARRIS FORD INC
FOCS425087
UNIT451 - WHEEL ALIGNMENT
Unit 451 -Wheel Alignment
m
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
120.0( =a
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
11.7E
Total:
131.7E
221725
9/8/2016
067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
1020609
WWTP: DAP KITCHEN & BATH SEA
c�
DAP KITCHEN & BATH SEALANT
—
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
0
7.4E
9.5% Sales Tax
a
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
0.7' E
7092944
WWTP: RAID FLYING INSECT KILLE
RAID FLYING INSECT KILLER SPRP
0
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
55.2( c
9.5% Sales Tax
0
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
5.2z c
Total:
L
68.6: Q-
Q.
Q
221726
9/8/2016
073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
2834740
WWTP: RETURNED ELECTRIC STA
RETURNED ELECTRIC STAPLER (F
~
r
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
-62.9'
9.8% Sales Tax
..
m
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
-6.1
2846066
WWTP: GENUINE JOE PAPER TOW
o
Genuine Joe 250-sheet paper towel r,
0
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
100.7(
9.8% Sales Tax
u)
U
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8 ,
2846708
WWTP: WINDSOFTC-FOLD PAPER
V
WINDSOFT C-FOLD PAPER TOWEL
N
E
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
105.7E .2
9.8% Sales Tax
V
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.3(
Total:
157.6' E
E
t
c�
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221727
9/8/2016
069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
906-614722
UNIT E118PR - PARTS
Unit E118PR - Parts
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Tota
221728
9/8/2016
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
300-10008857
WATER SEWER - WORK JACKET
Water Sewer - Work Jackets
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
Water Sewer - Work Jackets
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
Tota
221729
9/8/2016
015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
698904
WWTP: HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTI
21182 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTI
4.3.a
Page: 23
0
lie
a�
Amoun rL
0)U
a�
L
199.9( =a
19.5�
I : 219.4t
S
c�
or
A
or
Or
or
Or
or
0
59.9<
c�
a
59.9, E
M
5.8£ Z
w
0
5.81
I : 131.6( o
L
Q
�-
Q
F ••
3,750.9, r
1 : 3,750.9,
U t°
r
U 00
0
165.0( 8
1 : 165.0( N
lie
t
V
204.0E
•�
V
255.2(
or
0
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221731
9/8/2016
074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC
(Continued)
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Tota
221732
9/8/2016
062477 KEEP POSTED
20202
DISTRIBUTION OF BIRD FEST PO
Distribution of Bird Fest posters in
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
Tota
221733
9/8/2016
016850 KUKER RANKEN INC
INV-022173
STORM - MAKING STICK SUPPLIE
Storm - Making Stick Supplies
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
Tota
221734
9/8/2016
074135 LAFAVE, CAROLYN
081416
ESCC STUDENT EXCHANGE
ESCC Student Exchange Seattle da
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
ESCC Student Exchange Padilla Ba
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
ESCC Student exchange Padilla Ba
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
Tota
221735
9/8/2016
075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING
4491238
INV#4491238 ACCT#2185-952778-
SHRED 2 TOTES @ $4.65 8/24/16
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Tota
221736
9/8/2016
067306 LERN
80663
TRAINING SUMMER CAMPS 2017
TRAINING SUMMER CAMPS 2017
001.000.64.571.22.49.00
Tota
221737
9/8/2016
019582 MANOR HARDWARE
738532-00
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
Library - Supplies
4.3.a
Page: 24
Amoun m
m
63.8(
1 : 523.0E
S' a
c
a�
309.0(
1 : 309.0( r-
c o
L
c�
54.0(
E
5.Z
59.2$ o
y o
a
45.0( Q
y
64.7�
y 'n
18.1, "
1 : 127.9' t°
co
8 c
a)
0
9.3( Y
U
1 : 9.3( a�
t
U
R y
R E
299.0( U
1 : 299.0( ..
r
c
a�
E
t
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221737 9/8/2016 019582 MANOR HARDWARE
221738 9/8/2016 061900 MARC
221739 9/8/2016 075749 MCKINSTRY, MICHELLE
221740 9/8/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.3.a
Page: 25
Amoun rL
m
27.0( aUi
=a
2.6E +'
Total: 29.6E c
a�
0587983-IN WWTP: INSECT REPELLENT TOWE
INSECT REPELLENT TOWELETTES
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 107.0( -
Freight 0
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 8.8, m
CL
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 11.3E
Tota
9/6 REFUND
9/6/16 REFUND
9/6/16 REFUND
001.000.239.200
Tota
76089284
WWTP: CABINET(RETURNED), U
0
127.11 v
w
0
SF
0
0
35.0( a
1 : 35.0( Q
ti
DE
201.0� "
m
28.2E c
E as
N' o
-138.5,
a�
t
-22.0E U
E y
E
M
138.5, U
c
30.4(
t
0
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 46
4.3.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 26
09/08/2016
7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
a�
t
Bank code :
usbank
.y
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
221740
9/8/2016
020039
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued)
Total:
237.6$
a�
221741
9/8/2016
075746
MCMURRAY, LAURA
21034 FELDENKRAIS
21034 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI
21034 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
285.5( 4"
Total:
c
285.5( a)
221742
9/8/2016
074831
MILLER PAINT COMPANY
29598257
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
c
Traffic - Supplies
f°
111.000.68.542.64.35.00
46.7E o
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.35.00
4.5£ o-
29654772
HYDRANT - PAINT SUPPLIES
E
Hydrant - Paint Supplies
U
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
326.5( o
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
31.9� c
Total:
409.8: a
Q.
221743
9/8/2016
020900
MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
243518
STREET- PARTS
Q
Street - Parts
ti
111.000.68.542.31.35.00
r
31.0:
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.35.00
3.0z
Total:
34.0$ c
221744
9/8/2016
066553
MISTER T'S TROPHIES
107398
WALL PLAQUES, GYMNASTICS RO
a�
c
WALL PLAQUES, GYMNASTICS RO
001.000.64.571.28.31.00
217.9( (D
9.5% Sales Tax
U
001.000.64.571.28.31.00
20.7( y
Total:
238.6( •M
221745
9/8/2016
072746
MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES
14-1605-15
WATER SUPPLY OPERATION EVALI
V
r
Water Supply Operation Evaluation
a�
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6,709.5( E
t
ns
Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221745 9/8/2016 072746 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES (Continued)
221746 9/8/2016 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0444182-IN
221747
221748
221749
9/8/2016 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING
9/8/2016 024910 NORMED
4.3.a
Page: 27
U)
lie
a�
t
.y
Amoun m
— m
I: 6,709.5(
a�
=a
4"
240.0( c
a�
13.1
c
c�
24.8' —
Total: 277.9i
ca
15 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR, o-
WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR, E
125.000.64.575.50.41.00 437.5( TU
WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING EN, c
24808-728370
9/8/2016 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S7177236.001
S7177236.002
PO # Description/Account
SEWER- BATTERIES
Sewer- Batteries
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Tota
Tota
INV#24808-728370 - EDMONDS P
ASPIRIN
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
Tota
WWTP: HUBS HBL-48LU & 60LU-
HUBS HBL-48LU-Y2-5K-W-070-CD
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
HUB HBL-60LU-Y2-5K-W-070-CD-
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
WWTP: RETURNED HUB HL-60LU
RETURNED HUB
I: 1,562.5( o
L
D a
i
5.3z
5.7:
m
r
1.0� 00
I : 12.11 8
0
Y2
A a�i
t
939.4: U
W y
972.8' 9
U
187.4(
E
t
Q
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221749 9/8/2016 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY (Continued)
221750
221751
221752
221753
S7375397.001
9/8/2016 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1033060
9/8/2016 070319 NORTHWEST ASSESSMENT SVCS 1673
9/8/2016 025690 NOYES, KARIN
9/8/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
000 00 677
PO # Description/Account
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
WWTP: METAL FACE INDUC & AC
METAL FACE INDUC & AC MICRO
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
Tota
UNIT E129EQ - CRANE INSTALLE
Unit E129EQ - Crane Installed on U
421.000.74.594.34.64.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.594.34.64.00
Tota
INV 1673 EDMONDS PD - PRE -HI
PRE -HIRE EXAM - BRUGGMANN
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Tota
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8/24
Planning Board Minutes 8/24/16
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
Tota
748014 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
776408 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.3.a
Page: 28
0
lie
a�
Amoun m
— m
-972.8'
=a
N
c
C
412.6E
c�
92.4z o
0
49.5( a
I: 1,586.1'
D U
ni '~
0
13,720.0( @
0
L
1,344.5( a
15,064.5E Q
RE ~
375.0(
1 : 375.0(
Go
0
/1 a)
0
315.0(
1 : 315.0(
U
N
E
.2
40.6' V
r
3.9E
E
t
0
Q
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221753 9/8/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
793410
PW PAPER SUPPLY
PW Paper Supply
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
830209
INV#830209 ACCT#520437 250PO
WITE OUT CORRECTION TAPE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
SHARPIES INDUSTRIAL MARKER
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
MEDIUM BINDER CLIPS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
SMALL BINDER CLIPS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
STAPLES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
BLACK PENS (CLERKS AREA)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
DYMO WHITE ADDRESS LABELS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
RETRACTABLE BLACK PENS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
830316
INV#830316 ACCT#520437 250PO
CD-R RECORDABLE DISCS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
883054
PRESCHOOL: TONER
4.3.a
Page: 29
0
lie
a�
Amoun m
m
L
104.0E =a
10.2' c
a�
366.2( c�a
1.7, m
0
14.8z
0
94.5E
U
a�
t
14.7E V
L- y
E
165.7( V
r
16.2z
E
t
0
Q
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 50
4.3.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 30
09/08/2016
7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
a�
Bank code :
usbank
};
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
221753
9/8/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
(Continued)
PRESCHOOL: TONER
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
62.0< =a
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
6.0£
910314
P&RADMIN: PAPER, PENS, PAPER
P&RADMIN: PAPER, PENS, PAPER
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
25.4£ c�a
9.8% Sales Tax
o
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
2.5( >`,
Total:
1,004.3' a
221754
9/8/2016 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
0000130
PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\
PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
15.7 o
0001520
CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW
CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW
0
0
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
L
40.8< a
0001530
CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH :
Q'
Q
CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
ti
201.5< r
0002930
SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104
SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
17.4E
0021400
FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI
o
FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI
CD
0
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
197.6E u)
0026390
PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF
U
PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
17.4E y
Total:
490.7; E
221755
9/8/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
227437
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
U
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
84.0( E
227457
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
t
Q
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221755 9/8/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
221756 9/8/2016 008350 PETTY CASH
221757 9/8/2016 075745 PETULA LLC
221758 9/8/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
228261
9/2 PARKS PETTY CASH
632997
J925422
PO # Description/Account
4.3.a
Page: 31
U)
lie
a�
Amoun m
m
U
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
m
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
84.0( 15
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
c
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
96.0(
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
ca
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
96.0( _
Tota
9/2/16 PARKS PETTY CASH
STEELE-SMITH: DISPLAY & COST
001.000.64.571.28.31.00
BAROKAS: OFFICE DEPOT THER
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
STEELE-SMITH: JOANN GYMNAS
001.000.64.571.28.31.00
COLLEY: FRED MEYER: DISCOV
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
CORT: QFC: WATER FOR WELLN
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
HITE: STATE OF WA CAPITOL PAR
001.000.64.571.21.43.00
Tota
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
0
360.0(
c�
a
ER
k
U E
12.0( U
M, '~
0
35.1: 6
TI 0
0
L
5.9( a
Q
3.1(
E: r
17.1z
�
3.0(
co
1 : 76.4, c
a)
0
U)
lie
66.8z
U
N
6.5: E
I : 73.35
U
c
a�
8.7' =
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221758 9/8/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
221759 9/8/2016 064167 POLLARD WATER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
0053069
WATER - CHLOR TABLETS
Water - Chlor Tablets
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
0053071
WATER - SUPPLIES
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
221760 9/8/2016 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 219034
221761 9/8/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE
221762 9/8/2016 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET
4.3.a
Page: 32
U)
lie
a�
Amoun m
am
a�
0.81 =a
I : 9.5E V
W
c
a�
595.0( cm
0
24.1z
ca
a
60.6E E
50.7E o
0
4.9E c
L
I: 735.5'. Q-
Q.
G a
ti
r
41.6:
I : 41.6:
r
Al c
E CD
135.7E N
1 : 135.7E
a�
Of �
U
Of y
390.0( -9
1 : 390.0( V
r
221763 9/8/2016 030455 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL 2017027 MEMBERSHIP DUES 2017
a�
Membership Dues 2017 Puget Sound E
t
Q
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 53
2010551
21038 FELDENKRAIS
Tota
CUES - SEWER - RETURN POSTA
Cues - Sewer - Return Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Tota
ALARM MONITORING MEADOWD
ALARM MONITORING CLUBHOUS
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Tota
21038 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTI
21038 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTI
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Tota
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221763
9/8/2016
030455 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
(Continued)
001.000.39.513.10.49.00
Tota
221764
9/8/2016
064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC
5-010419
UNIT 252 - BATTERY
Unit 252 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota
221765
9/8/2016
075742 ROSE, LAURIE
6/27-8/27 REIMB
6/27-8/27/16 REIMBURSEMENT
WOTS SUPPLIES
117.100.64.573.20.31.00
Tota
221766
9/8/2016
033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL
2394583
FAC - SUPPLIES
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.6% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
221767
9/8/2016
067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO
624157
INV#624157 CUST#1733 - EDMON
GOLD DOT 40 S&W
001.000.41.521.23.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.23.31.00
Tota
221768
9/8/2016
072440 SCORDINO, JOE
5
E7FG.REIMBURSEMENTS FOR S
E7FG.Reimbursements for Supplies
001.000.39.554.90.49.00
Tota
221769
9/8/2016
066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
S3-1153128
UNIT 105 - EXHAUST GAS VALVE
Unit 105 - Exhaust Gas Valve
4.3.a
Page: 33
U)
lie
a�
t
.y
Amoun rL
m
16,036.0( i
16,036.0(
W
c
a�
65.4(
c
c�
6.4, —
71 A' �
c�
a
E
198.7E
198.7E o
0
a
159.7( o
15.3: ti
175.W
D
r
co
1,169.8E Q
0
114.6E Y
U
I: 1,284.5( t
U
OF y
f E
156.1 - U
1 : 156.11 ..
r
c
a�
E
t
Q
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221769 9/8/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
221770 9/8/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM
221771 9/8/2016 060889 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
S3-1155267
UNIT 452 - ANTI -FREEZE
Unit 452 - Anti -Freeze
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
S3-1171669
UNIT 451 - PARTS
Unit 451 - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
S3-1177474
UNIT 451 -TRANS OIL
Unit 451 - Trans Oil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
S36-1170690
UNIT 65 - PARTS
Unit 65 - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.3.a
Page: 34
U)
lie
a�
Amoun m
m
82.5< aUi
=a
8.0£
W
c
a�
83.2.
c�
8.1( o
0
ca
a
55.0z
5.4( u
4-
0
55.0z
m
5.4(co
Total : 359.1: c
CD
0
0204708-IN UNITS E119PR, E120PR, E128PR - i )
lie
Units E119PR, E120PR, E128PR - Ar U
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 866.E 1 V
Freight y
ARV/29782673
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 25.1 £ E
FLEET TOOLS
Fleet Tools
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
Tota
891.8E
U
c
a�
E
123.3(
c�
Q
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 55
4.3.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 35
09/08/2016
7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
W
Bank code :
usbank
};
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
221771
9/8/2016 060889 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
i
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
12.0E 15
ARV/29815962
FLEET - TOOLS
Fleet - Tools
c
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
239.61
Freight
-0
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
16.9E c�a
9.8% Sales Tax
o
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
25.1( >`,
Total:
417.1E o-
221772
9/8/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2002-0291-9
LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV
LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV
U
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
79.5' c
2002-7495-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W
0
0
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
L
17.4: a
2003-2646-0
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
Q'
Q
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
ti
14.6'
2004-9315-3
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W
m
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
28.5z
2005-9488-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W
o
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W
CD
0
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
17.4E Y
2006-6395-3
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M
U
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
174.5< y
2009-1385-3
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X
E
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
23.3E V
2009-4334-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V
c
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V
E
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
37.0E
Q
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 56
4.3.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 36
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
a�
Bank code : usbank
};
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
221772 9/8/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
2010-5432-7
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f
L
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
37.9'
2011-0356-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI
w
c
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
24.7(
2011-8789-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
ca
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
o
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
29.4z j,
2011-9222-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W
M
a
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
17.0: 'E
2015-0127-7
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F
o
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
19.5£ ra
2015-3292-6
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S-
o
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S-
L
Q-
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
Q.
156.5 1 Q
2017-1178-5
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
708.4£ v
2020-7719-4
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
Go
602.9z c
2021-3965-5
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100
0
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100lie
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
19.0, y
2022-5063-5
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
V
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
14.6' E
2022-8909-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME
V
r
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
54.1 1 a
2023-5673-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W
E
E
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W
Q
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 57
4.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 37
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
W
t
Bank code : usbank
.y
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
221772 9/8/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
25.2:
L
2024-9953-9
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
396.3'
2025-2918-6
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
3,043.2(
2025-2920-2
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4
0
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
120.4, a
2025-7615-3
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
15,087.3z
2025-7948-8
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2
0
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
360.9� o
2025-7952-0
WWTP: 8/1-8/31/16 ENERGY MGMT
L
Q-
8/1-8/31/16 WWTP ENERGY MANA(
Q'
Q
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
9.4,
2047-1489-3
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150'
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150'
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
4.8z
2047-1492-7
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2
00
c
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
107.6' CD
2047-1493-5
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40lie
N
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40
U
W
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
56.7' V
2047-1494-3
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10
y
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10
E
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
14.4. 2
2047-1495-0
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2
V
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2
c
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
195.6E E
2053-0758-0
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING
Q
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 58
4.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 38
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
a�
Bank code : usbank
};
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
221772 9/8/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING
a0i
L
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
144.3 0 =a
2205-4758-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
47.7E
2207-9275-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
151.4E o
Total:
21,842.7E j,
ca
a
221773 9/8/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
2016-3323
INV#2016-3323 SNO CO JAIL-JULY ;
356.23 HOUSING @ $89.38 - 7/16
E
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
31,839.8z U
57.83 BOOKINGS @ $116.14 - 7/16
p
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
6,716.3E
46.5 MED/SPEC @ $52.01 - 7/16
p
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
L
2,418.4( a
42.75 MENTAL HEALTH @ $124.72 -
Q
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
5,331.7E
10.75 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50 - 7/
r
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
1,241.6, v
5 WORK RELEASE @ $50 - 7/16
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
250.0( Go
2016-3323
CRS ON #2016-3323 SNO CO JAIL-,
c
CR 17 HOUSING - WOOTEN 6/16
c
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
-1,519.4( Y
CR 5 WORK RELEASE $34-DECKEF
U
a)
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
-170.0( V
Total:
46,108.6, y
E
221774 9/8/2016 069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC
1160824-1
WATER - TELEMETRY SCADA SYSI
Water - Telemetry SCADA System M�
V
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
2,301.9E
Fees
E
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
230.2(
c�
Q
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221774 9/8/2016 069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC
221775 9/8/2016 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
221776 9/8/2016 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE
221777 9/8/2016 071585 STERICYCLE INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
8.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
Tota
103583
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
103584
WWTP: 9/1/16 RECYCLING
Recycling + taxes
423.000.76.535.80.47.66
103585
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
103586
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
103587
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RE
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
103588
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
4.3.a
Page: 39
Amoun m
m
U
a�
L
195.61 =a
I : 2,727.8,
a�
c
a�
550.6E
0
29.9: a
0(
0(
674.4 1
4-
0
0
555.Z p
C 0-
C 0.
Q
1,132.3E
459.8E m
Total :
3,402.6'
00
44370 PW - FLEET DOOR REPAIRS
as
PW - Fleet Door Repairs
0
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
319.8E U
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
31.3E V
Total:
351Z E
.2
3003554130 INV#3003554130 CUST#6076358 EC
V
MINIMUM MONTHLY SERVICE CHG
r
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
c
10.3( a)
Page: 39
Packet Pg. 60
E
t
0
Q
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221777 9/8/2016 071585 071585 STERICYCLE INC
221778 9/8/2016 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
S101688698.001 FS 17 - PARTS
FS 17 -Parts
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
221779 9/8/2016 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 2601
221780 9/8/2016 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18122023
221781 9/8/2016 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
18122831
Tota
4.3.a
Page: 40
U)
lie
a�
t
.y
Amoun m
— m
1 : 10.3E
a�
=a
4" 39.8E c
a�
Total: 43.7(
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES AUGUST 0
L
Social media services August 2016 c�
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.0(
STREET - SUPPLIES
Street - Supplies
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
STREET - SUPPLIES
Street - Supplies
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
Total : 300.0( .
U
4-
0
Tota
74839 FAC MAINT - WORK SHIRTS
Fac Maint - Work Shirts
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
86.3 0 >
0
L
Q
8.4( Q
ti
r
58.6 ,
5.7:
159.2! c
a�
lie
0
375.0( aUi
t
U
36.7: N
Total: 411.7! •M
221782 9/8/2016 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US54073 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR V
r
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR
a�
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 274.7 , E
t
c�
Q
Page: 40
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221782 9/8/2016 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (Continued)
221783 9/8/2016 075748 TIEGEN, MARIA 9/6 REFUND
221784 9/8/2016 074494 UK SOCCER ELITE 20934 UK ELITE SOCCE
21007 UK PETITE SOCC
221785 9/8/2016 062693 US BANK 1865
PO # Description/Account
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Tota
9/6/16 REFUND
9/6/16 REFUND
001.000.239.200
Tota
20934 UK ELITE SOCCER INSTRU
20934 UK ELITE SOCCER INSTRU
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
21007 UK PETITE SOCCER INSTR
21007 UK PETITE SOCCER INSTR
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Tota
VC EQUIP - FAC MAINT SUPPLIES
VC Equip - Fac Maint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Office Dep - Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Lowes - City Hall - /syookues
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Office Depot - Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Mallory Paints - Fac Maint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Amazon - City Hall - Lighting Suppli
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Automation Direct - Grandstands -
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Amazon - City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.3.a
Page: 41
Amoun m
m
U
a)
26.9< =a
301.7( V
W
c
a�
25.0( cm
25.0( o
L
C (�
C Q"
3,168.0( .
U
U
U o
165.6( @
3,333.6( c
L
Q
Q.
i
156.4�
47.1z "
m
33.2' c
as
155.1(lie
N
U
126.0:
e: V
16.8( E
a
52.0( C)
r
c
55.9z E
t
Q
Page: 41
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221785 9/8/2016 062693 062693 US BANK
221786 9/8/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
9770792397
PO # Description/Account
Tota
C/A 571242650-0001
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept
001.000.62.524.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ
001.000.61.557.20.42.00
iPad Cell Service Council
001.000.11.511.60.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court
001.000.23.512.50.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Developm
001.000.62.524.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineeri
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance
001.000.31.514.23.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR
001.000.22.518.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's O
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks De
001.000.64.571.21.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police De
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
Air cards Police Dept
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning
001.000.62.558.60.35.00
4.3.a
Page: 42
N
lie
a�
t
.y
Amoun m
d
1 : 642. &
a�
=a
4"
412.7E c
a�
75.8E -0
c
M
75.8' o
300.1( a
76.0(
ei
95.8( o
ng
872.6z o
L
a
131.61 Q
ti
135.8'
95.8( m
r
CO
277.0.
as
ffi o
95.8( lie
pt y
80.0. V
pt y
1,285.9, .
U
1,080.2(
DE
a�
307.4: E
t
Q
Page: 42
Packet Pg. 63
4.3.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 43
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
City of Edmonds
U)
lie
M
Bank code : usbank
};
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
221786 9/8/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
(Continued)
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning De
i
001.000.62.558.60.42.00
113.5E 15
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
26.5E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
7.5E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
c�a
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
26.5E p
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
7.5E a
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
7.5E 'co
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street C
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
w
171.6E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
55.7� o
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/,
a
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
102.9, Q
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/,
ti
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
102.9, In
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
185.9,
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water
ao
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
281.7,
iPad Cell Service Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
115.8�
iPad Cell Service Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
20.0' U
iPad Cell Service Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
20.0(
iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP
V
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
197.5E r
9770918586
C/A 772540262-00001
Lift Station access
E
t
Q
Page: 43
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221786 9/8/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
221787 9/8/2016 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
221788 9/8/2016 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
8046015551
0000030986
221789 9/8/2016 075743 WHISTLE WORKWEAR OF SHORELINE SHO2517
221790 9/8/2016 064213 WSSUATREASURER
221791 9/8/2016 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC
i••
1068
PO # Description/Account
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
Tota
WWTP: NEUTHRA GLOVES
neuthra gloves
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
TRAFFIC - AUDIBLE PED SIGNAL
Traffic - Audible Ped Signals (3)
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Tota
WWTP: MICHAEL VAN PELT UNIF
MICHAEL VAN PELT's UNIFORM.
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
Tota
SUMMER SOFTBALL UMPIRES A
SUMMER SOFTBALL UMPIRES A
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Tota
AU
AU
AUG-16 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.36.515.33.41.00
Mulligan hearing 6z382453 8/02/16
001.000.36.515.33.41.00
Tota
4.3.a
Page: 44
Amoun m
m
74.8,
L
I : 6,917.4E
a�
c
a�
154.0(
c
c�
15.1( —
1 : 169.1E
ca
S Q'
E
1,100.0'
w
0
107.8( @
I: 1,207.8' c
L
CL
O Q.
Th Q
241.1' ti
22.9' "
1 : 264.0,
co
rn
c
1,470.0( -119
I: 1,470.0( t
U
N
E
17,430.0( U
r
125.0(
I: 17,555.0( E
t
c�
Q
Page: 44
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
09/08/2016 7:36:53AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
119 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
119 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Bank tota
Total voucher
4.3.a
Page: 45
0
lie
a�
t
.y
Amoun m
— m
1: 312,937.1!
a�
s : 312,937.1!
a�
c
a�
Page: 45
Packet Pg. 66
c
c�
0
L
Q
E
U
4-
0
0
L
Q
Q
2
ti
r
M
E
U
r
c
a�
E
t
v
Q
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
4.3.b
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STR
E1AA
c342
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR
EllDA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives now-
STM
E1 FN
c376
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
Transportation Plan Update
STR
E2AB
c392
9th Avenue Improvement Project
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM
E21FA
c378
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM
E2FB
c379
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM
E2FC
c380
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR
E2GB
c390
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR
E3AB
c427
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Avejo
STR
E3DC
c424
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR
E3DE
c426
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM
E3FC
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
_ STM
EYE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM
c429
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM
E3FH
c430
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR
E3GA
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E3J1B
c418
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC
E3LB
c419
ESCO III Project
STR
E4CA
c438
2014 Overlay Program
STR
E4CB
c451
2014 Chip Seals
WTR
E4CC
c452
2014 Waterline Overlays
STR
E4CD
220th Street Overlay�roject
STR
E4DA
STR
E4DB
STM
E4FA
STM
E4FB
STM
E4FC
STM 909ME4FA
STM
E4FE
ST
SWR
E4GA
SWR
SWR
E4GC
c453
Train Trench - Concept
_
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
c433
2014 Drainage Improvements
ID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c435
2014 Willow Creek Davliqhtinq/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
�14 Lake Ballinger Associated Projecfs
c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
eo Assessment of Stormwater Lines
c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
72 ywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase
c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
Revised 9/9/2016
Packet Pg. 67
4.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
Mm
M
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WTR
E4JB
c440
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
Er c460
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC
E4LA
c444
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
City Spray Park
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
Trackside Warning System
STIR
E5AB
c471
2015 Traffic Calming
STIR
E5CA
2015 Overlay Program
WTR
E5CB
c475
2015 Waterline Overlays
WR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM
E51FA
c466
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
STM
E5FC
c472
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STIN
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
STM
E5FE
c484
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP
TP Outfall Pipe Modifications r
`
WTR
E5JA
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
���
E5J13
W
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E51KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
E51LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES
E51NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
E6AA
s014
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
STIR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
WT
E6CB
i009
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
qr
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STIR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STM
orthstre Ivert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM
d AvqWin Gardens
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
88
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
WTR
E6JB
Ebl7 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
STIR
E7AC
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
Revised 9/9/2016 Packet Pg. 68
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
4.3.b
Engineering Project
Project Accounting
Funding Number Number Project Title
STM
E7FG
m013
PM
E71VIA
c276
PM
EBMA
c282
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
Dayton Street Plaza
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Revised 9/9/2016 Packet Pg. 69
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
National POW/MIA Recognition Day (5 min.)
Staff Lead: Dave Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
National POW/MIA Recognition Day will be observed on Friday, Sept. 16, 2016. This annual event honors
our missing service members and their families, and highlights the government's commitment to
account for them. Across the country, local POW/MIA ceremonies are encouraged throughout
POW/MIA Recognition Week, culminating with countless events and the national ceremony in
Washington, DC, on Recognition Day. Support for these missing Americans and their families are deeply
felt. America's POW/MIAs should be honored and recognized, rather than memorialized, with the focus
on continuing commitment to account as fully as possible for those still missing. Strong, united support
by the American people is crucial to achieving concrete answers.
Attachments:
POW_M IA_2016
Packet Pg. 70
5.1.a
'`r
City of Edmonds • Office -of the Mayor
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
POW/MIA National Recognition Day
September 16, 2016
WHEREAS, in 1998, the United States Congress designated the third Friday in September of every
year as POW/MIA National Recognition Day; and
WHEREAS, tens of thousands of members of our Nation's Armed Forces have endured
unimaginable suffering and privation as Prisoners of war; and
WHEREAS, thousands of other loyal Americans served and sacrificed in the defense of liberty and
freedom, but, tragically, never returned home; and
WHEREAS, there is evidence that Americans are still being held in captivity; and
WHEREAS, American Armed Forces have a long -held commitment to the vow to "never leave a
service member behind"; and
WHEREAS, our grateful Nation will never forget the pain suffered by POW/MIA families who live
without knowing their loved ones' fate or knowledge of their final resting place; and
WHEREAS, our grateful Nation expresses its gratitude to American POWs and MIAs and will always
reinforce the vow, "You are not forgotten";
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, Mayor, do hereby proclaim September 16, 2016 as
"POW/MIA National Recognition Day"rn Edmonds
and invite all citizens to plan and conduct appropriate re embrances, ceremonies, and activities in
recognition of our Nation's POWs and MIAs and theirf,i ies.
AL, -0 r e� - ra-
David O, Earling, Mayor
September 13, 2o16
Packet Pg. 71
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Shoreline Master Program Update (30 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 (Exhibit 2).
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 (Exhibit 1).
The City Council discussed Ecology's conditional approval and proposed changes at the July 12, 2016 and
July 19, 2016 council meetings. At the August 2, 2016 and August 16, 2016 meetings the City Council
voted one -by -one on the proposed changes from Ecology.
Staff Recommendation
For the September 13 meeting: Review the proposed SMP changes to reflect 2016 wetland guidance,
per Council's previous direction.
Overall: Review each of the Department of Ecology's required changes and one recommended change
to decide whether to accept them or provide an alternative for Ecology's consideration. (Note: once the
Council has worked through each of the proposed changes, staff will prepare a draft response to Ecology
for Council's review and approval before it is submitted to Ecology.)
NARRATIVE
9/13 FOCUS:
At the September 13 Council meeting, staff will focus its presentation on changes to the critical area
section of the SMP (pgs. 35 - 43 of the Council approved SMP). See the discussion under Items 4 and 5
of the "Required Changes" section below. Staff has created a redline/strikeout version of the critical
area section (SMP 24.40.020, included as Exhibit 5) which incorporates the changes accepted by the
Council and also incorporates Ecology's June 2016 Wetland Guidance for CAO updates (Publication No.
16-06-001) into the SMP (Exhibit 4).
Packet Pg. 72
7.1
OVERVIEW:
The Department of Ecology has granted Conditional Approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program.
Ecology's June 27, 2016 conditional approval letter is provided as Exhibit 1 along with 6 attachments,
which are: A) Ecology's Findings and Conclusions regarding Edmonds' SMP, B) Required Changes, C)
Recommended Changes, D) A comment summary and responses, E) Water Quality Financial Assistance
Guidance Document Appendix L, and F) Department of Ecology Water Quality Program August 19, 2015
letter.
The Conditional Approval includes 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 City of Edmonds sent an initial response to the Department of Ecology acknowledging receipt of the
conditional approval and requesting additional time to provide a more complete response to the
required and recommended changes. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.090(2)(e), the City of Edmonds has two
options for responding to Ecology's conditional approval:
1. Agree to the proposed changes, or
2. Submit an alternative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative(s) submitted for
consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by Ecology and with the
Shoreline Management Act.
The Council began discussion and preliminary votes on each of the required and recommended
amendments as a way of working through the issues and preparing a response to Ecology during the
August 2nd and August 16th Council meetings. Below is a summary and discussion of Ecology's required
and recommended changes and action taken by the Council thus far.
Department of Ecology Conditional Approval
For purposes of Council consideration, Ecology's conditional approval is split into three categories:
A. Critical Area Required Changes
B. Urban Mixed Use IV Required Changes
C. Urban Mixed Use IV Recommended Change
Each of the general categories are summarized briefly below and followed by more specific items.
A. CRITICAL AREA REQUIRED CHANGES
The shoreline regulatory jurisdiction can be complicated, particularly with the overlap of the SMP
regulations and the City's critical area regulations. Generally speaking with regard to critical areas:
within shoreline jurisdiction the SMP rules; outside of shoreline jurisdiction, the critical area regulations
apply.
Local jurisdictions can integrate CAO standards into the SMP if the CAO meets the requirements of the
SMP Guidelines and Shoreline Management Act procedural rules. If proposed SMP provisions are
Packet Pg. 73
7.1
designed to rely on other local ordinances such as the CAO to meet shoreline management
requirements, those local ordinances must be a part of the SMP that is ultimately approved by Ecology.
There are several options to integrate CAO provisions into an SMP:
1. Copy specific sections from the CAO and embed them into the body of the SMP.
2. Reference a "specific, dated edition" of the CAO in the SMP, noting in detail either the CAO
provisions that will not apply to the SMP, or the CAO provisions that will apply.
3. Include the relevant portions of the CAO as an appendix and explain in the SMP that the
appendix is specifically approved as a part of the SMP.
Incorporation by reference (the last two bullets, above) makes the referenced provisions part of the
approved SMP. Incorporating by reference was the option chosen for Edmonds' updated SMP. Since
the City sent the SMP to Ecology for review, Edmonds has adopted updated critical area regulations.
Five of the required changes from Ecology's conditional approval involve incorporating the updated
critical area regulations into the SMP. Each of these five required critical area changes are summarized
below, and then followed by an explanation of the differences between the Council -approved SMP and
Ecology's changes and a brief discussion.
1. Update the reference to the ordinance number of the critical area regulations being
incorporated into the SMP to reflect the recently adopted critical area regulations.
Language in Council -Approved SMP:
SMP 24.40.020.E (SMP pg. 35) adopted the old version of the City's critical area regulations in
Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, specifically that version in Ord. 3527 dated November 23,
2004.
Ecology Required Change:
Ecology's required change is to change the reference in SMP 24.40.020.13 regarding the critical
area regulations that are being adopted by reference to Ord. 4026 dated May 3, 2016.
Discussion:
This change will update the SMP to incorporate the recently adopted critical area regulations.
Without this change, there would be one version of the critical area regulations that apply in
shoreline jurisdiction and another version that applies outside shoreline jurisdiction.
City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote
The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 1.
Replace Appendix B (SMP version of the critical area regulations) with the updated critical area
regulations.
Language in Council -Approved SMP:
Packet Pg. 74
7.1
The specific version of the critical area regulations (minus exceptions) is included as Appendix B
to the SMP. Appendix B is referenced in SMP 24.40.020.13 (SMP pg. 35) and SMP 24.100.010
(SMP pg. 160). Appendix B in the Council approved SMP is the old version of the critical area
regulations adopted in 2004 under Ord. 3527.
Ecology Required Change:
Ecology's required change is to replace Appendix B with the critical area regulations adopted
under Ord. 4026 (minus exceptions discussed in change 4 below).
DitruSSinn -
This is an extension of change 1. This change will update the SMP to incorporate the recently
adopted critical area regulations. Without this change, there would be one version of the
critical area regulations that apply in shoreline jurisdiction and another version that applies
outside shoreline jurisdiction.
City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote
The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 2.
3. Remove the section that required a shoreline variance for certain critical area provisions.
Language in Council -Approved SMP:
SMP 24.40.020.0 (SMP pg. 35) lists specific provisions within the critical area regulations (Ord.
3527 version) which may only be implemented in shoreline jurisdiction through the shoreline
variance process.
Ecology Required Change:
Ecology's required change would eliminate SMP 24.40.020.C.
Discussion:
With the critical area regulations update, the previous critical area regulations listed in SMP
24.40.020.0 were modified to an extent that they would not require a shoreline variance in
order to be implemented. Most of these provisions pertained to buffer width reductions.
Under the old critical area regulations buffers could be reduced to 50% of the standard buffer.
With the updated critical area regulations, buffers may only be reduced a maximum of 25%.
One of the provisions listed in SMP 24.40.020.0 (allowed activities in geologically hazardous
areas) is being moved from SMP 24.40.020.0 to SMP 24.40.020.D (exceptions) which is
discussed in change 4 below.
City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote
The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 3.
Packet Pg. 75
7.1
4. Revise the exceptions section. This section includes provisions of the City's critical area
regulations that do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction.
Language in Council -Approved SMP:
SMP 24.40.020.D (SMP pg. 36) lists specific provisions within the critical area regulations (Ord.
3527 version) which do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction. The primary exception includes large
portions of the wetland regulations (particularly buffer widths). Within the Council approved
SMP, the critical area wetland sections were replaced in the SMP with Ecology's Wetland
Guidance for Small Cities.
Ecology Required Change:
Ecology's required change would eliminate most of the exceptions detailed in SMP 24.40.020.D.
Critical area variance (ECDC 23.40.210) would still be excepted as shorelines have their own
variance process and allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas (ECDC 23.80.040.13) have
been moved from SMP 24.40.020.0 (provisions requiring a variance) to this exception section.
Disrussinn-
With the critical area regulations update, the City has incorporated Ecology's guidance for Small
Cities into the CAO so it is no long necessary to have two wetland provisions (one that applies in
shoreline jurisdiction and one that applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction). The geologically
hazardous allowed activities was moved to the exceptions rather than remaining in the
provisions requiring a shoreline variance because those allowed activities may be allowed under
the SMA without requiring a variance.
City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote
The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 4.
Staff reviewed the list of exceptions again to see if some of the exceptions should be retained
with the incorporation of Ecology's 2016 wetland guidance. As a result of using the 2016
wetland guidance in the SMP, there are some conflicts with the wetland section of the City's
wetland critical area regulations (Chapter 23.50 ECDC) which should be excepted from the SMP.
Four exceptions should be noted in the SMP, these are:
a. ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings
b. ECDC 23.50.040.F.1: Standard Buffer Widths
c. ECDC 23.50.040.F.2: Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands
d. ECDC 23.50.040.K: Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
The wetland ratings are described slightly different in the 2016 wetland guidance than the 2012
guidance for small cities. While the same wetland rating system is used in both the SMP and the
critical area regulations (Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington:
2014 Update, Ecology Publication #14-06-029), the way the wetland categories are described
were different. So, ECDC 23.50.010.E (Wetland Ratings) is being excepted and the descriptions
Packet Pg. 76
7.1
of the wetland rating systems from the 2016 wetland guidance are incorporated into the SMP.
The main difference in the 2012 guidance for small cities and the 2016 wetland guidance is with
buffer widths. As a result, ECDC 23.50.040.F.1 (Standard Buffer Widths) is being excepted from
the critical area regulations and the new guidance incorporated into the SMP.
ECDC 23.50.040.F.2 (Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands) is almost identical to
the table in the 2016 wetland guidance. The only difference is the list item in the table;
Disruptions of corridors or connections. The 2016 wetland guidance eliminates this section of
table and includes corridor protection in the buffer width consideration.
Finally, the 2016 wetland guidance has an exemptions in wetland sections that is different from
ECDC 23.50.040.K (Small, hydrologically isolated wetlands) in the City's critical area regulations.
Primarily, ECDC 23.50.040.K provided for certain exemptions for Category III and IV wetlands.
The 2016 wetland guidance limits the exemptions to Category IV wetlands.
It should also be noted that when staff was reviewing the exceptions list, a couple of the
exceptions in the Council approved SMP where left out of Ecology's required changes table.
These are highlighted in the redline/strikeout version of the SMP's critical area section included
in Exhibit 5. The exceptions left out of the table were ECDC 23.40.130.D Monitoring Program
and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 Minor Site Investigation Work. It is unclear if Ecology intended to retain
these exceptions within the SMP. Staff will seek clarification from Ecology on these exceptions.
5. Remove the wetland section from the SMP.
Language in Council -Approved SMP:
The SMP wetland provisions are contained in SMP 24.40.020.F (SMP pgs. 37 - 42). The wetland
provisions in this section are from Ecology's Wetland Guidance for Small Cities. SMP
24.40.020.F.2.g also contains a version of the physically separated/functionally isolated buffer
provision.
Ecology Required Change:
Ecology's required change is to remove SMP 24.40.020.F from the SMP.
Discussion:
The City's recently updated critical area regulations incorporated Ecology's Wetland Guidance
for Small Cities into the critical area regulations. The City also further developed the physically
separated/functionally isolated (now called "interrupted buffer") provision in the updated CAO.
As with all Ecology's required critical area changes, this change will simplify an already
complicated regulatory environment by having one set of critical area regulations apply
throughout the City.
City Council August 2"d and August 16th, 2016 Discussion
Since the City Council adopted the updated critical area regulations in May 2016, a new wetland
Packet Pg. 77
7.1
guidance document was published by the Department of Ecology - Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates: Western Washington Version, Publication No. 16.06-001. Before voting on this
required change, the City Council wants to see a comparison of Ecology's Guidance for Small
Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002) used in the CAO update and the new guidance from Ecology.
Paul Anderson, Department of Ecology Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor, provided a comparison of
the two guidance documents at the August referenced other documents in Exhibit 3.
At the August 16, 2016 Council meeting, the council voted not to accept required Ecology's
required change number 5 and incorporate the 2016 wetland guidance into the SMP. A
redline/strikeout version of SMP 24.40.020 is included as Exhibit 5 incorporating the updated
wetland guidance into the SMP.
B. URBAN MIXED USE IV CHANGES
The Urban Mixed Use IV (UMU IV) shoreline environment is a new shoreline designation that would
apply to the Harbor Square Property and the Unocal property on the south side of the marsh. The City
Council originally adopted the UMU IV environment as an "interim" designation (to be reviewed and
finalized within two years after the SMP becomes effective) and established a 100-foot setback from the
edge of the marsh with the requirement to establish a 50-foot buffer within the setback with any
development within shoreline jurisdiction. Each of the three required changes from Ecology related to
the UMU IV Environment are summarized below (following the numbers from Ecology's document).
Then each item has a comparison of Council's approved version with Ecology's proposal and a
discussion.
6. Remove the "interim" designation for the UMU IV shoreline environment.
Language in Council -Approved SMP:
The UMU IV shoreline environment is described in SMP 24.30.070.B.5 (SMP pg. 31). The City
established the UMU IV shoreline environment as an "interim" designation, noting:
Establishing the Urban Mixed -Use IV designation as an interim designation will allow the
City, in cooperation with property owners, Ecology, scientists, interested
agencies/organizations, and members of the public, to carefully review effects of
establishing a new shoreline jurisdiction for the area around the marsh on existing and
planned development as well as the ecological role the Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of
Edmonds. The City intends to study the issues surrounding the Edmonds Marsh and related
Urban Mixed -Use IV designation for two years from the effective date of this SMP. At the
end of the study period, the City will adopt appropriate shoreline environment
designation(s) for the area surrounding the Edmonds Marsh including evaluating whether a
new designation is needed and whether the entire area should have the same designation.
Ecology Required Change:
Ecology's required change would delete the paragraph noted above (as well as other minor
wording changes) and thus eliminates the interim designation.
Discussion:
Packet Pg. 78
7.1
Under the Shoreline Management Act, an interim shoreline environment may be effective for up
to six months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating
the interim environment is developed and made available for public review. An interim
environment may be renewed for two six-month periods as long as certain procedural
requirements, including a hearing, are satisfied before each renewal. If an interim environment
is in effect on the date a proposed master program or amendment is submitted to Ecology, the
interim environment must remain in effect until Ecology takes final action. The law is not clear
on whether an interim environment would expire if Ecology fails to take final action within six
months.
The "interim" designation that the city had approved for the UMU IV shoreline environment is
different from the interim controls contemplated by the Shoreline Management Act. There is
no expiration date in the interim designation language in SMP 24.30.070.13.5 noted above. In
order to change any provisions of the interim UMU IV shoreline environment, the City and
Ecology would have to complete an SMP amendment process using the same process that
would be needed to change any other aspect of the SMP.
The "interim" designation reallyjust identifies legislative intent to study and update the UMU IV
environment sooner than the normal eight -year update cycle for SMPs. Nothing prevents the
City from updating the UMU IV provisions sooner than the next required update whether or not
it has an "interim" designation associated with it. As noted in the Council approved SMP, the
intent was to work with "property owners, Ecology, scientists, interested
agencies/organizations, and members of the public" in reviewing the interim environment.
Note: The current language about the rationale for interim does not clearly identify the purpose
beyond "working with" stakeholders or provide a schedule to accomplish the transition. Should
the Council wish to propose keeping the interim designation, a clearer purpose for the work and
a more specific timeline should be developed with the identified stakeholders and submitted as
an alternate proposal to Ecology.
Ecology has noted that they believe an interim designation is no longer required in part because
the Ecology proposed setback/buffer is the appropriate setback for the area.
City Council August 2"d and August 16th, 2016 Discussion
At the August 2"d meeting, the Council decided to reach out to stakeholders to gauge interest in
developing a work plan to submit to Ecology has an alternate approach and maintain the interim
designation for the UMU IV shoreline environment.
It was reported at the August 161h Council meeting that not all of the stakeholders were
interested in maintaining the interim designation. Given not all of the stakeholders were
interested in pursuing the interim designation, the Council voted to accept required change
number 6 and remove the interim designation for the UMU IV shoreline environment.
7. Change the setback/buffer around the marsh from 100/50 to 65/50 (essentially a 50-foot
vegetated buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback from the buffer).
Language in Council -Approved SMP:
Packet Pg. 79
7.1
The setback and buffers for different developments and uses throughout the City's shoreline
jurisdiction are contained in the Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table in SMP
24.40.090 (SMP pgs. 54 - 56). Most development in the UMU IV environment is subject to a
100-foot setback from the edge of the marsh with the requirement to establish a 50-foot
vegetative buffer within the setback area with redevelopment. This is depicted as 100/50 within
the Bulk and Dimensional Standards table.
Ecology Required Change:
Ecology's required change would change the 100/50 setback/buffer in SMP 24.40.090 to 65/50
resulting in a 65 foot setback from the edge of the marsh with the requirement to establish a
50-foot vegetative buffer with redevelopment. The amount of redevelopment that triggers the
requirement to establish the vegetative buffer is discussed in change 8 below.
Disrussinn-
Both the City Council's adopted version and the Department of Ecology's version of the
setback/buffer combination for the UMU IV environment require the establishment of a 50-foot
vegetation buffer. The primary difference is what happens beyond the 50-foot vegetated
buffer. The Council's adopted total setback is 100 feet, including the 50-foot vegetated buffer,
while Ecology's proposed total setback is 65 feet, including the 50-foot vegetated buffer. That
means a net difference of 35 feet between the Council approved version and Ecology's required
change.
The Edmonds Marsh is an important feature (ecologically and socially) of the Edmonds
Waterfront area. That being said, it exists in a degraded condition. The Edmonds Marsh once
extended up to Main Street. Over the years, the marsh has been filled, bisected by State Route
104 and surrounded by development. As noted in Ecology's presentations, there is little intact
buffer left around the marsh. What the Council must grapple with is how to balance the
requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (not being able to require restoration or
mitigation without redevelopment) with the desire to protect and enhance the marsh.
While a large setback/buffer in an undeveloped area will provide enhanced protections to a
wetland, in an already developed urban environment, a large setback/buffer may perpetuate
the status quo by discouraging redevelopment that could result in some enhancements around
the marsh. On the other hand, a smaller setback/buffer could provide an incentive for
redevelopment that may result in a net ecological benefit to the marsh.
City Council August 16, 2016 Discussion
After much discussion, the Council voted not to accept Ecology's required change number 7 and
to develop an alternative approach for the UMU IV setback/buffer.
8. Change a footnote related to the setback/buffer to note that the buffer established will be
required if more than 50% of the Harbor Square property within shoreline designation is
redeveloped.
Packet Pg. 80
7.1
Language in Council -Approved SMP:
The 100/50 setback/buffer in the Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table in SMP
24.40.090 references footnote 18 under the table (SMP pg. 56). Footnote 18 contains the
following language:
Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 100 feet. New
development activities within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment require the
establishment of a SO -foot vegetation buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the
vegetative buffer is absent.
Ecology Required Change:
Ecology's required change to this footnote mostly relates to when the requirement to establish
the 50-foot vegetated buffer will be required. Ecology's change would require establishment of
the vegetative buffer with "Redevelopment of greater than 50% for the Harbor Square property
within shoreline jurisdiction and development of the site on the south border of the marsh..."
Disawssinn-
The Council adopted SMP did not put a threshold on when the establishment of the vegetated
buffer would be triggered. One typical threshold often used for bringing a site until full
compliance with a given regulation is when a development exceeds 75% replacement cost of the
existing development. The 75% threshold is listed in the nonconforming building section in SMP
24.70.010 and 24.70.020 (SMP pgs. 124 and 125). Ecology's required change requiring the
establishment of the buffer with 50% redevelopment would be a more stringent than the 75%
threshold in the nonconforming provisions.
C. URBAN MIXED USE IV RECOMMENDED CHANGE
The one recommended change for the UMU IV shoreline environment relates to residential uses.
Language in Council -Approved SMP:
The City Council -adopted version of the UMU IV shoreline environment did not allow for residential
uses.
Ecology Recommended Change:
Ecology is recommending that the City consider allowing multi -family residential development in the
UMU IV shoreline environment.
Discussion:
Ecology's reasoning behind this recommended change is that including residential development as a
permitted use in the UMU IV environment would eliminate the need for a future SMP amendment
should the City of Edmonds consider a rezone of properties that would allow residential development
subject to the UMU IV shoreline environment.
Packet Pg. 81
7.1
The Planning Board's SMP recommendation to City Council included allowing multi -family residential
development within the UMU IV shoreline area (UMU III at the time). Including residential development
within the SMP would not automatically allow residential development within the Harbor Square
property. Any development within shoreline jurisdiction must be compliant with zoning as well as the
SMP. Currently the contract rezone for Harbor Square does not allow for residential development.
However, the MP2 zone on the south side of the marsh does allow for mixed use development,
including residential uses. If the City Council wanted sometime to allow residential use at the Harbor
Square property, not prohibiting it in the SMP now would eliminate the need to conduct a long SMP
amendment process later (though it would not eliminate the Edmonds zoning requirement prohibiting
residential in this area, unless the Council were to change the zoning code).
NEXT STEPS
After the City Council directs a general response to each of Ecology's proposed changes, City staff will
draft a more detailed, formal response for the Council's review and approval.
Ecology asks for submittal of the City's final response to the proposed SMP changes by October 31,
2016.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1- Department of Ecology Conditional Approval with Attachments
Exhibit 2 - Council SMP Approved 20141118
Exhibit 3 - Principal Changes to Wetland CAO Guidance
Exhibit 4 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication
No. 16-06-001)
Exhibit 5 - Redline/Strikeout Version of SMP 24.40.020
Packet Pg. 82
au118Joyg : 9�gs4u9uay3e;4d 44inn 1enoiddd jeuoi;ipuo3 ABoloa3;o;u9w:Ped9a - ;igiyx3 :;u8wL138;4d
,c°�• pay
41
2
� � x
s Y �
n
I&69
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000
711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons ivith a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
M
00
aY
a
aD
c,>
fC
a
June 27, 2016
The Honorable Dave Earling
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update —
Conditional Approval
Dear Mayor Earling:
Thank you for submitting to Ecology the City of Edmonds (City) Shoreline Master Program
comprehensive update. We have completed our review of the proposal for consistency with
the Shoreline Management Act and implementing guidelines.
As we have already discussed with your staff, the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) identified specific changes necessary to make the proposal approvable.
These changes are detailed in Attachment B. Recommended changes are detailed are
proposed in Attachment C. Findings and conclusions related to the City's proposed SMP
amendment are contained in Attachment A.
Pursuant to RCW 90,58.090 (2)(e), at this point, the City may:
• Agree to the proposed changes, or
* Submit an alterative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative(s) submitted
for consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by
Ecology and with the Shoreline Management Act.
Final Ecology approval will occur when the City and Ecology agree on language that
meets statutory and Guidelines requirements.
au118Joyg : 9�q�) s4u8uay3e;4d 44inn 1enoiddd jeuoi;ipuo3 ABoloo3;o;u9w:Pedaa - 6;igiyx3 :;u9wLI38;4d
�r
00
The Honorable Dave Earling a
June 27, 2016
Page 2
a
Please provide your written response within 30 days to the Director's Office at the following
address:
WA State Department of Ecology
Attention: Director's Office
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-6700
Ecology appreciates the dedicated work that you, the City Council, City Development
Services staff (Kernen Lien, Shane Hope, and Rob Chave), the Planning Commission and
engaged interested parties have put into this SMP update.
Thank you again for your efforts. We look forward to concluding the SMP update review
process in the near future. ff you have any questions or would like to discuss the changes
identified by Ecology, please contact our Regional Planner, David Pater at
David.Pater@ecy.wa.gov/(425) 649-4253,
Sincerely,
Maia D. Bellon
Director
Enclosures
By Certified Mail [7012 1010 0003 3028 4383]
cc: Shane Hope, City of Edmonds
Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds
David Pater, Ecology
Erik Stockdale, Ecology
7.1.a
Attachment A- Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
Ecology's Findings and Conclusions (Attachment A), including reference to Attachment 8 (Required
Changes), provide the factual basis for Ecology's decision on the City of Edmonds (City) updated
Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The document is divided into four sections providing introductory
information (Section 1), findings related to the City's submittal (Section 2), amendment history and
review process (Section 3), and conclusions (Section 4).
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Edmonds submitted to Ecology for review a comprehensive amendment to their SMP to comply with
the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) at RCW 90.58 and the SMP Guidelines (Guidelines) at WAC 173-26
(Part Three). The updated master program provides locally tailored shoreline management policies,
environment designations, regulations, and administrative provisions, as well as local ordinances
Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (Critical Areas Regulations) incorporated as part of the SMP.
Additional reports and supporting information and analyses noted throughout this document were
considered by Ecology during review of the City's submittal.
NEED FOR THE AMENDMENT
The proposed amendment is needed to comply with a statutory deadline requiring a comprehensive
update to local Shoreline Master Programs pursuant to RCW 90.58.080, and for compliance with
planning and procedural requirements of WAC 173-26 and 27.
This SMP update is also needed to address land use changes that have occurred along city's shorelines
since the most recent County SMP amendment in October 2000. The proposed amendment also ensures
the SMP is consistent with land use management policies and environmental protections provided by
the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the May 2016 Critical Areas Regulations (Ch. 23.40-23.90, Ordinance
4026).
SECTION 2: FINDINGS OF FACT
AMENDMENT HISTORY, LOCAL REVIEW PROCESS
The City indicates the proposed SMP amendments originated from a local planning process that began
in October 2005. The record shows that the Edmonds Planning Board held nine meetings open to the
public on June 22, July 27, August 24, October 12, November 11, and December 14, 2011, January 25,
May 9, and October 24, 2012. The Planning Board also conducted a public hearing on November 14,
2012. The Edmonds City Council held nine public meetings in December 4, 2012, February 26, March 26,
April 23 October 8 and December 17, 2013 and September 2, 2014. Affidavits of publication provided by
the City indicates notice of the hearings was published in the Everett Herald on October 31'Y 2012. The
Edmonds City Council held eight public meetings on December 4, 2012, February 26, March 26, April 23
October 8 and December 17, 2013, September 2, October 21, 2014. The City Council also conducted
two public hearings on June 4, 2014 and September 16, 2014. Affidavits of publication provided by the
City indicates notice of the hearings was published in the Everett Herald on May 19, 2013, and
September 4, 2013; all public meetings and hearings were advertised on the City of Edmonds web site.
After adoption of Resolution #1326, on November 18, 2014, Edmonds City Council authorized staff to
Packet Pg. 85
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
forward the proposed amendments to Ecology for approval. The proposed SMP amendments were
received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete on January 21, 2015.
Finding
Ecology finds that Edmonds satisfied the SMP-Guideline standards related to the local public process,
(WAC 173-26-090, -100, and-201(3) b)J, and submittal of the SMP to the Department for review (WAC
173-26-110).
INVENTORYAND CHARACTERIZATION (WAC 173-26-201)
Documentation of current shoreline conditions is a key part of the SMP development process and
addressing the no net loss standard of the state SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26-186). As the first step on
addressing this requirement, Edmonds developed a final Inventory and Characterization Report dated
November 2007. This report documents existing shoreline conditions and informs development of the
City's SMP (environment designations, policies and regulations) and restoration plan.
In addition to an inventory and characterization of environmental conditions, the City's Characterization
report, together with the Cumulative Impact Analysis, address Ecology's other analytical requirements
(WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(iii) — (ix). For example, Chapter 4 of the Characterization report provide a
shoreline use analysis [WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(ii)], as well as public access opportunities [WAC 173-26-
201(3)(d)(v)].
The City's Inventory and Characterization Report and companion map portfolio provides an ecosystem -
wide (watershed) and shoreline segment -level analysis of existing shoreline environmental and land use
conditions. Ecosystem -wide processes are presented in addition to near shore physical and biological
characteristics. Nine shoreline segments are further analyzed based in part on previous habitat
assessments of biological, geomorphologic, hydrological and landscape characteristics. The map
portfolio encompasses land use, biological and geologic elements of the city's shoreline.
Descriptions of current shoreline conditions below are categorized into three geographic marine
shoreline planning reaches and Lake Ballinger. Edmonds has no rivers or streams that meet minimum
state shoreline jurisdiction. Edmonds has five miles of Puget Sound shoreline and 3947 feet of Lake
Ballinger shoreline.
Edmonds Marsh: additional analysis was required for the Edmonds Marsh due in part to new
information which became available later in the SMP process. This additional information which is
discussed in section three, led to a tidal classification of the marsh as a Shoreline of the State due to
saltwater tidal influence.
Finding
Ecology finds that the City's 2007 Inventory and Characterization report provides a sufficient assessment
of existing shoreline environmental and land uses conditions consistent with State Guideline
requirements of (WAC)173-26-201 (3) (c) and (d). The analysis provides the SMP update process an
adequate basis for developing shoreline environment designations, policies and regulations, and future
protection and restoration opportunities in city shoreline jurisdiction.
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS (WAC 173-26-211)
Ecology guidelines at WAC 173-26-211 require local governments to classify shoreline areas into
environment designations based on the existing use pattern, biological and physical character of the
shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed in the comprehensive plan. The
Packet Pg. 86
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
Inventory and Characterization Report is used to determine the relative degree of impairment and
biophysical capabilities and limitations for individual shoreline reaches.
Based on this assessment, along with consideration of anticipated future development, zoning and other
regulatory overlays, jurisdictions may apply the designation criteria provided in WAC 173-26-211 to
determine which shoreline environment designation should be assigned, or develop their own tailored
designation criteria.
Edmonds current 2000 SMP has six designations (natural, urban mixed use, conservancy saltwater and
freshwater, urban railroad and suburban residential shoreline residential environment). The city's
updated SMP used Ecology's recommended designations with sub -designations under Shoreline
Residential for unique communities, as follows:
Proposed Designation
% of total'
Natural (Edmonds Marsh /Shell Creek) 3
n/a
Conservancy
1%
Shoreline Residential 1 2
32%
Shoreline Residential 11 2
3%
Shoreline Residential 1112 (Lake Ballinger)
13%
Urban Railroad
37%
Urban Mixed Use
15%
Aquatic I & II
n/a
s Percentage estimate of total linear shore land area
z The SMP includes three residential and three urban
mixed use sub -designations
3Natural designation includes only wetlands
Consistent with Ecology's guidelines, each designation includes a purpose statement, designation
criteria, management policies and regulations.
Edmonds did an excellent job incorporating shoreline inventory and characterization information for
delineating shoreline environments. The parallel designations of Urban Railroad and Shoreline
Residential encompasses nearly 70% of the City shoreline. The presence of the Burlington Northern
railroad dominates the City's Puget Sound shoreline. The 100 feet of shoreline jurisdiction bordering
Puget Sound is the railroad right of way, while the upland 100 feet is shoreline residential I and 11.
Residential sub -designations are divided based on lot zoning for marine shoreline and Lake Ballinger
(Residential III).
The Urban Mixed Use Environment is divided into four sub -designations based in part on city zoning and
predominant land uses. The urban center shorelines west of the railroad tracks are predominantly
Packet Pg. 87
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
water oriented uses (marina), while the urban mixed shorelines east of the railroad are more mixed use
commercial and residential development. Ecology has included one recommended change to the use
table that would provide more flexibility within the mixed use environment. Adopting this change would
preclude the need for future SMP amendments should the city modify zoning for that area.
The Aquatic Environment is divided into Aquatic I (low intensity) and Aquatic II (high intensity), with
Aquatic 11 covering the marine waters adjacent to water dependent uses (marina and ferry terminal).
Aquatic I borders the marine shoreline south of the marina and the railroad/residential shoreline and
Lake Ballinger.
As described in the SMP Shoreline development table (24.40.080) permitted, conditional, and prohibited
uses are established for each shoreline environment designation in a manner that limits impacts to
ecological functions while allowing for appropriate development. Several land uses are prohibited in
certain shoreline designations due to their potential to have substantial impacts to shoreline ecological
functions or public health and safety. For example commercial uses and parking are prohibited in the
residential environment. Conditional uses are activities that may be allowed in specific instances as long
as the impacts of the use do not result in an overall degradation of the shoreline environment. Some of
the shoreline designations outline a variety of conditional uses including but not limited to aquaculture,
dredging, groins and jetties. These uses warrant a higher level of scrutiny due to variations in project
proposals, location, and their potential for impacts to shoreline ecological functions, public health, and
safety.
In comparison the current Edmonds SMP shoreline development table outlines more general use and
modification categories for all shoreline environments. The table structure is similar to the SMP update.
The new SMP update outlines more distinct use and modification categories. For example, boating and
moorage facilities have five subcategories under the new SMP while the current SMP only defines
moorage structures and facilities singularly. Aquaculture is not included in the current SMP use table,
and new SMP requires a Conditional Use Permit.
Finding
Ecology finds the City conducted a comprehensive process for developing Shoreline Environment
Designations, using relevant information from the Inventory and Characterization Report. Ecology finds
that with the exception of required change identified in Attachment e, the city's proposed designations
and use and modifications classification table (24.40.080) are consistent with WAC 173-26-211.
GENERAL MASTER PROGRAM PROVISIONS (WAC 173-26-221)
The SMP Guidelines in WAC 173-26-221 list general use provisions that are intended to apply broadly to
all of types of shoreline development regulated by master programs. Edmond's general provisions are
located primarily under General Policies and Regulations (Section 24.40).
Critical area regulations are adopted by reference in Section 24.40.020. These include regulations for
wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Frequently
flooded areas are addressed under 24.40.030.
The Shoreline Use and Development Regulations (Section 24.40) also address Ecology's general
requirements for archaeological sites and public access.
These provisions must be met by any use, development, or activity regardless if a shoreline permit is
required or not. For example: If vegetation removal is necessary, the regulations require minimization
and compensatory mitigation.
Packet Pg. 88
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
The City's Cumulative Impact Analysis analyzes the adequacy of SMP policies and regulations to address
future development. It includes a table of potential shoreline alterations, associated ecological impacts
and outlines specific SMP policies and regulations that addresses impacts. It also explains how the
regulations address mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize and compensate for impacts.
SMP Sec. 24.40.090 (Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards) outlines setbacks by shoreline
environment and use, maximum impervious surface limits and height limitations are also key
standards. Edmonds shoreline is mainly built out with minimal existing vegetative buffers. Bulk and
dimensional standards overlaid with the vegetation conservation regulations (24.40.50) are key
measures to ensure no net loss of ecological functions in the city's suburban and commercial
shorelines.
Finding
Ecology finds that with the exception of required changes identified in Attachment B, the general policies
and regulations are consistent with WAC 173-26-221.
SHORELINE USE PROVISIONS (WAC 173-26-241)
The SMP Guidelines in WAC 173-26-241 are intended to both recognize existing uses and ensure that
future development will be appropriately managed consistent with the underlying policies of the SMA.
Avoidance of use conflicts through coordinated planning and prioritization of "preferred" shoreline uses
is a primary tenant of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020). Updates to local SMPs are intended to support these
goals through development of appropriate master program provisions, based on the type and scale of
future shoreline development anticipated within a particular jurisdiction.
Edmond's SMP update regulates shoreline uses under Section 24.60. Consistent with WAC 173-26-
186(5), the City master program reflects the principle that the regulation of private property needs to be
consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations. As described under "Environment
Designations" above, the updated SMP includes varying degree of flexibility within each shoreline
environment especially with the use of sub -designations for residential and mixed use commercial
shorelines. The natural and conservancy environments though small in size tend to have the most
restrictions when it comes to allowed uses with many uses simply either not allowed or not applicable
to these shoreline environments. The SMP Use matrix addresses applicable uses required by Ecology
guidelines, and also includes subsets of the more prevalent uses such as boating facilities (marinas,
ramps) and water dependent and non -water dependent commercial uses.
Finding
Ecology finds that with the exception of required changes identified in Attachment B, including
modifications to aquaculture use provisions, the City has established a system of use regulations
consistent with WAC 173-26-241 and related environment designation provisions that accommodate
preferred and priority uses, protect property rights while implementing the policies of the SMA, reduce
use conflicts, and assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS (WAC 173-26-231)
The SMP Guidelines in WAC 173-26-231 define "shoreline modifications" as: "...generally related to
construction of physical elements such as a pier, floating structure, shoreline stabilization, dredged
basin, or fill..." WAC 173-26-231(2)(b) states (as a general principle) that master programs should:
"Reduce the adverse effects of shoreline modifications, and as much as possible, limit shoreline
modifications in number and extent." These shoreline modification principles and standards contained
Packet Pg. 89
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
in WAC 173-26-231 are reinforced through associated requirements for mitigation sequencing (WAC
173-26-201(2)(e) and the no net loss of shoreline ecological function standard (WAC 173-26-186).
Edmond's SMP regulates shoreline modifications under Section 24.50, and address shoreline
stabilization, moorage facilities (docks, piers and floats); filling, dredging and breakwaters, jetties and
groins, and habitat restoration and enhancement.
The primary changes from the existing SMP address are defined pier and dock dimensional standards
consistent with Federal and other State resource agencies guidance; and more prescriptive shoreline
stabilization regulations for new and replacement structures.
The SMP update incorporates the fundamental mitigation strategy required by Ecology guidelines by
requiring applicants for stabilization proposals to demonstrate first that the project is needed to protect
existing structures. The section also prioritizes soft shore stabilization over hard stabilization options,
and requires a site -specific geotechnical report for new stabilization. Report requirements are also
outlined in the regulations. Where stabilization is needed, the least impacting alternative type must be
used. The SMP requires that construction will not substantially disrupt littoral drift or near shore
ecological functions. "Soft shore" approaches such as upland drainage control, vegetation protection,
relocation of structures or improvements, or beach nourishment are a priority over hard stabilization
options (bulkheads).
Finding
Ecology finds that with the exception of required changes identified in Attachment B, the City's Shoreline
Modification standards are consistent with mitigation sequencing principles provided for in WAC 173-26-
201(2)(e), requirements in WAC 173-26-231, relating to shoreline modifications, and the Boating
Facilities requirements of WAC 173-26-241(c).
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Addressing no net loss of ecological functions is a critical element in any SMP update. WAC 173-26-
201(2)(c) (Protection of Shoreline Ecological Functions) requires that: "Master programs shall contain
policies and regulations that assure at minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain
shoreline natural resources." A cumulative impacts analysis documents how an SMP update addresses
no net loss of ecological functions.
Upon completion of the final draft SMP in 2014, Edmonds finalized its cumulative impact analysis (CIA)
to assess potential impacts resulting from anticipated future development allowed by the updated SMP.
The City CIA outlines ecological functions at risks and connects them to shoreline alterations and new
applicable SMP regulations and policies. Impaired ecological functions and reasonable foreseeable
development is outlined for each shoreline segment.
As described in the sections above, proposed general regulations and the integrated Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) address most commonly expected future impacts to ensure regulations achieve no net
loss of ecological functions. The CAO standards have been reviewed and revised for compliance with
SMA and SMP guidelines requirements. A shoreline use and modification matrix provides shoreline
environment -specific classifications of permitted and prohibited activities. A shoreline bulk and
dimensional standards table standards outlines shoreline setbacks, height and impervious surface limits
and for various uses. More stringent stabilization and pier/dock standards are other key SMP elements.
Edmonds also relies on non -regulatory incentives, intergovernmental coordination, and enforcement in
their multi -faceted approach to managing shorelines.
Packet Pg. 90
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
Finding
Ecology finds that the City's Cumulative Impact Analysis presents an adequate analysis of shoreline uses
and modifications per WAC 173-201(3)(d)(iii).
RESTORATION PLAN
Pursuant to WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) and (f), local governments are directed to identify restoration
opportunities as a component of the SMP-update process, as well as establish implementation goals
that coordinate and facilitate appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects.
Edmonds prepared a November 2014 shoreline restoration plan. The plan is a multifaceted approach to
restoring shoreline ecological functions. It includes policies which link the plan to the shoreline master
program. The plan outlines restoration programs at the regional and city level including on- going
projects.
The plan also includes a comprehensive table of possible restoration opportunity areas. Projects are tied
to restoration objectives and timelines. Projects vary from beach nourishment, creosote pier removal,
nearshore and riparian enhancement, and culvert replacement. Implementation strategies include
project evaluation, monitoring and adaptive management. Potential funding opportunities are also
outlined.
Finding
Ecology finds that the Final Shoreline Restoration Plan is based on appropriate technical information
available to the City during the SMP update. The plan fulfills the requirements of WAC 173-26-201(2)(c)
and (f).
OTHER STUDIES OR ANALYSES SUPPORTING THE SMP UPDATE
Ecology reviewed a large number of reports, studies and information related to the City SMP update, all
of which are included in the master file record, or are listed as "references" at the end of this document.
Key supporting documents include the:
• April 2006 public participation plan,
• August 2007 shoreline inventory and characterization,
• November 2014 cumulative impacts analysis,
• November 2007 shoreline use analysis, and
• November 2014 restoration plan.
CONSISTENCY REVIEW
Consistency with the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58): The proposed amendments have been
reviewed for consistency with the policy and procedural requirements of RCW 90.58.020 and the
approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090.
Consistency with applicable guidelines (WAC 173-26): The proposed amendment has been reviewed for
compliance with the requirements of the applicable Shoreline Master Program guidelines (WAC 173-26-
171 through 251 and -020 definitions). This included review of a SMP Submittal Checklist, which was
completed by the City.
Consistency with SEPA Requirements: The City submitted evidence of compliance with RCW 43.21C, the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in the form of a SEPA checklist and issued a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposed SMP amendments on August 22, 2014. Notice of the SEPA
Packet Pg. 91
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
determination was published in the Everett Herald on August 26, 2014. Ecology did not comment on
the DNS.
SECTION 3: DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REVIEW PROCESS
The proposed SMP amendments were received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete on
January 21, 2015. This action initiated formal state review of the proposed SMP. Notice of the state
comment period was distributed to state task force members and interested parties identified by the
City on February 19, 2015, in compliance with the requirements of WAC 173-26-120. The state comment
period began on February 25, 2015 and continued through March 27, 2015.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED DURING THE ECOLOGY PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
Ecology received 143 comments from 31 citizens and 3 government agencies, one tribe and one
corporation. Consistent with SMP-Guideline review requirements in WAC 173-26-120, Ecology provided
the City with a summary of comments. The Responsiveness Summary (Attachment C) includes responses
by the City to SMP topics raised by the comments pursuant to WAC 173-26-120(6). The following is a
summary of the most common issues raised and both the City of Edmonds responses.
Summary of Comments:
The majority of comments focused on the size of the proposed Edmonds marsh buffer and setback and
the associated Urban Mixed Use IV Interim Shoreline Environment Designation.
The majority of citizen comments were in support of the City's 100 foot buffer (50 ft.) and setback (50
ft.). Some requested clarification about the previous 150 ft. buffer/setback proposal. Most comments
expressed concerns with the long term ecological health and future restoration of the marsh, its wildlife
habitat value and importance as a community amenity. Another common issue of concern is with
possible Port of Edmonds redevelopment plans for Harbor Square and tall buildings being located close
to the marsh.
Most agency and corporation comments were not in favor of the 100 foot marsh buffer and setback and
recommended a 50 ft. or 25 buffer with no setback. Comments expressed concerns that the proposed
buffer /setback was not supported by the most current scientific or biological information.
A few comments expressed that the proposed 100-foot buffer/setback was derived from a Department
of Ecology grant funding guidance document (Appendix Q. Other agency comments challenged the
validity of the interim designation for Urban Mixed Use IV environment. Concerns with impacts to
future site development of the Harbor Square and UnoCal clean-up site bordering the Edmonds Marsh
were also expressed.
Tribal comments questioned the intention of the Urban Mixed Use IV interim designation, the
finalization process and its potential to undermine future restoration. Concerns with the accuracy of the
shoreline jurisdiction boundaries of stream mouth estuarine areas were also stated.
Summary of City Response to comments:
The City of Edmonds SMP was developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the guiding factors for the SMP
regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts
Analysis submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
requirement.
Packet Pg. 92
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the Edmonds SMP: Shoreline
Use Policies (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; the marsh is a high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP
24.20.060.C.1; the City should work to maintain the marsh); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and
Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; the marsh should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration
projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (channel improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek
daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan.
Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to secure funding for projects
such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the City's proposed SMP included "interim standards" for
development around the marsh. The city adopted an "Interim" Urban Mixed Use IV environment for an
area where there is no preexisting shoreline regulation because the area is new to the shoreline
jurisdiction. The City noted the absence of any language about expiration in the regulation. The city's
use of "interim" in this context was not intended to be construed as an interim official control under
RCW 90.58.590 but ratheras an expression of legislative intent to revisit this environment within the
two-year period and adopt some kind of amendment, either by removing the "interim" descriptor if no
substantive changes are desired or by adopting a substantive amendment to the regulations for this
environment.
Because one of the city's main restoration strategies is to qualify for grant funding, the city believed the
SMP needed to be consistent with funding guidelines in Appendix L. The City's proposed 100-foot
setback was intended as a regulation designed to restore ecological functionsand also for its indirect
effect on the city's ability to obtain grant funding to restore the marsh.
The City noted that their proposed 100-foot setback regulation only has direct effect if and when
redevelopment occurs near the marsh.
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new buildings at Harbor Square
within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP becomes affective, all new development within shoreline
jurisdiction will be subject to the City's SMP.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY ECOLOGY AS RELEVANT TO ITS DECISION
Ecology has reviewed the locally adopted SMP for consistency with applicable SMP-Guideline
requirements, and considered the city's response to issues raised during Ecology's public comment
period (Attachment D).
The following topics are issues relevant to Ecology's final decision on updates to the Edmonds SMP.
Required or recommended changes to address each of the following topic areas are included in
Required Changes (Attachment B).
EDMONDS MARSH SHORELINE JURISDICTION DETERMINATION
The 2007 Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization only included the Edmonds Marsh within
shoreline jurisdiction as an associated wetland. Additional information gathered in 2010 indicated that
a portion of the marsh has tidal inundation. This resulted in inclusion of the uplands bordering the
western part of the marsh within shoreline jurisdiction.
In late 2010 Ecology staff conducted water level, salinity and hydraulic continuity assessments at the
Edmonds Marsh. Based on these assessments, it was concluded that the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) of Puget Sound extended well into the western portion of the West Marsh (midpoint between
SR 104 and the railroad right-of-way; the West Marsh lies to the west of SR 104), including the day -
Packet Pg. 93
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
lighted portion of Willow Creek to the west of the railroad tracks (Figure 1). Based on this, portions of
the marsh should be classified as a shoreline of the state.
The determination was based on the predominance of salt -tolerant vegetation (salt grass [Distichlis
spicata] and pickleweed [Salicornia depressa]), tidal fluctuations, and a continuous and contiguous
water surface within this portion of the marsh (Figure 1). The salinities measured and dominant plants
seen in the western portion of the marsh in December 2010 confirm, as well as aerial photographs and a
previous marsh characterization, that tidal exchange is a current and ongoing process in this portion of
the marsh. WAC 173-22-030(a)(ii) defines the OHWM in low energy tidal environments as the landward
limit of salt -tolerant vegetation; tolerant of salinities >_ 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt). Saltgrass and
pickleweed are tolerant of salinities greater than 30 ppt.
VA=
No change in water
elevation 112/11elevation 112/11
Off f}
Figure 1. Approximate location of Edmonds Marsh water elevation stations, January 2011 shown on 2002 aerial photograph.
Highest observed tidal height at Seattle (11.54 feet) produced a 0.5 foot elevation rise at western monitoring station (blue dot),
while no change in water levels was registered at the two eastern stations (red dots). Note tidal channels and mud flats in
western portion of marsh and transition to more salt -sensitive vegetation to the east of tidal channels.
A number of studies have been done at the marsh, as well as the former UnoCal site, and these
assessments have found no surface water connection (except for flexible pipes) between the former
UnoCal detention pond and the marsh proper or Willow Creek. Based on these assessments, Ecology
does not recommend this pond be designated as an associated wetland.
Packet Pg. 94
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
The portion of Edmonds Marsh east of SR 104 (East Marsh) should be designated as an associated
wetland. The East Marsh is associated due to proximity and influence to the West Marsh. Primarily, the
hydraulic continuity to the West Marsh is via the Shellbarger Creek culverts.
EDMONDS MARSH BUFFERS
Edmonds Marsh is a relatively important shoreline wetland that includes estuarine and freshwater
wetland communities, as well as Willow Creek, which discharges to Puget Sound immediately downstream
from the marsh. A stand of intact forest is found to the southeast of the marsh between State Route 104
and Pine Street. Scattered trees are also found along the eastern and northern edges of the marsh. For
terrestrial species, the habitat potential for Edmonds Marsh and adjoining buffers is significantly
constrained by the intense urban development surrounding the marsh. There are virtually no intact
habitat corridors linking the marsh to other large blocks of habitat (Figure 2), which limits access for large
mammals. This also limits the habitat suitability as breeding habitat for large birds such as raptors.
The ongoing discharge of inadequately treated storm water to Edmonds Marsh, as well as Puget Sound
immediately downstream, is currently the greatest ecological threat to the marsh. Harbor Square on the
north side of the marsh generates a considerable amount of storm water. Upgrading storm water
treatment at Harbor Square and impervious surfaces that drain to the marsh is an important and
necessary step in improving water quality in the marsh and Willow Creek.
While restoring the buffer at Harbor Square could contribute to improving water quality, retrofitting the
storm water treatment system would provide a much greater ecological lift and require a smaller
footprint. Unfortunately, the habitat benefits of a wider buffer are limited by the marsh's relative isolation
within a highly developed urban landscape. A densely planted strip of trees and shrubs would provide a
visual and physical screen and some additional habitat for birds, although planting trees on the levee
between the Marsh and Harbor Square may not be compatible with levee maintenance requirements.
Packet Pg. 95
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
Figure 2. Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek west of SR 104 with intact buffers outlined in red. Note tidal channels draining the
western portion of the marsh.
Figure 3 depicts the proposed shoreline jurisdiction for the Edmonds Marsh. The extent of tidally -
influenced salt marsh (i.e. salt -tolerant vegetation) is shown with the pink line. East of this line the
marsh is classified as associated wetland.
Packet Pg. 96
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
2006 Salt Marsh Boundary
D
I_
O
d
d
to
R
d
C
L
O
L
to
r
LO
r
Figure 3. Approximate extent of salt marsh (and OHWM) in 2006 in West Marsh.
Due to the degraded condition and constraints on the Edmonds Marsh, Ecology has classified the marsh
as a Category II wetland within the locally adopted Shoreline Master Program (SMP; Section 24.40.020
(2)):
Category II wetlands are: 1) estuarine wetlands smaller than I acre, or disturbed
estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; 2) inter-dunal wetlands larger than 1 acres; 3)
disturbed coastal lagoons or 4) wetlands with a moderately high level offunctions
(scoring between 51-69 points). Category II wetlands have standard buffer width of 75
feet.
SMP-required change number three requires a 50-foot buffer with a minimum 15-foot structural buffer
setback. A 50-foot buffer is consistent with existing conditions on the intensely developed north side of
the marsh and present constraints. As discussed above, the presence of the levee also limits the water
quality benefits that a buffer would provide.
Packet Pg. 97
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
The main benefit of restoring a buffer on the marsh would be some increased habitat area for urban -
tolerant wildlife species, as well as providing a more natural barrier between the marsh and urban
development at its edge.
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.
In summary: Ecology considers the Edmonds Marsh to be classified as a class II wetland under the City
of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO; see wetland classification, ECDC 24.40.020). This estuarine
wetland has been significantly disturbed by urban development (significant reduction in size due to fill,
fragmentation, and isolation from adjacent wetlands, chronic storm water, and hydraulic separation
from Puget Sound). The CAO wetland buffer table prescribes a 75-foot buffer for a class II wetland. The
City CAO also requires a 15-foot buffer setback (ECDC 24.40.280, Building Setbacks). The recommended
Ecology buffer setback is consistent with the CAO. The recommended 50-foot buffer is less than the CAO
wetland classification. Ecology's analysis concludes that a 50-foot buffer is appropriate for Edmonds
Marsh given the environmental impact issues outlined above and the current configuration of the
Harbor Square Business Park.
URBAN MIXED USE IV SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION (SMP 34.30.070)
Proposed required changes to this SMP section remove the classification of the Urban Mixed -Use IV
designation as an "interim" designation, and delete the accompanying rationale.
The interim designation is no longer necessary given the proposed 50 foot marsh buffer and 15 foot
buffer setback (Changes 2 and 3). The changes are consistent with the Planning Commission draft SMP
which is tailored to existing conditions. The changes are consistent with the guidelines requirement to
base master programs on available scientific and technical information [WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)].
One of the original objectives of the interim designation was to provide time to secure buffer
enhancement grant funding for the proposed 100 foot marsh buffer /setback. An August 19, 2015 letter
from Ecology's Water Quality Program (attachment F) clarifies that the buffer enhancement grant
eligibility for the Edmonds Marsh is a minimum 35 foot buffer width.
Further marsh studies can continue with an SMP that incorporates the required changes.
Redevelopment of the Harbor Square and the Chevron sites (Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal) are
more likely to occur along with needed buffer enhancement and storm water treatment improvements
which will improve the ecological functions of the Edmonds Marsh.
Note that Ecology included a recommended change to the SMP use table that would provide the city
with zoning flexibility within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment (see Appendix C). Adopting this
change would preclude the need for future SMP amendments should the City modify zoning for that
area.
SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After review by Ecology of the complete record submitted and all comments received, Ecology
concludes that the City's SMP proposal, subject to and including Ecology's required changes (itemized in
Attachment B), is consistent with the policy and standards of RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and
the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and .020 definitions). This includes a
conclusion that the proposed SMP, subject to required changes, contains sufficient policies and
regulations to assure that no net loss of shoreline ecological functions that is anticipated to result from
Packet Pg. 98
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
implementation of the new master program amendments [WAC 173-26-201(2)(c)]. Ecology has also
provided a recommended change in Appendix C the City may consider.
Ecology concludes that the City has chosen not to exercise its option pursuant to RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)(ii)
to increase shoreline jurisdiction to include land necessary for buffers for critical areas located within
shorelines of the state. Therefore, as required by RCW 36.70A.480(6), for those designated critical areas
with buffers that extend beyond SMA jurisdiction, the critical area and its associated buffer shall
continue to be regulated by the City's critical areas ordinance. In such cases, the updated SMP shall also
continue to apply to the designated critical area, but not the portion of the buffer area that lies outside
of SMA jurisdiction. All remaining designated critical areas (with buffers not extending beyond SMA
jurisdiction) and their buffer areas shall be regulated solely by the SMP.
Ecology concludes that those SMP segments relating to shorelines of statewide significance provide for
the optimum implementation of Shoreline Management Act policy (RCW 90.58.090(5).
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.100 regarding the
SMP amendment process and contents.
Ecology concludes that the City have complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.130 and WAC 173-
26-090 regarding public and agency involvement in the SMP amendment process.
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the purpose and intent of the local amendment
process requirements contained in WAC 173-26-100, including conducting open houses and public
hearings, notice, consultation with parties of interest and solicitation of comments from tribes,
government agencies and Ecology.
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the State
Environmental Policy Act.
Ecology concludes that the City SMP amendment submittal to Ecology was complete pursuant to the
requirements of WAC 173-26-110 and WAC 173-26-201(3)(a) and (h) requiring a SMP Submittal
Checklist.
Ecology concludes that it has complied with the procedural requirements for state review and approval
of shoreline master program amendments as set forth in WAC 173-26-120.
DECISION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Based on the preceding, Ecology has determined the proposed amendments are consistent with the
policy of the Shoreline Management Act, the applicable guidelines and implementing rules, once
required changes set forth in Attachment B are accepted by Edmonds. As provided in RCW
90.58.090(2)(e)(ii) the City may choose to submit an alternative to all or part of the changes required by
Ecology. If Ecology determines that the alternative proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of
Ecology's original changes and with RCW 90.58, then the department shall approve the alternative
proposal and that action shall be the final action on the amendment. The master program will take
effect fourteen days from the date of Ecology's written notice of final action to the local government.
Packet Pg. 99
7.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
SECTION 5: REFERENCES
City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Public Comment Summary, June 2015 (Attachment C)
Department of Ecology Water Quality grant funding guidance document (Appendix L) from Department
of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance (Attachment D)
Department of Ecology Water Quality Program, Ben Rau correspondence to Edmonds, August 19, 2015
(Attachment E)
Packet Pg. 100
ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326)
7.1.a
Attachment B: The following changes are required to comply with the SMA (RCW 90.58) and the SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
ITEM
SIVIP PROVISION
Topic
Bill Format Changes [underline -additions; stiaffikethiceug4-deletionsl
ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
1.
24.40.020 Critical Areas
Critical Areas
B. The City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, as codified in Chapters 23.40
The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the
Ordinance
through 23.90 ECDC (dated N1Avem"eri3, 20"^mod. 352:7May 3, 2016, Ord 4026)-
City Council on May 3rd 2016. Correct referencing is
Referencing
are herein adopted as a part of this Program, except for the specific subsections
needed to acknowledge the change.
listed 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 dated November 23,
The SMP Incorporates the revised critical areas
Area
2014, Ordinance 3527 with the critical area regulations (minus exceptions noted in
ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 3, 2016.
Regulations
item 4 below) dated May 3, 2016, Ordinance 4026.
3.
24.40.020 Critical Areas
CAO
1. Wetlands: ECDC 23.50.040P.3. AnY hatprepeses
The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the
Shoreline project g-G�
provisions
began 'I 25, through the mechanisms described OR ECDC
red
City Council on May 3rd 2016. The stricken CAO sections
a -h''ff^r
CtiO
triggered by a
24.^�Q2would require variance. No variance is required f^r
have been updated within the new CAO. New CAO
-a shoreline
shoreline
v.;etla^P' Ted C-t+eRce isterit with ECDC
provisions do not trigger a shoreline variance.
variance
b. ECDC 2 n3J-gv.0 0.A.I.h 17, n 2: Qiiffer recI i.- 6OR and alterat*er,r
3. Cish.vJiiaiifc Habitat Conservation Areas ECDC 23.90.040.D2: Reduced
and a.
h ffPer y.f0 d+hr,
h )R n.. +Art structures cxistin-Wit in stream u ers
.FCDC .on .nnn .nrT4,HPaI
4.
24.40.020 Critical Areas
CAO
D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance listed below
The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the
Exceptions
shall not apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction.
City Council on May 3rd 2016. The stricken CAO sections
have been updated within the new CAO. Many of the
1. General Provisions:
previous CAO exceptions no longer need to be
acknowledged within the SMP.
as
c
a�
L
0
a
n
:O
n
Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 101
ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326)
7.1.a
ITEM
SIVIP PROVISION
Topic
Bill Format Changes [underline -additions; stFil(ethFewgI4-deletions]
DrAwms;mAPS f ehapter )R nn GC}�n,C relatiRg ter ahl f
ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
tFPTyW rtY-with sheFeliRe jWiSd+GtieR� Specifically ECDC
prep
72 nn nnn a.P.PI Crnr
c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance
e. €CSC �3..n0cRQ: P-wizmptoeRs
2. Geologically Hazardous Areas:
a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas
1A1 tl-,r.a.--
- Grnr 23 50 910 n• W tland Rating
h. ECDC 3.§9.n�P1: StaAdard Ruffer Widths
Grnr �� �n nnn F.4: WeTlan� Baffer Width A �cccc c.cv-v�v. �vera-g!Rg.
d-. ECDC 23.50.nnn C 4 h: Passive RecreatiGn
e. €Ejj'D�C �23.50.040.k €xe}}mom} i�ORS } �c
f. ECDC _2_2.5��5Q..F- M tigait7lRTTQTCaties
g ECDC 23 Cn nCn r• \.Netl@pd_s Cr.haReemeRt @S MitigatiGR
5.
24.40.020 Critical Areas
Wetlands
Delete 24.40.020.F (1) — (4).
The revised critical areas ordinance was adopted by the
Deletions are not shown in strike -through here to save space.
City Council on May 3rd 2016. The stricken CAO
sections have been updated within the new CAO.
6.
Part III Shoreline
B.
Urban Mixed -Use IV: The Urban Mixed -Use IV designation is being established as
Changes to this regulation remove the classification of
Environments
Designation
an Ont r;m shoreline designation. is appropriate for those areas bordering T the
the Urban Mixed -Use IV designation as an "interim"
24.30.070
Criteria
Edmonds Marsh. g The marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state is new
designation, and delete the accompanying rationale.
Urban Mixed Use
5. Urban
to this SIVIP update and was identified as a sheFeline of the st late in the
The interim designation is no longer necessary given the
Mixed Use IV
planning process... , W-with properties within 200-feet of the salt influenced
proposed 50 foot marsh buffer (Changes 2 and 3). The
portions of the marsh now under shoreline jurisdiction (where they had not
changes are consistent with the Planning Commission
previously been so designated). Specific review of the effects of establishing a
draft SMP which is tailored to existing conditions. The
the be
changes are consistent with the guidelines requirement
sheFelene enviFenment en existing and prepesed uses around FnaFsh must
LO
n
2
Page 2 of 4
Packet Pg. 102
ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326)
7.1.a
ITEM
SIVIP PROVISION
Topic
Bill Format Changes [underline -additions; stFikethFeugl4-deletions]
ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
stud+ed.
to base master programs on available scientific and
technical information [WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)].
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
One of the original objectives of the interim designation
Marsh is the Harbor Square commercial development owned by the Port of
was to provide time to secure buffer enhancement grant
Edmonds. ;he SMD bipdate piceeess was delayed +^ -,II.,,., the °„r+ Af WpApAd';
funding for the proposed 100 foot marsh buffer
time to submit a IeRg - warheic Squa ^ "rite~ Pap f.,r ^ Rt Feview
/setback. An August 19, 2015 letter from Ecology's
plappe
by the C+tf €daseHaFbeia Squaice-N;aste� °was
Water Quality Program clarifies that the buffer
-fQsed
„I+;^^atel„ Ret adopted by the City
enhancement grant eligibility for the Edmonds Marsh is a
minimum 35 foot buffer width.
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
Further marsh studies can continue with an SMP that
the flooding problem at the Dayton Street/State Route 104 intersection and the
incorporates the required changes. Redevelopment of
role the marsh and play in a solution to the flooding problem.
the Harbor Square and the Chevron sites (Edmonds
Crossing Ferry Terminal) are more likely to occur along
with needed buffer enhancement and storm water
theCity, OR €eeleg
treatment improvements which will improve the
a�I c:e9peFatieR with picepei:ty ewReFs, , sc:ieRtists
ageR 0es�oicgaRizatieRs and me.mbelcsefth to eaFeful�evie;.v e€festsef
ecological functions of the Edmonds Marsh.
developmeRt well the role the EdMORIEIS Marsh
and plaRRed as as ecological plays
0R the City Edie.}d3 TheCityiRteRGISW issues th.,
of study SUFFOWRdiRg
Edmonds Marsh related UrbaR Mixed Use IV des*gnat*E)R fer twe frem
and years
the P-1-ate this SIVIP. At the the the City will
effective ef end of study period, adopt
don th
whether the entire aFea should have the same .Je& n time ,
7.
Part IV General Policies
and Regulations
Development
Standards
Shoreline Area Designation
The required changes align with SMP provisions from the
planning commission draft recommended approach to
Urban Mixed Use IV
Table
buffers and setbacks on the Edmonds Marsh, which are
24.40.090 Shoreline
Bulk and Dimensional
Urban Mixed
Use IV
tailored specifically to existing conditions. The required
changes are consistent with the record developed during
Commercial and Light Industrial Development
Standards
the SMP. Changes are required for consistency with
Shore
1n� 65 50
Shore Setback
Setback
RCW 90.58.100 and WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) and (e)
LO
c
a�
E
U
CU
a
r
O
a
a
a
CU
_
O
w
O
U
O
O
v
W
4-
0
r-+
_
O
E
i
R
d
Q
Page 3 of 4
Packet Pg. 103
ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION No. 1326)
7.1.a
ITEM
SMP PROVISION
Topic
Bill Format Changes
[underline -additions; stFikethF96igI4-deletions]
ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
(protection of ecological functions and environmental
impact mitigation). 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).
g,
Part IV General Policies
Development
18. Setback for new buildings and expansion of buildings Rew development within
The 15 foot buffer setback is consistent with the SMP
and Regulations
Standards
the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 499 65 feet. Redevelopment of greater
integrated critical areas regulations ECDC 24.40.280
Table
than 50% for the Harbor Square property within shoreline jurisdiction and
(Building Setbacks). Also see rationale for change 2.
24.40.090 Shoreline
development of the site on the south border of the marsh within shoreline
Bulk and Dimensional
Footnotes
jurisdiction require the establishment of a 50-foot vegetation buffer adjacent to
Standards
the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative buffer is absent, in combination with a
15 foot structural setback .
LO
r
c
as
E
V
c�
a
3
O
a
a
a
c
O
c
O
U
tm
O
O
v
W
4-
0
C
N
E
R
N
.r
a
Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 104
ATTACHMENT C -DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROPOSED SMP AMENDMENT (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326)
7.1.a
Attachment C: The following changes are required to comply with the SMA (RCW 90.58) and the SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
1. 24.40.080 Shoreline
Development Table:
Shoreline Development
Permitted by Area
Designation
as
Topic Bill Format Changes [underline -additions; strikethlFeugh-cleletions] c
ECOLOGY. —
Urban Mixed Within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment, change prohibited (X) to SDP, in the row for This recommended change would provide the city with zoning 0
Use IV allowed "Attached or stacked residential (multifamily)" under the subheading "Residential." flexibility within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. co
uses. Adopting this change would preclude the need for future SMP W
amendments should the city modify zoning for that area. n
r
Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 105
7.1.a
City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program — Comment Summary
WA Department of Ecology public comment period: February 25 through March 27, 2015
Summary prepared by David Pater, April 13, 2015. City of Edmonds response to comments added June 11, 2015.
Comment #
Topic and format
INNEEk-
Commenter
WSpecific Comment
Edmonds Response
1. Edmonds Marsh
Ken Reidy
Clarify SMP Edmonds Marsh l 00-foot buffer
Chapter 11 of the SMP Handbook notes, "Shoreline setbacks are the distances
buffer/setback
Edmonds WA
/setback combination.
separating two features such as a structure and the water, or a structure and
(email)
the buffer." The SMP handbook also notes, "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."
In the City's SMP the definitions for buffer and shore setback are:
24.90.01O.P "Buffer" means the area adjacent to a critical area and/or
shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/or
structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Buffer widths vary
depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected.
Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left
undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes,
functions and values.
24.90.050.A. "Shore setback" means the minimum distance between a
structure or use and the shoreline ordinary high water marl
By definition, the buffer is adjacent to the critical area or shoreline and the
setback is measured from ordinary high water mark, so if there is both a buffer
and setback, they will necessarily overlap.
Packet Pg. 106
7.1.a
As mentioned above, the SMP handbook notes, "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." This is
essentially the approach taken in the Urban Mixed Use IV Environment. The
Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards in 24.40.090 (pgs. 54 - 56) in the
SMP list the shore setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV designation as 100150
with a reference to footnote 18 which states, "Setback for new development
within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment is 100 feet. New development
activities with the Urban Mixed Use IV environment require the establishment
of a 50-foot vegetative buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the
vegetative buffer is absent."
Additional vegetation conservation measures are included in 24.40.050
Shoreline Vegetation Conservation as well as 24.40.020 - Critical Areas.
2. Edmonds Marsh
Ken Reidy
Is the total of 150-feet buffer/setback supported by
The total setback/buffer distance in for the Urban Mixed Use IV designation in
buffer/setback
Edmonds WA
the following excerpt from a Memorandum to the
the draft SMP is 100 feet. The excerpt referenced is from the Director's
(email)
Edmonds Planning Board dated October 22, 2014?
update to the Planning Board describing the current (as of the drafting of the
memo for the October 22, 2014 Planning Board meeting) status of the SMP
before the City Council. At the October 21, 2014 Council meeting, the
Council revised the SMP to the current 100150 foot setback/buffer
combination.
3. Shoreline
Ken Reidy
A shoreline buffer is an area that is to be maintained
The referenced language and comment are regarding Frequently Asked
buffers (email)
Edmonds WA
in an undisturbed state yet allows some development
Questions from the Department of Ecology's website and is not language
in most situations. How can something be maintained
contained in the City of Edmond's SMP.
in an undisturbed state, yet allow some
development in most situations?
4. Defining
Ken Reidy
Please provide a definition of shoreline area. Does
Edmonds SMP 24.90.050.B "Shoreline areas " and "shoreline jurisdiction "
shoreline areas
Edmonds WA
the shoreline area include the buffer?
means all "shorelines of the state " and "shorelands " as defined in RCW
(email)
90.58.030.
RCW 90.58.030 (d) "Shorelands" or "shoreland areas" means those lands
extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a
m
c
0
W
c�
LO
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 107
7.1.a
horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and
contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways;
and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal
waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be
designated as to location by the department of ecology.
(i) Any county or city may determine that portion of a one -hundred -year -
flood plain to be included in its master program as long as such portion
includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending
landward two hundred feet therefrom.
(ii) Any city or county may also include in its master program land
necessary for buffers for critical areas, as defined in chapter 36.70A RCW,
that occur within shorelines of the state, provided that forest practices
regulated under chapter 76.09 RCW, except conversions to nonforest land use,
on lands subject to the provisions of this subsection (2)(d)(ii) are not subject to
additional regulations under this chapter;
(g) "Shorelines of the state" are the total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines
of statewide significance" within the state;
(e) "Shorelines" means all of the water areas of the state, including
reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying
them; except (i) shorelines of statewide significance; (ii) shorelines on
segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty
cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream
segments; and (iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and
wetlands associated with such small lakes;
(f) "Shorelines of statewide significance" means the following shorelines of
the state:
(i) The area between the ordinary high water mark and the western
boundary of the state from Cape Disappointment on the south to Cape Flattery
on the north, including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets;
m
c
`o
M
Cn
c�
LO
c
a)
E
M
0
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 108
7.1.a
(ii) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt waters and the Strait of
Juan de Fuca between the ordinary high water mark and the line of extreme
low tide as follows:
(A) Nisqually Delta --from De Wolf Bight to Tatsolo Point,
(B) Birch Bay --from Point Whitehorn to Birch Point,
(C) Hood Canal --from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff,
(D) Skagit Bay and adjacent area --from Brown Point to Yokeko Point, and
(E) Padilla Bay --from March Point to William Point;
(iii) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and
adjacent salt waters north to the Canadian line and lying seaward from the
line of extreme low tide;
(iv) Those lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with
a surface acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary
high water mark;
(v) Those natural rivers or segments thereof as follows:
(A) Any west of the crest of the Cascade range downstream of a point where
the mean annual flow is measured at one thousand cubic feet per second or
more,
(B) Any east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream of a point where
the annual flow is measured at two hundred cubic feet per second or more, or
those portions of rivers east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream
from the first three hundred square miles of drainage area, whichever is
longer;
(vi) Those shorelands associated with ()9(1), (ii), (iv), and (v) of this
subsection (2);
m
_
`0
Cn
LO
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 109
7.1.a
A buffer may be included within the shoreline area. An instance where a
buffer would not be within the shoreline area is the buffer on an associated
wetland where shoreline jurisdiction ends at the boundary of an associated
wetland.
5. EPA and NMFS,
Ken Reidy
Believes the Edmonds Marsh is classified as a
According to the 2004 Best Available Science Report prepared for the City's
Minimum Buffer
Edmonds WA
category c wetland under table L-1 (EPA NMFS
2004 Critical Area Ordinance update, the Edmonds Marsh is a Category I
Requirements for
buffer requirements) because the water body is
wetland.
Surface Waters
impeded by a man-made structure (e.g. culvert, dam,
(email)
etc.) which prevents anadromous or ESA listed fish
The mapping program associated with Appendix L identifies the two streams
access.
that run through the marsh in the Category C column.
6. EPA and
Ken Reidy
Is a 100' setback the same thing as a 100' minimum
In the City's SMP the definitions for buffer and shore setback are:
NMFS, Minimum
Edmonds WA
riparian buffer?
Buffer
24.90.010.P "Buffer" means the area adjacent to a critical area and/or
Requirements for
shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/or
Surface Waters.
structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Buffer widths vary
(email)
depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected.
Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left
undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes,
functions and values.
24.90.050.A. "Shore setback" means the minimum distance between a structure
or use and the shoreline ordinary high water mark.
7. EPA and
Ken Reidy
Is a 50' riparian buffer within a 100' setback the same
See responses to Comment #1 and Comment #6.
NMFS, Minimum
Edmonds WA
thing as a 100' minimum riparian buffer?
Buffer
Requirements for
Surface Waters.
m
c
L
0
Cn
T
LO
T
c
as
E
a
3
0
L
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 110
7.1.a
(email)
8. Federal and
Ken Reidy
Edmonds Marsh: does there have to be a setback from
The SMP was developed to be consistent with the SMA. There are many grant
state grant funding
Edmonds WA
the edge of the riparian buffer to meet federal and
opportunities and each program has its own funding requirements. The buffer
requirements
state funding guidelines?
guidelines in Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines
(email)
for Water Quality Financial Assistance are for three specific grant programs
(Centennial Clean Water Program, Clean Water Act Section 319, and
Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program). This
specific funding guidance document does not mention a setback on buffers.
9. Best Available
Ken Reidy
Does Best Available Science require a setback from
Best Available Science is not a regulation that has specific requirements, rather
Science
Edmonds WA
the edge of a riparian buffer?
BAS is used to inform decision making. One reason for including a setback
(email)
from a buffer is the setback protects the buffer from the impacts related to uses
outside of the buffer, such as maintenance on structure.
10. Grant funding
Ken Reidy
Can the Edmonds SMP just require a 100 ft. riparian
The Edmonds SMP could establish a buffer without a setback requirement and
guidelines and best
Edmonds WA
buffer with no setback from the buffer? Question
be consistent with the SMA and best available science. The SMP was
available science.
applies to both funding guidelines and best available
developed to be consistent with the SMA. There are many grant opportunities
(email)
science.
and each program has its own funding requirements. The buffer guidelines in
Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water
Quality Financial Assistance are for three specific grant programs (Centennial
Clean Water Program, Clean Water Act Section 319, and Washington State
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program). This specific funding
guidance document does not mention a setback on buffers.
11. Buffer
Ken Reidy
Does some law or other requirement also require a
The SMP was developed to be compliant with the Shoreline Management Act
Setbacks (email)
Edmonds WA
setback from the edge of the buffer?
and the Shoreline Management Act does not require a setback from the edge of
buffers.
12. US Army
Ken Reidy
Concerned about the authority the United States
While Ecology does administer the Sec. 401 Water Quality Certification, half
Corps of Engineers
Edmonds WA
Army Corps of Engineers has to issue permits to
of the federal Clean Water Act authorizations, the review and approval of the
wetland permitting
applicants to work in and next to the valuable and
Sec. 404 authorization is administered by the Corps. There are circumstances,
authority
fragile resources located along the shorelines of
such as the Thuessen wetland, when the Corps can determine that a project
(email)
Edmonds covered under the Edmonds Shoreline
also meets water quality standards and that no further coordination with
Master Program.
Ecology is required. The Corps is administering federal law and does not have
a regulatory role in SMA decisions; the Sec. 404 process is independent of
shoreline permitting review by the local jurisdiction and Ecology.
Q
Packet Pg. 111
7.1.a
13. US Army
Ken Reidy
Concerned that public notification related to permit
For projects that do not qualify for a nationwide permit the Corps does provide
Corps of Engineers
Edmonds WA
applications the United States Army Corps of
an opportunity for public comment. Concerns with the Corps' Sec. 404 review
wetland permitting
Engineers receives, processes, and grants have not
process would need to be discussed with the Corps.
authority (email)
been provided in the past.
14. US Army
Ken Reidy
Concerned that public comments have not been
All shoreline substantial development, conditional use, and variance permits
Corps of Engineers
Edmonds WA
allowed to be made in the past related to permit
will have a public comment period. All shoreline conditional use and variance
wetland permitting
applications the United States Army Corps of
permits will require a hearing before the City of Edmonds' Hearing Examiner
authority (email)
Engineers receives, processes, and grants.
as will those substantial development permits that trigger a public hearing in
accordance with SMP 24.80.100. Shoreline exemptions do not require a public
comment period.
15. US Army
Ken Reidy
Concerned that there appears to be no specific appeal
The SMP does not establish an appeal procedure for Army Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers
Edmonds WA
process related to permits issued by the United States
permits. Appeal procedures for Army Corps of Engineers permits are detailed
wetland permitting
Army Corps of Engineers to work in and next to the
in 33 CFR Part 331. Appeal procedures for city issued shoreline permits are
authority
valuable and fragile resources located along the
contained in SMP 24.80.110.C.
(email)
shorelines of Edmonds covered under the Edmonds
Shoreline Master Program.
16. US Army
Ken Reidy
Based on the United States Army Corps of Engineers
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act and Edmonds Shoreline
Corps of Engineers
Edmonds WA
historic behavior in the City of Edmonds, I believe
Master Program do not have the authority to direct the U.S. Army Corps of
Wetland permitting
the role the U S Army Corps of Engineers can play
Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is governed by federal
authority addressed
related to the valuable and fragile resources located
regulations.
within SMP
along the shorelines of Edmonds should be covered
update. (email)
under the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program.
SMP 24.10.030.A Uses, developments and activities regulated by this Chapter
may also be subject to the provisions of the city of Edmonds comprehensive
Plan, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Edmonds City Code,
and various other provisions of local, state, and federal law, as may be
amended. Project proponents shall comply with all applicable laws prior to
commencing any use, development or activity.
17. Edmonds
Finis Tupper
Concerned about how the setback and buffer
I believe the reference is to the October 21, 2014 Council meeting.
Marsh Urban
Edmonds WA 98020
requirements in the Urban IV area (Edmonds Marsh)
Mixed Use IV
were changed by the City Council on October 31,
The City concurs that the SMP update was a long process. It is within the City
buffer/setback
2014, 864 days from the Planning staff original
Council's authority to make appropriate changes to the SMP (or anything else
(email)
presentation and after public comment and
within their legislative authority) prior to adopting the SMP. As noted in the
participation with no scientific support of lesser
response to number 20 below, the use of scientific information in the SMP is
amount of 50 ft. setback from the 50 ft. buffer.
guided by WAC 173-26-201(2)(a). The City of Edmonds assembled the most
current information in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document
and relied on technical assistance materials provided by the Department of
m
_
`o
Cn
co
LO
c
as
E
0
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 112
7.1.a
Ecology consistent with WAC 173-26-201.
18. Ecology SMP
Finis Tupper
The SMP handbook clearly defines setbacks and
See response to Comment #1.
handbook
buffers as two separate requirements not one
(email)
requirement that can be combined.
Dept. of Ecology response: Concur with Edmonds response. In addition the
SMP handbook Ch.I 1 (pg. 2-4) also explains the function of a structural
setback from a buffer. A setback from a buffer protects the buffer from the
impacts related to use of a structure. This is a very common approach other local
SMP use to further protect the integrity of shoreline buffer ecological functions.
19. SMP process
Finis Tupper
The City staff presentation at the October 21, 2013
I believe the reference is to the October 21, 2014 Council meeting.
clarification for
Council Meeting and proposed SMP update had a 150
defining Edmonds
ft. setback with 50 ft. buffer that equaled 200 feet.
Staff advised the Council of the difference between buffers, setbacks, and
Marsh buffers and
This was the dimension measurement after all the
shoreline jurisdiction at several Council meetings (2/26/13, 3/26/13, 6/4/13,
setback
meetings and public comment. What is confusing, is
12/17/13, 9/2/14, 9/16/14, and 10/21/14). How the vegetative buffer is located
(email)
this was the first time public was advised the two
within the setback was specifically discussed at the December 17, 2013
measures are not separate but combined measurement
Council meeting, which is the first time the setback/buffer combination was
of both buffer/setback dimensional requirements. The
discussed. The images used to show the combination buffer/setback provision
setback measurement is from OHWM and not from
for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment clearly showed the buffer is to be
the 50 ft. buffer line.
contained within the setback.
20. Availability of
Finis Tupper
October 21, 2013 Council Meeting: Councilmember
I believe the reference is to the October 21, 2014 Council meeting.
marsh buffer
Buckshnis apologized to staff for her
related documents
misunderstanding of the setback/buffer measurements
Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water
(email)
calculation. She went on to say, she was member of
Quality Financial Assistance is a publicly available document. The funding
WRIA-8 Board and all the Native Americans want is
guidelines are not one of the SMP documents, but was used as other available
a 100 ft. setback. She claimed to have a NOAA grant
information in determining the size of buffers/setbacks for the Urban Mixed
document and offered to supply it to Councilmember
Use IV shoreline environment. The funding guidelines and Appendix L was
Petso in support of the measurement change in the
emailed to the City Council on October 22, 2014.
SMP update. City staff noted this document was not
available on any of the SMP documents or to the
public prior to closing comment.
20. Best Available
Finis Tupper
I have always thought the Shoreline Management
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Science
Plan updates are required to use "Best Available
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
(email)
Science" and not Grant funding opportunities to
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
determine the best measurements for setback/buffer
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology.
that protect and preserve natural water/wetland
Q
Packet Pg. 113
7.1.a
features and habitats.
With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes:
(a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements
for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local
governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master
program development and amendment process.
First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific
and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.
The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the
scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and,
where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial
photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and
services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult
the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant
information is available and unless there is more current or specific
information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an
element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines
and the use of which is required by the act.
Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the
most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information
available...
The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance
materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173-
26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding
Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other
available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within
the City's SMP.
21. Edmonds
Finis Tupper
The Port of Edmonds, owners of Harbor Square
The existing uses and structures at Harbor Square would be nonconforming
Marsh
Development that abuts the Edmonds Marsh, would
uses subject to the requirements of SMP 24.70.000 — 24.70.050.
buffer/setback
be grandfathered and suffer no damages with a 50 ft.
(email)
buffer and 150 ft. setback from the vegetation buffer.
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
x
w
m
E
s
c�
Q
Packet Pg. 114
7.1.a
10
Although the Port has passed a Master Plan that if
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
approved by the City Council would intensify use and
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
development that could possibly affect the ecology of
subject to the City's SMP.
Marsh and proposed day lighting of Willow Creek.
22. Edmonds
Finis Tupper
I would hope that the Department of Ecology requires
Edmonds response: The interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV
Marsh
Edmonds to clear up this confusion and determine if a
shoreline environment establishes a 100-foot buffer with the requirement to
buffer/setback
50 ft. vegetation buffer and 150 ft. setback for any
establish a 50-foot vegetative buffer within the setback. See the response to
(email)
new development is and was appropriate
comment Number 1.
measurement for Urban IV area. This is the
setback/buffer measurement public believed to be
Ecology response: As part of their final review of the Edmonds SMP the Dept.
necessary for compliance with the Shoreline
of Ecology will evaluate the Urban Mixed Use IV Environment buffer /setback
Management Act, it is also the measurement used by
for protection of Edmonds Marsh.
many counties and cities in Washington.
23. SMP Page 41
Finis Tupper
This section of the Edmonds SMP defeats the entire
Buffer width averaging is a common practice supported by the Department of
item #4:
purpose of having a buffer requirement for wetlands
Ecology. Department of Ecology's Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for
Restricting wetland
and shorelines. The proposed process is not open and
Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002) notes:
intrusion and
transparent to the public. In fact, the authority solely
disturbance.
bestowed upon the Director constitutes an
Buffer Averaging
24.40.020 17.21.
administrative variance without public notice, public
Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain
Wetland Buffer
hearing and impartial legal decision -making.
circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate.
Width Averaging
Edmonds and the environment would be better served
The width of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of
(email)
by requiring any deviation from the buffer
wetland functions, or if it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a
requirement be heard and ruled on by the City
parcel.
Hearing Examiner with appeal to City Council.
We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report.
The report should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the
current functions of the wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be
taken to ensure that there is no loss of wetland function due to the buffer
averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point after averaging should be
no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer.
The City of Edmonds, at the direction of Ecology, incorporated the wetland
Guidance for Small Cities into the SMP and the provisions are consistent with
the guidance from the Department of Ecology.
24. Edmonds
Finis Tupper
The Department of Ecology should require the City of
The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
LO
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 115
Marsh
Edmonds Shoreline Master Plan require a 100' buffer
Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP
buffer/setback,
and delete the word setback to satisfy the buffer
guidelines.
Urban Mixed Use
requirement of Appendix L and Table L-1 of the
IV (email)
Riparian Restoration Guidelines and adopted by your
department, EPA and NOAA.
25. Edmonds
Barbara Tipton
Friends of the Edmonds Marsh believe Edmonds
The Edmonds SMP recognizes the importance of the Edmonds Marsh as
Marsh (email)
Edmonds WA 98026
Marsh represents a unique opportunity for the
evidenced by three specific policies in the SMP relating to the marsh and three
community to create a wildlife and recreational area
marsh related projected being identified in the Restoration Plan.
that attracts visitors to our city.
26. Edmonds
Barbara Tipton
The Port of Edmonds took issue with the proposed
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
Marsh buffer
100 foot setback from the shoreline of the Edmonds
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
/setback (email)
Marsh in the proposed in the SMP. The Port
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
Commission firmly supports the current 25 foot
subject to the City's SMP.
setback. They view the setback as "an arbitrary taking
of property rights." Yet I haven't seen any proposed
development drawings or data that would substantiate
the Port's argument that they would suffer financial
doom.
27. Edmonds
Barbara Tipton
All of the hard work will be for naught if the 25-foot
The SMP was developed to be consistent with the SMA. There are many grant
Marsh buffer
Port of Edmonds setback is upheld. State and Federal
opportunities and each program has its own funding requirements. The buffer
/setback (email)
funding will be in jeopardy if we are not in
guidelines in Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines
compliance with the SMA. The Edmonds Marsh is
for Water Quality Financial Assistance are for three specific grant programs
subject to the jurisdiction of the SMA based on
(Centennial Clean Water Program, Clean Water Act Section 319, and
Washington State Code 173-22-040.
Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program).
28. SMP and
Diane Buckshnis and
We are in total support of the Shoreline Master
Noted.
Urban Mixed Use
Steve Tholl
Program for the City of Edmonds which includes the
IV Interim
Edmonds WA 98020
interim designation of a hundred foot setback/buffer
designation (email)
in the Urban Mixed Use IV category.
29. Port of
Phil Lovell
The Port of Edmonds proposed Harbor Square Master
Noted.
Edmonds proposed
P.E., MASCE
Plan developed, vetted, and published in 2012
Harbor Square
Edmonds, WA 98026
enjoyed universal acceptance and approval by all in
Master Plan
terms of buffers, setbacks, etc. in conjunction with the
(email)
Marsh, knowing full well that plans are in the works
to restore the Marsh starting with the day lighting of
Willow Creek.
30. Edmonds
Phil Lovell
The current 25 foot 'border zone' and 50 ft. 'no -more-
WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at
m
_
0
Cn
c�
LO
c
a�
E
0
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 116
7.1.a
12
Marsh
build' buffer contained within those plans and upheld
minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline
buffer/setback
within the original Planning Board -approved version
natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where
(email)
of the City SMP are just fine'marsh-preservation
they have been impaired."
wise', both currently and for the future.
While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in
WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum
standard of no net loss. The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three
separate policies in the Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP
24.20.050.C.12; high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP
24.20.060.C.1; should work to maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and
Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally,
three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel
improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are
identified in the Restoration Plan.
Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to
secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the
City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development
around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for
restoration and enhanced ecological functions.
31. Edmonds
Phil Lovell
The temporary and/or permanent 100 ft. Edmonds
See response to comment number 45.
Marsh
Marsh buffer/setback passed by the City Council is
buffer/setback
totally unnecessary, unwarranted, and insults the
(email)
Port's expressed desires and intentions to fully
participate in the well-being of the Marsh.
32. Edmonds
A Dexter Chapin
The Port of Edmond Commission argues against the
Noted.
Marsh
Edmonds, WA 98020
SMP buffer zones and setbacks. When the SMP was
buffer/setback
being developed there was a great deal of research,
(email)
thought, and discussion put into it. The result is based
on science and popular will.
33. Port profits vs.
A Dexter Chapin
The Port's position seems to be based on a short-term
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
marsh impacts
profit motive. They cannot contract with builders to
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
(email)
make a huge profit in six -story condos that once sold
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
will generate little income. Short-term income vs.
subject to the City's SMP.
long-term damage; which will it be?
Q
Packet Pg. 117
7.1.a
13
34. Edmonds
Marsh
buffer/setback
(Letter and
attachments)
Robert McChesney
Executive Director
Port of Edmonds
Objects to imposition of expanded buffers and
setbacks on Edmonds Marsh and encroachment upon
Port's Harbor Square property.
Noted.
35. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
Record shows existing 25 ft. buffer meets SMA no
WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at
Marsh buffer
net loss criteria, no science to support larger buffers.
minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline
/setback (letter
natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where
and attachments)
they have been impaired."
While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in
WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum
standard of no net loss. The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three
separate policies in the Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP
24.20.050.C.12; high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP
24.20.060.C.1; should work to maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and
Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally,
three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel
improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are
identified in the Restoration Plan.
Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to
secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the
City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development
around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for
restoration and enhanced ecological functions.
36. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
SMP proposed 100-foot marsh buffer/setback would
Establishing the 100-foot setback/buffer requirement as an interim designation
Marsh buffer
diminish the value of the Port's Harbor Square
will ensure restoration opportunities are maintained while a permanent
/setback (letter
property for future redevelopment and lost marsh
designation and regulations are studied. As the SMP notes:
and attachments)
restoration opportunities.
Establishing the Urban Mixed -Use IV designation as an interim designation
will allow the City, in cooperation with property owners, Ecology, scientists,
interested agencies/organizations, and members of the public, to carefully
review effects of establishing a new shoreline jurisdiction for the area around
the marsh on existing and planned development as well as the ecological role
as
_
`o
Cn
LO
c
as
E
U
M
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 118
7.1.a
14
the Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of Edmonds.
37. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
SMP proposed 100-foot marsh buffer/setback would
See response to 36.
Marsh buffer
foreclose Edmonds Marsh restoration (buffer
/setback (letter
enhancement, storm water mgt. upgrades) for lack of
and attachments)
Harbor Square redevelopment economic feasibility.
38. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
SMP record demonstrates flaws in City's justification
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Marsh buffer
for proposed 100-foot marsh buffer/setback and
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
/setback
critical gaps in its determination. The Port believes
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
justification
the expanded buffers/setbacks as presented in their
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology.
(Letter and
SMP is arbitrary, capricious and completely
attachments)
unnecessary.
With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes:
(a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements
for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local
governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master
program development and amendment process.
First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific
and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.
The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the
scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and,
where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial
photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and
services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult
the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant
information is available and unless there is more current or specific
information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an
element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines
and the use of which is required by the act.
Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the
most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information
available...
The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance
materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173-
Q
Packet Pg. 119
7.1.a
15
26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding
Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other
available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within
the City's SMP.
39. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
The Port requests that DOE consider all the facts
The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the
Marsh
and issues as required by law, and that DOE overrule
Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP
buffer/setback
the City in this particular instance to maintain the
guidelines.
Justification
existing marsh buffer and/or setback to a total of 25
(Letter and
feet.
attachments)
40. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
The SMP proposes a 50-foot buffer and overlapping
A careful review of the city's SMP reveals that the buffer and setback serve
Marsh
(K & L Gates)
100-foot setback, without the City substantiating this
different purposes. WAC 173-26-201(2)(a) does not require that only
buffer/setback
buffer/setback area with any valid applicable
scientifically purposes be served by the SMP. While there is some underlying
Justification
scientific information required by the WA State
scientific justification behind the 100-foot setback, its primary purpose is to
(Letter and
Shoreline Management Act, 90.58 RCW (SMA) and
put the city in a better position to receive grant funding to restore the marsh.
attachments)
applicable SMA implementing regulations.
The Department of Ecology "has increased the minimum requirements for
riparian buffers to protect and restore salmon fisheries and achieve water
quality standards. These new requirements apply to funding for projects that
address nonpoint pollution problems, including Section 319 grants, Centennial
Clean Water Fund grants or loans, and the Water Pollution Control State
Revolving Fund loans." Department of Ecology Funding Guidelines, Appendix
L. In Western Washington, these funding guidelines require a 100-foot
minimum buffer for Perennial, intermittent and ephemeral waters that are
identified as being accessed or were historically accessed by anadromous or
ESA listed fish species. It was proper for the city to take these funding
guidelines into account as economic and other pertinent data under WAC 173-
26-201(2)(a) and RCW 90.58.100.
41. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
Because the 100-foot buffer/setback is unlawful and
The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the
Marsh buffer /
(K & L Gates)
invalid under applicable SMA standards,
Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP
setback
The Port requests that Ecology identify a 25-foot
guidelines.
Justification
buffer as necessary to comply with the relevant
(Letter and
provisions of the SMA (with no additional setback).
attachments)
Q
Packet Pg. 120
7.1.a
16
42. Summary of
Port of Edmonds
The 100-foot buffer/setback is unsupported
RCW 90.58.100(1) states: "In preparing the master programs, and any
SMP violations of
(K & L Gates)
by the most current accurate and complete
amendments thereto, the department and local governments shall to the extent
the SMA and
scientific information available.
feasible:... (e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrology,
applicable
geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data...."
Ecology SMA
Regulations
Further elaborating on the statutory requirement, WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)
(Letter and
states: "The requirement to use scientific and technical information in these
attachments)
guidelines does not limit a local jurisdiction's authority to solicit and
incorporate information, experience, and anecdotal evidence provided by
interested parties as part of the master program amendment process. Such
information should be solicited through the public participation process
described in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(b). Where information collected by or
provided to local governments conflicts or is inconsistent, the local
government shall base master program provisions on a reasoned, objective
evaluation of the relative merits of the conflicting data."
Read together, these provisions allow the city to solicit and incorporate not
only scientific and technical information but also economic information and
other pertinent data. The city has some discretion to balance these various
sources of information in crafting its program. So, the latest scientific data is
not the sole factor to be considered by the City.
43. Summary of
Port of Edmonds
The 100-foot buffer/setback is not supported by
See response to Number 42.
SMP Violations of
(K & L Gates)
scientific or biological information and fails to
the SMA and
meet the SMP regulatory requirement that it be
Applicable
based on "most current, accurate, and complete
Ecology SMA
scientific or technical information available."
Regulations
WAC 173-26-20I (2)(a).
(Letter and
attachments)
44. Summary of
Port of Edmonds
The 100-foot figure was derived from a grant
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
SMP Violations of
(K & L Gates)
funding guidance document (known as Appendix
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
the SMA and
L) that applies to different types of water bodies
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
Applicable
and different ecological functions and values,
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology.
Ecology SMA
inapplicable to the ecological conditions present at
Regulations
Marsh. (See Ex. A.) Appendix L is applicable to
With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes:
(Letter and
streams, not wetlands, and does not contemplate
(a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements
Q
Packet Pg. 121
7.1.a
17
attachments)
the ecological functions and values at issue here.
for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local
governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master
program development and amendment process.
First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific
and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.
The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the
scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and,
where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial
photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and
services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult
the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant
information is available and unless there is more current or specific
information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an
element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines
and the use of which is required by the act.
Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the
most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information
available...
The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance
materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173-
26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding
Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other
available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within
the City's SMP.
45. The SMP
Port of Edmonds
The current SMP hinders redevelopment of Harbor
WAC 173-26-186(8)(c) states: "For counties and cities containing any
prevents improve-
(K & L Gates)
Square (see Ex. B), and therefore inhibits and
shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs shall include
ments to the
interferes with the "unique opportunity," (Stockdale
goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological
Ecology of the
DOE letter to Mayor Earling 3/11/2014)
functions.... These master program elements regarding restoration should
Marsh (Letter and
make real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies
attachments)
and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should
appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or
nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as
any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
LO
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 122
7.1.a
18
regulations and mitigation standards."
This comment from the Port may be mooted in large part by the Port's recent
improvements to the existing Harbor Square improvements. On April 7, 2015,
Port Commissioner Fred Gauge provided an update to the City Council
regarding Harbor Square, noting the Master Plan has been shelved by the Port
Commission. Commissioner Gauge recounted that in the last year, the Port
spent nearly $1 million for roofs and new HVAC systems in buildings 1, 2 and
5. In 2015 the Port plans to replace the roofs and HVAC on buildings 3 and 4
at a cost of approximately $750,000. Commissioner Gauge suggested that the
Port made these 20-year improvements believing that the current zoning would
not make redevelopment feasible. Harbor Square includes approximately
102,000 square feet of office space and is currently about 83% occupied.
Considering that the Port has mothballed its redevelopment plans, it would
appear that the most effective policies and programs to restore ecological
functions are the ones that involve grant funding, which makes the inclusion of
the 100-foot setback entirely appropriate. The approach to restoration planning
may vary significantly among local jurisdictions, depending on, among other
things, the availability of grants. WAC 173-26-201(f).
46. The SMP
Port of Edmonds
As Ecology acknowledged in its March 2014 Letter
See response to number 45.
prevents improve-
(K & L Gates)
on the SMP, "redevelopment activities in urban
ments to the
environments can be a 'friend of the environment'
Ecology of the
and can generate some of the funding necessary to
Marsh (Letter and
improve the ecological functions of wetlands and the
attachments)
critical areas they border."
47. The SMP
Port of Edmonds
The SMP and the City's process failed to analyze
See response to number 45.
prevents improve-
(K & L Gates)
the negative impact of the 100-foot buffer/setback
ments to the
on redevelopment of Harbor Square, and the
Ecology of the
resulting improvements to the Marsh which
Marsh (letter and
would flow from redevelopment in the form of
attachments)
funded mitigation, as required by WAC 173-26-
186(8)(c). Such redevelopment would include
upgrading the property's storm water runoff
controls, thereby improving the conditions at the
Marsh.
Q
Packet Pg. 123
7.1.a
19
48. The SMP
Port of Edmonds
The SMP fails to consider indirect restoration
See response to number 45.
prevents improve-
(K & L Gates)
effects that may flow from a 25-foot buffer; WAC
ments to the
173-26-186(8)(c) requires SMPs to consider
Ecology of the
"restoration effects that may flow indirectly from
Marsh (letter and
shoreline development regulations." In addition,
attachments)
imposing buffers on developed property is
inconsistent with the Shoreline Guidelines.
49. The setback is
Port of Edmonds
This additional 50-ft. setback area functions as no
See response to number 40.
a buffer in disguise
(K & L Gates)
more than a "buffer in disguise". The concept of a
(letter and
"setback" arose in the City's deliberations only after
attachments)
it became clear that scientific information did not
support the City's prior proposal.
50. The setback is
Port of Edmonds
The City has not articulated a substantive
See response to number 40.
a buffer in disguise
(K & L Gates)
difference between the functions of the buffer and
(letter and
the setback area in its SMP, and the record shows
attachments)
that the City seeks to comply with only the letter of
Ecology's 50-foot buffer recommendation. This
result violates the SMA requirement that SMPs be
based on the most current, accurate, and complete
scientific or technical information available.
z
x
w
m
E
s
c�
Q
Packet Pg. 124
7.1.a
20
51. The buffer/
Port of Edmonds
The City has not complied with the SMA's
With an interim official control adopted under RCW 90.58.590, it is
setback is invalid
(K & L Gates)
statutory requirements regarding interim controls.
contemplated that such an interim measure would sunset automatically after
as an interim
SMA interim controls are limited to six-month
six months if not replaced with a permanent regulation or renewed for another
measure under the
intervals (RCW 90.58.590), but the City proposes
six month period. By default, such expiration would ordinarily leave the
SMA (letter and
an interim buffer/setback control for a two-year
preexisting shoreline regulation in place. With the Interim Urban Mixed Use
attachments)
duration. The current SMP is legally defective and
IV environment, there is no preexisting shoreline regulation because the area is
will be void for failure to comply with RCW
new to the shoreline jurisdiction. Note the absence of any language about
90.58.590.
expiration in the regulation. So, the city's use of "interim" in this context
should not be construed as an interim official control under RCW 90.58.590.
Rather, it should be construed as an expression of legislative intent to revisit
this environment within the two-year period and adopt some kind of
amendment, either by removing the "interim" descriptor if no substantive
changes are desired or by adopting a substantive amendment to the regulations
for this environment. By using this language, the city is signaling its intent to
update this environment six -years sooner than the normal eight -year update
cycle. RCW 90.58.590 is not applicable here.
52. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
An economic analysis of the impacts on Harbor
See response to Number 45.
Marsh
(K & L Gates)
Square redevelopment concludes a 100-foot
buffer/setback
M a r s h buffer/setback would significantly impede if
redevelopment
not preclude redevelopment of the property,
impacts (letter and
preventing mitigation and wetlands improvement
attachments
measures that would be funded by redevelopment.
item II)
53. Interim Urban
Port of Edmonds
The City has styled the 100-foot buffer/setback as
See response to Number 51.
Mixed Use IV
(K & L Gates)
an interim measure applicable for two years.
designation ((letter
However, minutes of Council meetings reveal that a
and attachments
full amendment to the SMP would be required to
Item II)
modify the buffer/setback.
54. Incorporation
Port of Edmonds
The City is required to "base master program
See response to Number 42.
of most current
(K & L Gates)
provisions on an analysis incorporating the most
information (letter
current, accurate, and complete scientific or
and attachments)
technical information available." WAC 173-26-
(Item III)
201(2)(a)
55. Incorporation
Port of Edmonds
RCW 90.58.020 requires local governments to
See response to Number 42.
of most current
(K & L Gates)
comply with RCW 90.88.100, which requires use of
information (letter
all available information regarding hydrology,
Q
Packet Pg. 125
7.1.a
21
and attachments)
geography, topography, ecology, economics and
(Item III)
other pertinent data. If conflicting data is
encountered, or the public participation process
reveals experience or anecdotal evidence that is
contrary to the scientific information, the City is
required to "base master program provisions on a
Reasoned, objective evaluation of the relative merits
of the conflicting data." WAC 173-26-201
(2)(a)(iii)
56. No net loss of
Port of Edmonds
Master programs "shall include policies and
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
ecological
(K & L Gates)
regulations designed to achieve no net loss of ...
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
functions (letter
[shoreline] ecological functions." WAC 173-26-
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
and attachments)
186(8)(b)
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the
(Item III)
guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
requirement.
57. Buffer and
Port of Edmonds
The City is not making a meaningful distinction
See response to Number 40.
Setback
(K & L Gates)
between "buffers"and"setbacks"— the only source
distinctions (letter
cited is Appendix L (funding guidance for water
and attachments)
quality grant programs), which does not
(Item IV)
recommend setbacks, only buffers.
58. Appendix L
Port of Edmonds
The Appendix L information relied on by the City
See responses to Number 40 and 44.
(funding guidance
(K & L Gates)
was prepared not for purposes of protecting
for water quality
shoreline -related ecological functions and values
grant programs)
of wetlands, but for streams in another context
(letter and
(i.e., grant funding eligibility). The City has
attachments)
inappropriately applied Appendix L to the SMP.
(Item V)
59. Appendix L
Port of Edmonds
The City has misapplied the Appendix L guidelines
See response to Number 44.
(funding guidance
(K & L Gates)
even to the stream that is mapped within the Marsh.
for water quality
Ecology maps reveal streams that do pass through
grant programs)
certain portions of the southern and eastern areas of
(letter and
the Marsh —Willow and Shellabarger Creeks. But
attachments)
the closest mapped stream passes more than 100'
(Item V)
from Harbor Square.
m
_
`o
Cn
LO
c
a�
E
U
M
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 126
7.1.a
22
60. Proposed 100-
Port of Edmonds
The City has failed to meet its scientific burden
See response to Number 42.
ft. buffer/setback
(K & L Gates)
with respect to the Edmonds Marsh buffer/setback,
not based on the
and the SMP lacks a scientific basis on which to
"most current,
base a 100-foot buffer/setback from the Marsh.
accurate and
complete scientific
... information".
WAC 173-26-201
(2)(a) (letter and
attachments)
(Item V)
61. Imposition of
Port of Edmonds
Imposition of development regulations (i.e., buffers
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
development
(K & L Gates)
and setbacks) on developed property is inconsistent
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
regulations (letter
with the Shoreline Guidelines. Master Programs
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
and attachments)
must include "regulations to achieve no -net -loss of
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the
(Item V)
functions". WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)
guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
requirement.
62. Restoration
Port of Edmonds
S MP uses regulations to try to achieve restoration in
Because one of the city's main restoration strategies is to qualify for grant
(letter and
(K & L Gates)
a manner inconsistent with the SMP Guiding
funding, the city's SMP must be consistent with the funding guidelines in
attachments)
Principles, which omit shoreline regulations as a
Appendix L. Hence, the 100-foot setback cannot be looked at merely as a
(Item V)
tool for forcing restoration under WAC 173-26-
regulation designed to restore ecological function. It must also be viewed
186(8) (c).
through its indirect effect on the city's ability to obtain grant funding to restore
the marsh.
It should be noted that the 100-foot setback regulation only has direct effect if
and when redevelopment occurs near the marsh. And, as noted above, the
Port's recent actions and statements suggest that redevelopment could be
twenty years away.
63. Buffer
Port of Edmonds
City Council minutes fail to reveal why 50 feet
See response to Number 40.
justification
(K & L Gates)
should be justified as a setback, and not a buffer.
(letter and
attachments)
(Item V)
64. Marsh setback
Port of Edmonds
Ecology should view the entire 100 feet for what it
The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the
Q
Packet Pg. 127
7.1.a
23
role (letter and
(K & L Gates)
is, an attempt to establish a buffer by another name.
Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP
attachments)
Allowing regulation by relabeling would set a
guidelines.
(Item V)
dangerous precedent and undermine the purpose of
the SMA.
65. Buffer
Port of Edmonds
Landau Associates has concluded that the existing
See responses to comment Numbers 35, 42, and 44.
expansion
(K & L Gates)
buffer width at Harbor Square of 25 feet meets the
justification (letter
"no net loss" criteria. (Ex. A at 4.) The City has
and attachments)
failed to establish any scientific basis to support
(Item V)
expanding the buffer/setback area beyond that limit.
66. SMP precludes
Port of Edmonds
The City was required to "appropriately consider the
See response to Number 52.
beneficial marsh
(K & L Gates)
direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or non -
mitigation and
regulatory programs under other local, state, and
failed to consider
federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that
restorative effects
may flow indirectly from shoreline development
(letter and
regulations and mitigation standards". WAC 173-26-
attachments)
186(8)(c)
(Item VI)
67. SMP precludes
Port of Edmonds
The City should have considered that a 100-foot
See response to Number 52.
beneficial marsh
(K & L Gates)
buffer/setback would impede Harbor Square
mitigation and
redevelopment as an indirect effect of its regulation,
failed to consider
while a 25-foot buffer would allow restoration.
restorative effects
(letter and
attachments)
(Item VI)
68. A two-year
Port of Edmonds
The SMP is required to limit interim controls to
See response to Number 51.
interim designation
(K & L Gates)
six-month durations, and further requires
is prohibited by the
compliance with the procedures and standards set
SMA (letter and
forth in RCW 90.58.590. The City has not complied
attachments)
with this statutory provision, and accordingly, the
(Item VII)
two-year "interim" buffer/setback designation is
invalid as a matter of law.
69. Conclusion
Port of Edmonds
The Port respectfully requests that Ecology
The Department of Ecology will conduct a thorough review of the
(letter and
(K & L Gates)
specify a modification to the SMP requiring a 25-
Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback for consistency with State SMP
attachments) (Item
foot buffer, and no additional setback, surrounding
guidelines.
VII)
the Edmonds Marsh.
as
_
`o
W
LO
c
as
E
0
M
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 128
7.1.a
24
70. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
Based on a review of available information from the
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Marsh buffer/
(Landau Associates)
City and the Ecology chapter 11 SMP Handbook, no
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
setback
scientific or technical information or logical process
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
inconsistent with
is available that supports the City Council's
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology.
Ecology SMP
application of a 100-ft setback for the Edmonds
handbook (letter
Marsh.
With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes:
and attachments)
(a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements
(Item A)
for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local
governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master
program development and amendment process.
First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific
and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.
The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the
scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and,
where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial
photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and
services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult
the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant
information is available and unless there is more current or specific
information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an
element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines
and the use of which is required by the act.
Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the
most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information
available...
The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance
materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173-
26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding
Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other
available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within
the City's SMP.
71. Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
The recommended 100-ft buffer/setback is
The SMP handbook notes, "Some local governments with intensely developed
Q
Packet Pg. 129
7.1.a
25
Marsh buffer/
(Landau Associates)
inconsistent with Ecology recommendations within
shorelines have established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation
setback
chapter 11 of the SMP Handbook for areas with
conservation is required, and planting new vegetation, replacing noxious
inconsistent with
similar highly developed conditions.
weeds and invasive plants with native plants, and other habitat improvements
Ecology SMP
are required for new or expanded development." This is essentially the
handbook (letter
approach taken in the Urban Mixed Use IV Environment. The Shoreline Bulk
and attachments)
and Dimensional Standards in 24.40.090 (pgs. 54 - 56) in the SMP list the
(Item A)
shore setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV designation as 100150 with a
reference to footnote 18 which states, "Setback for new development within
the Urban Mixed Use IV environment is 100 feet. New development activities
with the Urban Mixed Use IV environment require the establishment of a 50-
foot vegetative buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative
buffer is absent."
Additional vegetation conservation measures are included in 24.40.050
Shoreline Vegetation Conservation as well as 24.40.020 - Critical Areas.
72. The 100-ft
Port of Edmonds
Justification for the proposed setback does not
Edmonds Response: See response to Comment #70.
setback proposed
(Landau Associates)
follow a logical process outlined by Ecology
by the City
guidance (chapter 11 SMP Handbook).
Ecology Response: Concur with Edmonds response. In addition the Urban
Council is
Mixed Use IV Environment buffer/setback will be evaluated within Ecology's
inconsistent with
final SMP review, this will include review of the referenced supporting
the requirements of
scientific and technical information outlined in WAC 173-26-201 (2) (a).
WAC 173-26-
201(2)(a) (letter
and attachments)
(Item A)
73. The 100-ft
Port of Edmonds
Appendix L of the Funding Guidelines is
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
setback proposed
(Landau Associates)
associated with grant funding for water pollution
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
by the City
control projects and specific to riparian buffers. It is
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
Council is
not applicable scientific or technical information for
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology.
inconsistent with
development of the City's SMP as referenced in
the requirements of
Ecology SMP technical assistance documentation.
With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes:
WAC 173-26-
Furthermore, it is not applicable to the Edmonds
(a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements
201(2)(a) (letter
Marsh, which is a wetland.
for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local
and attachments)
governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master
(Item A)
program development and amendment process.
Q
Packet Pg. 130
7.1.a
26
First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific
and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.
The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the
scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and,
where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial
photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and
services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult
the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant
information is available and unless there is more current or specific
information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an
element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines
and the use of which is required by the act.
Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the
most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information
available...
The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance
materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173-
26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding
Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other
available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within
the City's SMP.
74. Current 25-ft.
Port of Edmonds
Based on the P o rt' s knowledge of the physical
WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at
buffer meets no net
(Landau Associates)
characteristics of the Edmonds Marsh and the
minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline
loss of ecological
adjacent Harbor Square properties, and review of the
available documentation and testimony from the Port
natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where
functions (letter
of Edmonds, City staff, and Ecology
they have been impaired."
and attachments)
correspondence, it is our opinion that the existing
(Item A)
25-ft buffer meets the state "no net loss" criteria.
While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in
WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum
standard of no net loss. The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three
separate policies in the Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP
24.20.050.C.12; high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP
as
_
`0
Cn
c�
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 131
7.1.a
27
24.20.060.C.1; should work to maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and
Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally,
three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel
improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are
identified in the Restoration Plan.
Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to
secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the
City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development
around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for
restoration and enhanced ecological functions.
75. Land Value
Port of Edmonds
An additional 75 feet of buffer /setback applied to
"The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for
and Ground Rent
(Macaulay &
Harbor Square reduces the developable footprint
conflict." WAC 173-26-176. One of these policy goals is to "Protection and
(letter and
Associates)
by 2.2± acres, the reduction in land value to the
restoration of the ecological functions of shoreline natural resources." WAC
attachments)
Port of Edmonds is over $3.1 million. The cost to
173-26-176(3)(c). Another one of these policy goals is to "Recognizing and
(Item B)
the Port in ground rent due to this proposal is
protecting private property rights." WAC 173-26-176(3)(h). There is obvious
approximately $250,000 per year.
tension between these two policy goals because it is not likely that former can
be achieved on a voluntary basis without any regulation. Assuming for the
sake of argument that the port's property interests should be viewed the same
way as private property rights, concern for these rights must be balanced with
the city's desire to restore the ecological functions of the marsh. The city
believes that these regulations achieve that balance.
76. Development
Port of Edmonds
Harbor Square is constrained by rezoning limitations,
See response to Number 75.
Potential (letter
(Macaulay &
building height, parking and high water table, the
and attachments)
Associates)
p r o p o s e d 10 0 f t. buffer/setback adds further
(Item B)
constraints to development flexibility, which
impacts the ability of the Port to attract a
development partner.
77. Development
Port of Edmonds
The prevailing trend in this area has been for
See response to Number 75.
Potential (letter
(Macaulay &
developers to construct as much building as
and attachments)
Associates)
physically possible while staying w i t h i n z o n i n g
(Item B)
code requirements. Structural parking costs are
ten times more expensive than surface parking
which means the 50 outer setback would be used
for parking if Harbor Square is redeveloped.
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
LO
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 132
7.1.a
28
78. Effect on Tax
Port of Edmonds
The reduced building area f r o in t h e 10 0 -
See response to Number 75.
Base (letter and
(Macaulay &
f t . buffer / s e t b a c k would cost $930,000 to
attachments)
Associates)
$1,460,000 million in non -recurring revenues to
(Item B)
affected governments and public agencies, and
the estimated cost to the City of Edmonds is
$121,000 to $167,000. For recurring revenues, the
annual costs are $261,000 to $314,000 overall, and
$56,000 to $64,000 to the city.
79. Effect on the
Port of Edmonds
Not including jobs from new construction and
Job creation is not a policy goal of the Shoreline Management Act.
Economy (letter
(Macaulay &
multiplier effects, a new 50,800 SF commercial
and attachments)
Associates)
building would directly add at least 135± jobs to
(Item B)
the local economy. At a state -level multiplier of 1.9,
the total economic impact is 257 jobs to the city.
80. Effect on the
Port of Edmonds
With the existing 25-foot buffer, the property is
See response to Number 75.
Environment
(Macaulay &
more marketable and enhancements like upgraded
(letter and
Associates)
storm water treatment would occur sooner than
attachments)
otherwise.
(Item B)
81. Effect on the
Port of Edmonds
With the proposed 100-ft. buffer/setback,
See response to Number 75.
Environment
(Macaulay &
the time horizon is indefinitely lengthened for
(letter and
Associates)
attracting a developer to improve storm water
attachments)
detention and make other ecological enhancements
(Item B)
as part of redevelopment.
82. Overall impact
Port of Edmonds
The public is less served by buildings that are
See response to Number 75.
of delaying Harbor
(Macaulay &
nearing the ends of their economic lives at a
Square
Associates)
prime gateway location that is poised for new and
redevelopment
improved uses, and these uses would be more
(letter and
aligned with the Edmonds community and better
attachments)
serve its commercial needs.
(Item B)
83. Edmonds
Kojo Fordjour, AICP
A Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed
The 100-foot setback/buffer in the Edmonds SMP from the Edmonds Marsh is
Marsh Urban
Environmental and
Edmonds Crossing ferry terminal project dated July
consistent with the ROD for the Edmonds Crossing Project as depicted on
Mixed Use IV
Permitting Manager
2005 was issued with a 100 feet buffer zone for the
Figure 2-3 Modified Alternative 2. 100-foot setbacks associated with Willow
buffer/setback
Washington State
Edmonds Marsh. However, the proposed 100 foot
Creek would impact the Edmonds Crossing Project. It should be noted that the
(letter)
Ferries
setback for the marsh in the SMP will limit WSF's
existing critical area regulations (proposed to be incorporated in the SMP) also
as
_
`o
Cn
LO
c
a�
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 133
7.1.a
29
Seattle, WA 98121
ability to implement the mitigation and buffer
require a 100 buffer from the ordinary high water mark of Willow Creek.
enhancements proposed in the ROD.
The SMA and Edmonds SMP allow for a variance from the SMP provisions
which is ultimately decided by the Department of Ecology. The ROD could be
used as support for a variance application.
Transportation facilities such as ferry terminals are permitted consistent with
the requirements outlined in SMP 24.60.080
84. Edmonds
Kojo Fordjour WSF
The City's proposed 100 foot setbacks would
It has been more than 10 years since the FEIS for the Edmonds Crossing was
Marsh Urban
increase the Edmonds Crossing project impacts to
issued. Once development permits are submitted for an actual project,
Mixed Use IV
Edmonds Marsh, and create a need for additional
SEPA/NEPA documents should be reviewed for changed circumstances and
buffer/setback
mitigation or project redesign. Requiring a National
updated as needed.
(letter)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) re-evaluation and
possible supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, in addition to updates to other required
State, Federal and local permits.
85. Edmonds
Kojo Fordjour WSF
Creating a setback of 100 feet around Edmonds
The 100-foot setback/buffer in the Edmonds SMP from the Edmonds Marsh is
Marsh Urban
Marsh and Willow Creek would jeopardize WSF's
consistent with the ROD for the Edmonds Crossing Project as depicted on
Mixed Use IV
ability to develop the new ferry terminal on the
Figure 2-3 Modified Alternative 2. 100-foot setbacks associated with Willow
buffer/setback
Unocal site. This has the potential to preclude the
Creek would impact the Edmonds Crossing Project. It should be noted that the
(letter)
siting of the Edmonds Ferry Terminal, an essential
existing critical area regulations (proposed to be incorporated in the SMP) also
water dependent public facility on the Unocal Site.
require a 100 buffer from the ordinary high water mark of Willow Creek. The
SMA and Edmonds SMP allow for a variance from the SMP provisions which
is ultimately decided by the Department of Ecology. The ROD could be used
as support for a variance application.
Transportation facilities such as ferry terminals are permitted consistent with
the requirements outlined in SMP 24.60.080
86. Edmonds
Kojo Fordjour WSF
WSF therefore asks the City to either grandfather
Washington State vesting laws specifically vest land use control ordinances at
Marsh Urban
the Edmonds Crossing Project or only keep the
the time a complete building permit is filed (RCW 19.27.095). The 100-foot
Mixed Use IV
existing 100 foot- buffer dimension for the Edmonds
buffer/setback associated with the Edmonds Marsh is consistent with the
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
T
LO
r
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 134
7.1.a
30
buffer/setback
Marsh.
Edmonds Crossing FEIS. As noted in response to Comments Nos. 83 and 85,
(letter)
transportation are permitted consistent with SMP 24.60.080 and there is a
process available to WSDOT to achieve the preferred alternative discussed in
the Edmonds Crossing FEIS.
87. Edmonds
Kojo Fordjour, WSF
WSF recommends that the baseline for the "no -net-
In accordance with the SMA, the baseline for no -net -loss is the Shoreline
Marsh Urban
loss" of ecological functions of the marsh and its
Inventory and Characterization. Also as noted in a number of comments, no
Mixed Use IV
environs at the Unocal site be based on the 2005
net is a minimum standard for SMPs.
buffer/setback
ROD and associated environmental studies,
(letter)
documents, mitigation agreements, plans, and
design.
88. Edmonds
Kojo Fordjour, WSF
WSF believes that the proposed project is
The City concurs. As noted in the comments above, the 100-foot
Marsh Urban
consistent with the regulatory requirements of the
buffer/setback from the Edmonds Marsh is consistent with the 100-foot buffer
Mixed Use IV
Shoreline Master Program, ECDC
from the marsh associated with the Edmonds Crossing project.
buffer/setback
24.40.020.F.2.c, which addresses required
(letter)
measures to minimize impacts to wetlands.
89. Edmonds
Chris Koser
Please do not allow The Port of Edmonds to proceed
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
Marsh Urban
Edmonds, WA 98020
with their request to permit any new buildings closer
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
Mixed Use IV
to the Edmonds Marsh than the 100 feet that the City
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
buffer/setback
of Edmonds Council approved in the past few years.
subject to the City's SMP.
(email)
90. Edmonds
Sheri and Dave
Urge you to please establish the setbacks/buffers at
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Marsh Urban
Buelow
the Edmonds Marsh at the maximum amount possible
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
Mixed Use IV
Edmonds, WA 98020
for the following reasons:
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
buffer/setback
-The Marsh is a local and regional treasure.
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the
(email)
-The Port proposed 60 ft. buildings next to the Marsh
guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of
in order to have setbacks along Dayton Street
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
-Harbor Square proposal did not provide study of
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
potential of bird strikes nor reflective heat associated
requirement.
with 55' walls of southern exposure reflective glass
on the Marsh and animal inhabitants.
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
subject to the City's SMP.
91. Marsh no net
Sheri and Dave
The Port's no -net -loss concerns about the 100 ft.
The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in support of the SMP
loss issues (email)
Buelow
buffer/setback are largely unfounded.
documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss requirement.
a�
_
`o
W
co
LO
c
a�
E
0
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 135
7.1.a
31
92. Marsh
Sheri and Dave
The Port is not going to suffer real negative financial
Noted.
buffer/setback
Buelow
impact with larger setbacksibuffer, rather it is a
impacts on the Port
reduction from valuations contrived by their own
of Edmonds
calculations which are based on past problems of their
(email)
own making, and wishful valuations based on zoning
changes no one else in the City could get, or likely
would even ask for.
93. Edmonds
Sheri and Dave
The Marsh is being made a pawn in a quest for
Noted.
Marsh (email)
Buelow
enhanced development rights. While the Port's words
portray a love for the Marsh, their actions are the
opposite.
94. Edmonds
Donald E. Mohs
As you review proposals to restore the Edmonds
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Marsh Urban
Edmonds, WA
Marsh, please consider that, at a minimum, a setback
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
Mixed Use IV
of 100 feet is needed. Anything less will cause great
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
buffer/setback
harm to the marsh. I ask for your support in restoring
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the
(email)
this wonderful natural resource.
guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
requirement.
95. Edmonds
Tere Ryder
This is an exciting time for our community to have a
Noted.
Marsh Urban
Edmonds WA 98020
chance on moving forward in restoring this beautiful
Mixed Use IV
environment here at our marsh. We have an
buffer/setback
opportunity to put best science and statutory and rule
(email)
requirements first with all that our science shows us
now and we can fully protect this very special and
fragile environment for our children and future
generations.
96. Edmonds
Stephen A. Bernheim
I'm not sure what you can do about the 40 trains that
The City's SMP has an Urban Railroad shoreline environment that provides
Marsh impacts
Edmonds WA 98020
blare their way right through the middle of the marsh
regulations for the railroad right-of-way within the City of Edmonds shoreline
(email)
every day: I hope something.
jurisdiction.
97. Edmonds
Stephen A. Bernheim
Supports the 100 foot setback. Please support the 100
Noted.
Marsh Urban
foot setback from the marsh to ensure the cleansing
Mixed Use IV
marsh remains intact and is no longer encroached
buffer/setback
upon. We have lost acres of wetlands in Edmonds,
(email)
even away from the shoreline, over the past decades.
Q
Packet Pg. 136
7.1.a
32
98. Edmonds
John Reed
I urge you to approve the City recommended changes
Noted.
Marsh Urban
Edmonds, WA 98020
related to the Marsh 100 ft. buffer/setback and deny
Mixed Use IV
the request by the Port of Edmonds.
buffer/setback
(email)
99. Edmonds
Randy Hayden
Not enforcing a 100' setback from the marsh would
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Marsh Urban
Edmonds WA 98020
be very harmful and a step backwards. The loss of
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
Mixed Use IV
Federal funds to help with the cleanup of the area and
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
buffer/setback
to bring the creek back to ground level would be put
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the
(email)
on the Edmonds taxpayers' shoulders, and this project
guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of
would be put on the back burner and most likely
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
never addressed. Preserve the marsh for future
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
generations.
requirement.
There are many grant opportunities and each program has its own funding
requirements. The buffer guidelines in Appendix L from Department of
Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance are for
three specific grant programs (Centennial Clean Water Program, Clean Water
Act Section 319, and Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving
Fund Program).
100. Edmonds
Natalia Fior
I wish to see the Edmonds Marsh restored and salmon
Edmonds Marsh studies have been identified as high priority in the Edmonds
Marsh Urban
Edmonds, WA
return to spawn which will bring back other wild life
SMP and the marsh is also identified for restoration projects in the Restoration
Mixed Use IV
and help our suffering orca population. Please hold
Plan submitted with the Edmonds SMP.
buffer/setback and
the line and maintain a 100 foot setback from the
restoration (email)
marsh to ensure this vital resource, which cleans our
One of the requirements for the SMP is that it result in no net loss of shoreline
water before entering the Puget Sound, remains intact
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
and is no longer encroached upon. Please save the
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
marsh. We have already lost too many acres of
requirement.
wetlands in Edmonds over the past decades.
101. Edmonds
Anne- Marie Sykes
I'm hoping that you have the power and legislation to
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
Marsh Urban
Edmonds WA 98020
stop the Port of Edmonds from violating their original
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
Mixed Use IV
plan of the last few years, not to build closer than 100
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
buffer/setback
feet from the wetlands.
subject to the City's SMP.
(email)
Q
Packet Pg. 137
7.1.a
33
102. SMP Aquatic
Shoreline
Environment
(email)
Hugo Flores
Aquatic Resources
Division
WA Dept. of Natural
Resources
PO Box 47027
Olympia, WA 98504
The Department of Natural Resources strongly
supports the City of Edmonds inclusion of the
Aquatic Environment (Aquatic I and Aquatic II)
shoreline designation into its SMP. DNR believes that
this action recognizes the existence of state-owned
aquatic lands. This will increase better coordination
managing these areas between DNR and the City of
Edmonds.
Noted.
103. Edmonds
Brian J. Kelley
Objects to the City's proposed 1 00-foot setback
Noted.
Marsh Urban
Chevron USA
from the Edmonds Marsh, combined with an
Mixed Use IV
Business & Real
interior 50-foot vegetative buffer. Also recognizes
buffer/setback
Estate Services
Port of Edmonds and WADOT objections.
(letter)
Brea, CA 92821
104. Proposed
Brian J. Kelley
The City of Edmonds has not satisfied legal
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
marsh
Chevron USA
requirements cities must meet when adopting
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
buffer/setback
regulations under the Shoreline Management Act.
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
inconsistent with
Under these requirements, a city must base
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology.
WAC 173-26-201
proposed regulations on "the most current, accurate
(2) (email)
and complete scientific or technical information
With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes:
available". WAC 173-26-201 (2) (a). References
(a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements
Port of Edmonds applicable comments.
for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local
governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master
program development and amendment process.
First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific
and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.
The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the
scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and,
where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial
photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and
services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult
the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant
information is available and unless there is more current or specific
information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an
Q
Packet Pg. 138
7.1.a
34
element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines
and the use of which is required by the act.
Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the
most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information
available...
The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance
materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173-
26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding
Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other
available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within
the City's SMP.
105. Edmonds
Brian J. Kelley
The Port has submitted analysis of scientific
Ecology and City response
Marsh Urban
Chevron USA
information that concludes a 25-foot setback is
Mixed Use IV
sufficient to ensure no net loss of shoreline
WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at
buffer/setback
ecological functions. Ecology has recommended
minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline
(letter)
(3/11/2014 letter) to the City that it adopt a "50-foot
natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where
enhanced buffer" in lieu of the 100-foot setback.
they have been impaired."
While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in
WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum
standard of no net loss. The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three
separate policies in the Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP
24.20.050.C.12; high priority for studies); Conservation Element (SMP
24.20.060.C.1; should work to maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and
Educational Policies (SMP 23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally,
three restoration projects related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel
improvements, culvert replacement and Willow Creek daylighting) are
identified in the Restoration Plan.
Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to
secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the
City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development
as
_
`o
z
Cn
co
LO
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 139
7.1.a
35
around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for
restoration and enhanced ecological functions.
106. Edmonds
Brian J. Kelley
Chevron is asking the Department of Ecology to
Ecology Response: The Urban Mixed Use IV Environment buffer/setback will
Marsh Urban
Chevron USA
condition approval of the Edmonds Shoreline
be evaluated within Ecology's final SMP review, this will include review of
Mixed Use IV
Master Program on reduction of the setback
the supporting scientific and technical information outlined in WAC 173-26-
buffer/setback
requirement to 25 feet, with the ability for
201 (2) (a).
(email)
enhanced buffer requirements up to 50 feet in width
if found to be required to avoid net loss of shoreline
ecological functions in the context of review of
specific redevelopment plans. Believes this
approach is consistent with current scientific and
technical information.
107. Edmonds
Doug Swartz
A 100-foot setback/buffer combination is the
One of the requirements for the SMP is that it result in no net loss of shoreline
Marsh Urban
Kathleen Rapp
minimum acceptable for the Edmonds marsh. The
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
Mixed Use IV
Edmonds WA 98020
Edmonds Port Commission wanting a 25-foot setback
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
buffer/setback
and spending our money to lobby for it is an example
requirement.
(email)
of a government agency using taxpayer funds to
promote an idea that the citizens of Edmonds strongly
don't want (i.e., the 25-foot setback so they can do
development right next to the marsh).
108. Edmonds
Evie Jenner
Please do not permit the Port of Edmonds to move
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
Marsh Urban
Edmonds, WA 98026
forward with their request to permit any new
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
Mixed Use IV
buildings closer to the Edmonds Marsh than the 100
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
buffer/setback
feet allowance that the City of Edmonds Council
subject to the City's SMP.
(email)
approved over the last few years. Allowing any
changes to this setback will severely impact the
wildlife of this extremely sensitive area.
109. Edmonds
Gary Bloom
Strongly backs a minimum of 100 feet of a setback
Noted.
Marsh Urban
Edmonds WA
/buffer zone for the Edmonds marsh. As I understand
Mixed Use IV
it, it is the minimum in order to receive State funding
The SMP was developed to be consistent with the SMA. There are many grant
buffer/setback
to restore the marsh. The Port Commission's desire to
opportunities and each program has its own funding requirements. The buffer
(email)
minimize this setback is not in the interests of current
guidelines in Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding Guidelines
and future Edmonds residents.
for Water Quality Financial Assistance are for three specific grant programs
(Centennial Clean Water Program, Clean Water Act Section 319, and
Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program).
110. Edmonds
Gayle Ketzel
I would like to see the Edmonds Shoreline Master
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Q
Packet Pg. 140
7.1.a
36
Marsh Urban
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan updated to incorporate best science, statutory
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
Mixed Use IV
and rule requirements for a full setback and buffer
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
buffer/setback
along the perimeter of the marsh. Supports protection
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology.
(email)
of the Edmonds Marsh.
With regard to the use of scientific information WAC 173-26-201(2) notes:
(a) Use of scientific and technical information. To satisfy the requirements
for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58. 1 00(l), local
governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master
program development and amendment process.
First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific
and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.
The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the
scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and,
where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial
photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and
services from reliable sources of science... Local governments should consult
the technical assistance materials produced by the department. When relevant
information is available and unless there is more current or specific
information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an
element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines
and the use of which is required by the act.
Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the
most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information
available...
The City of Edmonds assembled the most current information in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization document and relied on technical assistance
materials provided by the Department of Ecology consistent with WAC 173-
26-201. The use of Appendix L from Department of Ecology's Funding
Guidelines for Water Quality Financial Assistance constitutes the use of other
available information in determining appropriate setbacks and buffers within
the City's SMP.
111. Edmonds
George Murray
Edmonds needs the 100-foot setback for the long term
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Marsh Urban
Edmonds WA
eco-friendly future of Edmonds itself.
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
Q
Packet Pg. 141
7.1.a
37
Mixed Use IV
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
buffer/setback
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the
guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
requirement.
112. Edmonds
Jacqueline Williams
I think it is dreadful that there is a new possibility of
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
Marsh Urban
Edmonds, WA 98020
buildings within 100 feet of our Edmonds Marsh. We
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
Mixed Use IV
the electorate have said NO on this already. Please do
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
buffer/setback
not allow this to happen to our marshes, and the
subject to the City's SMP.
(email)
wildlife that will be disturbed.
113. Edmonds
Jenny Anttila
Please do not allow The Port of Edmonds to proceed
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
Marsh Urban
Edmonds, WA 98020
with their request to permit any new buildings closer
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
Mixed Use IV
to the Edmonds Marsh than the 100 feet that the City
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
buffer/setback
of Edmonds Council approved in the past few years.
subject to the City's SMP.
(email)
114. Edmonds
Joan Bloom
Supports the proposed Edmonds Shoreline Master
Noted.
Marsh Urban
Edmonds, WA 98020
Program (SMP), interim 50-foot riparian buffer, and
Mixed Use IV
100-foot setback, measured from the ordinary high
buffer/setback
water mark (OHWM). A total of 100 feet of
(email)
separation from the Marsh, for any development.
115. Edmonds
Joan Bloom
Originally, City Council was considering a total of a
The SMP recommended to the City Council from the Planning Board included
Marsh Urban
150-foot marsh buffer/setback. I believe this was
a 50-foot setback from the marsh. As noted in the response to Comment No.
Mixed Use IV
meant to include a 100-foot riparian buffer, and a 50-
19, various buffer and setback options were considered by the City Council.
buffer/setback
foot development setback from this buffer. It appears
Ultimately, the Council settled on the 100-foot setback/buffer that is contained
(email)
that the proposed 100-ft. marsh buffer/setback was
within the SMP. The primary intent of the setbacks and buffers established in
meant to be a compromise to the Port's position that
the SMP is to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values.
the city maintains the current 25-foot setback from
the Marsh.
116. Port of
Joan Bloom
The Port of Edmonds commissioners allocated
Noted.
Edmonds funding
$25,000 of taxpayer money to support retaining the
in support of
existing 25-ft. marsh, without openly informing the
retaining the Marsh
taxpayers of the Port district that they were doing so.
25-ft. existing
I am both an Edmonds resident, and a resident of the
buffer (email)
Port of Edmonds. I find this lack of transparency of
serious concern.
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
LO
c
as
E
0
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 142
7.1.a
38
117. SMP Page 41,
Joan Bloom
Strongly opposes this passage of our SMP which
Buffer width averaging is a common practice supported by the Department of
Wetland Buffer
allows discretionary authority to "the director" and
Ecology. Department of Ecology's Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for
Averaging (20.40
keeps the Council, and thus the public, completely out
Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002) notes:
.020 (2) (f).
of the decision making loop. In Edmonds, many
highly disturbing abuses of the environment have
Buffer Averaging
(email)
occurred, even WITH a significant amount of public
Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain
involvement.
circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate.
The width of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of
wetland functions, or if it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a
parcel.
We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report.
The report should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the
current functions of the wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be
taken to ensure that there is no loss of wetland function due to the buffer
averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point after averaging should be
no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer.
The City of Edmonds, at the direction of Ecology, incorporated the wetland
Guidance for Small Cities into the SMP and the provisions are consistent with
the guidance from the Department of Ecology.
118. US Army
Joan Bloom
Disturbing damage that has been done to an isolated
While Ecology does administer the Sec. 401 Water Quality Certification, half
Corps of Engineers
wetland by the developer. The city of Edmonds and
of the federal Clean Water Act authorizations, the review and approval of the
wetland permitting
the Army Corps of Engineers allowed this abuse, of
Sec. 404 authorization are administered by the Corps. There are
authority (email)
one of our few remaining isolated wetlands, to occur.
circumstances, such as the Thuessen wetland, when the Corps can determine
that a project also meets water quality standards and that no further
coordination with Ecology is required. The Corps is administering federal law
and does not have a regulatory role in SMA decisions; the Sec. 404 process is
independent of shoreline permitting review by the local jurisdiction and
Ecology.
119. SMP approval
Joe Scordino
Approve the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program
Noted.
support (email)
Edmonds, WA 98020
Update that the Edmonds City Council unanimously
approved in November 2014. The most important
aspect of the SMP is the 50 ft buffer and 100 ft
setback for the shoreline area of the Edmonds Marsh.
Q
Packet Pg. 143
7.1.a
39
120. Opposition to
Joe Scordino
The Port of Edmonds stated interest is to redevelop
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
Port of Edmonds
the Harbor Square area as close to the edge of the
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
25 ft. Edmonds
Marsh as possible, which I believe is in contravention
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
Marsh buffer
to the intent of the Shoreline Management Act
subject to the City's SMP.
proposal (email)
(SMA). It is NOT in the best interest of the State or
the citizens of Edmonds to only have a 25 foot buffer
as suggested by the Port of Edmonds.
121. Edmonds
Joe Scordino
It would be tragic to have the Edmonds Marsh
There currently are no applications for constructing new buildings at Harbor
Marsh restoration
subjected to additional shoreline development while
Square or on the south side of the marsh. Once the SMP becomes affective, all
(email)
the City is in the midst of restoring for salmon habitat
new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be subject to the City's
through such efforts as the Willow Creek day lighting
SMP.
proj ect.
122. Edmonds
Judy Gutton
Please do not allow the Port of Edmonds to proceed
The Port of Edmonds currently has no applications for constructing new
Marsh building
Edmonds WA 98020
with their plan permitting buildings even closer to the
buildings at Harbor Square within shoreline jurisdiction. Once the SMP
setback (email)
Edmonds Marsh than the 100' that the Edmonds City
becomes affective, all new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be
Council has already allowed. The Marsh is precious
subject to the City's SMP.
to the birds' habitat, and to the people and City of
Edmonds.
123. Edmonds
Karen Wiggins
The Edmonds Shoreline Master Plan should set the
The SMP would not require the removal of existing development within the
Marsh building
Edmonds WA 98020
setback from the Edmonds Marsh to 100 ft away from
shoreline setback. Existing development within the shoreline setbacks will be
setback (email)
development, but should not have to remove any
subject to the Nonconforming Development provisions in the Part VII of the
buildings and parking areas that are currently within
SMP (24.70.000 — 24.70.050).
that setback, just do not allow anything else to be
built that would be within that 100 ft. setback.
124. Edmonds
Val Stewart
Supports the proposed Edmonds Shoreline Master
Noted.
Marsh Urban
Edmonds WA
Program including the two-year interim -Urban Mixed
Mixed Use IV
Use IV designation for the Edmonds Marsh which
buffer/setback
includes the provision of a 50-ft buffer and 100-ft
(email)
setback.
125. Edmonds
Val Stewart
If the proposed full setback were treated as a buffer it
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Marsh buffer
would not only trap pollutants and sediments entering
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
/setback (email)
the Marsh but could also accommodate passive
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
recreation such as a walking path or boardwalk. This
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the
would be a great asset that would compliment any
guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of
development in Harbor Square. It would increase
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
public access to the marsh; an important goal of the
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
LO
c
a�
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 144
7.1.a
40
Shoreline Management Act. This combined with
requirement.
educational opportunities would enable us to
showcase the Marsh and its overall benefits to the
greater community; a model for the region.
126. Tribal Treaty
Val Stewart
Continued development and lack of enforcement
There currently are no applications for constructing new buildings at Harbor
Rights (email)
protecting habitat is continuing to take away natural
Square or on the south side of the marsh. Once the SMP becomes affective, all
resources that are guaranteed in the treaties with
new development within shoreline jurisdiction will be subject to the City's
Tribes. This "taking" of resources by destroying the
SMP.
habitat that is necessary for the salmon to be
sustainable is essentially a breach of the treaty.
127. Edmonds
Val Stewart
Edmonds Marsh is a category I wetland and is
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Marsh Building
classified by the State as a priority habitat.
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
setback (email)
Promoting intense development too close to an
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
already compromised estuarine marsh ecosystem is
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the
not going to improve conditions enough for
guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of
anadromous fish to complete their lifecycle.
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
requirement.
128. Edmonds
Val Stewart
With ready funding available and appropriate policies
The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the
Marsh Restoration
and regulations in place, the City should take
Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; high priority
(email)
seriously this stewardship opportunity to preserve and
for studies); Conservation Element (SMP 24.20.060.C.1; should work to
restore salmon habitat and ecological functions in
maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies (SMP
Edmonds Marsh.
23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration projects
related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel improvements, culvert replacement
and Willow Creek daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan.
Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to
secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the
City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development
around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for
restoration and enhanced ecological functions.
129. SMP
Val Stewart
Requests Ecology approval of the Edmonds SMP
Noted.
Approval (email)
update with the two-year interim Urban Mixed Use
IV designation which includes a 50-ft buffer and 100-
ft setback. I do not believe we should depend on
redevelopment for appropriate restoration.
as
_
`o
Cn
co
LO
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 145
7.1.a
41
130. Edmonds
Val Stewart
Our City needs to impose strong policies and
See response to Comment No. 128.
Marsh policies and
regulations for development along our sensitive
regulations (email)
estuarine marsh shoreline in order to secure the
As noted in SMP 24.10.000, one of the purposes of the SMP is to:
natural benefits consistent with the general welfare of
our citizens and the environment.
To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing a guide
and regulation for future development of the shoreline resources of the City of
Edmonds.
131. Edmonds
Val Stewart
Edmonds City Council voted for an expanded Marsh
WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) notes the SMP guidelines "are designed to assure, at
Marsh buffer
buffer/setback which goes beyond "no net loss" and
minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline
/setback; going
restores the Marsh to where it will once again be
natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where
beyond no net loss
viable. My understanding is that jurisdictions can go
they have been impaired."
of ecological
beyond state mandates to address conditions in their
functions (email)
unique environments.
While the City's SMP has been developed to assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, nothing the SMA or the SMP guidelines contained in
WAC 173-26 prohibit the City of Edmonds from exceeding the minimum
standard of no net loss.
132. Edmonds
Rebecca J. Wolfe
Strongly supports the restoration of the Edmonds
Noted.
Marsh Restoration
Edmonds, WA
Marsh with the interim 100-foot buffer and setback.
(email)
133. Edmonds
Rebecca J. Wolfe
The Edmonds salt marsh has a high regional and local
The Edmonds SMP recognizes the importance of the Edmonds Marsh as
Marsh Restoration
significance for wildlife, fisheries, recreational,
evidenced by three specific policies in the SMP relating to the marsh and three
(email)
aesthetic, and educational values that have been
marsh related projected being identified in the Restoration Plan.
seriously compromised along our Washington state
seashore. With a restored Edmonds Marsh, our city
would have a more dynamic waterway system and a
higher quality of life for our residents.
134. SMP approval
Richard 1. Senderoff,
Supports the proposed Edmonds Shoreline Master
Noted.
support (email)
Ph.D.
Program (SMP), interim 50-foot riparian buffer, and
Commissioner-
100-foot setback, measured from the ordinary high
Edmonds Citizens
water mark (OHWM) for the Edmonds Marsh.
Economic
Development
as
c
`o
Cn
c�
LO
c
m
E
0
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 146
7.1.a
42
Commission
Steering Committee -
Community Backyard
Habitat of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98026
135. Edmonds
Richard I. Senderoff,
All the Edmonds City Council has done in
Edmonds Response:
Marsh Restoration
Ph.D.
establishing the interim buffer/setback is to secure the
See responses to Comments Nos. 62 and 72.
(email)
possibility of future grants. I presume the 100 foot
setback recommendation is based on the best
Ecology Response: The Urban Mixed Use IV Environment buffer/setback will
available environmental science? Supports day
be evaluated within Ecology's final SMP review, this will include review of
lighting Willow Creek, salmon recovery and
the supporting scientific and technical information outline in WAC 173-26-201
improving marsh ecological functions.. Presumes
(2) (a).
the Department of Ecology is interested in such
goals?
Ecology does support salmon recovery goals and protection and improvement
of the Edmonds Marsh Ecological functions. These factors will be taken into
consideration during the SMP final review.
136. Edmonds
Richard I. Senderoff,
Any support for day lighting Willow Creek and other
There are no current development plans to redevelop the Harbor Square
Marsh Restoration
Ph.D.
Edmonds Marsh restoration activities would be
property.
(email)
considered additional (or unnecessary) costs that
developers would resist. There is no developer that
currently has plans to redevelop Harbor Square under
current zoning.
137. Shoreline
Richard I. Senderoff,
The Port of Edmonds purchased the Harbor Square
Noted.
regulatory risks.
Ph.D.
property with full knowledge of its proximity to the
(email)
Edmonds Marsh Wildlife Preserve. As such, they
assume those responsibilities and regulatory risks.
138. Edmonds
'Dawna Lahti
Supports the 100' setback for the Edmonds Marsh, but
Noted.
Marsh setback
Edmonds, WA
I have read enough and been aware of disaster
preparedness to know that the more marsh we have
preserved, the better off we are in event of the
tsunami we will one day surely have, as well as to
absorb rising sea level (which "hardscape" cannot
do).
139. Shoreline
Todd Zackey
The proposed Edmonds SMP didn't utilize the best
The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization did identify the presence of eel
assessment, use of
Tulalip Tribes
available information when generating their maps for
grass and kelp beds along the Edmonds shoreline noting:
Q
Packet Pg. 147
7.1.a
43
best available
Tulalip, WA 98271
assessing shoreline sediment and substrate and Kelp
science
and eel grass resources. A Snohomish County Surface
The Puget Sound shoreline in the City does retain large areas of functioning
Water Mgt. intertidal shoreline survey should have
eelgrass and kelp beds in the littoral zone (lower intertidal to shallow subtidal
been incorporated into the SMP analysis for physical
elevations). Eelgrass is distributed in patchy narrow bands along the City
and ecological conditions assessments.
waterfront south of the marina to Point Wells, and north of Shell Creek to
Picnic Point (KC DNR WTD 2003) (Figure 1). Dense patches are present in
some areas, including north and south of the Lynnwood outfall (near
Meadowdale Creek), and north and south ofLaebugten's Wharf.
Proposed projects within the OWHM of the Puget Sound will be required to
conduct eelgrass and kelp habitat surveys thus provide up-to-date site specific
information on eelgrass and kelp habitat and projects are required to avoid or
minimize and mitigate impacts to ecologically functions including critical
resources such as eelgrass and kelp beds.
A sampling of policies addressing eelgrass and kelp beds from the SMP
included SMP Sections 24.50.030.B.4, 24.50.060.D.2.b, 24.60.010.B.4
24.60.010.C.3, and 24.60.010.D.l.b.xi.
140. Edmonds
Todd Zackey
The Edmonds Marsh Urban Mixed Use IV interim
Approval of a final designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV will follow the
Marsh Urban
Tulalip Tribes
designation determination is ambiguous and the
state mandated approval process for amendments to a SMP as provided in the
Mixed Use IV
designation process is not well defined. Will the final
Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and Ecology's procedural rules
interim designation
designation go though the same approval process as
(WAC 173-26, Part I1) .
the current SMP? The process needs to be clearly
defined.
141. Edmonds
Todd Zackey
Use of the Urban Mixed Use IV interim designation
One of the guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no
Marsh Urban
Tulalip Tribes
still allows development despite the fact that the final
net loss of ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Mixed Use IV
designation may not allow development. A
submitted in support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no
interim designation
moratorium on development until the final
net loss requirement.
(email)
designation is determined makes sense to unsure that
Edmonds Marsh restoration is not undermined
The Edmonds Marsh is specifically mentioned in three separate policies in the
Edmonds SMP for Shoreline Use Polices (SMP 24.20.050.C.12; high priority
for studies); Conservation Element (SMP 24.20.060.C.1; should work to
maintain); and Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies (SMP
23.20.070.C.2; should be preserved). Additionally, three restoration projects
related to the Edmonds Marsh (Channel improvements, culvert replacement
and Willow Creek daylighting) are identified in the Restoration Plan.
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
LO
c
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 148
7.1.a
44
Given the importance of Edmonds Marsh in the SMP and current efforts to
secure funding for projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting project, the
City of Edmonds has chosen to adopt interim standards for development
around the marsh the will ensure its protection and preserve opportunities for
restoration and enhanced ecological functions.
The interim Urban Mixed Use IV designation is consistent with the
requirement of the SMP and preserves restoration opportunities with the
marsh.
142. SMP
Todd Zackey
Edmonds staff should revisit SMP jurisdiction
Lund Creek is not within the City of Edmonds jurisdictional boundaries.
estuarine
Tulalip Tribes
boundaries to determine if all estuarine areas near
jurisdiction (email)
stream mouths have been included. Particular
The SMP has provisions for the discovery of shoreline areas that are not
concerns with Lund Creek.
identified on the shoreline environment maps in Appendix A of the SMP.
Specifically SMP 23.40.020 notes:
B. The purpose of the official shoreline maps in Appendix A is to identify
Shoreline area designations. The map does not necessarily identify or depict
the lateral extent of shoreline jurisdiction. Where uncertainty or conflict may
occur in the exact location of jurisdictional or shoreline designation boundary
line, the shoreline Administrator shall rely up the criteria contained in RCW
90.58.030(2) and chapter 173-22 WAC pertaining to determinations of
shorelands, as amended, rather than the incorrect or outdated map.
C. In the event that new shoreline areas are discovered (e.g. associated
wetlands) that are not mapped and/designated on the official shoreline map,
these areas will be designated in the following manner.
1. If a newly discovered shoreline area is adjacent to a single shoreline area
environment, then the newly discovered shoreline area will be assigned the
same shoreline designation as the adjacent shoreline area.
2. If a newly discovered shoreline area abuts more than one shoreline area
environment, the shoreline area environment that is most restrictive shall be
assigned to the newly discovered shoreline area.
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
LO
_
as
E
a
3
0
am
a
Q
Packet Pg. 149
7.1.a
45
143. Edmonds
Marsh buffer
/setback (email)
Susan Paine
Edmonds, WA
Urges review of the environmental concerns for the
plan with an eye to preserving as much Marsh buffer
as possible, at least 100 feet. The marsh has been
impacted by petroleum, railroad and construction
activities, it needs stronger protections than what are
requested by the Port of Edmonds.
The standards for local government development of Shoreline Management
Programs are detailed in WAC 173-26. The City of Edmonds SMP was
developed in accordance with WAC 173-26 as documented in the SMP
submittal checklist submitted to the Department of Ecology. One of the
guiding factors for the SMP regulations is that the SMP result in no net loss of
ecological functions. The City's Cumulative Impacts Analysis submitted in
support of the SMP documents how the City's SMP meets the no net loss
requirement.
as
_
`0
W
c�
LO
c
as
E
U
M
Q
3
0
Q.
a
z
x
w
m
E
s
c�
Q
Packet Pg. 150
au118Joyg : 9�gs;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd 1euoi;ipuo3 Aftloo3;o;u9w:Pedea - ;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d
ea LO
r� d�
IL
m
.�c
IL
Appendix L. Riparian Restoration and Planting
The following are requirements when implementing a riparian restoration or riparian planting
project.
Environmental Protection Agency and National Marine Fisheries
Sewice buffer requirements
Ecology has increased the minimum requirements for riparian buffers to protect and restore
salmon fisheries and achieve water quality standards. These new requirements apply to funding
for projects that address nonpoint pollution problems, including Section 319 grants, Centennial
Clean Water Fund grants or loans, and the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund loans.
In July 2011, Western Washington Treaty Tribes released the "Treaty Rights at Risk" paper. The
paper stated treaty -reserved rights to harvest salmon and steelhead are being impaired by
ongoing salmon habitat loss. To address concerns outlined in the paper, tribes approached federal
government agencies that fund environmental work to improve salmon habitat and restore
sustainable salmon fisheries to levels that meet treaty rights.
In response to tribal concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notified the Department of
Ecology that it must take additional actions to protect salmon and salmon habitat. The EPA is
requiring Washington State to include conditions on federal pass -through grants to be consistent
with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) buffer guidance to help protect and recover
Washington's salmon runs.
Ecology is attaching the new, special conditions. to grant funds to increase levels of riparian
protection to both protect and restore salmon fisheries and help achieve water quality standards.
Conditions of the funding agreement
All restoration activities must also be consistent with the Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines,
available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01374/wdfw01374.pdf and the requirements below.
EPA and NRnFS riparian buffers
The minimum buffer size for surface waters (on each side) will be consistent with Table L-1 and
additional guidance provided below. Table L-1 was developed from information provided by
NMFS. Buffer widths must be measured starting from the ordinary high water mark.
Funding Guidelines
Page 99
aulla.aogS : 9LS�) s;uauagoejjV q;Inn IenoiddV Ieuol;lpuoa A601033 fo;uau:pedea - I, IIglgx3 :;uGWLI3e;;d
Table L- 1: Minimum Buffer Requirements for Surface Waters
Minimum Buffer
Minimum Buffer
Category
Functions
Width West of
Width East of
Cascades
Cascades
A. Constructed Ditches, Intermittent
Water quality, shade,
35' minimum
35' minimum
Streams and Ephemeral
source control and
Streams that are not identified
delivery reduction.
as being accessed and were
historically not accessed by
anadromous or Endangered
Species Act (ESA) listed fish
species
B. Perennial waters that are not
Water quality, shade,
50' minimum
50' minimum
identified as being accessed and
source control and
were historically not accessed
delivery reduction.
by anadromous or ESA listed
fish species
C. Perennial, intermittent and
Water quality, large
100' minimum
75' minimum
ephemeral waters that are
wood debris (LWD) for
identified as being accessed or
cover, complexity and
were historically accessed by
shade and microclimate
anadromous or ESA listed fish
cooling, source control
species
and delivery reduction.
D. Intertidal and estuarine streams
Water quality, habitat
35'-75'minimum, or
N/A
and channels that are identified
complexity
more as necessary
as being accessed or were
to meet water
historically accessed by
quality standards
anadromous or ESA listed fish
species
Additional guidance
• To determine which buffer category applies to a water body, EPA and Ecology have
developed a mapping tool available on the FY2015 funding page at
vvww.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ftindin /g_cycles/FY2015/index.htmi.
o If surface water is present on a property but not shown on the map, a 35 foot
minimum buffer width will apply.
o If a water body is identified as "Category B" in the above table, the grant recipient
must contact the regional Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) or
tribal fish biologist to confirm that the water body is not currently or historically used
by anadromous or listed fish. If the fish biologist informs the recipient of fish
presence, then the buffer width must meet "Category C" requirements.
o If a water body is impeded by a man-made structure (e.g. culvert, dam, etc.) which
prevents anadromous or ESA listed fish access, then the buffer width must meet
"Category C" requirements.
■ WDFW Fish Biologist Contact Information:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/fish district bios.pdf
■ WA State Tribes and Tribal Reservations Map (with links):
www.ecy.wa.gov/services/ isg /maps/state/tribal res.pdf
Funding Guidelines
Page 100
au118JoyS : 9�q�) s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd 1euoi;ipuo3 Aftloog to;uew:Pedea - 6;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d
• The buffer table above establishes minimum requirements for funding eligibility
purposes. Projects that include buffers that are larger than the minimums are preferred,
especially when stated in a TMDL or other watershed improvement plan. To maintain
fully functional riparian ecosystems and provide sufficient habitat to meet the needs of
fish and wildlife, it is recommended that the recipient use Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife buffer widths table whenever those recommendations are larger.
• As stated in the Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines, if the 100-year floodplain
exceeds these widths, the riparian buffer width should extend to the outer edge of the
100-year floodplain.
• Recipients are required to plant the buffer established by the fencing setback with native
trees and shrubs to provide a higher level of water quality improvement. Grass filters
strips are not sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
• When buffers are established in forested areas, the buffer width must also be consistent
with Forest Practices Rules.
• Buffers established as part of a Water Quality Program grant may not violate county
Critical Area Ordinances, county Shoreline Rules, or other state and local regulations.
• Ecology may allow a conditional exemption from the minimum buffer width
requirements where the presence of a structure impedes the ability to meet the conditions.
The recipient must submit an adequate justification as to why these cannot be met and an
alternate written plan to Ecology's Project Manager for review and written approval.
Riparian plantings
• The recipient must develop site -specific plans for all riparian buffers prior to
implementation which include plant locations and species. The plan must be based on an
assessment of native plant associations and community types.
• The recipient must only plant species that are riparian in nature and indigenous to the
primary watershed where the buffer is being established.
• The recipient must use, to the greatest extent possible, genetically appropriate plant
materials collected from the primary or secondary watershed where the buffer is to be
established.
• The recipient must utilize, to the greatest extent possible, plant species that are early
successional within the primary watershed. Early successional species are those whose
characteristics are such that they are first to colonize after a disturbance.
Streambank protection
• Streambank protection projects must not stand alone, but be part of a larger riparian
buffer project. The project must include the buffer and planting requirements listed
above.
• Rock should not be used to armor a bank against the erosive forces of a stream or river
unless a bridge, road, or other manmade structure cannot be protected by any other
means. In any situation where rock is to be used, the RECIPIENT must submit the design
to Ecology's Project Manager for an evaluation.
Funding Guidelines
Page 101
au118Joyg : 9�q�) s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd Ieuog!puo3 Aftloog Io;u9w:Pedea - 6;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d
ea LO
r� d�
IL
m
.�c
• Streambank protection designs must be consistent with the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines: a
Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines document which can be found at
http://wdfw.wa. og_v/publications/00046/.
Relevant definitions
Anadromous fish
Fish that live their adult lives in the ocean but move into freshwater streams to reproduce or
spawn (e.g., salmon); see: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ lg ossary_htm#anadromous.
Constructed ditch
A regularly maintained man-made trench or furrow dug in the ground for the primary purpose of
conveying or draining surface water, storm water or irrigation water, that may or may not,
contain water at all times of the year.
Ephemeral stream
A stream or portion of a stream which flows briefly in direct response to precipitation in the
immediate vicinity, and whose channel is at all times above the groundwater reservoir.
ESA listed fish species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was signed on December 28, 1973, and provides for_
the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant
portion of their range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA
replaced the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969; it has been amended several times.
A "species" is considered: 1) endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and 2) threatened if it is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future. There are approximately 2,100 total species listed under the ESA.
Of these species, approximately 1,480 are found in part or entirely in the U.S. and its waters; the
remainder are foreign species. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share responsibility for implementing the ESA. Generally,
USFWS manages land and freshwater species, while NMFS manages marine and "anadromous"
species. NMFS has jurisdiction over 94 listed species. hltp://www.m-nfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/
Exclusion fencing
A constructed barrier to livestock, wildlife or people for 1) dividing pasture for rotational
grazing; 2) fencing livestock out of a riparian area; and 3) facilitating the application of
conservation practices that treat the soil, water, air, plant, animal, and human resource concerns.
Floodplain
Any lowland that borders a stream and is inundated periodically by the stream's waters.
Funding Guidelines
Page 102
au118Joyg : 9�q�) s;uauayoe;;d 44Inn lenoiddd 1euoi;Ipuo3 Aftloo3;o;u9w:Pedea - ;Igl4x3 :;uauayoe;;d LO
ea LO
r� d�
IL
m
.�c
Intermittent stream a
A stream where portions flow continuously only at certain times of the year, for example when it
receives water from a spring, ground -water source or from a surface source, such as melting
snow (i.e. seasonal). At low flow there may be dry segments alternating with flowing segments.
These streams are also defined as no measurable flow during thirty (30) consecutive days in a
normal water year.
Ordinary high water mark (0)HWM
The point on the sides of streams or lakes which is historically or normally at water's edge, as
identified by a visible change in vegetation and/or soil. It is also generally, the lowest point at
which perennial vegetation grows on the streambank. The ordinary high water mark can usually
be identified by physical scarring along the bank or shore, or by other distinctive signs.
Perennial stream
A stream or portion of a stream that flows year-round, is considered a permanent stream, and for
which base flow is maintained by ground -water discharge to the streambed due to the ground-
water elevation adjacent to the stream typically being higher than the elevation of the streambed.
Riparian buffers
Riparian buffers are generally recognized as a "separation zone" between a water body and a
land use activity for the purposes of protecting ecological processes and water quality. The
riparian buffer usually extends from the stream's ordinary high water line to the outer edge of the
floodplain. Riparian buffers provide essential functions for river and stream ecosystems,
including cover and shade, a source of fine or coarse woody material, nutrients, and organic and
inorganic debris that maintain stream ecosystem function. As used here, riparian buffers are
defined as separation zones that are relatively undisturbed by humans and contain native vegetation
consistent with the potential of the site.
Figure L-1 provides a diagram depicting a typical stream showing the active floodplain, the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM), the riparian zone, and the top of the bank.
Typical Stream
%Sank
tive Floodplain
Top o(0) HWM Top of Bank
Riparian Zone -�-- Riparian Zone '
Figure L- 1: Diagram of a Typical Stream. Figure is a reproduction
of a figure obtained from Fisheries and Oceans Canada at
http://www. pac. dfo-mpo.gc. ca/habitat/Glossary-glossaire-eng. htm.
Funding Guidelines
Page 103
�tsg, ss,irE o� 7.1.a
S �
� O
STATE Of WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47600 a Olympia, WA 98504-7600 0 360-407-6000
711 for Washington Relay Service, Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
August 19, 2015
Ms. Shane Hope, Director
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
7110210'sSt. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Dear Ms. Hope:
We received your request for clarification of Ecology's Funding Guidelines for Water Quality Financial
Assistance (Ecology Pub. No 13-10-041). Our finding guidelines are set up to encourage the implementation of
large riparian buffers, in recognition that wider buffers are needed to protect water quality. At the same time we
recognize that not every project needs the same size buffer to achieve our water duality goals. In an attempt to
balance these two objectives, we have set minimum buffer width requirements for different types of water
bodies. These grant eligibility requirements are intended to ensure that our grant funds go to projects that meet a
minimum level of protection, while recognizing differences on the landscape. We appreciate your city's
consideration of our funding guidelines, and your concerns around making sure projects can be eligible for future
funding.
Our understanding is, the Edmonds City Council is concerned that if the city's Shoreline Master Program does not
include 100 foot buffers on Edmonds Marsh, the city will not be eligible for grants for restoration work in the
marsh. This conclusion was based on an interpretation of Table L-1 in Appendix L, Riparian Restoration and
Planting requirements (page 100).
We understand why the city may have reached this conclusion because Table L-1 describes Minimum Buffer
Requirements for Sw face Waters. It appears the city may have been interpreting Edmonds Marsh as a Category C
waterbody, which has a default minimum buffer width of 100 feet. However, as Ecology's regional wetland staff
have confirmed, the Edmonds Marsh meets the criteria as a Category D estuarine channel, with a minimum buffer
width of 35 feet.
Additionally, please note that even for stream projects raider Category C, Ecology's guidance clarifies that
"Ecology may allow a conditional exemption from the minimum buffer width requirements where the presence of
a structure impedes the ability to meet the conditions (page 101)." The Port's commercial facilities are the kinds
of structures that could allow a project to be granted an exemption from the buffer width eligibility requirements.
We hope this clarification is usefiil to the city as you continue work on updating your shoreline master
program. Please contact me if you have any further questions at ben.rau@ecy.wa.gov or (360)407-6551.
Sincerely,
Ben Rau, Nonpoint program coordinator
Water Quality Program
cc; David Pater, Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, NW Regional Office.
Packet Pg. 156
7.1.b
Edmonds Shoreline Master Program
PartI. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................3
24.10.000 Purpose and Intent.............................................................................................................................3
24.10.010 Authority...........................................................................................................................................4
24.10.020 Applicability.....................................................................................................................................4
24.10.030 Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations......................................................................................4
24.10.040 Liberal Construction.........................................................................................................................5
24.10.050 Administrative Procedures................................................................................................................5
24.10.060 Document Organization....................................................................................................................6
Part II. Master Program Elements: Goals & Policies for the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program.............6
24.20.000
Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 6
24.20.010
Economic Development Element......................................................................................................7
24.20.020
Public Access Element......................................................................................................................8
24.20.030
Recreational Element......................................................................................................................10
24.20.040
Circulation Element........................................................................................................................11
24.20.050
Shoreline Use Element....................................................................................................................12
24.20.060
Conservation Element.....................................................................................................................16
24.20.070
Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Element...................................................................17
24.20.080
Flood Damage Prevention Element................................................................................................18
24.20.090
Views and Aesthetics Element........................................................................................................19
24.20.100
Urban Design Element....................................................................................................................19
24.20.110
Restoration Element........................................................................................................................20
PartIII. Shoreline Environments.........................................................................................................................22
24.30.000
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................
22
24.30.010
Adoption Criteria............................................................................................................................22
24.30.020
Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environments Designation Maps..........................................................22
24.30.030
Aquatic Environment......................................................................................................................23
24.30.040
Natural Environment.......................................................................................................................25
24.30.050
Urban Conservancy Environment...................................................................................................27
24.30.060
Shoreline Residential......................................................................................................................28
24.30.070
Urban Mixed Use............................................................................................................................30
24.30.080
Urban Railroad................................................................................................................................33
Part IV General Policies & Regulations............................................................................................................34
24.40.000 Applicability...................................................................................................................................34
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 1 of 160
Packet Pg. 157
7.1.b
24.40.010
Archaeological and Historic Resources..........................................................................................34
24.40.020
Critical Areas..................................................................................................................................35
24.40.030
Flood Hazard Reduction.................................................................................................................43
24.40.040
Public Access and Views................................................................................................................44
24.40.050
Shoreline Vegetation Conservation.................................................................................................47
24.40.060
Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint pollution......................................................................49
24.40.070
Shoreline Development Table: User Guide.................................................................................51
24.40.080
Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation �......
51
24.40.090
Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards...............................................................................54
Part V Specific Modification Policies & Regulations......................................................................................57
24.50.000 Applicability...................................................................................................................................57
24.50.010 General Modification Policies and Regulations..............................................................................57
24.50.020 Shoreline stabilization.....................................................................................................................58
24.50.030 Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats..................................................................................................66
24.50.040 Landfill............................................................................................................................................74
24.50.050 Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs............................................................................................77
24.50.060 Dredging and dredge material disposal...........................................................................................80
24.50.070 Shoreline habitat and natural systems restoration and enhancement projects.................................86
Part VI Specific Use Policies & Regulations.....................................................................................................87
24.60.000
Applicability...................................................................................................................................87
24.60.010
Aquaculture.....................................................................................................................................88
24.60.020
Boating Facilities............................................................................................................................94
24.60.030
Commercial Development and Light Industrial............................................................................101
24.60.040
Forest Practices.............................................................................................................................104
24.60.050
In -stream Structures......................................................................................................................105
24.60.060
Recreational Development............................................................................................................105
24.60.070
Residential Development..............................................................................................................109
24.60.080
Transportation and Parking...........................................................................................................112
24.60.090
Utilities..........................................................................................................................................119
PartVII Nonconforming Development.........................................................................................................123
24.70.000 Purpose..........................................................................................................................................123
24.70.010 Nonconforming Uses....................................................................................................................123
24.70.020 Nonconforming development, building and/or structure..............................................................124
24.70.030 Nonconforming Lots............................................................................................................................127
24.70.040 Nonconforming Signs..........................................................................................................................128
24.70.050 Nonconforming local public facilities..................................................................................................129
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 2 of 160
Packet Pg. 158
7.1.b
Part VIII
Administration — Shoreline Permits...............................................................................................129
24.80.000
Purpose..........................................................................................................................................129
24.80.010
Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Process.........................................129
24.80.020
Letter of Exemption......................................................................................................................133
24.80.030
Review Criteria for All Development...........................................................................................134
24.80.040
Substantial Development Permit Criteria......................................................................................134
24.80.050
Conditional Use Permit Criteria....................................................................................................134
24.80.060
Variance Permit Criteria...............................................................................................................135
24.80.070
Minimum Application Requirements............................................................................................136
24.80.080
Notice of Application....................................................................................................................138
24.80.090
Special Procedures for Limited Utility Extensions and Bulkheads...............................................140
24.80.100
Public Hearings.............................................................................................................................140
24.80.110
Notice of Decision, Reconsideration, and Appeals.......................................................................141
24.80.120
Initiation of Development.............................................................................................................142
24.80.130
Revisions.......................................................................................................................................142
24.80.140
Time requirements of Shoreline Permits.......................................................................................144
24.80.150
Administrative Authority and Responsibility...............................................................................145
24.80.160
Compliance...................................................................................................................................146
24.80.170
Enforcement..................................................................................................................................146
PartIX Definitions............................................................................................................................................147
24.90.000
General Information......................................................................................................................147
24.90.010
Definitions: A to B.......................................................................................................................147
24.90.020
Definitions: C to F........................................................................................................................149
24.90.030
Definitions: G to 0.......................................................................................................................152
24.90.040
Definitions: P to R........................................................................................................................155
24.90.050
Definitions: S to T........................................................................................................................157
24.90.060
Definitions: U to Z.......................................................................................................................158
PartX Appendices...........................................................................................................................................160
24.100.000 Appendix A - Maps of Shoreline Environments and Jurisdictions...............................................160
Part I. Introduction
24.10.000 Purpose and Intent
This master program, in harmony with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, is based on the
philosophy that the shorelines of the state and our city are among the most valuable and fragile
m
0
a
E
0
0
L.
a
L
M
m
c
0
z
Ln
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 3 of 160
Packet Pg. 159
7.1.b
resources that we possess. The Shoreline Management Act made clear that there is a great public
concern regarding the use, protection, restoration, and preservation of these shorelines, which
concern is the premise of this master program. In recognition of private property rights, local
public opinion, existing realities, and the necessary coordination between several levels of
government, this program represents an approach toward the enhancement of shorelines rather
than the restriction of their use.
The purposes of this Master Program are:
A. To carry out the responsibilities imposed the City of Edmonds by Washington State
Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58).
B. To promote uses and development of the City of Edmonds shoreline consistent with
the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan while protecting and restoring
environmental resources.
C. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing a guide and
regulation for future development of the shoreline resources of the City of Edmonds
24.10.010 Authority
Authority for enactment and administration of the program is the shoreline Management Act of
1971, chapter 90.58 RCW, as now or hereafter amended
24.10.020 Applicability
All proposed uses and development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction of the City of
Edmonds must conform to the Shoreline Management Act and this Chapter. All uses, even those
not meeting the definition of development, are subject to the provisions and development
regulations of this chapter, even though a permit may not be required.
24.10.030 Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations
A. Uses, developments and activities regulated by this Chapter may also be subject to the
provisions of the city of Edmonds comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act, Edmonds City Code, and various other provisions of local, state, and federal law,
as may be amended. Project proponents shall comply with all applicable laws prior to
commencing any use, development or activity.
B. The shoreline master program has been developed as a both a policy and a regulatory
program. As such, the shoreline master program is a part of and was developed to be
consistent with the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan and its component elements.
C. The Edmonds Community Development Code establishes specific and detailed regulations
for most of the uses, development, and activities regulated in this chapter. The Edmonds
Community Development Code and this chapter are intended to operate together to produce
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 4 of 160
Packet Pg. 160
7.1.b
coherent and thorough shoreline regulations. Uses, developments and activities must comply
with both the Edmonds Community Development Code and the shoreline master program in
all cases. If there is a conflict between the two, the shoreline master program shall prevail.
24.10.040 Liberal Construction
As provided for in RCW 90.58.900, the Shoreline Management Act is exempted from the rule of
strict construction; the Act and this Master Program shall, therefore, be liberally construed to
give full effect to the purposes, goals, policies, and standards for which the Act and this master
Program were enacted.
24.10.050 Administrative Procedures
The general administrative procedures for this Title 24 (Edmonds Shoreline Master Program) are
not part of this program. They are included with the text of Title 24 for consistency and ease of
use. The Department of Ecology will be notified of any changes to the administrative chapters
listed below.
The use of separate local administrative and enforcement procedures is consistent with the 2003
Washington State Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(C)),
Administrative Provisions.
"Local governments may include administrative, enforcement, and permit review procedures
in the master program or the procedures may be defined by a local government ordinance
separate from the master program. In either case, these procedures shall conform to the
Shoreline Management Act, specifically RCW 90.58.140, 90.58.143, 90.58.210 and
90.58.220 and to chapter 173-27 WAC."
This allows the city of Edmonds to revise local administrative procedures (fees, application
meetings, authority of Administrator, etc) without another formal state amendment process.
ECDC 24.80 must still be consistent and remain consistent with the related provisions in the
Shoreline Management Act and sate shoreline rules (WACs). In the event of a conflict, the state
RCW or WAC, as amended, will prevail over the local ordinance.
The following sections are administrative procedures separate from Title 24:
ECDC 24.80.070
Minimum Application Requirements
ECDC 24.80.080
Notice of Application
ECDC 24.80.100
Public Hearings
ECDC 24.80.110
Notice of Decision, Reconsiderations, and Appeals
ECDC 24.80.130
Initiation of Development
ECDC 24.80.160
Administrative Authority and Responsibility
ECDC 24.80.170
Compliance
ECDC 24.80.180
Enforcement
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 5 of 160
Packet Pg. 161
7.1.b
24.10.060 Document Organization
This Master Program is divided into the following ten parts, consistent with the material to be
included within a master program as established in Chapter 173-26 WAC:
A. Part I, ECDC 24.10.000 through 24.10.000, contains basic and general information regarding
the shoreline master program.
B. Part II, ECDC 24.20.000 through 24.20.110, contains the city's goals and policies with
respect to the program elements established in Chapter 173-26 WAC.
C. Part III, ECDC 24.30.000 through 24.30.080, contains information regarding the different
shoreline environments to be found within the city including goals, policies and regulations
specific to each of the shoreline environments.
D. Part IV, ECDC 24.40.000 through 24.40.060, contains policies and regulations with respect
to general master program provisions identified in Chapter 173-26 WAC.
E. Part V, ECDC 24.50.000 through 24.50.070, contains policies and regulations that apply to
specific modifications that are regulated under the shoreline master program.
F. Part VI, ECDC 24.60.000 through 24.60.090, contains policies and regulations that apply to
specific uses that are regulated under the shoreline master program.
G. Part VII, ECDC 24.70.000 through 24.70.050, contains policies and regulations that apply to
nonconforming development with the shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds.
H. Part VIII, ECDC 24.80.000 through 24.80.180, contains administrative procedures for
shoreline permitting
I. Part IX, ECDC 24.90.000 through 24.90.060, contains definitions applicable to the shoreline
master program
Part X, ECDC 24.100.000 through 24.100.010, contains appendices pertaining to this
chapter.
Part II. Master Program Elements: Goals & Policies for the
Edmonds Shoreline Master Program
24.20.000 Introduction
This section contains goals and policies that form the foundation of Edmonds' Shoreline Master
Program which are implemented through the regulations in ECDC chapters 24.40 through 24.60,
and apply to all areas of the City of Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction, regardless of the designated
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 6 of 160
Packet Pg. 162
7.1.b
shore environment. The Shoreline Management Act requires cities to adopt goals, or "elements,"
to guide and support major shoreline management issues.
24.20.010 Economic Development Element
A. Purpose.
The economic development element provides for the location and design of industries,
industrial projects of statewide significance, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist
facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location
on or use of the shorelines of the state in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(a).
B. Economic Development Goal.
It is a goal of the city to encourage port facilities, tourist facilities, mixed use, commercial
and light industrial development in specific and limited shoreline areas which enhance the
public's access to the shoreline. Water dependent, oriented and water enjoyment
development are preferred in shoreline areas. The nature of this economic development
should attract, and be open to, the general public and should not unduly interfere with the
character of the shoreline area or with nearby shoreline and upland uses.
C. Economic Development Policies.
1. Mixed -use commercial and light industrial uses in the shoreline area should be permitted
only where compatible with existing or planned shoreline and upland development, or
where legal parcels of land can be aggregated to minimize the impacts from the mixed -
use commercial or light industrial use.
2. Mixed -use commercial and light industrial uses should be permitted only where
infrastructure, particularly the roadway system, is presently adequate or is made adequate
to accommodate the demands generated by commercial or light industrial development.
3. New shoreline light industrial and commercial development should be limited to that
which is classified as water -dependent, water -related, or water -enjoyment uses and non -
water -oriented uses which are not accessory to a water -oriented use should be
discouraged and/or prohibited.
4. Permitted mixed -use commercial and light industrial development in shoreline areas
should enhance opportunity for the public to take advantage of shoreline amenities. Uses
that support or enhance the opportunity for public access and compliment the cultural arts
related to the shoreline should be encouraged. This might include uses wherein the public
can view and enjoy the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and vista beyond.
5. New development or redevelopment should avoid or mitigate additional loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 7 of 160
Packet Pg. 163
7.1.b
6. Development should be discouraged in any critical area and only allowed where impacts
to these areas can be mitigated.
7. In shoreline areas where large tracts of land can be aggregated, some degree of flexibility
is appropriate to allow for innovative and planned site design within parameters
established by the city.
8. Economic benefits derived from wildlife, marine and fish habitats, public access,
recreational scuba diving and tourism should be recognized and retained.
9. Priority should be given to those mixed -use commercial or light industrial uses which are
water -dependent.
10. The potential adverse effects of mixed -use commercial and light industrial development
on other activities should be minimized through local performance standards.
11. The recreational opportunities along the shoreline should be developed as an economic
asset in a manner that will enhance the public enjoyment of the shorelines and in -water -
related activities.
12. Commercial activities in shoreline areas should be operated with minimum adverse
impact on the quality of the environment of the shoreline and adjacent areas.
24.20.020 Public Access Element
A. Purpose
The public access element provides for public access to publicly owned or privately owned
shoreline areas where the public is granted a right of use or access in accordance with RCW
90.58.100(2)(b).
B. Public Access Element Goal 1
It is a goal of the city to provide the maximum reasonable opportunity for the public to view
and enjoy the amenities of the shoreline area from public viewpoints, while assuring that
such access does not contribute to intrusions upon private property, nuisance, personal
danger, or over -burdening of fragile natural resources.
C. Public Access Policies 1
1. The city should use street ends and other publicly owned or controlled land within the
shoreline area as a means of providing additional safe public access to shoreline areas.
When these types of areas are developed, the city should also provide for some associated
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 8 of 160
Packet Pg. 164
7.1.b
limited off-street parking or public transportation connection in order to minimize
impacts to surrounding properties.
2. The city should develop signage, public information brochures and publications for
distribution which identify all locations for public access to the shorelines, and
underwater activities with information about each site location.
3. The city should maintain public shorelines, waterways and tidelands in public ownership
for continued public access and use.
4. With principal access to tidelands existing at public beaches to the north and south, the
city, where practicable, should acquire and develop safe convenient public access for
pedestrian access and water access to and use of public tidelands and beaches.
5. Public pedestrian access for neighborhood use should be encouraged.
6. Public access afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights -of -way should
be preserved, maintained and enhanced.
D. Public Access Goal 2
Incorporate public access into new shoreline development and unify individual public access
elements into an organized system.
E. Public Access Policies 2
1. Public access will be considered in the review of all private and public developments
(including land division) with the exception of one- and two-family dwelling units when
necessary to mitigate significant environmental impacts or through provisions designed to
exchange access rights for development bonuses.
2. Developments, uses and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair or detract
from the public's access to the water.
3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge without
adversely affecting a sensitive environment and, if feasible, should be designed with
provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons.
4. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and to minimize potential
impacts to private property and individual privacy.
5. Assure that public access improvement result in no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
6. No public access shall be acquired through a taking without just compensation.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 9 of 160
Packet Pg. 165
7.1.b
24.20.030 Recreational Element
A. Purpose
The recreation element provide for the preservation and enlargement of recreational
opportunities including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas in
accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(c).
B. Recreational Goal
It is the goal of the city to provide substantial recreational opportunities for the public in
shoreline areas through the preservation and expansion of these opportunities through
programs such as acquisition, development and maintenance.
C. Recreational Policies
The city should continue to acquire and develop park land within shoreline areas. The
city should also, where feasible, develop street ends within the shoreline area to provide
for public recreation. The nature and extent of recreational opportunities provided within
the various lands in the shoreline area owned or controlled by the city depends on the
nature of the area involved, the amenities and natural resources to be found in that area,
the location of the area and the needs of the community.
2. When mitigation requirements or bonus programsl permit, large or intensive private
developments within the shoreline area should provide some public recreation amenities,
in addition to public pedestrian access along the water's edge.
3. The city should consider both active and passive in -water, shoreline and upland
recreational needs in development of recreational areas to meet local and regional needs.
4. The city should acquire, develop, expand and maintain public recreation facilities to meet
public demand for recreation use and enjoyment of the water and shoreline.
5. Recreation facilities in the shoreline area should be restricted to those dependent upon a
shoreline location, or those benefiting from a shoreline or in -water location that are in the
public interest.
6. Public recreation facilities should be designed, developed, and maintained to respect the
shoreline environment and minimize the degradation of the shoreline and its natural
systems.
7. Public information and education programs, and attendant enforcement procedures,
should be developed and implemented to help ensure that the public is aware of park
regulations and private property rights, and to prevent the abuse of the shoreline and its
natural ecological system.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 10 of 160
Packet Pg. 166
7.1.b
8. Recreational boating facilities including waterway trails and trailheads, terminals,
moorage, and service facilities should be provided for on publicly owned land.
9. Recreational boating facilities including waterway trails and trailheads, terminals,
moorage, and service facilities should be allowed on private property, except in the
Natural Environment.
24.20.040 Circulation Element
A. Purpose
The circulation element provides for the general location and extent of existing and proposed
major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities
in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(d).
B. Circulation Goal
It is the goal of the city to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and
emergency services within the shoreline area while recognizing and enhancing the unique,
fragile and scenic character of the shoreline area with minimum disruption to the shoreline
environment and minimum conflict between different users.
C. Circulation Policies
Railroad Avenue, Dayton Street, Main Street, Admiral Way, and Sunset Avenue, which
provide access to and through the city's accessible downtown shoreline area, should be
designed and regulated to safely accommodate the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
traffic using these corridors, as well as to facilitate egress and ingress from adjacent
properties and to enhance the scenic character and recreational use of this corridor, while
recognizing that shoreline uses should have primary access to Railroad Avenue and
Admiral Way.
2. Whenever practicable, safe pedestrian and bicycle movement on and off roadways in the
shoreline area should be encouraged as a means of personal transportation and recreation.
3. Where new streets are needed to serve uses in the shoreline area, these streets should be
the minimum size necessary to provide safe and efficient vehicular, pedestrian and
bicycle access, including access for emergency vehicles, to the properties to be served.
4. Public waterborne transportation linked to public and private forms of ground
transportation should be encouraged to minimize auto usage, and to eliminate barriers
between public waterborne transportation and ground transportation in conformance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 11 of 160
Packet Pg. 167
7.1.b
5. All transportation planning should be coordinated to provide efficient use and transfer
between modes while minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of such facilities.
6. Circulation and transportation systems should be located, designed and developed with
respect to existing and/or planned rail, highway and ferry facilities.
7. Public transit systems should be linked to the urban waterfront.
8. Pedestrian walkways, trails and bicycle linkages should be provided between the historic
downtown and the waterfront, including the train station and ferry terminal.
9. New or expanded non -water oriented transportation facilities should be located outside of
shoreline jurisdiction whenever feasible.
24.20.050 Shoreline Use Element
A. Purpose
The shoreline use element considers the proposed general distribution and general location
and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry,
transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and
grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land in accordance with RCW
90.58.100(2)(d).
B. Shoreline Use Goals
The goals of the city are to:
Allow for a diversity of uses within the shoreline area consistent with the dramatically
different character of the various shorelines within the city, and to preserve and enhance
the natural and aesthetic quality of important shoreline areas while allowing for
reasonable development which meet the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management
Act.
2. Provide performance and development standards for shoreline uses which achieve
compatibility among activities.
3. Reserve shoreline and water areas particularly suited for specific and appropriate uses,
especially water -oriented and water -dependent uses, for such uses whether they are
existing or potential.
4. Establish and implement policies and regulations for shoreline use consistent with the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971. These policies and regulations should insure that the
overall land use patterns in shoreline areas are compatible with existing shoreline
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 12 of 160
Packet Pg. 168
7.1.b
environment designations and will be sensitive to and not degrade habitat and ecological
systems and other shoreline resources.
5. Ensure that proposed shoreline uses are distributed, located and developed in a manner
that will maintain or improve the health, safety and welfare of the public.
6. Ensure that proposed shoreline uses do not minimize the rights of others or infringe upon
the rights of private ownership.
7. Encourage restoration of shoreline areas that have been degraded or diminished in
ecological value and functions as a result of past activities or catastrophic events.
8. Ensure that planning, zoning and other regulatory and non -regulatory programs
governing lands adjacent to shoreline jurisdictions are consistent with SMA policies and
regulations and the provisions of this SMP.
9. Encourage increased accessibility to the shoreline for a variety of users and activities.
10. Develop adaptive management strategies to increase capacity to respond to future
possible impacts on the Edmonds shoreline from climate change in the Puget Sound
region.
11. Ensure that residential development in the shoreline area is compatible with adjacent uses
and minimizes impacts to shoreline processes and functions.
12. Ensure future shoreline development will achieve no net loss of ecological functions and
values.
C. Shoreline Use Policies
"Environmentally critical areas" are to be protected and regulated consistent with the
city's environmental review and critical areas regulations contained in Chapters 20.15A
and 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.C.
2. New uses and developments in shoreline areas that have established desirable
development patterns should be designed to be compatible with those areas; provided the
existing uses are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the City's
comprehensive plan and shoreline master program.
3. In shoreline areas without established development patterns and which are not unique or
fragile, the city should allow for a wide range of development options consistent with the
Edmonds Community Development Code within established limits to protect the public
interest.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 13 of 160
Packet Pg. 169
7.1.b
4. Over -water structures other than ferry terminal passenger shelters, docks, piers,
walkways, breakwaters and other similar structures should be prohibited with the
exception of minor appurtenant buildings, buoys, divers resting floats, and art sculpture.
5. Water -dependent uses should have priority over non -water -dependent uses in the
shoreline area. Nonetheless, uses such as dry-docks, boat yards, and similar marine
enterprises are incompatible with the character of the majority of the shoreline area and
should be limited to specific designated areas.
6. Uses in shoreline areas should not degrade water quality and land disturbances (land
covered by water and the land area adjacent to the ordinary high water mark) should be
the minimum necessary.
7. The pattern and distribution of land and water uses should be controlled and encouraged
in order to enhance the shoreline natural systems, protect against their damage, and
provide for their public use and enjoyment.
8. Multiple uses of shorelines should be encouraged. Shoreline uses which allow large
numbers of people to enjoy the marine environment should be given a higher priority
than uses that lead to the usurpation of the limited urban waterfront by any single use
activity.
9. Shoreline use should be compatible with its site, in harmony with adjacent uses, and
consistent with long-range comprehensive planning for waterfront use.
10. Uses which adversely alter or degrade the defined shoreline "natural systems" should be
prohibited.
11. The City of Edmonds shall stay abreast of scientific information regarding climate
change and sea level rise and reevaluate the Shoreline Master Program development
standards as soon as adequate scientific information is available.
12. The Edmonds Marsh study identified in the City of Edmonds Capital Improvement Plan
is an important study for determining the potential impacts of climate change and sea
level rise on the City of Edmonds and should be considered a high priority for
completion.
13. All use and development should use low impact development (LID) techniques where
appropriate and feasible.
14. The rehabilitation of "natural systems" (e.g., the improvement in water quality, removal
of beach obstructions, etc.) should be encouraged.
15. Shoreline Use and Development Review.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 14 of 160
Packet Pg. 170
a. Shoreline use and development should be provided for through a process of review
and analysis that gives priority to:
i. The protection and enhancement of the shoreline natural system;
ii. The provision for shoreline -dependent uses;
iii. The provision for shoreline -oriented uses; and
iv. The accommodation of necessary uses that are neither shoreline -dependent
nor shoreline -oriented.
b. The priority system will recognize, but not be limited to, the following systems and
uses:
i. Protect and enhance natural systems:
A. Biological:
1. Critical areas for fish spawning, rearing, feeding, and migration, including
beaches, marshland, aquatic vegetation and nearshore subtidal area;
2. Waterfowl and water associate bird nesting, resting, feeding and nursery
areas;
3. Shellfish life — supporting areas;
4. Upland mammal breeding, rearing and feeding areas;
5. Upland plant growth areas (greenbelts, etc.);
6. aquatic (non -fish and non -shell fish) marine organisms life supporting
areas; and
7. Other.
B. Geological:
1. Bluff and landslide areas;
2. Beaches and tidelands — shoals and coves;
3. Marshland and slough area;
4. Streams and ravines;
5. Below low water submerged lands — canyons, cliffs, rock reefs, sand or
mud flat, etc.; and
6. Other.
ii. Provide for shoreline -dependent uses, such as:
A. Ferry and passenger terminals;
B. Terminal and transfer facilities for marine commerce and industry;
C. Marine and fresh water construction, dismantling and repair;
D. Marinas — boats;
E. Intakes and outfalls;
F. Boat launch facilities;
G. Shoreline recreation — including parks, bike and walking trails, beaches, etc.
H. Water -related recreation — including scuba diving, waterway trail system,
fishing and small craft boating;
I. Marine and limnological research, interpretation and education;
J. Piers and related facilities for the loading and unloading of petroleum
products; and
K. Other uses of like intensity and dependency.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 15 of 160
Packet Pg. 171
7.1.b
24.20.060 Conservation Element
A. Purpose
The shoreline conservation element provides for protection of natural resources, including
but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife
protection in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(f).
B. Conservation Goal
It is the goal of the city to preserve, protect, and enhance unique and fragile areas of flora and
fauna and scenic vistas to help assure the continued availability of these resources for future
generations and to protect the ecological functions of the shoreline to ensure no net loss of
functions. This element is concerned with the preservation of the natural shoreline resources,
considering such characteristics as scenic vistas, linear park systems, waterway trail systems,
estuarine areas for fish and wildlife protection, critical habitat, beaches and other valuable
natural or aesthetic features. Assure preservation of the unique, fragile and scenic shoreline
resources by carefully preserving the non-renewable resources and managing for the
continued utilization of renewable resources.
C. Conservation Policies
1. The City should work to maintain environmentally sensitive and critical areas for present
and future generations, such as the Edmonds Marsh, the historically contiguous wetland
east of SR-104, the Edmonds Underwater Park and the shoreline sanctuary.
2. Development in shoreline areas should be managed so that any adverse impacts on
aquatic and land plants and animals are avoided or mitigated to result in no net loss of
ecological function.
3. Where practicable, steps should be taken to enhance the shoreline area as a spawning
ground for salmon, forage fish, and other species of fish and aquatic marine life.
4. Irreplaceable shoreline resources should be preserved for their intrinsic value and
continued public enjoyment.
5. Beneficial use of shoreline resources should be provided for while respecting the natural
shoreline environment.
6. Where practicable, restoration of damaged shoreline features and systems should be
encouraged.
7. Limited improvements in public recreation areas should be permitted where such
improvements would enhance public access to and public education and understanding of
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 16 of 160
Packet Pg. 172
7.1.b
the value of the shoreline resource (an example of which is the Edmonds Underwater
Park).
8. Provide for the preservation of the natural shoreline resources through the protection of
existing and the designation of potential public recreational areas.
9. Provide for the preservation of the natural shoreline resources through the continuation
and expansion of interpretive and environmental education programs, and public outreach
and involvement in stewardship.
10. The city, where practicable, should acquire key shoreline parcels that become available;
such parcels are those integral to necessary expansion of existing prime beach areas.
24.20.070 Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Element
A. Purpose
The historic, cultural, scientific and educational element provides for the protection and
restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational
values in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(2)(g).
B. Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Goal
Identify, protect, preserve and restore important archaeological, historical, art and cultural
sites located within the shoreline jurisdiction area for educational and scientific uses and
enjoyment of the natural amenities by the general public.
C. Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Educational Policies
1. Wherever practicable, shoreline development should recognize the former and current
use of much of the city's shoreline area for such uses as boatyards, railroads, ferry
landings, logging, and industrial sites, and recognize the earlier uses of the shoreline by
Native American cultures.
2. The large, relatively undisturbed area known as the Edmonds Marsh should be preserved
for, among other reasons, its educational and scientific value as well as its role in
stormwater management.
3. Educational projects and programs including signage should be encouraged that foster a
greater appreciation of the importance of shoreline management, maritime activities,
environmental conservation, cultural and maritime history.
4. The city should develop signage and informational programs which identify and explain
unique scenic and cultural opportunities.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 17 of 160
Packet Pg. 173
5. Important archaeological, historical and cultural sites located within the shoreline
jurisdiction area should be identified, protected, preserved or restored for educational and
scientific uses and enjoyment of the natural amenities by the general public.
6. Historical/cultural sites should be acquired through purchase or gift, so as to insure their
protection and preservation.
7. Where practicable, buildings, sites and areas having historic, cultural, educational, or
scientific value to the community should be protected and restored.
8. Where practicable, all buildings, sites, and areas which are placed on the State or Federal
Historic Register should be preserved, protected and restored.
9. Where practicable, significant archeological features and data should be protected for
scientific study and public observation.
24.20.080 Flood Damage Prevention Element
A. Purpose
The flood damage prevention element provides for protection against flood damage and the
preservation and restoration of ecosystem wide ecological functions in accordance with
RCW 9038.100.
B. Flood Damage Prevention Element Goal
It is a goal of the city to reduce the likelihood of flood damage by locating development
away from flood -prone areas and by protecting and restoring shoreline ecological functions
and ecosystem -wide processes.
C. Flood Damage Prevention Policies
Structural flood control devices should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that
nonstructural solutions are not feasible to reduce the hazard.
2. Participate in watershed -wide programs to reduce flood hazards and improve the
shoreline ecology.
3. Discourage new development in shoreline areas that are reasonably likely to be harmed
by flood conditions, or which would create or intensify flood hazard impacts on other
properties.
4. Ensure that flood hazard reduction measures do not result in a net loss of ecological
functions in shoreline areas.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 18 of 160
Packet Pg. 174
7.1.b
24.20.090 Views and Aesthetics Element
A. Purpose
The views and aesthetics element provides for preservation and/or protection of public scenic
vistas, public views of the water, and other aesthetic qualities of shorelines for enjoyment by
the general public.
B. Views and Aesthetics Goal
It is the goal of the city to assure that the public's ability and opportunity to enjoy shoreline
views and aesthetics is protected.
C. Views and Aesthetics Policies
1. The scenic and aesthetic qualities of shorelines and public vistas should be preserved
through development standards.
2. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and preserved.
Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive removal of vegetation
which partially impairs views.
3. Public visual access should be maintained, enhanced and preserved on shoreline street
ends, public utilities and rights -of -way and within public "view corridors" as designated
by the city.
24.20.100 Urban Design Element
A. Purpose
The urban design element provides for the development between the shoreline and adjacent
areas in manner that provides linkages that will enhance the beauty and visual identity of
Edmonds.
B. Urban Design Goal
It is a goal of the city to encourage development within the shoreline area that is visually
coherent, provides visual and physical linkage to the shoreline, enhances the waterfront, and
is consistent with the Streetscape Plan.
C. Urban Design Policies.
The shoreline area within and south of the north boundary of the Brackett's Landing
North Park, to the south city limits (generally the urban mixed -use shoreline
environment) is one of the most scenic areas of the city. It also, to a large extent,
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 19 of 160
Packet Pg. 175
7.1.b
establishes the visual identity of Edmonds. As such, both public and private development
in these areas should be controlled and regulated to provide an urban environment which
preserves or enhances the opportunity for the public to enjoy the scenic quality of the
shoreline.
2. Projects should be encouraged to provide "street furniture," public art, related
interpretative signage, landscaping and other amenities within or adjacent to the right-of-
way of Railroad Avenue and Admiral Way to complement a pedestrian promenade along
the shoreline consistent with the streetscape plan.
3. Where possible, the owner of uplands abutting pedestrian waterfront activities should be
encouraged to incorporate public art elements, public art and cultural amenities that
promote aesthetic considerations consistent with the City of Edmonds Arts Commission
goals.
4. New and remodeled developments should provide public view corridors adjacent to
either the north or south property line to enhance public visual access to the Puget Sound
and to provide for a visual link between the downtown and its waterfront roots. The
location of the view corridor should be coordinated with the development of adjacent
properties in order to maximize public visual access to the Puget Sound. Properties with
significant frontage on the shoreline should consider providing view corridors in multiple
locations so as to maximize public visual access to the shoreline. In the application of
design standards, the preservation of public views shall be given priority over
landscaping and fencing requirements.
5. Projects should minimize the amount of vehicular parking in the Urban Mixed -Use I and
II shoreline environments through use of joint use parking agreements (where permitted),
and by locating employee parking off -site and outside the Urban Mixed -Use I and II
shoreline environments.
6. Projects should be designed to locate vehicular parking away from the shoreline,
bulkhead, or areas of pedestrian circulation.
7. Developments should provide conveniently situated bicycle parking on site.
8. Projects should be designed to minimize impacts to existing shoreline ecological
functions.
24.20.110 Restoration Element
A. Purpose
The restoration element provides for the timely restoration and enhancement of ecologically
impaired areas within available economic resources in a manner that achieves a net gain in
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 20 of 160
Packet Pg. 176
7.1.b
shoreline ecological functions and processes above baseline conditions as of the adoption of
the city's shoreline master programs.
B. Restoration Goal
It is the goal of the city to improve water quality, restore degraded and lost habitat corridors,
and improve connectivity of the shoreline environments though voluntary and incentive -
based public and private programs and actions consistent with the City of Edmonds Shoreline
Master Program Restoration Plan.
C. Restoration Policies
1. Protect and/or restore freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat and habitat -forming
processes.
2. Protect and restore wetland and restore salt marsh habitat to improve shoreline ecological
functions.
3. Remove intertidal fill; restore beach deposits and processes and ecological functions.
4. Remove/replace creosote -treated logs, pilings, and debris.
5. Increase availability of large woody debris and opportunities for recruitment in the
nearshore zone.
6. Protect and restore native species of vegetation, fish, and wildlife.
7. Remove or improve fish- and wildlife -passage barriers.
8. Manage and treat stormwater to improve water quality, decrease peak flow events, and
increase implementation of low impact development (LID) practices.
9. Protect naturally eroding bluffs and associated ecological functions.
10. Protect and restore wildlife corridors.
11. Ensure that shoreline restoration projects do not degrade critical areas and water quality.
12. Establish incentives that could provide opportunities for new development to restore
impaired shoreline ecological functions.
13. Work with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to encourage nearshore restoration
projects on the railroad right-of-way.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 21 of 160
Packet Pg. 177
7.1.b
Part III. Shoreline Environments
24.30.000 Introduction
Local governments are required, under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971
through WAC 173-26, to develop and assign a land use categorization system of shoreline areas
as a basis for effective Shoreline Master Programs. The intent of designating shoreline
environment is to encourage development that will enhance the present or desired character of
the shoreline. To accomplish this, segments of shoreline are given an environment designation
based on existing development patterns, natural capabilities and limitations, and the aspiration of
the local community.
24.30.010 Adoption Criteria
Shoreline Designations have been determined after consideration of -
A. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the
degree of human alteration; and
B. Existing development patterns together with ECDC Title 16 Zoning designations, the City
Comprehensive Plan designations and other officially adopted plans; and
C. The goals of the City of Edmonds citizens for their shorelines; and
D. Other state policies in the Act and the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (RCW
90.58.020 and WAC 173-26, respectively).
24.30.020 Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environments Designation Maps
A. The location and extent of areas under the jurisdiction of the Master Program, and the
boundaries of the various shoreline environments affecting the lands and waters of the City
are shown in Appendix A of this Master Program. (ECDC 24.100.000)
B. The purpose of the official shoreline maps in Appendix A is to identify Shoreline area
designations. The map does not necessarily identify or depict the lateral extent of shoreline
jurisdiction. Where uncertainty or conflict may occur in the exact location of jurisdictional
or shoreline designation boundary line, the shoreline Administrator shall rely up the criteria
contained in RCW 90.58.030(2) and chapter 173-22 WAC pertaining to determinations of
shorelands, as amended, rather that the incorrect or outdated map.
C. In the event that new shoreline areas are discovered (e.g. associated wetlands) that are not
mapped and/designated on the official shoreline map, these areas will be designated in the
following manner.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 22 of 160
Packet Pg. 178
7.1.b
If a newly discovered shoreline area is adjacent to a single shoreline area environment,
then the newly discovered shoreline area will be assigned the same shoreline designation
as the adjacent shoreline area.
2. If a newly discovered shoreline area abuts more than one shoreline area environment, the
shoreline area environment that is most restrictive shall be assigned to the newly
discovered shoreline area.
24.30.030 Aquatic Environment
A. Purpose
The purpose of the aquatic low -intensity environment (Aquatic I) is to protect, restore, and
manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high
water mark.
The purpose of the aquatic high -intensity environment (Aquatic II) is to protect the unique
characteristics and resources of the aquatic environment by managing water -dependent use
activities to prioritize preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation,
recreation, and commerce, and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses.
B. Classification Criteria
1. General. These are lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark for both saltwater
and freshwater bodies of water, including any submerged or inter -tidal areas. The
Aquatic I and II environment designations include the water surface together with the
underlying lands and the water column. Information from the shoreline inventory and
characterization report was used in conjunction with the comprehensive plan and zoning
information to determine the appropriate environment designation.
2. Aquatic I (Low Intensity). These areas are mostly characterized by aquatic ecosystems
that have been modified by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad bed fill that covers
the intertidal and transitional upland zones along the beach. The beach has been altered
by seawalls or large -rock riprap. These shoreline areas generally exhibit low -intensity
development and few over -water structures. In freshwater areas, there may be a
significant number of docks and piers serving residential areas.
3. Aquatic II (High Intensity). These areas are more intensely developed areas with water -
dependent uses. The marine nearshore has been significantly modified by commercial
waterfront development, including the Port of Edmonds Marina and the Washington State
Ferries pier.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 23 of 160
Packet Pg. 179
7.1.b
C. Area Designated
Aquatic I (Low Intensity): Applicable to all marine aquatic environments waterward of
the ordinary high water mark between the southern boundary of the City and the old
Union Oil dock, between the northern edge of the Edmonds fishing pier and the southern
edge of the Main Street ferry terminal, between the northern edge of the Main Street ferry
terminal and the northern boundary of the City, and Lake Ballinger.
2. Aquatic II (High Intensity): Applicable to those marine aquatic environments waterward
of the ordinary high water mark between the old Union Oil dock and the northern edge of
the Edmonds fishing pier, and between the southern and northern edges of the Main
Street ferry terminal.
D. Management Policies
New over -water structures should be limited and allowed only for water -dependent uses,
public access, or ecological restoration.
2. The size of new over -water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to
support a structure's intended use.
3. Uses and activities within the Aquatic I and II environments should be compatible with
the adjoining shoreline environments.
4. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of
water resources, multiple uses of over -water facilities should be encouraged, provided
that use conflicts can be avoided.
5. All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds should be located and
designed to minimize interference with surface navigation and moorage.
6. Uses and activities within Aquatic I shoreline environments should be limited to public
access, boat moorage, and necessary utility and transportation facilities.
7. All developments and uses should consider impacts to public views.
8. All developments and uses should allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and
wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration.
9. Restoration opportunities associated with project impacts should be encouraged in the
aquatic environment.
10. Uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater
habitats should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW
90.58.020, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 24 of 160
Packet Pg. 180
7.1.b
described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) necessary to achieve no net loss of ecological
functions.
11. Dredging and dredge material disposal should be limited to the minimum amount
necessary. Dredging operations should minimize impacts to other shoreline uses and
functions.
12. Filling should be avoided if practicable and limited to the minimum amount necessary.
Filling operations should minimize impacts to other shoreline uses and functions.
13. Ensure that piers and docks are compatible with the shoreline area where they are located
and are designed and maintained to minimize adverse impacts to the environment.
14. Ensure that marinas are located, designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that will
minimize damage to shoreline processes and functions, be compatible with adjacent uses,
and protect the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline environment.
15. All developments and uses on navigable waters should be located and designed to
minimize interference to navigation.
24.30.040 Natural Environment
A. Purpose
The purpose of the Natural environment designation is to protect those shoreline areas that
are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline
functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low -intensity uses be
allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes.
B. Designation Criteria
A Natural designation should be considered for shoreline areas if any of the following criteria
apply:
1. The shoreline is ecologically intact and therefore currently performing an important,
irreplaceable function or ecosystem -wide process that would be damaged by human
activity;
2. The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of
particular scientific and educational interest; or
3. The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse
impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety;
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 25 of 160
Packet Pg. 181
7.1.b
Such shoreline areas include largely undisturbed portions of shoreline areas such as wetlands,
estuaries, unstable bluffs, coastal dunes, spits, and ecologically intact shoreline habitats.
Ecologically intact shorelines, as used here, means those shoreline areas that retain the
majority of their natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline configuration and
the presence of native vegetation. Generally, but not necessarily, ecologically intact
shorelines are free of shoreline structural modifications, structures, and intensive human uses
In forested areas, they generally include native vegetation with diverse plant communities,
multiple canopy layers, and the presence of large woody debris available for recruitment to
adjacent water bodies. Recognizing that there is a continuum of ecological conditions
ranging from near natural conditions to totally degraded and contaminated sites, this term is
intended to delineate those shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger
aquatic and terrestrial environments which could be lost or significantly reduced by human
development. Whether or not a shoreline is ecologically intact is determined on a case -by -
case basis.
The term "ecologically intact shorelines" applies to all shoreline areas meeting the above
criteria ranging from larger reaches that may include multiple properties to small areas
located within a single property.
C. Area Designated
The Natural Designation includes all natural diverse wetland and riparian habitat areas within
shoreline management jurisdiction. These include, but are not limited to:
The Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route
104.
2. The Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone, and the wetlands which are now
isolated on the east side of the railroad tracks, which are partially or entirely within 200
feet of the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound.
D. Management Policies
1. Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of
the Natural shoreline area should not be allowed.
2. The following new uses should not be allowed in areas designated Natural:
a. Residential
b. Commercial uses,
c. Industrial uses,
d. Non -water -oriented recreation,
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 26 of 160
Packet Pg. 182
7.1.b
e. Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside Natural -
designated shorelines.
3. Scientific, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and low -intensity, water -
oriented recreational access uses may be allowed, provided that no significant ecological
impact on the area will result.
4. New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of
vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. Subdivision of
property in a configuration that would, to achieve its intended purpose, require significant
vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological functions
should not be allowed.
5. Critical areas within shorelines designated as Natural should be protected pursuant to the
Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.C.
6. Restoration opportunities should be encouraged in areas with a Natural designation.
24.30.050 Urban Conservancy Environment
A. Purpose
The purpose of the Conservancy designation is to protect and restore ecological functions of
open space, floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed
settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses.
B. Designation Criteria
The Urban Conservancy environment is applied to shoreline areas within the City where any
of the following characteristics apply:
1. They are suitable for water -related or water -enjoyment uses;
2. They are open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be more
intensively developed;
3. They have potential for ecological restoration;
4. The retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or
5. They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration.
C. Area Designated
Areas generally lying upland of the ordinary high water mark and in between the southern
boundary of the City and the south side of the old Union Oil dock, the Willow Creek outlet
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 27 of 160
Packet Pg. 183
7.1.b
of the Edmonds Marsh, between the southern edge of the area known as Brackett's Landing
South and the southern edge of the Main Street ferry terminal, and from the northern edge of
the Main Street ferry terminal to the northern boundary of the area known as Brackett's
Landing North, including the spit, and to the east as far as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
railroad right-of-way.
D. Management Policies
Uses that preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space
or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term should be the primary allowed uses
in Conservancy areas.
2. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is
otherwise compatible with the purpose of the Conservancy designation and the setting.
3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented in Conservancy
areas whenever feasible.
4. Water -oriented uses should be given priority over non -water -oriented uses. For shoreline
areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water -dependent uses should be given
highest priority.
5. New development should be designed and located to preclude the need for shoreline
armoring, vegetation removal, flood control, and other shoreline modifications.
6. Restoration opportunities should be encouraged in Conservancy areas.
7. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation
conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within Conservancy areas.
These standards shall ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of
shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values.
24.30.060 Shoreline Residential
A. Purpose
The purpose of the shoreline residential environment is to accommodate residential
development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional
purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.
B. Designation Criteria
General. These are areas typified by residential development in areas where topography,
transportation systems, and development patterns make it extremely unlikely that more
intensive use would be appropriate.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 28 of 160
Packet Pg. 184
7.1.b
2. Shoreline Residential L• This designation is appropriate for shoreline areas with larger -lot
residential development along the marine shoreline.
3. Shoreline Residential II: This designation is appropriate for shoreline areas with smaller -
lot residential development along the marine shoreline.
4. Shoreline Residential III: Designation for single-family residential development adjacent
to freshwater (e.g., Lake Ballinger).
C. Area Designated
General. A shoreline residential environment designation has been assigned to shoreline
areas that are predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are
planned and platted for residential development. There are three levels of shoreline
residential environment designations corresponding to the Edmonds zoning and
comprehensive plan designations. The areas which are appropriate for this classification
are as follows:
2. Shoreline Residential I: The upland area adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Urban
Railroad environment designation which is zoned RS-12 and RS-20.
3. Shoreline Residential II: The upland area adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Urban
Railroad environment designation which is zoned RS-6.
4. Shoreline Residential III: The upland area adjacent to the shoreline of Lake Ballinger
which is zoned RSW-12.
D. Management Policies
1. Multi -lot residential and recreational developments should provide public access and
joint use for community recreational facilities when consistent with statutory and
constitutional limitations on development exactions.
2. Commercial development within the shoreline residential environment should be limited
to water -oriented uses. Commercial development does not include lawful home
occupations.
3. Structurally engineered shoreline modifications and stabilization should be prohibited
except in cases of emergency as defined.
4. Steep slopes shall be protected per the requirements of ECDC 23.80, the building code,
and this SMP.
5. Any new development or redevelopment should utilize low impact development
techniques where feasible and appropriate.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 29 of 160
Packet Pg. 185
7.1.b
6. Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations,
buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and
water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking
into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level
of infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning
considerations.
7. Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing
needs and/or planned future development.
24.30.070 Urban Mixed Use
A. Purpose
The purpose of the urban mixed -use environment is to provide for high -intensity, water -
oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological
functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.
B. Designation Criteria
General. These areas have been intensely developed with a mix of commercial uses, port
facilities, multimodal transit facilities, railroad facilities, and limited light industrial uses.
Two very distinct areas make up the three Urban Mixed -Use environments. The
Edmonds waterfront area west of the railroad tracks which has the ability to provide
direct access to the navigable waters of the Puget Sound and the near waterfront area east
of the railroad tracks with no direct access to Puget Sound. A policy of the Shoreline
Management Act is to plan for and foster all reasonable and appropriate uses and the
shoreline master program rules generally prohibit nonwater-oriented development unless
navigability is severely limited. Given these two distinct areas, the Urban Mixed -Use
environments west of the railroad tracks is appropriate for water -oriented development,
while the area east of the railroad tracks may be appropriate for nonwater-oriented
development given its separation from Puget Sound.
The environmental differences between the Urban Mixed -Use environments are further
emphasized by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning applied
to these areas. West of the railroad tracks the comprehensive plan designation and
zoning encourage water -oriented type development and uses, while east of the railroad
tracks the comprehensive plan designation and zoning encourage mixed -use type
development, including mixed commercial -residential development.
2. Urban Mixed -Use I: This designation is appropriate to water -related and water -
enjoyment commercial and recreational uses.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 30 of 160
Packet Pg. 186
7.1.b
3. Urban Mixed -Use II: This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned
for high -intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and
recreation.
4. Urban Mixed -Use III: The designation is appropriate for those areas that have been
intensely developed and that have no direct access to navigable waters. This designation
is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for mixed -use development including
high -intensity, commerce, transportation, recreation and residential development.
5. Urban Mixed -Use IV: The Urban Mixed -Use IV designation is being established as an
interim shoreline designation. The Edmonds Marsh being identified as a shoreline of the
state is new to this SMP update and was identified as a shoreline of the state late in the
planning process. 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) specific review of the effects of establishing a shoreline environment on
existing and proposed uses around the marsh must be 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 SMP
update process was delayed to allow the Port of Edmonds time to submit a long planned
Harbor Square Master Plan for concurrent review by the City of Edmonds. The Port's
proposed Harbor Square Master Plan was ultimately not adopted by the City.
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 an interim designation will allow
the City, in cooperation with property owners, Ecology, scientists, interested
agencies/organizations, and members of the public, to carefully review effects of
establishing a new shoreline jurisdiction for the area around the marsh on existing and
planned development as well as the ecological role the Edmonds Marsh plays in the City
of Edmonds. The City intends to study the issues surrounding the Edmonds Marsh and
related Urban Mixed -Use IV designation for two years from the effective date of this
SMP. At the end of the study period, the City will adopt appropriate shoreline
environment designation(s) for the area surrounding the Edmonds Marsh including
evaluating whether a new designation is needed and whether the entire area should have
the same designation.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 31 of 160
Packet Pg. 187
7.1.b
C. Area Designated
Urban Mixed -Use I: The upland area above ordinary high water north of the northern
border of the Edmonds fishing pier to the southern edge of the area known as Brackett's
Landing South. This area would include the waterfront commercial area.
2. Urban Mixed -Use II: The upland area above ordinary high water between the old Union
Oil dock and the northern border of the Edmonds fishing pier and between the southern
and northern edges of the Main Street ferry terminal. This area would include the
Edmonds Marina and associated facilities, as well as the Main Street ferry terminal.
3. Urban Mixed -Use III: The six parcels near the existing ferry terminal bounded by the
railroad right-of-way to the west, Main Street, Sunset Avenue North, Bell Street.
4. Urban Mixed -Use IV: The upland areas beyond the tidally influenced portions of
Edmonds Marsh including portions of Harbor Square on the north side of the marsh and
portions of the former UNOCAL oil storage facility on the south side of the marsh.
D. Management Policies
In regulating uses in the Urban Mixed -Use environments, first priority should be given to
water dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water -related and water -
enjoyment uses. Non -water oriented uses maybe allowed as part of mixed use
developments. Non -water oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where
they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water oriented uses or on sites where
there is no direct access to the shoreline.
2. Full utilization of existing urban areas should be achieved before further expansion of
intensive development is allowed.
3. Reasonable long-range projections of regional economic need should guide the amount of
shoreline designated Urban Mixed -Use However, consideration should be given to the
potential for displacement of non -water -oriented uses with water -oriented uses when
analyzing full utilization of urban waterfronts and before considering expansion of such
areas.
4. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be provided.
5. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations,
appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance
of natural vegetative buffers.
6. Any new development or redevelopment should utilize low impact development
techniques where feasible and appropriate.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 32 of 160
Packet Pg. 188
7.1.b
7. Any new development shall include environmental cleanup, restoration of shoreline or
other development techniques where feasible and appropriate to assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions, and shall comply with any relevant state and federal law.
24.30.080 Urban Railroad
A. Purpose
The purpose of the Urban Railroad environment designation is to identify the 100-foot right-
of-way for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad along the Edmonds shoreline. This
designation will provide for high -intensity transportation uses while protecting ecological
functions.
B. Designation Criteria
This area has been historically developed and used as a dedicated railroad right-of-way and
contains limited improvements which are designed to aid in the transportation of goods and
passengers by rail. This shoreline environment area generally contains very few areas of
undisturbed natural shoreline.
With the exceptions of Lund's Creek estuary, Edmonds Underwater Park, Brackett's landing
and part of Marina Beach Park, the entire Edmonds shoreline (more than 90 percent) is
armored by the BNSF railroad bed and bulkheads. Most of the BNSF rail bed along the
Edmonds shoreline consists of an armored berm with two sets of parallel tracks on top,
comprising a top width of at least 24 feet or more and a wider base width. The waterward
side of the berm is typically armored with large rock or granite blocks, placed vertically or on
a 2:1 slope.
C. Area Designated
The area is defined as that area within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway right-of-
way as established on the date of the adoption of this master program, from the northern
right-of-way line of Main Street to the northern city limits, and from the southern city limits
north approximately 300 feet.
D. Management Policies
1. Restoration opportunities associated with project impacts should be encouraged in areas
designated Urban Railroad.
2. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations,
appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance
of natural vegetative buffers.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 33 of 160
Packet Pg. 189
7.1.b
Part IV General Policies & Regulations
24.40.000 Applicability
The provisions of this chapter shall be applied either generally to all shoreline areas or to
shoreline areas that meet the specified criteria of the provision without regard to environment
designation.
24.40.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources
A. Applicability. The following provision apply to archaeological and historic resources whose
presence are either recorded at the State Historic Preservation Office and/or by the City of
Edmonds or such resources that are uncovered during development activities.
Archaeological sites located both in and outside shoreline jurisdiction are subject to chapter
27.44 RCW (Indian graves and records) and chapter 27.53 RCW (Archaeological sites and
records) and development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with chapter 25-48
WAC as well as the provisions of this section.
B. Regulations:
Where practicable, consistent with constitutional and statutory limitations, public or
private developments shall be prevented from destroying or destructively altering
potential or recognizable sites having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as
identified by appropriate authorities.
2. The city may require that a site be redesigned or that development be postponed for a
definite or indefinite period if this is reasonably necessary to protect a historic site or
items of historic, archeological or cultural significance
3. Upon receipt of application for a shoreline permit or request for a statement of exemption
for development on properties with 500 feet of a site known to contain an historic,
cultural or archaeological resource(s), the City shall require a cultural resource site
assessment; provided that, this requirement may be waived if the Administrator
determines that the proposed development activities do not include any ground disturbing
activities and will not impact a known historic cultural or archaeological site. The site
assessment shall be conducted by a professional archaeologist or historic preservation
professional, as applicable, to determine the presence of significant historic or
archaeological resources. The fee for the services of the professional archaeologist or
historic preservation professional shall be paid by the landowner or responsible party.
4. Whenever historic, cultural or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the
process of development on shorelines, work on that portion of the development site shall
be stopped immediately, the site secured and the find reported as soon as a possible to the
Administrator. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and appropriate
Native American Tribes. In such cases, the developer shall allow site inspection and
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 34 of 160
Packet Pg. 190
7.1.b
evaluation by a professional archaeologist and tribal representative to ensure that all
possible valuable archaeological data are properly salvaged. Work should not resume
until approval is obtained from the Shoreline Administrator.
24.40.020 Critical Areas
A. Applicability. Critical areas include the following areas and ecosystems: wetlands, areas
with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas.
B. The City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, as codified in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90
ECDC (dated November 23, 2004, Ord. 3527), 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.
C. The specific provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance listed below may only be
implemented within shoreline jurisdiction through the shoreline variance process;
1. Wetlands:
a. ECDC 23.50.040.F.3. Any shoreline project that proposes going beyond a 25%
buffer reduction through the mechanisms described in ECDC 24.40.020.E.3 would
require a shoreline variance. No variance is required for wetland buffer reductions
consistent with ECDC 24.40.020.E.3.
2. Geologically Hazardous Areas:
a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.I & 2: Allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas
b. ECDC 23.80.070.A. Lb & A.2: Buffer reduction and alterations
3. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
a. ECDC 23.90.040.D.2: Reduced buffer widths
b. ECDC 23.90.040.D.4: Additions to structures existing within stream buffers
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 35 of 160
Packet Pg. 191
7.1.b
D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance listed below shall not
apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction.
1. General Provisions:
a. Provisions of chapter 23.40 ECDC relating to reasonable economic use of property do
not apply to property with shoreline jurisdiction; specifically ECDC 23.40.000 and
ECDC 23.40.210(2).
b. ECDC 23.40.130.D: Monitoring Program
c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance
d. ECDC 23.40.220.C.8: Minor Site Investigation Work
e. ECDC 23.40.230: Exemptions
2. Wetlands:
a. ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings
b. ECDC 23.50.040.F.1: Standard Buffer Widths
c. ECDC 23.50.040.F.4: Wetland Buffer Width Averaging.
d. ECDC 23.50.040.F.8.b: Passive Recreation
e. ECDC 23.50.040.L• Exemptions
f. ECDC 23.50.050.F: Mitigation Ratios
g. ECDC 23.50.050.G: Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation
E. Development limitations.
1. All uses, modifications and activities on sites containing marine shorelines,
environmentally sensitive areas and/or critical areas must comply with all applicable
local, state, and federal laws pertaining to development in these areas unless in conflict
with the provisions of this Master Program.
2. The site must be specifically designed so that hazards from or impact on the
environmentally sensitive area and/or critical areas will be mitigated.
3. Mitigation sequencing. In order to comply with ECDC 24.40.020.E.2 above, a shoreline
permit applicant or project proponent shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been
taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not have significant
adverse impacts. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order:
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 36 of 160
Packet Pg. 192
7.1.b
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, such
as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts.
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the
initiation of the project.
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments.
4. Monitoring Program. Mitigation plans shall include a program for monitoring
construction and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included
outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years 1,
2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 after site construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated
to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be
submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency
actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a
period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a
period less than ten years.
5. Long-term Protection of Mitigation Sites. The City shall require documentation that a
mitigation site has been permanently preserved from future development or alteration that
would be inconsistent with the functions of the mitigation. The documentation may
include, but is not limited to, a conservation easement, deed restriction or other
agreement between the applicant and the owner of a mitigation site. Such documentation
shall be recorded with the Snohomish County auditor.
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 according to the Washington State wetland rating system for
western Washington (Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP
Page 37 of 160
Packet Pg. 193
7.1.b
— Revised, Ecology Publication #04-06-025) or as revised by Ecology. This document
contains the definitions and methods for determining the criteria and parameters defining
the following wetland rating categories:
a. Category L Category I wetlands are: 1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands
larger than 1 acre; 2) wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington
Natural Heritage Program/DNR as high quality wetlands; 3) bogs; 4) mature and old -
growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; 5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; or 6)
wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 70 points or more).
b. Category II. Category II wetlands are: 1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or
disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; 2) interdunal wetlands larger than 1
acres; 3) disturbed coastal lagoons or 4) wetlands with a moderately high level of
functions (scoring between 51-69 points).
Category III. Category III wetlands are: 1) wetlands with a moderate level of
functions (scoring between 30 and 50 points); or 2) interdunal wetlands between 0.1
and 1 acre in size.
d. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring
fewer than 30 points) and are often heavily disturbed.
2. Development in designated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction shall be regulated in
accordance with the following:
a. Buffer Requirements. The standard buffer widths in ECDC 24.40.020.F.2.b below
have been establish in accordance with best available science. The buffers are based
on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland
professional using the Washington state wetland rating system for western
Washington.
i. The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures
in ECDC 24.40.020.F.2.c, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the
adjacent land uses.
ii. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in ECDC
24.40.020.F.2.c, than a 33% increase in the width of all buffer is required.
iii. The standard buffer widths assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant
community appropriate 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.
iv. Additional buffer widths are added to the standard buffer widths. For example, a
Category I wetland scoring 32 points for habitat function would require a buffer
of 225 feet (75 + 150).
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 38 of 160
Packet Pg. 194
7.1.b
b. Wetland Buffer requirements for wetlands within City of Edmonds shoreline
jurisdiction.
Wetland Category
Standard Buffer
Additional
Additional
Additional
Width
buffer width if
buffer width if
buffer width if
wetland scares
wetland scares
wetland scares
21-25 habitat
26-29 habitat
30-36 habitat
points
Points
points
Category L• Based on
75 ft
Add 30 ft
Add 90 ft
Add 150 ft
total score
Category L• Bogs
190 ft
NA
NA
Add 35 ft
Category I: Forested
75 ft
Add 30 ft
Add 90 ft
Add 150 ft
Category I: Estuarine
150 ft
NA
NA
NA
Category II (all)
75 ft
Add 30 ft
Add 90 ft
Add 150 ft
Category III (all)
60 ft
Add 45 ft
Add 105 ft
NA
Category IV (all)
40 ft
NA
NA
NA
c. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Measures are required, where
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
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 39 of 160
Packet Pg. 195
7.1.b
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 corridors or
• Maintain connections to offsite areas that are
connections
undisturbed
• Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by
replanting
d. Where wetland or buffer alterations are permitted by the City of Edmonds, the
applicant shall mitigate impacts to achieve no not loss of wetland acreage and
functions. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided according to Wetlands in
Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands,
Appendix 8-C, Table 8-C11, Ecology Publication #05-06-008, or as revised by
Ecology.
e. Buffer width Reductions Though Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the
Edmonds development services director, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval
of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require
increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and
implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category III and IV
wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the
discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer with reduction to no less than 25
percent of the standard width; provided, that:
i. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be increased or
retained through plan implementation to at least the level provided by a standard
buffer or through additional mitigation;
ii. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in
buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and
eight feet on center for trees;
iii. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance
with ECDC 24.40.020.E.4; and
iv. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance
standards for assessing increases in wetland buffer functioning as related to:
1. Water quality protection;
2. Provision of wildlife habitat;
3. Maintenance of wetland hydrology; and
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 40 of 160
Packet Pg. 196
7.1.b
4. Restricting wetland intrusion and disturbance.
f. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. The director may allow modification of a standard
buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best
available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Only those
portions of a wetland buffer existing with the project area or subject parcel shall be
considered for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed
where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that:
i. It will not reduce the function and value of wetlands or associated buffers;
ii. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical
characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation,
and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not by
adversely impacted by narrower buffer in other places;
iii. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a
subject parcel for wetland extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that
which would be contained within a standard buffer; and
iv. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 25 percent of
the standard buffer width.
g. Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers.
i. Areas which are both physically separated and functionally isolated from a
wetland and do not protect the wetland from adverse impacts due to preexisting
public roads, structures, or similar circumstances, shall be excluded from the
buffers otherwise required by this subsection.
ii. A critical area report prepared by a qualified professional is required to determine
whether the buffer is functionally isolated.
h. Passive Recreation. The following passive recreation facilities may be permitted
within a wetland buffer provided the facilities are designed and in accordance with an
approved critical area report:
i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are limited to minor crossings
having no adverse impact on water quality. They should be generally parallel to
the perimeter of the wetland, located only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%)
of the wetland buffer area, and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They
should be limited to pervious surfaces no more than five (5) feet in width for
pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing non -treated piling may be
acceptable;
ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and
iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 41 of 160
Packet Pg. 197
7.1.b
Additions to structures existing within wetlands and/or wetland buffers may be
permitted pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.H. Additions to structures within wetlands
will also require state and federal approval.
G. Geologically hazardous areas. Development in designated geologically hazardous areas shall
be regulated in accordance with the following:
New development or the creation of lots should not be allowed that would cause
foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of
the development.
2. New development should not be allowed that would require structural shoreline
stabilization over the normal, useful life of the development. Exception may be made for
instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses where no alternative
locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result. The
stabilization measures shall conform to ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline stabilization.
3. Where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures, are
found to be feasible, and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure,
stabilization structures or measures to protect existing primary residential structures may
be all in conformance with ECDC 24.50.020 requirements and then only if no net loss of
ecological functions will result.
H. Critical Saltwater Habitats.
1. Development shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when all of
the conditions below are met:
a. The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the
proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW
90.58.020;
b. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or
location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to
accomplish the same general purpose.
c. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological
functions associated with critical saltwater habitat.
d. The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species
recovery.
2. Private, non-commercial docks for individual residential or community use may be
allowed provided that:
a. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or
location is not feasible;
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 42 of 160
Packet Pg. 198
7.1.b
b. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in not net loss of ecological
functions associated with critical saltwater habitat.
3. Where inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been completed, all over water and
near -shore developments in marine and estuarine waters shall be required to conduct an a
habitat assessment of the site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical
saltwater habitats and functions.
I. Critical Freshwater Habitats.
Existing hydrological connections into and between water bodies, such as streams and
wetlands, shall be maintained. Obstructed channels shall be reestablished as a condition
of nonwater-dependent uses, where feasible.
Additional authority. In addition to any other authority the city may have, the city is hereby
authorized to condition or deny a proposed use, modification or activity or to require site
redesign because of hazards associated with the use, modification or activity on or near an
environmentally sensitive and/or critical area, and/or the effect of the proposal on the
environmentally sensitive area and/or critical area.
24.40.030 Flood Hazard Reduction
A. Applicability. The following provisions apply to actions taken to reduce flood damage or
hazard and to uses, development, and shoreline modification that may increase flood hazards.
B. Regulations.
1. Development and redevelopment shall be located and designed to prevent the need for
structural flood hazard reduction measures.
2. Nonstructural flood reduction measures shall be given preference over structural
measures.
3. Flood control works shall be permitted when it is demonstrated by engineering and
scientific evaluations that:
a. They are necessary to protect health/safety and or existing development;
b. Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible; and
c. The flood control work will not result in a net loss of ecological function in the
shoreline area.
4. New structural flood control works shall be placed landward of associated wetlands, and
designated habitat conservation areas, except for works that improve ecological
functions, such as wetland restoration.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 43 of 160
Packet Pg. 199
7.1.b
5. Development within the shoreline environment shall meet the standards and provisions
for protection of frequently flooded areas as provided to areas of special flood hazard in
the current edition of the International Residential Code and International Building Code,
as adopted in ECDC Title 19.
24.40.040 Public Access and Views
A. Applicability. Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and
enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the
shoreline from adjacent locations. The public access provisions below apply to all shorelines
within the City of Edmonds.
B. Regulations
1. Except as provided in subsections 2 through 4 of this section, shoreline substantial
developments or conditional uses shall provide public access where any of the following
conditions are present:
a. Where the use or modification will create increased demand for public access to the
shoreline, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact.
b. Where the use or modification will interfere with an existing public access way, the
development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact.
Where a use which is not a priority shoreline use under the Shoreline Management Act
will locate on a shoreline of the state, the use or modification shall provide public access
to mitigate this impact.
d. Within the Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction, where a use or modification will interfere
with a public use of lands or waters subject to the public trust doctrine, the development
shall provide public access to mitigate this impact.
e. New multifamily residential development.
f. Where there is a subdivision of land into more than four parcels.
2. An applicant need not provide public access where one or more the following conditions
apply:
a. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist which cannot be prevent by any
practical means;
b. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of
alternative design features or other solutions;
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 44 of 160
Packet Pg. 200
7.1.b
c. The cost of providing the access, easement or an alternative amenity is unreasonably
disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development;
d. Unacceptable environmental harm will result from the public access which cannot be
mitigated;
e. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the
proposed use/modification and adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated; or,
6. Statutory or constitutional requirements would prohibit the mandatory dedication of
access without just compensation or compliance with statutory criteria.
3. In order to meet any of the conditions in subsection 2.a through 2.e of this section, the
applicant must first demonstrate and the city determine in its finds that all reasonable
alternatives have been exhausted, including but not limited to:
a. Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use;
b. Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g., fences, terracing, use of one-way
glazings, hedges, landscaping, etc.); and
Developing provisions for access at a site geographically separated from the proposal
such as street end, vista or trail system.
4. Exceptions. The following uses, developments, modifications and activities are exempt form
providing public pedestrian access under this section:
a. The construction, repair, remodeling and use of one detached single-family dwelling unit,
as well as the construction, remodeling, repair, and use of bulkheads, docks and other
uses, modification and activities incidental to the use of the subject property as a
detached single-family residence.
b. All shoreline uses, modifications and activities in conservancy environments, or
environmentally sensitive areas where the city determines that access would create
distinct and unavoidable hazards to human safety or be contrary to city policies regarding
the protection of unique and fragile environments.
5. Shoreline development by public entities, such as local governments, port districts, state
agencies, and public utility districts, should provide public access measures as part of each
development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety,
security, or impact to the shoreline.
6. Public Use Facilities.
a. In addition to the public pedestrian areas required by subsection 1 of this section, the
applicant may propose and/or the city may require that benches, picnic tables, a public
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 45 of 160
Packet Pg. 201
7.1.b
access pier or boardwalk, or other public use facilities be constructed on the subject
property.
b. If public use facilities are required or proposed, the city will determine the size, location
and other regulations (design considerations) on a case -by -case basis.
7. Timing. The public pedestrian access required by this section must be completed and
available at the time of occupancy or completion of work; provided, however, that the city
may on a case -by -case basis defer the physical availability of public access in the following
cases:
a. If shoreline development without public pedestrian access exists on both sides of the
subject property and the city determines that the size, location and topography or the
subject property does not warrant making public waterfront access available until
additional adjacent waterfront access can be obtained.
b. If pre-existing legal or nonconforming improvements on the subject property physically
preclude the provisions of public waterfront access within a reasonable period of time.
8. Easements recorded. In each case where public pedestrian access is required, whether it is
physically available at the end of development or deferred until a later date, all owners of the
subject property must record a public pedestrian easement, in a form approved by the city
attorney, establishing the right of the public to access, use and traverse that portion of the
subject property.
9. Signs. The city shall require the posting of signs, obtained from the city at the city's cost,
designating public pedestrian access. The planning manager or his/her designee is authorized
to establish reasonable rules and regulations governing the public's use of public pedestrian
access and use areas under this chapter. Where appropriate, these rules and regulations shall
be included within the document recorded under subsection 8 of this section.
10. Shoreline uses, modifications and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking,
reducing or adversely interfering with the public's existing physical and visual access to the
water and shorelines.
11. View Protection Regulations.
a. Within the Urban Mixed Use I, Urban Mixed Use II and adjacent Aquatic I and Aquatic
II shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the
following required view corridors:
i. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained across
30 percent of the average parcel width. The view corridor must be in one continuous
piece. Within the view corridor, structures, parking areas, and landscaping will be
allowed; provided, that they do not obscure the view from adjacent public right-of-
way to and beyond the Puget Sound. This view corridor must be adjacent to either
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 46 of 160
Packet Pg. 202
7.1.b
the north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor
given development on adjacent properties. If the subject property has shoreline
frontage in excess of 1,000 feet, the city may require a maximum of one-third of the
required view corridor to be placed in a location between the north and south property
lines, in a location which will provide for the greatest unobstructed view of the Puget
Sound.
ii. Waterward of the ordinary high water, view corridors which are required pursuant to
this section must be maintained starting at a width equal to the adjacent upland view
corridor and expanding in a conical fashion 30 degrees from the prolongation of the
view corridor water of the ordinary high water mark.
b. Within the Urban Mixed Use IV designation
i. Uses and activities must be designed and operated to avoid blocking or adversely
interfering with visual access from public areas to the water and shorelines.
12. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights -of -way shall not be
diminished (RCW 35.79.035 and 36.87.130).
13. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public street and shall include
provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons, where feasible.
14. Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or
on the face of a plat or short plat as a condition running contemporaneous with the authorized
land use, at a minimum. Said recording with the county auditor's office shall occur at the
time of permit approval (RCW 58.17.110).
15. The minimum width of public access easements shall be 25 feet, unless the administrator
determines that undue hardship would result. In such cases, easement width may be reduced
only to the minimum extent necessary, as determined by the administrator, to relieve the
hardship. Provided the larger easement is not needed for emergency access.
16. Future actions by the applicant successors in interest or other parties shall not diminish the
usefulness or value of the public access provided.
17. Visual access shall be maintained, enhanced and preserved on shoreline street ends, public
utilities and rights -of -way and within public view corridors as designated by the city.
24.40.050 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation
A. Applicability.
1. Vegetation conservation includes activities to protect and restore vegetation along or near
marine and freshwater shorelines that contribute to the ecological functions of shoreline
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 47 of 160
Packet Pg. 203
7.1.b
areas. Vegetation conservation provisions include the prevention or restriction of plant
clearing and earth grading, vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and
nonnative species.
2. Unless otherwise stated, vegetation conservation does not include those activities covered
under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, except for conversion to other uses and
those other forest practice activities over which local governments have authority.
Vegetation conservation provisions apply even to those shoreline uses and developments
that are exempt from the requirement to obtain permit.
3. Where new developments and/or uses are proposed, native shoreline vegetation should be
conserved to maintain shoreline ecological functions and/or processes and mitigate the
direct, indirect and/or cumulative impacts of shoreline development, where feasible.
Important functions of shoreline vegetation include, but are not limited to:
a. Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures required by salmonids,
forage fish, and other aquatic biota.
b. Providing organic inputs critical for aquatic life.
c. Providing food in the form of various insects and other benthic macroinvertebrates.
d. Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion, and reducing the occurrence of landslides.
Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment through stormwater best
management practices.
f. Filtering and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants from ground water and
surface runoff.
g. Providing a source of large woody debris into the aquatic system.
h. Regulation of microclimate in the stream -riparian and intertidal corridors.
i. Providing habitat for wildlife, including connectivity for travel and migration
corridors.
B. Regulations.
1. Alteration of native shoreline vegetation shall only be allowed as set forth below:
a. Landscaping or maintenance associated with an existing legal use or new permitted
shoreline use or development. The use of native plant species shall be encouraged.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP
Page 48 of 160
Packet Pg. 204
7.1.b
b. Removal of noxious weeds as listed by the state in WAC 16-750, provided such
activity shall be conducted in a manner consistent with best management practices
and native vegetation is promptly reestablish in the disturbed area.
Modification of vegetation in association with a legal, nonconforming use provided
that said modification is conducted in a manner consistent with this Master Program
and results in no net loss to ecological functions or critical fish and wildlife
conservation areas.
d. Restoration activities conducted in accordance with an approved plan designed to
improve ecological functions and values.
2. The removal or disturbance of existing vegetation and the alteration of topography shall
be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate approved shoreline development.
3. Exposed soils shall be immediately developed or revegetated to prevent erosion.
4. Revegetation must be planted such that complete coverage of exposed soils is attained
within one growing season.
5. In all cases where clearing is followed by revegetation, native plants shall be preferred
24.40.060 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint pollution
A. Applicability. The following provisions applies to all development and uses within shoreline
jurisdiction that may affect water quality.
B. Regulations.
An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be submitted with a permit application
for activities that involve the removal of vegetation, stockpiling of earth or other
materials, or any activity that could result in shoreline erosion or siltation. Said program
shall conform to the City of Edmonds' stormwater code requirements, Engineering
Design Standards and shall at a minimum, utilize Best management Practices (BMPs) to
prevent shoreline erosion and siltation.
2. The bulk storage of oil, fuel, chemicals, or hazardous materials, on either a temporary or
permanent basis, shall not occur in shoreline without adequate secondary containment
and an emergency spill response plan in place.
3. All development approved under this Shoreline Master Program shall be designed and
maintained consistent with the City's Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, all codes related
to stormwater, and Engineering Design Standards.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 49 of 160
Packet Pg. 205
7.1.b
4. New development is encouraged to employ Low Impact Development principles and
practices such as setbacks, retaining land cover, and reducing impervious areas, and use
special caution to avoid infiltration of stormwater in shoreline areas along marine bluffs.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 50 of 160
Packet Pg. 206
7.1.b
24.40.070 Shoreline Development Table: User Guide
SDP
Listed shoreline development permitted as a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and subject to the policies and regulations
of this Master Program. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-040 and ECDC 24.80.010, certain shoreline uses and modifications may be
exempt from the requirements of the substantial development permit process. These exemptions shall be construed narrowly and
only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the
substantial development permit process. Developments meeting the exemption from the requirements of the substantial
development permit process are still subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
SCUP
Listed shoreline development may be permitted as Shoreline Conditional Use Permit subject to the policies and regulations of this
Master Program. Shoreline developments requiring Shoreline Conditional Use Permits are not subject to the exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 or ECDC 24.80.010.
X
Listed shoreline development is prohibited.
*
Prohibited shoreline development is subject to specific exceptions. See Shoreline Area Regulations section for the listed
shoreline development.
+
Permitted shoreline development is subject to specific limitations on where and/or when development may be permitted. See
Shoreline Area Regulations for the listed shoreline development.
24.40.080 Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation'
Shoreline
Development
Shoreline Area Designation
Urban
Railroad
Urban
Mixed
Use I
Urban
Mixed Use
II
Urban
Mixed
Use III
Urban Mixed
Use IV
Shoreline
Residential I
Shoreline
Residential II
Shoreline
Residential III
Aquatic I
Aquatic 11
Conservancy
Natural
A uaculture
X SCUP SCUP X SCUP X X X SCUP SCUP SCUP SCUP
Artwork
SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP X X SDP SDP
Boating Facilities
Launch Ramps
X
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Marinas
X
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Covered
Over -water
structures
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 51 of 160
Packet Pg. 207
7.1.b
Shoreline
Shoreline Area Designation
Development
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban Mixed
Shoreline
Shoreline
Shoreline
Aquatic I
Aquatic II
Conservancy
Natural
Railroad
Mixed
Mixed Use
Mixed
Use IV
Residential I
Residential II
Residential III
Use I
II
Use III
Commercial and Light Industrial
Water -oriented
X
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nonwater-
X
SDP+
SDP+
SDP±
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
oriented
Dredging
SCUP SCUP SCUP X X X X SCUP SCUP SCUP SCUP X
Landfill
SCUP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SCUP
SCUP
SCUP
SCUP'
Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats
Commercial
X
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
X
SDP
X
X
Private, Public,
and Shared
X
SDP
SDP
X
X
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
Aircraft
X
X
X
X
X
XR
XR
X
X
X
XR
Xx
Recreation
X SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP
Residential
Detached
Residential
X
X
X
SDP
X
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
(Single-family)
Attached or
stacked
Residential
X
X
X
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Multi -family)
Shoreline Stabilization
Groins
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
SCUP
SCUP
SCUP
X
Breakwaters
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
SCUP
SCUP
SCUP
X
and jetties
Bulkheads and
similar
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
SCUP
X
X
SDP
X
X
SCUP
X
structures
Bioengineering
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
SDP
X
X
SDP
SDP+
SDP-
SDP
X
Gabions
I X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 52 of 160
m
0
0.
E
M
0
L
a
M
m
c
0
t
0
T
Ln
CO
T
T
T
0
N
m
0
L
0.
Q.
a
a
c
0
0
t�
N
s
x
w
c
d
E
z
c�
a
Packet Pg. 208
7.1.b
Shoreline
Shoreline Area Designation
Development
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban Mixed
Shoreline
Shoreline
Shoreline
Aquatic I
Aquatic II
Conservancy
Natural
Railroad
Mixed
Mixed Use
Mixed
Use IV
Residential I
Residential II
Residential III
Use I
II
Use III
Signs
SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP
Transportation
Railroads
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ferry Terminals
SCUP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
SCUP
SCUP
X
X
Parking —
supporting
associated
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
SCUP+
X
water-
dependentuse
Parking — not
supporting an
associated
SDP
SCUP+
SCUP+
SDP
SDP
X
X
X
X
X
SCUP+
X
water -
dependent use
Other
SCUP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SDP
SCUP+
SCUP+
Utilities
SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SCUP
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.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 53 of 160
Packet Pg. 209
7.1.b
24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards
The following table establishes shoreline -specific development standards in the different shoreline environment designations. Setbacks represent minimum distances and may be
larger if a critical area is present consistent with ECDC 24.40.020 and Title 23 ECDC.
Shoreline
Shoreline Area Designation
Development
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban Mixed
Shoreline
Shoreline
Shoreline
Aquatic I
Aquatic II
Conservancy
Natural
Railroad
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Use IV
Residential I
Residential II
Residential III
I
II
III
A uaculture — Over Water Structures
Shore Setback
(waterward
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ordinary high)
Maximum
Height above
deck of
3ft
3ft
3ft
3ft
3ft
N/A
N/A
N/A
3ft
3 ft.
N/A
3ft
overwater
structure
Commercial and Light Industrial Development
Water Depend nt Commercial Use
Shore Setback
N/A
0'
0'
0'
0'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Side Setback15
N/A
0' 2
0' 2
Varies
0'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maximum
Height16
N/A
30'
30'
25'
35'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maximum
N/A
None
None
None
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Coverage
All Other Commercial and Li ht Industrial Develo ment
Shore Setback
N/A
15'
15'
50'
100150 "
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Side Setback
(commercial/
N/A
0'/15' 2, 3
0'/15' 2,3
Varies
0'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
residential) 15
Maximum
16
N/A
30'
30'
25'
35'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Height
Maximum
N/A
None
None
None
Varies
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Coverage
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 54 of 160
Packet Pg. 210
7.1.b
Shoreline
Shoreline Area Designation
Development
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban Mixed
Shoreline
Shoreline
Shoreline
Aquatic I
Aquatic II
Conservancy
Natural
Railroad
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Use IV
Residential I
Residential II
Residential III
I
II
III
Recreation
Shore Setback
N/A
15'
15'
15'
15'17
N/A
N/A
35'
N/A
N/A
50'
N/A14
Maximum
N/A
30'
30'
25'
35'
25'
25'
25'
15
15 15'4
25'
25'
Height16
Maximum
N/A
None
None
None
None
35%
35%
35%
N/A
N/A
10% or 4,000
N/A
Coverage
square feet
20% or
Maximum
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10,000
N/A
impervious
square feet
Residential Develo went
Shore Setback
N/A
N/A
N/A
50'17
100150
N/A
N/A
35'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bluff Setback
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50'13
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maximum 16
N/A
N/A
N/A
25'
35'
25'
25'
25'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Height
Minimum Lot
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Varies11
6,000 sq ft
12,000 sq ft
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Area (Sq. Ft.
Maximum
Density6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Varies 12
7.3
3.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maximum
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35%
35%
35%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Coverage
Transportation and Parkin
Parkin
Uncovered Parking
Shore Setback 1 60' 60' 60' 50"1 100150 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60' N/A
Structured Parking
Shore Setback
N/A
N/A
N/A
50"1
100150
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maximum
Heightlb
N/A
N/A
N/A
25'
35'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ferry Terminals
Maximum
8
30'
30'
30'
30'
30'
N/A
N/A
N/A
35'
35'
N/A
N/A
Height
Railroads
Maximum
25' 9
30'')
30' 9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Height
Property line
5'
5
5'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 55 of 160
m
0
0.
E
M
0
L
a
M
m
c
0
t
T
Ln
CO
T
0
N
0
0
0.
Q.
a
a
N
c
0
0
V
s
K
w
c
d
E
z
c�
a
Packet Pg. 211
7.1.b
Shoreline
Shoreline Area Designation
Development
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban Mixed
Shoreline
Shoreline
Shoreline
Aquatic I
Aquatic II
Conservancy
Natural
railroad
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Use IV
Residential I
Residential II
Residential III
I
II
III
All Other Develo
ment
Shore Setback
N/A
15'
15'
50' 17
100150
N/A
N/A
35'
N/A
N/A
50'
N/A 14
Maximum
16
25'
30'
30'
25'
35'
25'
25'
25'
25'
35'/15' 10
25'
25'
Height
Minimum Lot
N/A
None
None
None
None
Varies"
6,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq. ft.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Area (Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Varies"7.3
3.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Density
Maximum
None
None
None
None
Varies19
35%
35%
35%
N/A
N/A
10%
10%
Coverage
1 ' Aquaculture pens shall be no closer to the shoreline than the identified distance.
Z ' See ECDC 24.40.040.13.11 for view corridor requirements.
3 : No side setback is required from adjacent commercial property. A minimum 15-foot setback is required from lot line adjacent to shoreline residential environments. The area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum
six-foot high fence or hedge.
4 ' Above ordinary high water mark.
5 ' Thirty-five feet total of both sides, 10 feet minimum on either side.
6 ' Density means "dwelling units per acre" determined by dividing the total lot area by the density allowed by the underlying zoning; the number of lots or units permitted shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number.
7 ' In the Urban Mixed Use I and II environment, the 60-foot setback for parking may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet. See ECDC 24.60.080.D.2.c. and 24.60.080.D.3.c
8 ' Subject to exceptions, see ECDC 24.60.070.C.10.
9 ' Subject to exceptions, see ECDC 24.60.080.D. l.b.xiii. I through ECDC 24.60.080.D.l.b.xiii.4.
10 . Accessory structures for the sale of gas, oil and live bait, shall not exceed 15 feet above the height of the dock or pier.
11 . Varies between 12,000 and 20,000 square feet per site depending on the underlying zoning.
12 : Varies between 3.7 and 2.2 dwellingunits per acre depending on the underlying zoning. Density means "dwelling units per acre" determined b dividing the total lot area b the density allowed b the underlying zoning; the
P P g Yi g g Y g P Y g Y tY Y Y� g g
number of lots or units permitted shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number.
13 . May be reduced through the shoreline variance process pursuant to ECDC 24.40.020.C.3.
14 : Three areas within the City of Edmonds have the natural environment designation: Edmonds Marsh, Shell Creek Wetland, and Perrinville Creek Wetland. All three areas are separated from the Puget Sound by the railroad
right-of-way.
15 ' Side setback determined by the underlying zoning. No required side setback in the BD2, CG, or MP2 zones. Five foot side setback in the OR zone,
16 : The maximum height limit shall be determined b the underlying comprehensive planning document and zoning designation. Height limits eater than 35 feet shall be su orted b view analysis and structures designed to
Sh Y Y� g P P g g g g greater pP Y Y Sn
minimize impacts on public views.
17 ' Fences within the shore setback of the Urban Mixed Use 11-1-IV zone that create separate areas for public and private uses should not be allowed.
18 : Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 100 feet. New development activities within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment require the establishment of a 50-foot vegetation buffer
adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative buffer is absent.
19 : Varies between 75% and no maximum coverage requirement per site depending on the underlying zoning.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 56 of 160
Packet Pg. 212
7.1.b
Part V Specific Modification Policies & Regulations.
24.50.000 Applicability.
Shoreline modification activities are structures or actions that permanently change the physical
configuration or quality of the shoreline, particularly at the point where land and water meet.
Shoreline modifications include but are not limited to structures such as bulkheads and piers and
actions such as clearing, grading and removing vegetation. Generally, shoreline modifications
are undertaken to prepare for a shoreline use, to support and upland use, or to provide shoreline
stabilization or defense from erosion.
24.50.010 General Modification Policies and Regulations
A. General Modification Policies.
Locate and design all new development in a manner that prevents or minimizes the need
for shoreline modifications.
2. Ensure that shoreline modification, where permitted, are as compatible as possible with
natural shoreline processes and character.
3. Regulate shoreline modifications to assure that modifications individually and
cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation may be
required to meet the no net loss standard.
4. Give preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a less impact on
ecological functions and require mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline
modifications.
5. Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem -
wide processes in the placement and design of shoreline modifications. To avoid and
reduce ecological impacts, the mitigation sequence in ECDC 24.40.020.E.3 shall be
utilized.
B. General Shoreline Modification Regulations
1. Shoreline modification activities that do not support a permitted shoreline use are
considered "speculative" and are prohibited by this Master Program, unless it can be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Shoreline Administrator that such activities are in
the public interest and necessary and for the maintenance of shoreline environmental
resource values.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 57 of 160
Packet Pg. 213
7.1.b
2. Structural shoreline modification measures shall be permitted only if nonstructural
measures are unable to achieve the same purpose. Nonstructural measures considered
shall include alternative site designs, increased setbacks, relocation, and bioengineering.
3. Shoreline modification activities, with the exception of restoration or enhancement
efforts, are prohibited in wetlands, and undeveloped spits, hooks, bars, barrier beaches, or
similar accretion terminals or accretion shore forms.
4. Proponents of shoreline modification projects shall obtain all applicable federal and state
permits and shall meet all permit requirements.
5. Best Available Science. All reports prepared in support of a shoreline modification
shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of shoreline environment
and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used.
24.50.020 Shoreline stabilization
A. Applicability. Shoreline stabilization includes actions taken to address erosion impacts to
property and dwellings, businesses, or structures cause by natural processes, such as current,
flood, tides, wind, or wave action. These actions include structural and nonstructural
methods.
Nonstructural methods include building setbacks, relocation of the structure to be protected,
ground water management, planning and regulatory measures to avoid the need for structural
stabilization.
Structural methods can be "hard" or "soft". "Hard" structural stabilization measures
structural stabilization measures refer to those with solid, hard surfaces, such as concrete
bulkheads. These are static structures traditionally constructed of rock, concrete, wood,
metal, or other materials that deflect, rather than absorb, wave energy. "Soft" structural
measures rely on softer materials, such as vegetation, drift logs, and gravel. They are
intended to absorb wave energy, mimicking the function of a natural beach. The following
methods of shoreline stabilization are organized from "soft" to "hard":
"Soft"
• Vegetation enhancement;
• Upland drainage control;
• Biotechnical measures;
• Beach enhancement;
• Anchor tree; and
• Gravel placement;
"Hard"
• Rock revetments;
• Gabions;
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP
Page 58 of 160
Packet Pg. 214
7.1.b
• Groins;
• Retaining walls and bluff walls;
• Bulkheads; and
• Seawalls.
The following policies and regulations apply to all actions and developments that modify the
shoreline for the purposes of preventing shore erosion.
B. Shoreline Stabilization Policies
1. Discourage new development requiring structural shoreline defense works.
2. Relocating existing structures out of harm's way is preferable to construction of structural
defense works.
3. Allow structural stabilization methods only:
a. After it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions would not be able to reduce the
potential damage sufficiently, and
b. Where it has been demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect a new use
consistent with this Master program, a legally established, inhabited structure or
ongoing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage or when
necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for hazardous substance remediation or
restoration of ecological functions.
Structural stabilization will not be permitted for the indirect purpose of creating land
by filling.
4. Encourage "soft" stabilization and protection works over "hard" structural means.
Furthermore, designs that do not interrupt net drift or migration of anadromous fish are
preferred (for example, open poling construction is preferable to sold walls, and floating
breakwaters are preferable to solid landfills.)
5. Consider the effect that proposed shore defense works have on ecosystem -wide processes
(e.g. sand movement) and functions (e.g. habitat). Make provisions to avoid and
minimize impacts where feasible. Mitigation must be provided to achieve no net loss.
6. Give special attention to the effect these structures will have on aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline, public access, and use of the water.
C. Shoreline Stabilization Regulations
1. For the purposes of this section, standards on shoreline stabilization, "replacement"
means the construction of a new structure to perform a shoreline stabilization function of
an existing structure which can no longer adequately service its purpose. Addition to or
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 59 of 160
Packet Pg. 215
7.1.b
increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new
structures.
2. Structural stabilization methods shall be permitted when necessary for reconfiguration of
the shoreline for mitigation or enhancement purposes.
3. New development that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant
negative impacts to adjacent or down -current properties and shoreline areas should not be
allowed.
4. New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that
shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the normal, useful life of the
structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis.
5. New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is
demonstrated in the following manner:
a. To protect existing primary structures:
i. New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing
primary structure, including residences, should not be allowed unless there is
conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is
in danger from shoreline erosion caused by tidal action, currents, or waves.
Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a
scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical
analysis should evaluate on -site drainage issues and address drainage problems
away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization.
ii. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
b. In support of new nonwater-dependent development, including single-family
residences, when all of the conditions below apply:
i. The erosion is not being cause by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation
and drainage.
ii. Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the
shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage improvements, are
not feasible or not sufficient.
iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is
demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by
natural processes, such as tidal action, currents, and waves.
iv. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 60 of 160
Packet Pg. 216
7.1.b
c. In support of water -dependent development when all of the conditions below apply:
i. The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of
vegetation and drainage.
ii. Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage
improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is
demonstrated through a geotechnical report.
iv. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
d. To protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance
remediation projects pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW when all of the conditions
below apply:
i. Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage
improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
ii. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
6. Geotechnical reports pursuant to this section that address the need to prevent potential
damage to a primary structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by
estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the
specific situation. As a general matter, hard armoring solutions should not be authorized
except when a report confirms that there is a significant possibility that such a structure
will be damaged within three years as a result of shoreline erosion in the absence of such
hard armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate, would
foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions.
Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a
primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as the three years, that report may still
be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft
measures.
D. Shoreline Stabilization Siting and Design Regulations.
1. When any structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary,
pursuant to above provisions.
a. Limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum necessary. Use measures
designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches shall
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 61 of 160
Packet Pg. 217
7.1.b
be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures,
dwellings, and businesses.
b. Ensure that publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion control measures do not
restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is
determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to
ecological functions. Where feasible, incorporate ecological restoration and public
access improvements into the project.
c. Mitigate new erosion control measures, including replacement structures, on feeder
bluffs or other actions that affect beach sediment -producing areas to avoid and, if that
is not possible, to minimize adverse impacts to sediment conveyance systems.
2. Bulkheads and other shoreline protective structures may not be constructed within a
marsh, bog, or swamp or between a marsh, bog or swamp and the primary body of water
(Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger).
3. Bulkheads and other shoreline protective structures may not be placed waterward of the
ordinary height water mark, unless:
a. It is to stabilize a fill approved under ECDC 24.50.040; or
b. There has been severe and unusual erosion within one year immediately preceding the
application for the bulkhead or other similar protective structure. In this event, the
city may allow the placement of the bulkhead or other similar protective structure to
recover the dry land area lost by this erosion.
4. Bulkheads and other shoreline protect structures shall be located landward of the ordinary
high water mark and generally parallel to the natural shoreline unless geotechnical
evaluation demonstrates the necessity for alternative design. In addition:
a. Where no other bulkheads are adjacent, the construction of a bulkhead shall be as
close to the eroding bank as possible and in no case shall it be more than six (6) feet
from the toe of the bank.
b. A bulkhead for a permitted landfill shall be located at the toe of the fill.
c. Where permitted, a bulkhead must tie in flush with existing bulkheads on adjoining
properties, except where the adjoining bulkheads extend waterward of the ordinary
high water mark.
5. An existing bulkhead or other shoreline stabilization structure may be replaced with a
similar structure if there is a demonstrated need to protect principal uses or structures
from erosion caused by currents, tidal action, or waves.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 62 of 160
Packet Pg. 218
7.1.b
a. The replacement structure should be designed, located, sized, and constructed to
assure no net loss of ecological functions.
b. Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high-
water mark or existing structure unless the residential structure to which it is
appurtenant was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or
environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure may abut the
existing shoreline stabilization structure.
c. Where a net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitats
would occur by leaving the existing structure, remove it as part of the replacement
measure.
d. Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological
functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.
e. For purposes of this section standards on shoreline stabilization measures,
"replacement" means the construction of a new structure to perform a shoreline
stabilization function of an existing structure which can no longer adequately serve its
purpose. Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures
shall be considered new structures.
6. Materials used in bulkhead construction shall meet the following standards:
a. Bulkheads shall utilize stable, non-erodable materials such as concrete, wood, and
rock that are consistent with the preservation and protection of the ecological habitat
b. Shore materials shall not be used for fill behind bulkheads, except clean dredge spoil
from a permitted off -site dredge and fill operation.
c. The extent and nature of any backfill proposed landward of a bulkhead or other
shoreline protective structure shall comply with adopted City standards.
7. If hard stabilization methods are employed the following design criteria shall be meet:
a. The size and quantity of the material shall be limited to that the minimum necessary
to withstand the estimated energy intensity of the hydraulic system;
b. Filter cloth must be used to aid drainage and help prevent settling;
The toe reinforcement or protection must be adequate to prevent a collapse of the
system wave action; and
d. Fish habitat components shall be considered in the design subject to Hydraulic Project
Approval by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 63 of 160
Packet Pg. 219
7.1.b
8. When hard stabilization measures are required at a public access site, provision for safe
pedestrian access to the water shall be incorporated into bulkhead design.
9. Stairs or other permitted structures may be built into a hard stabilization structure but
shall not extend waterward of it.
E. Geotechnical Reports.
Geotechnical reports required pursuant to this section shall address the need for shoreline
stabilization and shall include the following.
1. A scaled site plan showing:
a. The location of existing and proposed shore stabilization, structures, fill, and
vegetation, with dimensions indicated distances to the ordinary high water mark.
b. Existing site topography with two foot contours.
2. A description of the processes affecting the site, and surrounding areas that influence or
could be influenced by the site, including areas in which lake or marine geomorphic
processes affect the site, including, but not limited to:
a. Soil erosion, deposition, or accretion;
b. Evidence of past or potential erosion due to tidal action and/or waves;
c. Littoral drift; and
d. An estimate of shoreline erosion rates.
3. A description and analysis of the urgency and risk associated with the specific site
characteristics.
F. Shoreline Stabilization — Shoreline Area Regulations
1. Urban Railroad
a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
b. Gabions are prohibited.
2. Urban Mixed Use I
a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 64 of 160
Packet Pg. 220
7.1.b
b. Gabions are prohibited.
3. Urban Mixed Use 11
a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
b. Gabions are prohibited.
4. Urban Mixed Use III
a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
b. Gabions are prohibited.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV
a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
b. Gabions are prohibited.
6. Shoreline Residential I
a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
b. Gabions are prohibited.
7. Shoreline Residential II
a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
b. Gabions are prohibited.
8. Shoreline Residential III
a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
b. Gabions are prohibited.
9. Aquatic I
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 65 of 160
Packet Pg. 221
7.1.b
a. Bioengineering approaches are permitted on tidelands and shorelands when necessary
to restore an eroding accretion shoreform or to retard erosion elsewhere subject to
policies and regulations of this program.
b. Bulkheads or revetments are prohibited except for an approved water -dependent
development subject to policies and regulations of this Program.
c. Gabions are prohibited.
10. Aquatic II
a. Bioengineering approaches are permitted on tidelands and shorelands when necessary
to restore an eroding accretion shoreform or to retard erosion elsewhere subject to
policies and regulations of this program.
b. Bulkheads or revetments are prohibited except for an approved water -dependent
development subject to policies and regulations of this Program.
c. Gabions are prohibited.
11. Conservancy
a. Bulkheads, revetments, and bioengineering approaches are permitted subject to
policies and regulations of this Program
b. Gabions are prohibited.
12. Natural: Shoreline stabilization is prohibited; except that, bioengineering approaches
may be permitted as a conditional use when necessary to restore and eroding accretion
shoreform or to retard erosion elsewhere.
24.50.030 Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats
A. Applicability
Docks are fixed structures floating upon water bodies. Piers are fixed, pile -supported
structures. Floats are floating structures that are moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in
the water that are not connected to the shoreline. Docks, piers, and floats that serve four or
fewer boats regularly moored are reviewed a recreational facilities. Proposals for five or
more boats are considered marinas and are regulated under ECDC 24.60.020, Boating
Facilities.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 66 of 160
Packet Pg. 222
7.1.b
B. Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats Policies
1. A dock associated with a single family residence is considered a water -dependent use
provided that it is designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft and
otherwise complies with the provisions of this section.
2. New pier or dock construction, excluding docks accessory to single-family residences,
should be permitted only when the applicant has demonstrated that a specific need exists
to support the intended water -dependent use.
3. Shared pier and dock facilities are preferred over single -user moorage where feasible.
New subdivisions of more than two (2) lots should provide joint shared moorage.
4. Piers and docks, including those accessory to single-family residences, shall be designed
and constructed to avoid or to minimize and mitigate the impacts to ecological functions,
critical areas resources such as eelgrass beds and fish habitats and processes such as
currents and littoral drift.
C. Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats Regulations
1. The following piers, docks, and floating developments are prohibited in the shoreline
jurisdiction:
a. Aircraft moorage is prohibited, except that aircraft may be temporarily moored (not to
exceed 36 hours) in the event of severe weather conditions.
b. Covered moorage.
2. Size of Piers and Docks. Piers and docks may not be larger than is necessary to provide
safe and reasonable moorage for the boats which can reasonably be expected to be
moored. The city will specifically review the size and configuration or each proposed
pier or dock to ensure that:
a. The pier or dock does not extend waterward beyond the point necessary to provide
reasonable draft for the boats to be moored and shall not extend beyond the outer
harbor line; and
b. The pier or dock is not larger than is necessary to moor the specified number of boats;
and
c. The pier or dock will not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water or
create a hazard to navigation; and
d. The pier or dock will not adversely affect nearby uses; and
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 67 of 160
Packet Pg. 223
7.1.b
e. The pier or dock will not have a significant long-term adverse effect on aquatic
habitats.
3. In order to minimize impacts on nearshore areas and avoid reduction in ambient light
level:
a. The width of piers, docks and floats shall be the minimum necessary and shall not
exceed 4 feet in width, except where specific information on use patterns justifies a
greater width. Marine floats shall not exceed 8 feet in width not more than 40 feet in
length and freshwater floats shall not exceed 6 feet in width and 20 feet in length
unless authorized by a variance. Exceptionally large vessels or vessels that require a
relatively deep draft may be required to use a buoy, other alternative mooring
scheme, or to moor in a marina. Materials that will allow light to pass through the
deck may be required where width exceeds 4 feet.
b. Dock surfaces designed to allow maximum light penetration shall be used on
walkways or gangplanks in nearshore areas.
c. Piers, docks and floats shall be located along a north/south orientation to the
maximum extent feasible.
d. The surface of new piers, docks and floats shall provide at least 50% functional
grating.
4. Waterward of the ordinary high water mark, pier and dock height may not exceed a
height of five feet above water level, except that pilings may extend a reasonable amount
above dock height to provide for tidal conditions.
5. Prohibited substances. No part of a pier, dock or other components that may come in
contact with the water may be treated with or consist, in whole or in part, of creosote, oil
based paints, toxic chemicals, or other substances that would be harmful to the aquatic
environment, unless specifically permitted and authorized by appropriate state and
federal regulatory agencies.
6. If the pier, dock or float will extend waterward of the inner harbor line, the applicant
must obtain a lease from the Department of Natural Resources prior to proposing this use.
7. No structure regulated under this section, other than moorage structures and sheds
associated with gas and oil sales for boats, may be waterward of the ordinary high water
mark.
D. Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats - Shoreline Area Regulations
1. Urban Railroad: Moorage structures are prohibited.
2. Urban Mixed Use I:
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 68 of 160
Packet Pg. 224
7.1.b
a. Private, shared, public and commercial moorage structures are permitted subject to
the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
b. Aircraft moorage is prohibited, except that aircraft may be temporarily moored (not to
exceed 36 hours) in the event of severe weather conditions.
c. Moorage structures and facilities located may not be located waterward of public
parks, public beaches, or public facilities, nor may they be located so as to obstruct
waterward view from these public uses.
d. Permitted Accessory Uses:
i. Boat and motor sales
ii. Boat repair and service, including dry docks, boat yards and similar activities
iii. Boat motor/engine repair and service; provided, that commercial boat
motor/engine repair involving complete engine overhaul or rebuilding shall take
place within a building or be screened from public view.
iv. Pumping facilities to remove effluent from boat holding tanks
v. Dry land boat storage; provided, however, that stacked storage shall not be
permitted to exceed the maximum permitted height in the Urban Mixed Use I
shoreline environment.
vi. Meeting and special event rooms.
vii. Gas and oil sales for boats, if;
A. All storage tanks are underground and located upland of the ordinary high
water mark; and
B. The use has facilities to contain and clean up gas and oil spills.
C. Gas and oil sales may be conducted with an Overwater shed that is not more
than 150 square feet in area and 15 feet in height as measured from the top of
the deck.
viii. Waste oil storage tanks not to exceed 500 gallons may be located above ground.
Hazardous waste may be stored temporarily above ground in not more than nine
55-gallon drums. Such drums shall have secondary containment. Waste oil and
hazardous storage tanks for the temporary storage of wastes and hazardous
substances which exceed these standards, shall be placed underground. No tank
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 69 of 160
Packet Pg. 225
7.1.b
of any kind intended for the permanent storage of waste or hazardous substances
shall be permitted.
3. Urban Mixed Use II
a. Private, shared, public and commercial moorage structures are permitted subject to
the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
b. Aircraft moorage, except that aircraft may be temporarily moored (not to exceed 36
hours) in the event of severe weather conditions.
Moorage structures and facilities located may not be located waterward of public
parks, public beaches, or public facilities, nor may they be located so as to obstruct
waterward view from these public uses.
d. Permitted Accessory Uses:
i. Boat and motor sales
ii. Boat repair and service, including dry docks, boat yards and similar activities
iii. Boat motor/engine repair and service; provided, that commercial boat
motor/engine repair involving complete engine overhaul or rebuilding shall take
place within a building or be screened from public view.
iv. Pumping facilities to remove effluent from boat holding tanks
v. Dry land boat storage; provided, however, that stacked storage shall not be
permitted to exceed the maximum permitted height in the Urban Mixed Use I
shoreline environment.
vi. Meeting and special event rooms.
vii. Gas and oil sales for boats, if;
A. All storage tanks are underground and located upland of the ordinary high
water mark; and
B. The use has facilities to contain and clean up gas and oil spills.
C. Gas and oil sales may be conducted with an Overwater shed that is not more
than 150 square feet in area and 15 feet in height as measured from the top of
the deck.
viii. Waste oil storage tanks not to exceed 500 gallons may be located above ground.
Hazardous waste may be stored temporarily above ground in not more than nine
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP
Page 70 of 160
Packet Pg. 226
7.1.b
55-gallon drums. Such drums shall have secondary containment. Waste oil and
hazardous storage tanks for the temporary storage of wastes and hazardous
substances which exceed these standards, shall be placed underground. No tank
of any kind intended for permanent storage of waste or hazardous substances shall
be permitted.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Moorage structures are prohibited.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Moorage structures are prohibited.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Moorage structures are prohibited.
7. Shoreline Residential II: Moorage structures are prohibited.
8. Shoreline Residential III
a. Moorage structures and facilities may only be permitted and used accessory to
detached dwelling units on waterfront lots. Use of the moorage structure and
facilities is limited to the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the
moorage is accessory. Moorage space may not be leased, rented, sold, or otherwise
made available to other than the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which
the moorage is accessory.
b. Accessory uses are not permitted in conjunction with moorage structure.
c. Residential Moorage Structure Development Standards:
i. Height. The height of a residential dock or pier shall not exceed five feet above
the ordinary high water mark. The height of attendant pilings shall not exceed five
feet above the ordinary high water mark or that height necessary to provide for
temporary emergency protection of floating docks as determined in accord with
generally accepted engineering practices.
ii. Length. The length of any residential dock or pier shall not exceed the lesser of 35
feet or the average length of existing docks or piers within 300 feet of the subject
dock or pier.
iii. Width. The width of any residential dock or pier shall not exceed 25 percent of
the lot width when measured parallel to the shoreline. A joint use dock located at
the property line with another lot which shares the joint use dock may not exceed
25% the total of both lots.
iv. Setbacks. All residential docks or piers shall observe a minimum 10-foot side
yard setback from a property line or a storm drainage outfall. Joint use docks or
piers may be located on the side property line; provided, that the abutting
waterfront property owners shall file a joint use maintenance agreement with the
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 71 of 160
Packet Pg. 227
7.1.b
Snohomish County auditor in conjunction with, and as a condition of, the issuance
of a building permit. Joint use docks or piers shall observe all other regulations of
this subsection. If such joint maintenance agreement is terminated, the dock or
pier shall be brought into compliance with the bulk and set back provisions of this
Master Program.
v. Number. No lot shall have more than one dock or pier or portion thereof located
on the lot.
vi. Size. No residential dock or pier shall exceed 400 square feet.
vii. Floats. Offshore recreational floats are prohibited.
viii. Covered Buildings. No covered building shall be allowed on any residential dock
or pier.
9. Aquatic I
a. Private, shared, and public moorage structures are permitted subject to the policies
and regulations of this Master Program.
b. If the subject property provides moorage for not more than two boats, the following
setbacks apply:
i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 25 feet of a public park.
ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on
the subject property.
iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet for moorage structures, provided that
joint or shared moorage facilities may be located within the setback from the lot
with whom the facility is shared.
c. If the subject property provides moorage for more than two boats, the following
setbacks apply:
i. No moorage structure on private property maybe within 100 feet of a public park.
ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on
the subject property.
iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet.
10. Aquatic II
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 72 of 160
Packet Pg. 228
7.1.b
a. Private, shared, public and commercial moorage structures are permitted subject to
the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
b. No moorage structure on private property maybe within 100 feet of a public park.
No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the
subject property.
d. The side property line setback is 10 feet.
11. Conservancy
a. Moorage structures and facilities may only be permitted and used accessory to
detached dwelling units on waterfront lots. Use of the moorage structure and
facilities is limited to the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the
moorage is accessory. Moorage space may not be leased, rented, sold, or otherwise
made available to other than the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which
the moorage is accessory.
b. Moorage structures and facilities may not provide moorage for more than two boats;
provided, however, that waterfront lots are encourage to develop joint or shared
moorage facilities. If this occurs, the joint or shared moorage facility may contain up
to two moorages for each waterfront lot participating in the joint or shared moorage
facility.
c. Accessory uses are not permitted in conjunction with moorage structure.
d. If the subject property provides moorage for not more than two boats, the following
setbacks apply:
i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 25 feet of a public park
ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on
the subject property.
iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet.
e. If the subject property provides moorage for more than two boats, the following
setbacks apply:
i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 100 feet of a public park
ii. No moorage structure may be with 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the
subject property.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 73 of 160
Packet Pg. 229
7.1.b
iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet for moorage structures, provided that
joint or shared moorage facilities may be located within the setback from the lot
with whom the facility is shared.
12. Natural. Moorage structures are prohibited.
24.50.040 Landfill
A. Applicability.
Landfill is the creation of or addition to the surface of the land by the filling, placement
or depositing of sand, soil, or gravel, or other material on land covered by water, or in a
wetland, march, bog, swamp, or similar water detention area. Landfill is normally done
for and, in this Master Program, must be associated with a specific purpose or use such as
the development of a commercial site, construction of roadways or a jetty.
2. When backfill of bulkhead involves over one cubic yard per lineal foot, such bulkheads
shall be evaluated under both this section and ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline stabilization.
B. Fill Policies
Landfill should only be permitted to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate an
approved shoreline use or development and with assurance of no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions and processes. Enhancement and voluntary restoration of landforms
and habitat are encouraged.
2. Allow landfills waterward of the ordinary high water mark, in those limited
circumstances where permitted, only when necessary to facilitate water -dependent uses
or ecological restoration projects that are consistent with this program and the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plans. Where feasible, public access to the shoreline and the
water should be incorporated into the design.
C. Landfill Regulations
1. Landfill water ward of the ordinary high water mark may be permitted as a conditional
use in limited instances for the following purposes only, with due consideration given to
specific site conditions, and only in conjunction with approved shoreline use and
development activities that are consistent with this program:
a. Water -dependent use permitted under this Master Program.
b. To create public use or public recreation areas.
c. Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency
environmental clean-up plan.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 74 of 160
Packet Pg. 230
7.1.b
d. Disposal of dredged material considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance
with the dredged material management program of the Department of Natural
Resources.
Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance currently
located on the shoreline and then only upon a demonstration that alternatives to fill
are not feasible.
f. Mitigation action, environmental restoration, beach nourishment or enhancement
projects.
2. Landfills shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that:
a. The project has been located, designed, and constructed in a manner that minimizes
impacts to ecological processes and functions and where impacts cannot be avoided,
mitigation is provided to achieve no net loss.
b. The fill will not result in erosion of the shoreline or undermine stability of
neighboring properties.
c. The fill is the minimum necessary to reasonably accomplish the purpose for the fill
under subsection C.1 of this section.
d. Where existing public access will be reduced, equivalent public access has been
provided on or off site as part of the project.
e. Fill material consists only of soil, sand, rock, or gravel. The fill material must not
contain organic or inorganic materials that would be detrimental to water quality or
existing habitats.
f. Placement of landfill will be timed so as to minimize damage to water quality and
aquatic life.
3. The applicant must stabilize exposed fill areas with vegetation.
4. Landfills, beach nourishment and excavation shall be designed to blend physically and
visually with existing topography whenever possible, so as not to interfere with long term
appropriate use including lawful access and enjoyment of scenery.
5. A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan shall be provided for all proposed
landfill and excavation activities.
6. The fill shall be designed and supervised by a civil engineer or similarly qualified
professional. The professional shall certify that the fill meets the following requirements:
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 75 of 160
Packet Pg. 231
7.1.b
a. The fill is designed and executed to minimize adverse impacts on neighboring
properties and the environment, and is fully integrated into an otherwise approved
facility.
b. The fill is designed and executed to provide permanent structural integrity for the fill
and surrounding areas.
D. Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information:
1. Proposed use of the landfill area.
2. Analysis of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the fill material
demonstrating that the fill is of such quality that significant water quality, ecological
impacts, and public health problems would not occur from its placement.
3. Fill must meet all state standards. Assessment of water quality impacts shall be included
as an attachment.
4. Source of the landfill material.
5. Location of the landfill relating to natural or existing drainage patterns.
6. Location of the perimeter of the landfill relating to the ordinary high water mark and
critical areas. The applicant should consult with the Department of Ecology in
determining the location of the ordinary high water mark. For development proposals at
or water ward of the ordinary high water mark, an OHWM field determination by a
qualified professional shall be provided with the application. The field determination
shall be consistent with guidance development by the Department of Ecology and is
subject to verification by the city of Edmonds and the Department of Ecology.
7. Perimeter erosion control or stabilization means, and schedule for implementation.
8. Type of surfacing and run-off control and treatment devices.
E. Shoreline Area Regulations
1. Urban Railroad: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Program.
2. Urban Mixed Use L• Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this
program.
3. Urban Mixed Use I1: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this
program.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP
Page 76 of 160
Packet Pg. 232
7.1.b
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this
program.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this
program.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of
this program.
7. Shoreline Residential II: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of
this program.
8. Shoreline Residential III: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of
this program.
9. Aquatic I: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Program.
10. Aquatic II: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Program.
11. Conservancy: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Program.
12. Natural: Landfill may be allowed as a conditional use when necessary to protect or
restore shoreline ecological functions subject to policies and regulations of this program.
24.50.050 Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs
A. Applicability:
A breakwater is a protective structure usually built offshore to protect harbor areas, moorage,
navigation or beaches from wave action. A jetty, groin or weir is a structure usually built
singly or in pairs perpendicular to the shore to prevent shoaling or accretion of sediment drift.
Projects the requiring fill must also meet the requirements of ECDC 24.50.040, Landfill.
B. Breakwaters, Jetties, Groins, and Weirs Policies
1. Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs located waterward of the ordinary high watermark
shall be allowed only where necessary to support water -dependent uses, public access,
shoreline stabilization, or other specific public purpose.
2. Open pile or floating breakwater designs are preferred.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 77 of 160
Packet Pg. 233
7.1.b
3. Solid rock or fill -based weirs, groins and jetties should not be constructed unless it can be
demonstrated that they are part of a larger system that will reduce the need for overall
shoreline modification and that they are intended to prevent damage to existing
structures. They should not be proposed to protect new structures.
C. Breakwaters, Jetties, Groins, and Weirs Regulations
1. Breakwaters, Jetties, Groins and Weirs may be allowed provided that:
a. Jetties and breakwaters are permitted where they are an integral component of a
professionally designed harbor, marina, or port. Where permitted, floating portable
or submerged breakwater structures, or small discontinuous structures are preferred
where physical conditions make such alternatives with less impact feasible.
b. Groins are permitted as a component of a professionally designed community or
public beach management program that encompasses an entire drift sector or reach
for which alternatives are infeasible. Or where installed to protect or restore shoreline
ecological functions.
c. The breakwater is essential to the safe operation of a moorage facility.
d. The city determines that the location, size, design and accessory components of the
moorage facility to be protected by the breakwater provide a public benefit and are
within the public interest.
e. The breakwater, jetty, groin, or weir is designed to protect critical areas and where
impacts are unavoidable, mitigation will be provided to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions and processes.
2. Public Access:
a. Where appropriate projects shall be required to maintain, replace or enhance existing
public access opportunities by incorporating physical or visual access areas and/or
facilities into the design of the project.
b. Publicly financed or subsidized projects shall not restrict appropriate public access to
the shoreline and shall provide new public access except where such access is
determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to
shoreline ecological functions.
3. All breakwaters, jetties, groins, or weirs must be designed and constructed under the
supervision of a civil engineer or similarly qualified professional. As part of the
application, the engineer or other professional designing the project must certify that:
a. The project is designed to meet the requirements of this Program and accomplish the
purpose of the project using the best available science.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP
Page 78 of 160
Packet Pg. 234
7.1.b
b. The project is designed to be the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed
purpose.
c. The project is designed to have the minimum feasible adverse impacts upon the
environment, nearby waterfront properties, and navigation.
d. Any unavoidable impacts have been mitigated to ensure no net loss of ecological
functions and processes.
D. Breakwaters, Jetties, Groins, and Weirs — Shoreline Area Regulations.
1. Urban Railroad: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Program.
2. Urban Mixed Use I: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Program.
3. Urban Mixed Use II: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Program.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are prohibited.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Program.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are prohibited.
7. Shoreline Residential II: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are prohibited.
8. Shoreline Residential III:
a. Bulkheads are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program.
b. Jetties, groins, and weirs are prohibited.
9. Aquatic I: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs may be permitted as a conditional use
subject to the policies and regulations of this Program.
10. Aquatic II: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs may be permitted as a conditional use
subject to the policies and regulations of this Program.
11. Conservancy:
a. Breakwaters and jetties maybe permitted as a conditional use if accessory to a water -
dependent use and littoral sediment transport is not significantly disrupted.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 79 of 160
Packet Pg. 235
7.1.b
b. Groins may be permitted as a conditional use when necessary to protect or restore
shoreline ecological functions subject to policies and regulations of this program.
12. Natural: Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs may be permitted as a conditional use
when necessary to protect or restore shoreline ecological functions subject to policies and
regulations of this program.
24.50.060 Dredging and dredge material disposal
A. Applicability.
Dredging is the removal or displacement of earth such as gravel, sand, mud, or silt from
lands covered by water. Lands covered by water include tidelands, marinas, and wetlands.
Dredging is normally done for, and in this Master Program must be associated with, a
specific purpose or use such as maintaining navigation channels, developing/expanding
marinas, constructing bridge footings, laying submarine cable and in some cases aquaculture
(See Aquaculture Section ECDC 24.60.010).
Dredging to restore preexisting contours within a designated and authorized navigation
channel, marina or basin is considered normal maintenance and is exempt from the
requirement for a substantial development permit. Dredging is only maintenance where there
is a designated and authorized facility such as a marina, federal navigation channel or berth
authorized by permit. If an operation expands an existing the channel or basin, a permit is
required even if the marina or similar project has been operation for years.
Dredge spoil is the material removed by dredging. Dredge spoil disposal is the depositing of
dredge materials on land or into water bodies for the purpose of either creating new or
additional lands or for disposing of the dredge material (See also, Landfill Section, ECDC
24.50.040).
B. Dredging and dredge material policies
1. Site and design new development to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need
for new and maintenance dredging.
2. Dredging waterward of the ordinary high water mark for the primary purpose of
obtaining fill material shall not be allowed, except when the material is necessary for the
restoration of ecological functions.
3. Dredging should be permitted for water -dependent uses of economic importance to the
region and/or essential public facilities only when necessary and when alternatives are
infeasible or less consistent with this Program.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 80 of 160
Packet Pg. 236
7.1.b
4. Plan and conduct dredge and dredge disposal operations in a manner that avoids or
minimizes interference with navigation and significant ecological impacts. Impacts
which cannot be avoided should be mitigated in a manner that assures no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
S. Minor dredging for fill materials as part of ecological restoration or enhancement, beach
nourishment, public access or public recreation should be permitted if consistent with this
Program.
C. Dredging and dredge material regulations
1. Dredging shall only be permitted for the following activities:
a. Development of approved wet moorages, harbors, ports and water -dependent
industries of economic importance to the region only when there are no feasible
alternatives.
b. Maintenance dredging for the purpose of restoring a lawfully established
development.
c. Establishing, expanding, relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels where
necessary to assure safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses.
Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins shall be
restricted to maintaining previously dredge and/or existing authorized location, depth,
and width.
d. To remove silt or sediment deposited because of severe and unusual erosion or
resulting from the existence of a bulkhead on nearby property.
e. To provide sufficient draft for boat moorage.
f. Restoration or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions and processes
benefiting water quality and/or fish and wildlife habitat.
g. Dredging waterward of the ordinary high water mark for the primary purpose of
obtaining fill material shall not be allowed, except when the material is necessary for
the restoration of ecological functions. When allowed, the site where the fill is to be
placed must be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The project must
be either associated with a MRCA or CERCLA habitat restoration project or, if
approved through a shoreline conditional use permit, any other significant habitat
enhancement project.
2. The existing physical alignment and ecological function and processes shall be
maintained, except to improve hydraulic function, water quality, fish or wildlife habitat,
or fish passage.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 81 of 160
Packet Pg. 237
7.1.b
3. New development shall be sited and designed avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize
the need for new and/or maintenance dredging.
4. Dredge Spoils.
a. Dredge spoil disposal in open waters may be approved only in accordance with the
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) evaluation procedures for
managing in -water disposal of dredge material; when approved by applicable
agencies, which may include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to section
109Rivers and harbors ActO and Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permits, and
Washington State Department of fish and Wildlife hydraulic Project approval (HPA);
and when found to meet the following conditions.
i. Land disposal is infeasible, less consistent with this Program, or prohibited by
law.
ii. Nearshore disposal as part of a program to restore or enhance shoreline ecological
functions and processes is not feasible.
iii. Offshore habitat will be protected, restored, or enhanced.
iv. Adverse effects on water quality or biologic resources from contaminated
materials will be mitigated.
v. Shifting and dispersal of spoil will be minimal.
vi. Water quality will not be adversely affected.
b. Dredging spoils may be used as fill or landscape material for a development in the
shoreline areas that is otherwise approved by the city under this Program (ECDC
24.50.040).
The city may permit dredging spoils to be temporarily deposited in the shoreline area
for transfer and removal to an approved disposal site. The dredging spoils may not be
stored in the shoreline area longer than is reasonably necessary and must be stored in
a manner that will protect the environment and neighboring properties from
undesirable effect and adverse impacts.
d. Dredge spoil disposal is prohibited on marine shorelines between the line of extreme
low tide and the ordinary high water mark, and on Lake Ballinger shorelines or beds;
except that, dredge spoil may be used in approved projects for the restoration or
enhancement of shoreline ecological functions and processes, such as beach
nourishment.
e. The City may impose reasonable limitation on dredge disposal operating periods and
hours and may require provision for buffer strips at land disposal sites.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 82 of 160
Packet Pg. 238
7.1.b
5. Proposals for dredging and dredge spoil disposal, when permitted, shall:
a. Be kept to the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed use.
b. Include all feasible mitigating measures to protect habitats and to minimize adverse
impacts such as turbidity, release of nutrients, heavy metals, sulfides, organic
materials, or toxic substances, depletion of oxygen, disruption of food chains, loss of
benthic productivity, and disturbance of fish runs and important localized biological
communities.
Be scheduled so as to not materially interfere with the migratory movements of
anadromous fish.
d. Utilize techniques that cause minimum dispersal and broadcast of bottom material
e. Not interfere with geohydraulic processes.
f. Be found, through analysis by qualified professional, to be nonpolluting or shall have
no significant negative pollution impact.
g. Meet all requirements of applicable regulatory agencies.
h. Not result in erosion of the shoreline or undermine the stability of neighboring
properties.
D. Dredging and Dredge Material Application. Applications for shoreline dredging and dredge
spoil disposal shall provide, at a minimum, the following information:
1. A description of the purpose of the proposed dredging and an analysis of compliance with
the policies and regulations of this Program.
2. A detailed description of the existing physical character, shoreline geomorphology and
biological resources provided by the area proposed to be dredged, including:
a. A site plan map outlining the perimeter of the proposed dredge area. The map must
also include the existing bathymetry depths based on Mean Lower Low Water
(MLLW) and have data points at a minimum of 2-foot depth increments.
b. A habitat survey must be conducted and WDFW must be contacted to ensure the
survey is conducted according to the most recent WDFW eelgrass/macroalgae survey
guidelines.
Information on stability of bedlands adjacent to proposed dredging and spoils
disposal areas.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 83 of 160
Packet Pg. 239
7.1.b
3. A detailed description of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the
dredge spoils to be removed, including:
a. Physical analysis of material to be dredged: material composition and amount, grain
size, organic materials present, source of material, etc.
b. Chemical analysis of material to be dredged: volatile solids, chemical oxygen demand
(COD), grease and oil content, mercury, lead and zinc content, etc.
c. Biological analysis of material to be dredged.
4. A description of the method of materials removal, including facilities for settlement and
movement.
a. Dredging procedure: length of time it will take to complete dredging, method of
dredging and amount of materials removed.
b. Frequency and quantity of project maintenance dredging.
5. Detailed plans for dredge spoil disposal, including specific land disposal sites and
relevant information on the disposal site, including but not limited to:
a. Spoils disposal area:
i. Physical characteristics including location, topography, existing drainage
patterns, surface and ground water;
ii. Size and capacity of disposal site;
iii. Means of transportation to the disposal site;
iv. Proposed dewatering and stabilization of spoils;
v. Methods of controlling erosion and sedimentation; and
vi. Future use of the site and conformance with land use policies and regulations.
b. Total initial spoils volume.
c. Plan for disposal of maintenance spoils.
6. Hydraulic modeling studies sufficient to identify existing geo-hydraulic patterns and
probable effects of dredging.
E. Dredging and dredge material disposal — Shoreline Area Regulations
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 84 of 160
Packet Pg. 240
7.1.b
1. Urban Railroad: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
2. Urban Mixed Use L• Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies
and regulations of this Program.
3. Urban Mixed Use II: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies
and regulations of this Program.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an
essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the
policies and regulations of this Program.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an
essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the
policies and regulations of this Program.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an
essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the
policies and regulations of this Program.
7. Shoreline Residential II: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an
essential element of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the
policies and regulations of this Program.
8. Shoreline Residential III: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
9. Aquatic I: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and
regulations of this Program. Maintenance dredging pursuant to ECDC 24.50.060.C. Lb
and .c is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program without a
conditional use permit provided the original constructed bottom contours have been
established and documented in a prior shoreline permit authorization.
10. Aquatic II: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and
regulations of this Program. Maintenance dredging pursuant to ECDC 24.50.060.C. Lb
and .c is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program without a
conditional use permit provided the original constructed bottom contours have been
established and documented in a prior shoreline permit authorization.
11. Conservancy: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Program.
12. Natural: Dredging is prohibited except that dredging is permitted as an essential element
of an approved shore restoration or enhancement plan, subject to the policies and
regulations of this Program.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 85 of 160
Packet Pg. 241
7.1.b
24.50.070 Shoreline habitat and natural systems restoration and
enhancement projects
A. Applicability. Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects include those
activities proposed and conducted specifically for the purpose of establishing, restoring, or
enhancing habitat for priority species in shorelines.
B. Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Restoration and Enhancement Projects Policies
1. This program recognizes the importance of the restoration of shoreline ecological
functions and processes and encourages cooperative restoration efforts and programs
between local, state and federal agencies, tribes, non-profit organizations, and landowners
to address shorelines with impaired ecological functions and/or processes.
2. Restoration and enhancement actions should restore shoreline ecological functions and
processes as well as shoreline features and should be targeted towards meeting the needs
of sensitive and/or locally important plant, fish and wildlife species.
3. Priority should be given to restoration and enhancement actions that:
a. Create dynamic and sustainable ecosystems.
b. Improve water quality.
Restore native vegetation and natural hydrologic functions of degraded and former
wetlands.
d. Restore nearshore ecosystems processes, such as sediment transport and delivery and
tidal currents that create and sustain habitat.
e. Restore freshwater, nearshore, and estuarine habitat and habitat -forming processes.
f. Mitigate erosive and associated impacts caused by stormwater runoff.
g. Protect and restore wildlife corridors.
h. Protect and restore native species of vegetation, fish, and wildlife.
C. Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Restoration and Enhancement Projects Regulations.
Restoration shall be carried out in accordance with the approved shoreline restoration plan
and in accordance with the policies and regulation of this Program.
D. Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Restoration and Enhancement Projects — Shoreline
Area Regulations
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 86 of 160
Packet Pg. 242
7.1.b
1. Urban Railroad: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of
this Program.
2. Urban Mixed Use I: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
3. Urban Mixed Use II: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
7. Shoreline Residential II: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
8. Shoreline Residential III: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
9. Aquatic I: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this
Program.
10. Aquatic II: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this
Program.
11. Conservancy: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of
this Program.
12. Natural: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this
Program.
Part VI Specific Use Policies & Regulations
24.60.000 Applicability
Shoreline use and development shall be classified by the Administrator and regulated under one
or more of the following applicable sections of this Chapter. Unless otherwise stated, all use and
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 87 of 160
Packet Pg. 243
7.1.b
development shall also comply with all of the General Policy and Regulations in Part IV of this
Program and all of the Specific Modification Policies and Regulations in Part V of this Program.
24.60.010 Aquaculture
A. Applicability
Aquaculture is the farming or culture of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants or animals
any may require development such as fish hatcheries, rearing pens and structures, and shellfish
rafts, as well as use of natural spawning and rearing areas. Aquaculture does not include the
harvest of free-swimming fish or the harvest of shellfish not artificially planted or maintained.
B. Aquaculture Policies
1. Aquaculture is a water -dependent use and, when consistent with control of pollution and
avoidance of adverse impacts to the environment and preservation of habitat for resident
native species, is a preferred use of the shoreline.
2. Potential locations for aquaculture activities are relatively restricted because of specific
requirements related to water quality, temperature, oxygen content, currents, adjacent
land use, wind protection, commercial navigation, and salinity. The technology
associated with some forms of aquaculture is still experimental and in formative states.
Therefore, some latitude should be given when implementing the regulations of this
section, provided that potential impacts on existing uses and shoreline ecological
functions and processes should be given due consideration.
3. Preference should be given to those forms of aquaculture that involve lesser
environmental and visual impacts and lesser impacts to native plant and animal species.
In general, projects that require no structures, submerged structures or intertidal
structures are preferred over those that involve substantial floating structures. Projects
the involve little or no substrate modification are preferred over those that involve
substantial modification. Projects that involve little or no supplemental food sources,
pesticides, herbicides or antibiotic application are preferred over those that involve such
practices.
4. Aquaculture activities should be designed, located and operated in a manner that supports
long term beneficial use of the shoreline and protects and maintains shoreline ecological
functions and processes.
5. Aquaculture should not be permitted where it would resulting a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions; adversely affect the quality or extent of habitat of native species
including eelgrass, kelp, and other macroalgae; adversely impact other habitat
conservation areas; or interfere with navigation or other water -dependent uses.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP
Page 88 of 160
Packet Pg. 244
7.1.b
6. Aquaculture facilities should be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native
aquatic life, establish new nonnative species which cause significant ecological impacts,
or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
7. The City should actively seek substantive comment on any shoreline permit application
for aquaculture form all appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; affected tribes;
and the general public regarding potential adverse impacts. Comments of nearby
residents or property owners directly affected by a proposal should be considered and
evaluated, especially in regard to use compatibility and aesthetics.
C. Aquaculture Regulations
Aquaculture that involves little or no substrate modification shall be given preference
over those that involve substantial modification. The application/proponent shall
demonstrate that the degree of proposed substrate modification is the minimum necessary
for feasible aquaculture operations at the site.
2. The installation of submerged structures, intertidal structures, and floating structures shall
be allowed only when the applicant/proponent demonstrates that no alternative method of
operation is feasible.
3. Aquaculture proposals that involve substantial substrate modification or sedimentation
through dredging, trenching, digging, mechanical harvesting, or other similar
mechanisms, shall not be permitted in areas where the proposal would adversely impact
existing kelp beds or other macroalgae, eelgrass beds or habitat conservation areas.
4. Aquaculture activities, which would have a significant adverse impact on natural
dynamic shoreline processes or which would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions, shall be prohibited.
5. Aquaculture practices shall be designed to minimize use of artificial substances and shall
use chemical compounds that are least persistent and have the least impact on plants and
animals.
6. If uncertainty exists regarding potential impacts of a proposed aquaculture activity, and
for all experimental aquaculture activities, baseline and periodic operational monitoring
by a City -approved consultant (unless otherwise provided for) may be required, at the
applicant's/proponent's expense, and shall continue until adequate information is
available to determine the success of the project and/or the magnitude of any probable
significant adverse environmental impacts. Permits for such activities shall include
specific performance measures and provisions for adjustment or termination of the
project at any time if monitoring indicates significant, adverse environmental impacts that
cannot be adequately mitigated.
7. New aquatic species that have not previously been cultivated in Washington State shall
not be introduced into City of Edmonds waters without prior written approval of the
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 89 of 160
Packet Pg. 245
7.1.b
Director of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Director of the
Washington Department of Health.
8. For aquaculture projects using over -water structures, storage of necessary tools and
apparatus waterward of the ordinary high water mark shall be limited to containers of not
more than 3 feet in height, as measured from the surface of the raft or dock.
9. No processing of any aquaculture product, except for the sorting or culling of the cultured
organism and the washing or removal of surface materials or organisms after harvest,
shall occur in or over the water unless specifically approved by permit. All other
processing and processing facilities shall be located on land and shall be subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
10. Aquaculture wastes shall be disposed of in a manner that will ensure strict compliance
with all applicable governmental waste disposal standards, including but not limited to
the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water Pollution
Control Act (RCW 90.480. No garbage, wastes or debris shall be allowed to accumulate
at the site of any aquaculture operation.
11. Predator control shall not involve the killing or harassment of birds or mammals.
Approved controls include, but are not limited to, double netting for seals, overhead
netting for birds, and 3-foot high fencing or netting for otters. The use of other non-
lethal, non -abusive predator control measures shall be contingent upon receipt of written
approval form the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, as required.
12. All floating and submerged aquaculture structures and facilities in navigable waters shall
be marked in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard requirements.
D. Aquaculture Application Requirements
1. Applications for aquaculture use or development shall include in their applications all
information necessary to conduct a thorough evaluation of the proposed aquaculture
activity, including but not limited to the following:
a. A site plan map including:
i. The perimeter of the proposed aquaculture operations area.
ii. Existing bathymetry depths based on Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW datum).
iii. Adjacent upland use, vegetation, presence of structures, docks, bulkheads and
other modifications. If there are shore stabilization structures, provide the beach
elevation at the toe of the structure and the top of the structure (MLLW datum).
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 90 of 160
Packet Pg. 246
7.1.b
iv. Areas where specific substrate modification will take place or structures will be
constructed or installed.
v. Access provisions for barges or track equipment.
vi. Location of storage or processing structures or facilities.
b. A baseline description of existing conditions, including best available information on;
a
i. Water quality. E
M
L
ii. Tidal variations. o
a
L
iii. Prevailing storm wind conditions.
M
iv. Current flows. d
c
as
L
v. Flushing rates. 0
co
vi. Littoral drift.
Ln
vii. Areas of differing substrate composition. 00
viii. Areas of aquatic, intertidal, and upland vegetation complexes.
ix. Existing shoreline or water uses and structures.
x. Aquatic and benthic organisms.
xi. A vegetation habitat survey must be conducted. The WDFW must be contacted
prior to the survey to ensure it is conducted according to the most current WDFW
eelgrass/macroalgae survey guidelines.
xii. Further baseline studies including surveys and sampling may be required
depending upon the adequacy of available information, existing conditions, and
the nature of the proposal.
c. A detailed description of the project proposal including:
i. Species to be reared.
ii. Substrate modification or vegetation removal.
iii. Planting, harvest and processing location, method and timing, including work
proposal and construction techniques proposed, type of work, frequency, and
duration.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 91 of 160
Packet Pg. 247
7.1.b
d. Anticipated use of any feed, pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, vaccines, growth
stimulants, antifouling agents, or other chemicals, and an assessment of predicted
impacts. No such materials shall be used until approval is obtained from all
appropriate State and Federal agencies, including but not limited to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, and the Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and
Wildlife, and Agriculture, as required, and proof thereof is submitted to the City.
Compounds with the least persistence shall be used.
Number of employees/workers necessary for the project, including average and peak
employment.
f. Methods of waste disposal and predator control.
g. Methods to address pollutant loading, including biological oxygen demand (BOD).
h. Assessment of potential impacts on shoreline ecological functions and processes
addressing the baseline conditions identified, including but not limited to indirect
cumulative effects.
i. For floating culture facilities or other structures, the City may require a visual impact
analysis. Depending on the size and complexity of the proposal, such analysis may
be prepared by the applicant/proponent, without professional assistance, provided that
it includes an adequate assessment of impacts.
Information demonstrating that the site has natural potential for the type(s) of
aquaculture proposed, due to necessary substrate or other conditions, as well as water
quality suitable for the type(s) of aquaculture proposed.
k. Information demonstrating that the proposed aquaculture activities will not result in a
net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes or adversely affect habitat
conservation areas.
Information demonstrating that the proposed aquaculture activities will not
substantially and materially conflict with areas devoted to established uses of the
aquatic environment. Such uses include but are not limited to navigation, moorage,
sport or commercial fishing, log rafting, underwater utilities, and scientific research.
Existing public opportunities for gather wild stock aquatic resources on public lands
shall be address in any application for aquaculture on public tidelands or bedlands.
Compensation for loss of public access to public aquatic resources may be required.
2. Application for aquaculture activities must demonstrate that the proposed activity will be
compatible with surrounding existing and planned uses.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 92 of 160
Packet Pg. 248
7.1.b
a. Aquaculture activates shall comply with all applicable noise, air, and water quality
standards. All projects shall be designed, operated and maintained to minimize odor
and noise.
b. Aquaculture activities shall be restricted to reasonable hours and/or days of operation
when necessary to minimize substantial, adverse impact from noise, light, and/or
glare on nearby residents, other sensitive uses or critical habitat.
c. Aquaculture facilities shall not introduce incompatible visual elements or
substantially degrade the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Aquaculture structures
and equipment, except navigation aids, shall be designed, operated and maintained to
blend into their surroundings through the use of appropriate colors and materials.
E. Aquaculture — Shoreline Area Regulations
1. Urban Railroad: Aquaculture is prohibited.
2. Urban Mixed Use 1• Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
3. Urban Mixed Use II: Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Aquaculture is prohibited.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to
policies and regulations of this Program.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Aquaculture is prohibited.
7. Shoreline Residential II: Aquaculture is prohibited.
8. Shoreline Residential III: Aquaculture is prohibited.
9. Aquatic I: Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
10. Aquatic II• Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
11. Conservancy: Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and
regulations of this Program.
12. Natural: Aquaculture activities that do not require structures, facilities, or mechanized
harvest practices, and that will not result in the alteration of natural systems or features
may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 93 of 160
Packet Pg. 249
7.1.b
24.60.020 Boating Facilities
A. Applicability
The section applies to facilities that provide launching, storage, supplies, moorage, and other
services for five or more pleasure and/or commercial watercraft. Commercial development,
not accessory to the operation of a marina, shall comply with ECDC 24.60.030, Commercial
Development. For the purposes of this section, boating facilities excludes docks serving four
or fewer single family residences which are subject to the policies and regulations of
ECDC 24.50.030, Piers, Docks and Floats.
B. Boating Facilities Policies
1. Boating facilities, including marinas and launch ramps, are water -dependent uses and
should be given priority for shoreline location. Boating facilities should contribute to
public access and enjoyment of waters of the state.
2. Boating facilities should provide physical and visual public shoreline access and provide
for multiple use, including water -related use, to the extent compatible with shoreline
ecological functions and processes and adjacent shoreline use.
3. Accessory uses to boating facilities should be limited to water -oriented uses, or uses that
provide physical or visual shoreline access for substantial number of the general public.
4. Boating facilities shall be located, designed, constructed and operated in a manner that
will minimize damage to shoreline processes and functions. When impacts cannot be
avoided, impacts must be mitigated to assure no net loss of ecological function necessary
to sustain shoreline resources.
5. Boating facilities should be located, designed and operated so that other appropriate
water -dependent uses are not adversely affected.
6. Location and design of boating facilities should not unduly obstruct navigable waters and
should avoid adverse effects to recreation opportunities such as fishing, pleasure boating,
commercial aquaculture, swimming, beach walking, picnicking and shoreline viewing.
7. Boating facilities should be located, designed, constructed and maintained to avoid
adverse proximity impacts such as noise, light and glare; aesthetic impacts to adjacent
land uses; impacts to public visual access to the shoreline.
C. Boating Facilities Regulations
1. The following moorage structures are prohibited in the shoreline jurisdiction:
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 94 of 160
Packet Pg. 250
7.1.b
a. Aircraft moorage, except that aircraft may be temporarily moored (not to exceed 36
hours) in the event of severe weather conditions.
b. Covered moorage.
2. Marinas or launch ramps shall not be permitted within the following marine shoreline
habitats because of their scarcity, biological productivity and sensitivity unless no
alternative location is feasible, the project would not result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, and the proposal is otherwise consistent with this Program.
a. Marshes, estuaries and other wetlands;
b. Tidal pools and rock shores;
c. Kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and holding areas for forage fish(such as herring,
surf smelt and sand lance);
d. Subsistence, commercial and recreational shellfish beds; and
e. Other critical saltwater habitats
3. Boating facilities and accessory uses shall be designed so that lawfully existing or
planned public shoreline access and/or navigation rights are not unnecessarily blocked,
obstructed or made dangerous.
4. The boating facility shall be designed to avoid the need for maintenance dredging.
5. Boat Storage:
a. Marinas shall provide dry upland boat storage with a launch mechanism to protect
shoreline ecological functions and processes, efficient use shoreline space and
minimize consumption of public water surface area unless:
i. No suitable upland locations exist for such facilities; or
ii. It can be demonstrated that wet moorage would result in fewer impacts to
ecological functions and processes; or
iii. It can be demonstrated that wet moorage would enhance public use of the
shoreline.
b. Dry moorage and other storage areas should be located away from the shoreline and
be landscaped with native vegetation to provide a visual and noise buffer for
adjoining uses.
6. Waste Disposal.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 95 of 160
Packet Pg. 251
7.1.b
a. Marinas shall provide pump out, holding, and/or treatment facilities for sewage
contained on boats or vessels.
b. Discharge of solid waste of sewage into a water body is prohibited. Marinas and boat
launch ramps shall provide adequate restroom and sewage disposal facilities in
compliance with applicable health regulations.
c. Garbage or litter receptacles shall be provided and maintained by the operator at
several locations convenient to users.
d. Marina operators shall post all BMP's pertaining to handling, disposal and reporting
of waste, sewage, fuel, oil or toxic materials where all users may easily read them.
7. Oil Product Handling, Spills, and Wastes. Fail safe facilities and procedures for
receiving, storing, dispensing, and disposing of oil or hazardous projects, as well as a
spill response plan for oil and other products, shall be required of new marinas and
expansion or substantial alteration of existing marinas. Compliance with Federal or State
law may fulfill this requirement. Handling of fuels, chemicals or other toxic materials
must be in compliance with all applicable Federal and State water quality laws as well as
health, safety and engineering requirements. Spill prevention and response, including
report requirements, follow applicable Federal and State requirements.
8. Public Access. Marinas and boat launches shall provide public access for as many water -
dependent recreational uses as possible, commensurate with the scale of the proposal.
Features for such access could include but are not limited to docks and piers, pedestrian
bridges to offshore structures, fishing platforms, artificial pocket beaches, and underwater
diving and viewing platforms.
9. Prohibited substances. No part of a boating facility that may come in contact with the
water may be treated with or consist of creosote, oil based paints, toxic chemicals, or
other substances that would be harmful to the aquatic environment, unless specifically
permitted and authorized by appropriate State and Federal regulatory agencies.
10. If the boating facility will extend waterward of the inner harbor line or extended mooring
on waters of the state is proposed, the applicant must obtain a lease from the Department
of Natural Resources prior to proposing this use.
11. No structure regulated under this section, other than moorage structures, boat gear storage
lockers, and sheds associated with gas and oil sales for boats, may be waterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
D. Boating Facilities — Shoreline Area Regulations
1. Urban Railroad: Boating facilities are prohibited.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 96 of 160
Packet Pg. 252
7.1.b
2. Urban Mixed Use I
a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master
Program.
b. Permitted Accessory Uses:
i. Boat and motor sales
ii. Boat repair and service, including dry docks, boat yards and similar activities
iii. Boat motor/engine repair and service; provided, that commercial boat
motor/engine repair involving complete engine overhaul or rebuilding shall take
place within a building or be screened from public view.
iv. Pumping facilities to remove effluent from boat holding tanks
v. Dry land boat storage; provided, however, that stacked storage shall not be
permitted to exceed the maximum permitted height in the Urban Mixed Use I
shoreline environment.
vi. Meeting and special event rooms.
vii. Gas and oil sales for boats, if;
A. All storage tanks are underground and located upland of the ordinary high
water mark; and
B. The use has facilities to contain and clean up gas and oil spills.
C. Gas and oil sales may be conducted with an Overwater shed that is not more
than 150 square feet in area and 15 feet in height as measured from the top of
the deck.
viii. Boat launch ramps that meet the following requirements:
A. The ramp is paved with concrete.
B. There is sufficient room on the subject property for maneuvering and parking
so that traffic impact on the adjacent public right-of-way will not be
significant.
C. Access to the ramp is not directly from the adjacent public right-of-way.
D. The design of the site is specifically approved by the city.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 97 of 160
Packet Pg. 253
7.1.b
ix. Waste oil storage tanks not to exceed 500 gallons may be located above ground.
Hazardous waste may be stored temporarily above ground in not more than nine
55-gallon drums. Such drums shall have secondary containment. Waste oil and
hazardous storage tanks for the temporary storage of waste or hazardous
substances which exceed these standards must be place underground. No tank of
any kind intended for the permanent storage of waste or hazardous substances
shall be permitted
3. Urban Mixed Use II
a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master
Program.
b. Moorage structures and boating facilities may not be located waterward of public
parks, public beaches, or public facilities, nor may they be located so as to obstruct
waterward view from these public uses.
c. Permitted Accessory Uses:
i. Boat and motor sales
ii. Boat repair and service, including dry docks, boat yards and similar activities
ill. Boat motor/engine repair and service; provided, that commercial boat
motor/engine repair involving complete engine overhaul or rebuilding shall take
place within a building or be screened from public view.
iv. Pumping facilities to remove effluent from boat holding tanks
v. Meeting and special event rooms.
vi. Gas and oil sales for boats, if;
1. All storage tanks are underground and located upland of the ordinary high
water mark; and
2. The use has facilities to contain and clean up gas and oil spills.
3. Gas and oil sales may be conducted with an Overwater shed that is not more
than 150 square feet in area and 15 feet in height as measured from the top of
the deck.
vii. Boat launch ramps that meet the following requirements:
1. The ramp is paved with concrete.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 98 of 160
Packet Pg. 254
7.1.b
2. There is sufficient room on the subject property for maneuvering and parking
so that traffic impact on the adjacent public right-of-way will not be
significant.
3. Access to the ramp is not directly from the adjacent public right-of-way.
4. The design of the site is specifically approved by the city.
viii. Waste oil storage tanks not to exceed 500 gallons may be located above ground.
Hazardous waste may be stored temporarily above ground in not more than nine
55-gallon drums. Such drums shall have secondary containment. Waste oil and
hazardous storage tanks for the temporary storage of waste or hazardous
substances which exceed these standards must be placed underground. No tank of
any kind intended for the permanent storage of waste or hazardous substances
shall be permitted.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Boating facilities are prohibited.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Boating facilities are prohibited.
6. Shoreline Residential I. Boating facilities are prohibited.
7. Shoreline Residential II. Boating facilities are prohibited.
8. Shoreline Residential III
a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master
Program.
b. Accessory uses are not permitted in conjunction with moorage structure.
c. Moorage structures and boating facilities may only be developed and used accessory
to detached dwelling units on waterfront lots. Use of the moorage structure and
facilities is limited to the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the
moorage is accessory. Moorage space may not be leased, rented, sold, or otherwise
made available to other than the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which
the moorage is accessory.
9. Aquatic I
a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master
Program.
b. If the subject property provides moorage for not more than two boats, the following
setbacks apply:
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 99 of 160
Packet Pg. 255
7.1.b
i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 25 feet of a public park.
ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on
the subject property.
iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage
facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility.
c. If the subject property provides moorage for more than two boats, the following
setbacks apply:
i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 100 feet of a public park.
ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on
the subject property.
iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage
facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility.
d. Boat gear storage lockers shall not exceed 18 square feet in area and three feet in
height as measured from the top of the deck. Only one storage locker is permitted per
boat slip.
10. Aquatic II
a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master
Program.
b. No moorage structure on private property maybe within 100 feet of a public park.
No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the
subject property.
d. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage
facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility.
e. Boat gear storage lockers shall not exceed 18 square feet in area and three feet in
height as measured from the top of the deck. Only one storage locker is permitted per
boat slip. This provision does not apply to under covered moorage structures.
11. Conservancy
a. Boating facilities are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master
Program.
b. Accessory uses are not permitted in conjunction with boating facilities.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 100 of 160
Packet Pg. 256
7.1.b
Moorage structures and boating facilities may only be developed and used accessory
to detached dwelling units on waterfront lots. Use of the moorage structure and
facilities is limited to the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which the
moorage is accessory. Moorage space may not be leased, rented, sold, or otherwise
made available to other than the residents and guests of the waterfront lots to which
the moorage is accessory.
d. Moorage structures and boating facilities may not provide moorage for more than two
boats; provided, however, that waterfront lots are encourage to develop joint or
shared moorage facilities. If this occurs, the joint or shared moorage facility may
contain up to two moorages for each waterfront lot participating in the joint or shared
moorage facility.
e. If the subject property provides moorage for not more than two boats, the following
setbacks apply:
i. No moorage structure on private property may be within 25 feet of a public park.
ii. No moorage structure may be within 25 feet of another moorage structure not on
the subject property.
iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage
facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility.
f. If the subject property provides moorage for more than two boats, the following
setbacks apply:
i. No moorage structure on private property maybe within 100 feet of a public park.
ii. No moorage structure may be with 25 feet of another moorage structure not on the
subject property.
iii. The side property line setback is 10 feet, provided however that joint use moorage
facilities may be located within the setback with the lot which shares the facility.
12. Natural. Boating facilities are prohibited.
24.60.030 Commercial Development and Light Industrial
A. Applicability
Commercial development means those uses and facilities that are involved in wholesale or
retail trade or business activities. Examples include but are not limited to restaurants, hotels,
shops, offices, and recreation facilities. Industry applies to those businesses or uses involved
in the production, processing, manufacturing, or fabrication of goods. Warehousing and
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 101 of 160
Packet Pg. 257
7.1.b
storage of materials or products is considered part of the industrial process. This is a broad
category that mostly applies to the downtown Commercial Waterfront (CW) where
development must also comply with ECDC 16.55. Uses and activities associate with
commercial development that are identified as separate use activities in this Master Program,
such as Boating Facilities, Piers and Docks, Utilities, etc. are subject to the regulations
established for those uses in addition to the standards for commercial development.
The design, layout and operation of certain commercial uses directly affects their
classification with regard to whether or not they qualify as water related or water enjoyment
uses.
B. Commercial Development and Light Industrial Policies
In securing shoreline locations for commercial and light industrial use, preference should
be given first to water -dependent commercial uses, then to water -related, water -
enjoyment commercial uses.
2. Restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions and processes should be
encouraged as part of commercial and light industrial development.
3. Commercial and light industrial development should ensure visual compatibility with
adjacent noncommercial properties.
4. Commercial and light industrial uses located in the shoreline should provide public
access in accordance with constitutional or other legal limitations unless such
improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or present hazards to life and property
5. Commercial and light industrial development should be encouraged to locate where
environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline area can be incorporated.
C. Commercial Development and Light Industrial Regulations
1. Commercial and light industrial uses are allowed subject to the policies and regulations
of ECDC 24.40.020 and the specific criteria below:
a. Water -dependent commercial and light industrial uses shall be given preference over
water -related and water -enjoyment commercial uses. Prior to approval of water
dependent uses, the Administrator shall review a proposal for design, layout and
operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water -
dependent use.
b. Water -related commercial and light industrial uses may not be approved if the use
displaces existing water -dependent uses. Prior to approval of water -related
commercial uses, the Administrator shall review a proposal for design, layout and
operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water -
related use.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 102 of 160
Packet Pg. 258
7.1.b
Water -enjoyment commercial uses may not be approved if they displace existing
water -dependent or water -related uses. Prior to approval of water -enjoyment uses,
the Administrator shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use
and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water -enjoyment use.
d. Nonwater-oriented commercial and light industrial uses may be permitted where
located on a site physically separated from the shoreline by another property in
separate ownership or a public right-of-way such that access for water -oriented use is
precluded. All other nonwater-oriented uses are prohibited in the shoreline unless the
use provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of this Master
Program and the Shoreline Management Act and is:
i. Part of a mixed use project that includes a water -oriented use; or
ii. Proposed on a site where navigability is severely limited.
2. Over -water construction of commercial and light industrial uses is prohibited except as
follows:
a. Only those portions of water -dependent commercial and light industrial uses that
require over -water facilities shall be permitted to locate waterward of the ordinary
high-water mark.
b. Nonwater-dependent commercial and light industrial uses shall not be allowed over
water except in limited instances where they are appurtenant to and necessary in
support of water -dependent uses.
D. Commercial Development and Light Industrial— Shoreline Area Regulations
1. Urban Railroad: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited.
2. Urban Mixed Use I:
a. Water -oriented commercial and light industrial use and development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater-oriented
commercial use and development may be permitted subject to the criteria for such
uses in ECDC 24.60.030.C.1.d.
b. A minimum of 15-foot setback is required from lot lines adjacent to shoreline
residential environments. This area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum
six-foot high fence or hedge.
3. Urban Mixed Use II:
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 103 of 160
Packet Pg. 259
7.1.b
a. Water -oriented commercial and light industrial use and development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater-oriented
commercial use and development may be permitted subject to the criteria for such
uses in ECDC 24.60.030.C.1.d.
b. A minimum of 15-foot setback is required from lot lines adjacent to shoreline
residential environments. This area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum
six-foot high fence or hedge.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Commercial use is permitted subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater-oriented commercial use and development
shall be permitted.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Commercial and light industrial use is permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater-oriented commercial use and
development shall be permitted.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Commercial and light industrial use and development is
prohibited.
7. Shoreline Residential II: Commercial and light industrial use and development is
prohibited.
8. Shoreline Residential III: Commercial and light industrial use and development is
prohibited.
9. Aquatic I: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited, except
that water -dependent uses and appurtenant structures may be permitted subject to the use
and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area designation.
10. Aquatic II: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited, except
that water -dependent uses and appurtenant structures may be permitted subject to the use
and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area designation.
11. Conservancy: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited.
12. Natural: Commercial and light industrial use and development is prohibited.
24.60.040 Forest Practices
A. For the purposes of this Master Program, preparatory work associated with the conversion of
land to non -forestry uses and/or developments shall not be considered forest practices and
shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions for the proposed non -forestry use, the
general provisions of this Master Program, including vegetation conservation, and shall be
limited to the minimum necessary.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 104 of 160
Packet Pg. 260
7.1.b
B. All forest practices undertaken on shorelines shall comply with the applicable policies and
provisions of the Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW as amended, and any regulations
adopted pursuant thereto (WAC 222), as administered by the Department of Natural
Resources and local provisions contained in Title 20 ECDC.
24.60.050 In -stream Structures
A. Applicability.
"In -Stream structure" means a structure place by humans within a stream or river waterward
of the ordinary high water mark that either causes or has the potential to cause water
impoundment or the diversion, obstruction, or modification of water flow.
B. In -stream Structure Policies
In -stream structures should provide for the protection and preservation of ecosystem -
wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources, including, but not limited to,
fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas,
hydrogeological processes, and natural scenic vistas.
C. In -stream Structure Regulations.
1. The location and planning of in -stream structures shall give due consideration to the full
range of public interests, watershed functions and processes, and environmental concerns.
2. In -stream structures shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that does not
degrade the quality of affected waters.
3. In -stream structures shall allow for normal ground water movement and surface runoff.
4. In -stream structures shall preserve valuable recreation resources and aesthetics values.
24.60.060 Recreational Development
A. Applicability
Recreational development provides opportunities for play, sports, relaxation, amusement, or
contemplation. It includes facilities for passive recreational activities, such as hiking,
photography, viewing, and fishing. It also includes facilities for active or more intensive
uses such as parks, campgrounds, and golf courses. This section applies to both publicly and
privately owned shoreline facilities intended for use by the public or a private club, group,
association, or individual. Commercial recreational development must be consistent with he
provisions of this section and the provisions of ECDC 24.60.030 for commercial uses.
This Master Program gives priority to recreational development that is primarily related to
access to, enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the state.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 105 of 160
Packet Pg. 261
7.1.b
B. Recreational Development Policies
1. Encourage the coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning so as to
mutually address recreational needs. Shoreline recreational development should be
consistent with all adopted park, recreation, and open space plans.
2. Encourage the linkage of shoreline parks, recreation areas, and public access points in a
linear system, such as hiking paths, bicycle paths, and scenic drives.
3. Locate and design recreational developments in a manner that preserves, enhances, or
creates scenic views and vistas.
4. Locate and design recreational facilities to minimize adverse impacts including those
related to stormwater runoff, water quality, visual qualities, public access, and vegetation
and habitat maintenance.
5. Encourage physical and visual access to shorelines and surface waters.
6. Locate golf courses outside of the shoreline area.
7. Prohibit use of recreational off -road vehicles within the shoreline area, except by public
agencies for maintenance operations and emergency services.
C. Recreational Development Regulations
Where significant adverse impacts are adequately mitigated resulting in no net loss of
ecological processes or functions, recreational development is a priority use for shoreline
location, subject to the following:
1. The following recreational uses and developments are prohibited:
a. Golf courses;
b. Use of recreational off -road vehicles is prohibited within the shoreline, except by
public agencies for maintenance operations and emergency services;
c. Campgrounds; and
d. Overnight recreational spaces or sites located within the shoreline.
2. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for:
a. Vehicular and pedestrian access, both on -site and off -site;
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 106 of 160
Packet Pg. 262
7.1.b
b. Vehicular traffic, both inside and outside the facility;
c. Vehicular parking;
d. Water supply, sewage disposal, and garbage collection;
e. The prevention of overflows and trespasses onto adjacent properties;
f. Screening, buffer strips, fences, and signs to prevent park overflow and to protect the
value and enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private or public properties;
g. Security; and
h. Maintenance.
3. Valuable shoreline resources and fragile or unique areas, such as wetlands and accretion
shore forms, shall be used only for non -intensive recreation activities.
4. Encourage recreational facilities to provide signage and enforce regulations that prohibit
tree cutting and limit the taking of marine life, driftwood, and the like.
5. Signs associated with recreational facilities shall be kept to a minimum in number and
size and shall be erected as informational or directional aids only.
6. Stairways and landings shall be located upland of existing bulkheads, banks, and the
ordinary high water mark unless integral to a water -dependent use or Overwater structure
permitted by this Master Program.
D. Recreational Development — Shoreline Area Regulations
1. Urban Railroad: Recreational development prohibited.
2. Urban Mixed Use I: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
3. Urban Mixed Use II: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 107 of 160
Packet Pg. 263
7.1.b
7. Shoreline Residential IL• Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
8. Shoreline Residential III: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
9. Aquatic I: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted, subject to the
use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area designation;
provided that, underwater parks may be permitted as a conditional use.
10. Aquatic II: Water -oriented recreational use and development is permitted, subject to the
use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area designation;
provided that, underwater parks may be permitted as a conditional use.
11. Conservancy: Low intensity water -oriented recreational use and development is
permitted subject to the policies and regulations of the Master Program and the following
criteria:
a. Structures will not result in more than ten percent (10%) building coverage or 4,000
square feet, whichever is greater and total impervious surface will not exceed twenty
percent (20%), or 10,000 square feet, whichever is greater.
b. Alteration of topography shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate
allowed development.
c. Use of areas or facilities will not result in use patterns that lead to degradation of
shoreline ecological functions and processes.
12. Natural: Low intensity water -oriented recreational use and development consisting of
primitive trails may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program and the following criteria:
a. Essential minor structures such as trails, boardwalks, piers, stairs, small picnic areas,
viewpoints, restrooms, interpretive facilities, or development that will not result in a
net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes are permitted, subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
b. Any necessary landscaping shall use native or similar self -maintaining vegetation.
Recreational development requiring extensive structures or substantial alterations to
topography or native vegetation is prohibited.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 108 of 160
Packet Pg. 264
7.1.b
24.60.070 Residential Development
A. Applicability
Residential development refers to one of more buildings, structures, lots, parcels, or portions
of parcels that are used or intended to be used to provide a dwelling for human beings.
Residential development includes single-family residences, duplexes, other detached
dwellings, multifamily residences, apartments, townhouses, mobile home parks, group
housing, condominiums, subdivisions, planned unit developments, and short subdivisions.
Residential development also includes accessory uses and structures such as garages, sheds,
tennis courts, swimming pools, driveways, parking areas, fences, cabanas, saunas, and guest
cottages, when allowed by the underlying zoning. Single-family residential development is
identified as a priority use the shoreline area when developed in a manner consistent with
control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment.
A Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction of a single-family
residence by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser for his own use of the use of his family.
However, such construction and all normal appurtenant structures must otherwise conform to
this Master Program. In addition, when applicable, all residential development is subject to
the variance and conditional use requirements of this Master Program.
Uses and facilities associate with residential development, which are identified as separate
use activities or modifications in this Master Program, such as clearing, grading and landfill
are subject to the regulations established for those uses in this Master Program.
B. Residential Development Policies
1. Discourage residential structures or accessory structures in areas waterward of the
ordinary high water mark, within nearshore management areas, or within wetlands,
habitat conservation areas, flood hazard areas or their respective buffers.
2. Allowable density of new residential development should comply with applicable
comprehensive plan goals and policies, zoning restrictions, and shoreline area designation
standards. The density of development should be appropriate to the local natural and
cultural features.
3. Structures or development for uses accessory to residential use should preserve shoreline
open space, be visually and physically compatible with adjacent shoreline features, be
reasonable in size and purpose, and result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions
and processes.
4. New residential development should be planned and built in accordance with the policies
and regulations in ECDC 24.50.020 and to minimize the need for shoreline stabilization
and flood hazard reduction measures.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 109 of 160
Packet Pg. 265
7.1.b
5. Measures to conserve native vegetation along shorelines should be required for all
residential development. Vegetation conservation may include avoidance or
minimization of clearing or grading, restoration of areas of native vegetation, and/or
control of invasive species.
6. Consider additional design features for new Planned Residential Developments,
subdivisions and short subdivisions that:
a. Cluster dwelling units in order to preserve natural features, minimize physical
impacts, and provide for public access to the shoreline.
b. Maintain usable waterfront areas for the common use of all property owners with the
development.
7. Encourage joint use of shoreline facilities, including access stairs.
C. Residential Development Regulations
Clearing and grading associated with a single-family residence may be exempted from
the shoreline substantial development permit requirement, provided the following
conditions are met:
a. The clearing and grading activity is confined to the construction site; and
b. Grading does not exceed 250 cubic yards.
2. New over -water residences, including floating homes, are prohibited.
3. Residential development shall be:
a. Located and designed to avoid the need for structural shore defense and flood
protection works in the foreseeable future.
b. Designed to minimize potential conflicts with the use of adjacent public lands and
areas of public access. This may include providing a physical separation to reinforce
the distinction between public and private space, achieved by providing adequate
space, through screening with landscape planting or fences, or other means.
4. Subdivisions:
a. Shall comply with local plans, codes, and ordinances.
b. Shall be designed to exemplify the definition and policy of the applicable shoreline
designation as well as the environmental and physical capabilities of the subject site.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 110 of 160
Packet Pg. 266
7.1.b
c. Shall be designed, configured and developed in a manner that assures no net loss of
ecological functions results from the plat or subdivision at full build -out of all lots.
d. Shall be prohibited if flood control or shoreline protection measures are necessary to
create a residential lot or site area.
Shall provide a community recreation and/or open space area for the benefit of all
residents or property owners in the development; provided that such provisions shall
not apply to lot line adjustments or lot consolidation.
f. Public access for the subdivision of a property into 4 or more lots shall be considered
in accordance with ECDC 24.40.040 Public Access and Views.
g. May be required to cluster residential units and structures to avoid wetlands, habitat
conservation areas or landslide hazards that are located on the development site.
h. Shall be designed to minimize potential conflicts with the use of adjacent public lands
and areas of public access. This may include providing a physical separation to
reinforce the distinction between public and private space, achieved by providing
adequate space, through screening with landscape planting or fences, or other means.
Shall comply with the applicable policies and performance standards of this Master
Program, with regard to roads, utilities, and other improvements.
5. New multifamily residential development should provide community and/or public
access in accordance with ECDC 24.40.040 Public Access and Views.
D. Residential Development — Shoreline Area Regulations
1. Urban Railroad: Residential development is prohibited.
2. Urban Mixed Use I: Residential development is prohibited.
3. Urban Mixed Use II: Residential development is prohibited.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Single family and multifamily residential development is permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Residential development is prohibited.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Single family residential development is permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
7. Shoreline Residential II: Single family residential development is permitted subject to
the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page I I I of 160
Packet Pg. 267
7.1.b
8. Shoreline Residential III: Single family residential development is permitted subject to
the policies and regulations of this Master Program.
9. Aquatic I: Residential development is prohibited.
10. Aquatic II: Residential development is prohibited.
11. Conservancy: Residential development is prohibited.
12. Natural: Residential development is prohibited.
24.60.080 Transportation and Parking
A. Applicability
Transportation facilities are those structures and developments that aid in land and water
surface movement of people, goods, and services. They include roads and highways, bridges
and causeways, bikeways, trails, railroad facilities, ferry terminals, float plane terminals,
airports, heliports, and other related facilities.
B. Transportation and Parking Policies
1. New or expanded public transportation facility route selection and development should
be coordinated with related local and state government land use and circulation planning.
2. Transportation system plans and transportation projects within shorelines should provide
safe travel ways for non -motorized traffic such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Space for
such uses should be required along roads on shorelines, where appropriate, and should be
considered when rights -of -way are being vacated.
3. Transportation system route planning, acquisition, and design within the shoreline should
provide, where possible, for compatible uses such as utility lines, pedestrian shore access
or view points, or recreational trails.
4. Avoid unnecessary duplication or roads by making use of existing roads where
practicable.
5. Public transportation routes, particularly arterial highways and railways, should be
located, designed, and maintained to permit safe enjoyment of adjacent shore areas and
properties by other appropriate uses such as recreation or residences. Vegetative
screening or other buffering should be considered.
6. Parking is not a preferred use in shorelines and should only be allowed to support
authorized uses where no feasible alternatives exist.
C. Transportation and Parking Regulations
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 112 of 160
Packet Pg. 268
7.1.b
Transportation and parking facilities shall be planned, located, and designed so that
routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features,
will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing
or planned water -dependent uses.
2. Roads shall be located to avoid critical areas. Landfills for transportation facility
development are prohibited in water bodies, wetlands, and on accretion beaches, except
when all structural and upland alternatives have been proven infeasible and the
transportation facilities are necessary to support uses consistent with this program. Such
landfill may be permit as a Conditional Use Permit and must comply with the provisions
of ECDC 24.50.040. Where impacts cannot be avoided, impacts must be mitigated to
assure no net loss of ecological function necessary to sustain shoreline resources.
3. Culverts, bridges and similar devices shall be designed to pass water, sediment, and
debris loads anticipated under appropriate hydraulic analysis.
4. All roads and drainage systems shall be maintained to prevent erosion and/or water
quality degradation.
5. Road routes shall make provisions for pedestrian, bicycle, and other non -motorized
modes of travel whenever feasible.
6. Parking facilities are not a water -dependent use and shall only be permitted within the
shoreline to support an authorized use where it can be demonstrated that there are no
feasible alternative locations away from the shoreline.
7. All uses must provide sufficient off-street parking spaces in order to accommodate the
reasonably anticipated number of vehicles that will be coming to the subject property.
Specific parking standards for uses are identified in the ECDC 17.50, as now or hereafter
mended.
8. Parking layouts must be designed efficiently to use the minimum amount of space
necessary to provide the required parking and safe and reasonable access. Parking should
not be located between the building(s) on the subject property and the shoreline. Exterior
parking areas, other than for detached dwelling units, must be attractively landscaped
with vegetation that will not obstruct view of the shoreline from adjacent public areas or
adjacent public rights -of -way.
9. Transportation facilities shall be constructed of materials that will preclude or minimize
adverse affects on water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the long term.
Elements within or over water shall be constructed of materials approved by applicable
state agencies for use in water for both submerged portions and other components to
avoid discharge of pollutants from splash, rain or runoff. No part of a transportation
facility that may come in contact with the water may be treated with or consist, in whole
or in part, of creosote, oil based paints, toxic chemicals or other substances that would be
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 113 of 160
Packet Pg. 269
7.1.b
harmful to the aquatic environment, unless specifically permitted and authorized by
appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies.
10. Maintenance activity including vegetation control and erosion control shall be carried out
consistent with this Master Program. Necessary minor resurfacing of existing roadways
and replacement of culverts that improve shoreline ecological functions may be exempt
from substantial development permit requirements as provided by ECDC 24.80.010.
11. Ferry Terminals:
a. The maximum permitted height of structures waterward of the ordinary high water
mark shall not exceed 35 above the OHWM, except as provided below:
i. Structures related to the loading of pedestrian passengers shall be permitted to
exceed the maximum permitted height limit when necessary to perform the
intended function.
ii. Buildings and structures which house pedestrian passengers, employees and
equipment storage shall be permitted to be 20 feet above the height of the ferry
loading dock.
iii. View analysis shall be conducted for ferry structures exceeding 35 feet above the
OHWM and structures designed to minimize impacts on view corridors.
b. The maximum permitted height of structures landward of the ordinary high water
mark shall not exceed 30 feet above the average grade level except that bridge and
overpasses may exceed the maximum height limit when necessary to perform their
intended function.
12. Railroads:
a. Overwater Structures are prohibited.
b. Accessory buildings shall be located on the landward side of the railroad tracks and a
minimum of five feet from the property line.
c. The size and configuration of structures shall conform to this program unless federal
safety standards require a different size or configuration.
D. Transportation and Parking — Shoreline Area Regulations
1. Urban Railroad
a. The principal use permitted in this shoreline area is the use of the subject property by
the railroad for its tracks (i.e., single main track, double main tracks and team tracks),
yards and buildings.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 114 of 160
Packet Pg. 270
7.1.b
b. The following accessory uses structures and facilities are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program:
i. Subgrade and road bed;
ii. Railroad track/road crossing signals;
iii. Slide fences;
iv. Railroad signals;
v. Bridges (i.e. pedestrian overpass bridges, vehicular overpass bridges and pipeline
overpass bridges);
vi. Railroad signage (i.e., speed, track, whistle, etc.);
vii. Drainage facilities, including culverts;
viii. Railroad crossings;
ix. Buildings for housing of maintenance people not to exceed 600 square feet in
area;
x. Storage of items for maintaining the area;
xi. Railway loading platforms;
xii. Underpasses; and
xiii. Pedestrian safety fencing provided it does not exceed six feet in height above
grade and is not constructed of solid sight -obscuring material. If the proposed
fence is to exceed either six feet in height, or is constructed of solid sight
obscuring material, then a shoreline conditional use permit is required.
xiv. The Maximum permitted height of structures is 25 feet above grade level, except
as specified below:
1. Accessory buildings shall not exceed 15 feet in height above average grade
level.
2. Bridges and overpasses may exceed the maximum height limit when
necessary to perform their intended function.
3. Slide fences shall not exceed fix feet in height.
as
0
0.
E
M
0
L.
IL
L
0
d
c
L
0
z
U)
Ln
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 115 of 160
Packet Pg. 271
7.1.b
4. Signal devices and signage shall be determined on a case -by -case basis
according to the goals and policies of this Shoreline Master Program and the
Shoreline Management Act and when required by federal law or regulation.
c. Ferry terminals may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
2. Urban Mixed Use I:
a. Railroads are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program
consistent with ECDC 24.60.070.D.1, except that the maximum permitted height of
structures is 30 feet, subjects to the same exception listed in ECDC
24.60.070.D.l.b.xiii.I through ECDC 24.60.070.D.I.b.xiii.4.
b. Transportation facilities (including ferry terminals and railroads) are permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Parking areas not
serving a specific approved water dependent use may be permitted as a conditional
use, provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline.
Parking facilities. In the Urban Mixed Use I environment, the 60-foot setback for
parking established in ECDC 24.40.090 may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet if a
public walkway or publicly accessible open space is provided waterward of the
bulkhead. The parking setback may be reduced by one foot for every one foot of
public walkway or publicly accessible open space that is provided waterward of the
OHWM, to a maximum of 20 feet. The minimum setback for parking facilities shall
be no less than 40 feet from the bulkhead.
3. Urban Mixed Use II:
a. Railroads are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program
consistent with ECDC 24.60.070.D.1, except that the maximum permitted height of
structures is 30 feet, subjects to the same exception listed in ECDC
24.60.070.D.l.b.xiii.I through ECDC 24.60.070.D.l.b.xiii.4.
b. Transportation facilities (including ferry terminals and railroads) are permitted
subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Parking areas not
serving specific approved water dependent uses may be permitted as a conditional
use, provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline.
c. Parking facilities. In the Urban Mixed Use II environment, the 60-foot setback for
parking established in ECDC 24.40.090 may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet if a
public walkway or publicly accessible open space is provided waterward of the
bulkhead. The parking setback may be reduced by one foot for every one foot of
public walkway or publicly accessible open space that is provided waterward of the
OHWM, to a maximum of 20 feet. The minimum setback for parking facilities shall
be no less than 40 feet from the bulkhead.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 116 of 160
Packet Pg. 272
7.1.b
4. Urban Mixed Use III:
a. Unless permitted as an essential public facility, the following transportation facilities
are prohibited in this shoreline area designation:
i. Railroads.
b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV:
a. Unless permitted as an essential public facility, the following transportation facilities
are prohibited in this shoreline area designation:
i. Railroads.
b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
6. Shoreline Residential I
a. Unless permitted as an essential public facility, the following transportation facilities
are prohibited in this shoreline area designation:
i. Railroads;
ii. Ferry Terminals; and
iii. Parking.
b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
7. Shoreline Residential II
a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area
designation:
i. Railroads;
ii. Ferry Terminals; and
as
M
a
E
M
0
L.
a
L
M
d
c
L
0
z
Ln
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 117 of 160
Packet Pg. 273
7.1.b
iii. Parking.
b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
8. Shoreline Residential III
a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area
designation:
i. Railroads;
ii. Ferry Terminals; and
iii. Parking.
b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
9. Aquatic I
a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area
designation:
i. Parking.
b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
c. Ferry terminals may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
d. Transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline
may be expanded or altered as a conditional use upon demonstration that alternatives
to expanding in or alteration of the Aquatic I environment are not feasible.
10. Aquatic II
a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area
designation:
i. Parking.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 118 of 160
Packet Pg. 274
b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are permitted subject to the
policies and regulations of this Master Program.
c. Ferry terminals may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
d. Transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline
may be expanded or altered as a conditional use upon demonstration that alternatives
to expanding in or alteration of the Aquatic II environment are not feasible.
11. Conservancy
a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area
designation:
i. Railroads; and
ii. Ferry terminals.
b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above may be permitted as a
conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program,
provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline.
c. Parking facilities may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
12. Natural
a. The following transportation facilities are prohibited in this shoreline area
designation:
i. Railroads;
ii. Ferry terminals; and
iii. Parking.
b. Transportation facilities not specifically prohibited above are may be permitted as a
conditional use subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program,
provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline.
24.60.090 Utilities
A. Applicability
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 119 of 160
Packet Pg. 275
7.1.b
Utilities are services and facilities that produce, convey, store, or process power, gas, sewage,
communications, oil, waste, and the like. On -site utility features serving a primary use, such
as a water, sewer or gas line to a residence, are "accessory utilities" and shall be considered a
part of the primary use.
B. Utilities Policies
1. Solid waste disposal activities and facilities are prohibited in shoreline areas.
2. New public or private utilities should be located inland from the land/water interface,
preferably out of the shoreline jurisdiction, unless this location is reasonably necessary
for the efficient operation of the utility facility or service.
3. Utilities should be located and designed to avoid negative impacts to public recreation
and public access areas and significant natural, historic, archaeological or cultural
resources.
4. Utilities should be located such that shoreline defense works will not be required for the
life of the project.
5. All utility development should be consistent with and coordinated with all local
government and state planning, including comprehensive plans and single purpose plans
to meet the needs of future populations in areas planned to accommodate growth. Site
planning and rights -of -way for utility development should provide for compatible
multiple uses such as shore access, trails, and recreation or other appropriate use
whenever possible; utility right-of-way acquisition should also be coordinated with
transportation and recreation planning.
6. Utilities should be located in existing rights -of -way and corridors whenever feasible
7. Utilities serving new development should be located underground, wherever feasible.
8. Development of pipelines and cables on aquatic lands and tidelands, particularly those
running roughly parallel to the shoreline and development of facilities that may require
periodic maintenance which would disrupt shoreline ecological functions should be
discourage except where no other feasible alternative exists. When permitted, provisions
shall assure that the facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions
or significant impacts to other shoreline resources and values.
9. Utilities should be designed and development to preserve scenic views and aesthetic
qualities of the shoreline area.
C. Utilities Regulations
Prohibited Pipelines. Except for gas or oil pipelines, city -approved sanitary sewer,
stormwater outfall lines, or other conveyance systems for on -site drainage collection
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 120 of 160
Packet Pg. 276
7.1.b
systems for approved boat wash -down to special on -site treatment facilities otherwise
permitted in this section, no pipeline for the transmission of any substance that would be
hazardous to the aquatic environment may be constructed within the shoreline area.
2. Except where infeasible, all utility lines, pipes, conduits, meters, vaults and similar
infrastructures and appurtenances must be placed underground consistent with the
standards of the serving utility.
3. Utilities may not be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark unless no
practicable alternative exists and this location is essential to the operation of the utility
4. Utilities shall be located adjacent to or within existing utility or circulation easements or
rights -of -way whenever feasible. Joint use of rights -of -way and corridors is encouraged.
5. Utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants and sewage treatment
plants, or parts of those facilities, that are not water -dependent shall be located outside of
shoreline jurisdiction unless alternative locations are demonstrated to be infeasible and it
is demonstrated that the facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions and processes or significant adverse impact to other shoreline resources and
values such as parks and recreation facilities, public access and aesthetic resources.
6. Outfall pipelines and diffusers are water -dependent, but should be located only where
there will be no net loss in shoreline ecological functions and processes or adverse
impacts upon shoreline resources and values.
7. Facilities for processing, storage and disposal of solid waste are not normally water -
dependent. Components that are not water -dependent shall not be permitted in shoreline
jurisdiction.
8. Temporary storage of solid waste in suitable receptacles is permitted as an accessory use
to a primary permitted use, or for litter control.
9. When feasible, utility development shall include public access to the shoreline, trail
systems, and other forms of recreation, providing such uses will not unduly interfere with
utility operations, endanger the public health, safety, and welfare, or create a significant
and disproportionate liability for the owner.
10. Utility developments shall be located and designed so as to avoid, to the extent
practicable, the need for any structural or artificial shoreline modification works for the
life of the project.
D. Utilities Application Requirements
Applications for new or expanded shall be accompanied by adequate documentation that the
proposal meets the policies and regulations of this Master Program, including but not limited
to:
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 121 of 160
Packet Pg. 277
7.1.b
1. Description of the proposed facilities;
2. Reasons why the utility facility requires a shoreline location;
3. Alternative locations considered and reasons for their elimination;
4. Location of other utility facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project and any plans to
include the other types of utilities in the project;
5. Plans for reclamation of areas disturbed both during construction and following
decommissioning and/or completion of the useful life of the utility;
6. Plans for control or erosion and turbidity during construction and operation; and
7. Identification of any possibility for locating the proposed facility at another existing
utility facility sire or within an existing utility right-of-way.
E. Utilities — Shoreline Area Regulations
Urban Railroad: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations
of this Master Program.
2. Urban Mixed Use I: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
3. Urban Mixed Use II: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
4. Urban Mixed Use III: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
5. Urban Mixed Use IV: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
6. Shoreline Residential I: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
7. Shoreline Residential II: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
8. Shoreline Residential III: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and
regulations of this Master Program.
9. Aquatic I: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this
Master Program.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 122 of 160
Packet Pg. 278
7.1.b
10. Aquatic 11: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this
Master Program.
11. Conservancy: Utility development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of
this Master Program.
12. Natural: Utility development may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the policies
and regulations of this Master Program.
Part VII Nonconforming Development
24.70.000 Purpose
The purpose of this section is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots
within shoreline jurisdiction to continue while limiting the continuation of certain aspects of
nonconformity. Other nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared to be
nuisances, are required to be eliminated.
24.70.010 Nonconforming Uses
A. Nonconforming uses are shoreline uses which were lawfully established prior to the effective
date of the Shoreline Management Act or this Master Program, or amendments thereto, but
which do not conform to present regulations or standards of this Master Program or policies
of the act.
B. A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to adoption of this Master
Program or any relevant amendment and for which a conditional use permit has not been
obtained shall be considered a nonconforming use. A use which is listed as a conditional use
but which existed prior to the applicability of this Master Program to the site and for which a
conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a nonconforming use.
C. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (D) of this
section, but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot areas, floor area,
height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation, except as otherwise provided
in ECDC 24.70.050.
D. Lapse of Time.
1. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 6 consecutive months or for 12 months during
any two-year period, any subsequent use shall be conforming. It shall not be necessary to
show that the owner of the property intends to abandon such nonconforming use in order
for the nonconforming rights to expire. Uses such as agricultural or aquiculture, which
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP
Page 123 of 160
Packet Pg. 279
7.1.b
vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized during one
full season consistent with the traditional use.
2. If a nonconforming uses ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75 percent
of its replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a
building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., is filed within six
months of the date such damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only one
180-day extension may be granted.
3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection D.2 of this section shall not
apply if:
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the
owner or the owner's agent; or
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence
of the owner or the owner's agent.
c. In the event that subsection D.3.a or .b of this section apply, the nonconforming use
shall be abated if damage exceeds 25 percent of replacement cost. "Replacement
cost" shall be determined as proved in ECDC 24.70.020.
E. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use, regardless of the
conforming or nonconforming status of the building or structure in which it is housed.
24.70.020 Nonconforming development, building and/or structure
A. Nonconforming development means a shoreline development which was lawfully
constructed or established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act or this
Master Program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations
or standards of the program.
B. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site
development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such
standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds
or the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. Subject to
the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling
unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence
conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981.
In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of
the effective date of the annexation of the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be
overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 124 of 160
Packet Pg. 280
7.1.b
C. A structure for which a variance has been issued shall be considered a legal nonconforming
structure and the requirements of this section shall apply as they apply to preexisting
nonconformities.
D. A nonconforming development, building and/or structure which is moved any distance must
be brought into conformance with this Master Program.
E. Nonconforming development, building and/or structure may be maintained and continued,
unless required to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section; provided, that it is not
enlarged, intensified, increased, or altered in any way which increases its nonconformity
except as expressly provided in subsection F though L of this section.
F. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by
reconstruction of a building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the Washington State
Cultural Resource Inventory, or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a
council -approved historical survey meeting the standards of the State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation. "Restoration" means reconstruction of the historic
building or structure with as nearly the same visual design appearance and materials as is
consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code and consistent with the
requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The
reconstruction of all such historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety
provisions of the State Building Code.
G. If a nonconforming development, building and/or structure is destroyed or damaged to an
extent not exceeding 75 percent replacement cost at the time of destruction, it may be
restored to its former size, shape and lot location as existing immediately prior to the time the
structure was damaged, so long as restoration is either:
1. Completed within one year of the date of damage; or
2. Completed within one year of the date of issuance of all required permits, so long as
applications for such permits are vested within six months of the date of damage and are
pursued in a timely manner.
H. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building
official and shall be appealable as Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter
20.06 ECDC.
I. The right of restoration described in subsection E of this section shall not apply if:
1. The development, building and/or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the
unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; or
2. The development, building and/r structure is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing
neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agents.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 125 of 160
Packet Pg. 281
7.1.b
Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in
commercial zones in use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such
residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the limitations of
subsections D, E and G of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are met:
The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original building or
structure. "Footprint" shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane
parallel to the ground in which the existing building could be placed, exclusive of
uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar features; and provided, that the new
footprint of the building or structure shall not be expanded by more than 10 percent and is
found by the city staff to be substantially similar to the original style and construction
after complying with current codes.
2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely
on the site. No nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if,
by so doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring
lot or building would be limited by such remodel or reconstruction.
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not
apply to nonconforming accessory buildings or structures.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined
building envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar
to the original style and structure after complying with current codes. "Substantial
compliance" shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff decision, except that any
appeal of the staff decision shall be to the ADB rather than the hearing examiner. The
decision of the ADB shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
K. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory
dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial
evidence conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January
1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall
be that of the effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may
be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
L. BD5 Zone. The BD5 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of
existing residential structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC
16.43.030.B.5. In the BD5 zone, conforming and nonconforming buildings may be
converted to commercial or other uses permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 and this Master
Program without being required to come into compliance with the ground floor elevation
requirements of ECDC 16.43.030.B.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 126 of 160
Packet Pg. 282
7.1.b
24.70.030 Nonconforming Lots
A. A nonconforming lot is one which met applicable zoning ordinance standards as to size,
width, depth and other dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created but which,
due to the passage of a zoning ordinance, the amendment thereof or the annexation of
property to the city, no longer conforms to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance. A
lot which was not legally created in accordance with the laws of the local governmental
entity in which it was located at the date of the creation is an illegal lot and will not be
recognized for development.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for any use allowed by the zoning
district in which it is located, so long as such development conforms to other requirements of
this Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act, and all other applicable site use and
development standards are met or a variance from such site use or development standards has
been obtained. In order to be developed a nonconforming lot must meet minimum lot size
standards established by the provisions of this code, subject to the provisions of subsection D
of this section.
C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became nonconforming due to its failure to meet
minimum lot size or width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in the same
ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the nonconforming lot is to be and shall be deemed to
have been combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent necessary to create a
conforming lot and thereafter may only be used in accordance with the provisions of this
Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act, and the Edmonds Community
Development Code, except as specifically provided in subsection D of this section.
D. Exception for Single -Family Dwelling Units. An applicant may build on single-family
residence consisting of no more than one dwelling unit on a lot or parcel regardless of the
size of the lot or parcel if, but only if, one of the following exceptions applies:
1. In a Shoreline Residential environment, such nonconforming lot may be sold or
otherwise developed as any other nonconforming lot pursuant to the following
conditions and standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not less than the minimum lot areas specified
in the table below for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; and
b. Community facilities, public utilities and roads required to serve the nonconforming
lot are available concurrently with the proposed development; and
c. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed in order to create a new buildable lot.
Lot Area Table
% Needed for
Lot Size Needed
Zone
Legal Lot
for legal lot
(1)
RS-20
60%
12,000
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 127 of 160
Packet Pg. 283
7.1.b
(2)
RS-12
70%
8,400
(3)
RS-10
75%
7,500
(4)
RS-8
80%
6,400
(5)
RS-6
90%
5,400
2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to construct the unit within five years of the
date the lot or parcel was annexed into the city and the lot or parcel was lawfully created
under provisions of Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws as well as the laws
of the state of Washington; or
3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild on residence on a nonconforming lot without regard
to the 75 percent destruction requirement of ECDC 24.70.020.G if a fully completed
building permit application is vested within six months of the destruction of the residence
and all other development requirements of this Master Program, the Shoreline
Management Act, and the Edmonds Community Development Code are complied with;
or
4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were recorded in the Snohomish county recorder's
office prior to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has not at any time been
simultaneously owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or parcel which fronts on the
same access right-of-way subsequent to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has
access to an access right-of-way which meets the minimum requirements established by
the Edmonds Community Development Code.
24.70.040 Nonconforming Signs
Nonconforming signs are injurious to health, safety and welfare and destructive of the aesthetic
and environmental living conditions which this Master Program and zoning ordinances are
intended to preserve and enhance. Nonconforming signs shall be brought in to compliance with
the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC under the following terms and conditions:
A. No nonconforming sign shall be expanded, extended, rebuilt, reconstructed or altered in any
way, except as provided below. The following acts are specifically permitted and shall not in
and of themselves require conformance with the provisions of this Master Program of
Chapter 20.60 ECDC
1. Normal maintenance of the sign;
2. A change in the name of the business designated on the sign; or
3. Any action necessary to preserve the public safety in the event of damage to the sign
brought about by an accident an act of God.
B. Any nonconforming sign shall be brought into immediate compliance with the code in the
event that it is expanded in violation of subsection A of this section.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 128 of 160
Packet Pg. 284
7.1.b
C. None of the forgoing provisions relating to permitted maintenance, name change or
preservation of the sing under subsection A of this section shall be construed so as to permit
the continuation or preservation of any nonconforming off -premises sign.
24.70.050 Nonconforming local public facilities
Existing legal nonconforming local public facility uses, buildings, and/or signs, owned and/or
operated by local, state, or federal governmental entities, public service corporations, or common
carriers (including agencies, districts, governmental corporations, public utilities, or similar
entities) may be expanded, enlarged, altered, or modified, subject to the policies and provisions
of this Master Program and review under Chapter 20.16 ECDC, Essential Public Facilities.
Part VIII Administration — Shoreline Permits
24.80.000 Purpose
This chapter establishes the permit review procedure for shoreline permits, in accordance with
the Shorelines Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-27 WAC. All proposed
uses and development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to Chapter 90.58
RCW, the Shoreline Management Act, and this Master Program, regardless of whether a
shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit
is required.
24.80.010 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Process
A. Application and interpretation
1. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise
terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the
substantial development permit process.
2. An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from
compliance with the Shoreline Management Act or the City of Edmonds' Shoreline
Master Program, or from any other regulatory requirements. To be authorized, all uses
and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions of this Master
Program and the Shoreline Management Act.
3. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional
and performance standards of the master program, such development or use can only be
authorized by approval of a variance.
4. A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to this Master Program
or is an unlisted use, must obtain a conditional use permit even though the development
or use does not require a substantial development permit.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 129 of 160
Packet Pg. 285
7.1.b
5. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on
the applicant.
6. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial
development permit is required for the entire proposed development project.
7. The City of Edmonds may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments
and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline
Management Act and this Master Program.
B. Exemptions Listed. The following developments shall not require substantial development
permits:
Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does
not exceed five thousand seven hundred eighteen dollars ($5718), if such development
does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the
state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection must be adjusted for inflation
every five years consistent with WAC 173-27-040(2)(a). For purposes of determining
whether or not a permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on
the value of development that is occurring on shorelines of the state as defined in RCW
90.58.030(2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the
fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials.
2. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage
by accident, fire or elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent
a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal repair"
means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including
but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a
reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes
substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a
structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the
common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement
structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including
but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the
replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or
environment.
3. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A
"normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments
installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of
protecting an existing single-family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or
damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the
purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or
reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as
backfill. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 130 of 160
Packet Pg. 286
7.1.b
fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing
bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has
deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence
and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be
located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and
bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead
when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the
project has been approved by the department of fish and wildlife.
4. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An
"emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the
environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full
compliance with this chapter. Emergency construction does not include development of
new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new
protective structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to
address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new
structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an
emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the local master
program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of
chapter 90.58 RCW and the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other
seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not
an emergency.
5. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor
buoys.
6. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family
residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not
exceed a height of twenty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all
requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other
than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. "Single-family residence"
means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those
structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal
appurtenance as defined in 24.90.010.F. Construction authorized under this exemption
shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark.
7. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for
the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single-
family and multiple -family residences. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for
watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other
appurtenances. This exception applies if either:
a. In salt waters (Puget Sound), the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two
thousand five hundred dollars; or
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 131 of 160
Packet Pg. 287
7.1.b
b. In fresh waters (Lake Ballinger) the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten
thousand dollars, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding
two thousand five hundred dollars occurs within five years of completion of the prior
construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial
development for the purpose of this chapter.
8. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other
facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation
system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow
and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands.
9. The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does
not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water.
10. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other similar
drainage or utility facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created,
developed or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system.
11. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
12. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an
application for development authorization under this chapter, if:
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters;
b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but
not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic
values;
The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of
the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions
existing before the activity;
d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a
performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local
jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550.
13. The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW
17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed
control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the
department of agriculture or the department of ecology jointly with other state agencies
under chapter 43.21C RCW.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 132 of 160
Packet Pg. 288
7.1.b
14. Watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(o). The administrator
shall review the projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an
expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty-
five days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for exemption from
the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for
exemption for watershed restoration projects as used in this section.
15. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish
passage, when all of the following apply:
a. The project has been approved in writing by the department of fish and wildlife; ;
b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the department of fish and
wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and;
c. The City has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the local
shoreline master program. The City shall make such determination that in a timely
manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. .
24.80.020 Letter of Exemption
A. The Administrator is hereby authorized to grant or deny requests for letters of exemption
from the shoreline substantial development permit requirement for uses and developments
with shorelines that are specifically listed in ECDC 24.80.010.B. The letter of exemption
shall indicate the specific exemption of this Program that is being applied to the
development, and shall provide a summary of the Administrator's analysis of the consistency
of the project with this Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. As appropriate,
such letters of exemption may contain conditions and/or mitigating measures of approval to
achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of this Master Program and the
Shoreline Management Act. A denial of an exemption shall be in writing and shall identify
the reason(s) for the denial. The Administrator's actions on the issuance of a letter of
exemption or a denial are subject to appeal pursuant to ECDC 24.80.110.C.
B. A letter of exemption shall be prepared addressed to the applicant/proponent and the
Washington State Department of Ecology, pursuant to the requirement of WAC 173-27-050
when the project is subject to one or more of the following Federal permitting requirements:
1. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899; (The provisions of section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act generally apply to any
project occurring on or over navigable waters. Specific applicability information should
be obtained from the Corps of Engineers.); or
2. A section 404 permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. (The
provisions of section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act generally apply to
any project which may involve discharge of dredge or fill material to any water or
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 133 of 160
Packet Pg. 289
7.1.b
wetland area. Specific applicability information should be obtained from the Corps of
Engineers.)
C. Apart from the activities listed in ECDC 24.80.020.13, no letter of exemption shall be
required for other uses or developments exempt pursuant to ECDC 24.80.010 unless the
Administrator has cause to believe a substantial question exists as to qualification of the
specific use or development for the exemption, an applicant requests a letter of exemption, or
the Administrator determines there is a likelihood of adverse impacts to shoreline ecological
functions.
24.80.030 Review Criteria for All Development
No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted
unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and
provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master
Program.
24.80.040 Substantial Development Permit Criteria
A. A substantial development permit shall be required for all proposed use and development of
shorelines unless the proposal is specifically exempt pursuant to ECDC 24.80.010.
B. In order for a substantial development permit to be approved, the decision maker must find
that the proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
1. All regulations of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the
shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except
those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by an approval of a
shoreline variance under ECDC 24.80.060.
2. All policies of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the
shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be considered
and substantial compliance demonstrated.
24.80.050 Conditional Use Permit Criteria
A. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide greater flexibility in the administering
of use regulations of this Master Program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW
90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit
by the City or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use
and/or to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this
Master Program.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 134 of 160
Packet Pg. 290
7.1.b
B. Uses specifically classified or set forth in the Master Program as conditional uses may be
authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master
program;
2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other
authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the
comprehensive plan and shoreline master program;
4. That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline
environment in which it is to be located; and
5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
C. Uses which are not specifically identified as an allowed use or uses which are specifically
prohibited by this Master Program may not be authorized pursuant to either subsection B of
this section.
D. In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use
permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist,
the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW
90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
24.80.060 Variance Permit Criteria
A. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk,
dimensional or performance standards set forth in this Master Program where there are
extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property
such that the strict implementation of this Master Program will impose unnecessary hardships
on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variances from the use
regulations of this Master Program are prohibited.
B. Variances will be granted in circumstances where the denial of the permit would result in a
thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and that the public interest shall suffer no
substantial detrimental effect.
C. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of
the following:
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 135 of 160
Packet Pg. 291
7.1.b
That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with lawful,
reasonable use of the property;
2. That the hardship described in 1 of this subsection is specifically related to the property,
and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features
and the application of this Master Program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions
or the applicant's own actions or those of a predecessor in title;
3. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area
and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master
program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;
4. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other
properties in the area;
5. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief, and
6. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
D. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of
the following:
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property;
2. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection ECDC
24.80.060.C.1 through 6 of this section; and
3. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely
affected.
E. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact
of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to
other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the
variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not
cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
24.80.070 Minimum Application Requirements
A complete application for substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall
contain as a minimum, the following information:
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 136 of 160
Packet Pg. 292
7.1.b
A. The name, address and phone number of the applicant. The applicant should be the owner of
the property or the primary proponent of the project and not the representative of the owner
or primary proponent.
B. The name, address and phone number of the applicant's representative if other than the
applicant.
C. The name, address and phone number of the property owner, if other than the applicant.
D. Location of the property. This shall, at a minimum, include the property address and
identification of the section, township and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or
latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. All applications for projects located in open
water areas away from land shall provide a longitude and latitude location.
E. Identification of the name of the shoreline (water body) that the site of the proposal is
associated with. This should be the water body from which jurisdiction of the act over the
project is derived.
F. A general description of the proposed project that includes the proposed use or uses and the
activities necessary to accomplish the project.
G. A general description of the property as it now exists including its physical characteristics
and improvements and structures.
H. A general description of the vicinity of the proposed project including identification of the
adjacent uses, structures and improvements, intensity of development and physical
characteristics.
I. A site development plan consisting of maps and elevation drawings, drawn to an appropriate
scale to depict clearly all required information, photographs and text which shall include:
1. The boundary of the parcel(s) of land upon which the development is proposed.
2. The ordinary high water mark of all water bodies located adjacent to or within the
boundary of the project. This may be an approximate location provided, that for any
development where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations
requires a precise location of the ordinary high water mark the mark shall be located
precisely and the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the
plans shall be included in the development plan. Where the ordinary high water mark is
neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the
distance and direction to the nearest ordinary high water mark of a shoreline. The precise
location of the ordinary high water mark shall be field verified by the City of Edmonds
and/or the Department of Ecology.
3. Existing and proposed land contours. The contours shall be at intervals sufficient to
accurately determine the existing character of the property and the extent of proposed
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 137 of 160
Packet Pg. 293
7.1.b
change to the land that is necessary for the development. Areas within the boundary that
will not be altered by the development may be indicated as such and contours
approximated for that area.
4. Existing critical areas as together with any supporting information consistent with the
reporting requirements of ECDC 23.40.090.
5. A general indication of the character of vegetation found on the site.
6. The dimensions and locations of all existing and proposed structures and improvements
including but not limited to; buildings, paved or graveled areas, roads, utilities, septic
tanks and drainfields, material stockpiles or surcharge, and stormwater management
facilities.
7. Where applicable, a landscaping plan for the project.
8. Where applicable, plans for development of areas on or off the site as mitigation for
impacts associated with the proposed project shall be included and contain information
consistent with the requirements of this section.
9. Quantity, source and composition of any fill material that is placed on the site whether
temporary or permanent.
10. Quantity, composition and destination of any excavated or dredged material.
11. A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed development or use
to roads, utilities, existing developments and uses on adjacent properties.
12. Where applicable, a depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential uses and
public areas.
13. On all variance applications the plans shall clearly indicate where development could
occur without approval of a variance, the physical features and circumstances on the
property that provide a basis for the request, and the location of adjacent structures and
uses.
24.80.080 Notice of Application
A. Upon receipt of a fully completed shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline
conditional use permit, or shoreline variance application, the City shall issue a Notice of
Application in the manner set forth in ECDC 20.90.010.E.
B. The public comment period for a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline
conditional use permit, or shoreline variance shall be thirty (30) days following the date of
notice of application. Public comments may be submitted at any time prior to the closing of
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 138 of 160
Packet Pg. 294
7.1.b
the record of an open record predecision hearing or, if no open record public hearing is
required, prior to the decision on the project permit.
C. If an open record predecision hearing, as define in RCW 36.7013.020, is required for the
requested project permits, the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the open record hearing. The public hearing shall not be closed to the receipt of
written comments prior to thirty (30) days following the date of the notice.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 139 of 160
Packet Pg. 295
7.1.b
24.80.090 Special Procedures for Limited Utility Extensions and Bulkheads
A. An application for a substantial development permit for a limited utility extension or for the
construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single-family residence and its
appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be subject to all of the requirements of
this chapter except that the following time periods and procedures shall be used:
The public comment period shall be twenty days. The notice provided shall state the
manner in which the public may obtain a copy of the local government decision on the
application no later than two days following its issuance;
2. The local government shall issue its decision to grant or deny the permit within twenty-
one days of the last day of the comment period specified in subsection (2)(a) of this
section; and
3. If there is an appeal of the decision to grant or deny the permit to the local government
legislative authority, the appeal shall be finally determined by the legislative authority
within thirty days.
B. For purposes of this section, a limited utility extension means the extension of a utility
service that:
1. Is categorically exempt under chapter 43.21C RCW for one or more of the following
Natural gas, electricity, telephone, water, or sewer;
2. Will serve an existing use in compliance with this chapter; and
3. Will not extend more than two thousand five hundred linear feet within the shorelines of
the state.
24.80.100 Public Hearings
A. The Administrator shall determine whether an application requires a public hearing pursuant
to the criteria below no later than fifteen (15) days after the minimum public comment period
provided by ECDC 24.80.080.13. An open record public hearing shall be required for all of
the following:
1. One or more interested persons has submitted to the administrator, with 15 days of the
final publication notice of the application, a written request for such a hearing together
with a statement of the reasons for the request; or
2. The proposal is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and
an Environmental Impact Statement is required in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act; or
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 140 of 160
Packet Pg. 296
7.1.b
3. The proposal requires a variance and/or conditional use approval pursuant to this Master
Program; or
4. The use or development requires an open record public hearing for other City of
Edmonds approvals or permits.
24.80.110 Notice of Decision, Reconsideration, and Appeals
A. Notice of Decision
1. Within five days of a decision for action on a shoreline substantial development permit,
shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance, the Administrator shall mail or
hand deliver a copy of the final decision to the following:
a. The applicant/proponent;
b. Any person(s) who have filed a written request for a copy of the decision;
c. All persons who submitted substantive written comments on the application.; and
d. The Department of Ecology.
2. The notice of decision to ECDC 24.80.110.A.1.a through c shall include findings and
conclusions, and a statement of the SEPA threshold determination and the procedures for
an appeal (if any) of the permit decision or recommendation.
3. Decisions filed with the Department of Ecology shall contain the following information
1. A copy of the complete application;
2. Findings and conclusions that establish the basis for the decision including but not
limited to identification of shoreline environment designation(s), applicable Master
Program policies and regulations and the consistency of the project with appropriate
review criteria for the type of permit(s).
3. The final decision of reached by the City of Edmonds on the proposal;
4. A completed permit data sheet in the form provided in WAC 173-27-990 or hereafter
amended.
5. Where applicable, the City of Edmonds shall also file the applicable documents
required by SEPA, or in lieu thereof, a statement summarizing the actions and dates
of such actions taken under RCW 43.21 C.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 141 of 160
Packet Pg. 297
7.1.b
B. Reconsideration. The applicant/proponent or any party of record may request
reconsideration of any final action by the decision maker within (10) days of the decision.
Grounds for reconsideration must be based upon the content of the written decision. The
decision maker is not required to proved a written response or modify his/her original
decision. He/she may initiate such action as he/she deems appropriate. The procedure of
reconsideration shall not pre-empt or extend the appeal period for a permit or affect the date
of filing with the Department of Ecology, unless the applicant/proponent requests the
abeyance of said permit appeal period in writing with ten (10) days of a final action.
C. Appeals
1. Local appeals of decision by the Shoreline Administrator or the Hearing Examiner shall
be pursuant to the procedure and timelines of ECDC 20.01, ECDC 20.06, and ECDC
20.07..
2. Appeals of a final decision of the City of Edmonds or the Department of Ecology shall be
filed within 21 days of the date of filing of the final permit and shall be heard by the
Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to the procedures and timelines of RCW 90.58.180.
24.80.120 Initiation of Development
A. Development pursuant to a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional
use permit, or shoreline variance shall not begin and shall not be authorized unit twenty-one
(2 1) days after the "date of filing" or until all review proceeding before the Shoreline
Hearings Board have terminated.
B. Date of filing:
1. "Date of filing" of a substantial development permit is the date of actual receipt of the
decision by the Department of Ecology.
2. The "date of filing" for a shoreline conditional use permit or a shoreline variance shall
mean the date the permit decision rendered by the Department of Ecology is transmitted
by the Department to the City of Edmonds and the applicant/proponent.
24.80.130 Revisions
A. A revision is required when an applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms,
or conditions of an approved permit. Changes are "substantive' if they materially alter the
project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit,
this Master Program, or the Shoreline Management Act. Changes, which the Administrator
determines are not substantive, do not require approval of a revision.
B. When a permit revision is required, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and text
describing the proposed changes. If the Administrator determines that the revisions proposed
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 142 of 160
Packet Pg. 298
7.1.b
are within the scope and intent of the original permit, the Administrator may approve the
revision as a Type II decision.
C. "Within the scope and intent of the original permit" means all of the following:
1. No additional over water construction is involved except that pier, dock, or float
construction may be increased by five hundred square feet (500) or ten percent (10%)
from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less;
2. Ground area coverage and height maybe increased a maximum often percent (10%)
from the provisions of the original permit;
3. The revised permit does not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage,
setback, or any other requirements of the applicable master program except as authorized
under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof;
4. Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the
original permit and with the applicable master program;
5. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and
6. No adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision.
D. If the sum of the proposed revision and any previously approved revisions do not meet the
criteria in ECDC 24.80.130.C, an application for a new Shoreline Permit must be submitted.
E. If the revision involves a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Variance, which was
conditioned by the Department of Ecology, the revision also must be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Ecology. Under the requirements of WAC 173-27-110(6), the
Department of Ecology shall render and transmit to the City of Edmonds and the applicant its
final decision with fifteen (15) days of the date of the department's receipt of the submittal
from the City of Edmonds. The City of Edmonds shall notify parties of record of the
department's final decision.
F. Revision approvals, including the revised site plans, a detailed description of the authorized
changes, and the final ruling on consistency with this section shall be filed with the
Department of Ecology. In addition, the City of Edmonds shall notify parties of record of the
revision.
G. Revisions to shoreline permits may be authorized after the original authorization has expired.
Revisions made after the expiration of the original permit shall be limited to changes that are
consistent with this Master Program and that would not require a permit under this Master
Program. If the proposed change is a substantial development as defined by this Master
Program, then a new permit is required. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be used to
extend the time requirements or to authorize substantial development beyond the time limits
or scope of the original permit.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 143 of 160
Packet Pg. 299
7.1.b
H. Appeals on revisions shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 and shall be filed within
twenty-one days from the date of receipt of the City of Edmonds' action by the Department
of Ecology or, when appropriate under subsection E of this section, the date the Department
of Ecology's final decision is transmitted to local government and the applicant. Appeals
shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the provisions of subsection C
of this section. Construction undertaken pursuant to that portion of a revised permit not
authorized under the original permit is at the applicant's own risk until the expiration of the
appeals deadline. If an appeal is successful in proving that a revision is not within the scope
and intent of the original permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit.
24.80.140 Time requirements of Shoreline Permits
A. The following time requirements shall apply to all substantial development permits and to
any development authorized pursuant to a shoreline conditional use permit or shoreline
variance:
Construction activities shall be commenced or, where no construction activities are
involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two (2) years of the effective
date of a substantial development permit. However, the City of Edmonds may authorize a
single extension for a period not to exceed one (1) year based on reasonable factors, if a
request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed
extension is given to parties of record on the substantial development permit and to the
Department of Ecology
2. Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five (5) years after the
effective date of a substantial development permit. However, the City of Edmonds may
authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one (1) year based on reasonable
factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of
the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the Department of Ecology.
3. The effective date of a substantial development permit shall be the date of filing as
provided in ECDC 24.80.120.13. The permit time periods in subsections 1 and 2 of this
section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued
due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain
any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the
development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions
on any such permits or approvals.
4. Authorization to conduct development activities pursuant to a shoreline permit issued by
the City of Edmonds shall expire five (5) years after the date of issuance provided the
activity was not pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal action.
However, the City of Edmonds may authorize a single extension for a period not to
exceed one (1) year based on reasonable factors.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 144 of 160
Packet Pg. 300
7.1.b
B. Notwithstanding the time limits established in ECDC 24.80.140.A.1 and .2, upon finding of
good cause based on the requirements and circumstances of the proposed project and
consistent with the policies and provisions of this Master Program and the Shoreline
Management Act, the Administrator or Hearing Examiner as appropriate may set different
time limits for a particular substantial development permit as part of the action to approve the
permit. The Hearing Examiner may also set different time limits on specific conditional use
permits or variances with the approval of the Department of Ecology. The different time
limits may be longer or shorter than those established in ECDC 24.8 0.140.A. I and .2 but
shall be appropriate to the shoreline development or used under review. "Good cause based
on the requirements and circumstances of the proposed project" shall mean that the time
limits established for the project are reasonably related to the time actually necessary to
perform the development on the ground and complete the project that is being permitted,
and/or are necessary for the protection of shoreline resources.
C. The Administrator or Hearing Examiner as appropriate shall notify the Department of
Ecology in writing of any change to the effective date of a permit with an explanation of the
basis for approval of the change. Any change to the time limits of a permit other than those
authorized ECDC 24.80.150.A and .B shall require a new permit application.
24.80.150 Administrative Authority and Responsibility
A. Shoreline Administrator
The Shoreline Administrator shall be the planning manager or his/her designee and is vested
with the following authority and responsibility to:
1. Have overall administrative responsibility for this Master Program;
2. Determine if a public hearing should be held on a shoreline permit application by the
Hearing Examiner pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100;
3. Grant or deny written Permit Exemptions from shoreline Substantial Development Permit
requirements of this Master Program;
4. Authorize, approve or deny shoreline Substantial Development Permits, except for those
for which a public hearing is required pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100;
5. Make written recommendation to the Hearing Examiner or City Council as appropriate
and insofar as possible, in order to assure that all relevant information, testimony, and
questions regarding a specific matter are made available during their respective reviews
of such matter.
6. Review and evaluate the records of project review actions (permits and exemptions) in
shoreline areas and report on the cumulative effects of authorized development of
shoreline conditions at a minimum every seven years when this Master Program is
updated. The administrator shall coordinate such review with the Washington State
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 145 of 160
Packet Pg. 301
7.1.b
Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other
interested parties.
7. Advise interested citizens and project proponents of the goals, policies, regulations and
procedures of this Master Program; and
8. Make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this
Master Programs and the Shoreline Management Act.
B. Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner is vested with the following authority:
1. To grant or deny shoreline Substantial Development Permits requiring public hearings
pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100;
2. To grant or deny shoreline Conditional Use Permits under this Master Program;
3. To grant or deny variances form this Master Program; and
4. To decide on appeals of administrative decisions issued by the Administrator of this
Master Program in accord with procedures set forth in Title 20 of this code.
C. City Council
1. The Edmonds City Council is vested with the authority to hear closed record appeals of
determinations of the Hearing Examiner and approve any revisions or amendments to this
Master Program in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Shoreline
Management Act and the Washington Administrative Code.
2. To become effective any amendment to this Master Program must be reviewed and
adopted by the Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 and Chapter 173-26
WAC.
24.80.160 Compliance
Failure to comply with the conditions of approval associated with a shoreline permit shall cause
the permit to immediately become void and any continuation of the use activity shall be
considered a violation of this Master Program and a public nuisance subject to enforcement
proceedings.
24.80.170 Enforcement
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 146 of 160
Packet Pg. 302
7.1.b
Procedures for investigation and notice of violation, compliance, and the imposition of penalties
for the violation of any requirements of this Master Program shall be consistent with provisions
in ECDC 20.110.040, Part II 173-27 WAC, RCW 90.58.210, and RCW 90.58.220.
Part IX Definitions
24.90.000 General Information
A. For the purpose of this Master Program, certain terms and their derivations shall be construed
as specified in this section. Some terms used in this Master Program may have a different
definition and application under other City of Edmonds regulations. Words in the singular
include the plural, the plural the singular. The words "shall", "will" and "must" are
mandatory; the word "may" is permissive. "Should" means that the particular action is
required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of the Shoreline
Management Act and this Master Program, against taking the action. Additional definitions
applicable to this master Program and adopted by reference herein, are found in RCW 90.58
and Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC. The following definitions apply throughout this
Program, unless otherwise indicated.
B. If a definition is not included here, the city shall rely on definitions found in applicable
citations in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Washington Administrative Code
(WAC), the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), and finally a standard
dictionary, in that order. In case of conflict with the ECDC, the definition within the RCW,
WAC, and/or this Master Program shall prevail.
24.90.010 Definitions: A to B
A. "Abandoned" means knowing relinquishment of right or claim to the subject property or
structure on that property.
B. "Accessory" means a use, activity, structure or part of a structure which is demonstrably
subordinate and incidental to the main activity or structure on the subject property.
C. "Accessory building" means one which is subordinate to the main building, and is incidental
to the use of the main building on the same lot.
D. "Alteration(s)" means a change or rearrangement of the structural parts of existing facilities
or an enlargement by extending the sides or increasing the height or depth or the moving
from one location to another.
E. "Applicant" means a person who applies for any permit or approval to do anything governed
by this code and who is either the owner of the subject property, the authorized agent of the
owner, or the city.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 147 of 160
Packet Pg. 303
7.1.b
F. "Appurtenance" means a structure or development which is necessarily connected to the use
and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high
water mark and also of the perimeter of any marsh, bog, or swamp. See also "Normal
appurtenances."
G. "Aquaculture" means the farming or culture of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants or
animals any may require development such as fish hatcheries, rearing pens and structures,
and shellfish rafts, as well as use of natural spawning and rearing areas. Aquaculture does
not include the harvest of free-swimming fish or the harvest of shellfish not artificially
planted or maintained.
H. "Aquaculture practices" means any activity directly pertaining to growing, handling, or
harvesting or aquaculture produce, including, but not limited to, propagation, stocking,
feeding, disease treatment, waste disposal, water use, development of habitat and structures.
Excluded from this definition are related commercial or industrial uses such as wholesale and
retail sales, or final processing and freezing.
"Average grade level" means the average of the natural or existing topography of the portion
of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building
or structure: In the case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall be the
elevation of the ordinary high water mark. Calculation of the average grade level shall be
made by averaging the ground elevations at the midpoint of all exterior walls of the proposed
building or structure.
J. "Average parcel depth" means the average of the distances from the ordinary high water
mark to the street providing direct access to the subject property as measured along the side
property lines or the extension of those lines where the water frontage of the subject property
ends, the center of the ordinary high water mark of the subject property and the quarter points
of the ordinary high water mark of the subject property.
K. "Average parcel width" means the average of the distances between side property lines as
measured along the ordinary high water mark and the front property line.
L. "Backfill" means material placed into an excavated area, pit, trench or behind a constructed
retaining wall, rockery or foundation.
M. "Boat launch or ramp" means graded slopes, slabs, pads, planks, or rails used for launching
boats by means of a trailer, hand, or mechanical device.
N. "Buoy" means a floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body.
O. "Breakwater" means an offshore structure generally aligned parallel to shore, sometimes
shore -connected, that provides protection from waves.
P. "Buffer" means the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the
continued maintenance, function, and/or structural stability of the critical area and/or
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 148 of 160
Packet Pg. 304
7.1.b
shoreline. Buffer widths vary depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area
being protected. Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left
undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes, functions and values.
Q. "Building" means any structure having a roof, excluding all forms of vehicles even though
immobilized.
R. `Bulkhead" means a retaining wall whose primary purpose is to hold or prevent the backfill
from sliding while providing protection against light -to -moderate wave action.
24.90.020 Definitions: C to F
A. "City" means the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation.
B. "Commercial use" means an activity with goods, merchandise, or services offered for sale or
rent.
C. "Comprehensive plan" means the comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds and all
elements thereof as amended or, if repealed, its successor document, listing the goals and
policies regarding land use within the city.
D. "Contour line" means a line on a map or on the earth representing a specific elevation above
sea level or an elevation relative to a specific datum point.
E. "Coverage" means the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured
from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half
feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area.
F. "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a
critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas
designated through the Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance.
G. "Cross-section (drawing)" means a visual representation of a vertical cut through a structure
or any other three-dimensional form.
H. "Dedication" means the deliberate granting of an interest in land by an owner for public use
or purpose, reserving no other rights than those that are compatible with the full exercise and
enjoyment of the public use or purpose to which the property has been devoted.
I. "Development" means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures;
dredging; drilling; dumping; grading; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk
heading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or
temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters
overlying lands subject to the act at any stage of water level.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 149 of 160
Packet Pg. 305
7.1.b
J. "Development permit" means any permit or approval under this code or the ECDC that must
be issued before initiating a use or development activity.
K. "Dock" means a structure designed to protrude overwater or float upon the water, and which
is attached to the shoreline and is used for moorage or other water -related activity such as
swimming or diving.
L. "Dredging" means removal of earth and other materials from the bottom of a body of water
or from a wetland.
M. "Dredging spoils" means the earth and other materials removed from the floor of a body of
water or wetland by the dredging process.
N. "Drift cell," "drift sector," or "littoral cell" means a particular reach of marine shore in which
littoral drift may occur without significant interruption and which contains any natural
sources of such drift and also accretion shore forms created by such drift.
O. "Dry land" means the area of the subject property landward of the ordinary high water mark.
P. "Dwelling unit" means a building providing complete housekeeping facilities for one family
Dwelling unit does not include recreational vehicles or mobile homes.
Q. "Dwelling unit, attached" means a dwelling unit that has one or more vertical walls in
common with or attached to one or more other dwelling units or other uses and does not have
other dwelling units or uses above or below it, excluding lawfully permitted accessory
dwelling units.
R. "Dwelling unit, detached" means a dwelling unit that is not attached or physically connected
to any other dwelling unit or other use.
S. "Dwelling unit, stacked" means a dwelling unit that has one or more horizontal walls in
common with or adjacent to one or more other dwelling units or other uses and may have one
or more vertical walls in common with or adjacent to one or more other dwelling units or
other uses, excluding lawfully permitted accessory dwelling units.
T. "ECDC" means the "Edmonds Community Development Code."
U. "Easement" means land which has specific air, surface or subsurface rights conveyed for use
by an entity other than the owner of the subject property or to benefit some property other
than the subject property.
V. "Ecological functions" or "shoreline functions" means the work performed or role played by
the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the
aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. See
WAC 173-26-200 (2)(c).
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 150 of 160
Packet Pg. 306
7.1.b
W. "Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)" means Ordinance 2182 as amended or,
if repealed, its successor document.
X. "Enhancement" means alteration of an existing resource to improve or increase its
characteristics and processes without degrading other existing functions. Enhancements are
to be distinguished from resource creation or restoration projects.
Y. "Environmentally sensitive areas" means an area designated and mapped by a city under
WAC 197-11-908, as now or hereafter amended. Certain categorical exemptions do not apply
within environmentally sensitive areas (WAC 197-11-305 and 197-11-908, as now or
hereafter amended).
Z. "Erosion and deposition" means the removal of soils and the placement of these removed
soils elsewhere by natural forces such as wind or water.
AA. "Excavate(tion)" means the mechanical removal of soils and/or underlying strata.
BB. "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, that an action, such as a development
project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, meets all of the following conditions:
1. The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in
the past in similar circumstances, or studies or test have demonstrated in similar
circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the
intended results;
2. The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and
3. The action does not physically preclude achieve the project's primary intended legal use
In cases where this Master Program requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the
burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant.
In determining an action's infeasibility, the City of Edmonds may weigh the action's relative
public costs and public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames.
CC. "Ferry terminal" means a combination of waterward and upland improvements providing
the interface between public/private waterborne transportation and public/private ground
transportation.
DD. "Fill" means the addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or
other material (excluding solid waste) to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or
on shoreland in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 151 of 160
Packet Pg. 307
7.1.b
EE."Fill material" means dirt, structural rock or gravel, broken concrete and similar structural
substances customarily used to raise the level of the ground, but excluding topsoil, bark,
ornamental rocks or gravel placed on the surface of the ground.
FF. "Float, recreational" means an offshore platform/buoy used for water -dependent activities
such as, but not limited to, swimming and diving.
24.90.030 Definitions: G to O
A. "Gabions" means structures composed of masses of rocks, rubble or masonry held tightly
together, usually by wire mesh, so as to form blocks or walls; sometimes used on heavy
erosion areas to retard wave action or as foundations for breakwaters or jetties.
B. "Geotechnical report" or "geotechnical analysis" means a scientific study or evaluation
conducted by a qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface
hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion,
an other geologic hazards or processes, conclusions and recommendations regarding the
effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be
developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed
development, and measures to mitigate potential site -specific and cumulative geological and
hydrological impacts of the proposed development; including the potential adverse impacts
to adjacent and down -current properties. Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted
technical standards an must be prepared by qualified professional engineers or geologists
who have professional expertise in both regional and local shoreline geology and processes.
C. "Government facility" means the movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel,
sediment, or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land.
D. "Grading" means the movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or
other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land.
E. "Haines Wharf' means Lots 7 through 11 in the plat of Meadowdale Tidelands.
F. "Hotel" means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are
rented out for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior accessory
shops and services catering to the general public can be provided. Not included are
institutions housing persons under legal restraint or requiring medical attention or care.
G. "Improvement" means any structure or manmade feature.
H. "Inner harbor line" means the line designated as such by the State Harbor Line Commission
pursuant to Article XV, Washington State Constitution.
"Land surface modification" means the clearing or removal of trees, shrubs, ground cover
and other vegetation, and all grading, excavation and filling of materials. The removal of
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 152 of 160
Packet Pg. 308
7.1.b
overhanging vegetation and fire hazards as specified in ECDC 18.45.030(E) shall not be
deemed to be land surface modifications.
J. "Landscaping" means the planting, removal and maintenance of vegetation along with the
movement and displacement of earth, topsoil, rock, bark and similar substances done in
conjunction with the planting, removal and maintenance of vegetation.
K. "Landward" means upland from the ordinary high water mark.
L. "Lot" means a single tract of land legally created as a separate building site with frontage on
a street or access easement. For purposes of this code the area of the lot used to calculate lot
area shall be the area of the lot which is upland of the OHWM and adjoining lots under
common ownership which were created without subdivision or short subdivision approval
from applicable city or county governments. This lot area shall be considered as one lot and
subject to the regulations contained herein. The terms of this section shall apply regardless of
whether the individual adjoining lots meet current zoning requirements.
M. "Low Impact Development (LID)" means a stormwater and land use management strategy
that strives to mimic pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage,
evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site natural features,
site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a
project design.
N. "LID Principles" means land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of
on -site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation
loss, and stormwater runoff.
O. "Low impact development best management practices" means distributed stormwater
management practices, integrated into a project design, that emphasize pre -disturbance
hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration. LID
BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof
downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, vegetated roofs, minimum excavation
foundations, and water re -use.
P. "Marine launcher" means a mechanical device that can hoist vessels off trailers and transport
them into the water and often is associated with dry land moorage facilities.
Q. "Master plan" means a complete development plan for the subject property showing
placement, dimensions and uses of all structures as well as streets and other areas used for
vehicular circulation.
R. "Mean sea level" means the level of Puget Sound at zero tide as established by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
S. "Minor appurtenant building" means minor buildings associated with overwater structures
including but not limited to the following: storage buildings less than 150 square feet in area,
ferry terminal passenger shelter, covered moorage, etc.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 153 of 160
Packet Pg. 309
7.1.b
T. "Mixed -use developments" are shoreline developments which combine more than one
separate but related activity into a coordinated package. Activities usually include one or
more water -dependent uses with non -water -dependent uses. Drive-in businesses are not
permitted.
U. "Modification" means an action undertaken in support of or in preparation for a shoreline use
that modifies the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area.
V. "Moorage" means a place to tie up or to anchor a waterborne craft.
W. "Mooring buoy" means a floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body that
provides tie up capabilities for waterborne craft.
X. "Moorage facility" means a pier, dock, dolphin, buoy or other structure providing docking or
moorage space for waterborne craft.
Y. "Motel" means a building containing units which are used as individual sleeping units having
their own private toilet facilities and sometimes their own kitchen facilities, designed
primarily for the accommodation of transient automobile travelers. Accommodations for
trailers are not included. This term includes tourist court, motor lodge, auto court, cabin
court, motor hotel, motor inn and similar names.
Z. "Multimodal terminal (facility)" means a terminal (facility) designed for the co -location of
transportation loading and unloading by multiple forms of transportation including land,
water or rail.
AA. "Nonconformance" means any use, structure, lot, condition, activity, or any other feature
or element of private property or the use or utilization of private property that does not
conform to any of the provisions of this code or that was not approved by the city through the
appropriate decision -making process required under this code and/or was established prior to
the original Edmonds shoreline master program.
BB. "Normal appurtenances" normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway;
utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not
exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any
wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Local circumstances may dictate
additional interpretations of normal appurtenances which shall be set forth and regulated
within the applicable master program.
CC. "Office (use)" means a place of employment in a building or separately defined space
within a building providing services other than production, distribution or sale or repair of
goods or commodities. The following is a nonexclusive list of office uses: accounting,
architectural, engineering, consulting or other similar professional services; management,
administrative, secretarial, marketing, advertising, personnel or other similar personnel
services; sales offices where no inventories or goods are available on the premises; real
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 154 of 160
Packet Pg. 310
7.1.b
estate, insurance, travel agent, brokerage or other similar services. The following uses are
specifically excluded from the definition of office: medical, dental, or other health care;
veterinary; banks, loan companies and similar financial institutions.
DD. "Off-street parking" means motor vehicle parking facilities within the lot area of a private
lot or public lot established for that purpose.
EE."Official newspaper of the city" means the publication designated by ordinance or resolution
to contain official newspaper publications for the city government.
FF. "Official notification boards of the city" means the bulletin boards in the public areas of the
city of Edmonds Community Services Building, the Edmonds Main Post Office Branch, and
the Edmonds Public Library.
GG. "OHWM" means ordinary high water mark (see ECDC 24.90.030.FF)
HH. "Open space" means land not covered by buildings, roadways, parking areas or other
surfaces through which water cannot percolate into the underlying soils.
II. "Ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be
found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of
waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark
upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as
that condition existing on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may
change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by the City of Edmonds or the
Department of Ecology; PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark
cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean
higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of
mean high water.
JJ. "Oriented" means facing or directed toward.
KK. "Outer harbor line" means the line designated as such by the State Harbor Line
Commission pursuant to Article XV, Washington State
24.90.040 Definitions: P to R
A. "Parking area" means any area designed and/or used for parking of vehicles.
B. "Parking space" means an area which is improved, maintained and used for the sole purpose
of temporarily accommodating a motor vehicle that is not in use.
C. "Pedestrian orientation" pertains to facilities which encourage pedestrian movement and are
designed and oriented toward use by pedestrians.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 155 of 160
Packet Pg. 311
7.1.b
D. "Pier" means a fixed structure which abuts the shoreline and is used for moorage or other
water -related activities such as fishing, swimming and diving.
E. "Planning division" means the planning division of the community services department of
the City of Edmonds.
F. "Planning manager" means the manager of the planning division of the City of Edmonds or
the acting manager of that division.
G. "Planning official" means the manager of the planning division or his/her designee.
H. "Port" means a special purpose unit of local government created for the purpose of managing
port -related lands, facilities and activities. For the purposes of this document, "port" refers to
the port of Edmonds and its facilities and operation.
I. "Property line" means those lines enclosing a lot, its developable area and those lines
defining a recorded vehicular access easement. The following are categories of property
lines:
1. "Front property line" is any property line that is adjacent to a street or easement more
than 20 feet in width, except that the Burlington Northern right-of-way shall not be
considered a front property line.
2. "Rear property line" is any property line that is farthest from and essentially parallel to a
front property line except on a lot which contains two or more front property lines.
3. "Side property line" is any property line other than a front property line or a rear property
line.
J. "Public access" is the physical ability of the general public to reach and touch the water's
edge and/or the ability to have a view of the water and the shoreline from upland locations.
There are a variety of types of public access including picnic areas, pathways and trails
(including disabled), floats and docks, promenades, viewing towers, bridges, boat launches,
street ends, ingress and egress, parking and other similar facilities or locations.
K. "Public access pier or boardwalk" means an elevated structure or floating structure which is
constructed waterward of the ordinary high water mark and intended for public use.
L. "Public park" means an area provided by a unit of government to meet the active or passive
recreational needs of people in the water and on the upland shoreline.
M. "Public right-of-way" means land dedicated to the movement of vehicles and pedestrians and
providing for primary access to adjacent parcels and or public waterborne transportation.
Secondarily, the land provides space for utility lines and appurtenances and other publicly
owned devices.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 156 of 160
Packet Pg. 312
7.1.b
N. "Public use area" means a portion of private property that is dedicated to public use and
which contains one or more of the following elements: benches, tables, lawns, gardens, piers,
exercise or play equipment or similar improvements or features. These elements are to
provide the public with recreational opportunities in addition to the right to traverse or stand
in this area.
O. "Public utility" means a private business organization such as a public service corporation,
including physical plant facilities, performing some public service and subject to special
governmental regulations, or a governmental agency performing similar public services, the
services by either of which are paid for directly by the recipients thereof. Such services shall
include but are not limited to: water supply, waste water treatment, stormwater treatment,
electric power, telephone, cablevision, gas, and transportation for persons and freight.
P. "Railroad right-of-way" means the land occupied by a railroad for its tracks, yard, buildings,
and related structures.
Q. "Restaurant" means a building where food is sold to the public for on -premises consumption
or to go. It may include alcoholic beverage service only pursuant to a Class "C," "D," or "H"
state liquor license.
R. "Restore," restoration" or "ecological restoration" means the reestablishment or upgrading of
impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through
measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal o intrusive shoreline structures
and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for
returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions.
S. "Retail establishment" means a commercial enterprise which provides goods or services
directly to the consumer and whose goods are available for immediate purchase and removal
from the premises by the purchaser or whose services are traditionally not permitted within
an office use.
24.90.050 Definitions: S to T
A. "Shore setback" means the minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline
ordinary high water mark.
B. "Shoreline areas" and "shoreline jurisdiction" means all "shorelines of the state" and
"shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030.
C. "Shoreline conditional use" means a use or development which is specifically listed by this
master program as a conditional use within a particular shoreline environment or a use which
is not addressed by this master program within any shoreline environment.
D. "Shoreline Management Act (SMA)" means Chapter 90.58 RCW as now or hereafter
amended.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SNIP Page 157 of 160
Packet Pg. 313
7.1.b
E. "Shoreline master program (SMP)" means the ordinance of the City of Edmonds adopted
under authority of Chapter 90.58 RCW.
F. "Shoreline modifications" means those actions that modify the physical configuration or
qualities of the shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as
a dike, breakwater, pier, weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structure.
They can include other actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals.
G. "Shoreline variance" means a procedure to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional or
performance standards set forth in this master program, and not a means to allow a use not
otherwise permitted within a shoreline environment.
H. "Silt or sediment" means the soil particles mobilized and deposited by the processes of
erosion and deposition.
I. "Street" means the public or private right-of-way or access easement which provides
vehicular access to more than three lots.
J. "Structure" means anything which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind,
or any piece of work artificially built-up or composed of parts joined together in some
definite manner. Not included are fences less than six feet in height, retaining wall, rockeries,
and similar improvements of a minor character less than three feet in height.
K. "Structural alterations" means any change in a supporting member of a building or structure.
L. "Subject property" means the entire lot, series of lots or parcels on which a development or
use is or will locate and that is otherwise subject to the provisions of this code. For the
purposes of this chapter, land leased from the Department of Natural Resources, which is
contiguous to the applicant's property, shall also be considered the "subject property."
24.90.060 Definitions: U to Z
A. "Use, development and/or activity" means "development" as that term is defined in Chapter
90.58 RCW. "Use" also means the nature of the activities taking place on private property or
within structures thereon.
B. "Vehicle holding area" means any area designated by the city or state for holding vehicles
prior to loading onto a ferry.
C. "Water -dependent use" means a use or a portion of a use which is dependent on the water by
reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations and can not exist in any other location.
Examples of water -dependent uses may include ferry and passenger terminals, marinas and
sewer outfalls.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 158 of 160
Packet Pg. 314
7.1.b
D. "Water -enjoyment use" means a recreational use, or other use facilitating public access to the
shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or
aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general
characteristic of the use and which through the location, design and operation assures the
public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to
qualify as a water -enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public and the
shoreline -oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use
that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary water -enjoyment uses may include, but are not
limited to, parks, piers, scuba diving facilities and other improvements facilitating public
access to shorelines of the state; and general water -enjoyment uses may include but are not
limited to, restaurants, museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves, resorts and
mixed -use commercial; provided, that such uses conform to the above water -enjoyment
specifications and the provisions of the master program.
E. "Water -oriented use" refers to any combination of water -dependent, water -related, and/or
water -enjoyment uses and serves as an all -encompassing definition for priority under the
SMA. "Non -water -oriented" serves to describe those uses which have little or no relationship
to the shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the SMA. Examples include
professional offices, automobile sales or repair shops, mini -storage facilities, multifamily
residential development, department stores and gas stations.
F. "Water -related use" means a use or a portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on
a waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location
because:
Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of
materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or
2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water -dependent commercial
activities and that the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less
expensive and/or more convenient.
G. "Waterward" means toward the body of water on the waterside of the ordinary high water
mark.
H. "Wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. 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.
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 159 of 160
Packet Pg. 315
Part X Appendices
24.100.000 Appendix A - Maps of Shoreline Environments and Jurisdictions
24.100.010 Appendix B — Shoreline Master Program Version of Edmonds
Critical Area Regulations
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 160 of 160
Packet Pg. 316
7.1.c
Principal Changes to the Wetland Guidance for Critical Areas Ordinance
(CAO) Updates
August 10, 2016, Paul S. Anderson, Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor, Ecology NWRO
In June 2016, Ecology published the updated version of its CAO guidance for local jurisdictions,
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001; hereafter, CAO
Guidance). This update replaced Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities
(Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002; hereafter, Small Cities Guidance), both of which are based
on Ecology's best available science documents: Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A
Synthesis of the Science and Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Ecology Publication Nos. 05-06-006 and 05-06-008,
respectively). Here is a link to Ecology's Website that explains the update and has links to the
referenced documents: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/guidance.html
The CAO Guidance was updated to incorporate recent changes in the state wetland rating
system and associated buffer recommendations based on a new scoring scheme; to provide
guidance to all jurisdictions in the state and not just small cities; to more closely reflect the buffer
recommendations in Appendix 8C of Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2, to acknowledge
the importance of wildlife corridors and provide incentives for buffer reductions if corridors can
be provided; and to incorporate recent publications and regulatory changes.
Wetlands in Washington State (Glossary, p. 1) defines buffers as:
"Vegetated areas adjacent to wetlands, or other aquatic resources, that can reduce
impacts from adjacent land uses through various physical, chemical, and/or biological
processes."
Ecology considers buffers to be areas that are well -vegetated with a plant community
appropriate to the eco-region. Buffers provide two primary roles in protecting and supporting
wetland (and stream) functions: water quality and habitat. Where native vegetation has been
removed, buffer functions are degraded and the recommended buffer widths may need to be
increased to achieve a comparable level of function. For water quality improvement, the benefit
of buffers is achieved within the first 60-75 feet and wider buffer are providing primarily habitat
value. The buffer widths listed in Appendix 8C represent the mid -ranges of buffer widths
reported in the literature and are, therefore, a moderate -risk approach to wetland protection.
Because habitat is such an important consideration in buffer (and wetland) function, the buffer
widths are scaled based on the wetland habitat score.
Relative to wetland buffers, and specifically applicable to Edmonds Marsh, the most important
changes in the CAO Guidance are:
• a revised format for the recommended buffer widths;
• including wildlife corridors as an option to reduce buffer widths; and
• including buffer widths for Category II estuarine wetlands.
Packet Pg. 317
7.1.c
The change to the format for the recommended buffer widths in the CAO Guidance from the
Small Cities Guidance has been to include a table of required buffer widths if minimization
measures (or a wildlife corridor) are not incorporated into site design (Table XX.3). The buffer
widths listed in Table XX.1 Small Cities Guidance were dependent upon application of the
minimization measures listed in Table XX.2 and if those measures weren't applied, the buffer
widths needed to be increased by 33% (Condition No. 2, p. A-5, Small Cities Guidance). My
understanding is that this approach (assuming that projects would incorporate the minimization
measures) was a challenge for Ecology and local jurisdictions to implement; people simply
referred to the buffer widths listed in Table XX.1 and believed those were the recommended
buffer widths.
In 2013, Ecology published an update to the 2005 wetland BAS synthesis specific to buffers
(Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science; Ecology Publication No. 13-06-11). The
purpose of the update was to review studies published since 2003 and determine whether the
conclusions and recommendations in Wetlands in Washington State were still valid. The 2013
literature review concluded that the Wetlands in Washington State recommendations were still
valid. One key findings in the 2013 literature review was on the importance of corridors and
habitat connectivity for wildlife. That finding is the basis for including wildlife corridors as a
consideration in the recommended buffer widths in the CAO Guidance.
The buffer widths listed in tables XX.1 and XX.3 in the CAO Guidance now include buffer widths
for Category II estuarine wetlands; 110 and 150 feet, respectively, regardless of habitat score.
I'm not sure why Category II estuarine wetlands were not included in Small Cities Guidance
Table XX.1. That omission has now been corrected in the CAO Guidance. Also, because the
state wetland rating system is not designed to accurately assess the habitat condition of
estuarine wetlands, habitat scores are no longer a consideration in establishing the appropriate
buffer width for estuarine wetlands.
For Edmonds Marsh, any areas of intact native vegetation within the adopted buffer widths
would need to be protected or if impacts to intact buffer are unavoidable, the area of impact
would need to be replaced (mitigated). The 50-foot buffer mentioned in Items 8 and 9 of
Ecology's Required Changes refers to a restored buffer within currently developed areas (little
or no remaining functional buffer) as mitigation to offset the more intensive land use associated
with redevelopment. It is the redevelopment of greater than 50% of the Harbor Square property
within shoreline jurisdiction that would trigger the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer along
the perimeter of Edmonds Marsh, in combination with a 15-foot structural setback.
Packet Pg. 318
7.1.d
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
State of Washington
Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates
Western Washington Version
June 2016
Publication No. 16-06-001
m
r
LO
0
O
w
O
r
Packet Pg. 319
7.1.d
Publication and Contact Information
This report is available on the Department of Ecology's website at
https:/ /fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummarPages/1606001.html 0
W
0
to
For more information contact: 6
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-6600
Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov
o Headquarters, Olympia
360-407-6000
o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue
425-649-7000
o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia
360-407-6300
o Central Regional Office, Yakima
509-575-2490
o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane
509-329-3400
To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call
the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with
hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability
can call 877-833-6341.
Packet Pg. 320
7.1.d
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Donna Bunten, Rick Mraz, Lauren Driscoll and Amy Yahnke
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
June 2016
Publication No. 16-06-001
m
r
LO
r
O
O
w
O
w
r
Packet Pg. 321
1-9
v
E41
N �
Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1516 :
7.1.d
co
Table of Contents LO
r
Summary.......................................................................................... 1 r
0
O
Introduction...................................................................................... 2 to
0
r
Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection ............................. 3
Relationship between the GMA and the SMA................................ 4
Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter ................................ 4
PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 4
DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................... 4
IDENTIFYING, DESIGNATING, AND RATING WETLANDS .................................................... 5
REGULATED USES AND ACTIVITIES.................................................................................. 7
EXEMPTIONS.................................................................................................................... 7
FORESTPRACTICES.......................................................................................................... 9
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES............................................................................................. 9
Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts .......................... 10
WETLANDS INVENTORY.................................................................................................
10
ABCs.............................................................................................................................
10
BUFFERS.........................................................................................................................
1 1
BUFFER AVERAGING......................................................................................................
13
MITIGATION...................................................................................................................
13
MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................
14
MitigationBanking...............................................................................................
15
In -Lieu Fee (ILF)..................................................................................................
15
Off -Site Mitigation................................................................................................
16
AdvanceMitigation...............................................................................................
16
Conclusion.....................................................................................
16
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter ...................................... 19
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions ................................................ 51
Packet Pg. 323
1-9
v
E41
Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1516 :
7.1.d
co
Summary
This publication replaces Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Western c
Washington Version), Publication No. 10-06-002, January 2010. It also replaces the I" c
revision dated July 2011 and the 2nd revision dated October 2012. to
This new publication, for the most part, contains the same guidance as the "small cities
guidance" referenced above. Over the last few years, it became obvious that the
information in that document could apply to all cities and counties, not just small cities.
However, the wetland buffer table may be too restrictive for county use because it
assumes that adjacent land use intensity is high. Counties and larger cities generally have
more staff and resources that allow more sophisticated approaches to assigning wetland
buffers.
In addition, these jurisdictions may be able to provide additional protection for habitat
function by requiring protected wildlife corridors between the wetland and other priority
habitats in exchange for buffer reduction —something that is often impossible in small,
urban jurisdictions.
Check with Ecology wetland staff for more information about using this guidance in your
particular jurisdiction http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
Specific changes to this new publication include:
• Reference to the updated 2014 wetland rating system
• Updated definitions based on the updated 2014 wetland rating system
• Buffer tables that include habitat scores from the updated 2014 wetland rating
system
• Addition of buffer table to be used if minimizing measures are not used
• Emphasis on the requirement to provide wildlife corridors where possible in
exchange for buffer reduction
• Guidance on using wetlands for stormwater management facilities
• Revisions to exemptions for small wetlands
• Recommended language addressing agricultural activities in non-VSP
jurisdictions
• Addition of recent mitigation documents and guidance
• Corrected links to resource documents and web pages
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page I
Packet Pg. 325
7.1.d
Introduction
This document is intended to provide guidance and tools useful in developing a wetland
protection program for jurisdictions that are in the process of updating their critical areas
ordinances (CAOs) to meet the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements.
Wetlands are one of the five types of critical areas identified in the GMA.
We recognize that many local governments lack the planning staff and resources
necessary to develop and implement wetland standards that are both locally appropriate
and based on best available science (BAS). Nonetheless, they must comply with the
GMA requirement to designate and protect wetlands.
The first part of this document describes the important topics that should be addressed in
the wetlands section of your CAO. It includes recommendations for wetland protection
based on BAS. Appendix A is a sample CAO chapter for wetlands that incorporates
these recommendations into a format similar to that found in many local CAOs. (Please
note that the sample CAO will need to be tailored to your jurisdiction's naming and
numbering system. There are several generic "XX" references throughout the text.)
Appendix B contains definitions that are commonly used in wetlands regulations.
This document does not include the more general provisions typically found in
regulations related to all critical areas. These can be found in Appendix A of the Critical
Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of
Commerce (formerly the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development) in November 2003 hgp://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
Critical-Areas-Appendix-A-Sample-Code-Provisions.pd£ This document revises the
wetland -specific provisions in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook.
The recommendations in this document and the sample ordinance may not be appropriate
for use by rural county governments. Factors to consider are the county's rate of growth,
the nature and intensity of land uses in the county, the wetland resources at risk, and the
ability of the county to implement its CAO. We suggest that you contact us to determine
whether this guidance is applicable to your county. Please use the following link to find
Ecology's wetland specialist for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 2
Packet Pg. 326
7.1.d
Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection
T_
Ecology has produced several different tools that can help local governments develop a
--
comprehensive wetlands protection program for their jurisdictions. The Washington
c
Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have published a
o
two -volume guidance document to help local governments protect and manage wetlands:
to
• Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-006, Olympia,
WA, March 2005). This volume is the result of an extensive search of over
17,000 scientific articles and synthesizes over 1,000 peer -reviewed works relevant
to the management of Washington's wetlands.
• Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-008, Olympia,
WA, April 2005). This volume was developed with the assistance of local
government planners and wetland consultants. It can be used to craft regulatory
language that is based on BAS. We recommend that you review Chapter 8 and its
appendices as you begin to work on updating your existing regulations. (Please
note: Appendix 8-C was revised in October 2014.)
In October 2013, Ecology released an update of the science pertaining to wetland buffers.
The new information on buffers provides a refinement of our knowledge and revisits the
conclusions and key points in the 2005 synthesis.
• Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science (Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-011, Olympia, WA, October 2013.
Ecology, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has also developed a two-part guidance
document aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation
in Washington State:
• Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and
Guidance (Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication
#06-06-01 la, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 1 provides a brief background on
wetlands, an overview of the factors that go into the agencies' permitting
decisions, and detailed guidance on the agencies' policies of wetland mitigation,
particularly compensatory mitigation. It outlines the information the agencies use
to determine whether specific mitigation plans are appropriate and adequate.
• Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans
(Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 lb,
Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 2 provides technical information on preparing
plans for compensatory mitigation.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 3
Packet Pg. 327
7.1.d
Ecology has also developed a wetland ratings system for western Washington. The rating to
system is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs forIn
protection. 77
0
• Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 0
Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, 9
Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Links to all of these documents can be found at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/index.html.
Relationship between the GMA and the SMA
You may be planning to adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that will rely on the
CAO for protection of wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology
does not have an approval role in the CAO adoption process; our role is advisory. The
SMP, however, is a joint document of Ecology and the local government requiring
Ecology approval. Before the SMP can be approved by Ecology, the CAO must meet the
"no net loss of ecological functions" requirement (WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)(i)).
You should be aware that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) may preclude or alter
the administration of your CAO. For example, certain activities exempted under the
CAO will not qualify for exemption under the SMP. In addition, activities allowed
without permits under the CAO may require permits under the SMP.
For assistance with CAO-SMP integration, please use the following link to find the
shoreline planner for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/sma/contacts/index.html.
Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter
Your wetlands chapter will exist as one of several in your critical areas ordinance. Below
we describe some of the important subsections in the wetlands chapter and include our
recommendations for protecting wetlands based on the best available science.
Purpose
The chapter typically begins with a purpose statement, followed by designation criteria,
which include a definition of wetlands and the methods by which they are identified and
rated and other details listed below. The purpose statement may also state that this
chapter is intended to be consistent with the requirements of 36.70A RCW and to
implement the goals and policies of your Comprehensive Plan for protecting wetlands.
Definitions
Your wetlands chapter may include a separate list of definitions, or the definitions may
be included in the general definitions section of the CAO. Appendix B is a list of
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 4
Packet Pg. 328
7.1.d
definitions relevant to your wetlands chapter. This list includes terms identified in state
law and agency guidance documents. Clarity and consistency in the use of these terms
will make ordinance implementation easier.
Identifying, Designating, and Rating Wetlands
The first steps in regulating wetlands are to define what is being regulated and specify
how these areas will be identified. The GMA requires the use of the following definition
of wetlands and specifies how to identify and delineate them.
In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, counties and cities are required to use
the definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030(21):
"Wetland " or "wetlands " means areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do
not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -
wetland 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 non -wetland
areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.
Wetlands are subject to a local government's regulatory authority if they meet the criteria
in this definition. This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and isolated
wetlands. These wetlands can provide critical functions and habitat and should be
regulated. The GMA does not allow flexibility in adopting a modified definition of
wetlands.
Irrigation practices, such as the Irrigation District ditches in Sequim, can result in human -
created wetlands. More frequently, however, irrigation practices may augment natural
sources of water to a wetland. Wetlands that form along irrigation ditches that were
intentionally created in uplands may be exempted from regulation. However, if a wetland is
the unintentional by-product of irrigation activities, the wetland should be regulated. If a
wetland disappears as the result of a change in irrigation practice, it will not be regulated in
the future. However, most wetlands will not disappear completely as a result of local
changes in irrigation practices because of natural sources of water or regional irrigation
influences. Please see htt2://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/irrigation.httni for
more information on how Ecology regulates irrigation -influenced wetlands.
Ecology is most concerned about those changes in land use that would eliminate wetlands
as the result of fill or grading, such as a conversion to commercial or residential use.
These activities should be regulated by the CAO, and appropriate protection standards
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page S
Packet Pg. 329
7.1.d
(such as buffers and mitigation) should be required in order to minimize the loss of
wetland area and function.
Many jurisdictions use the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) to determine whether
wetlands exist within their boundaries. Since the NWI is based on photographs that are
over 30 years old and provides only a general approximation of wetland location, it
cannot be used alone to designate wetlands. Wetlands are those areas that meet the above
definition of "wetland." Wetlands are also dynamic systems that change over time. It is
important to adopt the GMA definition and to have regulations in place to protect wetland
functions and values, should wetlands that do not currently appear on the NWI or other
maps be identified in the future.
State laws require that wetlands protected under the GMA and the SMA be delineated
using a manual that is developed by Ecology and adopted into rules (RCW 36.70A.175;
RCW 90.58.380). The Department of Ecology adopted a wetland delineation manual in
1997 (WAC 173-22-080) that was based on the original 1987 Corps of Engineers manual
and subsequent Regulatory Guidance Letters.
During the last few years the Army Corps of Engineers has updated and expanded their
delineation manual with regional supplements. To maintain consistency between the state
and federal delineations of wetlands, Ecology has repealed WAC 173-22-080 (the state
delineation manual) and replaced it with a revision of WAC 173-22-035 that states that
delineations should be done according to the currently approved federal manual and
regional supplements. The changes became effective March 14, 2011.
The GMA states that "wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted
pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the
department pursuant to RCW 90.58.380." RCW 90.58.380 allows the Department of
Ecology to adopt rules that incorporate changes to the manual. Therefore, the currently
approved federal manual and regional supplements should be used for delineating
wetlands in GMA jurisdiction. See:
http://www.ecy.wa.jzovL/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html.
Local governments are not required to rate or classify wetlands when regulating them.
However, methods that classify, categorize, or rate wetlands help target the appropriate
level of protection to particular types of wetlands and avoid the "one -size -fits -all"
approach. If a local government uses a wetland rating system, it must consider the
criteria described in WAC 365-190-090(3).
The Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Effective January 2015), (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, October 2014) is a useful
tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. The revised
rating system represents the best available science, as it is based on a better
understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect
them. It provides a quick "snapshot" characterization of a particular wetland. In many
cases, it will provide enough information about existing wetland functions to allow
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 6
Packet Pg. 330
7.1.d
adequate plan review and land use decisions to be made without the additional expense of
a separate wetland functional assessment.
While local governments are not required to use Ecology's revised rating system, we
strongly encourage you to adopt wetland regulations that require its use. Most
qualified wetland specialists are using the revised rating system. In cases where state and
federal permits are required, the use of this rating system would benefit applicants by
eliminating the need to rate wetlands according to a different local standard. If you
choose not to use the state's wetland rating system, you must provide a rationale for this
decision according to WAC 365-190-090(3).
We recommend that you include language that describes the four categories of wetlands.
This text is different for eastern and western Washington jurisdictions. Please refer to
Appendix A, Section XX.020.13.1-4 for the specific category descriptions.
Regulated Uses and Activities
Your wetland section should list those uses and activities that are regulated under the
critical areas ordinance. Some of these items include: removal, excavation, grading, or
dredging of material of any kind; draining, flooding, or disturbing of the wetland, water
level, or water table; the construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any
structure; etc. More extensive examples are provided in the sample ordinance.
Wetlands are often impacted by unauthorized clearing and grading that takes place
before application for development permits. You should make sure your CAO
adequately regulates clearing and grading. If it doesn't, you should adopt a separate
clearing and grading ordinance. The Department of Commerce (formerly Community,
Trade and Economic Development) published technical guidance on developing a
clearing and grading ordinance: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
Clearing-and-Grading-Technical-Guidance-Final-2005.pdf.
Most forest practices (as defined in RCW 76.09 are exempted from the provisions of a
wetlands chapter in the CAO. However, those forest practices that are Class IV general
should be regulated. These activities constitute a conversion from forestry to some other
use. As such, buffers and wetland protections are appropriate.
Exemptions
Your wetlands section should identify those activities in or near wetlands that are
regulated and those that are exempt from regulation. Exemptions include activities that
will have little or no environmental effect or are an emergency that threatens public
health or safety. In the case of emergency response activities that affect wetlands and
buffers, the responsible party should be required to obtain after -the -fact permits and to
rectify impacts. Some jurisdictions place the exemptions or exceptions in a general
exemptions section near the front of the CAO. However, some exemptions or exceptions
may apply only to wetlands, so it may be more practical to have these specific
exemptions in the wetlands section.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 7
Packet Pg. 331
7.1.d
Exempt activities should be limited to those that will not have a significant impact on a
wetland's structure and function (including its water, soil, or vegetation) and those that
are expected to be very short term. Local governments should, however, also consider
the cumulative impacts from exempted activities. They can result in a loss of wetland
acreage and function that are not replaced through compensatory mitigation.
The scope, coverage, and applicability of a critical areas ordinance should capture the full
range of activities that are detrimental to wetland functions. Therefore, exemptions
should be supported by the scientific literature and be carefully crafted to minimize the
potential for adverse impacts. However, a local government should not assume that an
exemption is appropriate in the absence of science to refute the exemption. The language
should clearly state whether a given activity is exempt from applicable standards in the
code or whether it is exempt from needing a permit but still must comply with the code.
Exemptions should be limited and construed narrowly.
For more information on this topic, please refer to Chapter 8 of Wetlands in Washington
State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Ecology Publication #05-06-008,
Olympia, WA, April 2005:
hgps:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy//publications/summMages/0506008.html .
The GMA, in RCW 36.70a.030(21), requires local governments to regulate wetlands that
meet the GMA-required definition of "wetland" (see the definition of "wetland" in the
previous section). This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and hydrologically
isolated wetlands, two types of wetlands that have been exempt from federal regulation at
times. PCCs are wetlands that have been ditched and drained for active agricultural use
before December 23, 1985. Isolated wetlands are those wetlands that have no surface
hydrologic connection to waters of the United States. These wetlands must be regulated by
your CAO. Please see hqp://www.ecy.wa.go) /programs/sea/wetlands/isolated.html for
more information on how the state of Washington currently regulates isolated wetlands.
The scientific literature does not support exempting wetlands that are below a certain size.
While we recognize an administrative desire to place size thresholds on wetlands that are
to be regulated, you need to be aware that it is not possible to conclude from size alone
what functions a particular wetland may be providing. Ecology has developed a strategy
for exempting small wetlands when additional criteria are considered. This language is
present in the sample ordinance. However, impacts to small wetlands are NOT
exempt from the requirement to provide compensatory mitigation for those impacts.
If an in -lieu fee (ILF) program or a mitigation bank is available in your area (see page
15), these mitigation alternatives can help prevent a net loss of wetland function from
impacts to small wetlands in your jurisdiction.
Exceptions are typically addressed in a CAO in the context of reasonable use of property.
For more information about this regulatory tool, see Section VII of the Critical Areas
Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Commerce:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf .
You should keep in mind that the Shoreline Management Act does not allow reasonable
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 8
Packet Pg. 332
7.1.d
use exceptions, providing instead a variance pathway to afford regulatory relief. If you to
decide to incorporate your CAO into your SNIP when the latter document is In
updated, you will need to address this potential inconsistency. 77
0
Forest Practices o
W
Class I, II, and III forest practices should be exempted from the wetlands section of your to
CAO. These activities are regulated through RCW 76.09, the Forest Practices Act.
Agricultural Activities
In 2011 the Washington Legislature created the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) as
an alternative for meeting GMA requirements related to protecting critical areas and
agricultural lands. In 2015 the state provided funding for participating counties to begin the
VSP planning process. For more information on this program, see
http://www.scc.wa.gov/voluntqa-stewardship/.
For the GMA update cycle beginning 2015, some counties will begin addressing critical
area issues related to agriculture through a VSP work plan.
If your jurisdiction is not in a participating county or not in a participating watershed, then
you must review and revise your development regulations for protecting wetlands as they
apply to agricultural activities (see RCW 3 6.70A.7 10).
If your jurisdiction is in a VSP watershed designated by a participating county, your GMA
responsibilities to protect critical areas from agricultural activities in or near wetlands will
be achieved through the VSP work plan.
However, it is important to keep in mind that federal and state regulations, such as the Clean
Water Act and the State Water Pollution Control Act are still applicable in all jurisdictions
regardless of participation or non -participation in the VSP. The VSP does not alter the
responsibility of property owners to meet water quality standards, protect wetlands, and
comply with state and federal environmental regulations.
Ecology recommends the following for non-VSP jurisdictions:
"Existing and ongoing agricultural activities" are often exempted from the provisions of a
CAO. These activities should be clearly defined and should not include removing trees,
diverting or impounding water, excavation, ditching, draining, culverting, filling, grading,
or similar activities that introduce new adverse impacts to wetlands or other aquatic
resources. Maintenance of agricultural ditches should be limited to removing sediment in
existing ditches to a specified depth at date of last maintenance. Conversion of wetlands
that are not currently in agricultural use to a new agricultural use should be subject to the
same regulations that govern new development.
Ecology encourages the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), farm conservation
plans, and incentive -based programs to improve agricultural practices in and near
wetlands. The goal of the BMPs should be to ensure that ongoing agricultural activities
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 9
Packet Pg. 333
7.1.d
minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and
wildlife habitat.
Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts
Wetlands Inventory
You may wish to pursue accurate identification and rating of all wetlands in your
planning area based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-
06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014) and the approved federal wetland delineation
manual and applicable regional supplements. These documents can be downloaded at:
• http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/ratingsystems/index.html (rating
systems)
• http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html (delineation
manual and supplements)
While this approach may initially be more labor intensive and expensive, such
information will allow rapid review of development proposals and can help your
jurisdiction prioritize areas for preservation or acquisition.
This approach is consistent with BAS. It can help with the development of a landscape -
analysis approach to protecting wetlands in your jurisdiction. Landscape analysis for
critical areas facilitates and informs long-range planning. The City of Aberdeen used this
approach in their CAO update. (See Section XX.050.13 in the sample ordinance.)
ABCs
The most basic approach to protecting wetland functions and values can be summarized
as the A-B-C Approach, or Avoid -Buffer -Compensate. This means that a CAO should
contain language to ensure that:
1. Wetlands impacts are avoided to the extent practicable.
2. Wetlands are buffered to protect them from adjacent land -use impacts.
3. Unavoidable impacts are compensated, or replaced.
Your CAO should provide requirements on how to reduce the severity of impacts to
wetlands. When an alteration to a wetland is proposed, impacts should be avoided,
minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference:
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 10
Packet Pg. 334
7.1.d
2. 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;
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action;
Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and/or
6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
Buffers
Establishing standards for wetland buffers is usually the most challenging part of
developing a CAO. However, developing a predictable, reasonable approach for
establishing buffers that includes the best available science is not as difficult as it may
seem.
The scientific literature is unequivocal that buffers are necessary to protect wetland
functions and values. The literature consistently reports that the primary factors to
evaluate in determining appropriate buffer widths are:
The wetland type and functions needing protection (buffers filter sediment,
nutrients, or toxics; screen noise and light; provide forage, nesting, or
resting habitat for wetland -dependent species; etc.).
2. The types of adjacent land use and their expected impacts.
3. The characteristics of the buffer area (slope, soils, vegetation).
The widths of buffers needed vary widely, depending on these three factors. For
example, providing filtration of coarse sediment from residential development next to a
low -quality wetland would require only a relatively flat buffer of dense grasses or
forest/shrub vegetation in the range of 20 to 30 feet. However, providing forage and
nesting habitat for common wetland -dependent species such as waterfowl, herons, or
amphibians in a high -quality wetland adjacent to residential development would require a
buffer vegetated with trees and shrubs in the range of 200 to 300 feet. This illustrates the
necessity of using an approach to buffers that incorporates wetland type and functions
(based on an appropriate rating system), types of land use, and the environmental
characteristics of the existing buffer.
Your CAO should require buffers for activities that will impact wetland functions.
Ecology's complete buffer recommendations are presented in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 11
Packet Pg. 335
7.1.d
in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014). We recommend using the tables
shown in the sample ordinance.
Tables XX.1 and XX.3 are derived from the more -detailed tables in Volume 2. They are
easy to use and are based on BAS. This approach provides the important balance of
predictability and flexibility. Determination of buffer size is simply a matter of applying
the results of the wetland rating system score to the buffer matrix, based on the wetland
category and wildlife habitat score. It generally requires smaller buffers for those
wetlands that do not have much wildlife use.
Table XX.1 requires the use of the minimizing measures in Table XX.2. These measures
are intended to reduce the impacts of the adjacent land use on the wetland. If impacts are
reduced, the size of the buffer required to protect the wetland's functions can be reduced.
The buffer widths in Table XX.1 represent a 25% reduction in our recommended buffers
in Volume 2.
Table XX.1 also requires the protection of a wildlife corridor between wetlands that score
5 or more habitat points and any other Priority Habitat. This requirement is particularly
applicable in large or rural jurisdictions where species need to have access to other
habitats to meet their life needs. A buffer is the usual means of providing this necessary
habitat. However, if buffer reduction is allowed, we cannot ensure that these species will
have adequate access to habitat without providing a connective corridor. In urban areas,
the best solution is a landscape -based approach that takes into account actual species use
and spatial arrangement and connectivity of habitats. Without such an approach,
jurisdictions should use the guidance provided in the sample wetland chapter.
If your jurisdiction is small and urban, providing a wildlife corridor may not be an option.
You should consult with Ecology wetland staff to determine whether using Tables XX.1
and XX.2 alone will provide adequate protection for your wetland functions.
Table XX.3 shows the buffer widths required if the minimizing measures in Table XX.2
are not implemented and if a wildlife corridor is not protected. These buffers are wider
than those in Table XX.1, because the impacts to the wetland functions are potentially
greater.
The buffer tables XX.1 and XX.3 do not consider land -use intensity in the buffer
calculation, since it is presumed that most urban land uses will be high or moderate
intensity. However, if your jurisdiction has an activity that can be considered low
intensity, such as a passive recreation area or nature park with undeveloped trails, you
may wish to prescribe a smaller buffer for that area only. The buffer for an area should
be no less than 75% of the otherwise required buffer. Such a "low -intensity" buffer is not
appropriate for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Of course, if your jurisdiction
includes rural land uses, you should consider using the buffer tables in Appendix 8-C of
Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014).
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 12
Packet Pg. 336
7.1.d
Some wetland types listed in the buffer tables may not be present in your jurisdiction
(e.g., coastal lagoons, bogs, interdunal wetlands, etc.). If you are certain that these
wetlands do not occur within your jurisdiction and would not be introduced by future
annexations, you may remove those wetland types from the buffer tables.
You may wish to adopt an even simpler approach to wetland buffers, one based only on
wetland category. In this case, buffers must be large enough to protect the most -sensitive
wetlands from the most -damaging land -use impacts. Please refer to Table 8C-1 of
Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014) for this
example.
Ecology's buffer recommendations are based on a moderate -risk approach to protecting
wetland functions. This means that there is a moderate risk that wetland functions will be
impacted. Adopting smaller buffers represents a high -risk approach, and you need to be
prepared to justify why such an approach is necessary and to offer alternative means of
protecting wetland functions that help reduce the risk.
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.
Buffer Averaging
Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain
circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate. The width
of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if
it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a parcel.
We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report. The report
should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the current functions of the
wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be taken to ensure that there is no loss of
wetland function due to the buffer averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point
after averaging should be no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer.
If you choose to adopt narrower buffer widths than those supported by BAS, then further
reductions to the buffer width should not be allowed under any circumstances.
Mitigation
Applicants are required by state and federal permitting agencies to show that they have
followed mitigation sequencing and have first avoided and minimized impacts to
wetlands wherever practicable. Your CAO should include the definition of mitigation
sequencing and require applicants to demonstrate that they have applied avoidance and
minimization. For more information and sample checklists, see
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/avoidance.html.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 13
Packet Pg. 337
7.1.d
Unavoidable impacts to wetlands should be offset by compensatory mitigation. Your
CAO should include standards for the type, location, amount, and timing of the
mitigation. It should also include clear guidance on the design considerations and
reporting requirements for mitigation plans.
Ecology's recommendations for the amount of mitigation (ratios) are based on wetland
category, function, and special characteristics. Requiring a greater area for mitigation
than the wetland area that will be impacted helps offset both the risk that compensatory
mitigation will fail and the temporal loss of functions that may occur. We recommend
using the ratio table shown in the sample ordinance. It is derived from the more -detailed
tables in Part I of the joint agency guidance on mitigation: Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State, Parts I and 2 (Ecology Publications #06-06-011a & b, March 2006).
As an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance, Ecology has
developed a credit -debit tool for calculating when a proposed wetland mitigation project
adequately replaces the functions and values lost when wetlands are impacted. The tool
is designed to provide guidance for both regulators and applicants during two stages of
the mitigation process:
1. Estimating the functions and values lost when a wetland is altered (debits), and
2. Estimating the gain in functions and values that result from the mitigation
(credits).
The Department of Ecology, however, does not require the use of this credit -debit
method. It provides one method for determining the adequacy of compensatory wetland
mitigation. It does not set any new regulatory requirements. The document and
worksheets can be downloaded at:
http : //www. ecy. wa. goy/pro grams/sea/wetlands/miti gation/creditdebit/index. html.
In 2008 the Corps and the EPA issued a rule governing compensatory mitigation. The
rule establishes performance standards and criteria to improve the quality and success of
compensatory mitigation, mitigation banks, and in -lieu fee programs. For more
information on the federal rule, see:
http://water.0a.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmiti ag tion_index.cfm.
By adopting mitigation standards based on the state and federal guidance and rules, you
will be providing consistency for applicants who must also apply for state and federal
permits.
Mitigation Alternatives
Various options are available for mitigation, in addition to the traditional on -site
concurrent option. These options include placing the mitigation away from the project
site (off -site mitigation), building mitigation in advance of project impacts, and using
third -party mitigation providers such as wetland banks and in -lieu -fee programs.
Deciding which option should be used depends on what works best for the applicant and
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 14
Packet Pg. 338
7.1.d
for the environment. Some of these options may not be available in your area at this
time. However, we recommend that your CAO allow these options. They can be
effective and valuable tools in preventing a net loss of wetland functions.
Some project applicants may propose mitigation that is consistent with sound ecological
principles but is located outside of your jurisdiction. You may wish to include language
in your CAO that enables your government to allow such out -of -jurisdiction mitigation
opportunities.
In addition to the following options, you might want to consider allowing transfer of
development rights (TDR) as a tool for protecting wetlands. The Department of
Commerce is working with four Puget Sound counties in a pilot TDR program. For more
information, contact the Commerce planner for your jurisdiction or see: Commerce
Regional Assistance Teams.
Mitigation Banking
A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands, streams, and/or other aquatic resource areas
have been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the
purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. A
mitigation bank may be created by a government agency, corporation, nonprofit
organization, or other entity. The bank sells its credits to permittees who are required to
compensate for wetland impacts. Mitigation banks allow a permittee to simply write a
check for their mitigation obligation. It is the bank owner who is responsible for the
mitigation success. Mitigation banks require a formal agreement with the Corps,
Ecology, and the local jurisdiction to be used for federal or state permits.
Ecology adopted the final Wetland Mitigation Banks Rule (WAC 173-700) in 2009. The
purpose of the rule is to provide a framework for the certification, operation, and
monitoring of wetland mitigation banks. To learn more about wetland banking and the
rule, see Ecology's website at
http: //www. ecy.wa. goy/programs/sea/wetlands/miti gationibanking/index.html.
In -Lieu Fee (ILF)
In this approach to mitigation, a permittee pays a fee to a third party in lieu of conducting
project -specific mitigation or buying credits from a mitigation bank. ILF mitigation is
used mainly to compensate for impacts to wetlands when better approaches to
compensation are not available or practicable, or when the use of an ILF is in the best
interest of the environment.
An ILF represents the expected costs to a third party of replacing the wetland functions
lost or degraded as a result of the permittee's project. Fees are typically held in trust until
sufficient funds have been collected to finance a mitigation project. Only a nonprofit
organization such as a local land trust, private conservation group, or government agency
with demonstrated competence in natural resource management may operate an ILF
program. All ILF programs must be approved by the Corps to be used for Section 404
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 15
Packet Pg. 339
7.1.d
permits. To learn more about ILF programs, see Ecology's website at to
http://www.ecy.wa.aov/mitiaation/ilf html. ,
Off -Site Mitigation o
This refers to compensatory mitigation that is not located at or near the project that o
generates impacts to wetlands. Off -site mitigation is generally allowed when on -site 9
mitigation is not practicable or environmentally preferable.
The 2008 federal rule on compensatory mitigation requires that some type of watershed
approach be used in siting mitigation. Ecology, the Corps of Engineers, and EPA have
developed guidance to help applicants select potential off -site mitigation sites. To
download a copy of this guidance, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed
Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication #09-06-032, December 2009),
please see https:Hfortress.wa. _ og v/ecy//publications/summg.Waaes/0906032.html.
Advance Miti ag tion
When compensatory mitigation is implemented before, and in anticipation of, future
known impacts to wetlands, it is referred to as "advance mitigation." Advance
mitigation has been used mostly for large mitigation projects that are constructed in
distinct phases where the unavoidable impacts to wetlands are known. Advance
mitigation lets an applicant provide all of the compensation needed for the entire project
affecting wetlands at one time, which may result in more favorable mitigation ratios.
Although similar to mitigation banking, advance mitigation is different in several ways.
Most importantly, advance mitigation is used only to compensate for the permittee's
specific project (or projects) with pre -identified impacts to wetlands. Wetland banks
provide mitigation for unknown future impacts within a specific "service" area. The
advance mitigation can be used only by the permittee. Advance mitigation may not be
sold unless it is changed to a wetland bank. Ecology, WDFW, and the Corps have
developed guidance to help applicants develop advance mitigation proposals. To
download a copy of this guidance, Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-
Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, December 2012), please see
h!tps:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy//publications/Summgn Pages/1206015.html
Conclusion
We hope you find this information helpful. If you have questions about this document or
need additional assistance with the wetlands section of your critical areas ordinance
update, please call Donna Bunten at (360) 407-7172 or donna.buntengecy.wa. -og_v.
You may also contact one of Ecology's regional wetland specialists. They are available
to work with you during your update process. For example, they can offer presentations
to elected officials and planning commissions. They can also provide technical
assistance including help with wetland delineation, wetland rating, ordinary high water
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 16
Packet Pg. 340
7.1.d
mark determination, and project review. Please use the following link to find the wetland to
specialist for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
0
For assistance with other aspects of your critical areas ordinance update, please contact o
the Department of Commerce at (360) 725-3000. 9
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 17
Packet Pg. 341
9ƒ
�
� \
�
§«%
q
�
) .p
\
�
�
�
�
\
�
F�41
k �
Attachment: Exmbl4. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016 Publication No 16 06 001 (516:
7.1.d
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter
(Western Washington)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 19
Packet Pg. 343
CZ
o
O
R
v
F-4 I
Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1516 :
7.1.d
Subchapter XXAX
Wetlands
Sections:
o
XX.010 Purpose
o
XX.020 Identification and Rating
co
XX.030 Regulated Activities
6
XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
Z
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
g
XX.060 Critical Area Reports
XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation
XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement
a
XX.010 Purpose
The purposes of this Chapter are to:
A. Recognize and protect the beneficial functions performed by many wetlands,
which include, but are not limited to, providing food, breeding, nesting and/or rearing
habitat for fish and wildlife; recharging and discharging ground water; contributing to
stream flow during low flow periods; stabilizing stream banks and shorelines; storing
storm and flood waters to reduce flooding and erosion; and improving water quality
through biofiltration, adsorption, and retention and transformation of sediments,
nutrients, and toxicants.
B. Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the
functions and values of wetlands throughout (name of jurisdiction).
C. Establish review procedures for development proposals in and adjacent to
wetlands.
1. Compliance with the provisions of the Chapter does not constitute
compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit
requirements that may be required (for example, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits, HPA permits, Army Corps of Engineers Section
404 permits, NPDES permits). The applicant is responsible for
complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in
this Chapter.
XX.020 Identification and Rating
A. Identification and Delineation. Identification of wetlands and delineation of
their boundaries pursuant to this Chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplement. All areas within
the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated
critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Wetland delineations are
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 21
Packet Pg. 345
7.1.d
valid for five years; after such date the City shall determine whether a revision or
additional assessment is necessary.
B. Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of
0
Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating o
System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as 9
revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for
determining whether the criteria below are met. z°
1. Category L 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 -growth 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.
2. Category II. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than
1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) 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 points).
3. Category III. Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate
level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be
adequately replaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and (3)
interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16
and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often
less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape
than Category II wetlands.
4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the 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 improve.
However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in
any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions,
and should be protected to some degree.
C. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal
modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant's knowledge.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 22
Packet Pg. 346
7.1.d
XX.030 Regulated Activities
A. For any regulated activity, a critical areas report (see Chapter XX.060 of this
Chapter) may be required to support the requested activity.
0
B. The following activities are regulated if they occur in a regulated wetland or o
its buffer: 9
1. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel,
minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind.
2. The dumping of, discharging of, or filling with any material.
3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table.
4. Pile driving.
5. The placing of obstructions.
6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure
7. The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing,
harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that
would alter the character of a regulated wetland.
8. "Class IV - General Forest Practices" under the authority of the "1992
Washington State Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations," WAC 222-
12-030, or as thereafter amended.
9. Activities that result in:
a. A significant change of water temperature.
b. A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of the
sources of water to the wetland.
c. A significant change in the quantity, timing, or duration of the water
entering the wetland.
d. The introduction of pollutants.
C. Subdivisions. The subdivision and/or short subdivision of land in wetlands
and associated buffers are subject to the following:
Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be
subdivided.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 23
Packet Pg. 347
7.1.d
2. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be to
subdivided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new In
lot is: 77
0
a. Located outside of the wetland and its buffer; and o
0
to
b. Meets the minimum lot size requirements of Chapter XX.XX.
XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
A. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid
impacts (Chapter XX.070.A.1), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated
based on the remaining actions in Chapter XX.070.A.2 through 6. If available, impacts
should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program or
mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank. In
order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the
requirements in Chapter XX.060 must be submitted.
All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that:
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers
b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated
buffers
c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic
d. Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014
update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as
revised and approved by Ecology)
e. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Areal for a Priority
Species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or
species of local importance identified in Chapter XX.XX.
2. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not
contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the
buffer provisions contained in this Chapter.
'See page 6 of "Priority Habitat and Species List," Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Olympia,
Washington. 177 pp.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 24
Packet Pg. 348
7.1.d
B. Activities Allowed in Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in
to
wetlands. These activities do not require submission of a critical area report, except In
where such activities result in a loss of the functions and values of a wetland or wetland 77
buffer. These activities include:
o
1. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, provided that they implement
0
to
9
applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the latest
T_
editions of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
Z
Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG); or develop a farm conservation
c
plan in coordination with the local conservation district. BMPs and/or
farm plans should address potential impacts to wetlands from livestock,
nutrient and farm chemicals, soil erosion and sediment control and
a'
agricultural drainage infrastructure. BMPs and/or farm plans should
ensure that ongoing agricultural activities minimize their effects on water
N
quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and wildlife habitat.
2. Those activities and uses conducted pursuant to the Washington State
Forest Practices Act and its rules and regulations, WAC 222-12-030,
where state law specifically exempts local authority, except those
developments requiring local approval for Class 4 — General Forest
Practice Permits (conversions) as defined in RCW 76.09 and WAC 222-
12.
3. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish,
and/or other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or
functions of the existing wetland.
4. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require
tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the
wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water
sources.
5. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a wetland, with entrance/exit
portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer, provided that the
drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or
percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific
studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground
water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down
through the soil column will be disturbed.
6. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of non-native invasive
plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to
hand removal unless permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments. All
removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 25
Packet Pg. 349
7.1.d
disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed to
Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of
according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Re -
vegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in o
conjunction with removal of invasive plant species. o
0
to
7. Educational and scientific research activities.
8. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or
private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the
maintenance or repair does not expand the footprint of the facility or right-
of-way.
9. Stormwater management facilities. A wetland or its buffer can be
physically or hydrologically altered to meet the requirements of an LID,
Runoff Treatment or Flow Control BMP if ALL of the following criteria
are met:
a. The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III
wetland with a habitat score of 3-4 points, and
b. There will be "no net loss" of functions and values of the
wetland, and
c. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native
amphibian species, and
d. The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as
outlined in questions 3, 4, 5 of Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, 4 of
Chart 5 in the "Guide for Selecting Mitigation Sites Using a
Watershed Approach," (available here:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0906032.html); or the wetland is
part of a priority restoration plan that achieves restoration goals
identified in a Shoreline Master Program or other local or
regional watershed plan, and
e. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the
discharge follows the natural routing, and
f All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management
are followed, including but not limited to local and state wetland
and stormwater codes, manuals, and permits, and
g. Modifications that alter the structure of a wetland or its soils
will require permits. Existing functions and values that are
lost would have to be compensated/replaced.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 26
Packet Pg. 350
7.1.d
Stormwater LID BMPs required as part of New and Redevelopment
to
projects can be considered within wetlands and their buffers. However,
these areas may contain features that render LID BMPs infeasible. A site-
v
specific characterization is required to determine if an LID BMP is
o
feasible at the project site.
o
0
to
T-
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
A. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in
accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland
and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent
land use intensity is assumed to be high.
1. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in
Table XX.1 can be used if both of the following criteria are met:
• A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide
is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as
defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The latest definitions of priority habitats and their locations are
available on the WDFW web site at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm )
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the
wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection
such as a conservation easement.
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a
qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is
available, Table XX.1 may be used with the required measures in
Table XX.2 alone.2
• The measures in Table XX.2 are implemented, where applicable,
to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
2. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in Table
XX.2 are required for the use of Table XX.1
3. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table
XX.2, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then
Table XX.3 must be used.
2 See discussion in the Introduction, page 12 as to whether this applies in small urban jurisdictions.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 27
Packet Pg. 351
7.1.d
4. The buffer widths in Table XX. I and XX.3 assume that the buffer is
to
vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If
the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with
v
invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should
o
either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer
o
should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are
9
provided.
Table XX.I Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
if Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
3-4
5
6-7
8-9
Wetland Category
Category I:
75
105
165
225
Based on total score
Category L•
Bogs and
190
225
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
Category I:
150
165
225
Coastal Lagoons
Category I:
225
Interdunal
Category I:
75
105
165
225
Forested
Category I:
150
Estuarine
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
75
105
165
225
Based on score
Category II:
110
165
225
Interdunal Wetlands
Category II:
110
Estuarine
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all)
60
105
165
225
Category IV (all)
40
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 28
Packet Pg. 352
7.1.d
Table XX.2 Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands
(Measures are required if 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 outer 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 ft 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 Intensity Development techniques (for more
information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual)
Change in water
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from
regime
impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer
disturbance
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
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 29
Packet Pg. 353
7.1.d
Table XX.3 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
if Table XX.2 is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
3-4
5
6-7
8-9
Wetland Category
Category I:
100
140
220
300
Based on total score
Category L•
Bogs and
250
300
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
Category I:
200
220
300
Coastal Lagoons
Category I:
300
Interdunal
Category I:
100
140
220
300
Forested
Category I:
200
Estuarine
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
100
140
220
300
Based on score
Category II:
150
220
300
Interdunal Wetlands
Category II:
150
Estuarine
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all)
80
140
220
300
Category IV (all)
50
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 30
Packet Pg. 354
7.1.d
5. Increased Wetland Buffer Area Width. Buffer widths shall be increased
to
on a case -by -case basis as determined by the Administrator when a larger
buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. This
determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing o
that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the o
wetland. The documentation must include but not be limited to the 9
following criteria:
a. The wetland is used by a state or federally listed plant or animal
species or has essential or outstanding habitat for those species, or has
unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor
nesting trees; or
b. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion -control
measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than
30 percent.
6. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when
all of the following conditions are met:
a. The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its
habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component
adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a "dual -rated" wetland
with a Category I area adjacent to a lower -rated area.
b. The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher -functioning area of
habitat or more -sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased
adjacent to the lower -functioning or less -sensitive portion as
demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland
professional.
c. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required
without averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 3/4 of the
required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category
IIl, and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.
7. Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all
of the following are met:
a. There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be
accomplished without buffer averaging.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 31
Packet Pg. 355
7.1.d
b. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's
to
functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a
qualified wetland professional.
v
c. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required
0
o
without averaging.
9
T_
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 3/4 of the
required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category
III and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.
B. To facilitate long-range planning using a landscape approach, the
Administrator may identify and pre -assess wetlands using the rating system and establish
appropriate wetland buffer widths for such wetlands. The Administrator will prepare
maps of wetlands that have been pre -assessed in this manner.
C. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured
perpendicular from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a
wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations
shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or
enhanced wetland. Buffers must be fully vegetated in order to be included in buffer area
calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be
considered buffers or included in buffer area calculations.
D. Buffers on Wetland Mitigation Sites. All wetland mitigation sites shall have
buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this Chapter. Buffers shall be based on
the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site.
E. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance
with this Chapter, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced
condition. In the case of compensatory mitigation sites, removal of invasive non-native
weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond (Section XX.070.J.2.a.x).
F. Impacts to Buffers. Requirements for the compensation for impacts to buffers
are outlined in Section XX.070 of this Chapter.
G. Overlapping Critical Area Buffers. If buffers for two contiguous critical
areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer applies.
H. Allowed Buffer Uses. The following uses may be allowed within a wetland
buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this Chapter, provided they are not
prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to
minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:
Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water,
vegetation, or wildlife.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 32
Packet Pg. 356
7.1.d
co
2. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved
critical area report, including:
v
a. Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways are limited to
0
0
minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They
9
should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located
T_
only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the wetland buffer area,
Z
and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They should be
c
limited to pervious surfaces no more than five (5) feet in width for
pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing non -treated pilings
may be acceptable.
a'
b. Wildlife -viewing structures.
3. Educational and scientific research activities.
4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or
private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the
maintenance or repair does not increase the footprint or use of the facility
or right-of-way.
5. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require
tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the
wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water
sources.
6. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a buffer, with entrance/exit
portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer boundary,
provided that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to
the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column.
Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the
ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water
down through the soil column would be disturbed.
7. Enhancement of a wetland buffer through the removal of non-native
invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be
restricted to hand removal. All removed plant material shall be taken
away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on
the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds
must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan
appropriate to that species. Revegetation with appropriate native species
at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive
plant species.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 33
Packet Pg. 357
7.1.d
8. Repair and maintenance of non -conforming uses or structures, where
legally established within the buffer, provided they do not increase the
degree of nonconformity.
I. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Buffers:
Temporary markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland buffer and the
clearing limits identified by an approved permit or authorization shall be
marked in the field with temporary "clearing limits" fencing in such a way
as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. The marking is
subject to inspection by the Administrator prior to the commencement of
permitted activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained
throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if
required, are in place.
2. Permanent signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued
pursuant to this Chapter, the Administrator may require the applicant to
install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer.
a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and
attached to a metal post or another non -treated material of equal
durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one (1) every fifty
(50) feet, or one (1) per lot if the lot is less than fifty (50) feet wide,
and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The
signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved
by the Administrator:
Protected Wetland Area
Do Not Disturb
Contact [Local Jurisdiction]
Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship
b. The provisions of Subsection (a) may be modified as necessary to
assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Fencing
a. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the
wetland or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may
be introduced on site.
b. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this
Subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species
migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner
that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 34
Packet Pg. 358
7.1.d
XX.060 Critical Area Report for Wetlands
u�
A. If the Administrator determines that the site of a proposed development
includes, is likely to include, or is adjacent to a wetland, a wetland report, prepared by a o
qualified professional, shall be required. The expense of preparing the wetland report o
shall be borne by the applicant. 9
B. Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports. The written report and the
accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum:
1. The written report shall include at a minimum:
a. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name,
qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the
wetland critical area report; a description of the proposal;
identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland -related
permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project.
b. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions
made and relied upon.
Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field
data sheets for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic
data, etc.
d. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland
delineations, wetland ratings, or impact analyses, including references.
e. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water
bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and buffers on or adjacent to the
proposed project area. For areas off site of the project site, estimate
conditions within 300 feet of the project boundaries using the best
available information.
f. For each wetland identified on site and within 300 feet of the project
boundary, provide: the wetland rating, including a description of and
score for each function, per Wetland Ratings (Section XX.020.13) of
this Chapter; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic classification;
wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field
delineation (acreages for on -site portion or estimate entire wetland
area including off -site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation
communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site
assessment and/or soil survey information; and to the extent possible,
hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlets/outlets
(if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the
wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g.,
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 35
Packet Pg. 359
7.1.d
algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates,
classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not
only the portion present on the proposed project site.
v
g. A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of
0
o
acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field
9
delineation and survey and an analysis of site development
T_
alternatives, including a no -development alternative.
Z
h. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and
buffers resulting from the proposed development.
i. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation
sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing (Chapter XX.070.A) to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas.
j. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and
compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any
wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land -use
activity.
k. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that
addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland
functions.
1. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and its buffer. Include
references for the method used and data sheets.
2. A copy of the site plan sheet(s) for the project must be included with the
written report and must include, at a minimum:
a. Maps (to scale) depicting delineated and surveyed wetland and
required buffers on site, including buffers for off -site critical areas that
extend onto the project site; the development proposal; other critical
areas; grading and clearing limits; and areas of proposed impacts to
wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates).
b. A depiction of the proposed stormwater management facilities and
outlets (to scale) for the development, including estimated areas of
intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas. The written report shall
contain a discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s)
associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 36
Packet Pg. 360
7.1.d
XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation.
A. Mitigation Sequencing. Before impacting any wetland or its buffer, an
applicant shall demonstrate that the following actions have been taken. Actions are listed
in the order of preference:
Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
2. Minimize 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.
3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment.
4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations.
5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments.
6. Monitor the required compensation and take remedial or corrective
measures when necessary.
B. Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation:
Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall be used only for
impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent
or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be
consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2:
Developing Mitigation Plans —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-
01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006, or as revised), and Selecting Wetland
Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington)
(Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009).
2. Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with Subsection H of this Chapter.
3. Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool
described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation
in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication
#10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) consistent with
subsection H of this Chapter.
C. Compensating for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation shall
address the functions affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve
functional equivalency or improvement of functions. The goal shall be for the
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 37
Packet Pg. 361
7.1.d
compensatory mitigation to provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when to
either:
u�
I. The lost wetland provides minimal functions, and the proposed o
compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions o
or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through 9
a formal Washington state watershed assessment plan or protocol; or
2. Out -of -kind replacement of wetland type or functions will best meet
watershed goals formally identified by the City, such as replacement of
historically diminished wetland types.
D. Approaches to Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished
wetland and buffer functions shall rely on the approaches listed below.
Wetland mitigation banks. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation
bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service
area specified in the mitigation bank instrument. Use of credits from a
wetland mitigation bank certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC is allowed
if:
a. The approval authority determines that it would provide appropriate
compensation for the proposed impacts; and
b. The impact site is located in the service area of the bank.
c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions
of the certified mitigation bank instrument.
d. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits is consistent with
replacement ratios specified in the certified mitigation bank instrument.
2. In -Lieu Fee Mitigation: Credits from an approved in -lieu -fee program
may be used when all of the following apply:
a. The approval authority determines that it would provide
environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts.
b. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions
of the approved in -lieu -fee program instrument.
Projects using in -lieu -fee credits shall have debits associated with the
proposed impacts calculated by the applicant's qualified wetland
professional using the credit assessment method specified in the
approved instrument for the in -lieu -fee program.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 38
Packet Pg. 362
7.1.d
d. The impacts are located within the service area specified in the
to
approved in -lieu -fee instrument.
3. Permittee-responsible mitigation. In this situation, the permittee performs
o
the mitigation after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for
o
implementation and success of the mitigation. Permittee-responsible
9
mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off -site
location within the same watershed. Permittee-responsible mitigation
z°
shall be used only if the applicant's qualified wetland professional
c
demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that the proposed
approach is ecologically preferable to use of a bank or ILF program,
consistent with the criteria in this section.
,?
E. Types of Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland
and buffer functions shall rely on a type listed below in order of preference. A lower -
preference form of mitigation shall be used only if the applicant's qualified wetland
professional demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that all higher -ranked
types of mitigation are not viable, consistent with the criteria in this section.
Restoration: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic
functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net
gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into:
a. Re-establishment: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or
historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in a
gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include
removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles.
b. Rehabilitation: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or
historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a
gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres.
Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a
floodplain or return tidal influence to a wetland.
2. Establishment (Creation): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site to develop a wetland on an upland or
deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Establishment
results in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically involve excavation
of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod,
create hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species.
a. If a site is not available for wetland restoration to compensate for
expected wetland and/or buffer impacts, the approval authority may
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 39
Packet Pg. 363
7.1.d
authorize creation of a wetland and buffer upon demonstration by the to
applicant's qualified wetland professional that:
i. The hydrology and soil conditions at the proposed mitigation site o
are conducive for sustaining the proposed wetland and that o
creation of a wetland at the site will not likely cause hydrologic 9
problems elsewhere;
ii. Adjacent land uses and site conditions do not jeopardize the
viability of the proposed wetland and buffer (e.g., due to the
presence of invasive plants or noxious weeds, stormwater runoff,
noise, light, or other impacts); and
iii. The proposed wetland and buffer will eventually be self-
sustaining with little or no long-term maintenance.
I Enhancement. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific
function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation
present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water
quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat.
Enhancement results in a change in some wetland functions and can lead
to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in
wetland acres. Activities typically consist of planting vegetation,
controlling non-native or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the
proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination
of these activities. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or
associated buffers shall demonstrate how the proposed enhancement will
increase the wetland's/buffer's functions, how this increase in function
will adequately compensate for the impacts, and how existing wetland
functions at the mitigation site will be protected.
4. Protection/Maintenance (Preservation). Removing a threat to, or
preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a
wetland. This includes the purchase of land or easements, or repairing
water control structures or fences. This term also includes activities
commonly associated with the term preservation. Preservation does not
result in a gain of wetland acres. Permanent protection of a Category I or
II wetland and associated buffer at risk of degradation can be used only if:
a. The approval authority determines that the proposed preservation is the
best mitigation option;
b. The proposed preservation site is under threat of undesirable ecological
change due to permitted, planned, or likely actions that will not be
adequately mitigated under existing regulations;
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 40
Packet Pg. 364
7.1.d
co
c. The area proposed for preservation is of high quality or critical for the
health of the watershed or basin due to its location. Some of the
following features may be indicative of high -quality sites: o
0
to
i. Category I or II wetland rating (using the wetland rating system for 9
western Washington)
ii. Rare or irreplaceable wetland type (for example, bogs, mature
forested wetlands, estuarine wetlands) or aquatic habitat that is rare
or a limited resource in the area;
iii. The presence of habitat for priority or locally important wildlife
species; or also list has provides biological and/or hydrological
connectivity;
iv. Provides biololgical and/or hydrological connectivity;
v. Priority sites in an adopted watershed plan.
d. Permanent preservation of the wetland and buffer will be provided
through a conservation easement or tract held by an appropriate natural
land resource manager, such as a land trust.
e. The approval authority may approve other legal and administrative
mechanisms in lieu of a conservation easement if it determines they are
adequate to protect the site.
f. Ratios for preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation
generally range from 10:1 to 20:1, as determined on a case -by -case
basis, depending on the quality of the wetlands being impacted and the
quality of the wetlands being preserved. Ratios for preservation as the
sole means of mitigation generally start at 20:1.
F. Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation actions shall
generally be conducted within the same sub -drainage basin and on the site of the
alteration except when the applicant can demonstrate that off -site mitigation is
ecologically preferable. The following criteria will be evaluated when determining
whether the proposal is ecologically preferable. When considering off -site mitigation,
preference should be given to using alternative mitigation, such as a mitigation bank, an
in -lieu -fee program, or advance mitigation.
There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub -drainage
basin (e.g., on -site options would require elimination of high -functioning
upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub -drainage basin
do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the
capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 41
Packet Pg. 365
7.1.d
include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer
to
conditions and required widths, available water to maintain anticipated
hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood
v
storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife
o
impacts (such as connectivity);
q
m
2. On -site mitigation would require elimination of high -quality upland
0
T_
habitat.
c
3. Off -site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved
wetland functions than the altered wetland.
4. Off -site locations shall be in the same sub -drainage basin unless:
a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or
conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established
by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site;
or
b. Credits from a state -certified wetland mitigation bank are used as
compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the
certified bank instrument;
c. Fees are paid to an approved in -lieu -fee program to compensate for the
impacts.
5. The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be
appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore,
compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or
enhancement of an atypical wetland.
G. Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory
mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will impact wetlands. At the
least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and
prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation
projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
The Administrator may authorize a one-time temporary delay in
completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation
when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified
wetland professional as to the rationale for the delay. An appropriate
rationale would include identification of the environmental conditions that
could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction
difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window, or installing
plants should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater
survival of installed materials). The delay shall not create or perpetuate
hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 42
Packet Pg. 366
7.1.d
delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the to
public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written
justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude
implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan. The justification o
must be verified and approved by the City. o
0
to
H. Wetland Mitigation Ratios3:
Category and
Creation or
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Type of Wetland
Re-establishment
Category I:
Not considered
Bog, Natural
possible
Case by case
Case by case
Heritage site
Category I:
Mature
6:1
12:1
24:1
Forested
Category I:
Based on
4:1
8:1
16:1
functions
Category II
3:1
6:1
12:1
Category III
2:1
4:1
8:1
Category IV
1.5:1
3:1
6:1
L Credit/Debit Method. To more fully protect functions and values, and as an
alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State Parts I and II (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a-b, Olympia, WA,
March 2006), the administrator may allow mitigation based on the "credit/debit" method
developed by the Department of Ecology in Calculating Credits and Debits for
Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report, (Ecology
Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised).
3 Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through
creation or re-establishment. See Table 1 a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency
Policies and Guidance —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as
revised). See also Paragraph DA for more information on using preservation as compensation.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 43
Packet Pg. 367
7.1.d
J. Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or
to
buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional shall
be required, meeting the following minimum standards:
v
1. Wetland Critical Area Report. A critical area report for wetlands must
0
o
accompany or be included in the compensatory mitigation plan and include
9
the minimum parameters described in Minimum Standards for Wetland
T-
Reports (Section XX.060.13) of this Chapter.
Z
2. Compensatory Mitigation Report. The report must include a written report
and plan sheets that contain, at a minimum, the following elements. Full
guidance can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State— Part 2:
Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication #06-06-
01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised).
a. The written report must contain, at a minimum:
The name and contact information of the applicant; the name,
qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s)
of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the
proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation
concept; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal
wetland -related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity
map for the project.
ii. Description of how the project design has been modified to
avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands.
iii. Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to
be altered. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime,
vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and
functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by
Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and
wetland rating, based on Wetland Ratings (Section XX.XX) of
this Chapter.
iv. Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including
location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of
existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and
uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils,
landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions.
Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation
actions are NOT undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress
through natural succession?).
V. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an
analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for
enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 44
Packet Pg. 368
7.1.d
Include illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic to
conditions were used to determine the estimates of future In
hydrologic conditions 77
CD
vi. A description of the proposed actions for compensation of o
wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall o
goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the T_
targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and z°
categories of wetlands. c
vii. A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities
and timing of activities.
viii. Performance standards (measurable standards for years post -
installation) for upland and wetland communities, a monitoring
schedule, and a maintenance schedule and actions proposed by
year.
ix. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect
wetlands after the development project has been implemented,
including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for
remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands).
X. A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project,
including the following elements: site preparation, plant
materials, construction materials, installation oversight,
maintenance twice per year for up to five (5) years, annual
monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency actions for
a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring.
xi. Proof of establishment of Notice on Title for the wetlands and
buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation
areas.
b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain,
at a minimum:
i. Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed
areas of wetland and/or buffer impacts, location of proposed
wetland and/or buffer compensation actions.
ii. Existing topography, ground -proofed, at two -foot contour
intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any
grading activity is proposed in the compensation area(s). Also
include existing cross -sections (estimated one -foot intervals) of
wetland areas on the development site that are proposed to be
altered and for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer
compensation.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 45
Packet Pg. 369
7.1.d
iii. Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including
future hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by
dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water 77
regimes. o
0
iv. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed o
compensation areas. Also identify any zones where buffers are T_
proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the standards z6
identified in this Chapter. r_
V. A planting plan for the compensation area, including all species
by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of
plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering
patterns, total number of each species by community type, and
timing of installation.
K. Buffer Mitigation Ratios. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a minimum
1:1 ratio. Compensatory buffer mitigation shall replace those buffer functions lost from
development.
L. Protection of the Mitigation Site. The mitigation area and any associated
buffer shall be located in a critical area tract or a conservation easement consistent with
Chapter XX.XX.
M. Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a period necessary to
establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five
years. If a scrub -shrub or forested vegetation community is proposed, monitoring may be
required for ten years or more. The project mitigation plan shall include monitoring
elements that ensure certainty of success for the project's natural resource values and
functions. If the mitigation goals are not obtained within the initial five-year period, the
applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions
until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved.
N. Advance Mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre -identified impacts to
wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts if the mitigation is implemented
according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation, and state water quality
regulations consistent with Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-
Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, Olympia, WA, December
2012).
O. Alternative Mitigation Plans. The Administrator may approve alternative
wetland mitigation plans that are based on best available science, such as priority
restoration plans that achieve restoration goals identified in the SMP. Alternative
mitigation proposals must provide an equivalent or better level of protection of wetland
functions and values than would be provided by the strict application of this chapter.
The Administrator shall consider the following for approval of an alternative
mitigation proposal:
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 46
Packet Pg. 370
7.1.d
co
1. The proposal uses a watershed approach consistent with Selecting Wetland
Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington)
v
(Ecology Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009).
o
2. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open
0
to
9
space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas.
3. Mitigation according to Section E is not feasible due to site constraints
such as parcel size, stream type, wetland category, or geologic hazards.
4. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the
proposed mitigation site.
5. The plan shall contain clear and measurable standards for achieving
compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. A monitoring plan
shall, at a minimum, meet the provisions in Section J.
6. The plan shall be reviewed and approved as part of overall approval of the
proposed use.
7. A wetland of a different type may be justified based on regional needs or
functions and values; the replacement ratios may not be reduced or
eliminated unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental
alternative.
8. Mitigation guarantees shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in
Section J.2.a.viii.
9. Qualified professionals in each of the critical areas addressed shall prepare
the plan.
10. The City may consult with agencies with expertise and jurisdiction over
the critical areas during the review to assist with analysis and
identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately
safeguard critical areas.
XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement
A. When a wetland or its buffer has been altered in violation of this Chapter, all
ongoing development work shall stop, and the critical area shall be restored. The City
shall have the authority to issue a "stop -work" order to cease all ongoing development
work and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner's or
other responsible party's expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this
Chapter.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 47
Packet Pg. 371
7.1.d
B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain to
stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the City. Such a plan shall
be prepared by a qualified professional using the currently accepted scientific principles
and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in o
Subsection C below. The Administrator shall, at the applicant or other responsible o
party's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate 9
plans shall be returned to the applicant or other responsible party for revision and re -
submittal. Z
C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration. The following minimum
performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a wetland, provided that if the
applicant or other responsible party can demonstrate that greater functions and habitat
values can be obtained, these standards may be modified:
1. The historic structure, functions, and values of the affected wetland shall
be restored, including water quality and habitat functions.
2. The historic soil types and configuration shall be restored to the extent
practicable.
3. The wetland and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that
replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types,
sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated
at the location of the alteration.
4. Information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of
this Chapter shall be submitted to the Administrator.
D. Site Investigations. The Administrator is authorized to make site inspections
and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this Chapter. The Administrator shall
present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner
before entering onto private property.
E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted
of violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Each day or portion of a day during which a violation of this Chapter is
committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any
development carried out contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall
constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the
statutes of the state of Washington. The City may levy civil penalties
against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for
violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter. The civil penalty shall
be assessed at a maximum rate of $XX dollars per day per violation.
2. If the wetland affected cannot be restored, monies collected as penalties
shall be deposited in a dedicated account for the preservation or
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 48
Packet Pg. 372
7.1.d
restoration of landscape processes and functions in the watershed in which to
the affected wetland is located. The City may coordinate its preservation
or restoration activities with other cities in the watershed to optimize the
effectiveness of the restoration action. o
0
m
0
to
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 49
Packet Pg. 373
1z
�
co
CZ
o
O
v
F-4 I
Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1516 :
7.1.d
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions
(Western Washington)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 51
to
u�
0
0
w
0
to
Packet Pg. 375
� O
�
do
O
m
co
n
Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version (June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001) (1516 :
7.1.d
Appendix B — Wetland Definitions
Agricultural Activities, Existing and Ongoing — Those activities conducted on lands
defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops
and livestock, including but not limited to operation, maintenance and conservation
measures of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, irrigation systems, changes
between agricultural activities, and normal operation, maintenance or repair of existing
serviceable structures, facilities or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into
agricultural use are not part of an ongoing activity. An operation ceases to be ongoing
when the area in which it was conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural
use or has lain idle for a period of longer than five years, unless the idle land is registered
in a federal or state soils conversation program.
Alteration — Any human -induced change in an existing condition of a critical area or its
buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to, grading, filling, channelizing,
dredging, clearing of vegetation, construction, compaction, excavation, or any other
activity that changes the character of the critical area.
Best Available Science — Current scientific information used in the process to designate,
protect, or restore critical areas; that is, derived from a valid scientific process as defined
by WAC 365-195-900 through 925.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) — Conservation practices or systems of practices
and management measures that:
(a) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high
concentrations of nutrients, animal waste, toxics, or sediment;
(b) Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and ground water flow and
circulation patterns and to the chemical, physical, and biological
characteristics of wetlands;
(c) Protect trees, vegetation, and soils designated to be retained during and
following site construction and use native plant species appropriate to the
site for re -vegetation of disturbed areas; and
(d) Provide standards for proper use of chemical herbicides within critical
areas.
Bog — A low -nutrient, acidic wetland with organic soils and characteristic bog plants, as
described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA,
October 2014).
Buffer or Buffer Zone — The area contiguous with a critical area that maintains the
functions and/or structural stability of the critical area.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 53
Packet Pg. 377
7.1.d
Coastal Lagoon — A shallow body of water partly or completely separated from the sea
by a barrier beach that receives periodic influxes of salt water, as described in
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA,
October 2014).
Critical Areas — Critical areas include any of the following areas or ecosystems: critical
aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically
hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands, as defined in RCW 36.70A and
this Chapter.
Creation — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics to
develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously
exist. Creation results in a gain in wetland acreage and function. A typical action is the
excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod and
hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species.
Cumulative Impacts or Effects — The combined, incremental effects of human activity
on ecological or critical area functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the
effects of an action are added to or interact with the effects of other actions in a particular
place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any
resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact
analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions.
Development — A land use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of
structures; grading, dredging, drilling, or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or
minerals; bulk heading; driving of pilings; or any project of a temporary or permanent
nature which modifies structures, land, wetlands, or shorelines and which does not fall
within the allowable exemptions contained in the City Code.
Enhancement — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a wetland to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or to change the
growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for
specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife
habitat. Enhancement results in a change in wetland function(s) and can lead to a decline
in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Examples are
planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, and modifying site
elevations to alter hydroperiods.
Estuarine Wetland — A vegetated wetland with a water regime that is predominately
tidal, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-
06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Functions and Values — The services provided by critical areas to society, including, but
not limited to, improving and maintaining water quality, providing fish and wildlife
habitat, supporting terrestrial and aquatic food chains, reducing flooding and erosive
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 54
Packet Pg. 378
7.1.d
flows, wave attenuation, historical or archaeological importance, educational
opportunities, and recreation.
Growth Management Act — RCW 36.70A and 36.70B, as amended.
Hazardous Substances — Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material,
substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the
physical, chemical, or biological properties described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303-
100.
Impervious Surface — A surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water
into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non -vegetated
surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an
increased rate of flow from the flow present under pre -development or pre -developed
conditions. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops,
walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving,
gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which
similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater.
In -Kind Compensation — To replace critical areas with substitute areas whose
characteristics and functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a
regulated activity.
In -Lieu -Fee Program — An agreement between a regulatory agency (state, federal, or
local) and a single sponsor, generally a public natural resource agency or non-profit
organization. Under an in -lieu -fee agreement, the mitigation sponsor collects funds from
an individual or a number of individuals who are required to conduct compensatory
mitigation required under a wetland regulatory program. The sponsor may use the funds
pooled from multiple permittees to create one or a number of sites under the authority of
the agreement to satisfy the permittees' required mitigation.
Infiltration — The downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil.
Interdunal Wetland — A wetland that forms in the deflation plains and swales that are
geomorphic features in areas of coastal dunes, as described in Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of
Ecology.
Isolated Wetland — A wetland that is hydrologically isolated from other aquatic
resources, as determined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Isolated wetlands may perform important functions and are protected by state law (RCW
90.48) whether or not they are protected by federal law.
Mature and Old -Growth Forested Wetland — A wetland having at least 1 contiguous
acre of either old -growth forest or mature forest, as described in Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page SS
Packet Pg. 379
7.1.d
Mitigation — Avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts.
Mitigation, in the following sequential order of preference, is:
(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;
(c) Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and
habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation
of the project;
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation
and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
(e) Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas,
and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and
(f) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial
action when necessary.
Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures.
Monitoring — Evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological,
hydrological, and geological elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of
required mitigation measures through the collection and analysis of data by various
methods for the purpose of understanding and documenting changes in natural
ecosystems and features. Monitoring includes gathering baseline data.
Native Vegetation — Plant species that occur naturally in a particular region or
environment and were present before European colonization.
Off -Site Compensation — To replace critical areas away from the site on which a critical
area has been impacted.
On -Site Compensation — To replace critical areas at or adjacent to the site on which a
critical areas has been impacted.
Ordinary High Water Mark — That mark which is found by examining the bed and
banks of water bodies and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so
common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, that the soil has a
character distinct from that of the abutting upland in respect to vegetation.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 56
Packet Pg. 380
7.1.d
Preservation — The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland
conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This term includes the purchase of land or
conservation easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural
protection. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres but may result in a
gain in functions over the long term.
Project Area — All areas, including those within fifty (50) feet of the area, proposed to be
disturbed, altered, or used by the proposed activity or the construction of any proposed
structures. When the action binds the land, such as a subdivision, short subdivision,
binding site plan, planned unit development, or rezone, the project area shall include the
entire parcel, at a minimum.
Prior Converted Croplands — Prior converted croplands (PCCs) are defined in federal
law as wetlands that were drained, dredged, filled, leveled, or otherwise manipulated,
including the removal of woody vegetation, before December 23, 1985, to enable
production of an agricultural commodity, and that: 1) have had an agricultural
commodity planted or produced at least once prior to December 23, 1985; 2) do not have
standing water for more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season, and 3) have
not since been abandoned.
Qualified Professional — A qualified professional for wetlands must be a professional
wetland scientist with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetlands
professional, including delineating wetlands using the federal manual and supplements,
preparing wetlands reports, conducting function assessments, and developing and
implementing mitigation plans.
Re-establishment — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former
wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in
wetland acres and functions. Activities could include removing fill, plugging ditches, or
breaking drain tiles.
Rehabilitation — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions and processes of a
degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result
in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect
wetlands to a floodplain or returning tidal influence to a wetland.
Repair or Maintenance — An activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design
of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged
condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the
original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter critical areas are not
included in this definition.
Restoration — Measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature, including:
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 57
Packet Pg. 381
7.1.d
(a) Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat, to
or their buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an In
unauthorized alteration; and 77
0
(b) Actions performed to re-establish structural and functional characteristics o
of a critical area that have been lost by alteration, past management c
activities, or catastrophic events. to
SEPA — Washington State Environmental Policy Act, 43.21C RCW.
Service Area — The geographic area within which impacts can be mitigated at a specific
mitigation bank or an in -lieu -fee program, as designated in its instrument.
Soil Survey — The most recent soil survey for the local area or county by the National
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Species — Any group of animals or plants classified as a species or subspecies as
commonly accepted by the scientific community.
Species of Local Importance — Those species of local concern designated by the City in
Chapter XX.XX due to their population status or their sensitivity to habitat manipulation.
Species, Listed -- Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or state
endangered, threatened, and sensitive, or priority lists (see WAC 232-12-297 or page 6 of
"Priority Habitat and Species List," Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008,
Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.)
Stream — An area where open surface water produces a defined channel or bed, not
including irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices, or other
entirely artificial watercourses, unless they are used by salmonids or are used to convey a
watercourse naturally occurring prior to construction. A channel or bed need not contain
water year-round, provided there is evidence of at least intermittent flow during years of
normal rainfall.
Unavoidable Impacts — Adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved.
Washington Administration Code (WAC) — Administrative rules implementing state
laws.
Wetlands — Those areas 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
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include
those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland 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
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 58
Packet Pg. 382
7.1.d
of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands to
intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
Wetland of High Conservation Value — A wetland that has been identified by scientists o
from the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WHNHP) as an important ecosystem for o
maintaining plant diversity in Washington State. See hqp://www.dnr.wa.gov/data- 9
information -natural -heritage -features .
Wetland Mitigation Bank — A site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in
exceptional circumstances, preserved, expressly for the purpose of providing
compensatory mitigation in advance of unavoidable impacts to wetlands or other aquatic
resources that typically are unknown at the time of certification to compensate for future,
permitted impacts to similar resources.
Wetland Mosaic — An area with a concentration of multiple small wetlands, in which
each patch of wetland is less than one acre; on average, patches are less than 100 feet
from each other; and areas delineated as vegetated wetland are more than 50% of the total
area of the entire mosaic, including uplands and open water.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 59
Packet Pg. 383
7.1.e
24.40.020 Critical Areas
A. Applicability. Critical areas include the following areas and ecosystems: wetlands, areas
with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas.
B. The City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, as codified in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90
ECDC (dated November- 23, 2004, Ord. 3527- May 3, 2016, Ord. 4026), are herein adopted as
a part of this Program, except for the specific subsections listed 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.
■ A. Iris
■ . . a IN
D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance listed below shall not
apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction.
Packet Pg. 384
7.1.e
1. General Provisions:
b CDC 23.40.130.D: Monitoring Program[kpii]
Fb.ECDC 23.40.210: Variance
d c CDC 23.40.220.C.8: Minor Site Investigation Worl{[kp12]
2. Wetlands:
a. ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings
b. ECDC 23.50.040.F.1: Standard Buffer Widths
c. ECDC 23.50.040.F.2: Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands
b d.ECDC 23.50.040.K: Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
e. ECDC 23.50.040.F.4: Wetland Buffer Width Averaging.-
3. Geologically Hazardous Areas:
a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.I & 2: Allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas
E. Development limitations.
All uses, modifications and activities on sites containing marine shorelines,
environmentally sensitive areas and/or critical areas must comply with all applicable
local, state, and federal laws pertaining to development in these areas unless in conflict
with the provisions of this Master Program.
2. The site must be specifically designed so that hazards from or impact on the
environmentally sensitive area and/or critical areas will be mitigated.
Packet Pg. 385
7.1.e
3. Mitigation sequencing. In order to comply with ECDC 24.40.020.E.2 above, a shoreline
permit applicant or project proponent shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been
taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not have significant
adverse impacts. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order:
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, such
as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts.
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the
initiation of the project.
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments.
4. Monitoring Program. Mitigation plans shall include a program for monitoring
construction and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included
outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years 1,
2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 after site construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated
to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be
submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency
actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a
period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a
period less than ten years.
5. Long-term Protection of Mitigation Sites. The City shall require documentation that a
mitigation site has been permanently preserved from future development or alteration that
would be inconsistent with the functions of the mitigation. The documentation may
include, but is not limited to, a conservation easement, deed restriction or other
agreement between the applicant and the owner of a mitigation site. Such documentation
shall be recorded with the Snohomish County auditor.
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,
Packet Pg. 386
7.1.e
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.
1.
�vis-ed, Eeology Ptiblieation#04-06-825)-or- evise eelegy. This doetfffleH4
contains the definitions and methods for detennining the criteria and parameters defi
the following wetlarating eate,.,, 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 Up date (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 I. Categer-y Iwetlands are. 1` relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands
larger- than 1 aef e; 2) wetlands that afe identified by seiefftists of the Washington
Natural Heritage Pt!ogfam/DNR as high quality wetlands; 3) begs; 4) Matufe and old
gfewth forested wetlands larger- giaff I aer-e; 5) wetlands in eoastal lagoons; or- 6)
wetlands that perf ,.,,,, many f;,,,etions well (see,.;,,,. 70 points or 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 HeritageProgram/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old -growth
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 j
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. , of
distufbed estuarine wetlands lar-geF than 1 aer-e; 2) intef:dianal wetlands 1 -
aer-es; 3) distur-bed eeastal lagoons or- 4) wetlands with a medefately high level o
A,, etions (see, -inn between 5 69 points) -Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine
wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2)
interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3)
wetlands with a moderatelv high level of functions (scoriniz between 20 and 22
points).
c. Category III. Gategewe wetlands with a moderate level of
and a aer-e in sizo Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of
functions scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequately replaced
with a well -planned mitigation project; and (3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1
acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points _ generally have been disturbed in
some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in
the landscape than Category II wetlands.
as
a
E
L
0
a
L
d
c�
as
L0
z
M
m
0
N
O
0
N
a
M
4-
0
Packet Pg. 387
7.1.e
d. Category IV.
fewer- than 30 points) and are often heavily disturbed Category IV wetlands have the
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
improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in
any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should
W
be protected to some degree.
a
2. Development in designated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction shall be regulated in
E
accordance with the following:
c
L
a
a. Buffer Requirements. —The following buffer widths have been established in
accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland
and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
a�
=_
(Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The
2
adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high.
M
i. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in T_
24.40.020.F.2.b can be used if both of the following criteria are met:
0
N
• A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected o
between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by
14
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The latest definitions of N
0.
priority habitats and their locations are available on the WDFW web site at: 2
hqp://wdfw.wa. ovg /hab/phshabs.htm) o
c
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and •2
the Priority Habitat by some We of legal protection such as a conservation
easement.
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed byqualified
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 aDDlicable. 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 w
are required for the use of 24.40.020.F.2.b
c
as
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. Q
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
Packet Pg. 388
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 Category
3-4
5
6-7
8-9
Category 1:
Based on total score
75
105
165
225
Category
Bogs and wetlands of
190
225
High Conservation
Value
Category I:
Coastal Lagoons
150
165
225
Category I:
Interdunal
225
Category I:
Forested
75
105
165
225
Category L•
Estuarine
150
(buffer width not based on habitat score)
Category II:
Based on score
75
105
165
225
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
m
0
N
R
0
N
a
Cn
0
Q
Packet Pg. 389
7.1.e
..��190 0,
MCI -Mal
..
..
..
a Z
Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Measures are required, where if
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
r
r
O
N
O
O
N
a
CO
4-
0
Packet Pg. 390
7.1.e
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 eefrider-s o
rJ
0 Maintain to that
eamaeetiens eff-site areas are-
undid
h b itatR b
Restore , ,-,-ider-s to
o eenneefiefis off -site y
r-eplanting
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 Cate2ory
3-4
5
6-7
8-9
Category
100
140
220
300
Based on total score
Category
Bogs and wetlands of
250
300
Hig,h Conservation
Value
Category I:
Coastal Lagoons
200 220
300
Category I:
Interdunal
300
Q
Packet Pg. 391
7.1.e
Category 1:
Forested
100
140
220
300
Category
Estuarine
200
(buffer width not based on habitat scores
Category IT:
Based on score
100
140
220
300
Category 11:
Interdunal wetlands
150
220
300
Category II:
Estuarine
150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category HILall)
80
140
220
300
Category IV (all)
50
i ��s�ssfrs.�irirr. Ppffl s.•i2es
e�s�s:reTs .
�A :fill
per-een4 of the standard— tha4.:
0
N
O
O
N
a
2
CIO
4-
0
Q
Packet Pg. 392
Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Redline/Strikeout Version of SMP 24.40.020 (1516 : Shoreline Master Program Update)
7.1.e
is
HRH... .�
eeeas.NMUR
.re:ss!sr.!�sazsrss��:rrsse�srJ.�re!rs:r.�ee�:ssr�!�e!�strs�sa
f. Exemptions in wetlands. The following wetlands may be exempt from the
requirement to avoid impacts (24.40.020.E.3.a.), and they may be filled if the impacts
are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions in 24.40.020.E.3.b through
24.40.020.E.3.e. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the purchase of
credits from an in -lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and
conditions of the program or bank. In order to verify the following conditions, a
critical area report for wetlands meeting the reauirements in 23.50.030 must be
submitted.
i. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that:
1. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers
2. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers
3. Are not part of a wetland mosaic
4. Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to
the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by
Ecolo
5. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Areal for a Priority Species
identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain
federally listed species or their critical habitat, or species of local importance
identified in Chapter 23.90 ECDC.
ii. Wetlands less than 1.000 sauare feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain
federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions
contained in this Chapter.
�g_Additions to structures existing within wetlands and/or wetland buffers may be
permitted pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.14I. Additions to structures within wetlands
will also require state and federal approval.
G. Geologically hazardous areas. Development in designated geologically hazardous areas shall
be regulated in accordance with the following:
Packet Pg. 394
7.1.e
New development or the creation of lots should not be allowed that would cause
foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of
the development.
2. New development should not be allowed that would require structural shoreline
stabilization over the normal, useful life of the development. Exception may be made for
instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses where no alternative
locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result. The
stabilization measures shall conform to ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline stabilization.
3. Where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures, are
found to be feasible, and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure,
stabilization structures or measures to protect existing primary residential structures may
be all in conformance with ECDC 24.50.020 requirements and then only if no net loss of
ecological functions will result.
H. Critical Saltwater Habitats.
1. Development shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when all of
the conditions below are met:
a. The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the
proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW
90.58.020;
b. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or
location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to
accomplish the same general purpose.
The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological
functions associated with critical saltwater habitat.
d. The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species
recovery.
2. Private, non-commercial docks for individual residential or community use may be
allowed provided that:
a. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or
location is not feasible;
b. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in not net loss of ecological
functions associated with critical saltwater habitat.
3. Where inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been completed, all over water and
near -shore developments in marine and estuarine waters shall be required to conduct an a
Packet Pg. 395
7.1.e
habitat assessment of the site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical
saltwater habitats and functions.
I. Critical Freshwater Habitats.
1. Existing hydrological connections into and between water bodies, such as streams and
wetlands, shall be maintained. Obstructed channels shall be reestablished as a condition
of nonwater-dependent uses, where feasible.
J. Additional authority. In addition to any other authority the city may have, the city is hereby
authorized to condition or deny a proposed use, modification or activity or to require site
redesign because of hazards associated with the use, modification or activity on or near an
environmentally sensitive and/or critical area, and/or the effect of the proposal on the
environmentally sensitive area and/or critical area.
Packet Pg. 396
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Presentation of the Utility Rate Analysis (15 minutes)
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
None.
Staff Recommendation
Preparation of a Utility Rate Ordinance and a Water Tax Ordinance for submittal in a future council
meeting.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds operates a combined utility operation which incorporates potable water, sanitary
sewer, and storm and surface water management functions. The City received the combined utility rate
study report from its consultant, the FCS Group, and found it to recommend increases in potable water,
sanitary sewer, and storm and surface water management utility rates to address rising operating and
maintenance costs including but not limited to wholesale cost increases for potable water from
Alderwood Water and Wastewater District and the replacement of failing water/sewer/storm
infrastructure. In addition, there is a plan to rebalance the water utility tax in conformance with a
Supreme Court decision which is designed to make the general fund revenue neutral. The rate increases
proposed by staff will make it so that the City will not need to acquire bonds for annual maintenance
projects and in order to address inflation and the rising operating and maintenance costs; thereby
resulting in considerable future savings to the City.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model
Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model
Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model
Attachment 4
- Water Rate Comparison
Attachment 5
- Storm Rate Comparison
Attachment 6
- Sewer Rate Comparison
Attachment 7
- Aggregate Residential Comparison
Attachment 8
- Aggregate Residential Rate Increase
Packet Pg. 397
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Summary
Total Capital Projects
Revenue Bond Proceeds
Use of Capital Fund Balance
Direct Rate Funding
Total Funding Sources
$ 5,906,218 $ 2,302,159 $ 2,529,244 $ 3,463,456 $ 3,601,994 $ 3,746,073
5,706,218 2,302,159 2,529,244
$ 5,906,218 $ 2,302,159 $ 2,529,244 $
3,463,456 2,697,924 1,336,652
- 536,009 2,049,831
3,463,456 $ 3,233,934 $ 3,386,483
Revenues
Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates $ 6,792,000 $ 6,828,911 $ 6,866,095 $ 6,903,556 $ 6,808,446 $ 6,842,488
Non -Rate Revenues 109,579 114,349 119,236 119,441 119,786 119,987
Total Revenues $ 6,901,579 $ 6,943,260 $ 6,985,331 $ 7,022,997 $ 6,928,232 $ 6,962,475
Expenses
Cash O&M Expenses [a]
$ 4,191,388 $
4,398,288 $
4,606,688 $
Existing Debt Service
1,252,624
1,254,168
1,256,540
New Debt Service
-
-
-
Rate Funded System Reinvestment
Rate Funded CIP
-
-
- _
Total Expenses
$ 5,444,012 $
5,652,457 $
5,863,228 $
Annual Rate Adjustment
4 0' •
4 0' •
3.50%
Rate Increases Dictated by:
Policy
Policy
Policy
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
$ 7,063,680 $
7,386,150 $
7,686,291 $
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
1,729,247
1,848,042
1,942,299
Coverage After Rate Increases
2.46
2.55
2.63
[a] Includes additional State Excise and B&O Taxes due to the proposed rate increases
4,924,097 $ 5,091,124 $ 5,355,508
1,258,950 1,254,358 1,254,742
- 536,009 2,049,831
6,183,046 $ 6,881,491 $ 8,660,082
Policy Policy Policy
7,998,715 $ 8,125,172 $ 8,410,772
1,935,110 1,363,468 (129,322)
2.62 2.59 2.60
Operating Fund
Capital Fund
Debt Reserve Fund
Total
$ 679,124 $
4,251,129
1,200,608
$ 6,130,861 $
704,198 $
4,135,854
1,200,608
6,040,660 $
731,536 $ 777,551 $
3,896,963 2,697,924
1,200,608 1,200,608
5,829,107 $ 4,676,084 $
804,367 $
1,336,652
1,200,608
3,341,627 $
675,045
-
1,200,608
1,875,653
n
Combined Minimum Target Balance
$ 1,709,951 $
1,728,757 $
1,749,260 $ 1,783,772 $
1,803,883 $
1,831,818
CD
rt
FCS GROUP
Edmonds Water Model.xlsx
w
(425) 867-1802
Summary
Page 1
N
iv
°DJAttachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Assumptions
Economic & Financial Factors 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
1 General Cost Inflation
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00
2 Construction Cost Inflation
0.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00
3 Labor Cost Inflation
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00
4 Customer Growth
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50
5 General Inflation plus Growth
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52
6 Alderwood Water Rate Increase
5.50 %
5.60 %
3.90 %
4.20 %
9.90 %
3.10 %
5.29 %
5.29 %
5.29 %
5.29
7 Benefits Inflation
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00
8 No Escalation
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00
Fund Earnings
0.25 %
0.25 %
0.50 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75
State Excise Tax 5.029 %
5.029 %
5.029 %
5.029 %
5.029 %
5.029 %
5.029 %
5.029 %
5.029 %
5.029 %
5.029
State B&O Tax 1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50
City Utility Taxes - Collected
18.70 %
17.07 %
15.50 %
14.05 %
12.68 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00
Accounting Assumptions
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS
Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 1
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target
Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2
1 - Defined as % of Plant
Plant -in -Service in 2014 $ 13,882,377
Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00
2 - Amount at Right =_> $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
-
D]
0
X
lD
n
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Assumptions
RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT
Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy
Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates
1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense
2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments
3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_>
4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment
Capital Financing Assumptions 2016 2017 201E 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES
General Facilities Charge
Total Equivalent Residential Units (MEs) 13,503 13,571 13,639 13,707 13,775 13,844 13,913 13,983 14,053 14,123
General Facilities Charge Revenues 331,499 — $ 340,955 $ 342,660 $ 344,373 $ 346,095 $ 347,826 $ 349,565 $ 351,313 $ 353,069 $ 354,835
REVENUE BONDS
Term (years)
20
— 20
20
Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction)
4.50%
4.50%
4.50% 4.50
Issuance Cost
0.00%
0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25
PWTF LOAN
Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20
20
20
20 20
Interest Cost 1.00% 1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00% 1.00%
OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a]
Term (years) 20 20
20
20
20 20
Interest Cost 4.00 % 4.00 %
5.00 %
5.00 %
5.00 % 5.00 %
Issuance Cost Ew 0.00%3MO.00 % A
0.00% A
0.00%
0.00 %�0.00 %
-A
[a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis.
20
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
20
20
20
20
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
20 20 20 20
5.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 %
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
V
N
iu
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Existing Debt Input
Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue
Annual Interest Payment
$
254,530
$ 244,814
$ 234,749
$ 224,409
$ 210,180
$ 195,342
$ 179,938
$ 163,947
$ 150,882
$ 136,891
Annual Principal Payment
323,868
335,504
344,641
355,732
370,959
385,096
399,778
435,507
447,689
459,871
Total Annual Payment
$
578,397
$ 580,318
$ 579,389
$ 580,141
$ 581,139
$ 580,437
$ 579,715
$ 599,453
$ 598,570
$ 596,762
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
599,453
599,453
599,453
599,453
599,453
599,453
599,453
599,453
598,570
596,762
2013 Revenue Bond
Annual Interest Payment
$
236,630
$ 234,430
$ 232,030
$ 228,780
$ 225,280
$ 221,530
$ 217,780
$ 213,780
$ 209,530
$ 205,280
Annual Principal Payment
MIL
55,000
A0,000
65.000
A 70,000
75,000 J&
75.000&
80,000
85.000
85,000
100 000
Total Annual Payment
$
291,630
$ 294,430
$ 297,030
$ 298,780
$ 300,280
$ 296,530
$ 297,780
$ 298,780
$ 294,530
$ 305,280
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
305,280
305,280
305,280
305,280
305,280
305,280
305,280
305,280
305,280
305,280
2015 Revenue Bond
Annual Interest Payment
$
202,161
$ 196,207
$ 190,152
$ 183,983
$ 181,229
$ 174,879
$ 171,634
$ 165,979
$ 158,577
$ 151,016
Annual Principal Payment Source
145,425
151,379
157,434
163,603
166,357
172,707
175,952
181,607
189,009
196,570
Total Annual Payment
$
347,586
$ 347,586
$ 347,586
$ 347,586
$ 347,586
$ 347,586
$ 347,586
$ 347,586
$ 347,586
$ 347,586
Use of Debt Reserve for Debt Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
347,586
347,586
347,586
347,586
347,586
347,586
347,586
347,586
347,586
347,586
TOTAL REVENUE BONDS
Annual Interest Payment
$ 693,321
$ 675,451
$ 656,931 $
637,173 $
616,689 $
591,751 $
569,352 $
543,706 $
518,989
$ 493,187
Annual Principal Payment
524,292
546,883
567,074
589,334
612,316
632,802
655,729
702,113
721,698
756,441
Total Annual Payment
$ 1,217,613
$ 1,222,334
$ 1,224,005 $
1,226,507 $
1,229,005 $
1,224,553 $
1,225,081 $
1,245,819 $
1,240,686
$ 1,249,628
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
1,252,319
1,252,319
1,252,319
1,252,319
1,252,319
1,252,319
1,252,319
1,252,319
1,251,436
1,249,628
fv
0
lD
rt
C4 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 Existing Debt
O
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 4
V
fU
iu
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Existing Debt Input
Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
PWTF LOAN 04-691-031 Five Corners Water Pump Station Project
Annual Interest Payment $
1,163 $
1,034 $
904 $
775 $
646 $
517 $
388 $
258 $
129 $ -
Annual Principal Payment
25,839
25,839
25,839
25,839
25,839
25,839
25,839
25,839
25,839
Total Annual Payment $
27,002 $
26,873 $
26,743 $
26,614 $
26,485 $
26,356 $
26,227 $
26,097 $
25,968 $
PWTF LOAN PP09-951-014 2009 Water Comprehensive Plan
Annual Interest Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Annual Principal Payment � _
Total Annual Payment $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $
TOTAL PWTF LOANS
Annual Interest Payment $ 1,163 $ 1,034 $ 904 $ 775 $ 646 $ 517 $ 388 $ 258 $ 129 $
Annual Principal Payment 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 _
Total Annual Payment $ 27,002 $ 26,873 $ 26,743 $ 26,614 $ 26,485 $ 26,356 $ 26,227 $ 26,097 $ 25,968 $
Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a]
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
[a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O.
issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the
General Fund and
do not impact this analysis.
2007 LTGO Bond
Annual Interest Payment
$ 1,162 $
1,078 $
990 $
899 $
804 $
704 $
599 $
491 $
379 $
258
Annual Principal Payment
IEL 2,295
2,340
2,430
2,520
2,655
2,745
2,835
2,970
3,060
3,195
Total Annual Payment
$ 3,457 $
3,418 $
3,420 $
3,419 $
3,459 $
3,449 $
3,434 $
3,461 $
3,439 $
3,453
TOTAL OTHER LOANS
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
Sv
f'!
lD
rt
C4 I FCS GROUP
-th. 1 (425) 867-1802
O
IV
$ 1,162 $ 1,078 $ 990 $ 899 $ 804 $ 704 $ 599 $ 491 $ 379 $ 258
2,295 2,340 2,430 2,520 2,655 2,745 2,835 2,970 3,060 3,195
$ 3,457 $ 3,418 $ 3,420 $ 3,419 $ 3,459 $ 3,449 $ 3,434 $ 3,461 $ 3,439 $ 3,453
Edmonds Water Model.xlsx
Existing Debt
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 5
V
N
iu
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast
Revenues
FORECAST BASIS
Actual
2015
Budget
2016
Projection
2017
Projection
2018
Projection
2019
Projection
2020
Projection
2021
Projection
2022
Projection
2023
Projection
2024
Projection
2025
Rate Revenues
Rate Revenues
4
Customer Growth
$
6,088,017 $
6,640,758
$ 6,673,962 $
6,707,332
$ 6,740,868 $
6,774,573
$ 6,808,446 $
6,842,488
$ 6,876,700 $
6,911,084
$ 6,945,639
Fire Hydrant Maintenance
2
Construction Cost Inflation
92,523
114,600
118,038
121,579
125,227
128,983
-
-
-
-
-
Total Rate Revenues
$
6,180,540 $
6,755,358
$ 6,792,000 $
6,828,911
$ 6,866,095 $
6,903,556
$ 6,808,446 $
6,842,488
$ 6,876,700 $
6,911,084
$ 6,945,639
Non -Rate Revenues
Miscellaneous revenues
8
No Escalation
$
72,453 $
51,000
$ 51,000 $
51,000
$ 51,000 $
51,000
$ 51,000 $
51,000
$ 51,000 $
51,000
$ 51,000
Recycling Grants
8
No Escalation
58,129
53,950
53,950
53,950
53,950
53,950
53,950
53,950
53,950
53,950
53,950
Investment Interest
Calculated
Interlocal Grant from Lynnwood
8
No Escalation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Non -Rate Revenues
$
130,583 $
104,950
$ 104,950 $
104,950
$ 104,950 $
104,950
$ 104,950 $
104,950
$ 104,950 $
104,950
$ 104,950
TOTAL REVENUES
$
6,311,123 $
6,860,308
$ 6,896,950 $
6,933,861
$ 6,971,045 $
7,008,506
$ 6,913,396 $
6,947,438
$ 6,981,650 $
7,016,034
$ 7,050,589
Actual
Budget
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
N
01
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast
Actual
Budget
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Expenditures
FORECAST BASIS
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Salaries and Wages
3
Labor Cost Inflation
$ 736,062 $
795,220
$ 819,077
$ 843,649
$ 868,958
$ 895,027
$ 921,878
$ 949,534 $
978,020
$ 1,007,361
$ 1,037,582
Overtime
3
Labor Cost Inflation
19,062
24,000
24,720
25,462
26,225
27,012
27,823
28,657
29,517
30,402
31,315
Benefits
7
Benefits Inflation
337,368
372,550
409,805
450,786
495,864
545,450
599,996
659,995
725,995
798,594
878,453
Uniforms
1
General Cost Inflation
3,078
4,000
4,120
4,244
4,371
4,502
4,637
4,776
4,919
5,067
5,219
Supplies
1
General Cost Inflation
146,397
151,000
155,530
160,196
165,002
169,952
175,050
180,302
185,711
191,282
197,021
Water Purchased
6
Alderwood Water Rate Increase
1,612,415
1,600,000
1,689,600
1,755,494
1,829,225
2,010,318
2,072,638
2,182,192
2,297,537
2,418,978
2,546,838
Supplies for Inventory/Resale
1
General Cost Inflation
115,633
143,000
147,290
151,709
156,260
160,948
165,776
170,749
175,872
181,148
186,583
Small Equipment
1
General Cost Inflation
13,586
11,000
11,330
11,670
12,020
12,381
12,752
13,135
13,529
13,934
14,353
Professional Services
1
General Cost Inflation
150,000
84,150
86,675
89,275
91,953
94,712
97,553
100,480
103,494
106,599
109,797
Communications
1
General Cost Inflation
31,085
30,000
30,900
31,827
32,782
33,765
34,778
35,822
36,896
38,003
39,143
Travel / Training
1
General Cost Inflation
149
200
206
212
219
225
232
239
246
253
261
Advertising
No
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rental / Lease
1
General Cost Inflation
-
5,000
5,150
5,305
5,464
5,628
5,796
5,970
6,149
6,334
6,524
Insurance
1
General Cost Inflation
70,904
58,920
60,688
62,508
64,383
66,315
68,304
70,354
72,464
74,638
76,877
Public Utility
1
General Cost Inflation
25,368
40,000
41,200
42,436
43,709
45,020
46,371
47,762
49,195
50,671
52,191
Repair/Maintenance
1
General Cost Inflation
20,338
17,000
17,510
18,035
18,576
19,134
19,708
20,299
20,908
21,535
22,181
Miscellaneous (excl. Taxes)
1
General Cost Inflation
64,460
66,700
68,701
70,762
72,885
75,071
77,324
79,643
82,033
84,494
87,028
State Taxes
Excise and B&O Tax Rate
367,651
402,510
399,630
396,321
393,378
390,674
383,428
385,337
387,256
389,185
391,123
Intergov. Services
General Cost Inflation
30,693
30,000
30,900
31,827
32,782
33,765
34,778
35,822
36,896
38,003
39,143
Interfund Services
General Cost Inflation
447,301
13,820
14,235
14,662
15,101
15,555
16,021
16,502
16,997
17,507
18,032
RCP - Salaries
Labor Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RCP - Benefits
Labor Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RCP - Travel
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RCP - Miscellaneous
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Interfund Rental
General Cost Inflation
95,069
95,750
98,623
101,581
104,629
107,767
111,000
114,331
117,760
121,293
124,932
Interfund Repair / Maintenance
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Intergovernmental Loan
1
General Cost Inflation
45,839
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Buildings
1
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Improvements/Projects
1
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Machinery / Equipment
1
General Cost Inflation
15,960
15,000
15,450
15,914
16,391
16,883
17,389
17,911
18,448
19,002
19,572
Interfund Transfer Out [d]
1
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amortized Debt Issue Cost
No Escalation
99,464
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fiscal Agent Fees
No Escalation
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfer to Fund 117
No Escalation
` -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 4,447,882 $ 3,959,820 $ 4,131,337 $ 4,283,873 $ 4,450,177 $ 4,730,105 $ 4,893,233 $ 5,119,811 $ 5,359,842 $ 5,614,283 $ 5,884,166
Depreciation Expense[e] Last year's plus annual additions from CIP $ 736,330 $ 796,500 $ 914,624 $ 960,667 $ 1,011,252 $ 1,080,521 $ 1,152,561 $ 1,227,483 $ 1,227,483 $ 1,227,483 $ 1,227,483
TOTAL EXPENSES $ 5,184,212 $ 4,756,320 $ 5,045,962 $ 5,244,540 $ 5,461,429 $ 5,810,626 $ 6,045,794 $ 6,347,293 $ 6,587,325 $ 6,841,765 $ 7,111,649
City Utility Taxes (for excise tax calculation)
Revenue from Incremental Utility Tax
Fire Hydrant Revenue plus CPI
1,138,459 1,241,822 1,139,540 1,039,873 947,304 859,326
577,746 472,144 369,140 273,217 181,868
114,600 118,038 121,579 125,227 128,983
680,845 684,249 687,670 691,108 694,564
132,853 136,838 140,944 145,172 149,527
[d] Transfers from Operating Fund to Construction and Debt Service Funds are calculated in the model.
[e] Depreciation is a non -cash expense.
V
N
iu
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Capital Improvement Program
Project Costs in Year:
CIP
No
Description
Life in Years
Total Cost
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022 2023 2024 2025
2014 Replacement Program
50
$ -
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $ - $ - $ -
2015 Replacement Program
50
$ 634,176
634,176
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
2015 Waterline Overlays
50
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
2016 Replacement Program
50
$ 1,445,814
1,416,688
29,126
-
-
-
-
- - - -
2016 Waterline Overlays
50
$ 62,072
62,072
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements
50
$ 628,942
327,000
301,942
-
-
-
-
- - - -
2017 Replacement Program
50
$ 2,525,098
302,948
2,222,150
-
-
-
-
- - - -
2018 Replacement Program
50
$ 2,276,445
-
388,350
1,888,095
-
-
-
- - - -
2019 Replacement Program
50
$ 2,295,830
-
-
281,911
2,013,919
-
-
- - - -
2020 Replacement Program
50
$ 2,978,162
-
-
-
300,697
2,677,465
-
- - - -
2021 Replacement Program
50
$ 3,103,230
-
-
-
-
399,771
2,703,459
- - - -
2022 Replacement Program
50
$ 3,133,359
-
-
-
-
-
403,653
2,729,706 - - -
Five Corners Reservoir Recasting
50
$ 1,945,080
114,412
1,830,668
-
-
-
-
- - - -
2016 Water System Plan Update
50
$ 148,383
144,500
3,883
-
-
-
-
- - - -
2017 Water Overlays
50
$ 203,883
-
203,883
-
-
-
-
- - - -
2023 Replacement Program
50
$ 407,571
-
-
-
-
-
-
407,571 - - -
50
$ _
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
50
$ _
_
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project)
50
$ 2
2
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th)
50
$ 760,879
6,690
754,189
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Reimbursement to Fund 117 1% Arts (2015 Watermain)
50
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Reimbursement to Fund 117 1% Arts (2016 Watermain)
50
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
$
50
$
50
$
50
$
50
$
50
$ _
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars
$ 22,548,927
$ 3,008,488 $
5,734,192 $
2,170,006 $
2,314,617 $
3,077,236 $
3,107,112 $
3,137,277 $
fl1
0
w
CD
rt
FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model.xlsx
.9h. 1 (425) 867-1802 CIP Input
Page 8
V
N
JAttachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Capital Improvement Program
Project Costs in Year:
Cumulative Inflation 0.001/ 3.00% 6.09% 9.270/6 12.550/6 15.93% 19.41% 22.99% 26.68% 30.48%
Annual Inflationj 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS
CIP
No
Description
Life in Years
Total Cost
2016
I
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022 2023 2024 2025
2014 Replacement Program
50
$ -
-q
2015 Replacement Program
50
634,176
634,176
2015 Waterline Overlays
50
-
2016 Replacement Program
50
1,446,688
1,416,688
30,000
2016 Waterline Overlays
50
62,072
62,072
Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements
50
638,000
327,000
311,000
2017 Replacement Program
50
2,591,763
302,948
2,288,815
2018 Replacement Program
50
2,403,080
400,000
2,003,080
2019 Replacement Program
50
2,499,743
299,079
2,200,664
2020 Replacement Program
50
3,342,090
328,580
3,013,510
2021 Replacement Program
50
449,946
449,946
3,134,050
2022 Replacement Program
50
-
467,944
3,259,412
Five Corners Reservoir Recoating
50
2,000,000
114,412
1,885,588
2016 Water System Plan Update
50
148,500
144,500
4,000
2017 Water Overlays
50
210,000
210,000
2023 Replacement Program
50
-
486,661
50
50
-
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project)
50
2
2
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th)
50
783,505
6,690
776,815
Reimbursement to Fund 117 1%Arts (2015 Watermain)
50
-
Reimbursement to Fund 117 1 % Arts (2016 Watermain)
50
-
50
50
50
50
50
50
Total Capital Projects in Escalated Dollars
$ 17,209,565
$ 3,008,488 $
5,906,218 $
2,302,159 $
2,529,244 $
3,463,456 $
3,601,994 $
3,746,073 $ - $ - $
Capital Expenditure Realization Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% 100% 100% 100%
Total Capital Projects after Realization Factor
$ 3,008,488
5,906,218 $
2,302,159 $
2,529,244 $
3,463,456 $
3,601,994 $
3,746,073 $ - $ - $
D]
0
w
lD
rt
FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model.xlsx
.9h. 1 (425) 867-1802 CIP Input
JQ
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 9
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Capital Funding Analysis
Summary of Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,008,488 $ 59906,218 $ 29302,159 $ 29529,244 $ 3,463,456 $ 39601,994 $ 39746,073 $ - $ - $ -
Capital Financina Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Other Outside Sources
$ 237,500
$ 200,000
$
$
$
$
$ $ $ $
PWTF Loan Proceeds
-
-
Other Loan Proceeds
-
-
Capital Fund Balance
2,507,386
5,706,218
2,302,159
2,529,244
3,463,456
2,697,924
1,336,652 -
General Facilities Charge Revenue
301,400
340,955
342,660
344,373
346,095
347,826
349,565 351,313 353,069 354,835
Interest Earnings
6,268
19,739
21,256
31,019
29,227
20,234
10,025 - 13,838 27,475
Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B]
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
Rates
536,009
2,049,831
Total
$ 3,052,554
$ 6,266,912
$ 2,666,075
$ 2,904,636
$ 3,838,778
$ 3,601,994
$ 3,746,073 $ 351,313 $ 366,907 $ 382,310
TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES
Info: Capital Contingency Deficit
$ 3,052,554 $ 6,266,912 $ 29666,075 $ 29904,636 $ 39838,778 $ 39601,994 $ 39746,073 $ 351,313 $ 366,907 $ 382,310
NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE
Select the Residual Funding Source 1
1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds
2 - Rates
NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS
Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1
1 - Amounts at Right ==> $
2 - Calculated by the Model
m
0
W
CD
rt
C4 �1
� N
4 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Capital Funding Analysis
New Debt Computations
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
REVENUE BONDS
Amount to Fund
$
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $ -
Issuance Costs
Reserve Required
Amount of Debt Issue
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
OTHER LOANS
Amount to Fund
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Issuance Costs
Amount of Debt Issue
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
PWTF LOAN
Amount to Fund [a]
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Debt Service Summary
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
EXISTING DEBT SERVICE
Annual Interest Payments
$
695,645
$ 677,563
$ 658,825
$ 638,847
$ 618,140
$ 592,971
$ 570,339
$ 544,456
$ 519,496
$ 493,445
Annual Principal Payments
552,426
575,062
595,343
617,693
640,810
661,386
684,403
730,922
750,597
759,636
Total Debt Service Payments
$
1,248,072
$ 1,252,624
$ 1,254,168
$ 1,256,540
$ 1,258,950
$ 1,254,358
$ 1,254,742
$ 1,275,378
$ 1,270,093
$ 1,253,081
Revenue Bond Payments Only
1,217,613
1,222,334
1,224,005
1,226,507
1,229,005
1,224,553
1,225,081
1,245,819
1,240,686
1,249,628
NEW DEBT SERVICE
Annual Interest Payments
$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Annual Principal Payments
Total Debt Service Payments
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Revenue Bond Payments Only
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS
Total Interest Payments
Total Principal Payments
Total Revenue Bond Payments Only
$ 1,248,072 $ 1,252,624 $ 1,254,168 $ 1,256,540 $ 1,258,950 $ 1,254,358 $ 1,254,742 $ 1,275,378 $ 1,270,093 $ 1,253,081
695,645 677,563 658,825 638,847 618,140 592,971 570,339 544,456 519,496 493,445
552,426 575,062 595,343 617,693 640,810 661,386 684,403 730,922 750,597 759,636
1,217,613 1,222,334 1,224,005 1,226,507 1,229,005 1,224,553 1,225,081 1,245,819 1,240,686 1,249,628
V
N
iu
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Revenue Requirements Analysis
Cash Flow Sufficiency Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
EXPENSES
Cash Operating Expenses
$
3,959,820 $
4,131,337 $
4,283,873 $
4,450,177 $
4,730,105 $
4,893,233 $
5,119,811 $
5,359,842 $
5,614,283 $
5,884,166
Existing Debt Service
1,248,072
1,252,624
1,254,168
1,256,540
1,258,950
1,254,358
1,254,742
1,275,378
1,270,093
1,253,081
New Debt Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rate -Funded CIP
-
-
-
-
-
536,009
2,049,831
-
-
-
Rate Funded System Reinvestment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenses
$
5,207,892 $
5,383,961 $
5,538,041 $
5,706,717 $
5,989,054 $
6,683,600 $
8,424,384 $
6,635,220 $
6,884,376 $
7,137,247
REVENUES
Rate Revenue
$
6,755,358 $
6,792,000 $
6,828,911 $
6,866,095 $
6,903,556 $
6,808,446 $
6,842,488 $
6,876,700 $
6,911,084 $
6,945,639
Other Revenue
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings
20,000
4,629
9,399
14,286
14,491
14,836
15,037
14,067
15,613
15,926
Total Revenue
$
6,880,308 $
6,901,579 $
6,943,260 $
6,985,331 $
7,022,997 $
6,928,232 $
6,962,475 $
6,995,718 $
7,031,646 $
7,066,516
NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) $ 1,672,416 $ 1,517,617 $ 1,405,218 $ 1,278,614 $ 1,033,943 $ 244,632 $ (1,461,909) $ 360,497 $ 147,271 $ (70,732)
Coverage Sufficiency Test
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
EXPENSES
Cash Operating Expenses
$
3,959,820 $
4,131,337 $
4,283,873 $
4,450,177 $
4,730,105 $
4,893,233 $
5,119,811 $
5,359,842 $
5,614,283 $
5,884,166
Revenue Bond Debt Service
1,217,613
1,222,334
1,224,005
1,226,507
1,229,005
1,224,553
1,225,081
1,245,819
1,240,686
1,249,628
Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25
304,403
305,583
306,001
306,627
307,251
306,138
306,270
311,455
310,172
312,407
Total Expenses
$
5,481,837 $
5,659,255 $
5,813,879 $
5,983,311 $
6,266,361 $
6,423,925 $
6,651,163 $
6,917,116 $
7,165,141 $
7,446,201
ALLOWABLE REVENUES
Rate Revenue
$
6,755,358 $
6,792,000 $
6,828,911 $
6,866,095 $
6,903,556 $
6,808,446 $
6,842,488 $
6,876,700 $
6,911,084 $
6,945,639
Other Revenue
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
104,950
Interest Earnings - All Funds
26,268
24,368
30,654
45,305
43,718
35,071
25,062
14,067
29,450
43,401
Total Revenue
$
6,886,577 $
6,921,318 $
6,964,515 $
7,016,350 $
7,052,224 $
6,948,466 $
6,972,500 $
6,995,718 $
7,045,484 $
7,093,991
Individual Coverage Realized
2.40
2.28
2.19
2.09
1.89
1.68
1.51
1.31
1.15
0.97
INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS(DEFICIENCY)
$
1,404,740 $
1,262,063 $
1,150,636 $
1,033,039 $
785,863 $
524,542 $
321,338 $
78,601 $
(119,656) $
(352,211)
COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY)
$
1,404,740 $
1,262,063 $
1,150,636 $
1,033,039 $
785,863 $
524,542 $
321,338 $
78,601 $
(119,656) $
(352,211)
FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 Tests
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 12
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Revenue Requirements Analysis
Maximum Revenue Deficiency
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency
None
None
None
None
None
None
Cash
None
Coverage
Coverage
Maximum Deficiency From Tests
$
(1,404,740) $
(1,262,063) $
(1,150,636) $
(1,033,039) $
(785,863) $
(244,632) $
1,461,909 $
(78,601) $
119,656 $
352,211
less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases
(273,156)
(560,273)
(824,671)
(1,080,071)
(1,323,310)
(1,576,126)
(1,584,006)
(1,591,926)
Revenue Deficiency
$
(1,404,740) $
(1,262,063) $
(1,423,792) $
(1,593,312) $
(1,610,534) $
(1,324,703) $
138,599 $
(1,654,727) $
(1,464,350) $
(1,239,716)
Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax
(437,0351
(358,115)
(297,297)
(243.613)
(169,171)
(43,269)
258,571
(13,902)
21.164
62.296
Total Revenue Deficiency
$
(1,841,775) $
(1,620,178) $
(1,721,090) $
(1,836,925) $
(1,779,705) $
(1,367,972) $
397,170 $
(1,668,629) $
(1,443,186) $
(1,177,419)
Rate Increases
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Rate Revenue with no Increase
$
6,755,358 $
6,792,000 $
6,828,911 $
6,866,095 $
6,903,556 $
6,808,446 $
6,842,488 $
6,876,700 $
6,911,084 $
6,945,639
Revenues from Prior Rate Increases
-
-
273,156
560,273
824,671
1,080,071
1,323,310
1,576,126
1,584,006
1,591,926
Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases)
6,755,358
6,792,000
7,102,067
7,426,368
7,728,227
7,888,517
8,165,798
8,452,826
8,495,090
8,537,566
Required Annual Rate Increase
-27.26%
-23.85%
-24.23%
-24.74%
-23.03%
-17.34 %
4.86%
-19.74%
-16.99%
-13.79
Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue
-27.26%
-23.85%
-24.23%
-24.74%
-23.03%
-17.34%
4.86%
-19.74%
-16.99%
-13.79%
Policy Induced Rate Increases
0.00%
4.00%
4.00%
3.50%
3.50%
3.00%
3.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00
ANNUAL RATE INCREASE
0.00%
4.00%
4.00%
3.50%
3.50%
3.00%
3.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE
0.00%
4.00%
8.16%
11.95%
15.86%
19.34%
22.92%
22.92%
22.92%
22.92%
npacts of Rate Increases
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2M
ate Revenues After Rate Increase
$ 6,755,358 $
7,063,680 $
7,386,150 $
7,686,291 $
7,998,715 $
8,125,172 $
8,410,772 $
8,452,826 $
8,495,090 $
8,537,56
ill Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
6,755,358
7,063,680
7,386,150
7,686,291
7,998,715
8,125,172
8,410,772
8,452,826
8,495,090
8,537,56
lditional State & City Taxes Due to Rate Increases
-
60,051
114,415
156,511
193,992
197,891
235,697
236,876
238,060
239,25
at Cash Flow After Rate Increase
1,672,416
1,729,247
1,848,042
1,942,299
1,935,110
1,363,468
(129,322)
1,699,747
1,493,217
1,281,94
dividual Coverage After Rate Increase
2.40
2.46
2.55
2.63
2.62
2.59
2.60
2.39
2.24
2.0
D]
0
77
(D
rt
FCSGROUP Edmonds Water Model.xlsx
-th. I (425) 867-1802 Tests
JAttachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 13
City of Edmonds
Water Utility
Fund Activity
Funds
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
OPERATING FUND
Beginning Balance
-
$ 650,929
$ 679,124
$ 704,198
$ 731,536
$ 777,551
$ 804,367
$ 675,045
$ 881,070
$ 922,896
plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase
1,672,416
1,729,247
1,848,042
1,942,299
1,935,110
1,363,468
(129,322)
1,699,747
1,493,217
1,281,944
less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund
(7,851,534)
(1,701,052)
(1,822,968)
(1,914,961)
(1,889,095)
(1,336,652)
-
(1,493,722)
(1,451,391)
(1,237,579)
Ending Balance
$ 650,929
$ 679,124
$ 704,198
$ 731,536
$ 777,551
$ 804,367
$ 675,045
$ 881,070
$ 922,896
$ 967,260
Minimum Target Balance
488,197
509,343
528,149
548,652
583,164
603,275
631,210
660,802
692,172
725,445
Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves
650,929
679,124
704,198
731,536
777,551
804,367
841,613
881,070
922,896
967,260
Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses
60
60
60
60
60
60
48
60
60
60
CAPITAL FUND
Beginning Balance
$ 2,507,386
$ 7,895,601
$ 4,251,129
$ 4,135,854
$ 3,896,963
$ 2,697,924
$ 1,336,652
$ -
$ 1,845,035
$ 3,663,332
plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources
237,500
200,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
plus: General Facilities Charges
301,400
340,955
342,660
344,373
346,095
347,826
349,565
351,313
353,069
354,835
plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
plus: Interest Earnings
6,268
19,739
21,256
31,019
29,227
20,234
10,025
-
13,838
27,475
plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund
7,851,534
1,701,052
1,822,968
1,914,961
1,889,095
1,336,652
-
1,493,722
1,451,391
1,237,579
plus: Direct Rate Funding
-
-
-
-
-
536,009
2,049,831
-
-
-
less: Capital Expenditures
(3,008,488)
(5,906,218)
(2,302,159)
(2,529,244)
(3,463,456)
(3,601,994)
(3,746,073)
-
Ending Balance
$ 7,895,601
$ 4,251,129
$ 4,135,854
$ 3,896,963
$ 2,697,924
$ 1,336,652
$
$ 1,845,035
$ 3,663,332
$ 5,283,222
Minimum Target Balance
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
DEBT RESERVE
Beginning Balance
-
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service
Ending Balance
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200.608
$ 1,200,608
$ 1,200,608
Minimum Target Balance
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
Sv
0
77
(D
rt
(a FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model.xlsx -I
(425) 867-1802 Funds Page 14 IV
iv
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Water Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Summary
Total Capital Projects
$ 5,189,351 $ 3,504,625 $ 2,719,250 $ 2,669,250 $ 2,220,000 $ 2,292,000
Grants and Developer Donations
1,881,255 587,500 600,000
600,000
262,500
262,500
Use of Capital Fund Balance
3,308,096 2,917,125 1,552,049
752,219
210,110
41,927
Direct Rate Funding
- - 567,201
1,317,031
1,747,390
1,987,573
Total Funding Sources
$ 5,189,351 $ 3,504,625 $ 2,719,250 $
2,669,250 $
2,220,000 $
2,292,000
Revenues
Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates
Non -Rate Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenses
Cash O&M Expenses [a]
Existing Debt Service
New Debt Service
Rate Funded System Reinvestment
Rate Funded CIP
Total Expenses
Annual Rate Adjustment
Rate Increases Dictated by:
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
Coverage After Rate Increases
Includes additional B&O taxes due to
Operating Fund
Capital Fund
Debt Reserve Fund
W Total
X
CD Combined Minimum Target Balance
rt
(Q
$ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393
26,701 29,119 31,610 31,719 31,834 31,729
$ 3,358,242 $ 3,368,988 $ 3,379,829 $ 3,388,308 $ 3,396,815 $ 3,405,122
$ 2,056,962 $
669,483
$ 2,726,445 $
Policy
$ 3,598,064 $
898,319
3.09
rate
2,173,648 $ 2,298,078 $ 2,430,875 $ 2,572,717 $ 2,718,644
668,849 669,172 670,805 670,030 668,968
- 567,201 1,317,031 1,747,390 1,987,573
2,842,497 $ 3,534,451 $ 4,418,710 $ 4,990,137 $ 5,375,185
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
3,895,623 $
4,217,792 $
4,566,603 $
4,944,261 $
5,303,585
1,082,246
714,951
179,611
(14,042)
(39,871)
3.46
3.84
4.25
4.70
5.12
$ 333,092 $
346,806 $
361,328 $
376,722 $
362,679 $
322,809
3,343,873
1,552,049
752,219
210,110
41,927
40,766
622,098
622,098
622,098
622,098
622,098
622,098
$ 4,299,063 $
2,520,953 $
1,735,645 $
1,208,929 $
1,026,704 $
985,673
$ 871,917 $
882,202 $
893,094 $
904,639 $
916,891 $
929,907
� (425) 867-1802 Summary
n' Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 1
v
N
a
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Assumptions
Economic & Financial Factors
1 General Cost Inflation
2 Construction Cost Inflation
3 Labor Cost Inflation
4 Customer Growth
5 General Inflation plus Growth
6 Benefits Inflation
7 [Other Escalation Factor]
8 No Escalation
Fund Earnings
City Taxes
Rate Revenue Taxed @ B&O Tax
Other Revenues Taxed @ B&O Tax
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
0.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
3.26%
3.26%
3.26%
3.26%
3.26%
3.26%
3.26%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.25%
0.25%
0.50%
0.75%
0.75%
0.75%
0.75%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
v
N
F:r4mn ,10 Qtnr ,%-tn. NA poi Riov iT
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Assumptions
Accounting Assumptions 2016 2017
FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS
Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 45 45
Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60
Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target
Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2 User Input
1 - Defined as % of Plant
Plant -in -Service in 2015
Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00%
2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $
RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT
Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy 4 System Reinvestment is not Funded
Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates
1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense
2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments
3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $
4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
45
45
45
45
45
60
60
60
60
60
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
v
N
PAmn—lo QYnrm%—tnr NA—InI vlov a
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Assumptions
Capital Financing Assumptions
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES
General Facilities Charge $
799
Total Equivalent Service Units (ESUs)
20,000
20,050
20,100
20,150
20,201
20,251
20,302
General Facilities Charge Revenues $
31,975 $
39,950 $
40,050 $
40,150 $
40,250 $
40,351 $
40,452
REVENUE BONDS
Term (years)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction)
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
Issuance Cost
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25
PWTF LOAN
Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Interest Cost
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a]
Term (years)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Interest Cost
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
Issuance Cost
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
[a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund;
terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis.
m
c�
rt
(p
nF(`Q
(,R(ll IQ PAmn-lo QYnrm%e
tnr NA-InI vlov
J Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Existing Debt Input
Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds
2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
2015 Revenue Bond
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
TOTAL REVENUE BONDS
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans
PWTF LOAN 04-691-030 Storm Water Improvement Project
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$ 122,569 $ 117,820 $ 112,900 $ 107,850 $ 100,892 $ 93,644 $ 86,115
158,297 163,993 168,357 173,932 181,205 188,235 195,386
$ 280,866 $ 281,814 $ 281,257 $ 281,782 $ 282,097 $ 281,879 $ 281,501
286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293
$ 133,503 $ 129,571 $ 125,572 $ 121,498 $ 119,679 $ 115,486 $ 113,343
96,035 99,967 103,966 108,040 109,858 114,052 116,194
$ 229,538 $ 229,538 $ 229,538 $ 229,538 $ 229,537 $ 229,538 $ 229,537
229,538 229,538 229,538 229,538 229,538 229,538 229,538
$ 256,072 $ 247,391 $ 238,473 $ 229,348 $ 220,571 $ 209,130 $ 199,458
254,332 263,960 272,323 281,972 291,063 302,287 311,580
$ 510,404 $ 511,352 $ 510,795 $ 511,320 $ 511,634 $ 511,417 $ 511,038
515,831 515,831 515,831 515,831 515,831 515,831 515,831
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$ 1,443 $ 1,283 $ 1,122 $ 962 $ 802 $ 641 $ 481
32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063
$ 33,505 $ 33,345 $ 33,185 $ 33,024 $ 32,864 $ 32,704 $ 32,543
TOTAL PWTF LOANS
Annual Interest Payment $ 1,443 $ 1,283 $ 1,122 $ 962 $ 802 $ 641 $ 481
m
0 Annual Principal Payment 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063
^? Total Annual Payment $ 33,505 $ 33,345 $ 33,185 $ 33,024 $ 32,864 $ 32,704 $ 32,543
c4 �I
� N
°' Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Existing Debt Input
Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
[a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this ana
2007 LTGO BOND
Annual Interest Payment
$
42,409
$ 39,351
$ 36,147
$ 32,820
$
29,369
$ 25,686
$ 21,877
Annual Principal Payment
83,793
85,436
88,722
92,008
96,937
100,223
103,509
Total Annual Payment
$
126,202
$ 124,787
$ 124,869
$ 124,828
$
126,306
$ 125,909
$ 125,386
TOTAL OTHER LOANS
Annual Interest Payment
$
42,409
$ 39,351
$ 36,147
$ 32,820
$
29,369
$ 25,686
$ 21,877
Annual Principal Payment
83,793
85,436
88,722
92,008
96,937
100,223
103,509
Total Annual Payment
$
126,202
$ 124,787
$ 124,869
$ 124,828
$
126,306
$ 125,909
$ 125,386
m
0
w
CD
cc F41
r-4 I C-0 0.". RA-1-1
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis) In
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast
Budget
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Revenues
FORECAST BASIS
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Rate revenues
4 I
Customer Growth
$ 3,323,232
$ 3,331,540 $
3,339,869 $
3,348,219 $
3,356,589 $
3,364,981
$ 3,373,393
Stormwater Mitigation Fees
8
No Escalation
799
799
799
799
799
799
799
Illegal Discharge Fine
8
No Escalation
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Housing Rentals/Leases
8
No Escalation
13,153
13,153
13,153
13,153
13,153
13,153
13,153
Other Misc Revenues - UB Accts
8
No Escalation
10,091
10,091
10,091
10,091
10,091
10,091
10,091
Grants
8
No Escalation
407,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
Misc Penalty Revenues - UB Acct
I 4 I
Customer Growth
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL REVENUES
$ 3,754,575
$ 3,355,884 $
3,364,212 $
3,372,562 $
3,380,933 $
3,389,324
$ 3,397,737
Expenditures
FORECAST BASIS
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Salaries and Wages
3 I
Labor Cost Inflation
$ 640,470
$ 659,684 $
679,475 $
699,859 $
720,855 $
742,480
$ 764,755
Overtime
3
Labor Cost Inflation
6,000
6,180
6,365
6,556
6,753
6,956
7,164
Benefits
6
Benefits Inflation
313,950
345,345
379,880
417,867
459,654
505,620
556,182
Uniforms
1
General Cost Inflation
6,500
6,695
6,896
7,103
7,316
7,535
7,761
Supplies
1
General Cost Inflation
46,500
47,895
49,332
50,812
52,336
53,906
55,523
Minor Equipment
1
General Cost Inflation
4,000
4,120
4,244
4,371
4,502
4,637
4,776
Professional Services
1
General Cost Inflation
120,000
123,600
127,308
131,127
135,061
139,113
143,286
Communications
1
General Cost Inflation
3,200
3,296
3,395
3,497
3,602
3,710
3,821
Travel/Training
1
General Cost Inflation
4,300
4,429
4,562
4,699
4,840
4,985
5,134
Advertising
1
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rental / Lease
1
General Cost Inflation
6,500
6,695
6,896
7,103
7,316
7,535
7,761
Insurance
1
General Cost Inflation
64,120
66,044
68,025
70,066
72,168
74,333
76,563
Public Utility
1
General Cost Inflation
10,500
10,815
11,139
11,474
11,818
12,172
12,538
Repair / Maintenance
1
General Cost Inflation
13,000
13,390
13,792
14,205
14,632
15,071
15,523
Miscellaneous (excl. taxes)
1
General Cost Inflation
91,200
93,936
96,754
99,657
102,646
105,726
108,898
State Taxes
B&O Tax Rate
61,783
55,935
56,074
56,213
56,353
56,493
56,633
Interfund Subsidies
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
Intergov. Services
1
General Cost Inflation
85,000
87,550
90,177
92,882
95,668
98,538
101,494
Machinery/Equipment
1
General Cost Inflation
Land
1
General Cost Inflation
Intergov. Loans
1
General Cost Inflation
n
Interfund Services
1
General Cost Inflation
229,921
236,819
243,923
251,241
258,778
266,541
274,538
^:
Interfund Rental
1
General Cost Inflation
246,490
253,885
261,501
269,346
277,427
285,749
294,322
Interfund Transfer Out [a]
1 I
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
�
N
J Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast
State Permit Fee
1
General Cost Inflation
Debt Service Costs
1
General Cost Inflation
2 1/3 FTEs
3
Labor Cost Inflation
New Vehicle Rental/Maint.
8
No Escalation
Surface Water Monitoring
8
No Escalation
Total Cash O&M Expenditures
$ 1,953,434 $ 2,026,312 $ 2,109,736 $ 2,198,077 $ 2,291,723 $ 2,391,100 $ 2,496,672
!v
0
X
CD
rt
C4
� N
`° Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Capital Improvement Program
Project Costs in Year: 1 2016
Project
ID
Description
Useful Life
outside
Fundln
Total Costs
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022 2023 2024 2026
SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Project
50
0%
$ -
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $ - $ - $ -
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project
50
0%
656,683
654,741
1,942
-
-
-
-
- - - -
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Edmonds Marsh Related Projects
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Dayton St. and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements - Dayton St. Pump Station
50
0%
2,159,490
267,700
1,844,660
47,130
-
-
-
- - -
Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study/Design/Construction
50
0%
1,818,494
38,698
445,901
282,779
274,542
266,546
258,783
251,245 - - -
Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements
50
0%
711,230
-
194,175
471,298
45,757
-
-
- - - -
WillowCreekPipeRehabilitation
50
0%
661,189
-
80,097
77,764
503,328
-
-
- - - -
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Northstream Projects
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
North earn Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr. - Assessment/Stabilization
50
0%
185,653
36,595
149,058
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Rehab/Replace of Northstream Culvert under Puget DR.
50
0%
537,889
113,215
419,961
4,713
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Perrinville Greek Basin Projects
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
PerrinvilleCreek Flow Management Projects- Seaview Infiltration
50
0%
1,066,485
116,000
950,485
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Perrinvilla Creek Flow Management Projects
50
0%
1,410,987
-
-
424,168
457,571
444,244
43,130
41,874 - - -
Storm Drainage Improvement Projects
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Improvements - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW
50
0%
4,195
4,195
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Improvements - Dayton St. - 3rd to 9th
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Improvements - Sierra pl - 12th Ave N. to Olympic
50
0%
524,693
522,751
1,942
-
-
-
-
- - - -
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Annually Funded Projects
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
City -Wide drainage replacement projects
50
0%
8,248,523
306,900
145,631
1,932,322
1,143,927
1,599,277
1,552,696
1,567,771 - - -
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
50
0%
383,001
17,000
62,136
62,211
62,230
60,417
60,383
58,624 - - -
Storm System Video Assessment
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Compliance -Related Projects
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Storm and SurfaceWater Comprehensive Plan (including asset management plan)
50
0%
214,320
25,000
189,320
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Reimbursements to Street Fund 112
50
0%
1,256,472
721,979
534,493
-
-
-
-
- - - -
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Reimbursements toArts Fund 117
50
0%
32,832
11,114
18,403
1,060
1,144
1,111
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
50
0%
Total Capital Projects In Current Dollars
$ 19,872,136
$ 2,835,888 $
5,038,205 $
3,303,445 $
2,488,499 $
2,371,594 $
1,914,992 $
1,919,514 $ - $ - $
Grant Funded Project Costs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Utility Funded Project Costs
19,872,136
2,835,888
5,038,205
3,303,445
2,488,499
2,371,594
1,914,992
1,919,514 - - -
fl1
0
x
rt
(Q
• FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model.xlsx
(425)867-1802 CIP Input
N
c Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Capital Improvement Program
Cumulative Construction Cost Inflation ==>1 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% 22.99% 26.68% 30.48%
Construction Cost Inflation =0 1 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS
Project
ID
Description
Useful Life
Outsltle
Fundin
Total Costs
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022 2023 2024 2025
SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Project
50
0%
$ -
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project
50
0%
656,741
654,741
2,000
Edmonds Marsh Related Projects
50
0%
-
Dayton St. and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements - Dayton St. Pump Station
50
0%
2,217,700
267,700
1,900,000
50,000
X
Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study/Design/Construction
50
0%
1,997,976
38,698
459,278
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements
50
0%
750,000
200,000
500,000
50,000
Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation
50
0%
715,000
82,500
82,500
550,000
Northstream Projects
50
0%
-
Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr. - Assessment/Stabilization
50
0%
190,125
36,595
153,530
X
Rehab/Replace of Northstream Culvert under Puget DR.
50
0%
550,775
113,215
432,560
5,000
50
0%
-
Perrinvllle Creek Basin Projects
-
X
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration
50
0%
1,095,000
116,000
979,000
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects
50
0%
1,550,000
450,000
500,000
500,000
50,000
50,000
Storm Drainage Improvement Projects
-
Improvements - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW
50
0%
4,195
4,195
Improvements - Dayton St. - 3rd to 9th
50
0%
-
Improvements - Sierra pi - 12th Ave N. to Olympic
50
0%
524,751
522,751
2,000
Annually Funded Projects
50
0%
-
City -Wide drainage replacement projects
50
0%
9,228,900
306,900
150,000
2,050,000
1,250,000
1,800,000
1,800,000
1,872,000
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
50
0%
423,000
17,000
64,000
66,000
68,000
68,000
70,000
70,000
Storm System Video Assessment
50
0%
-
50
0
Compliance -Related Projects
-
Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset management plan)
50
0%
220,000
25,000
195,000
50
0%
-
Reimbursements to Street Fund 112
50
0%
1,272,507
721,979
550,528
Reimbursements to Arts Fund 117
50
0%
33,694
11,114
18,955
1,125
1,250
1,250
50
0%
-
50
0
50
0%
50
0%
50
0
50
0%
50
0
50
0%
50
0
50
0
50
0%
50
0
50
0
Total Capital Projects in Escalated Dollars
$ 21,430,364
$ 2,835,888 $
5,189,351 $
3,504,625 $
2,719,250 $
2,669,250 $
2,220,000 $
2,292,000 $ - $ - $
Grant Project Costs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - -
Utility Funded Project Costs
21,430,364
2,835,888
5,189,351
3,504,625
2,719,250
2,669,250
2,220,000
2,292,000 - - -
Capital Realization Factor
100%
100%
_ 100%
100%
100%
100%
100% 100% 100% 100%
Total Capital Projects After Realization Factor
2,835,888
5,189,351
3,504,625
2,719,250
2,669,250
2,220,000
2,292,000 - - -
fl1
0
x
tD
rt
(Q
• FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model.xlsx
(425)867-1802 CIP Input
N
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
V
N
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Capital Funding Analysis
Summary of Expenditures
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
$
2,835,888
$ 5,189,351
$ 3,504,625
$ 2,719,250
$ 2,669,250
$ 2,220,000
$ 2,292,000
$ - $
- $
Capital Financing Plan
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
Project Specific Grants / Developer Donations (Tier 2)
$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $
- $ -
Project to be Funded by the Utility
2,835,888
5,189,351
3,504,625
2,719,250
2,669,250
2,220,000
2,292,000
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A]
Other Grants / Outside Funding Sources
$
118,500
$ 1,881,255
$ 587,500
$ 600,000
$ 600,000
$ 262,500
$ 262,500
$ $
$
PWTF Loan Proceeds
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other Loan Proceeds
—
-
-
Capital Fund Balance
2,692,803
3,308,096
2,917,125
1,552,049
752,219
210,110
41,927
Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rates
24,585
567,201
1,317,031
1,747,390
1,987,573
Total
$
2,835,888
$ 5,189,351
$ 3,504,625
$ 2,719,250
$ 2,669,250
$ 2,220,000
$ 2,292,000
$ $
$
TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES
$
2,835,888
$ 5,189,351
$ 3,504,625
$ 2,719,250
$ 2,669,250
$ 2,220,000
$ 2,292,000
$ $
$
Info: Capital Contingency Deficit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE
Select the Residual Funding Source Revenue Bond Proceeds
1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds
2 - Rates
NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS
Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined
1 - Amounts at Right =_> $ - $
2 - Calculated by the Model
D]
0
w
lD
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 Capital Funding
N
n' Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 11
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Capital Funding Analysis
New Debt Computations 2016 2017 2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
REVENUE BONDS
Amount to Fund $ - $ - $ -
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $ -
Issuance Costs
Reserve Required
Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
OTHER LOANS
Amount to Fund $ $ $
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
Issuance Costs
Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
PWTF LOAN
Amount to Fund [a] $ $ $
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
[a] 2004 and 2005 PWTF loan payment schedules input as existing debt. Amounts shown for reference.
Debt Service Summary
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
EXISTING DEBT SERVICE
Annual Interest Payments
$
299,924
$ 288,024
$ 275,742
$ 263,130
$ 250,742
$ 235,458
$ 221,816
$ 206,173
$ 190,764
$ 174,516
Annual Principal Payments
370,187
381,459
393,107
406,043
420,062
434,572
447,152
468,423
482,415
466,092
Total Debt Service Payments
$
670,111
$ 669,483
$ 668,849
$ 669,172
$ 670,805
$ 670,030
$ 668,968
$ 674,596
$ 673,179
$ 640,608
Revenue Bond Payments Only
510,404
511,352
510,795
511,320
511,634
511,417
511,038
515,831
515,409
514,544
NEW DEBT SERVICE
Annual Interest Payments
$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Annual Principal Payments
Total Debt Service Payments
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Revenue Bond Payments Only
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS
$ 670,111 $
669,483 $
668,849 $
669,172 $
670,805 $
670,030 $
668,968 $
674,596 $
673,179 $
640,608
Total Interest Payments
299,924
288,024
275,742
263,130
250,742
235,458
221,816
206,173
190,764
174,516
Total Principal Payments
370,187
381,459
393,107
406,043
420,062
434,572
447,152
468,423
482,415
466,092
Total Revenue Bond Payments Only
510,404
511,352
510,795
511,320
511,634
511,417
511,038
515,831
515,409
514,544
fl1
0
lD
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 Capital Funding
N
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 12
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Revenue Requirements Analysis
Cash Flow Sufficiency Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
EXPENSES
Cash Operating Expenses $ 1,953,434 $ 2,026,312 $ 2,109,736 $ 2,198,077 $ 2,291,723 $ 2,391,100 $ 2,496,672 $ 2,608,947 $ 2,728,479 $ 2,855,876
Existing Debt Service 670,111 669,483 668,849 669,172 670,805 670,030 668,968 674,596 673,179 640,608
New Debt Service - - - - - - - - - -
Rate -Funded CIP 24,585 567,201 1,317,031 1,747,390 1,987,573
Rate Funded System Reinvestment - - - - -
Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance - - -
Total Expenses $ 2,648,130 $ 2,695,795 $ 2,778,585 $ 3,434,450 $ 4,279,559 $ 4,808,520 $ 5,153,213 $ 3,283,543 $ 3,401,658 $ 3,496,483
REVENUES
Rate Revenue $ 3,323,232 $ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393 $ 3,381,827 $ 3,390,281 $ 3,398,757
Other Revenue 431,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343
Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 20,000 2,358 4,776 7,267 7,376 7,491 7,386 7,087 7,882 8,030
Total Revenue $ 3,774,575 $ 3,358,242 $ 3,368,988 $ 3,379,829 $ 3,388,308 $ 3,396,815 $ 3,405,122 $ 3,413,257 $ 3,422,507 $ 3,431,130
NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) $ 1,1265445 $ 662,446 $ 5905403 $ (54,621) $ (891,250) $ (154115705) $ (157485091) $ 1295714 $ 205849 $ (655353)
Coverage Sufficiency Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
EXPENSES
Cash Operating Expenses $ 1,953,434 $ 2,026,312 $ 2,109,736 $ 2,198,077 $ 2,291,723 $ 2,391,100 $ 2,496,672 $ 2,608,947 $ 2,728,479 $ 2,855,876
Revenue Bond Debt Service 510,404 511,352 510,795 511,320 511,634 511,417 511,038 515,831 515,409 514,544
Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 127,601 127,838 127,699 127,830 127,909 127,854 127,759 128,958 128,852 128,636
Total Expenses $ 2,591,439 $ 2,665,501 $ 2,748,230 $ 2,837,227 $ 2,931,266 $ 3,030,371 $ 3,135,469 $ 3,253,735 $ 3,372,740 $ 3,499,056
ALLOWABLE REVENUES
Rate Revenue $ 3,323,232 $ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393 $ 3,381,827 $ 3,390,281 $ 3,398,757
Other Revenue 431,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343
Interest Earnings - All Funds 26,732 16,637 21,495 18,907 13,017 9,067 7,700 7,393 21,516 34,955
Total Revenue $ 3,781,307 $ 3,372,520 $ 3,385,708 $ 3,391,469 $ 3,393,950 $ 3,398,391 $ 3,405,437 $ 3,413,563 $ 3,436,140 $ 3,458,055
Individual Coverage Realized 3.58 2.63 2.50 2.33 2.15 1.97 1.78 1.56 1.37 1.17
INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS(DEFICIENCY) $ 1,189,869 $ 707,019 $ 637,477 $ 554,242 $ 462,684 $ 368,020 $ 269,967 $ 159,827 $ 63,400 $ (41,001)
COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) $ 151895869 $ 7075019 $ 637,477 $ 5545242 $ 4625684 $ 3685020 $ 2695967 $ 1595827 $ 635400 $ (415001)
tv
0
lD
rt
CQ V
-th. N
N
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Revenue Requirements Analysis
Maximum Revenue Deficiencv 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency
None
None None
Cash
Cash
Cash
Cash
None None Cash
Maximum Deficiency From Tests
$ (1,126,445) $
(662,446) $ (590,403) $
54,621 $
891,250
$ 1,411,705
$ 1,748,091
$ (129,714) $ (20,849) $ 65,353
less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases
(267,190)
(557,144)
(871,747)
(1,213,038)
(1,583,228)
(1,935,017) (1,939,855) (1,944,704)
Revenue Deficiency
$ (1,126,445) $
(662,446) $ (857,593) $
(502,522) $
19,504
$ 198,666
$ 164,862
$ (2,064,731) $ (1,960,704) $ (1,879,351)
Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax
(146,3741
(86.0811 (76.7191
7.098
115.812
183.442
227.153
(16.8561 12.7091 8.492
Total Revenue Deficiency
$ (1,272,819) $
(748,527) $ (934,312) $
(495,425) $
135,316
$ 382,108
$ 3925015
$ (250815587) $ (159635413) $ (1,870,859)
Rate Increases 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Rate Revenue with no Increase
Revenues from Prior Rate Increases
Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases)
Required Annual Rate Increase
Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect
Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue
Policy Induced Rate Increases
$ 3,323,232 $ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393 $ 3,381,827 $ 3,390,281 $ 3,398,757
- - 267,190 557,144 871,747 1,213,038 1,583,228 1,935,017 1,939,855 1,944,704
3,323,232 3,331,540 3,607,059 3,905,363 4,228,336 4,578,019 4,956,622 5,316,844 5,330,136 5,343,462
-38.30% -22.47 % -25.90 % -12.69 % 3.20 % 8.35 % 7.91 % -39.15 % -36.84 % -35.01
-38.30%-22.47910 -25.90%-12.69% 3.20% 8.35% 7.91%-39.15%-36.84%-35.01%
8.00% 8.00% 8.00%
ANNUAL RATE INCREASE 0.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 7.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 8.00% 16.64% 25.97% 36.05% 46.93% 57.22% 57.22% 57.22% 57.22%
Impacts of Rate Increases
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
$ 3,323,232 $
3,598,064 $
3,895,623
$ 4,217,792 $
4,566,603 $
4,944,261 $
5,303,585 $
5,316,844 $
5,330,136 $
5,343,462
Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
3,323,232
3,598,064
3,895,623
4,217,792
4,566,603
4,944,261
5,303,585
5,316,844
5,330,136
5,343,462
Additional State Taxes Due to Rate Increases
-
30,650
63,912
100,001
139,152
181,617
221,972
222,527
223,083
223,641
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
1,126,445
898,319
1,082,246
714,951
179,611
(14,042)
(39,871)
1,842,205
1,737,620
1,655,710
Individual Coverage After Rate Increase
3.58
3.09
3.46
3.84
4.25
4.70
5.12
4.88
4.70
4.52
Operating Reserve Ending Balance $ 321,112 $ 333,092 $ 346,806 $ 361,328 $ 376,722 $ 362,679 $ 322,809 $ 428,868 $ 448,517 $ 469,459
Operating Reserve Target Balance 240,834 249,819 260,104 270,996 282,541 294,793 307,809 321,651 336,388 352,094
# of Days of Cash Operating Expenses 60 60 60 60 60 55 47 60 60 60
Sv
f'>
lD
rt
(Q V
� N
"' Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Stormwater Utility
Fund Activity
Funds
OPERATING FUND
Beginning Balance
plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase
less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund
Ending Balance
Minimum Target Balance
Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves
Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses
CAPITAL FUND
Beginning Balance
plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment
plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources
plus: Capital Facilities Charges
plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects
plus: Interest Earnings
plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund
plus: Direct Rate Funding
less: Capital Expenditures
Ending Balance
Minimum Target Balance
DEBT RESERVE
Beginning Balance
plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt
less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service
Ending Balance
Minimum Target Balance
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ 4,867,361 $ 321,112 $ 333,092 $ 346,806 $ 361,328 $ 376,722 $ 362,679 $ 322,809 $ 428,868 $ 448,517
1,126,445 898,319 1,082,246 714,951 179,611 (14,042) (39,871) 1,842,205 1,737,620 1,655,710
(5,672,694) (886,340) (1,068,532) (700,429) (164,218) (1,736,145) (1,717,971) (1,634,768)
$ 321,112 $ 333,092 $ 346,806 $ 361,328 $ 376,722 $ 362,679 $ 322,809 $ 428,868 $ 448,517 $ 469,459
240,834 249,819 260,104 270,996 282,541 294,793 307,809 321,651 336,388 352,094
321,112 333,092 346,806 361,328 376,722 393,058 410,412 428,868 448,517 469,459
60 60 60 60 60 55 47 60 60 60
$ 2,692,803 $ 5,711,401 $ 3,343,873 $ 1,552,049 $ 752,219 $ 210,110 $ 41,927 $ 40,766 $ 1,817,770 $ 3,590,029
118,500 1,881,255 587,500 600,000 600,000 262,500 262,500 - - -
31,975 39,950 40,050 40,150 40,250 40,351 40,452 40,553 40,654 40,756
6,732 14,279 16,719 11,640 5,642 1,576 314 306 13,633 26,925
5,672,694 886,340 1,068,532 700,429 164,218 - - 1,736,145 1,717,971 1,634,768
24,585 - - 567,201 1,317,031 1,747,390 1,987,573 - - -
(2.835.888) (5,189,351) (3,504,625) (2,719,250) (2,669,250) (2,220,000) (2,292,000)
$ 5,711,401 $ 3,343,873 $ 1,552,049 $ 752,219 $ 210,110 $ 41,927 $ 40,766 $ 1,817,770 $ 3,590,029 $ 5,292,478
- $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098
$ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098
622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098
fl1
0
lD
rt
�=
FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model.xlsx
(425)867-1802 Funds
N
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Stormwater Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 15
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Summary
Total Capital Projects
Revenue Bond Proceeds
Use of Capital Fund Balance
Direct Rate Funding
Total Funding Sources
Revenues
Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates
Non -Rate Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenses
411 Sewer Cash O&M Expenses [a]
411 Treatment O&M - Edmonds Only
Transfer to Fund 414 (excl. Capital)
Existing Debt Service
New Debt Service
Rate Funded System Reinvestment
Rate Funded CIP
Total Expenses
Annual Rate Adjustment
Rate Increases Dictated by:
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
$ 4,240,897 $ 2,564,357 $ 2,633,660 $ 2,781,485 $ 3,007,638 $ 2,888,055
4,240,897 2,564,357 2,633,660 2,781,485 3,007,638 1,603,622
- - - - - 1,284,433
$ 4,240,897 $ 2,564,357 $ 2,633,660 $ 2,781,485 $ 3,007,638 $ 2,888,055
$ 6,372,883 $ 6,404,747 $ 6,436,771 $ 6,468,955 $ 6,501,300 $ 6,533,806
2,184,340 2,278,569 2,377,997 2,477,020 2,581,837 2,692,905
$ 8,557,223 $ 8,683,317 $ 8,814,768 $ 8,945,975 $ 9,083,137 $ 9,226,711
$ 3,131,462 $ 3,275,848 $ 3,427,312 $ 3,581,779 $ 3,743,803 $ 3,913,861
3,826,106 3,981,922 4,146,515 4,320,560 4,504,791 4,700,010
130,098 129,695 129,979 130,203 130,473 113,177
1,355,068 1,354,906 1,351,946 1,347,476 1,347,962 1,348,987
- - - - - 1,284,433
$ 8,442,733 $ 8,742,371 $ 9,055,751 $ 9,380,018 $ 9,727,029 $ 11,360,470
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
$ 6,659,663 $
6,994,144 $
7,345,425 $
7,677,438 $
8,024,459 $
8,387,164
401,270
530,342
667,671
774,441
879,267
(280,401)
[a] Includes additional taxes due to proposed rate increases.
Operating Fund
Capital Fund
m
Debt Reserve Fund
X
Total
c�
rt
Combined Minimum Target Balance
cQ
N)
N
V
P(..0 rPOl IP
$ 1,159,335 $ 1,202,539 $ 1,248,127 $ 1,296,143 $ 1,346,785 $ 1,066,385
8,428,267 6,726,121 5,099,586 3,419,041 1,603,622 351,667
1,152,934 1,152,934 1,152,934 1,152,934 1,152,934 1,152,934
$ 10,740,536 $ 9,081,594 $ 7,500,647 $ 5,868,119 $ 4,103,342 $ 2,570,986
$ 1,594,671 $ 1,627,074 $ 1,660,515 $ 1,695,777 $ 1,733,009 $ 1,770,186
N
Prlmnnrle CC\Aiar Unrlcl vlev n
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Assumptions
Economic & Financial Factors
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
1
General Cost Inflation
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00
2
Construction Cost Inflation
0.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00
3
Labor Cost Inflation
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00
4
Customer Growth
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50 %
0.50
5
General Inflation plus Growth
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52 %
3.52
6
Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase
9.00 %
4.01 %
4.07 %
4.13 %
4.20 %
4.26 %
4.33 %
4.41 %
4.48 %
4.56
7
Benefits Inflation
10.00 /]L
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
t.00 %
1-
8
No Escalation
0.00 %
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00 /
0.00
Fund Earnings
0.25 %
0.25 %
0.50 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75 %
0.75
City Taxes
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00 %
10.00
Local / State Excise Tax
3.85 %
3.85 %
3.85 %
3.85 %
3.85 %
3.85 %
3.85 %
3.85 %
3.85 %
3.85
State B&O Tax
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50 %
1.50
Net Sewer Tax
2.22 /
2.22 /
2.22 /
2.22 /
2.22 /
2.22 /
2.22 /
2.22 /
2.22 /
2.22
Treatment Portion
69.41 %
69.41 %
69.41 %
69.41 %
69.41 %
69.41 %
69.41 %
69.41 %
69.41 %
69.41
Accounting Assumptions
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS
Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense)
r
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
SEWER - Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target
Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 1 Defined as % of Plant
1 - Defined as % of Plant
Plant -in -Service in 2015 $ 12,630,486
Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00
2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TREATMENT PLANT - Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target
Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2 Defined as % of Plant
1 - Defined as % of Plant
Plant -in -Service in 2015 $ 41,691,158
Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00%
2 - Amount at Right =_> $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550.000
fl1
0
lD
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 Assumptions
N
00 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 2
V
N
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Assumptions
RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT
Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy
4 System Reinvestment is not Funded
Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates
1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense
2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual
Debt Principal Payments
3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_>
- $ - $ - -
4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment
Capital Financing Assumptions
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES
General Facilities Charge
$ 4,417
Total Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs)
15,000 15,075 15,150 15,226 15,302 15,379 15,456 15,533 15,611 15,689
General Facilities Charge Revenues
$ 320,370 $ 384,400 $ 331,275 $ 332,931 $ 334,596 $ 336,269 $ 337,950 $ 339,640 $ 341,338 $ 343,045 $ 344,760
REVENUE BONDS
Term (years)
20
2
20
20
Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staffs direction)
4.50 %
ff4-50% 4.50 %
4.50 %
4.50 %
4.50 %
Neo%
4.50Issuance
Cost
0.00%
0.00°00 % 0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00
Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement ! 1.25
PWTF LOAN
Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years)
20
20 20 20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Interest Cost
1.00 %
1.00 % 1.00 % 1.00 %
1.00 %
1.00 %
1.00 %
1.00 %
1.00 %
1.00 %
OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a]
Term (years)
20
20 20 20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Interest Cost
4.00 %
4.00 % 4.00 % 5.00 %
5.00 %
5.00 %
5.00 %
5.00 %
5.00 %
5.00 %
Issuance Cost
0.00 %
A 0.00°/�0.00 %�00 % #
0.00 %
K 0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
[a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not
factors in
this analysis.
fl1
0
0)
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 Assumptions
N
t° Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 3
V
N
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Existing Debt Input
Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds
2011 Waler/Sewer Refunding and New Issue
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
2013 Revenue Bonds
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
2015 Revenue Bonds
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ 38,816 $ 37,541 $ 36,221 $ 34,856 $ 32,996 $ 31,036 $ 29,016 $ 26,916 $ 24,771 $ 22,474
42,500 44,000 45,500 46,500 49,000 50,500 52,500 71,500 73,500 75,500
$ 81,316 $ 81,541 $ 81,721 $ 81,356 $ 81,996 $ 81,536 $ 81,516 $ 98,416 $ 98,271 $ 97,974
98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,271 97,974
$ 40,308 $ 39,908 $ 39,508 $ 38,758 $ 38,008 $ 37,258 $ 36,508 $ 35,758 $ 35,008 $ 34,258
10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
$ 50,308 $ 49,908 $ 54,508 $ 53,758 $ 53,008 $ 52,258 $ 51,508 $ 50,758 $ 50,008 $ 49,258
54,508 54,508 54,508 53,758 53,008 52,258 51,508 50,758 50,008 49,258
$ 331,605 $ 322,291 $ 312,345 $ 301,787 $ 298,261 $ 286,804 $ 280,791 $ 272,781 $ 261,072 $ 248,625
238,540 248,655 258,601 268,358 273,785 283,241 287,854 298,464 311,174 323,621
$ 570,146 $ 570,945 $ 570,945 $ 570,145 $ 572,046 $ 570,045 $ 568,646 $ 571,245 $ 572,245 $ 572,246
572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246
TOTAL REVENUE BONDS
Annual Interest Payment
$ 410,729 $
399,739 $
388,073 $
375,401 $
369,265 $
355,097 $
346,315 $
335,455 $
320,851 $
305,357
Annual Principal Payment
291,040
302,655
319,101
329,858
337,785
348,741
355,354
384,964
399,674
414,121
Total Annual Payment
$ 701,769 $
702,394 $
707,174 $
705,259 $
707,050 $
703,839 $
701,669 $
720,419 $
720,524 $
719,478
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
725,170
725,170
725,170
724,420
723,670
722,920
722,170
721,420
720,525
719,478
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Existing Debt Input
Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
PWTF LOAN 02-691-019 2002
Annual Interest Payment
$
1,276 $
1,094 $
911 $
729 $
547 $
365 $
182 $
-
$ -
$
Annual Principal Payment
36,450
36,450
36,450
36,450
36,450
36,450
36,450
-
-
Total Annual Payment
$
37,726 $
37,544 $
37,361 $
37,179 $
36,997 $
36,815 $
36,632 $
-
$ -
$ -
2005 PWTF LOAN 05-691-015
Annual Interest Payment
$
3,615 $
3,253 $
2,892 $
2,530 $
2,169 $
1,807 $
1,446 $
1,084
$ 723
Annual Principal Payment
72,295
72,295
72,295
72,295
72,295
72,295
72,295
72,295
72,295
72 295
Total Annual Payment
$
75,910 $
75,548 $
75,187 $
74,826 $
74,464 $
74,103 $
73,741 $
73,380
$ 73,018
$ 72,657
TOTAL PWTF LOANS
Annual Interest Payment $ 4,891 $ 4,347 $ 3,803 $ 3,259 $ 2,716 $ 2,172 $ 1,628 $ 1,084 $ 723 $ 361
Annual Principal Payment 108,745 108,745 108,745 108,745 108,745 108,745 108,745 72,295 72,295 72,295
Total Annual Payment $ 113,636 $ 113,092 $ 112,548 $ 112,005 $ 111,461 $ 110,917 $ 110,373 $ 73,380 $ 73,018 $ 72,657
Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
[a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this analysis.
2007 LTGO BOND
Annual Interest Payment
929 $
862 $1W
792
$ 719 $
644
$ 41W $
479 $
393 $
303
$ 206
Annual Principal Payment
836
1,872
1,944
2,016
2,124
2,196
2,268
2,376
2,448
2,556
Total Annual Payment
$ 2,765 $
2,734 $
2,736
$ 2,735 $
2,768
$ 2,759 $
2,747 $
2,769 $
2,751
$ 2,762
TOTAL OTHER LOANS
Annual Interest Payment
$ 929 $
862 $
792
$ 719 $
644
$ 563 $
479 $
393 $
303
$ 206
Annual Principal Payment
1,836
1,872
1,944
2,016
2,124
2,196
2,268
2,376
2,448
2,556
Total Annual Payment
$ 2,765 $
2,734 $
2,736
$ 2,735 $
2,768
$ 2,759 $
2,747 $
2,769 $
2,751
$ 2,762
fl1
n
lD
F-41
W
3 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 411
Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2016 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2013 Revenue Bonds
Annual Interest Payment $ 390,678 $ 386,278 $
381,878 $
376,378
$ 370,628 $
364,878 $
358,628 $
351,878 $
344,878 $
337,378
Annual Principal Payment a 110,0006 110,000
110,000
115,000
& 115,000
125,000
135,000
140,000
150,000
150,000
Total Annual Payment $ 500,678 $ 496,278 $
491,878 $
491,378
$ 485,628 $
489,878 $
493,628 $
491,878 $
494,878 $
487,378
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL REVENUE BONDS
Annual Interest Payment
$ 390,678 $
386,278 $
381,878 $
376,378 $
370,628 $
364,878 $
358,628 $
351,878 $
344,878 $
337,378
Annual Principal Payment
110,000
110,000
110,000
115,000
115,000
125,000
135,000
140,000
150,000
150,000
Total Annual Payment
$ 500,678 $
496,278 $
491,878 $
491,378 $
485,628 $
489,878 $
493,628 $
491,878 $
494,878 $
487,378
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
500,678
496,278
494,878
494,878
494,878
494,878
494,878
494,878
494,878
487,378
Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
PWTF LOAN 1
Annual Interest Payment $
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
PWTF LOAN 2
Annual Interest Payment $
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
TOTAL PWTF LOANS
Annual Interest Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Annual Principal Payment = _
Total Annual Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
v
0
lD
rt
Ca FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 Treatment Existing Debt - 411
W
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
V
Page 6 IV
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 411
Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
[a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this analysis.
2014 DOE
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
OTHER LOAN 2
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
TOTAL OTHER LOANS
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802
$ 13,588 $ 12,960 $ 12,319 $ 11,662 $ 10,990 $ 10,302 $ 9,599 $ 8,879 $ 8,142 $ 7,389
6982 27,610 28,251 28,908 29,580 30,268 30,971 31,691 32,428 33,181
$ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570
$ 13,588 $ 12,960 $ 12,319 $ 11,662 $ 10,990 $ 10,302 $ 9,599 $ 8,879 $ 8,142 $ 7,389
26,982 27,610 28,251 28,908 29,580 30,268 30,971 31,691 32,428 33,181
$ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570
Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
Treatment Existing Debt - 411
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 7
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast
Actual
Budget
Budget
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Revenues
FORECAST BASIS
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Rate revenues
Customer Growth
$ 5,762,218 $
6,341,177 $
6,372,883 $
6,404,747 $
6,436,771 $
6,468,955 $
6,501,300 $
6,533,806 $
6,566,475 $
6,599,308 $
6,632,304
Miscellaneous revenues
8
No Escalation
162,850
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
Intergov. Services - Lynnwood
6
Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase
29,587
32,250
33,545
34,911
36,354
37,880
39,495
41,207
43,022
44,950
47,000
Intergov. Services - Olympic
6
Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase
380,057
531,758
553,103
575,628
599,422
624,582
651,214
679,43
709,371
741,161
774,955
Intergov. Services - City MLT
6
Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase
1,013,646
1,200,315
1,248,496
1,299,341
1,353,049
1,409,842
1,469,958
1,533,660
1,601,234
1,672,991
1,749,272
Intergov. Services - Ronald
6
Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase
292,107
321,319
334,217
347,828
362,206
377,409
393,502
410,555
428,644
447,853
468,273
Side sewer permits
8
No Escalation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL REVENUES
$ 7,640,465 $
8,436,120 $
8,551,545 $
8,671,755 $
8,797,102 $
8,927,967 $
9,064,769 $
9,207,963 $
9,358,046 $
9,515,562 $
9,681,104
Expenditures
FORECAST BASIS
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Salaries and Wages
y l
Labor Cost Inflation
474,118
478,860
493,226
508,023
523,263
538,961
555,130
571,784
588,937
606,606
624,804
Overtime
3
Labor Cost Inflation
31,716
25,0051
25,750
26,523
27,318
28,138
28,982
29,851
30,747
31,669
32,619
Benefits
7
Benefits Inflation
233,678
239,030
262,933
289,226
318,149
349,964
384,960
423,456
465,802
512,382
563,620
Uniforms
1
General Cost Inflation
2,772
4,000
4,120
4,244
4,371
4,502
4,637
4,776
4,919
5,067
5,219
Supplies
1
General Cost Inflation
28,982
51,000
52,530
54,106
55,729
57,401
59,123
60,897
62,724
64,605
66,543
Fuel Consumed
1
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sewer Inventory
1
General Cost Inflation
1,249
4,000
4,120
4,244
4,371
4,502
4,637
4,776
4,919
5,067
5,219
Small Equipment
1
General Cost Inflation
13,903
6,000
6,180
6,365
6,556
6,753
6,956
7,164
7,379
7,601
7,829
Professional Services
General Cost Inflation
31,947
58,200
59,946
61,744
63,597
65,505
67,470
69,494
71,579
73,726
75,938
Communications
General Cost Inflation
30,057
30,000
30,900
31,827
32,782
33,765
34,778
35,822
36,896
38,003
39,143
Travel/Training
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertising
General Cost Inflation
91,585
100
103
106
109
113
116
119
123
127
130
Rental / Lease
General Cost Inflation
2,551
2,50
2,575
2,652
2,732
2,814
2,898
2,985
3,075
3,167
3,262
Insurance
General Cost Inflation
75,413
29,03
29,901
30,798
31,722
32,674
33,654
34,663
35,703
36,774
37,878
Public Utility
General Cost Inflation
798,332
635,000
654,050
673,672
693,882
714,698
736,139
758,223
780,970
804,399
828,531
Repair/ Maintenance
General Cost Inflation
68,172
25,000
25,750
26,523
27,318
28,138
28,982
29,851
30,747
31,669
32,619
Miscellaneous (excl. Taxes)
General Cost Inflation
76,716
77,450
79,774
82,167
84,632
87,171
89,786
92,479
95,254
98,111
101,055
State Taxes
Excise and B&O Tax Rate
154,815
155,589
156,367
157,149
157,935
158,724
159,518
160,316
161,117
161,923
Intergov. Services
General Cost Inflation
33,581
50,000
51,500
53,045
54,636
56,275
57,964
59,703
61,494
63,339
65,239
Buildings
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Equipment
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Interfund Subsidies/Services
General Cost Inflation
316,923
331,1101
341,043
351,275
361,813
372,667
383,847
395,363
407,224
419,440
432,023
Interfund Rental
General Cost Inflation
180,048
160,620
165,439
170,402
175,514
180,779
186,203
191,789
197,542
203,469
209,573
Interfund Repair / Maintenance
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Interfund Transfer Out [a]
General Cost Inflation
-
632,03
0,991
670,521
690,636
711,355
732,696
754,677
777,317
800,637
824,656
Debt Issue Cost
No Escalation
154,048
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Intergovernmental Loans
No Escalation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Decision Package
No Escalation
-
-
now -
Total Cash O&M Expenditures
$ 2,645,791 $
2,993,745 $
3,096,419 $
3,203,827 $
3,316,279 $
3,434,109 $
3,557,681 $
3,687,391 $
3,823,666 $
3,966,975 $
4,117,823
Depreciation Expense[b]
Last year's plus annual additions from CIP
$ 825,145 $
941,718 $
1,013,285 $
1,059,656 $
1,107,418 $
1,156,613 $
1,207,283 $
1,259,981 $
1,259,981 $
1,259,981 $
1,259,981
TOTAL EXPENSES
$ 3,470,936 $
3,935,463 $
4,109,704 $
4,263,483 $
4,423,696 $
4,590,721 $
4,764,965 $
4,947,372 $
5,083,648 $
5,226,956 $
5,377,804
D]
(y
City Tax Calculation for Excise Taxes
$
634,118 $
637,288 $
640,475 $
643,677 $
646,896 $
650,130 $
653,381 $
656,648 $
659,931 $
663,230
77
lD
'rt
[a] Transfers from Operating Fund to Construction and Debt Service Funds are calculated in the model.
(Q
[b] Depreciation is a non -cash expense.
•
FCS GROUP
Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802
O&M
Page 8
JAttachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant Operating Expenditure Forecast
Treatment Plant Expenditures
FORECAST BASIS
Actual
2015
Budget
2016
Projection
2017
Projection
2018
Projection
2019
Projection
2020
Projection
2021
Projection
2022
Projection
2023
Projection
2024
Projection
2025
Salaries and Wages
Labor Cost Inflation
$
1,205,794 $
1,242,670 $
1,279,950 $
1,318,349 $
1,357,899 $
1,398,636 $
1,440,595 $
1,483,813 $
1,528,327 $
1,574,177 $
1,621,402
Overtime
Labor Cost Inflation
71,262
75,000
77,250
79,568
81,955
84,413
86,946
89,554
92,241
95,008
97,858
Benefits
Benefits Inflation
515,424
532,890
586,179
644,797
709,277
780,204
858,225
944,047
1,038,452
1,142,297
1,256,527
Uniforms
General Cost Inflation
3,348
5,500
5,665
5,835
6,010
6,190
6,376
6,567
6,764
6,967
7,176
Supplies
General Cost Inflation
215,102
367,200
378,216
389,562
401,249
413,287
425,685
438,456
451,610
465,158
479,113
Fuel Consumed
General Cost Inflation
1
58,227
90,000
92,700
95,481
98,345
101,296
104,335
107,465
110,689
114,009
117,430
Small Equipment
General Cost Inflation
12,978
40,000
41,200
42,436
43,709
45,020
46,371
47,762
49,195
50,671
52,191
Professional Services
General Cost Inflation
57,398
150,000
154,500
159,135
163,909
168,826
173,891
179,108
184,481
190,016
195,716
Communications
General Cost Inflation
13,364
13,000
13,390
13,792
14,205
14,632
15,071
15,523
15,988
16,468
16,962
Travel & Training
General Cost Inflation
8,495
25,000
25,750
26,523
27,318
28,138
28,982
29,851
30,747
31,669
32,619
Advertising
General Cost Inflation
68,136
2,000
2,060
2,122
2,185
2,251
2,319
2,388
2,460
2,534
2,610
Rental / Lease
General Cost Inflation
10
Insurance
General Cost Inflation
65,421
67,600
69,628
71,717
73,868
76,084
78,367
80,718
83,139
85,634
88,203
Public Utility
General Cost Inflation
372,509
423,660
436,370
449,461
462,945
476,833
491,138
505,872
521,048
536,680
552,780
Repair / Maintenance
General Cost Inflation
286,163
5,000
5,150
5,305
5,464
5,628
5,796
5,970
6,149
6,334
6,524
Miscellaneous
General Cost Inflation
32,710
308,000
317,240
326,757
336,560
346,657
357,056
367,768
378,801
390,165
401,870
Intergov. Services 1
General Cost Inflation
96,441
100,000
103,000
106,090
109,273
112,551
115,927
119,405
122,987
126,677
130,477
Interfund Services (see below) 1
General Cost Inflation
284,645
218,380
224,931
231,679
238,630
245,789
253,162
260,757
268,580
276,637
284,936
Interfund Supplies 1
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Interfund Rental 1
General Cost Inflation
11,076
12,550
12,927
13,314
13,714
14,125
14,549
14,985
15,435
15,898
16,375
Machinery / Equipment 1
General Cost Inflation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Debt Issue Cost 8
No Escalation
(3,856)
Interfund Transfer Out
General Cost Inflation
-
-
Decision Package
No Escalation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Allocable O&M Expenditures
$
3,374,637 $
3,678,450 $
3,826,106 $
3,981,922 $
4,146,515 $
4,320,560 $
4,504,791 $
4,700,010 $
4,907,094 $
5,126,998 $
5,360,769
Interfund Services - Edmonds Only -
General Cost Inflation
Total Cash O&M Expenditures
$
3,374,637 $
3,678,450 $
3,826,106 $
3,981,922 $
4,146,515 $
4,320,560 $
4,504,791 $
4,700,010 $
4,907,094 $
5,126,998 $
5,360,769
fl1
0
lD
rt
FCS GROUP
Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
Ri,
(425) 867-1802
Treatment O&M
Pagc 9
JAttachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant Operating Expenditure Forecast
Treatment O&M Allocations 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Allocable O&M Expenditures
$
3,374,637
$ 3,678,450
$ 3,826,106
$ 3,981,922
$ 4,146,515
$ 4,320,560
$ 4,504,791
$ 4,700,010
$ 4,907,094
$ 5,126,998
$ 5,360,769
less: Revenues from King County 8 No Escalation
Adjusted Total
$
3,374,637
$ 3,678,450
$ 3,826,106
$ 3,981,922
$ 4,146,515
$ 4,320,560
$ 4,504,791
$ 4,700,010
$ 4,907,094
$ 5,126,998
$ 5,360,769
plus: Overhead Charge 10.00%_
337,464
367,845
382,611
398,192
414,651
432,056
450,479
470,001
490,709
512,700
536,077
GRAND TOTAL FOR ALLOCATIONS
$
3,712,101
$ 4,046,295
$ 4,208,716
$ 4,380,114
$ 4,561,166
$ 4,752,616
$ 4,955,270
$ 5,170,011
$ 5,397,803
$ 5,639,698
$ 5,896,846
%Shares of O&M Expenditures
City of Edmonds
49.25 %
49.25 %
49.25 %
49.25 %
49.25 %
49.25 %
49.25 %
49.25 %
49.25 %
49.25 %
49.25 %
City of Mountlake Terrace
29.66 %
29.66 %
29.66 %
29.66 %
29.66 %
29.66 %
29.66 %
29.66 %
29.66 %
29.66 %
29.66 %
Ronald Wastewater District
7.94%
7.94%
7.94%
7.94%
7.94%
7.94%
7.94%
7.94%
7.94%
7.94%
7.94%
Olympic View Water &Sewer Dist.
13.14%
13.14%
13.14%
13.14%
13.14%
13.14%
13.14%
13.14%
13.14%
13.14%
13.14%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Allocable O&M Expenditures
City of Edmonds
$
1,828,303
$ 1,992,903
$ 2,072,899
$ 2,157,317
$ 2,246,490
$ 2,340,783
$ 2,440,596
$ 2,546,361
$ 2,658,555
$ 2,777,694
$ 2,904,346
City of Mountlake Terrace
1,101,178
1,200,315
1,248,496
1,299,341
1,353,049
1,409,842
1,469,958
1,533,660
1,601,234
1,672,991
1,749,272
Ronald Wastewater District
294,781
321,319
334,217
347,828
362,206
377,409
393,502
410,555
428,644
447,853
468,273
Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist.
487,839
531,758
553,103
575,628
599,422
624,582
651,214
679,435
709,371
741,161
774,955
Total Treatment O&M Contributions
$
3,712,101
$ 4,046,295
$ 4,208,716
$ 4,380,114
$ 4,561,166
$ 4,752,616
$ 4,955,270
$ 5,170,011
$ 5,397,803
$ 5,639,698
$ 5,896,846
1,883,797
2,053,392
2,135,817
2,222,797
2,314,677
2,411,832
2,514,674
Treatment Edmonds Share
Allocated O&M Expenditures
$
1,828,303
$ 1,992,903
$ 2,072,899
$ 2,157,317
$ 2,246,490
$ 2,340,783
$ 2,440,596
$ 2,546,361
$ 2,658,555
$ 2,777,694
$ 2,904,346
plus: Interfund Services
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Edmonds Treatment Plant O&M
$
1,828,303
$ 1,992,903
$ 2,072,899
$ 2,157,317
$ 2,246,490
$ 2,340,783
$ 2,440,596
$ 2,546,361
$ 2,658,555
$ 2,777,694
$ 2,904,346
FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 Treatment O&M Pagc 10
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
V
N
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Capital Improvement Program
Project Costs in Year: 2016
TOTAL FORECASTED PROJECT COSTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN CURRENT DOLLARS
Project ID
Project Name
Life in Years
Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
0
0
50
$ -
$ -
$ - $
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $
- $ -
Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP
2015 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
$ 88,000
$ 88,000
$ - $
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
2016 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,531,042
1,520,362
10,680
2016 Sewerline Overlays
50
217,250
217,250
-
2017 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,570,900
245,750
1,325,150
2018 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,785,454
-
278,750
1,506,704
2019 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,785,454
-
278,750
1,506,704
2020 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,785,455
-
278,750
1,506,704
2021 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,785,454
-
278,750
1,506,704
2022 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,800,082
-
278,750
1,521,332
2023 Sewer Replacemetn/Rehab/Improvements
50
281,457
-
-
281,457
2017 Sewer Overlays
50
213,592
-
213,592
-
-
-
-
-
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
50
3,489,060
1,182,263
302,913
400,000
400,000
400,000
400,000
403,883
Other Studies & Projects
Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study
6
$ 185,000
$ 185,000
$ - $
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ $
$
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
6
285,165
124,000
161,165
Reimbursement to Fund 421
50
197,087
100,000
97,087
Reimbursement to Fund 112
50
702,768
5,016
697,752
-
-
-
-
-
Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars
$ 17,703,222
$ 3,667,641
$ 3,087,090 $
2,185,454
$ 2,185,454
$ 2,185,455
$ 2,185,455
$ 2,206,672
$ $
$
D]
0
W
CD
rt
FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
.9h. (425) 867-1802 CIP Input
W
4 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 11
V
N
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Capital Improvement Program
Cumulative Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41 % 22.99% 26.68% 30.48%
Annual Inflati.nJ 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS
Project ID
Project Name
Life in Years
Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022 2023 2024 2025
50
$ -
Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP
2015 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
$ 88,000
$ 88,000
2016 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,531,362
1,520,362
11,000
2016 Sewerline Overlays
50
217,250
217,250
2017 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,610,655
245,750
1,364,905
2018 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,885,575
287,113
1,598,462
2019 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
1,942,142
295,726
1,646,416
2020 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
2,000,407
304,598
1,695,809
2021 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
2,060,419
313,736
1,746,683
2022 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
50
2,139,698
323,148
1,816,550
2023 Sewer Replacemetn/Rehab/Improvements
50
336,074
336,074
2017 Sewer Overlays
50
220,000
220,000
CitywldeClPPSewer Rehabilitation
50
3,751,886
1,182,263
312,000
424,360
437,091
450,204
463,710
482,258
Other Studies & Projects
Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study
6
$ 185,000
$ 185,000
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
6
290,000
124,000
166,000
Reimbursement to Fund 421
50
200,000
100,000
100,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112
50
723,701
5,016
718,685
Total Capital Projects in Escalated Dollars
$ 19,182,169
$ 3,667,641 $
3,179,703 $
2,318,548 $
2,388,105 $
2,459,749 $
2,533,541 $
2,634,882 $ - $ - $ -
Capital Realization Factor
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 % 100 % 100 % 100
Total Capital Projects after Realization Factor
$ 3,667,641 $
3,179,703 $
2,318,548 $
2,388,105 $
2,459,749 $
2,533,541 $
2,634,882 $ - $ - $ -
MAINTENANCE RELATED WWTP PROJECTS (EDMONDS' SHARE)
PrID oject
Project Name
Life in Years
Total
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total Cost by Year in 2016 Dollars
50
$
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ -
Total Cost by Year in Inflated Dollars
50
$
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - S - S -
FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 CIP Input
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 12
V
N
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Capital Funding Analysis
Summary of Expenditures
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
Sewer Capital Projects
$ 3,667,641
$ 3,179,703
$ 2,318,548
$ 2,388,105
$ 2,459,749
$ 2,533,541
$ 2,634,882
$ - $
- $ -
Maintenance Related WWTP Projects (Edmonds' Share)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Capital Related Contributions to Fund 414 - Edmonds
1,556,149
1,061,194
245,809
245,555
321,736
474,097
253,173
CAPITAL PROJECTS
$ 5,223,790
$ 4,240,897
$ 2,564,357
$ 2,633,660
$ 2,781,485
$ 3,007,638
$ 2,888,055
$ - $
- $ -
Capital Financing Plan
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A]
Other Sources
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $
- $ -
PWTF Loan Proceeds
Other Loan Proceeds
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Capital Fund Balance
5,223,790
4,240,897
2,564,357
2,633,660
2,781,485
3,007,638
1,603,622
Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rates
1,284,433
Total
$ 5,223,790
$ 4,240,897
$ 2,564,357
$ 2,633,660
$ 2,781,485
$ 3,007,638
$ 2,888,055
$ $
$
TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES
$ 5,223,790
$ 4,2409897
$ 2,5649357
$ 296339660
$ 297819485
$ 3,0079638
$ 25888,055
$ $
$
Info: Capital Contingency Deficit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE
Select the Residual Funding Source 2
Rates
1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds
2 - Rates
NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS
Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1
User Defined
1 - Amounts at Right ==>
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ $
$
2 - Calculated by the Model
m
0
W
CD
rt
to FCS GROUP
.106 (425) 867-1802
w
W
Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
Capital Funding
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 13 iV
c'>
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Capital Funding Analysis
New Debt Computations
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
REVENUE BONDS
Amount to Fund
$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Issuance Costs
Reserve Required
Amount of Debt Issue
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
OTHER LOANS
Amount to Fund
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Issuance Costs
Amount of Debt Issue
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
PWTF LOAN
Amount to Fund
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ -
Debt Service Summary
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
EXISTING DEBT SERVICE - SEWER (411)
Annual Interest Payments
$
416,549
$ 404,948
$ 392,668
$ 379,380
$ 372,624
$ 357,832
$ 348,423
$ 336,932
$ 321,876
$ 305,925
Annual Principal Payments
401,621
413,272
429,790
440,619
448,654
459,682
466,367
459,636
474,417
488,972
Total Debt Service Payments
$
818,170
$ 818,220
$ 822,459
$ 819,998
$ 821,278
$ 817,514
$ 814,790
$ 796,568
$ 796,293
$ 794,897
Revenue Bond Payments Only
701,769
702,394
707,174
705,259
707,050
703,839
701,669
720,419
720,524
719,478
EXISTING DEBT SERVICE - TREATMENT (411)
Annual Interest Payments
$
404,265
$ 399,238
$ 394,196
$ 388,039
$ 381,618
$ 375,180
$ 368,226
$ 360,757
$ 353,020
$ 344,766
Annual Principal Payments
136,982
137,610
138,251
143,908
144,580
155,268
165,971
171,691
182,428
183,181
Total Debt Service Payments
$
541,247
$ 536,847
$ 532,447
$ 531,947
$ 526,197
$ 530,447
$ 534,197
$ 532,447
$ 535,447
$ 527,947
Revenue Bond Payments Only
500,678
496,278
491,878
491,378
485,628
489,878
493,628
491,878
494,878
487,378
NEW DEBT SERVICE
Annual Interest Payments
$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Annual Principal Payments
Total Debt Service Payments
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Revenue Bond Payments Only
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS
$ 818,170
$ 8189220
$ 8229459 $
819,998 $
8219278
$ 8179514
$ 8149790
$ 7969568
$ 7969293
$ 794,897
Total Interest Payments
820,814
804,186
786,865
767,419
754,241
733,012
716,649
697,689
674,896
650,691
!v
0
Total Principal Payments
538,604
550,881
568,041
584,527
593,234
614,950
632,338
631,326
656,844
672,154
X
^?
Total Revenue Bond Payments Only
1,202,447
1,198,671
1,199,052
1,196,636
1,192,677
1,193,716
1,195,297
1,212,296
1,215,402
1,206,855
U2
FCS GROUP
Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
I 4
.4. 1 (425) 867-1802 Capital Funding Page 14
JAttachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Revenue Requirements Analysis
Cash Flow Sufficiencv Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
EXPENSES
Sewer Cash Operating Expenses
$ 2,993,745
$ 3,096,419
$ 3,203,827
$ 3,316,279
$ 3,434,109 $ 3,557,681 $ 3,687,391
$ 3,823,666
$ 3,966,975
$ 4,117,823
Treatment O&M Expenses - Full Share
3,678,450
3,826,106
3,981,922
4,146,515
4,320,560 4,504,791 4,700,010
4,907,094
5,126,998
5,360,769
lid 414 Cont. for Debt (excl. Capital Financing) - Edmon
129,695
129,979
130,203 113,177
75,753
76,065
Existing Debt Service-411 Debt (Sewer & Treatment)
1,359,418
1,355,068
1,354,906
1,351,946
1,347,476 1,347,962 1,348,987
1,329,015
1,331,741
1,322,844
New Debt Service - Fund 412-300
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
Rate -Funded CIP
1,284,433
Rate Funded System Reinvestment
-
-
Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance
19,412
-
-
Total Expenses
$ 8,162,398
$ 8,407,690
$ 8,670,350
$ 8,944,718
$ 9,232,347 $ 9,540,907 $ 11,133,999
$ 10,155,445
$ 10,501,467
$ 10,877,501
REVENUES
Rate Revenue
$
6,341,177
$ 6,372,883
$ 6,404,747 $
6,436,771 $
6,468,955 $
6,501,300
$ 6,533,806
$ 6,566,475
$ 6,599,308
$ 6,632,304
Other Revenue
2,094,943
2,178,662
2,267,008
2,360,331
2,459,012
2,563,469
2,674,157
2,791,571
2,916,254
3,048,800
Operating Fund &Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings
25 550
5,678
11,561
17,666
18,008
18,368
18,748
16,645
19,505
19,952
Total Revenue
$
8,461,170
$ 8,557,223
$ 8,683,317 $
8,814,768 $
8,945,975 $
9,083,137
$ 9,226,711
$ 9,374,691
$ 9,535,067
$ 9,701,056
NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY)
$
298,772
$ 149,533
$ 12,966 $
(129,950) $
(286,372) $
(457,770)
$ (1,907,288)
$ (780,754)
$ (966,400)
$ (1,176,445)
Coverage Sufficiency Test
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
EXPENSES
Cash Operating Expenses - Fund 411 Sewer
$
2,993,745
$ 3,096,419
$ 3,203,827 $
3,316,279 $
3,434,109 $
3,557,681
$ 3,687,391
$ 3,823,666
$ 3,966,975
$ 4,117,823
Treatment Operating Expenses - Fund 411
3,678,450
3,826,106
3,981,922
4,146,515
4,320,560
4,504,791
4,700,010
4,907,094
5,126,998
5,360,769
Fund 414 Contributions (excl. Financing of Capital) - Edmonds
130,785
130,098
129,695
129,979
130,203
130,473
113,177
76,257
75,753
76,065
Revenue Bond Debt Service - Fund 411 (Sewer & Treatment)
1,202,447
1,198,671
1,199,052
1,196,636
1,192,677
1,193,716
1,195,297
1,212,296
1,215,402
1,206,855
Revenue Bond Debt Service - Fund 414
38,783
39,040
38,095
39,483
38,130
39,110
38,830
-
-
-
Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25
310,307
309,428
309,287
309,030
307,702
308,206
308,532
303,074
303,850
301,714
Total Expenses
$
8,354,517
$ 8,599,762
$ 8,861,877 $
9,137,922 $
9,423,381 $
9,733,977
$ 10,043,237
$ 10,322,388
$ 10,688,979
$ 11,063,226
ALLOWABLE REVENUES
Rate Revenue
$
6,341,177
$ 6,372,883
$ 6,404,747 $
6,436,771 $
6,468,955 $
6,501,300
$ 6,533,806
$ 6,566,475
$ 6,599,308
$ 6,632,304
Other Revenue
2,094,943
2,178,662
2,267,008
2,360,331
2,459,012
2,563,469
2,674,157
2,791,571
2,916,254
3,048,800
Interest Earnings - All Funds
44,488
36,048
54,703
69,612
57,755
45,511
32,275
20,782
31,036
41,024
Total Revenue
$
8,480,608
$ 8,587,593
$ 8,726,458 $
8,866,714 $
8,985,722 $
9,110,280
$ 9,240,238
$ 9,378,829
$ 9,546,598
$ 9,722,129
Sv
n
lD
Individual Coverage Realized
1.40
1.28
1.18
1.06
0.92
0.77
0.62
0.47
0.31
0.14
INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY)
$
126,091
$ (12,169)
$ (135,419) $
(271,208) $
(437,659) $
(623,697)
$ (802,999)
$ (943,559)
$ (1,142,381)
$ (1,341,097)
1p
FCS GROUP
Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
F-Ph(425)
867-1802
Tests
Page 15
J:�
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Revenue Requirements Analysis
Maximum Revenue Deficiencv 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency None Coverage Coverage Coverage Coverage Coverage Cash Coverage Coverage Coverage
Maximum Deficiency From Tests $ (126,091) $ 12,169 $ 135,419 $ 271,208 $ 437,659 $ 623,697 $ 1,907,288 $ 943,559 $ 1,142,381 $ 1,341,097
less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases -- I - (288,214) (592,344) (913,197) (1,214,526) (1,530,775) (1,862,625) (2,041,363) (2,225,247)
Revenue Deficiency $ (126,091) $ 12,169 $ (152,794) $ (321,136) $ (475,539) $ (590,829) $ 376,513 $ (919,065) $ (898,982) $ (884,150)
Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax (17.5521 1.694 18.851 37.753 60.924 86.822 265.504 131.348 159.025 186.687
Total Revenue Deficiency $ (143,643) $ 13,863 $ (133,943) $ (283,382) $ (414,614) $ (504,007) $ 642,017 $ (787,717) $ (739,957) $ (697,462)
Rate Increases 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Rate Revenue with no Increase
$ 6,341,177 $
6,372,883 $
6,404,747 $
6,436,771 $
6,468,955 $
6,501,300 $
6,533,806 $
6,566,475 $
6,599,308 $
6,632,304
Revenues from Prior Rate Increases
-
-
288,214
592,344
913,197
1,214,526
1,530,775
1,862,625
2,041,363
2,225,247
Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases)
6,341,177
6,372,883
6,692,961
7,029,115
7,382,152
7,715,826
8,064,581
8,429,100
8,640,670
8,857,551
Required Annual Rate Increase
-2.27 %
0.22 %
-2.00%
-4.03 %
-5.62 %
-6.53 %
7.96 %
-9.35 %
-8.56 %
-7.87 %
Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue
-2.27%
0.22%
-2.00%
-4.03%
-5.62%
-6.53%
7.96%
-9.35%
-8.56%
-7.87%
Policy Induced Rate Increases
0.00%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
ANNUAL RATE INCREASE 0.00% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 4.50% 9.20% 14.12% 18.68% 23.43% 28.37% 30.93% 33.55% 36.22%
Impacts of Rate Increases
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
$ 6,341,177 $
6,659,663 $
6,994,144 $
7,345,425 $
7,677,438 $
8,024,459 $
8,387,164 $
8,597,682 $
8,813,484 $
9,034,702
Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
6,341,177
6,659,663
6,994,144
7,345,425
7,677,438
8,024,459
8,387,164
8,597,682
8,813,484
9,034,702
Additional State Taxes Due to Rate Increases
-
35,043
72,021
111,033
147,670
186,122
226,471
248,203
270,561
293,560
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
298,772
401,270
530,342
667,671
774,441
879,267
(280,401)
1,021,662
977,215
932,393
Individual Coverage After Rate Increase
1.40
1.49
1.61
1.73
1.81
1.89
1.98
1.94
1.91
1.89
d
0
>;
CD
rt
C4 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
� (425) 867-1802 Tests
n' Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 16
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Fund Activity
Funds
411: OPERATING FUND
Beginning Balance
plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase
less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund
Ending Balance
Minimum Target Balance
Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves
Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses
412: SEWER CAPITAL FUND
Beginning Balance
plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment
plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources
plus: Capital Facilities Charges
plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects
plus: Interest Earnings
plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund
plus: Direct Rate Funding
less: Capital Expenditures
Ending Balance
Minimum Target Balance
DEBT RESERVE
Beginning Balance
plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt
less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service
Ending Balance
Minimum Target Balance
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ 9,831,942 $ 1,118,298 $ 1,159,335 $ 1,202,539 $ 1,248,127 $ 1,296,143 $ 1,346,785 $ 1,066,385 $ 1,447,729 $ 1,507,352
298,772 401,270 530,342 667,671 774,441 879,267 (280,401) 1,021,662 977,215 932,393
(9,012,416) (360,233) (487,139) (622,083) (726,424) (828,625) (640,318) (917,592) (869,117)
$ 1,118,298 $ 1,159,335 $ 1,202,539 $ 1,248,127 $ 1,296,143 $ 1,346,785 $ 1,066,385 $ 1,447,729 $ 1,507,352 $ 1,570,628
838,724 869,501 901,904 936,095 972,107 1,010,089 1,048,017 1,085,797 1,130,514 1,177,971
1,118,298 1,159,335 1,202,539 1,248,127 1,296,143 1,346,785 1,397,355 1,447,729 1,507,352 1,570,628
60 60 60 60 60 60 46 60 60 60
$ 11,947,787 $ 8,428,267 $ 6,726,121 $ 5,099,586 $ 3,419,041 $ 1,603,622 $ 351,667 $ 1,335,961 $ 2,606,618
384,400 331,275 332,931 334,596 336,269 337,950 339,640 341,338 343,045 344,760
19,388 29,869 42,141 50,446 38,247 25,643 12,027 2,638 10,020 19,550
9,012,416 360,233 487,139 622,083 726,424 828,625 - 640,318 917,592 869,117
- - - - - - 1,284,433 - - -
(5.223.790) (4,240,897) (2,564,357) (2,633,660) (2,781,485) (3,007,638) (2,888,055)
$ 11,947,787 $ 8,428,267 $ 6,726,121 $ 5,099,586 $ 3,419,041 $ 1,603,622 $ 351,667 $ 1,335,961 $ 2,606,618 $ 3,840,044
$ 1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934
$ 1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934 $
1,152,934
725,170
725,170
725,170
724,420
723,670
722,920
722,170
721,420
720,525
719,478
D]
0
77
CD
rt
FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
-th. 1 (425)867-1802 Funds
JAttachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 17
V
N
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414
Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue
Annual Interest Payment
$ 8,447
$ 7,537
$ 6,592
$
5,647
$
4,294
$ 2,940
$ 1,493-
Annual Principal Payment
30,336
31,503
31,503
33,836
33,836
36,170
37,336
Total Annual Payment
$ 38,783
$ 39,040
$ 38,095
$
39,483
$
38,130
$ 39,110
$ 38,830
$
$
$
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
38,830
TOTAL REVENUE BONDS
Annual Interest Payment
$ 8,447
$ 7,537
$ 6,592
$
5,647
$
4,294
$ 2,940
$ 1,493
$
$
$
Annual Principal Payment
30,336
31,503
31,503
33,836
33,836
36,170
37,336
Total Annual Payment
$ 38,783
$ 39,040
$ 38,095
$
39,483
$
38,130
$ 39,110
$ 38,830
$
$
$
Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
38,830
Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds
39,483
39,483
39,483
39,483
39,110
39,110
-
-
Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
2002 PWTF Loan PW-02-691-019
Annual Interest Payment
$ 1,221
$ 1,046
$ 872
$
698
$
523
$ 349
$ 174
$
- $
- $ -
Annual Principal Payment
34,875
34,875
34,875
34,875
34,875
34,875
34,875
Total Annual Payment
$ 36,096
$ 35,921
$ 35,747
$
35,573
$
35,398
$ 35,224
$ 35,049
$
$
$
TOTAL PWTF LOANS
Annual Interest Payment
$ 1,221
$ 1,046
$ 872
$
698
$
523
$ 349
$ 174
$
$
$
Annual Principal Payment
34,875
34,875
34,875
34,875
34,875
34,875
34,875
Total Annual Payment
$ 36,096
$ 35,921
$ 35,747
$
35,573
$
35,398
$ 35,224
$ 35,049
$
$
$
fl1
0
X
CD
rt
�=
FCS GROUP
Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802
414 Existing
Debt
-Ph
Attachment: Attachment 3
- Sewer Rate
Model [Revision 1]
(1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 18
V
N
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414
Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a]
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
[a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O.
issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed
to be accounted
for in the General Fund and do not impact this
analysis.
2012 LTGO Bond
Annual Interest Payment
$
3,965
$ 3,391
$ 2,800
$ 2,192
$ 1,585
$ 961
$ $
-
$ -
$ -
Annual Principal Payment
28,735
29,556
30,377
30,377
31,198
32,019
-
-
-
Total Annual Payment
$
32,700
$ 32,947
$ 33,177
$ 32,569
$ 32,783
$ 32,980
$ - $
-
$ -
$ -
2007 LTGO Bond
Annual Interest Payment
$
50,385
$ 46,751
$ 42,945
$ 38,992
$ 34,893
$ 30,517
$ 25,992 $
21,319
$ 16,423
$ 11,180
Annual Principal Payment
99.552
101.504
105.408
109.312
115.168
j j Q m9
129 Q7R
128.832
132.736
13815A
Total Annual Payment
$
149,937
$ 148,255
$ 148,353
$ 148,304
$ 150,061
$ 149,589
$ 148,968 $
150,151
$ 149,159
$ 149,772
TOTAL OTHER LOANS
Annual Interest Payment
$
54,350
$ 50,142
$ 45,745
$ 41,184
$ 36,478
$ 31,477
$ 25,992 $
21,319
$ 16,423
$ 11,180
Annual Principal Payment
128,287
131,060
135,785
139,689
146,366
151,091
122,976
128,832
132,736
138,592
Total Annual Payment
$
182,637
$ 181,202
$ 181,530
$ 180,873
$ 182,844
$ 182,568
$ 148,968 $
150,151
$ 149,159
$ 149,772
D]
0
W
CD
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802 414 Existing Debt
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 19
V
N
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Capital Improvement Program
Project Costs in Year: 2016
TOTAL FORECASTED PROJECT COSTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN CURRENT DOLLARS
Project
ID
Project Name
Life in Years
Total Cost
2016 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022 2023 2024 2025
W WTP - Repair and Replacement
50
$ 1,251,667
$ - $ - $
235,649 $
228,785 $
293,201 $
284,661 $
209,371 $ - $ - $ -
W WTP - Construction Projects - In House
50
35,022
- -
-
-
17,770
17,252
- - - -
WWTP- Construction Projects - Contracted
50
6,633,144
3,112,120 2,063,107
235,649
228,785
266,546
517,565
209,371 - - -
50
_
_ _
_
_
_
_
_
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
_
_ _
_
_
_
_
_
Total Capital Projects in Escalated Dollars
$ 7,919,833
$ 3,112,120 $ 2,063,107 $
471,298 $
457,571 $
577,517 $
819,478 $
418,742 $ - $ - $
Previous 2,881,000 2,125,000 500,000 500,000 650,000 950,000
C1
0
W
CD
rt
FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
.01 1 (425) 867-1802 414 CIP Input
JAttachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 20
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Capital Improvement Program
Dif 231,120 61,893 28,702 42,429 72,483 130,522 418,742
Cumulative Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% 22.99% 26.68% 30.48%
Annual Inflation 0.001/ 3.00% 3.001/ 3.00% 3.001/6 3.00% 3.001/ 3.00% 3.001/ 3.00%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS
Project
ID
Project Name
Life in Years
Total Cost
2016 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022 2023 2024 2025
WWTP- Repair and Replacement
50
$ 1,410,000
$ - $ - $
250,000 $
250,000 $
330,000 $
330,000 $
250,000 $ - $ - $ -
W WTP - Construction Projects - In House
50
40,000
- -
-
-
20,000
20,000
- - - -
WWTP- Construction Projects - Contracted
50
6,887,120
3,112,120 2,125,000
250,000
250,000
300,000
600,000
250,000 - - -
50
_
_ _
_
_
_
_
_
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Total Capital Projects In Current Dollars
$ 8,337,120
$ 3,112,120 $ 2,125,000 $
500,000 $
500,000 $
650,000 $
950,000 $
500,000 $
D]
0
W
lD
rt
FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
.9h. 1 (425) 867-1802 414 CIP Input
J4�"
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 21
V
N
n
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant (Fund 414) Capital Funding Analysis
Summary of Capital Expenditures
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
Total Treatment Plant CIP
$ 3,112,120 $
2,125,000 $
500,000 $
500,000 $
650,000 $
950,000 $
500,000 $
- $
- $ -
Capital Financing Plan
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 2025
Direct Billing of Agencies 0.00 %
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $ -
Project to be Funded
3,112,120
2,125,000
500,000
500,000
650,000
950,000
500,000
-
- -
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A]
Outside Sources
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $ -
PWTF Loan Proceeds
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Other Loan Proceeds
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Use of Fund 414 Balance
48,050
35,500
16,000
16,500
16,500
16,500
1,500
-
- -
Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Agency Contribution Deficiency
3,064,070
2,089,500
484,000
483,500
633,500
933,500
498,500
-
- -
Total
$ 3,112,120 $
2,125,000 $
500,000 $
500,000 $
650,000 $
950,000 $
500,000 $
TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES $ 3,112,120 $ 2,125,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 650,000 $ 950,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ -
Info: Capital Contingency Deficit - - - (350,000) (350,000) (350,000) (350,000) (348,500) (346,989) (345,466)
NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE
Select the Residual Funding Source 2 Rates
1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds
2 - Rates
NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS
Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined
1 - Amounts at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
2 - Calculated by the Model
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant (Fund 414) Capital Funding Analysis
New Debt Computations
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
REVENUE BONDS
Amount to Fund
$
- $
- $
-
$ - $
-
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
-
Issuance Costs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reserve Required
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amount of Debt Issue
$
- $
- $
-
$ - $
-
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
-
OTHER LOANS
Amount to Fund
$
- $
- $
-
$ - $
-
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
-
Issuance Costs
Amount of Debt Issue
$
- $
- $
-
$ - $
-
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
-
PWTF LOAN
Amount to Fund
$
- $
- $
-
$ - $
-
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
-
Debt Service Summary
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
EXISTING DEBT SERVICE
Annual Interest Payments
$
64,018 $
58,726 $
53,209
$ 47,529 $
41,294
$ 34,766 $
27,660 $
21,319 $
16,423 $
11,180
Annual Principal Payments
193,498
197,438
202,163
208,400
215,077
222,136
195,187
128,832
132,736
138,592
Total Debt Service Payments
$
257,516 $
256,163 $
255,371
$ 255,929 $
256,371
$ 256,902 $
222,847 $
150,151 $
149,159 $
149,772
Revenue Bond Payments Only
38,783
39,040
38,095
39,483
38,130
39,110
38,830
-
-
-
NEW DEBT SERVICE
Annual Interest Payments
$
- $
- $
-
$ - $
-
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
-
Annual Principal Payments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Debt Service Payments
$
- $
- $
-
$ - $
-
$ - $
- $
- $
- $
-
Revenue Bond Payments Only
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS
$
257,516 $
256,163 $
255,371
$ 255,929 $
256,371
$ 256,902 $
222,847 $
150,151 $
149,159 $
149,772
Total Interest Payments
64,018
58,726
53,209
47,529
41,294
34,766
27,660
21,319
16,423
11,180
Total Principal Payments
193,498
197,438
202,163
208,400
215,077
222,136
195,187
128,832
132,736
138,592
Total Revenue Bond Payments Only
38,783
39,040
38,095
39,483
38,130
39,110
38,830
-
-
-
D]
0
x
lD
F-41
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision 1] (1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant Fund (Fund 414) Activity
Fund 414
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total Projected Contributions for Debt Service
$
257,516 $
256,163
$ 255,371
$ 255,929
$
256,371
$ 256,902 $
222,847 $
150,151
$ 149,159
$ 149,772
Beginning Balance
$
200, $
200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$
200,000
$ 200,000 $
200,000 $
200,000
$ 201,500
$ 203,011
plus: Contributions from King County
plus: Interest Earnings
500
1,000
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,511
1,523
plus: Misc. Revenues (AWD biosolids, rebate from PUD)
plus: Contribution from Participating Agencies for Debt Service
Mountlake Terrace
$
59,677 $
59,363
$ 59,180
$ 59,309
$
59,412
$ 59,534 $
51,643 $
34,796
$ 34,566
$ 34,708
Ronald Sewer District
24,433
24,305
24,230
24,283
24,325
24,375
21,144
14,246
14,152
14,210
Olympic View Sewer District
42,622
42,398
42,266
42,359
42,432
42,520
36,883
24,851
24,687
24,789
75,753
76,065
subtotal: Contributions
$
257,516 $
256,163
$ 255,371
$ 255,929
$
256,371
$ 256,902 $
222,847 $
150,151
$ 149,159
$ 149,772
plus: Capital Funding Sources
Outside Sources
$
- $
-
$ -
$ -
$
-
$ - $
- $
-
$ -
$ -
Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects
Direct Billing of Agencies for Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Agency Contribution Deficiency for Capital
3,064,070
2,089,500
484,000
483,500
633,500
933,500
498,500
subtotal., Capital Funding Sources
$
3,064,070 $
2,089,500
$ 484,000
$ 483,500
$
633,500
$ 933,500 $
498,500 $
$
$
less: Fund 414 Expenditures
Fund 414 Existing Debt Service Payments
(257,516)
(256,163)
(255,371)
(255,929)
(256,371)
(256,902)
(222,847)
(150,151)
(149,159)
(149,772)
Fund 414 New Debt Service Payments
Capital Project Expenditures
(3,112,120) (2,125,000)
(500,000)
(500,000)
(650,000)
(950,000) (500,000)
subtotal., Fund 414 Expenditures
$
(3,369,636) $
(2,381,163)
$ (755,371)
$ (755,929)
$
(906,371)
$ (1,206,902) $
(722,847) $
(150,151)
$ (149,159)
$ (149,772,
Ending Balance
$
200,000 $
200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$
200,000
$ 200,000 $
200,000 $
201,500
$ 203,011
$ 204,534
Minimum Target Balance
$
200,000 $
200,000
$ 200,000
$ 550,000
$
550,000
$ 550,000 $
550,000 $
550,000
$ 550,000
$ 550,000
Capital Contributions from Agencies
$
3,064,070 $
2,089,500
$ 484,000
$ 483,500
$
633,500
$ 933,500 $
498,500 $
-
$ -
$ -
50.79% $
1,556,149 $
1,061,194
$ i245,80
21,736
$ 474,097
$
$
Share of Mountlake Terrace
23.17 %
710,068
484,221
112,162
112,046
146,807
216,329
115,522
-
-
-
Share of Ronald Sewer District
9.49 %
290,719
198,252
45,922
45,874
60,106
88,570
47,298
Share of Olympic View Sewer District
16.55 %
507,134
345,833
80,107
80,024
104,851
154,504
82,507
Total
100.000 % $
3,064,070 $
2,089,500
$ 484,000
$ 483,500
$
633,500
$ 933,500 $
498,500 $
$
$
DEBT RESERVE
Beginning Balance
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$
plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service
Ending Balance
$
- $
-
$ -
$ -
$
-
$ - $
- $
-
$ -
$ -
Minimum Target Balance
725,170
725,170
725,170
724,420
723,670
722,920
722,170
721,420
720,525
719,478
fl1
0
lD
rt
�=
FCS GROUP
Edmonds Sewer Model.xlsx
(425) 867-1802
Fund 414
U1
c
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Sewer Rate Model [Revision
1]
(1515 : Utility Rate Analysis)
Page 24
V
N
n
7.2.d
2016 MONTHLY WATER RATES*
City
Rate w/o tax
Tax/Summer Rate
Rate w/tax
City of Lake F Park (via SPU)
$
87.70
Summer Rate
$
87.70
Shoreline (via SPU)
$
87.70
Summer Rate
$
87.70
Woodinville WD
$
73.69
Summer Rate
$
73.69
Seattle
$
72.30
Summer Rate
$
72.30
City of Kirkland (via SPU)
$
57.44
1.1338
$
65.13
City of Arlington
$
52.73
$
52.73
EDMONDS
$
44.24
1.187
$
52.51
Everett
$
42.49
$
42.49
Redmond
$
42.25
$
42.25
Olympic View W & S District
$
38.82
Summer Rate
$
38.82
Alderwood Water & Wastewater
$
37.96
$
37.96
Mukilteo W & S District Westside
$
37.75
$
37.75
Lynnwood
$
32.78
1.06
$
34.75
AVERAGE
AVERAGE (W/O H&L)
$
$
55.83
54.85
*Rates assume 10ccf usage per month
T
21
a
CU
r
T_
LOT_
O
N
i
fC
Q
E
O
U
a�
R
L
Packet Pg. 451
7.2.e
2016 MONTHLY STORM RATES*
City
Rate w/o tax
Tax
Rate w/tax
Seattle
$ 32.50
$ 32.50
Kirkland
$ 16.87
1.075
$ 18.14
Redmond
$ 16.56
$ 16.56
City of Lake Forest Park
$ 16.00
$ 16.00
Everett
$ 17.44
$ 17.44
City of Mukilteo
$ 14.84
1.06
$ 15.73
EDMONDS
$ 12.91
1.1
$ 14.20
Shoreline
$ 12.64
1.06
$ 13.40
Lynnwood
$ 10.91
1.06
$ 11.56
City of Woodinville
$ 7.26
$ 7.26
Arlington
$ 6.89
$ 6.89
AVERAGE $ 15.43
AVERAGE (W/O H&L) $ 15.24
*Rates assume 1 single family residence/1 ERU
T
LO
r
Lf')
C
O
N
.I-
CU
Q
E
O
U
d
to
E
0
r
LO
r
V
a
r
r-
d
E
U
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 452
7.2.f
2016 MONTHLY SEWER RATES*
City
Rate w/o tax
Tax
Rate w/tax
Seattle
$ 122.70
$ 122.70
Kirkland
$ 86.83
1.105
$ 95.95
City of Arlington
$ 70.15
$ 70.15
Woodinville WD
$ 69.18
$ 69.18
Mukilteo W & S District Westside
$ 64.12
$ 64.12
City of Lake F Park
$ 59.12
$ 59.12
Alderwood Water & Wastewater
$ 57.75
$ 57.75
Redmond
$ 56.18
$ 56.18
Shoreline (via Ronald WWD)
$ 53.50
$ 53.50
Lynnwood
$ 41.87
1.06
$ 44.38
Everett
$ 42.43
$ 42.43
EDMONDS
$ 33.25
1.1
$ 36.57
Olympic View W & S District
$ 28.21
$ 28.21
AVERAGE $ 61.56
AVERAGE (W/O H&L) $ 59.03
*Rates Assume 10ccf usage per month
LO
r
0
T)
•L
a
E
0
U
m
r
R
L
U)
r
a
Packet Pg. 453
7.2.g
*Total Rate/ Month (Water/Sewer/Storm)
Seattle
$ 227.50
Kirkland
$ 179.21
Shoreline
$ 154.60
Woodinville
$ 150.13
Arlington
$ 129.77
Mukilteo
$ 117.60
Redmond
$ 114.99
EDMONDS
$ 103.28
Everett
$ 102.36
Lynnwood
$ 90.69
*Assumes 10 ccf/month usage & includes taxes
T
M
C
a
r
LO
LO
O
y
R
Q
E
O
U
c
d
a�
d
R
Cn
O
L
EI
r
a
Packet Pg. 454
7.2.h
*City Rates with increases
(Current)2016
$ 103.28
2017
$ 107.41
2018
$ 111.76
2019
$ 116.10
2020
$ 120.47
2021
$ 124.07
2022
$ 129.08
*Assumes 10ccf/month usage for water/sewer
T
2,
a
CU
o:
LO
LO
L
V
C
0)
CU
W
N�
CD
L
r
a
Packet Pg. 455
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Presentation of an Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code (ECC), amending parking provisions on
Sunset Avenue. (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
August 23, 2016. Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance reducing the 4-hour on -street parking
limit on Sunset Avenue to two hours.
Staff Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the September 20, 2016 Council meeting.
Narrative
A presentation of several design proposals, both interim and permanent, were presented to Council
regarding the Sunset Walkway Project on August 23, 2016, along with a request for authority to
continue design on the project.
Amongst the proposals was one to restrict the parking hours along Sunset from the current 4-hour limit.
Council voted to reduce the parking limitation to two hours.
Attachments:
Sunset Avenue Parking Ordinance
Packet Pg. 456
7.3.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
8.64.065; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds offers on -street parking stalls on certain portions
of its public rights -of -way;
WHEREAS, many motorists are parking for long periods of time on Sunset Avenue
between Bell Street and Caspers Street. (which currently has a four-hour parking limit); and
WHEREAS, upon the direction and finding of the City Council, on -street parking
on Sunset Avenue between Bell and Caspers Streets should be designated as 2-hour parking
zones; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ECC 8.64.065 Schedule VI -A — Parking time limited for certain periods of time
on certain streets is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is
underlined):
8.64.065 Schedule VI -A — Parking time limited for certain periods of time on
certain streets.
In accordance with ECC 8.48.155 and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall
stop, stand or park a vehicle for a period of time longer than the number of hours set forth below, or
between the hours set forth below:
Name of Street
Hours — Stopped, Standing
or Road
or Parking Prohibited
1. Sunset Beach
Four hours maximum at any
access way and
onetime.
Sunset Beach
Park.
-1-
Packet Pg. 457
7.3.a
Name of Street
Hours — Stopped, Standing
or Road
or Parking Prohibited
2. West side of
Two-hour parking 8:00 a.m.
Sunset Avenue
to 10:00 p.m. No parking from
from Edmonds
10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.;
Street to
provided, however, the city
Caspers Street.
council may adjust the two-
hour parking time and the no
parking time set forth in this
subsection by appropriate
motion and upon erection of
appropriate signs.
3. West side of
Two-hour parking from 6:00
Admiral Way
p.m. on Friday to midnight on
from Dayton
Sunday, and from 6:00 p.m. on
Street to a point
those days immediately
260 feet
preceding public holidays to
southerly.
midnight on said public
holidays.
4. Both sides of
Four-hour parking, 8:00 a.m.
the portion of
to 10:00 p.m. No parking from
75th Place
10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
West, north of
North
Meadowdale
Road.
5. Five parking
Two hours maximum between
spaces
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
designated by
dusk.* No parking between
city engineer
dusk and 8:00 a.m.
and located at
the terminus
and southerly
end of Ocean
Avenue.
6. Both sides of
Three hours maximum at any
Admiral Way
one time.
from its
intersection
with Dayton
Street and south
-2-
Packet Pg. 458
7.3.a
Name of Street
Hours — Stopped, Standing
or Road
or Parking Prohibited
thereof to the
end of the
public right-of-
way
(approximately
2,300 feet).
7. Bracket's
Four hours maximum at any
Landing
one time.
parking lot.
8. Signed
No use except for electric or
parking stalls at
plug-in hybrid vehicles for
City Hall,
three hours maximum while
Public Safety,
charging.
and City Park
parking lots.
9. Signed
Thirty -minute limit for any use
parking stalls at
other than electric or plug-in
6th Avenue at
hybrid vehicles. Electric or
the Main Strect
plug-in hybrid vehicles for
intersection.
three hours maximum while
charging.
10. Signed
Three hours maximum
parking stalls
between the hours of 7:00 p.m.
on south side of
and 7:00 a.m. (Monday
Dayton St.
Ithrough Friday)
between
Edmonds
Way/SR-104
and the railroad
tracks.
11. Signed
Three-hour parking from
parking stall in
midnight to 6:00 p.m. except
front of 111
Sundays and holidays. No
Sunset Avenue.
parking 2:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
�on Saturdays.
*Dusk is hereby defined as commencing 30 minutes following sunset.
-3-
Packet Pg. 459
7.3.a
Section 1. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
M.
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 460
7.3.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
8.64.065; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2016.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
-5-
Packet Pg. 461
7.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Interlocal Agreement with City of Lynnwood for Biosolids Disposal (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Pamela Randolph
Department: Wastewater Treatment Plant
Preparer: Pamela Randolph
Background/History
Historically Edmonds has had an inter -local agreement with the City of Lynnwood to provide them with
biosolids disposal during times of planned and emergency maintenance at their WWTP. The agreement
has expired. This proposed new agreement contains similar terms with the only significant modification
being that the City of Edmonds is increasing the cost per pound of solids processed from $0.25/dry lb to
$0.40/dry lb in order to capture all costs associated with the processing of solids while still maintaining a
comfortable margin and bottom line for Edmonds.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the inter -local agreement.
Narrative
The City of Lynnwood operates a sanitary sewage incinerator and they lack adequate biosolids storage
for long term shut downs. During periods of emergency or planned maintenance Lynnwood must find
an alternative means of biosolids disposal.
The City of Edmonds WWTP has the capacity to process these solids at a lower expense to the City of
Lynnwood than they can achieve with other available options while still generating additional funding
for the Edmonds Sewer Fund (fund 423).
This inter -local agreement between the City of Edmonds and City of Lynnwood provides a biosolids
disposal option for Lynnwood during emergency or planned maintenance. The agreement is similar to
past agreements with the only significant modification being that Edmonds is increasing the cost per
pound of solids processed in order to capture all increased costs associated with the processing of
solids.
Attachments:
Draft 2016 Interlocal Agreement - Edmonds_Lynnwood (with SEC edits) 8.1.16
Packet Pg. 462
7.4.a
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DISPOSAL OF BIOSOLIDS
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of September, 2016, by and
between the City of Edmonds (hereinafter "Edmonds") and the City of Lynnwood
(hereinafter "Lynnwood").
WHEREAS, Edmonds has the facilities and expertise to treat and dispose of
biosolid waste; and
WHEREAS, Lynnwood is in need of such facilities and expertise;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is
agreed by and between the parties as follows:
TERMS
1. Description of Program. Edmonds agrees to handle the disposal and
treatment of biosolids delivered by Lynnwood in accordance with the terms and conditions
attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. The City of
Edmonds, as operator of the plant, specifically reserves as set forth below the right to
terminate this Agreement at any time and the City of Edmonds will terminate this
Agreement, when, in its sole discretion, it determines that the disposal of solids hereunder
would interfere with the smooth, efficient and cost effective operation of the secondary
sewage treatment plant.
2. Payment.
A. When charges are pending, Edmonds shall submit a monthly
payment invoice to Lynnwood for services to date, and Lynnwood shall make payments
within thirty (30) days after the submittal of the invoice.
B. If Lynnwood objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so
notify Edmonds within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt and shall pay the portion of
the invoice not in dispute. The parties shall immediately make every effort to settle the
disputed portion. If they are unable to resolve their dispute, the parties agree to use an
alternative dispute resolution procedure to resolve their differences.
C. The prices to be paid are set forth in the attached Exhibit A which has
been incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. The charge for disposal of
biosolids set forth in such Exhibit may be amended by the provision of thirty (30) days
prior written notice from Edmonds to Lynnwood. Upon receipt of such notice, Lynnwood
may terminate this agreement or, by continuing to ship biosolids for disposal, agree to the
amendment of this agreement to incorporate such new and higher charge. In such event,
Exhibit A shall be deemed amended to incorporate such new charge.
- 1-
Packet Pg. 463
7.4.a
3. Duration. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution and shall
remain in effect for an initial term until December 31, 2021. Unless terminated as provided
below, the Agreement may continue in effect at the mutual agreement of the parties for up
to two additional two-year terms to expire December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2025.
4. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time upon
sixty (60) days' written notice. Edmonds reserves the right to refuse or suspend any
biosolid delivery from Lynnwood at any time and for any length of time in accordance with
plant operational needs. Paragraphs 2 and 5 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
5. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. It is understood and agreed that this F=
Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to any other
party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. Each party Q
hereto agrees to be responsible and assumes liability for its own negligent acts or
omissions, and those of its officers, agents or employees, while performing work pursuant 0
L
to this Agreement, to the fullest extent required by law, and agrees to save, indemnify, c
defend, and hold the other party harmless from any such liability. In the case of
negligence of multiple parties, any damages allowed shall be assessed in proportion to the 00
LO
percentage of negligence attributable to each party, and each party shall have the right to 77
seek contribution from the other party in proportion to the percentage of negligence
attributable to the other party.
6. Miscellaneous Disclosures as Required by RCW 39.34.030. No separate
legal entity shall be created by this Agreement, and each party hereto shall be responsible
for its own budgeting of funds transferred under this Agreement. No property shall transfer
ownership or be jointly owned as a result of this Agreement. Edmonds shall serve as the
administrator of this Agreement.
7. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement,
together with all Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of
any officer or other representative of the parties, and such statements shall not be effective
or be construed as entering into or forming a part of, or altering in any manner
whatsoever, this Agreement.
8 Modification. No waiver, alteration or modification of any of the provisions of
this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by duly authorized
representatives of Edmonds and Lynnwood.
9. Waiver. Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or
conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or
relinquishment of such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other
breach.
10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any suit brought by either
party arising out of this Agreement shall only be maintained in a court of competent
jurisdiction in Snohomish County, Washington.
- 2-
Packet Pg. 464
7.4.a
11. Filing. This Agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor
as required by RCW 39.34.040.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the
day and year above written.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF EDMONDS:
DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LYNNWOOD CITY ATTORNEY
- 3-
Packet Pg. 465
7.4.a
EXHIBIT A
The City of Edmonds agrees to assist the City of Lynnwood with its biosolids disposal
needs. Our approval is based upon the following conditions:
• Shipments will be received at a time agreed to by both agencies at least 24 hours in
advance.
• The delivery route to the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will be from
SR 104 west, right on Dayton Street, right on Second Avenue South.
• Lynnwood will be charged $0.40 per dry pound.
• Test results performed at Edmonds WWTP will be used for billing. The method for;
calculating the quantity received will be as follows: Lynnwood will split a sample taken
during each tanker loading destined for the Edmonds WWTP. The biosolids hauler 00
r
will deliver a sample to the Edmonds WWTP for solids concentration analysis. LO
Quantity of liquid biosolids received will be measured using the flowmeter at the plant.
Edmonds WWTP personnel will log all deliveries and pounds received each day.
• Edmonds WWTP will be responsible for unloading deliveries.
• If the solids concentration generated from Lynnwood changes significantly, Edmonds
WWTP will be notified in advance.
• The City of Edmonds reserves the right to refuse deliveries if plant storage tank
capacity is threatened.
- 4-
Packet Pg. 466
7.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Presentation on the Madrona Walkway Project (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
None.
Staff Recommendation
Place item on a future City Council agenda for action after the construction bids have been opened and
a low bidder is determined.
Narrative
This project is one of several "Safe Routes to School" grant projects won by the City of Edmonds.
These projects are intended to increase safety and accessibility for students walking or biking to
area schools. The Madrona Elementary Walkway project will install sidewalk along the south
side of 236t" St SW from SR-104 (Edmonds Way) to the Madrona School, including
approximately 180 feet of sidewalk on Edmonds School District property. The project will also
reconstruct the existing pavement section on 236t" St, improve the stormwater collection
system and upgrade the pedestrian facilities at the intersection of 2361" St and SR104.
The bid opening is scheduled for September 15, 2016. There may be an opportunity to award
the project at the September 20th City Council meeting. The bid results and construction
budget will be provided with a possible recommendation to award a construction contract.
Construction is expected to begin in early October.
The project costs are being funded by a federal grant, Stormwater Utility funds and the City
Pavement Preservation program.
Packet Pg. 467
7.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Setting a date and time for a a public hearing on adoption of a resolution expressing intent to dissolve
the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Phil Williams
Background/History
The Transportation Benefit District (TBD) was formed in November 2008 following procedures outlined
in Revised Code of Washington 36.73 and in accordance with Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.65. In
February 2009 a $20 local license fee was established by its Board of Directors, the Edmonds City
Council. It is requested that Council consider the option of absorbing the ETBD and incorporating its
mission into that of the general City government.
Staff Recommendation
That a date be set for a public hearing on the ordinance or resolution
Narrative
The 2015 State legislature adopted 2ESSB 5987 concerning Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD).
Among other things, the bill allows cities and counties with TBD boundaries that are contiguous with the
city/county boundary to assume control over the TBD.
The new law sets forth a process for the assumption of a TBD. Specifically, the assumption of the TBD
may be initiated by the adoption of an ordinance or resolution by the city council indicating an intent to
conduct a public hearing to consider the assumption of rights, powers, functions and obligations of the
TBD, and specifying a time and place for said public hearing. The resolution or ordinance must be
published at least two times during the two weeks preceeding the scheduled hearing pursuant to
Section 302 of 2ESSB 5987. At the time of the public hearing, all persons interested may appear and be
heard. If after the public hearing the Council concludes "public interest or welfare would be satisfied"
by the assumption of the TBD, Council would adopt a resolution or ordinance abolishing the TBD
governing body vesting the city with all rights, powers, functions and obligations the TBD governing
body possessed. Dissolution of the TBD would mean that the vehicle license fees received each month
would be credited to the City rather than the TBD. This money would continue to be transferred -out to
the annual street overlay program.
The Resolution before the Council is the first step of the process in which Council indicates an intent to
conduct a public hearing to consider the assumption of the TBD, specifying the time and place for said
public hearing.
Attachments:
Packet Pg. 468
7.6
Chapter 3.65 ECC regarding ETBD
Chapter 36.73 TBD procedures
TBD - Resolution re Public Hearing (2) PHW
Packet Pg. 469
7.6.a
Chapter 3.65
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
Sections:
3.65.010 Establishing transportation benefit district.
3.65.020 Governing board.
3.65.030 Functions of the district.
3.65.040 Transportation improvements funded.
3.65.050 Dissolution of district.
3.65.010 Establishing transportation benefit district.O SHARE
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
There is created a transportation benefit district, to be known as the Edmonds transportation benefit district or
"district," with geographical boundaries comprised of the corporate limits of the city as they currently exist or as
they may exist following future annexations. [Ord. 3707 § 2, 20081.
3.65.020 Governing board. SHARE _�
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. The governing board of the transportation benefit district shall be the Edmonds city council acting in an ex
off icio and independent capacity, which shall have the authority to exercise the statutory powers set forth in
Chapter RCW.
B. The treasurer of the transportation benefit district shall be the city finance director.
C. The public records officer of the transportation benefit district shall be the city clerk
D. The board shall develop a material change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery
or the ability to finance the plan, pursuant to the requirements set forth in RCW (1). At a minimum, if
a transportation improvement exceeds its original cost by more than 20 percent, as identified in the district's
original plan, a public hearing shall be held to solicit public comment regarding how the cost change should be
resolved.
E. The board shall issue an annual report, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.73.16 (2). [Ord. 3872 § 1,
2012; Ord. 3707 § 2, 2008].
3.65.030 Functions of the district.,D SHARE
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. The district board may authorize a vehicle fee of up to $20.00 per vehicle as provided for by
RCW 82.80.140. When authorized by the voters pursuant to the requirements of Chapter RCW, other
Packet Pg. 470
7.6.a
taxes, fees, charges and tolls or increases in these revenue sources may be assessed for the purposes
provided for in the subsections of this section.
1. Pursuant to the initial authorization of Ordinance 3707, the district board may and has authorized a
vehicle fee of up to $20.00 per vehicle as provided for by RCW 82.80.1ti for the purpose of the
preservation, maintenance and operations of the city streets.
2. As authorized by the voters pursuant to the requirements of Chapter RCW, additional taxes,
fees, charges and tolls or increases in those revenue sources may be assessed for the construction,
reconstruction, updating or improvement of public transportation facilities shown on the Edmonds
comprehensive plan and transportation improvement plan. This additional function of the district has
been authorized by ordinance amendment in compliance with the provisions of Chapter RCW.
These additional transportation projects authorized pursuant to the vote of the transportation benefit
district shall be deemed funded and effective when approved by a vote of the people in accordance with
the provisions of state law. The projects authorized shall be limited to those specifically identified in the
proposition put to the voters.
B. Additional transportation improvements may be added to the functions of the district upon compliance with
Chapter RCW.
C. The board shall have and exercise all powers and functions provided for by Chapter RCW in order to
fulfill the functions of the district. [Ord. 3804 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3707 § 2, 2008].
3.65.040 Transportation improvements funded.O SHARE
Two separate sets of functions have been established by ordinance for the transportation benefit district. The
funds generated by a vehicle fee of up to $20.00 per vehicle authorized by the board in accordance with
RCW 82.80.140 shall be used solely for transportation improvements that preserve, maintain and operate the
existing transportation infrastructure of the city, consistent with the requirements of Chapter RCW. Upon
authorization by the voters, additional funds from other taxes, fees, charges and tolls or increases in these
revenue sources may be utilized for the construction of transportation improvements specifically described in
the proposition submitted to the voters. Funds raised from either revenue source may be utilized for any lawful
purpose under Chapter 36.73 RCW, but all funds raised through the TBD shall be expended only for the
purposes specified, i.e.:
Packet Pg. 471
7.6.a
A. For the preservation, maintenance and operation of the existing city street transportation improvement
infrastructure; or
B. For projects specifically designated in a ballot proposition approved by the voters and utilizing the funding
source approved by the voters
Such improvements are intended to comply with the provisions of the Growth Management Act and the city's
comprehensive plan and reduce the risk of transportation facilities' failure, improve safety, continue the cost
effectiveness of the city's infrastructure improvements and to encourage the optimum use of the transportation
system. Additional transportation improvement projects may be funded only after compliance with the
provisions of RCW 36.73.050(B) following notice, public hearing and enactment of an additional authorizing
ordinance. [Ord. 3804 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3707 § 2, 20081.
3.65.050 Dissolution of district. SHARE _J
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The transportation district has been authorized to fulfill two separate functions. Each function of the district shall
expire and be dissolved upon its completion
A. Street preservation, maintenance and operation are ongoing, long-term obligations of the city. In order to
comply with the dissolution requirement of RCW 36.73.050, a street resurfacing cycle of 20 years was adopted
and the district shall be deemed authentically dissolved with respect to the function of street preservation,
maintenance and operation 18 years from the effective date of the original Ordinance 3707, to wit, November
28, 2026.
B. Upon authorization by the voters, the additional transportation improvements specifically described in the
proposition shall be deemed authorized. In accordance with the dissolution requirements of RCW 36.73.050,
the powers, duties and functions of the district shall be deemed dissolved with respect to such voter -approved
projects when all indebtedness of the districts with regard to such projects has been retired and all
transportation improvements described in such project list have been completed. Upon dissolution with respect
to these functions, the voters' authorization for funding to construct such funding shall be deemed to
automatically expire. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit the Edmonds city council on the
recommendation of the Edmonds transportation benefit district to dissolve the district in whole or in part and/or
reformulate it in accordance with the provisions of RCW 36.73.050. [Ord. 3804 § 3, 2010; Ord. 3707 § 2, 2008]
Packet Pg. 472
7.6.b
Chapter 36.73 RCW
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICTS
Chapter Listing
Sections
36.73.010 nt.
36.73.015 initions.
36.73.020 blishment of district by county or city —Participation by other jurisdictions.
36.73.030 blishment of district by city.
36.73.040 eral powers of district.
36.73.050 blishment of district —Public hearing —Ordinance.
36.73.060 hority to levy property tax.
36.73.065 es, fees, charges, tolls, rebate program.
36.73.067 icle fee rebate program —Low-income individuals —Report to legislature.
36.73.070 hority to issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds.
36.73.080 al improvement districts authorized —Special assessments —Bonds.
36.73.090 ting of bonds.
36.73.100 of bond proceeds.
36.73.110 eptance and use of gifts and grants.
36.73.120 osition of fees on building construction or land development.
36.73.130 per of eminent domain.
36.73.140 hority to contract for street and highway improvements.
36.73.150 artment of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions may fund transportation
improvements.
36.73.160 isportation improvement projects —Material change policy —Annual report.
36.73.170 ipletion of transportation improvement —Termination of district operations —Termination
of taxes, fees, charges, and tollsDissolution of district.
36.73.180 plemental transportation improvements.
36.73.900 oral construction.
NOTES:
Roads and bridges, service districts: Chapter 36.83 RCW.
36.73.010
Intent.
The legislature finds that the citizens of the state can benefit by cooperation of the
public and private sectors in addressing transportation needs. This cooperation can be
fostered through enhanced capability for cities, towns, and counties to make and fund
transportation improvements necessitated by economic development and to improve
the performance of the transportation system.
It is the intent of the legislature to encourage joint efforts by the state, local
governments, and the private sector to respond to the need for those transportation
improvements on state highways, county roads, and city streets. This goal can be better
achieved by allowing cities, towns, and counties to establish transportation benefit
Packet Pg. 473
7.6.b
districts in order to respond to the special transportation needs and economic
opportunities resulting from private sector development for the public good. The
legislature also seeks to facilitate the equitable participation of private developers
whose developments may generate the need for those improvements in the
improvement costs.
[ 2005 c 336 § 2; 1987 c 327 § 1.]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.015
Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context
clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "City" means a city or town.
(2) "District" means a transportation benefit district created under this chapter.
(3) "Low-income" means household income set by the district creating the rebate
program that is at or below seventy-five percent of the median household income,
adjusted for household size, for the district in which the fees, taxes, or tolls were
imposed.
(4) "Rebate program" means an optional program established by a transportation
benefit district that includes a city with a population of five hundred thousand persons or
more for the purpose of providing rebates to low-income individuals for fees, taxes,
and/or tolls imposed by such transportation benefit district for: (a) Vehicle fees imposed
under RCW 36.73.040(3)(b); (b) sales and use taxes imposed under
RCW 36.73.040(3)(a); and/or (c) tolls imposed under RCW 36.73.040(3)(d).
(5) "Supplemental transportation improvement" or "supplemental improvement"
means any project, work, or undertaking to provide public transportation service, in
addition to a district's existing or planned voter -approved transportation improvements,
proposed by a participating city member of the district under RCW-36.73.180.
(6) "Transportation improvement" means a project contained in the transportation
plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, city, county, or eligible
jurisdiction as identified in RCW 36.73.02, (2). A project may include investment in new
or existing highways of statewide significance, principal arterials of regional significance,
high capacity transportation, public transportation, and other transportation projects and
programs of regional or statewide significance including transportation demand
management. Projects may also include the operation, preservation, and maintenance
of these facilities or programs.
Packet Pg. 474
7.6.b
[ 2015 3rd sp.s. c 44 § 311; 2012 c 152 § 1. Prior: 2010 c 251 § 2, 2010 c 105 §
1 2006 c 311 24; 2005 c 336 § 1.]
NOTES:
Effective date-2015 3rd sp.s. c 44: See note following RCW 46.68.395.
Findings-2006 c 311: See note following RCW 36.120.020.
Effective date-2005 c 336: "This act takes effect August 1, 2005." [ 2005 c 336
26 ]
36.73.020
Establishment of district by county or city —Participation by other
jurisdictions.
(1) The legislative authority of a county or city may establish a transportation benefit
district within the county or city area or within the area specified in subsection (2) of this
section, for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding a
transportation improvement within the district that is consistent with any existing state,
regional, or local transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonably
foreseeable congestion levels. The transportation improvements shall be owned by the
county of jurisdiction if located in an unincorporated area, by the city of jurisdiction if
located in an incorporated area, or by the state in cases where the transportation
improvement is or becomes a state highway. However, if deemed appropriate by the
governing body of the transportation benefit district, a transportation improvement may
be owned by a participating port district or transit district, unless otherwise prohibited by
law. Transportation improvements shall be administered and maintained as other public
streets, roads, highways, and transportation improvements. To the extent practicable,
the district shall consider the following criteria when selecting transportation
improvements:
(a) Reduced risk of transportation facility failure and improved safety;
(b) Improved travel time;
(c) Improved air quality;
(d) Increases in daily and peak period trip capacity;
(e) Improved modal connectivity;
(f) Improved freight mobility;
(g) Cost-effectiveness of the investment;
(h) Optimal performance of the system through time;
(i) Improved accessibility for, or other benefits to, persons with special transportation
needs as defined in *RCW 47.06B.012; and
Q) Other criteria, as adopted by the governing body.
Packet Pg. 475
7.6.b
(2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the district may include area within more
than one county, city, port district, county transportation authority, or public
transportation benefit area, if the legislative authority of each participating jurisdiction
has agreed to the inclusion as provided in an interlocal agreement adopted pursuant to
chapter RCW. However, the boundaries of the district need not include all territory
within the boundaries of the participating jurisdictions comprising the district.
(3) The members of the legislative authority proposing to establish the district, acting
ex off icio and independently, shall constitute the governing body of the district:
PROVIDED, That where a district includes area within more than one jurisdiction under
subsection (2) of this section, the district shall be governed under an interlocal
agreement adopted pursuant to chapter RCW, with the governing body being
composed of (a) at least five members including at least one elected official from the
legislative authority of each participating jurisdiction or (b) the governing body of the
metropolitan planning organization serving the district, but only if the district boundaries
are identical to the boundaries of the metropolitan planning organization serving the
district.
(4) The treasurer of the jurisdiction proposing to establish the district shall act as the
ex officio treasurer of the district, unless an interlocal agreement states otherwise.
(5) The electors of the district shall all be registered voters residing within the district.
(6) Prior to December 1, 2007, the authority under this section, regarding the
establishment of or the participation in a district, shall not apply to:
(a) Counties with a population greater than one million five hundred thousand
persons and any adjoining counties with a population greater than five hundred
thousand persons;
(b) Cities with any area within the counties under (a) of this subsection; and
(c) Other jurisdictions with any area within the counties under (a) of this subsection.
[ 2010 c 250 4 1; 2009 c 515 14; 2006 c 311 25; 2005 c 336 4 3, 1989 c 53
1 1987 c 327 § 2.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note: RCW 47.06B.01" was repealed by 2011 c 60 § 51.
Findings-2006 c 311: See note following RCW 36.120.020.
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
Severability-1989 c 53: "If any provision of this act or its application to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the
provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 53 § 5.]
Transportation benefit district tax authority: RCW 82.47.020.
36.73.030
Establishment of district by city.
Packet Pg. 476
7.6.b
See RCW 35.21.225.
36.73.040
General powers of district.
(1) A transportation benefit district is a quasi -municipal corporation, an independent
taxing "authority" within the meaning of Article VII, section 1 of the state Constitution,
and a "taxing district" within the meaning of Article VII, section 2 of the state
Constitution.
(2) A transportation benefit district constitutes a body corporate and possesses all
the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes as well as all other powers that
may now or hereafter be specifically conferred by statute, including, but not limited to,
the authority to hire employees, staff, and services, to enter into contracts, to acquire,
hold, and dispose of real and personal property, and to sue and be sued. Public works
contract limits applicable to the jurisdiction that established the district apply to the
district.
(3) To carry out the purposes of this chapter, and subject to the provisions of
RCW 36.73.061,, a district is authorized to impose the following taxes, fees, charges,
and tolls:
(a) A sales and use tax in accordance with RCW 82.14.04551
(b) A vehicle fee in accordance with RCW 82.80.140;
(c) A fee or charge in accordance with RCW 36.73.120. However, if a county or city
within the district area is levying a fee or charge for a transportation improvement, the
fee or charge shall be credited against the amount of the fee or charge imposed by the
district. Developments consisting of less than twenty residences are exempt from the
fee or charge under RCW 36.73.126; and
(d) Vehicle tolls on state routes, city streets, or county roads, within the boundaries
of the district, unless otherwise prohibited by law. However, consistent with
RCW 47.56.82C, the vehicle toll must first be authorized by the legislature if the toll is
imposed on a state route. The department of transportation shall administer the
collection of vehicle tolls authorized on state routes, unless otherwise specified in law or
by contract, and the state transportation commission, or its successor, may approve,
set, and impose the tolls in amounts sufficient to implement the district's transportation
improvement finance plan. The district shall administer the collection of vehicle tolls
authorized on city streets or county roads, and shall set and impose the tolls in amounts
sufficient to implement the district's transportation improvement plan. However,
consistent with RCW 47.56.850, the vehicle toll, including any change in an existing toll
rate, must first be reviewed and approved by the tolling authority designated in
Packet Pg. 477
7.6.b
RCW t7.56.85I if the toll, or change in toll rate, would have a significant impact, as
determined by the tolling authority, on the operation of any state facility.
[ 2008 c 122 § 17; 2005 c 336 § 4; 1989 c 53 § 3; 1987 c 327 § - ]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
Severability-1989 c 53: See note following RCW 36.73.020.
36.73.050
Establishment of district —Public hearing —Ordinance.
(1) The legislative authorities proposing to establish a district, or to modify the
boundaries of an existing district, or to dissolve an existing district shall conduct a
hearing at the time and place specified in a notice published at least once, not less than
ten days before the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation within the proposed
district. Subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.170, the legislative authorities shall
make provision for a district to be automatically dissolved when all indebtedness of the
district has been retired and anticipated responsibilities have been satisfied. This notice
shall be in addition to any other notice required by law to be published. The notice shall,
where applicable, specify the functions or activities proposed to be provided or funded,
or the additional functions or activities proposed to be provided or funded, by the district.
Additional notice of the hearing may be given by mail, by posting within the proposed
district, or in any manner the legislative authorities deem necessary to notify affected
persons. All hearings shall be public and the legislative authorities shall hear objections
from any person affected by the formation, modification of the boundaries, or dissolution
of the district.
(2)(a) Following the hearing held pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the
legislative authorities may establish a district, modify the boundaries or functions of an
existing district, or dissolve an existing district, if the legislative authorities find the action
to be in the public interest and adopt an ordinance providing for the action.
(b) The ordinance establishing a district shall specify the functions and transportation
improvements described under RCW 36.73.015 to be exercised or funded and establish
the boundaries of the district. Subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.160, functions or
transportation improvements proposed to be provided or funded by the district may not
be expanded beyond those specified in the notice of hearing, unless additional notices
are made, further hearings on the expansion are held, and further determinations are
made that it is in the public interest to so expand the functions or transportation
improvements proposed to be provided or funded.
[ 2007 c 329 § 3; 2005 c 336 § 5; 1987 c 327 § 5.]
NOTES:
Packet Pg. 478
7.6.b
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.060
Authority to levy property tax.
(1) A district may levy an ad valorem property tax in excess of the one percent
limitation upon the property within the district for a one-year period whenever authorized
by the voters of the district pursuant to RCW 84.52.052 and Article VII, section 2(a) of
the state Constitution.
(2) A district may provide for the retirement of voter -approved general obligation
bonds, issued for capital purposes only, by levying bond retirement ad valorem property
tax levies in excess of the one percent limitation whenever authorized by the voters of
the district pursuant to Article VII, section 2(b) of the state Constitution and
RCW .4.52.056.
[ zuu5 c 336 § 6; 1 yu i c jz t s u.]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.065
Taxes, fees, charges, tolls, rebate program.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, taxes, fees, charges, and
tolls may not be imposed by a district without approval of a majority of the voters in the
district voting on a proposition at a general or special election. The proposition must
include a specific description of: (a) The transportation improvement or improvements
proposed by the district; (b) any rebate program proposed to be established under
RCW ;6.73.06; and (c) the proposed taxes, fees, charges, and the range of tolls
imposed by the district to raise revenue to fund the improvement or improvements or
rebate program, as applicable.
(2) Voter approval under this section must be accorded substantial weight regarding
the validity of a transportation improvement as defined in RCW
(3) A district may not increase any taxes, fees, charges, or range of tolls imposed or
change a rebate program under this chapter once the taxes, fees, charges, tolls, or
rebate program takes effect, except:
(a) If authorized by the district voters pursuant to RCW ,b.13.1 eu;
(b) With respect to a change in a rebate program, a material change policy adopted
pursuant to RCW ,6.73.1t, is followed and the change does not reduce the percentage
level or rebate amount;
Packet Pg. 479
7.6.b
(c) For up to forty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 by the
governing board of the district if a vehicle fee of twenty dollars has been imposed for at
least twenty-four months; or
(d) For up to fifty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 by the
governing board of the district if a vehicle fee of forty dollars has been imposed for at
least twenty-four months and a district has met the requirements of subsection (6) of
this section.
(4)(a) A district that includes all the territory within the boundaries of the jurisdiction,
or jurisdictions, establishing the district may impose by a majority vote of the governing
board of the district the following fees and charges:
(i) Up to twenty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 32.80.140;
(ii) Up to forty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle fee
of twenty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four months;
(iii) Up to fifty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle fee
of forty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four months and a district has met
the requirements of subsection (6) of this section; or
(iv) A fee or charge in accordance with RCW 36.73.120.
(b) The vehicle fee authorized in (a) of this subsection may only be imposed for a
passenger -only ferry transportation improvement if the vehicle fee is first approved by a
majority of the voters within the jurisdiction of the district.
(c)(i) A district solely comprised of a city or cities may not impose the fees or
charges identified in (a) of this subsection within one hundred eighty days after July 22,
2007, unless the county in which the city or cities reside, by resolution, declares that it
will not impose the fees or charges identified in (a) of this subsection within the one
hundred eighty -day period; or
(ii) A district solely comprised of a city or cities identified in RCW 36.73.020(6)(b)
may not impose the fees or charges until after May 22, 2008, unless the county in which
the city or cities reside, by resolution, declares that it will not impose the fees or charges
identified in (a) of this subsection through May 22, 2008.
(5) If the interlocal agreement in RCW 82.80.140(2)(a) cannot be reached, a district
that includes only the unincorporated territory of a county may impose by a majority vote
of the governing body of the district up to: (a) Twenty dollars of the vehicle fee
authorized in RCW 82.80.140, (b) forty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in
RCW 92.80.14r if a fee of twenty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four
months, or (c) fifty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle
fee of forty dollars has been imposed for at least twenty-four months and a district has
met the requirements of subsection (6) of this section.
(6) If a district intends to impose a vehicle fee of more than forty dollars by a majority
vote of the governing body of the district, the governing body must publish notice of this
intention, in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the district, by April
1 st of the year in which the vehicle fee is to be imposed. If within ninety days of the date
Packet Pg. 480
7.6.b
of publication a petition is filed with the county auditor containing the signatures of eight
percent of the number of voters registered and voting in the district for the office of the
governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election, the county auditor must canvass
the signatures in the same manner as prescribed in RCW :9A./1.13U and certify their
sufficiency to the governing body within two weeks. The proposition to impose the
vehicle fee must then be submitted to the voters of the district at a special election,
called for this purpose, no later than the date on which a primary election would be held
under RCW 29A.04.31 *i . The vehicle fee may then be imposed only if approved by a
majority of the voters of the district voting on the proposition.
[ 2015 3rd sp.s. c 44 § 309; 2012 c 152 4 3; 2007 c 329 § 1; 2005 c 336 § 17.1
NOTES:
Effective date-2015 3rd sp.s. c 44: See note following RCW 46.68.395.
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.067
Vehicle fee rebate program —Low-income individuals —Report to
legislature.
(1) A district that: (a) Includes a city with a population of five hundred thousand
persons or more; and (b) imposes a vehicle fee under RCW ).73.U4L (3)(b), sales and
use taxes under RCW .7J.U4U(3)(a), or tolls under RCW A.73.04 (3)(d), may
establish a rebate program for the purposes of providing rebates of up to forty percent
of the actual fee, tax, or toll paid by a low-income individual.
(2) Funds collected from a vehicle fee under RCW 36.73.04G(3)(b), sales and use
tax under RCW sb.is.U4U(3)(a) or tolls under RCW 6.73.04f (3)(d) maybe used for a
rebate program established under this section.
(3) A district that establishes a rebate program is responsible for the development
and administration of the program and all functions and costs associated with the rebate
program.
(4) A district that establishes a rebate program under this section must report back to
the legislature two years after the program takes effect. The report must include, but is
not limited to, a detailed description of the structure of the program, the average rebate,
the total amount of rebates issued, and the number of people that received rebates.
[2012c1524. ]
36.73.070
Authority to issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds.
Packet Pg. 481
7.6.b
(1) To carry out the purposes of this chapter and notwithstanding
RCW j9.36.02, (1), a district may issue general obligation bonds, not to exceed an
amount, together with any other outstanding nonvoter -approved general obligation
indebtedness, equal to one and one-half percent of the value of taxable property within
the district, as the term "value of taxable property" is defined in RCW s9.36.015. A
district may additionally issue general obligation bonds for capital purposes only,
together with any outstanding general obligation indebtedness, not to exceed an
amount equal to five percent of the value of the taxable property within the district, as
the term "value of taxable property" is defined in RCW 49.36.015, when authorized by
the voters of the district pursuant to Article Vill, section 6 of the state Constitution, and
may also provide for the retirement thereof by excess property tax levies as provided in
RCW 36.73.066(2). The district may, if applicable, submit a single proposition to the
voters that, if approved, authorizes both the issuance of the bonds and the bond
retirement property tax levies.
(2) General obligation bonds with a maturity in excess of forty years shall not be
issued. The governing body of the district shall by resolution determine for each general
obligation bond issue the amount, date, terms, conditions, denominations, maximum
fixed or variable interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities, redemption rights,
registration privileges, manner of execution, manner of sale, callable provisions, if any,
covenants, and form, including registration as to principal and interest, registration as to
principal only, or bearer. Registration may include, but not be limited to: (a) A book entry
system of recording the ownership of a bond whether or not physical bonds are issued;
or (b) recording the ownership of a bond together with the requirement that the transfer
of ownership may only be effected by the surrender of the old bond and either the
reissuance of the old bond or the issuance of a new bond to the new owner. Facsimile
signatures may be used on the bonds and any coupons. Refunding general obligation
bonds may be issued in the same manner as general obligation bonds are issued.
(3) Whenever general obligation bonds are issued to fund specific projects or
enterprises that generate revenues, charges, user fees, or special assessments, the
district may specifically pledge all or a portion of the revenues, charges, user fees, or
special assessments to refund the general obligation bonds. The district may also
pledge any other revenues that may be available to the district.
(4) In addition to general obligation bonds, a district may issue revenue bonds to be
issued and sold in accordance with chapter RCW.
[ 2005 c 336 4 7; 1987 c 327 4 7.1
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
Packet Pg. 482
7.6.b
36.73.080
Local improvement districts authorized —Special assessments —Bonds.
(1) A district may form a local improvement district to provide any transportation
improvement it has the authority to provide, impose special assessments on all property
specially benefited by the transportation improvements, and issue special assessment
bonds or revenue bonds to fund the costs of the transportation improvement. Local
improvement districts shall be created and administered, and assessments shall be
made and collected, in the manner and to the extent provided by law to cities and towns
pursuant to chapters 35.42, 35.44, 35.49, 35.50, 35.51, 35.53, and 35."` RCW.
However, the duties devolving upon the city or town treasurer under these chapters
shall be imposed upon the district treasurer for the purposes of this section. A local
improvement district may only be formed under this section pursuant to the petition
method under RCW '15.43.120 and 35.43.12'.
(2) The governing body of a district shall by resolution establish for each special
assessment bond issue the amount, date, terms, conditions, denominations, maximum
fixed or variable interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities, redemption rights,
registration privileges, if any, covenants, and form, including registration as to principal
and interest, registration as to principal only, or bearer. Registration may include, but
not be limited to: (a) A book entry system of recording the ownership of a bond whether
or not physical bonds are issued; or (b) recording the ownership of a bond together with
the requirement that the transfer of ownership may only be effected by the surrender of
the old bond and either the reissuance of the old bond or the issuance of a new bond to
the new owner. Facsimile signatures may be used on the bonds and any coupons. The
maximum term of any special assessment bonds shall not exceed thirty years beyond
the date of issue. Special assessment bonds issued pursuant to this section shall not be
an indebtedness of the district issuing the bonds, and the interest and principal on the
bonds shall only be payable from special assessments made for the improvement for
which the bonds were issued and any local improvement guaranty fund that the district
has created. The owner or bearer of a special assessment bond or any interest coupon
issued pursuant to this section shall not have any claim against the district arising from
the bond or coupon except for the payment from special assessments made for the
improvement for which the bonds were issued and any local improvement guaranty fund
the district has created. The district issuing the special assessment bonds is not liable to
the owner or bearer of any special assessment bond or any interest coupon issued
pursuant to this section for any loss occurring in the lawful operation of its local
improvement guaranty fund. The substance of the limitations included in this subsection
(2) shall be plainly printed, written, or engraved on each special assessment bond
issued pursuant to this section.
(3) Assessments shall reflect any credits given by a district for real property or
property right donations made pursuant to RCW 4i.-i4m.5u.
Packet Pg. 483
7.6.b
(4) The governing body may establish, administer, and pay money into a local
improvement guaranty fund, in the manner and to the extent provided by law to cities
and towns under chapter 35.t RCW, to guarantee special assessment bonds issued
by the district.
[1005c336§19yc32748.]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.090
Printing of bonds.
Where physical bonds are issued pursuant to RCW 36.73.071 or 36.73.086, the
bonds shall be printed, engraved, or lithographed on good bond paper and the manual
or facsimile signatures of both the treasurer and chairperson of the governing body shall
be included on each bond.
[ iud/ c'5'Zi s ]
36.73.100
Use of bond proceeds.
(1) The proceeds of any bond issued pursuant to RCW 36.73.070 or 16.73.080 may
be used to pay costs incurred on a bond issue related to the sale and issuance of the
bonds. These costs include payments for fiscal and legal expenses, obtaining bond
ratings, printing, engraving, advertising, and other similar activities.
(2) In addition, proceeds of bonds used to fund capital projects may be used to pay
the necessary and related engineering, architectural, planning, and inspection costs.
[ 2005 c )ao 4 y; 1987 c 327 § 1 ]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.110
Acceptance and use of gifts and grants.
A district may accept and expend or use gifts, grants, and donations.
[ 2005 c 336 § 10; 1987 c 327 4 11 ]
NOTES:
Packet Pg. 484
7.6.b
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.120
Imposition of fees on building construction or land development.
(1) Subject to the provisions in RCW 36.73.06! , a district may impose a fee or
charge on the construction or reconstruction of commercial buildings, industrial
buildings, or on any other commercial or industrial building or building space or
appurtenance, or on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of
land for commercial purposes, only if done in accordance with chapter 39.91 RCW.
(2) Any fee or charge imposed under this section shall be used exclusively for
transportation improvements as defined in RCW 36.73.01E. The fees or charges
imposed must be reasonably necessary as a result of the impact of development,
construction, or classification or reclassification of land on identified transportation
needs.
(3) If a county or city within the district area is levying a fee or charge for a
transportation improvement, the fee or charge shall be credited against the amount of
the fee or charge imposed by the district.
[ 1U I U C I U5 1; 1UU I C 3194; 1UU5 C JJb 'I 'I ; yttti c ry i; 'I yt5! C :f1 / I1.]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
Severability—Prospective application —Section captions-1988 c 179: See
RCW 5u.uz.uu and
36.73.130
Power of eminent domain.
A district may exercise the power of eminent domain to obtain property for its
authorized purposes in the same manner as authorized for the city or county legislative
authority that established the district.
[ LUU0 c 5,50 4 "I L; "I U6 / c SL / Q -1.5.]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
Packet Pg. 485
7.6.b
36.73.140
Authority to contract for street and highway improvements.
A district has the same powers as a county or city to contract for street, road, or
state highway improvement projects and to enter into reimbursement contracts provided
for in chapter35.72 RCW.
[ 2005 c 336 § 13; 1987 c 3'"', 14.]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.150
Department of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions
may fund transportation improvements.
The department of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions may give
funds to districts for the purposes of financing transportation improvements under this
chapter.
pnn,; r 336 § 14; 1987 c 327 4 1 ]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW '93.73.015.
36.73.160
Transportation improvement projects —Material change policy —Annual
report.
(1) The district governing body shall develop a material change policy to address
major plan changes that affect project delivery or the ability to finance the plan. The
policy must at least address material changes to cost, scope, and schedule, the level of
change that will require governing body involvement, and how the governing body will
address those changes. At a minimum, in the event that a transportation improvement
cost exceeds its original cost by more than twenty percent as identified in a district's
original finance plan, the governing body shall hold a public hearing to solicit comment
from the public regarding how the cost change should be resolved.
(2) A district shall issue an annual report, indicating the status of transportation
improvement costs, transportation improvement expenditures, revenues, and
construction schedules, to the public and to newspapers of record in the district.
[ 2005 c 336 4 18.]
NOTES:
Packet Pg. 486
7.6.b
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.170
Completion of transportation improvement —Termination of district
operations —Termination of taxes, fees, charges, and tolls —Dissolution
of district.
Within thirty days of the completion of the construction of the transportation
improvement or series of improvements authorized by a district, the district shall
terminate day-to-day operations and exist solely as a limited entity that oversees the
collection of revenue and the payment of debt service or financing still in effect, if any
and to carry out the requirements of RCW 36.73.160. The district shall accordingly
adjust downward its employees, administration, and overhead expenses. Any taxes,
fees, charges, or tolls imposed by the district terminate when the financing or debt
service on the transportation improvement or series of improvements constructed is
completed and paid and notice is provided to the departments administering the taxes.
Any excess revenues collected must be disbursed to the participating jurisdictions of the
district in proportion to their population, using population estimates prepared by the
office of financial management. The district shall dissolve itself and cease to exist thirty
days after the financing or debt service on the transportation improvement, or series of
improvements, constructed is completed and paid. If there is no debt outstanding, then
the district shall dissolve within thirty days from completion of construction of the
transportation improvement or series of improvements authorized by the district. Notice
of dissolution must be published in newspapers of general circulation within the district
at least three times in a period of thirty days. Creditors must file claims for payment of
claims due within thirty days of the last published notice or the claim is extinguished.
[ 2005 c 336 § 19.]
NOTES:
Effective date-2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36.73.015.
36.73.180
Supplemental transportation improvements.
(1) In districts comprised of more than one member city, the legislative authorities of
any member city that is located in a county having a population of more than one million
five hundred thousand may petition the district to provide supplemental transportation
improvements.
Packet Pg. 487
7.6.b
(2) Upon receipt of a petition as provided in subsection (1) of this section for
supplemental transportation improvements that are to be fully funded by the petitioner
city, including ongoing operating and maintenance costs, the district must:
(a) Conduct a public hearing, and provide notice and opportunity for public comment
consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.73.05 (1); and
(b) Following the hearing, if a majority of the district's governing board determines
that the proposed supplemental transportation improvements are in the public interest,
the district shall adopt an ordinance providing for the incorporation of the supplemental
improvements into any existing services. The supplemental transportation
improvements must be in addition to existing services provided by the district. The
district shall enter into agreements with the petitioner city or identified service providers
to coordinate existing services with the supplemental improvements.
(3) Upon receipt of a petition as provided in subsection (1) of this section for
supplemental transportation improvements proposed to be partially or fully funded by
the district, the district must:
(a) Conduct a public hearing, and provide notice and opportunity for public comment
consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.73.05, (1); and
(b) Following the hearing, submit a proposition to the voters at the next special or
general election for approval by a majority of the voters in the district. The proposition
must specify the supplemental transportation improvements to be provided and must
estimate the capital, maintenance, and operating costs to be funded by the district.
(4) If a proposition to incorporate supplemental transportation improvements is
approved by the voters as provided under subsection (3) of this section, the district shall
adopt an ordinance providing for the incorporation of the supplemental improvements
into any existing services provided by the district. The supplemental improvements must
be in addition to existing services. The district shall enter into agreements with the
petitioner city or identified service providers to coordinate existing services with the
supplemental improvements.
(5) A supplemental transportation improvement must be consistent with the
petitioner city's comprehensive plan under chapter 36.70A RCW.
(6) Unless otherwise agreed to by the petitioner city or by a majority of the district's
governing board, upon adoption of an ordinance under subsection (2) or (4) of this
section, the district shall maintain its existing public transportation service levels in
locations where supplemental transportation improvements are provided.
[2010c251 §; ]
36.73.900
Liberal construction.
Packet Pg. 488
7.6.b
The rule of strict construction does not apply to this chapter, and this chapter shall
be liberally construed to permit the accomplishment of its purposes.
[ igdl c 31i q ib,]
Packet Pg. 489
7.6.c
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RIGHTS,
POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the 2015 Legislature adopted Second Engrossed Substitute Senate
Bill (2ESSB) 5987, the majority of which became effective on July 15, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Section 301 of 2ESSB 5987 authorizes any city in which a
transportation benefit district ("TBD") has been established pursuant to Chapter 36.73
RCW within boundaries coterminous with the boundaries of the city, to assume the
rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the TBD, by way of adoption of an
ordinance or resolution of the city legislative authority; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance and codified in Chapter 3.65 of the Edmonds
Municipal Code, the City of Edmonds City Council established a transportation benefit
district to be known as the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District, with geographical
boundaries comprised of the corporate limits of the City of Edmonds at the time the
ordinance was adopted or as they may exist after future annexations; and
WHEREAS, Section 302 of 2ESSB 5987 provides that the assumption of the
rights, powers, functions, and obligations of a transportation benefit district may be
initiated by the adoption of an ordinance or resolution by the city legislative authority
indicating its intention to conduct a hearing concerning the assumption of such rights,
powers, functions, and obligations, setting a time and place at which the city legislative
authority will consider the proposed assumption of the rights, powers, functions and
Packet Pg. 490
7.6.c
obligations of the transportation benefit district, and stating that all persons interested
may appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, section 302 of 2ESSB 5987 provides that the ordinance or resolution
of intention must be published at least two times during the two weeks preceding the
scheduled hearing in newspapers of daily general circulation printed or published in the
city in which the transportation benefit district is located; and
WHEREAS, Section 303 of ESSB 5987 provides that if, after receiving
testimony, the city legislative authority determines that the public interest or welfare
would be satisfied by the city assuming the rights, powers, immunities, functions, and
obligations of the TBD, the city legislative authority may declare that to be its intent and
assume such rights, powers, immunities, functions, and obligations by ordinance or
resolution, providing that the city is vested with every right, power, immunity, function
and obligation currently granted to or possessed by the TBD; and
WHEREAS, upon assumption of the rights, powers, immunities, functions, and
obligations of the TBD by the City, the governing body established by RCW 36.73.020
must be abolished; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council of Edmonds to consider the
assumption of rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the Edmonds TBD, and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to set a public hearing as required by
Section 302 of 2ESSB 5987;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Pg. 491
7.6.c
1. The City of Edmonds intends to consider the assumption of the rights,
powers, functions, and obligations of the Edmonds TBD.
2. A public hearing concerning the assumption of the rights, powers,
functions and obligations of the Edmonds TBD shall be held on October 4th, 2016.
3. All persons interested, including those with protests and objections to the
assumption of rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the TBD, may appear and be
heard at said public hearing.
4. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that
the public interest or welfare would be satisfied by the City assuming the rights, powers,
immunities, functions, and obligations of the TBD, the City Council may declare that to
be its intent, and assume such rights, powers, immunities, functions and obligations by
way of ordinance or resolution, providing that the City is vested with every rights, power,
immunity, function and obligation currently granted to or possessed by the TBD.
5. The City Clerk shall give notice of the public hearing set herein in the
manner so required by Section 302 of 2ESSB 5987.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, this 13th day
of September 2016.
Packet Pg. 492
7.7
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
HR Director, Request to waive three interview requirement (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Carrie Hite
Background/History
Council approved the addition of the HR Director position on July 12, 2016.
Staff Recommendation
Council adopt a motion, waiving the three interview requirement of the HR Director position.
Narrative
The Council approved adding an HR Director position to the City's organization on July 12, 2016. The
position was posted mid July through August 2, 2016. There were a total of 43 applicants. Several staff
and the Mayor reviewed the application packets, and invited several candidates for interviews.
The interviews took place on August 26th, 2016. The applicants interviewed with two panels and had
individual interviews with the Mayor. The first panel was made up of several Directors, the City Clerk,
Council member Adrienne Fraley Monillas and citizen Bob Rinehart. The second panel was made up of
an interdepartmental staff team, including HR, Finance, Public Works, Police and Parks.
At the conclusion of the interviews, both panels debriefed with the Mayor. After much discernment, the
Mayor would like to bring two candidates forward for interviews with the City Council. If Council
approves this, the Mayor would like to schedule the Council interviews on September 20, before the
Council meeting.
ECC 2.10.010 D states: The City Council shall interview the top three candidates for each
( Appointive office ) position prior to the Mayor's appointment, provided that the City Council may
waive the three interview requirement by motion adopted by the majority plus one of the full Council
and may opt to interview as few as two candidates for any vacant appointive office.
Packet Pg. 493
7.8
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/13/2016
Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.04.020 related to Concession Agreements (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Carrie Hlte
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Carrie Hite
Background/History
City Council adopted changes to ECC 4.04.020 to allow the Mayor to approve concession agreements in
Parks in 2012.
Staff Recommendation
Council adopt the ordinance to allow the Mayor to approve concessions in parks year around.
Narrative
The Edmonds City Code 4.04.020 allows concessions to occur on public land. In 2011, at the request of
the Mayor and Parks Director, the City Council adopted changes to the code to allow the Mayor to
approve concessions in the parks, without having a public hearing.
Since that time, the Parks Department has entered into agreements with both food and recreational
vendors in several area parks. Concessions in the parks add a convenience and service for citizens and
generate additional revenues for our parks, programs and facilities. When introducing concessions in a
park the Parks Department considers several factors, including, but not limited to, measuring the
impact upon users, impact upon park neighbors, liability, cost/benefit, and financial cost to the city
including maintenance and programming staff time ). We have had success with this model with fitness
programs and various food vendors at Marina Beach Park, Bracketts Landing South, Yost and Richard
Anway Park.
Currently, the Edmonds City Code allows for concessions in parks if it is consistent with the park plan,
recommended by the Parks Director, and approved by the Mayor. The code also limits these
concessions to "seasonal" and defines this as May - September.
This request is for City Council to consider an additional code change to allow for concessions to be
operated in parks throughout the year. This is being prompted by one current concessionaire that seeks
to extend their contract. It is also prompted by the request of another fitness concessionaire that we
recently turned away because the code didn't allow us to extend the contract. Both of these businesses
have been popular and successful, adding value to the parks.
Attachments:
2016-08-31 Concessions ordinance
Packet Pg. 494
7.8.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE
4.04.020 REGARDING CONCESSIONS AGREEMENTS TO
ALLOW THE MAYOR TO GRANT CONCESSION
AGREEMENTS RELATING TO CITY PARK PROPERTY;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.04.020 currently provides for council approval
for concession agreements for all public property, except that the mayor shall have the discretion
to approve certain seasonal concession agreements relating to city park property; and
WHEREAS, the volume of concession agreements related to city park property
necessitates more nimble action on the part of the City in granting concession agreements than
the code currently allows; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that the Mayor shall have the ability to
grant concession agreements related to city park property, subject to the requirements stated in
the code, without the requirements of council approval or public hearing requirements;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 4.04.020 of the ECC, entitled "Concession agreements on public
property," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is
shown in strike through):
4.04.020 Concession agreements on public property.
A. "Public property" shall mean any property in fee by the city of Edmonds.
B. Concession agreements may be granted at the sole discretion of the city council from time to
time as it deems appropriate, with the exception that the mayor shall have the discretion to grant
certain seasenal concession agreements relatingto o city park property, subject to the limitations
set forth in subsection (D) of this section. The revenue from the lease of public property shall
Packet Pg. 495
7.8.a
accrue to the general fund; provided, however, that concession agreements for lease of property
owned, purchased or utilized by a utility or other special purpose fund shall accrue to that fund.
C. Such agreements shall be approved by the city council in a form created and approved by the
city attorney. The lessee shall provide proof of insurance in a minimum of $1,000,000 per
occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate, or as recommended by the Washington Cities
Insurance Authority, and shall fully indemnify and hold harmless the city, its officers, agents,
employees and volunteers.
D. Concession agreements relating to ci�park property shall comply in all respects with the
park plan adopted as a part of the city's comprehensive plan. A concession agreement shall be
approved only if, at the determination of the parks and recreation director, it is in line with the
goals and objectives of that plan, and is appropriate for the particular park(s) in which the
concession is to be located. Seasonal ,.eneessie , Concession agreements relatingto o city park
r�y, whieh are defined as these under- whieh the vendof oper-a4es the eoneession only " i —
the apmual high season (ttstt lly May thr-,,,g Septe bee) may be granted by the mayor without
city council approval or public hearing requirements. Seasenal Concession
agreements granted by the mayor may be located in regional or community parks only, as
defined in the park plan, and are subject to annual review and approval by the mayor and the
parks and recreation director prior to renewal.
E. Concession agreements relating to city property other than city park property shall be
approved only after a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing shall be posted at the site
sought for lease by a concessionaire. Concession agreements for city park property are not
subject to public hearing requirements.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Packet Pg. 496
7.8.a
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an administrative function of the city
council, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and
publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
:•
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 497
7.8.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE
4.04.020 REGARDING CONCESSIONS AGREEMENTS
TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO GRANT CONCESSION
AGREEMENTS RELATING TO CITY PARK
PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2016.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 498