2016-09-27 City Council - Full Agenda-17561.
2.
3.
4.
5
6
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
SEPTEMBER 27, 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 20, 2016
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2016
3. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Hieu Vuong (amount undetermined).
4. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.'
PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. Leadership Day Proclamation (5 min.)
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. ACTION ITEMS
8
9.
10.
1. Refunding 2007 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (10 min.)
2. Report on Bids for the Madrona Walkway Project (10 min.)
3. Confirmation of Appointment of HR Director (5 min.)
STUDY ITEMS
1. Shoreline Master Program Update (30 min.)
2. Civic Master Plan Update (45 min.)
3. Frances Anderson Center Bandshell Award of Bid (10 min.)
4. Presentation on the Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report (10 min.)
5. Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with MIG for the ADA Transition Plan (10
min.)
6. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the
Stormwater Management Code Update (10 min.)
7. Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles and surplus city
equipment (5 min.)
8. Authorization to contract with Pick-N-Pull to scrap totaled city vehicles (5 min.)
REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Agenda
September 27, 2016
Page 1
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1)
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
September 27, 2016
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 20, 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:
09-20-2016 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
September 20, 2016
The City Council Special Meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
Elected Officials Present Others Present
Kristiana Johnson, Council President None
Mike Nelson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Tom Mesaros, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Dave Earling, Mayor
1. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY POSITION
The City Council adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room and interviewed two candidates for
appointment to the Human Resources Director Position: Annie Achziger and Mary Ann Hardie.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 20, 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:
09-20-2016 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 5
4.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 20, 2016
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Shier, Police Officer
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
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 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO REMOVE AGENDA ITEM 7.1, REPORT ON BIDS FOR THE MADRONA WALKWAY
PROJECT, AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS 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 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC), AMENDING PARK
ING PROVISIONS ON SUNSET AVENUE
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 6
4.2.a
4. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR BIOSOLIDS
DISPOSAL
5. SETTING A DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF A
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING INTENT TO DISSOLVE THE EDMONDS
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 4.04.020 RELATED TO
CONCESSION AGREEMENTS
7. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS
CITY EQUIPMENT
5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. CONSTITUTION WEEK PROCLAMATION
Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring September 17 — 23 as Constitution Week and asking citizens
to reaffirm the ideals the Framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms
guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties, remembering that lost rights may never be
regained.
Judy Lehman, Daughters of the American Revolution, accepted the proclamation, Ms. Lehman thanked
the Mayor and City Council for the proclamation, remarking the Governor has approved a resolution as
well as several other City Councils including Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace.
7 ti171 o1e[y D[411]07 lu I o QY 0
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, reiterated a suggestion made in 2013-2014 to install a bulletin board in front
of the Log Cabin. He referred to a survey done by the Snohomish County Youth Association that found
46% of 8-16 year olds know about marijuana. He referred to a community forum on opioids and heroin at
Edmonds Community College on October 13 and suggested a Councilmember attend. The new Edmonds
School District Superintendent plans to hold monthly meetings instead of roundtable meetings. He
relayed Peggy Kennedy, the past Edmonds Food Bank Director, is now living in Everett.
Robert Stivers, Edmonds, said he would rather be enjoying the gorgeous sunset, be at a model railroad
operations night or finishing dinner with his wife but he wanted to speak against the proposed lewd
conduct ordinance. He referred to his previous comments opposing the ordinance, stating his reasons
remain the same. It was a shame a few misbehaving baristas resulted in the Council considering this
ordinance. As ignorance of law was no excuse, if the ordinance is passed he suggested a copy be made
available to all residents to consult before dressing to go outside. He urged the Council to let the existing
ordinance lie.
Marlin Phelps, Edmonds, relayed he received a letter today from the office of Senator Maria Cantwell
offering their support for what has happened to him in Edmonds. He plans to pursue Senator Cantwell's
help due to the horrible things that have happened in Edmonds that need to be looked into.
7. ACTION ITEMS
1. REPORT ON BIDS FOR THE MADRONA WALKWAY PROJECT
This item was delayed to a future meeting.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 2
Packet Pg. 7
4.2.a
2. ORDINANCE ADDING PUBLIC INDECENCY SECTIONS TO ECC 5.38 (OFFENSES
AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS)
Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless recalled the ordinance was presented at the July 11 work meeting and
forwarded to the August 2, 2016 Consent Agenda. It was pulled from the Consent Agenda due to
concerns expressed by Councilmembers and the public. As a result, a meeting was held with
Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Buckshnis, representatives from the City Attorney's office and the
Prosecutor's office and himself to address specific concerns. The packet includes a red -line version of the
ordinance that reflects the changes proposed at that meeting as well as a clean version. He highlighted the
substantive changes:
• Title of the ordinance revised, replacing public indecency with lewd conduct
• Language related to public indecency and morals was changed to lewd conduct throughout the
ordinance
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Assistant Chief Lawless for his work on this, finding the
ordinance more palatable with the removal of public indecency and morals. Although she will support the
ordinance as proposed to see how it is implemented, she still has concern with the language regarding
cleft of a buttocks. While working on the ordinance, she saw workmen across the street those attire would
violate the ordinance. She understood perhaps why that language needed to be included and was confident
the Police Department will do the right thing and not ticket workmen or people on the beach who may be
scantily dressed.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the meeting was very helpful. She recalled one of her concerns was
flashing which Assistant Chief Lawless explained was addressed in a different part of the code. She
supported the removal of the language regarding public morals as well as the language regarding
excretory functions in other than a restroom. Assistant Chief Lawless advised that issue is addressed in
another ordinance.
Councilmember Teitzel agreed the revised ordinance was an improvement. He has a daughter in her early
20s who goes to the beach in a suit he would prefer she not wear. He referred to Section 5.38.150.C.2,
"Public place" means any location, place or business frequented by the public, or where the public is
present or likely to be present, or where a person may reasonably be expected to be observed by members
of the public." He recalled the concern with bikini baristas stands is the public may drive by and see
someone scantily clad in the window. He asked whether the Police Department's concern could be
resolved if the stands had screening making it impossible to observe the person in the stand from the
street or sideway. He recalled testimony from people who have visited these stands who said nothing
inappropriate occurred and the barista is wearing a bathing suit. Assistant Chief Lawless responded it was
not intended to target any specific business; speaking hypothetically, most of these types of businesses
have some type of opaque covering over the window. At some point the window is opened to serve
patrons and then it becomes public view. Not all members of the community go there solely for coffee
which sometimes dictates behavior of baristas. In response to Councilmember Teitzel's question, the
answer was no because there often is screening and the problem still exists.
Councilmember Nelson asked whether was currently illegal to expose oneself in Edmonds and if that had
been the law for at least the past 30 years. Assistant Chief Lawless answered yes and longer than 30
years. Councilmember Nelson asked how many people had been arrested for public exposure in the past
30 years. Assistant Chief Lawless answered very few. Councilmember Nelson summarized it is currently
illegal and has been for a long time; the ordinance is simply tightening up and clarifying the existing
language. Assistant Chief Lawless agreed, commenting it was the result of prior court cases where the
existing ordinance was deemed to be too vague and not specific enough.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 3
Packet Pg. 8
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4042, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 5.38 (OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC
MORALS) TO CHANGE THE TITLE THERETO AND TO ADD SECTIONS PROHIBITING
LEWD CONDUCT AND THE SOLICITATION OF LEWD CONDUCT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. UPDATE TO THE 2016 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES AND NEW SECTION 3.36 OF ECC
Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled the following was presented to the Council October 13 and
November 2, 2015 by Randy Young, a statewide expert on impact fees and a sub consultant of Fehr &
Peers, who updated the City's Transportation Plan. At that time, Mr. Young described:
1. Definition of impact fees
2. Reasons to charge impact fees
3. Rules for impact fees
4. How impact fees can be used
5. Calculations and comparisons
The Council approved the updated Transportation Plan in 2015 which is updated on a 6-year cycle. The
Transportation Plan includes an updated list of capital improvement projects, most of which are not
growth related. This presentation does not address those projects. He reviewed changes to growth -related
projects from the 2009 Plan to the 2015 Plan.
• Added 6 new projects
• Removed 3 projects that were completed or soon to be completed
• Increased cost of 7 carry-over projects due to new information, scope changes and escalation
• Adjusted deficiency exclusion
• Reduced cost estimates by adjusting for external trips
He presented the growth -related project list from the adopted Transportation Plan (projects in italics are
new in the 2015 Transportation Plan, others are carryover from 2009 Plan):
Project
Total Cost
Existing
Deficiency
Edmonds
Growth
Eligible Cost
1
Olympic View & 174th St. SW
$ 610,000
0%
47%
$ 286,700
2
Olympic View Drive & 76t Ave. W
1,183,000
0%
47%
556,010
4
196th St. SW (SR 524) & 88th Ave
903,000
0%
63%
568,890
8
212th St. & SR 99
2,806,000
0%
63%
1,767,780
14
22r St. & SR 99
3,215,000
0%
33%
1,060,950
30
SR 99 & 216` St SW
2,335,000
0%
33%
770,550
11
Main St. & 9h Ave.
911,000
0%
63%
573,930
15
220'h St. & 76h Ave
4,314,000
0%
33%
1,423,620
20
SR 104 & 238` St.
1,339, 000
40%
49%
393,666
21
SR 104 & 7e Ave W
1,508,500
0%
49%
739,165
A
84Ave. W, between 212'h St. S & 238h
St. SW
7,720,500
0%
65%
5,018,325
B
238`h St. SW, between Edmonds Way &
84`h
3,045,000
0%
65%
1,979,250
C
Add 228` St. SWfrom SR 99 to 95` Pl.
10,146,000
0%
65%
6,594,900
Total
$40,036,000
1%
53%
$21,733,736
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 4
Packet Pg. 9
4.2.a
Mr. Williams reviewed the calculation of impact fees
• Step 1: Cost per trip = eligible costs divided by growth trips
Example: $21,733,736 eligible costs divided by 3,930 growth trips = $5,530 cost per trip
• Step 2: Impact fee per unit of development (cost per trip x trip rate = impact fee rate)
Apartment Example: $5,530 cost per trip x 0.74/trip rate = $4,092/ impact fee rate
Office Example: $5,530 cost per trip x 0.00197/square foot trip rate = $10.89/square foot impact
fee rate
He summarized the cost per trip is key: Eligible costs $21,733,735 divided by growth trips 3,930 = cost
per trip $5,530. Mr. Williams provided a comparison of cost per trip compared to Edmonds updated
amount:
Jurisdiction
Cost per trip
Kenmore
$8,350
Lynnwood
7,944
Bothell
6,941
Shoreline
6,804
Edmonds (update)
5,530
Average of 8 others
4,761
Mill Creek
3,000
Snohomish County
2,453
Mukilteo
1,875
Edmonds (current)
1,050
Mountlake Terrace
(currently being updated)
714
He described a phased increase of cost per trip:
Cost per Trip
Edmonds (update 2019)
$5,530
Edmonds (current)
1,050
Increase
4,480
Annual Increase: 3 years
1,493
He provided examples of the impact fee with the increase phased over three years:
2016
2017
2018
2019
Previous Year
1,050
1,050
2,542
4,036
+ Annual Increase
0
1,493
1,493
1,494
Phased Amount
1,050
2,542
4,036
5,530
Mr. Williams relayed staff s recommendation:
1. Raise the impact fee to $5,530/PM hour trip
1. Phase in over 3 equal annual steps
2. Schedule public hearing.
Councilmember Mesaros recalled his comments last November that this a huge increase from a
percentage standpoint. He asked why the traffic impact fee was so low previously and how long it had
been $1,050. Mr. Williams answered the $1,050 is based on the project list in the the 2009 Transportation
Plan and the number of projected trips. Some sizeable projects have been added to the list included in the
2015 Transportation Plan approved by Council. To the extent those project generate new growth trips,
they are included in the calculation which he acknowledged had a noticeable impact.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 5
Packet Pg. 10
4.2.a
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the SR-104 & 238th project, commenting crossing the street there is
an adventure. He asked what Snohomish County responsibility is for that intersection as Esperance is
located on the east side. Mr. Williams answered for any project involving the Esperance area, the City
would seek to partner from Snohomish County. The status of those discussions has not advanced; the
projects need to be on the City's lists first. Staff will also seek grant funding for many of the projects. He
clarified there are a lot of projects on the Capital Improvement Program; this $21.7 million represents
only a fraction of all the projects.
Councilmember Mesaros asked the proposed effective date of the change. Mr. Williams answered that
was up to the Council. It could be now or January 1, 2017. He recommended January 1, 2017 when all the
City's fees are updated. Councilmember Mesaros liked the 3-year phase in to mitigate the increase,
recognizing even then it was more than a 100% increase in each of the 3 years.
Councilmember Tibbott commented a number of cities such as Mill Creek and Mukilteo have planned
communities within their city limits. He asked about the effect those large planned developments, which
have their own impact fees, have and whether they lowered the impact fees charged by the city. Mr.
Williams said he was not certain, he assumed those communities may have other options to assist with
funding for needed projects such as agreements or LIDs. Most of those town centers are fairly new and
may not yet have deficiencies.
Councilmember Tibbott said the reason for his question was those other funding sources may explain why
Edmonds is facing a significant increase, planned developments are not occurring Edmonds. Mr.
Williams agreed, commenting because the town centers are new and likely do not have deficiencies yet,
there may not be as many per capita projects on the list which reduces the traffic impact fee. As those
town centers age and need to be replaced or require capacity increases due to growth, the impact fee will
increase. Councilmember Tibbott said that helps explain the large increase.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about waiving fees for affordable housing. Mr. Williams said he was not
aware of a program that did that. Councilmember Tibbott said Monroe waived impact fees on a large
affordable housing development. That is a key consideration for most affordable housing non-profit
organizations when planning the development. Mr. Williams offered to research and email Council
regarding where and how that has been done. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said cities can exempt certain
types of projects from impact fee but in exempting them, the city is simply agreeing to pay the fee for that
type of project from the General Fund. There is no real exemption; a city cannot give a project truly a free
pass without making the payment for the project. That likely was what was done in the instance
Councilmember Tibbott cited.
For example, if the City waived fees for a 40-unit affordable housing apartment complex, Councilmember
Tibbott asked the source of funding and amount. Mr. Williams assumed it would be the General Fund or
another general revenue source; he was uncertain if REET could be used. Mr. Taraday answered most
cities do not waive fees for that reason; it is difficult to make it pencil out when certain types of projects
are exempted from impact fees. Problems include, 1) where the money comes from, and 2) where to draw
line with regard to the type of project. Councilmember Tibbott said he interested in best practices in other
cities and how that might apply to Edmonds.
Councilmember Teitzel said he was also struggling with the magnitude of the increase, over 400% and
$4500 over the current fee. He asked when the traffic impact fee was last adjusted. Mr. Williams
answered 2009. Councilmember Teitzel asked when consideration would be given to increasing it again.
Mr. Williams answered in 6 years. Councilmember Teitzel asked it was possible or likely that the $5,530
impact fee would decrease in 6 years. Mr. Williams answered the way it would decrease is if projects are
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 6
Packet Pg. 11
4.2.a
funded and completed and removed from the list and if new growth -related projects are not added, the
numerator would decline over time. Generally, what happens is projects are finished and new projects
developed. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding it was unlikely the traffic impact fee would
decrease. Mr. Williams agreed that was likely true, the number generally increases over time if for no
other reason that the cost of the projects increases over time.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Tibbott regarding ways to encourage
affordable housing. She observed the proposed increase puts Edmonds almost in the middle of the other
cities, Kenmore, Lynnwood and Shoreline are above. She noted Kenmore's impact fee was 30% above
and a lot of development is occurring in Kenmore; Bothell and Lynnwood are also developing. She
inquired about the average of 8 other cities. Mr. Williams answered that was the average of the eight
cities on the list. He said being in the middle was accidental but not an unwelcome outcome.
Councilmember Nelson commented the people developing in Shoreline are the same people developing in
Shoreline, Mill Creek, Bothell and Edmonds and asked whether they would be shocked to by the
proposed increase. Mr. Williams answered there are some developers whose efforts are strong in
Edmonds, but generally it is a regional economy. The difference between the median, the high and the
low does not change the economics of overall development. Impact fees are a small amount compared to
the cost of a new home or building. He recalled Mr. Young's comments last year that although it may
seem like a big increase, fees are a small percentage of the cost of development and people overestimate
the impact that has on development decisions. Those decisions are actually made regarding location, land
cost, etc. rather than fees. Some of the highest fees are charged in the hottest growing markets in the
region.
Council President Johnson referred to the cost per multi -family unit. Mr. Williams displayed the sample
calculation for an apartment and said the impact fee for multi -family unit is three -fourths of the fee for a
single family. Council President Johnson said that would answer the question regarding how much it
would cost the City to supplement the cost of waiving fees for affordable housing. If the fee for an
apartment is $4,092 multiplied by 40 for a 40-unit development, the amount paid from the General Funds
would be approximately $160,000. Mr. Williams agreed that would be the amount if traffic impact fees
were totally waived. There are other options such as a percentage reduction to help a project pencil out.
Council President Johnson commented although it may look like the impact fee is being increased by
400%, the last bit of growth over capacity is the most expensive. Once an intersection reaches LOS D and
approaches LOS F, the last increment is the most expensive. It can be expensive to achieve that final
growth.
With regard to exemption from traffic impact fees, Mr. Taraday answered the statute treats a full wavier
differently than a partial waiver. With a full waiver, the City would need to pay the fee on behalf of the
development from other public funds. The statute also provides specifically for low income; a full waiver
can be granted for low income housing or other development activities with broad public purposes. A
partial waiver can only be granted for low income housing. A partial exemption of not more than 80% of
the impact fees does not carry the obligation for the City to pay the exempted portion from other public
funds.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if low income housing referred to Section 8 housing or affordable
housing. Mr. Taraday said that language was in RCW 82.02.060; he would need to do additional research
to determine whether it was defined or whether it was up to the city to define what they wanted low
income housing to be. Councilmember Buckshnis said she supported incentives for affordable housing
and suggested development agreements may be another method for addressing impact fees.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 7
Packet Pg. 12
4.2.a
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Council President Johnson's example about the impact of waiving
impact fees for a 40-unit development, noting $160,000 would be the cost in 2019; it would be less in
2017 or 2018 when the impact fee was lower. Mr. Williams agreed.
Mr. Williams said the packet also includes a suggested code change. In the downtown BD zones, it has
been difficult to implement the traffic impact fees. For example, a business on a small lot downtown such
as a donut shot is replaced with a use that increases the expected trips and traffic impact fees are
collected. That use later changes again to an insurance office and there are fewer expected PM Peak trip
generated. The City does not offer a rebate for traffic impact fees. The space is later replaced with a more
intense use and traffic impact fees are again collected. Determining whether a building ever had a higher
use requires a historical analysis which is cumbersome for staff. If downtown is treated as a block with
some properties increasing in intensity and others decreasing in intensity, it tends to cancel out the traffic
impact over time. Staff recommends a code change to treat all downtown BD zones as specialty retail and
all have the same trip rate. The only time a fee would be paid is if a larger building were constructed in
the specialty retail area. This would be much simpler for staff and more fair for developers downtown.
Mayor Earling said he and Council President Johnson will determine a date for the public hearing.
2. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SALARY REVIEW
Councilmember Buckshnis said this has been on her mind since 2014. As budget discussions are
approaching, she wanted to discuss this with Council. She provided the following information:
• In 2011, a salary commission gave the Mayor a salary increase to $113,000.
• In 2012, the Mayor received a COLA to bring his salary to $115,000.
• In 2011, a salary commission recommended to aggregate the $50 per -meeting fee to bring
Council members salary to $1,000 a month.
• The City Council President receives $200 more or a total of $1,200.
• City of Edmonds' Financial have grown from $138 million to $156 million (FYE 2010 — 2015).
• During that same period, people employed by the city of Edmonds has decreased from 266
employees to 219.
• In addition to regular yearly Administrative duties — Mayor and Council had long-range planning
items like the Comprehensive Plan, Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program,
Stormwater Code Update, etc.
• Comparables in packet are comparables used for salaries of non -reps. Populations 20,000 higher
or 20,000 lower than Edmonds 40,000 population.
• Data showed that all Edmonds elected officials' salaries are less than the average of the cities
surveyed.
• Currently, the Mayor's salary is 13% below comparables cities.
• Many of comparable cities have City Administrators that assist Mayor
• Most Importantly_— IF City Council decides to set a new salary for Council members, any
increases WILL NOT take effect until the candidate for that position has been elected in the
future (2018 — Positions 1, 2 and 3; and 2020 — Positions 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed options for Mayor and City Council salary increases:
1) Via a Council action
Current seated Councilmembers cannot increase or decrease their own salary after his or her
election or during their terms (Article 11, Section 8 in conjunction with Article 30, Section 1
of the state constitution).
Any increase or decrease in the salaries of those elected officials will not take effect until an
election for that elected position has been held.
Salary of the Mayor may be increased at any time by Council for following year.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 8
Packet Pg. 13
4.2.a
2) Via the use of a Citizens' Salary Commission
• Council would reestablish the Citizen's Salary Commission via ordinance.
• Salary Commission can effectively be selected by Mayor or Council.
• Salary Commission members review the comparables and set the compensation (RCW
35.21.015) and that commission will have the authority to set the compensation for the
elected officials. Commission decisions take effect immediately at the next year.
• Citizens do not understand the amount of time being a Councilmember or Mayor takes.
3) Hybrid of Council Action for Mayor and Salary Commission for Council.
• Council can review comparables for the Mayor and decide upon a salary for the Mayor for
next year.
• Council can establish a Salary Commission to perform the duties as described in Option #2
for the Council.
4) Do nothing this year.
• Council does not want to consider any option at this time
5) Provide more detailed information that Council may want to investigate as to the history of the
salary commission.
• Council just wants the issue to simmer until more information is obtained
o Another agenda memo regarding pros and cons of a Salary Commission and its history.
o Just not enough information and needs more City Council Meetings to make a decision.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the Mayor in several of comparably sized cities are members of the
Council and not elected Mayors. She relayed the following suggestions:
• For the Mayor if Option #1 or #3 is selected:
0 5% increase plus 100% CPI-W COLA beginning 2017.
0 5% increase plus 100% CPI-W Cola beginning 2017.
o Another 5% increase and 100% CPI-W Cola beginning 2018.
o From January 1, 2019 and beyond a 100% CPI-W cola to keep up with market.
o Financial Impacts:
■ 2017: $5,750 + 2% COLA, total $8000 increase
■ 2018: $5,875 + 2% COLA, total $8000 increase
• For the Council if Option #1 is selected:
o $200 per month increase (to $1,200 per month)
o $300 per month increase (to $1,500) for the Council President (CP) for 2018, if CP is newly
(re)elected
o In 2018 and 2019 and beyond: 100% CPI-W for only newly (re)elected Councilmembers
o In 2020, bring all four newly (re)elected up to same pay so all Councilmembers making same
salary
o Financial impact will not occur until 2018
■ 2018: Three newly (re)elected Councilmembers will be compensated at $1,200 per
month, plus a 100% CPI-W from 2017.
■ 2019: The same three Councilmembers would be given another 100% CPI-W COLA
from 2018.
2020: The same three Councilmembers would be given another 100% CPI-W COLA
from 2019 and the four newly (re)elected Councilmembers would be compensated at the
same rate as the other three so all will be on the same payment schedule ($1,200 plus
accumulated CPI-W).
All CP will now make the additional $300 to total of $1,500.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed it was time to give the Mayor a raise, the position is lagging behind and
needs to keep up with the salaries paid by comparable to ensure the necessary leadership is attracted to
Edmonds. Edmonds is a $156 million corporation; if the City were hiring a CEO to run the corporation,
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 9
Packet Pg. 14
4.2.a
the person would be paid much more. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a City Manager would also
be paid a lot more. Councilmember Mesaros said it is also time to increase the Council salaries and the
Council may chooses to create a Salary Commission to do that. Although there may be a disparity in the
salaries over two years due to the election cycle, a higher salary would attract appropriate leadership to
the City Council. He supported Councilmember Buckshnis' recommendation.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Mayor's comparables are skewed because 6 of the cities have
populations 2-3 times the size of Edmonds. She questioned why Mukilteo was not included. She
suggested reconsidering the cities used as comparables. Councilmember Buckshnis recognized the wrong
form was included in the packet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas looked forward to the new data.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether any other Councils received increases based on CPI.
Parks & Recreation/HR Reporting Director Carrie Hite said a few cities provide CPI increases for
Councils and Mayors; she can provide that data. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the 5%
increase for the Mayor was a starting place. Councilmember Buckshnis said a 5% plus a COLA would
bring the increase to 7% and the Mayor's position was approximately 13% below the comparable cities.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the comparison of Council compensation and asked why
benefits for Lynnwood and Kirkland were $2000/month. Ms. Hite answered most of the cities in that
range allow benefits for self, spouse, significant other, and/or family which significantly drives up the
monthly compensation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said family benefits was cut prior to her election
to the Council; previously Councilmembers could insure themselves and their families with the same cost
sharing as City staff. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed reducing the medical benefit to Councilmember
only was a Council decision.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether any comparable cities received benefits that differed from
Edmonds. Ms. Hite answered cities provide typical basic benefits such as medical, dental, life insurance.
There were no anomalies identified such as a car allowance, sick leave, etc.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested identifying a few other cities with a strong Mayor form of
government. Ms. Hite commented it was difficult to identify comparables with strong mayors as there are
only a handful of cities in the Puget Sound region with a strong mayor. The comparable cities listed for
the Mayor are the Puget Sound cities that have strong mayor, Mukilteo was inadvertently omitted.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about Arlington. Ms. Hite said Arlington's population is much
lower. She offered to work with Councilmember Buckshnis to provide more data.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Mayor in many cities have an administrative director, chief of staff,
etc.; Edmonds' Mayor does it all. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was her understanding Patrick
Doherty served in that capacity in the Mayor's absence.
Councilmember Teitzel looked forward to a more accurate list of comparables. He expressed support for
an increase for the Mayor, observing the Mayor has not had a salary adjustment for six years and his
position is very demanding and more than a full-time job. He was less comfortable about an increase for
the City Council; it appears based on the comparables that Edmonds is higher paid than Councilmembers
in comparably sized cities. He agreed Edmonds Councilmembers have a substantial job that took a great
deal of time and effort but he was concerned with getting out of step with comparable sized cities.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out some cities do not offer any benefits like Lacey and Bothell;
comparable cities have both salary and benefits. Combining salary and benefits, Puyallup's total
compensation is $2000, Lynnwood's is $2900, and University Place's is $1500. In the six years she has
served on Council and the work she did as Council President, it was her conclusion that that Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 10
Packet Pg. 15
4.2.a
Councilmembers were underpaid. She wanted to attract more people to run for Council and to invigorate
the Council.
Councilmember Teitzel asked how much time the Council had to make this decision to include it in the
2017 budget. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what additional information the Council needed. Mayor
Earling said he must present the budget on October 11.
Councilmember Nelson was not interested in a salary increase for the Council at this time. He had a
conflict with Council deciding to increase the Mayor's position salary for the current seated Mayor. If the
Council increases the salary for the position, he preferred it be effective with the next election cycle.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Council increased the Judge's salary and questioned why the
Council should not be able to increase the salary of the current Mayor. Councilmember Nelson said under
the circumstances of how the Council works with the position of the Mayor on a daily basis, voting
whether or not to provide a raise, having the Mayor select the Salary Commission to provide a raise, it
was too sticky for him.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in considering whether to provide a raise, it was important to have
accurate information regarding the comparables. The Council cannot determine whether the Mayor's
salary is high or low with the current information.
Council President Johnson said this should be two-step process, 1) decide whether or not to have a Salary
Commission, and 2) whether to consider an ordinance raising salaries. In her personal opinion, there was
a question of equity. She was not interested in Council Positions 1, 2 and 3 earning more than Council
Positions 4, 5, 6, and 7. Over 2 years, that is a difference of $4800. She would feel personally obligated to
take Councilmembers in Positions 4-7 out to lunch every week to even it out. The inequity of salaries was
a situation she would like to avoid.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Council wanted data provided that removed the five cities whose
populations were not comparable to Edmonds and to have another study session. She displayed the five
options and asked for Council direction. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested another study session
with updated information that included Mukilteo and potentially other cities for both Council and Mayor.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not think $200 increase/month would attract new people to
run for Council. If the Council's salary were doubled, perhaps that would attract a few new people. She
suggested considering an increase in benefits such as allowing medical coverage for family members.
Councilmember Mesaros said the sooner the information can be provided the better, next week's agenda
if possible. He supported reviewing a correct list of comparables for the Mayor's salary and the Council
taking action.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding from a former Councilmember that one of reasons
health benefits were limited to Councilmembers only was inequity, some Councilmembers had benefits
for only themselves and others had benefits for their family.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for an increase for the Mayor and data that shows see how out
of pace he was with Mayors in comparably sized cities. He was less inclined to adjust the Council's salary
as he was not sure an additional $200/month would do much good. Councilmember Buckshnis said the
$200 increase was to recognize the hard work the Council does. Councilmember Teitzel agreed, but did
not support an increase for the Council unless the data convinced him otherwise.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 11
Packet Pg. 16
4.2.a
Mayor Earling acknowledged the Council for work they did on the Volunteer Dinner last Friday at the
Senior Center. All Councilmembers attended and it was a fabulous evening. Although the attendance may
not have been as high as anticipated, those that attended enjoyed the evening and the format.
Mayor Earling requested Councilmembers provide him their feedback by tomorrow regarding the HR
Director interviews; he would like to make the appointment in next few days.
i[1�00111Q[41MQfL1JUluMWNR
Councilmember Tibbott reported this weekend he and his wife had an opportunity to visit the artist studio
tours. It was a fantastic opportunity to interact with the artists and see their projects. One of the highlights
was the opportunity to sit down with Sculptor David Varnau and hear his enthusiasm for his art. He
looked forward to next year's artist studio tour and encouraged citizens to participate.
Councilmember Teitzel reported he attended the Master Builders Association affordable housing forum
last Thursday; it was excellent and very well attended. He encouraged Councilmembers to attend similar
forums in the future. He reported on a forum hosted by the Snohomish County Housing Consortium
regarding Sound Transit 3 that included speakers for and against the measure. He learned a great deal; as
it is a very complicated and expensive issue for the region, he was concerned the general populous does
not understand the issues. He recommended Councilmembers and citizens attend a pro/con forum, read
about ST3 and make an informed decision in November on this important issue for the region.
Council President Johnson thanked all the volunteers who contribute to the City, those who were able to
join the Council at the Volunteer Appreciation Dinner and those who were not.
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Council President Johnson's comment.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported an ST3 presentation was provided at the South County Cities
meeting; she encouraged everyone to research this complicated issue. She thanked the Council for
assisting with the Volunteer Appreciation Dinner, particularly the cleanup. She received several
compliments from volunteers regarding the format of the evening. She appreciated Councilmember
Mesaros identifying a bad bottle of wine.
Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation to the coordinators of the Volunteer Appreciation Dinner,
Councilmembers Teitzel and Fraley-Monillas. The attention to detail was evident; it was a wonderful
event and this was his favorite of the two he has attended.
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 20, 2016
Page 12
Packet Pg. 17
4.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Hieu Vuong (amount undetermined).
Staff Lead: Linda Hynd
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Linda Hynd
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Narrative
Hieu Vuong
22706 74th Avenue Place W.
Edmonds, Wa 98026
(amount undetermined)
Attachments:
Vuong Claim for Damages
Packet Pg. 18
4.3.a
:RECEIVED
SEP 2 0 Z016
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
EDMONDS CITY CLERK
Please take note that
Date Claim Form
eceived by Cit
who currently resides at W t 6-k
mailing address 7t�h 1qi�_ Ar�e Q USGF2— WO
, home phone # 206. %VOOAQwork phone # , and who resided at
at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages
against in the sum of $ Ufj6e� t,dw (Arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: ` 1. l� i TIME:
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 020b iu+H AVe 2L U. W A iQ2,6 in
a�
a�
DESCRIPTION:
ca
4. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage.
u� I W ► "(-i a x!n E
OA U
LO
M
LO
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
N
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
E
0
L
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? '; Yes No
IF so, please provide the i ame of the insurance company:
and the policy M q D I
License Plate #
Type Auto:
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
Driver License #
(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER:
Address: Address:
Phone#: Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
E
U
a�
c
0
Q
Form Revised 05/06/14 Page t of 2
Packet Pg. 19
4.3.a
* * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * *
I,6--- 1� •�'�� being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described: that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any
information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.
Signature of Claimant(s)
State of Washington
County ofCI[1�W1ty N bt-
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that k � is the person who appeared before me, and said
person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowleAed it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
t
gnature ~�-`V' •�1 N�t,,,��,, �r+��1���
Title D4f Dq 1 �yl
My appointment expires:
Ajr -VAN,'� 0 �O�
'him
lift OF WAS'����"'�
�111111��rrrrti��\
Please present the completed claim form to:
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
rn
a�
a�
c�
E
ca
L
0
.2
U
LO
M
LO
Form Revised 05/06/14
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 20
4.3.a
ISMr InsuranceTM
A Liberty Mutual Company
September 20, 2016
Hieu Vuong
22706 74th PI W
Edmonds, WA 98026-8384
Claim Number:
Insured Name:
Date of Loss:
Policy Number:
Underwriting Company:
Dear Mr. Hieu Vuong:
Safeco hisurance Company of America
541415636002
Hieu Vuong
September 19, 2016
OH1801901
Safeco Insurance Company of America
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 515097
Los Angeles, CA 90051-5097
Phone: (800)332-3226
(509) 944-8321
Fax: (988)268-8840
You have submitted this claim to Safeco Insurance Company of America for potential payment
under policy OH1801901 for damages to your property located at 22706 74th PI W, Edmonds,
WA, 98026-8384. After a review of your policy and the facts that have come to our attention,
Safeco Insurance Company of America regrets that it is unable to provide payment for the
damages you have claimed because your policy does not provide coverage for this loss. Our
reasons for this denial are as follows:
As you are aware, this claim arises from water damage to the crawlspace and yard on your
property. You have advised us that the drain system owned by the city behind your property has
overflowed and water has flooded your backyard and water has flooded into the crawlspace of
your home.
Your insurance policy form HOM-7030EP 1/09 Safeco Homeowners Optimun Homeowners
Policy, includes the following provision:
BUILDING PROPERTY LOSSES WE DO NOT COVER
Wedo not cover loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following excluded perils. Such
loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any
sequence to the loss. These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread
damage or affects a substantial area;
5. continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or steam, or the presence or condensation
of humidity, moisture or vapor which occurs over a period of weeks, months or years.
10. Water Damage, meaning:
a�
a�
E
R
0
4-
E
2
U
LO
M
M
CV2137 01/16
Packet Pg. 21
4.3.a
Page 2
Claim Number 541415636002
a. (1) flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, tsunami, seiche, overflow of a body of water,
storm surge or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind, including hurricane or
similar storm; or
(2) release of water held by a dam, levee, dike or by a water or flood control device or
structure;
b. water below the surface of the ground, including that which exerts pressure on, or seeps or
leaks through a building, wall, bulkhead, sidewalk, driveway, foundation, swimming pool, hot tub
or spa, including their filtration and circulation systems, or other structure;
c. water which escapes or overflows from sewers or drains located off the residence premises;
d. water which escapes or overflows from drains or related plumbing appliances on the
residence premises. However, this exclusion does not apply to overflow and escape caused by
malfunction on the residence premises, or obstruction on the residence premises, of a drain or
plumbing appliance on the residence premises; or
e. water which escapes or overflows or discharges, for any reason, from within a sump pump,
sump pump well or any other system designed to remove water which is drained from the
foundation area.
a)
E
Water includes any water borne materials.
p
This exclusion applies whether the water damage is caused by or resulting from human or animal
L
0
E
forces or any act of nature.
M
U
Direct loss by fire, explosion or theft resulting from water damage is covered.
LO
77
As you can see in the above -referenced policy language surface water or water below the surface
of the ground is excluded. Therefore, according to the terms and conditions of your policy, we are
unable to provide any coverage for this loss.
E
At all times, we strive to fully assess our coverage potential. We are always open to reevaluating
our position, should new facts come to light. If you have any additional information that you
believe will have a material effect on our determination of coverage, please provide that
information to us in writing at your earliest opportunity. You should, however, regard this as a
denial of your claim.
Safeco Insurance Company of America may continue to investigate this claim. However, Safeco
Insurance Company of America reserves any and all rights and defenses allowed under the policy
of insurance and the law. No action taken by Safeco Insurance Company of America, its
employees and/or agents, is intended to be or should be considered to be a waiver of any of these
rights or defenses under the policy of insurance or the law.
Your policy limits the time you have to bring an action on your claim. The section below
outlines the policy information for Washington that outlines this timeframe:
Please refer to your SAFECO HOMEOWNERS POLICY, HOM-7030/EP 1/09, it states in
part as follows:
Section 1 - Property Conditions
CV2137 01/16
Packet Pg. 22
4.3.a
Page 3
Claim Number 541415636002
8. Suit Against Us. No action shall be brought against us unless there has been
compliance with the policy provisions and the action is started within one year
after the inception of the loss or damage.
Please note that the one-year period in the above policy provision begins to run when the damage
first manifests, is tolled or suspended during the insurer's investigation and recommences when
the insurer makes a coverage decision on the claim in writing.
General Insurance Company of America reserves any and all rights and defenses allowed under
the policy of insurance and the law. No action taken by General Insurance Company of America,
its employees and/or agents, is intended to be or should be considered to be a waiver of any of
these rights or defenses under the policy of insurance or the law.
Sincerely,
Janet Drinkwine
Claim Resolution Spec II, Property Fast Path
Safeco Insurance Company of America
(509) 944-8321
(800) 332-3226 Ext. 7224141 Fax: (888) 268-8840
Janet.drinkwine@safeco.com
a�
a�
E
ca
0
L
O
E
U
LO
M
M
CV2137 01 /16
Packet Pg. 23
4.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.'
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #221903 through #222009 dated September 22, 2016 for $1,349,959.90 (re-
issued check #221947 $275.00).
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62321 through #62330 for $501,625.86, benefit checks
#62331 through #62336 and wire payments of $555,699.52 for the pay period September 1, 2016
through September 15, 2016.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
Financial Impact
Claims $1,349,959.90
Re -issued check $275.00
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $501,625.86
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $555,699.52
Total Payroll $1,057,325.38
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claim cks 09-22-16
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-21-16
payroll summary 09-20-16a
payroll summary 09-20-16b
payroll benefits 09-20-16
Packet Pg. 24
4.4.a
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher
221903
221904
221905
221906
Date Vendor
9/22/2016 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX
9/22/2016 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
916377 P&R VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS
P&R VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
Page:
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun c
a
m
U
42.9(
=a
4.2(
Total : 47.1( c
m
9970 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl-
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CF
421.000.74.534.80.33.00 211,753.2z _
Tota
9/22/2016 060205 ALLIED BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP 14223842-00 FAC - SUPPLIES
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
9/22/2016 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-161454 TRAFFIC - WHITE PAINT 50GAL D
Traffic - White Paint 50Gal Drums
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Yellow Paint 50 Gal Drums
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
TM-161774 TRAFFIC GLASS BEADS
Traffic Glass Beads
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
White Waterbourne Traffic Paint 5
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
0
211,753.21
c�
a
E
Ga
300.0( U
w
0
29.4( @
1 : 329.4( p
L
Q
R 0
1,164.0( Lo
LO
584.0( .,
m
r
121.4E N
0
0
183.2' w
E
872.6z .w
�
415.1( c
m
E
136.2E
R
.r
r
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 25
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221906 9/22/2016 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC
221907 9/22/2016 001528 AM TEST INC
221908 9/22/2016 070976 AMERESCO INC
221909 9/22/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
4.4.a
Page: 2
c
ca
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
a
am
139.5:
Total: 3,616.2E L
=a
94607 WWTP: ICP SCAN & MERCURY BY
4.
ICP SCAN & MERCURY BY CVAA c
2013-030 G(1-1) Ret
1988763911
1988774536
1988778527
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 75.0(
Total : 75.0(
RETAINAGE REIMBURSED
Retainage Reimbursed
016.000.223.400
Tota
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MA
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MA
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MA
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MA
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
c
c�
0
26,651.1( ca
26,651.1E
E
U
24.9( c
c�
2Az a
Q.
i
a
�
T:
T:
�
24.9( 0
2.4z
t°
r
N
1.6'
�
N
6.1'
T: E
�
6.1'
T5 E
6.1'
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 26
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221909 9/22/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1988778528
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1988787232
WWTP: UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MA
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
1988787233
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
4.4.a
Page: 3
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
6.0E
a�
L
0.1( =a
4
0.6( c
m
0.6(
c�
0.6( 0
L
0.6( a
E
0.5l 'ca
4-
0
1.0< Ln
1.8(
m
r
N
5.1( M
0
115.9E
0.5(
11.3�
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 27
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221909 9/22/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
1988792658
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT:
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT:
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT:
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1988792659
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
4.4.a
Page: 4
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
56.2:
U
a�
L
1.6'
6.1'
m
6.1'
c�
6.1' o
L
6.1' a
E
6.0£
0.1E 0
c�
0.6( o
a
0.
0.6( Q
LO
0.6(
0.6( m
r
N
0.5£
0
N
7.7£ U
to
18.4( 6
c
0.7(
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 28
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221909
9/22/2016
069751
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
Tota
221910
9/22/2016
071348
BERGERABAM
316165
E4MB.SERVICES THRU 9/9/16
E4MB.Services thru 9/9/16
016.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota
221911
9/22/2016
075771
BRANCH, RUTH
9/15 REFUND
9/15 REFUND
9/15 REFUND
001.000.239.200
Tota
221912
9/22/2016
067391
BRAT WEAR
19759
INV#19759 - EDMONDS PD - GAG
REPAIR HOLE IN JUMPSUIT (GAG
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Tota
221913 9/22/2016 074776 BUCKSHNIS, DIANE 72016 COUNCIL TRAVEL REIMBURSEM
4.4.a
Page: 5
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
1.8' m
374.9(
a�
L
=a
11,164.9( c
11,164.9E
c
c�
3.5( o
I : 3.5(
a
NI E
N 2
42.0( ,-
0
E�
ei �
44.5 1 Ln
VI(
r
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 29
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221915 9/22/2016 075072 075072 BUNKER, JAN MARIE
221916 9/22/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued) Tota
16503330 INV#16503330 - EDMONDS PD
COPY RENTAL #6255 FOR 9/2016
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
COPY RENTAL #3325 FPR 9/2016
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
COPY RENTAL #5240 FOR 9/2016
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
16503332 PW ADMIN COPIER
PW Office Copier for
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
PW Office Copier for
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
PW Office Copier for
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
PW Office Copier for
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
PW Office Copier for
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
PW Office Copier for
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
4.4.a
Page: 6
c
ca
hd
U
a�
Amoun };
247.5( 0
am
m
151.8
4-
60.7( c
m
160.0(
c
c�
36.5' o
a
68.5E
38.8E U
4-
0
38.8E
0
L
27.4, m
Q
27.4,
LO
27.4'
m
6.7, N
N
3.8' o
N
Y
3.8'
E
2.6�
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 30
4.4.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
09/22/2016
10:10:25AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code :
usbank
U
a�
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221916
9/22/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
(Continued)
a
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
2.6 1 m
16503333
WATER SEWER COPIER
Water Sewer Copier
i
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
70.6E
Water Sewer Copier
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
70.6E
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
6.9z
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
6.9: o
16503335
C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 3091/0521
Finance dept copier contract charge
a
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
209.6' E
9.8% Sales Tax
.@
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
20.5z u
16503336
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE
o
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 09/0'
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 340.3� o
9.8% Sales Tax a
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 33.3E Q
16503337 PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON' Un
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON' le
In
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 230.1 E
16503338 COPIER C5250 CONTRACT CHARG m
C5250 contract charges
N
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
146.7: N
C5250 contract charges
o
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
31.4z Y
C5250 contract charges
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
31.4z .
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
14.3E r
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
3.0E E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 31
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221916 9/22/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
16503339
WWTP: 9/1-9/30/16 MO CHG - CON"
9/1-9/30/16 MO Chg for CONTRACT
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
16503340
COPIER C2501F CONTRACT CHAR(
contract charges for C2501F
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
16503341
BLDG PRINTER CONTRACT CHAR(
BLDG PRINTER CONTRACT CHAR(
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
16503342
PLANNING PRINTER CONTRACT C
PLANNING PRINTER CONTRACT C
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
16503343
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
16503344
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRA,
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRA,
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
16503345
FLEET COPIER
Fleet Copier
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
16503346
RECEPTIONIST DESK CITY CLERK,
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEA
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
16503347
C/A 228389 CONTRACT #001-02283
Council office copier contract charge
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
4.4.a
Page: 8
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
3.0E
a�
L
82.4E
d
c
m
26.4z
c�
2.6( o
L
0
a
35.5'
U
35.5' o
0
L
35.5' a
29.0z
m
32.31 N
N
3.1 0
N
Y
13.3, .
ca
1.3'
m
E
t
52.8E
.r
r
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 32
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221916 9/22/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
221917 9/22/2016 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
221918 9/22/2016 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE
221919 9/22/2016 075761 COOK, ROBERT
221920 9/22/2016 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.a
Page: 9
S
20
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
m
5.2(
�
307.1:
d
c
m
344.0(
I: 2,885.8( c�a
0
c�
a
6,800.0(
1: 6,800.0(
22 c
22 0
15.8( c
I : 15.8E a
Q.
O Q
e Un
205.0(
I : 205.0( "
m
r
420385 INV#420385 - EDMONDS PD N
CALIBRATE #SHD-02475 SCOUT N
o�
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.0( G
CALIBRATE #XE01579 GOLDEN EA, Y
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.0( U
FUELSURCHARGE E
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 10.0( 6
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 14.7( m
Total : 164.7(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 33
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
16506599
ENGINEERING COPIER CHARGE
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221921 9/22/2016 070121 DESTINATION MARKETING
221922 9/22/2016 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC
221923 9/22/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
221924 9/22/2016 075776 DOWNEY, SHARON
221925 9/22/2016 007625 EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL
221926 9/22/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
18302
651150804
16-3692
16-3694
9/16 REFUND
TPROMO EAF
65634
M. I.X1
4.4.a
Page: 10
c
ca
lid
U
a�
PO # Description/Account Amoun };
DOWNLOAD OF TOURISM VIDEO F a
Download of tourism video footage to -0)
120.000.31.575.42.41.00 682.5(
Total: 682.5(
CEMETERY ADVERTISING
CEMETERY ADVERTISING
130.000.64.536.20.41.40
Tota
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT 02/0
02/02/16 & 08/02/16 TRANSPORT
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9/13/201
09/13/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUT
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Tota
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
001.000.239.200
Tota
TPROMO EAF
TPROMO EAF
123.000.64.573.20.41.00
Tota
PM: 1OW30 & HRDWR-REDUCER
PM:
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: BLOW GUN, PLUG MALE
PM: BLOW GUN, PLUG MALE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
r:
2/
4-
a�
c
5.0(
I : 5.0(
c
�
AT
L
92.4( ca
6 Q"
E! E
224.4(
1 : 316.8( c
2,000.0(
2,000.0( N
N
0
N
Y
51.51
E
5.0: 2
c
m
15.6E E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 34
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221926 9/22/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
221927
221928
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
65739 PM: REDUCER
PM:REDUCER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9/22/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001800
001803
001805
9/22/2016 069912 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST BID-Ed!42516
221929 9/22/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025
6-00200
Tota
PM: FASTENERS, SLIDE BOLT LA
PM: FASTENERS, SLIDE BOLT LA
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: LUMBER CRAYON
PM: LUMBER CRAYON
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: LOCKING PLIERS, TERRY TO
PM: LOCKING PLIERS, TERRY TO
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.4.a
Page: 11
TC
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
a
am
1.5z
a�
L
4.6E V.
c
0.4E
I : 78.9E
c
c�
—
TC 0
10.2E a
1.0'
U
4-
0
3.5E
0
L
0.3E a
V\ Q
V\
LO
23.9E
2.3E m
Total: 41.5E r
N
N
RENTAL OF ECA LOBBY FOR ANNI✓ M
0
Ed! rental of ECA lobby for annual BII 0
140.000.61.558.70.49.00 275.0(
Total: 275.0( E
.;
MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER U
MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,025.3E
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
R
.r
r
a
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 35
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221929 9/22/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-01127
WWTP: 7/16-9/14/16 200 2ND AVE!
7/16-9/14/16 WWTP 200 2ND AVE E
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
6-01130
WWTP: 7/16-9/14/16 200 2ND AVE,'
7/16-9/14/16 WWTP 200 2ND AVE E
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
6-01140
WWTP: 7/16-9/14/16 200 2ND AVE!
7/16-9/14/16 200 2ND AVE S / METE
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-01280
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-02727
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
4.4.a
Page: 12
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
1,147.8,
a�
L
1,123.6E E.
aD
c
m
2,027.4< c
c�
0
403.4( j,
0
a
E
25.6: 'M
U
4-
0
2,201.2,
0
L
a
0.
4,413.9, Q
LO
le
2,111.2E
m
r
N
1,421.E 1 N
rn
0
N
Y
1,946.9z
E
559.2:
c
m
E
324.9E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 36
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221929 9/22/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
6-02735
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-02736
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A\j
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A\j
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-02737
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-02825
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-02875
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
FAC SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-02925
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-04127
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
4.4.a
Page: 13
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
1,837.4z m
14.6E
m
971.2(
0
942.51 a
E
5,003.1 1 4-
0
c�
25.6< o
L
a
Q.
Q
2,248.6,
LO
1,622.9' w
r
N
N
510.8' c
N
Y
U
360.8' .E
ca
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221929 9/22/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-04128
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-05155
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
6-05156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
4.4.a
Page: 14
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
1,231.9' -0)
U
a�
L
14.6E
4.
aD
c
5,595.4E
c
c�
477.7' o
0
a
1,917.2-1
137.6: o
522.9z o
L
a
0.
522.9z Q
LO
522.9z
522.9z w
r
N
522.9z N
di
0
N
Y
1.8<
E
6.9E
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221929 9/22/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
221930
221931
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110
Tota
9/22/2016 075566 EHRBAR, PAMELA BID-092616 ADMIN SERVICES 9/13-9/19/16
BID/Ed! Administrative services
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
Tota
9/22/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR47160
221932 9/22/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH720250
EDH720481
COPIER OVERAGE CHARGE
Copier Overage charge for Council
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
Tota
LEGAL ADS- PLN FILE 2016-1
LEGAL ADS- PLN FILE 2016-1
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
LEGAL ADS- PLN20150031/0038
4.4.a
Page: 15
21
21
G�
G�
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
6.9E
},
6.9E +'
L
6.9z �
�
186.6E
c�
0
2,761.1' j,
ca
a
E
2,358.0, '@
U
4-
0
5,372.2E
I: 56,241.35 0
a
Q.
Q
285.0( It
1 : 285.0(
m
r
N
N
44.5z a)
0
N
4.3(
1 : 48.9( E
M
U
r
c
177.1(
t
U
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221932 9/22/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
221933 9/22/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
221934 9/22/2016 075772 FLECK, LLOYD
221935 9/22/2016 011900 FRONTIER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
LEGAL ADS- PLN20150031 /0038
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Tota
WAMOU41204
WATER - SUPPLIES
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Tota
9/16 REFUND
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
001.000.239.200
Tota
206-188-0247
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
253-011-1177
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LIN
4.4.a
Page: 16
E
E
E
E
E
E
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
0-
am
80.8z
1 : 258.0( i
=a
4.
a�
c
54.8<
5.3 1
1 : 60.2( o
0
A
A 0"
86.0( .
1 : 86.0(
w
A, 0
A' >
260.9z a
Ai Q.
260.9: Q
�
6.3�
r
24.2� N
' a)
24.2� w
� Y
24.2� E
'ca
24.2�
�
24.3( E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221935 9/22/2016 011900 FRONTIER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
425-712-0423
WWTP: 9/7-10/6/16 AFTER HOUR B
WWTP: 9/7-10/6/16 AFTER HOUR E
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX,
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
425-745-4313
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M
CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSIOI`
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
425-771-4741
425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/II
425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/II
130.000.64.536.20.42.00
425-774-1031
LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI
LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE
4.4.a
Page: 17
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
33.3E
a�
L
33.3E =a
4-
aD
c
71.2(
c
c�
16.3' o
L
81.5( a
E
68.5' 'ca
z
w
68.5' 0
91.3z o
a
Q.
Q
131.5( ,n
It
LO
83.3: m
r
N
N
47.2E o
N
64.6( .
c�
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 41
4.4.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 18
09/22/2016
10:10:25AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code :
usbank
U
a�
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221935
9/22/2016
011900 FRONTIER
(Continued)
a
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI'
m
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
66.5<
425-776-1281
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH(
L
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH(
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
53.9(
425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI
c
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
26.2(
Total:
1,650.4( M
221936
9/22/2016
002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL
006045229
1NV#006045229 ACCT#1 00 1074529
ACADIA GORETEX BOOTS - ROTH
a
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
219.9 ,
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
21.5( U
Total:
241.5: p
221937
9/22/2016
074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES
34660
ESJA.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 20
c
ESJA.Services thru August 2016
a
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
769.4' Q
Total:
769.4;
221938
9/22/2016
069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC
173791/1
WATER - RESETTERS
Water - Resetters
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1,723.2(
9.8% Sales Tax
N
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
168.81
173962/1
WATER - RESETTERS, SUPPLIES
Water - Resetters, Supplies
N
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
2,249.1( E
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
220.4,
176258/1
WATER RESETTERS SUPPLIES
Water Resetters Supplies
t
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
397.6(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
221938 9/22/2016 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC (Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
176888/1 WATER INVENTORY - #382 W-RESI
Water Inventory - #382 W-RESET-01
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
Resetters
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total:
221939 9/22/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY 10095640 WWTP: SENSOR CAP REPLACEME
Sensor cap replacements
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10098212 WWTP: LDO MODEL 2 HEAD ASSYI
LDO MODEL 2 HEAD ASSY/LDO AIF
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
Total:
221940 9/22/2016 075763 HEINEKIN, KARYN 092016 ESCC STUDENT EXCHANGE REIMI
photos for host families
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
flowers for welcome dinner
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
beads for exchange student art proje(
4.4.a
Page: 19
c
(a
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
38.9(
a�
L
1,197.3(
(D
c
198.8( Mw
117.3z (ma
0
19.4E L>%
6,331.1;
E
U
234.0( o
30.8� o
L
a
Q.
25.9( Q
549.3E
m
216.6E N
N
75.00 c
1,131.9! CO
E
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 43
to
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221940
9/22/2016
075763 HEINEKIN, KARYN
(Continued)
138.100.21.557.21.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
9.8% Sales Tax
138.100.21.557.21.31.00
Tota
221941
9/22/2016
075777 HIGGINS, HANNAH
9/16 REFUND
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
001.000.239.200
Tota
221942
9/22/2016
060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
26840
WWTP: 100-1300 GEOTECHNICAL
100-1300 GEOTECHNICAL SERVK
423.100.76.594.39.41.10
26928
E3FH.SERVICES THRU 8/22/16
E3FH.Services thru 8/22/16
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
26949
WWTP: 100-1300 GEOTECHNICA
4.4.a
Page: 20
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
a
38.3, -0a
3.9( aUi
L
=a
3.7(
I: 85M (CD
m
A
A
c�
86.0( —
1 : 86.0(
c�
a
E
1,151.2( TU
w
0
L
to
7,442.6z c
; a
s Q-
4,604.2( Q
I : 13,198.05
m
r
1,462.6: N
d)
150.0( w
158.0z E
ei
280.0(
cr E
240.0(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221943 9/22/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
221944 9/22/2016 071634 INTEGRATELECOM
221945 9/22/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
221946 9/22/2016 075765 JAGDEV SINGH
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
2849941
2849995
2851926
14138118
300-10013343
3-53330
PO # Description/Account
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.35.00
CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES
HAND SANATIZER, DYMO ADDRE
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES- CLIPS
Office supplies- clips
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
WWTP: WINDSOFTC-FOLD PAP
WINDSOFT C-FOLD PAPER TOW
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
4.4.a
Page: 21
ER
E
c
ca
lid
U
W
_ Amoun };
0
a
am
50.9(
5D
S
153.2,
W
c
15.0' Mw
c
M
3.2< o
j,
0
L
a
52.8E E
5.1E u
4
1 : 2,571.1E 0
ca
C/A 768328
0
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
0-
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
915.3 1 Q
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
8.5(
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
8.5(
Total:
932.31, r
N
N
PM: TIES, BATTERY CLEANER, SEA
c
PM: TIES, BATTERY CLEANER, SEA
w
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
148.0(
9.8% Sales Tax E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.5( 12
#16-55720 UTILITY REFUND
#16-55720 Utility refund due to
Tota
1 : 162.5(
r
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221946 9/22/2016 075765 JAGDEV SINGH (Continued)
221947 9/22/2016 075279 JOHNSON, RONALD 6/2-6/30 LIMP
221948 9/22/2016 075775 KINNEY, KERRIE 9/16 REFUND
221949 9/22/2016 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 09062016-01B
221950 9/22/2016 075492 LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 1632200
221951 9/22/2016 006048 LN CURTIS AND SONS
INV49944
PO #
Description/Account
411.000.233.000
4.4.a
Page: 22
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
100.9(
Total :
100.95 +.
a�
6/2-6/30/15 SR SOFTBALL LIMP
6/2-6/30/15 SR SOFTBALL LIMP
.•
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
4
275.0( c
Total :
275.0(
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELLA c
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELLA f°
001.000.239.200 86.0( o
Total: 86.0( >4
CITY CAR WASH
City Car Wash
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
Tota
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FO
Maintenance agreement for Cisco
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
Tota
FOR
INV#49944 - CUST#C38275 - EDM
FERRET OC POWDER
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
FERRET CS POWDER
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
TRI-CHAMBER GRENADE
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
Freight
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
E
.2
5.0z ,-
1 : 5.01 c
c�
0
a
Q.
1,800.0( Q
176.4'
1 : 1,976.41,
m
O r
N
N
190.6( c
N
Y
162.0(
E
415.4z
r
114.91 a0i
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221951 9/22/2016 006048 LN CURTIS AND SONS
221952 9/22/2016 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA
221953 9/22/2016 075769 MAILFINANCE INC
221954 9/22/2016 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
968711
N6125262
E0066542
E0066632
E0066706
E0066720
PO # Description/Account
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
Tota
CEMETERY: SP, FILTER, PRO HE
CEMETERY: SP, FILTER, PRO HE
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
Tota
POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE 8/29/
POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE 08/29
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
OLD PW - SUPPLIES
Old PW - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
OLD PW - PAINT SUPPLIES
Old PW - Paint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
OLD PW - PAINT SUPPLIES
Old PW - Paint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC - PAINT
FAC - Paint
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
4.4.a
Page: 23
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
0-
86.5< -0a
1 : 969.51 +.
a�
A
A =
37.7, c
m
3.7( -0
1 : 41.4, cm
16 0
/2 ca
192.0(
E
18.8,
1 : 210.8, c
0
a
197.9E Q
18.8' Ul)
616.3:
N
N
58.5E a)
0
N
747.7' E
71.0<
r
c
m
E
19.9�
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221954 9/22/2016 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC
221955 9/22/2016 019582 MANOR HARDWARE
221956 9/22/2016 075774 MCCHESNEY, DJ
221957 9/22/2016 063773 MICROFLEX
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
E0067262
740676-00
9/16 REFUND
00022438
221958 9/22/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC E7AC.Miller's 2
221959 9/22/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 243827
PO # Description/Account
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
OLD PW - PAINT SUPPLIES
Old PW - Paint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
FAC - SUPPLIES
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
001.000.239.200
Tota
08-16 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.31.514.23.41.00
Tota
E7AC.MILLER'S RELOCATION AS
E7AC.Miller's Relocation Assistanc
112.000.68.595.20.61.00
Tota
FS 20 - SUPPLIES
FS 20 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
4.4.a
Page: 24
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
1.9(
a�
L
105.9, 4
aD
c
10.0(
1,848.2E
c�
SI;
e
0
36.8( a
3.6'
1 : 40.4' U
4-
0
A
A >
0
99.0( a
I : 99.0( Q
40.0( "
1 : 40.0(
N
N
a�
c
3,020.0(
I: 3,020.0( U
U
r
27.5(
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 48
4.4.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 25
09/22/2016
10:10:25AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code :
usbank
U
a�
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221959
9/22/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
(Continued)
a
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.6� m
244306
PM: TRACKHOE LIBRARY PLANTEF
PM: TRACKHOE LIBRARY PLANTEF
L
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
328.0(
9.8% Sales Tax
}'
4"
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
32.1 ,
244890
PM: SAW BRICK/MASONRY LIBRAF
PM: SAW BRICK/MASONRY LIBRAF
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
154.0(
9.8% Sales Tax
o
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
15.0�
244927
PM: STIHL OIL
f°
a
PM: STIHL OIL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
21.9E
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.1E o
245021
PM: HOOK ON SPRING, SPARK PLL
PM: HOOK ON SPRING, SPARK PLL
o
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
45.1 a
9.8% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.4<
245260
PM: GLOVES
PM: GLOVES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
85.8, w
9.8% Sales Tax
N
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
8.4' N
245263 PM: FLOWER PROGRAM BATTERY o
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM BATTERY w
001.000.64.576.81.35.00
422.9,
9.8% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.81.35.00
41.4E
245265 PM: OIL 2 CYCLE
PM: OIL 2 CYCLE
m
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
169.5( E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
221959 9/22/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC (Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
221960
9/22/2016
072151 MLA ENGINEERING PLLC
2959
GRAND STANDS PROJECT - FINA
Grand Stands Project - Final Paym
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota
221961
9/22/2016
072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES
15-1715-13
ESKA.SERVICES THRU 8/31/16
ESKA.Services thru 8/31/16
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
Tota
221962
9/22/2016
072833 MVP
2016
INVOICE 2016 - EDMONDS PD
DVD OF POLICE AWARDS CERE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
Tota
221963
9/22/2016
064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
0448156-IN
WWTP: SENSOR VENTIS
SENSOR VENTIS
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
221964
9/22/2016
075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING
16
WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING P
WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING P
125.000.64.575.50.41.00
4.4.a
Page: 26
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
0-
am
16.6'
I: 1,377.& i
=a
L =
4-
en c
1,552.5(
1 : 1,552.5( -0
c
M
0
L
5,412.5( ca
5,412.5(
E
M C ,-
275.0( c
c�
26.9E a
1 : 301.9E Q
165.0(
m
r
13.11 c�
N
a�
17.41
I : 195.61
v
R, E
W V ca
250.0(
R, m
1,312.5( E
R
.r
r
a
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
221964
9/22/2016
075539 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING (Continued)
221965
9/22/2016
075770 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST
12251158
221966
9/22/2016
024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
S7415676.001
S7415676.002
221967
9/22/2016
025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS
76237
221968
9/22/2016
061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
0550126238
0550126239
0550126240
0550126241
PO # Description/Account
Tota
7900044080303286 POSTAGE
POSTAGE ADDED TO POSTAGE
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
Tota
WWTP: POWERFLEX DIGITAL SP
POWERFLEX DIGITAL SP
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
WWTP: POWERFLEX DIGITAL SP
A 2nd POWERFLEX DIGITAL SP w
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Tota
WWTP: PREMOFLEX 315 PSI HO
PREMOFLEX 315 PSI HOSE & AB
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.2% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY
MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET
MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY B
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY B
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
4.4.a
Page: 27
MF
c
ca
U
a�
_ Amoun };
I: 1,562.5( a
am
�
a�
1,000.0(
I: 1,000.0(
4-
(D
c
m
237.8E c
c�
23.3'
a: Q'
237.8E
U
23.3' o
1 : 522.3, -
SE
S( a
235.5( Q
It
21.61
I : 257.1 , "
m
r
B N
B N
o)
111.6E G
N
2,938.8E
UC
UC r
218.7E w
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221968 9/22/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued)
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550126242
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550126243
BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET
BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550126244
FISH HATCHERY EDMONDS MARSI
FISH HATCHERY EDMONDS MARSI
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550126245
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B1
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B1
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550126246
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550126247
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550126248
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550126249
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCK[
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550126250
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY B
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY B
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Total:
221969 9/22/2016 073012 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING 2460
SCRAP CREDIT
Scrap Credit
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
4.4.a
Page: 28
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
a)
113.8E
a�
L
=a
113.8E
a�
c
m
111.6E
ca
0
113.8E j,
ca
a
113.8E �a
0
a
0.
587.6, Q
LO
309.2'
m
r
N
113.8E N
rn
0
N
Y
111.6E
5,072.5' ,
ca
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221969
9/22/2016
073012 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
2515
TRAFFIC - HYDROSTRIPPING
Traffic - Hydrostripping
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Tota
221970
9/22/2016
025690 NOYES, KARIN
000 00 679
ADB MINUTES 9/7/16
ADB MINUTES 9/7/16
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
000 00 681
HPC MINUTES 9/8/16
HPC MINUTES 9/8/16
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
000 00 682
PLAN. BOARD MINUTES 9/14/16
PLAN. BOARD MINUTES 9/14/16
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
Tota
221971
9/22/2016
063511 OFFICE MAX INC
013176
P&RADMIN: COLORED PAPER
P&RADMIN: COLORED PAPER
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
917560
FLEET- LABEL TAPE
Fleet- Label Tape
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
PW Supplies Label Tape
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
988027
WOTS: IVORY PAPER
WOTS: IVORY PAPER
4.4.a
Page: 29
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
-2.4E -0)
U
a)
L
129.5, 15
12.6� c
114.3i
c
c�
262.5(
ca
a
105.0( •�
U
4-
0
315.0( -cu-
1 : 682.5( p
L
Q
0.
Q
22.9E Ul)
m
r
N
N
29.2, 6
0
N
29.2,
E
2.8 1 M
U
2.8E c
m
E
t
U
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221971 9/22/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
221972 9/22/2016 075767 OMNI CONTRACTING SOLUTIONS 141325
221973 9/22/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
229437
229457
229473
221974 9/22/2016 069338 PARTNER CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT 7998
221975 9/22/2016 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC
221976 9/22/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
20072
K245427
PO # Description/Account
117.100.64.573.20.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
117.100.64.573.20.31.00
Tota
HYDRANT DEPOSIT REFUND
Hydrant Deposit Refund
421.000.245.110
Tota
STORM DUMP FEES
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
STORM DUMP FEES
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
STORM DUMP FEES
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
Tota
ROADWAY - CRAFCO ROADSAVE
Roadway - Crafco Roadsaver Low
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
Freight
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
Tota
INV 20072 EDMONDS PD - AUGU
WEB BASED PEP TEST
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Tota
PW - SUPPLIES
4.4.a
Page: 30
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
20.8, -a)
2.0z aa)
L
112.2E
4-
a�
c
m
950.0(
950.0(
0
96.0(
E
U
96.0( o
0
96.0( a
I : 288.0( Q
R Ln
Trc
3,485.0( "
m
r
125.0( N
d)
353.7£ w
I: 3,963.7E �
Sl E
2
U
20.0(
1 : 20.0( m
E
t
U
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221976 9/22/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
221977 9/22/2016 069447 POINTS SHARP STEEL INC
221978 9/22/2016 073231 POLYDYNE INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
16-1515
1076061
221979 9/22/2016 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 218760
221980 9/22/2016 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS
219094
219162
219164
03870
PO # Description/Account
PW - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
ROADWAY - EQUIPMENT REPAIR
Roadway - Equipment Repairs and
111.000.68.542.31.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.48.00
Tota
WWTP: CLARIFLOC
clarifloc
423.000.76.535.80.31.51
Tota
WWTP: FED EX TO L&I
FED EX to L&I
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
WWTP: FED EX TO L&I
FED EX TO L&I
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
FLEET D CLARK CO RETURN PO
Fleet D Clark Co Return Postage
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
FLEET PVP COMM RETURN POS
Fleet PVP Comm Return Postage
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
Tota
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FO
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FO
422.000.72.531.90.51.00
4.4.a
Page: 31
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
a
am
408.5(
40.0z =5
1 : 448.6(
a�
c
S
D
1,050.0(
0
102.9(
1,152.9( a
E
U
8,184.0( —0
8,184.0( 0
Sl
0
a
Q.
31.2� Q
31.Z
�
N
N
19.5: a)
34.2t E
116.4( 'S
R
R
� r
2,770.7t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221980
9/22/2016
029117 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS
(Continued)
Tota
221981
9/22/2016
064088 PROTECTION ONE
2422756
ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE L
ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE L
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
31146525
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL
4.4.a
Page: 32
1�
F
F
F
F
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
I: 2,770.7� a
am
IE
IE U
m
235.0E
4-
c
51.1'
�
�
33.5z o
�
33.5z a
OF
30.1 £ •�
OF U
38.5 p
�
16.71 p
OF a
15.0E Q
1 : 453.81
LO
It
LO
m
359.0( r
1 : 359.0( N
o�
0
N
166.0( E
16.2 ,
1 : 182.2 , c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221984
9/22/2016 074156 RAZZ CONSTRUCTION INC
(Continued)
E4MB.Pmt 6 thru 8/31/16
016.000.66.594.19.65.00
Tota
221985
9/22/2016 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC
1608071
E3FE/E6FA.SERVICES THRU 8/26
4.4.a
Page: 33
/1
T
T
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
0-
am
224468.1,
I: 224:468.1, i
=a
4-
w
c
3,284.3E
9,853.1, cm
1 : 13,137.5( o
0
E
E 0"
151.3( .
U
w
0
30.0E
>
0
114.3z a
c Q.
Q
114.3z
le
114.3z
114.3'
N
r
114.3z a): w
c
160.8 1 E
AL
AL
r
69.5.
1 : 983.4 i E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221987
9/22/2016
075288 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC
E3FH.Pmt 1
E3FH.PMT 1 THRU 8/25/16
E3FH.Pmt 1 thru 8/25/16
422.200.72.594.31.65.00
E3FH.Ret1
422.200.223.400
Tota
221988
9/22/2016
075773 RUTHERFORD, BONNIE
9/16 REFUND
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
9/16 REFUND ACTIVITY CANCELL
001.000.239.200
Tota
221989
9/22/2016
069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
00439588508
UNIT 5 - GLASS REPLACEMENT
Unit 5 - Glass Replacement
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
Tota
221990
9/22/2016
075747 SEAL TEAM ONE
1446
WWTP: CAULKING/SEALING BAT
Caulking/sealing wall, shower & flo
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Tota
221991
9/22/2016
063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
3502-4
FAC - PAINT SUPPLIES
FAC - Paint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4317-7
FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.4.a
Page: 34
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
412,893.0(
a)
L
-20,644.6! =a
1 : 392,248.3!
aD
c
A
A �
86.0( cm
I : 86.0( o
0
0
a
300.0( .
U
29.4( o
I : 329.4(
if o
a
or Q.
6,524.0( Q
639.3E
I : 7,163.3! "
m
r
N
N
a�
170.9(
N
16.7!
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221991 9/22/2016 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
221992 9/22/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
4510-6 PM: SAFETY YELLOW, SCRAPER, 1
PM: SAFETY YELLOW, SCRAPER, 1
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total:
2002-0254-7
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2002-6027-1
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2003-9895-6
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2004-9683-4
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
2006-1131-7
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
2007-1403-8
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2007-2302-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2007-3984-5
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
2011-9708-4
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2014-3123-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY
4.4.a
Page: 35
c
ca
hd
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
129.2' aUi
L
=a
12.6E
351.2� c
m
c
c�
15.1 0
0
a
1,307.3z
U
763.8' c
0
55.5E m
Q.
Q
112.5: 'e
m
25.5, r
N
N
C6
0
23.7, Y
E
18.2E .2
U
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221992 9/22/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2014-3124-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC.
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2014-4175-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
2015-5174-4
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2017-9000-3
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
2021-9128-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212-
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212-
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
2022-5062-7
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2022-8945-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME
4.4.a
Page: 36
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
17.9E
a�
L
16.2E E.
aD
c
m
45.5E
c�
0
1,712.51 j,
ca
a
E
14.7E '@
t^.
80.6' @
0
L
306.3, a
Q
306.3,
LO
306.3,
m
r
306.3, N
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 60
s
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221992 9/22/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
221993 9/22/2016 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2022-9166-2
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 ,
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 ,
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2024-3924-6
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2036-5215-1
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
2044-2584-7
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
2051-8438-5
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
2202-1638-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2205-4757-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
Total:
16-0906-2
Q4-16 COMMUNICATIONS
Q4-16 COMMUNICATIONS
001.000.39.528.00.51.00
Q4-16 COMMUNICATIONS
421.000.74.534.80.51.00
Q4-16 COMMUNICATIONS
423.000.75.535.80.51.00
16-0906-2A
Q4-16 NEW WORLD ASSESSMENT
Q4-16 New World Assessment
001.000.39.528.00.51.00
4.4.a
Page: 37
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
m
75.9z
a�
L
5,081.1E
d
c
m
2,202.8E
c�
0
134.4(
0
a
E
45.0E
4-
0
16.8E @
0
L
a
0.
70.3 1 Q
70.0E
13,560.11 w
r
N
N
d)
0
211,082.1( Y
5,554.7� E
5,554.8( r
c
m
E
24,499.5(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
221993 9/22/2016 065910 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
221994 9/22/2016 065176 SNOHOMISH CO TOURISM BUREAU EDM0916
221995
1►yly�16sZ:
221997
221998
9/22/2016 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
9/22/2016 072291 SNO-KING COMMUNITY CHORALE TP SNO-KING CHORALE
9/22/2016 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
9/22/2016 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
Description/Account
Tota
TOURISM PROMOTION AWARD J
Tourism promotion award for perod
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
Tota
PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
DUMP SPEED BUMPS PW
111.000.68.542.90.49.00
FACILITIES CHAIR DUMP
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Tota
4.4.a
Page: 38
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
I: 246,691.2E 0
m
V
a�
3,000.0(
I: 3,000.0(
4-
a�
c
m
1,230.0(
619.0( o
CU
20.0(
1 : 1,869.0( .
U
4-
0
1,500.0( >
Total: 1,500.0( a
Q.
104757 WWTP: 9/2016 ROLLOFF ASH DISP Q
TP SNO-KING CHORALE
TP SNO-KING CHORALE
123.000.64.573.20.41.00
9/2016 Ash Disposal Ul)
423.000.76.535.80.47.65 4,928.7( W)
L116362 08-16 AUDIT FEES
08-16 Audit Fees
001.000.39.514.20.51.00
08-16 Audit Fees
111.000.68.543.30.51.00
08-16 Audit Fees
421.000.74.534.80.51.00
08-16 Audit Fees
422.000.72.531.90.51.00
08-16 Audit Fees
Tota
4,928.7(
m
r
N
N
2,378.0' c
N
Y
70.2(
E
865.9�
r
464.8E a0i
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221998 9/22/2016 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
221999 9/22/2016 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
222000 9/22/2016 069357 THIES, MIKE
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.51.00
08-16 Audit Fees
423.000.76.535.80.51.00
08-16 Audit Fees
511.000.77.548.68.51.00
18127971 STORM - MARKING PAINT
Storm - Marking Paint
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
4.4.a
Page: 39
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun
};
0
1,223.9(
a
-0)
320.71
aUi
L
=a
122.5 14
Total: 5,446.3E
m
c
c�
106.4( o
10.4: a
Total:
116.8t
916 CONFERENCE- MIKE THIES- WACE
f°
U
Mileage to/from WACE conference
c
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
120.9( @
3 nights hotel- WACE confernce
>
0
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
317.4E a
Meals (under per diem)
Q-
Q
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
33.0E
Tota
0781 CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD
Two (2) Computer Monitors
001.000.11.511.60.35.00
Registration Fee for SCC Membersh
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
Registration Fee for Economic Allia
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
Office Depot Item 1 - Disposible
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
Office Depot Item 2 - Writing Pens f
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
Late Payment Fee
471.5:
m
r
225.9( N
I
nc
d)
105.0(
w
25.0(
E
12.5E
or
�
9.4�
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 39
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
0781
CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD
Hobby Lobby - Council Supplies - Pal
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
Hobby Lobby - Card Stock 0 Paper
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
Registration fee for AWC Disability
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
Late Payment Fee
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
Registration fee for Housing Consortia
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
2674
OLYMPIC BRAKE - UNIT P9 - BRAKE
Olympic Brake - Unit P9 - Brake PadE
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Amazon - Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Amazon - Shop Tool
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
Costco - Units Ell8,119,128PR - Bac
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Wesco - Unit 79 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Amazon - Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
MSC - Unit 89 - Hose Reel
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Chuck Olson - Unit 30 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Amazon - Shop Tool
4.4.a
Page: 40
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
a
2.0( -0a
2.1( 4)
L
4.
2.4£ c
m
12.9£
c�
45.0( o
L
2.0( a
E
45 1.5, 0
0
38.3z a
Q
10.9E ,n
le
In
5.9�
m
r
439.1 £ N
N
CD
30.4. G
N
11.9£ E
1,244.3
c
33.9, E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 40
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
Home Depot - Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Campbell Nelson - Unit 12 - Replace
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
Costco - Unit 81 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
TEC - Unit 21 - Lamp
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Home Depot - Fleet Shop Tool
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
76 - Unit E108PO - Car Wash
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Home Depot - Unit 10 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Home Depot - E119PR - Supplies
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Amazon - Unit E118PR - Inverter
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
76- Unit E124PO - Car Wash
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Canopy World - Unit 94 FAC - Canop
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
Nelco - Unit E112PO - Cable Ties
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Costco - Units Ell8,119,128PR - Bac
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
2985 WWTP: 9/2016 CC: BUS.LICENSE/F
WA. BUSINESS LICENSE & FEE
423.000.76.535.80.51.00
RIO SUITES HOTEL - 1ST NIGHT+Ti
423.000.76.535.80.43.00
INFRAMATION CONFERENCE REGI
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
4.4.a
Page: 41
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
22.9E -0)
17.4E aUi
L
=a
330.8'
4.
aD
c
20.7E
118.0: c�a
0
40.71 L>%
0
a
8.7E
10.91 U
4-
0
52.5�
0
L
32.9E a
Q
8.7E LO
1,819.3�
m
r
30.1 < c�
N
a�
219.5c o
N
U
123.0( •@
U
84.0(
m
1,995.0( t
U
R
.r
r
a
Page: 41
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
RUBBER STAMP & 2017 AT-A-GLAN
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
3215
INV#3215 09/06/16 - COMPAAN - EC
AIRFARE/IACP/COMPAAN
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
REG/IACP/COMPAAN
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
3314
INV#3314 09/06/16 - LAWLESS - ED
COMBAT TOURNIQUETS (CAT)
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
COMBAT TOURNIQUETS (CAT) - SV
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
12 - 8.2 QT SHARPS CONTAINERS
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
HANDGUN BOXES, 4 PACKS OF 25
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
3520
INV#3520 09/06/16 - POLICE #2 - EC
FEDEX CHG #16-19143
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
FEDEX CHG RET SHIRT-BRATWEA
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
MAIL FLASHLIGHT FOR REPAIR
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
WATER HOLE DOG BOWL
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
RAM -TECH COLLAR 1"
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
EURO WORKING DOG MUZZLE
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
FEDEX CHG #16-20664,19855
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
VERBATIM REC DVD DISCS 100 PK
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
POST IT NOTES 3X3
4.4.a
Page: 42
c
ca
hd
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
m
77.0z
a�
L
263.2(
d
c
350.0(
c
c�
299.9( o
L
359.8E a
E
152.6, 0
0
15.3z a
Q
17.01 ,n
le
In
12.4E
m
r
15.9: N
N
M
16.9z C
N
96.6E
M
15.3z 6
c
114.7(
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 42
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
POST IT NOTES 3X5
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
VERBATIM DVD REC DISCS - 100 P
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
DBL PISTOL MAG POUCH (ST CRIK/
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
SGL MAG POUCH (ST CRIMES)
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
NIX TEST KIT L - HEROIN
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
NIX TEST KIT U - METH & XTC
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
SGL PISTOL MAG POUCH (ST CRIIV
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
FLASHLIGHT POUCH (ST CRIMES)
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
HANDCUFF POUCHES (ST CRIMES
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
5.11 TACT RADIO POUCHES (ST CF
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
FEDEX CHG #13664
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
LEVEL III ALS HOLSTERS (ST CRIM
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
FEDEX CHG #16-21549,20772
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
4675 PARKS CREDIT CARD
AMAZON: HAZEL MILLER PLAZA Pl
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
WRPA: TAMMY RANKINS REGISTR)
001.000.64.571.22.49.00
STATE OF WA: PARKING OLYMPIA (
001.000.64.571.21.43.00
4.4.a
Page: 43
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
22.7z -)
24.9E
L
=a
168.7,
W
c
36.3(
24.0z c�a
0
155.7E L>%
ca
a
113.7E
31.1.
4-
0
26.1 £
0
L
61.2E a
Q
69.1: Ul)
17.5�
m
r
433.3E c�
N
o�
15.3z o
N
U
130.0E •@
U
149.0(
m
3.0( t
U
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 43
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
QFC: PLATES CIVIC MASTER PLAN
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
QFC: CIVIC MASTER PLAN MEETIN
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
LITTLE CAESARS: CIVIC MASTER F
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
PC/NAMETAG: RIBBONS
117.100.64.573.20.31.00
LAKESHORE: MEADOWDALE PRE:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: MEAI
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
ACCO:CALENDARS
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
S&S WORLDWIDE: MEADOWDALE
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
AMAZON: DISC CHANGER FOR GY
001.000.64.571.28.31.00
AMAZON: STORAGE CABINET FOR
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
AMAZON: HEADSET FOR FRONT D
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
WSU: RECERTAND IPM WORKSHC
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
NORTHERN TOOL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4697 ESCC STUDENT EXCHANGE
ESCC student exchange lunch
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
gratuity for ESCC student exchange li
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
ice for ESCC Padilla Bay day
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
wet wipes for ESCC Padilla Bay day
4.4.a
Page: 44
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
6.5E
a�
L
22.6. =a
4-
58.1. c
m
31.9�
c�
707.5( 0
L
48.7z a
E
82.7( 'ca
29.9c 0
163.6( o
a
Q.
199.3, Q
333.8(
120.0(
N
280.4E
0
N
81.7E E
ca
15.0(
Page: 44
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
dressing for ESCC Padilla Bay day
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
SCC September Dinner Meeting
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
Parking for ESCC student exchange
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
9.8% Sales Tax
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
5411
REFUND FOR COUNCIL CREDIT C/
Refund for Candy for July 4th Parade
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
5593
RECORDING FEES, SUPPLIES, COI
SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL CLERKS
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
POSTAGE AND MAILED ENVELOPE
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
CERTIFIED MAIL MAILED FROM PO
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
2016 WAPRO FALL CONFERENCE
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
AMAZON - CITY CLERK IPAD CASE
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
5923
OFFICESPACE WEBSITE, BIRD FE:
External hard drive to access tourism
120.000.31.575.42.49.00
OfficeSpace website for September f(
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
4.4.a
Page: 45
c
(a
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
3.2E
4.9E aa)
L
=a
35.0(
a�
c
43.0(
8.3z (tea
0
L
179.8E a
E
M
187.0( U
0
187.0( >
0
L
880.0( Q
Q
150.0( ,n
144.9E
m
r
9.6' N
N
o�
375.0( c
N
54.9E U
169.9E
m
100.0(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 45
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
Bird Fest online advertising on Come
120.000.31.575.42.41.40
6254
6254 PARKS CR CARD
ECOPRODUCTS: WOTS SUPPLIES
117.100.64.573.20.31.00
EDMONDS PERMITS MEADOWDAL
125.000.64.594.75.65.00
7000
VISA, SHANE, CONFERENCE
Shane- Housing Cons meeting
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
7476
INV#7476 09/06/16 - BARD - EDMO�
TLO SEARCHES 8/2016
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
7483
BNSF BUSINESS LUNCH
Business meeting w/Johan Hellman c
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
gratuity on BNSF business lunch
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
9.6% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
8017
ENG CREDIT CARD JULY & AUGUS
GRC Pervious Pavement Display Sur
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
GRC Canvas Prints
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Zulauf - Bitco Training
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
New Mailbox System for Engineering
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
8017
CREDIT OF HOTEL CHARGES FROI
Credit for Hotel Charges from the AP\
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
8083
VISA- DEV SERV, VARIOUS
Office supplies- Amazon, for Dev
4.4.a
Page: 46
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
a
am
625.0(
a�
L
99.8:
d
c
3,380.0( Mw
c
c�
15.0( o
L
0
a
16.5( E
U
38.4( o
7.9' O
a
Q.
3.6� Q
LO
63.0:
m
r
131.3E N
N
150.0( o
N
95.2 1
E
-247.9(
m
E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 46
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
APA membership- Brad Shipley
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
Joint Planning Conference, Rob Cha\
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
Adobe subscription- Brad Shipley
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
8304
SEPTEMBER HR VISA BILL
LODGING FOR MAH AT WAPELRA
001.000.22.518.10.43.00
NEW FAX/COPY/SCANNER FOR HF
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
SPARE INK FOR FAX/COPY/SCANN
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
CL JOB POSTING: WATER MAINT. V
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
CL JOB POSTING: PLANNER
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
8304
CREDIT FOR BAREFOOT STUDENT
CREDIT FOR DUPLICATE BAREFO(
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
8349
INV#8349 09/06/16 - ANDERSON - E
KNIFE BOXES - 2 PKS OF 25
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
LG RIFLE BOXES - 2 PKS OF 25
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
RIFLE BOXES - 2 PKS OF 25
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
9821
INV#9821 09/06/16 - GREENMUN - E
AIRFARE/CNOA-POFF
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
REG/PERFORMANCELEADERSHIP,
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
PELICAN 1040 MICRO -CASE
4.4.a
Page: 47
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
442.Z -)
306.0( aUi
L
=a
275.0(
a�
c
54.8�
c
c�
110.9( o
L
208.6' a
E
w
90.0( 0
45.0( o
CL
Q.
Q
-50.0( ,n
le
47.2( w
r
N
144.4( N
0
0
107.6( Y
E
2
306.2( U
Page: 47
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222001 9/22/2016 062693 US BANK
222002 9/22/2016 075506 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
PELICAN 1042 PICK N PLUCK FOAP
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
8GB SD CARD -2 PACK
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
IPHONE CASE - NAVY
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
IPHONE CASE - BLACK/BLACK
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
NIKON COOLPIX CAMERA
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
DEP LODGING 10/2/COLL/SACKVIL
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
DEP LODGING 10/9/COLL/SACKVIL
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
DEP LODGING 10/16/COLL/SACKVI
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
DEP LODGING 10/23/COLL/SACKVI
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
OTTERBOX CASES FOR IPHONE
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
BID-1687 PO BOX RENEWAL, COPIES
Copies for board meeting
140.000.61.558.70.49.00
Annual PO box renewal for BID
140.000.61.558.70.49.00
Tota I :
4362934 EDMWATSEW 15
City of Edmonds WA Water and Sew(
421.000.74.592.34.89.00
City of Edmonds WA Water and Sew(
422.000.72.592.31.89.00
City of Edmonds WA Water and Sew(
4.4.a
Page: 48
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
55.9E -0)
16.4z aa)
L
=a
62.7.
a�
c
14.9'
15.1z c�a
0
128.4' L>%
(a
a
75.9(
75.9( U
0
75.9(
0
L
75.9( a
Q
62.4E Ul)
It
LO
23.5, m
r
N
106.0(
22,497.21 o
N
Y
E
90.8z Z
Page: 48
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222002 9/22/2016 075506 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.75.592.35.89.00
4363195
EDMWATREF11
City of Edmonds Water and Sewer
421.000.74.592.34.89.00
City of Edmonds Water and Sewer
422.000.72.592.31.89.00
City of Edmonds Water and Sewer
423.000.75.592.35.89.00
City of Edmonds Water and Sewer
423.100.76.592.39.89.00
4363197
EDMLTOREF12
City of Edmonds Limited General
001.000.39.592.18.89.00
City of Edmonds Limited General
126.000.39.592.75.89.00
City of Edmonds Limited General
423.100.76.592.39.89.00
4363198
EDMLTGO07
City of Edmonds WA Limited Tax Gen
001.000.39.592.18.89.00
City of Edmonds WA Limited Tax Gen
126.000.39.592.75.89.00
City of Edmonds WA Limited Tax Gen
111.000.68.592.47.89.00
City of Edmonds WA Limited Tax Gen
421.000.74.592.34.89.00
City of Edmonds WA Limited Tax Gen
422.000.72.592.31.89.00
City of Edmonds WA Limited Tax Gen
423.000.75.592.35.89.00
City of Edmonds WA Limited Tax Gen
423.100.76.592.39.89.00
4363225
EDMWATSEW 13
City of Edmonds Water and Sewer RE
4.4.a
Page: 49
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
149.1( -0a
U
179.9'
4.
86.6, c
m
27.4,
c�
6.0< o
L
0
a
220.6E E
72.1E u
4-
0
7.11
0
a
0.
52.0, Q
LO
23.4(
4.0, m
r
N
2.7( N
0
0
98.5E Y
2.1( •�
117.1,
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 49
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222002 9/22/2016 075506 US BANK
222003
222004
222005
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
9/22/2016 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 6080126
PO # Description/Account
421.000.74.592.34.89.00
City of Edmonds Water and Sewer RE
422.000.72.592.31.89.00
City of Edmonds Water and Sewer RE
423.000.75.592.35.89.00
Total
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
Total
9/22/2016 075762 VECA ELECTRIC COMPANY 73602 T1 STRUCTURED CABLING - FAC 1
T1 Structured Telecommunications
001.000.31.518.88.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.41.00
Total
9/22/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9771931402 C/A671247844-00001
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
Cell Service-PD 104 Fund
104.100.41.521.21.42.00
Cell Service-PW Street
4.4.a
Page: 50
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
106.3E -a)
18.0E aa)
L
=a
175.5:
1,500.0( c
m
c
c�
92.8( o
92.8( a
95.6. •�
281.2: 6
4-
0
ca
0
4,998.0( a
Q.
Q
489.8(
5,487.8(
m
r
92.4, N
o�
112.1E w
60.8E E
276.2'
r
c
133.5, E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 50
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
222005
9/22/2016
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
Cell Service-PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Cell Service-WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
Tota
222006
9/22/2016
069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
8046148230
WWTP: PIPETTE SERO 50ML
PIPETTE SERO 50ML
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
8046150775
WWTP: SS POUCH & BOTTLE DI
SS POUCH & BOTTLE DIOZ H2O
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
222007
9/22/2016
067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
116-522
STREET - TREE REMOVAL - APAR
Street - Tree Removal - Apartment
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
Tota
222008
9/22/2016
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
9734779
FAC MAINT - CLEANING SUPPLIE
Fac Maint - Cleaning Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.4.a
Page: 51
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
18.5, -0a
13.4E aUi
L
=a
13.40
aD
c
57.9(
81.0< c�a
0
42.5( L>%
1 : 902.21
E
U
179.1( o
17.5: o
L
02 0_
Q.
Q
78.6z
7.7,
1 : 283.0( m
r
T N
N
d)
0
900.0( Y
U
88.2( E
1 : 988.2( .@
U
S
m
E
163.2(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 51
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222008 9/22/2016 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
222009 9/22/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9734780
FAC MAINT - CLEANING SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Cleaning Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9736760
FAC MAINT - CLEANING SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Cleaning Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9739120
FAC MAINT - LINERS, TOWELS, VA(
Fac Maint - Liners, Towels, Vac Bags,
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9739121
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9739121 CR
FAC MAINT - RETURNS
Fac Maint - Returns
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total:
7117 COUNCIL OFFICE FURNITURE
Used 36X72 Racetrack Conference F
001.000.11.511.60.35.00
Used Performance chairs for Council
001.000.11.511.60.35.00
9.8% Sales Tax
4.4.a
Page: 52
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
15.9�
a�
L
345.2( E.
aD
c
33.8:
c
c�
60.4( o
L
5.9, a
E
M
1,934.4E U
0
189.5E >
0
L
Q
0.
464.6z Q
45.5<
3,169.& Y
E
Page: 52
Packet Pg. 76
M
vchlist
09/22/2016 10:10:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
222009 9/22/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC (Continued)
7141
7160
107 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
107 Vouchers in this report
PO #
Description/Account
4.4.a
Page: 53
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
0-
001.000.11.511.60.35.00
33.3, m
CITY CLERK REGULAR ENVELOPE
CITY CLERK 2500- #10 REGULAR E
L
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
225.2E
9.8% Sales Tax
}'
4
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
22.01
COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS O
4-CASES OF X-9000 COPY PAPER
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
137.3( M
9.8% Sales Tax
o
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 13.4( j,
Tota
Bank tota
Total voucher
771.4E a
1,350,234.9( .�
U
s : 1,350,234.9( o
Page: 53
Packet Pg. 77
c�
0
L
Q
Q
r
r
C
d
E
t
V
R
r
Q
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
41
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
a�
E
A
STM
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
c484
E5FE
to
STR
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
c424
E3DC
3
SWR
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
c
STR
2014 Chip Seals
c451
E4CB
rn
m
STM
2014 Drainage Improvements
c433
E41FA
v
STM
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
rn
STR
2014 Overlay Program
c438
E4CA
Q
m
WTR
2014 Waterline Overlays
c452
E4CC
STM
2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
r
L
STM
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
c466
E5FA
r
STR
2015 Overlay Program
c463
E5CA
c
SWR
2015 Sewerline Overlays
i007
E5CC
SWR
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
c441
E4GA
STR
2015 Traffic Calming
c471
E5AB
o
L
WTR
2015 Waterline Overlays
c475
E5CB
0.
WTR
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
c440
E4J13
STR
2016 Overlay Program
i008
E6CA
v
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
E5GA
o
SWR
2016 Sewerline Overlays
i010
E6CC
WTR
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
c460
E4JC
Q
WTR
2016 Waterline Overlays
i009
E6CB
Q
WTR
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
c468
E5JA
LO
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
'n
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6J13
STR
220th Street Overlay Project
c462
E4CD
N
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
c
WTR
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
c418
E3J13
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
E
STR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
Z
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
.F
d
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
y
N
STM
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
i012
E6FC
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
c
m
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
a
m
FAC
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
c476
E5LA
Li
STR
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
c426
E3DE
a�
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
E
t
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
U
PRK
City Spray Park
c417
E4MA
Q
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
Revised 9/21/2016
Packet Pg. 78
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
4.4.b
Funding Project Title
Protect Engineering
Accounting Project
Number Number
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB
Revised 9/21/2016
Packet Pg. 79
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
ElFM
PM
Dayton Street Plaza
c276
E7MA
STM
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
c472
E5FC
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
General
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
c478
E5DB
FAC
ESCO III Project
c419
E3LB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E5KA
STIR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
E8MA
STIR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
sol l
E5GB
STM
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c434
E4FB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E6FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
E3FE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1 FN
STM
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
c408
E3FC
FAC
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
c444
E4LA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
E5FD
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
STIR
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
c427
E3AB
STIR
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
c454
E4DB
STIR
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
s014
E6AA
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
STM
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
c429
E3FG
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STM
SW Edmonds-105th/l06th Ave W Storm Improvements
c430
E3FH
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
STIR
Train Trench - Concept
c453
E4DA
STIR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
STM
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
c467
E5FB
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
STM
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
c459
E4FF
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 80
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
E1AA
c342
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR 368
ve W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E1DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM
yton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM
E1 FN
c376
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STR
ransportation Plan Updat
STR
E2AB
c392
9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR
E2AD
NE1Wy
99 Enhancements (Phase
STM
E2FA
c378
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW t an Park Infiltration System
STM
E2FC
c380
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR
0
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR
E3AB
c427
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) _
STR
E3DC
c424
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR
E3
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR
E3DE
c426
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM
E3FC
c408
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM
E3FE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM
E3FG
c429
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM
E3FH
c430
SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR
E3GA
c398
2013 Sewerline Replacement Pr '
WTR
E3J13
c418
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC
E3LB
c419
ESCO III Proje
STR
E4CA
c438
2014 Overlay Program
STR
E4CB
c451
2014 Chip Seals
WTR
E4CC
c452
2014 Waterline Overlays
STR
E4CD
c462
220th Street Overlay Project
STR
E4DA
c453
Train Trench - Concept
STR
E4DB
c454
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
STM
E4FA
c433
2014 Drainage Improvements
STM
c434
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM
E4FC
c435
2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
NET
c436
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
`STM
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
SWR
E4GA
c441
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
NLWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 81
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WTR
E4JB
c440
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR
E4JC
c460
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC
E4LA
c444
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK
E4MA
c417
City Spray Park
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STIR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
STIR
E5AB
c471
2015 Traffic Calming
STIR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
WTR
E5CB
c475
2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR
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
E5FB
c467
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
STM
E5FC
c472
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
STM
E51FE
c484
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5JA
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E5KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
FAC
E5LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
STIR
E6AA
s014
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
STIR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
WTR
E6CB
i009
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STIR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STM
E61FA
i011
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM
E6FC
i012
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
WTR
E6J13
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PM
E7MA
c276
Dayton Street Plaza
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 82
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding Number
Number Proiect Title
PM EBMA
c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 83
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Proiect Title
PM
E7MA
c276
Dayton Street Plaza
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E1AA
c342
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E1CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM
E1 FM
c374
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM
E1 FN
c376
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
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
STIR
E2AA
c391
Transportation Plan Update
STIR
E2AB
c392
9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR
E3GA
c398
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STIR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM
E3FC
c408
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM
E31FE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK
E4MA
c417
City Spray Park
WTR
E3J13
c418
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC
E3LB
c419
ESCO III Project
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STIR
E3DC
c424
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STIR
E3DD
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STIR
E3DE
c426
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STIR
E3AB
c427
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM
E3FG
c429
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM
E3FH
c430
SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM
E41FA
c433
2014 Drainage Improvements
STM
E4FB
c434
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM
E4FC
c435
2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STIR
E4CA
c438
2014 Overlay Program
WTR
E4J13
c440
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR
E4GA
c441
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC
E41-A
c444
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STIR
E4CB
c451
2014 Chip Seals
WTR
E4CC
c452
2014 Waterline Overlays
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 84
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
E4DA
c453
Train Trench - Concept
STR
E4DB
c454
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
STM
E41FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GB
c456
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM
E4FF
c459
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR
E4JC
c460
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR
E4CD
c462
220th Street Overlay Project
STR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
STM
E51FA
c466
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM
E5FB
c467
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR
E5JA
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
STR
E5AB
c471
2015 Traffic Calming
STM
E5FC
c472
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR
E51KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
WTR
E5CB
c475
2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC
E5LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM
E51FE
c484
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
WTR
E6CB
i009
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
STM
E61FA
iol 1
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FC
i012
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
E6J13
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
STR
E6AA
s014
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 85
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding Number
Number Proiect Title
STIR E6DB
s016 ADA Transition Plan
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 86
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Protect
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
FAC
A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
c476
E5LA
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
FAC
ESCO III Project
c419
E3LB
FAC
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
c444
E41-A
General
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
c478
E5DB
PM
Dayton Street Plaza
c276
E7MA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
E8MA
PRK
City Spray Park
c417
E4MA
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
STM
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
c484
E5FE
STM
2014 Drainage Improvements
c433
E4FA
STM
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STM
2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
STM
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
c466
E5FA
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
STM
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
i012
E6FC
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
E1 FM
STM
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
c472
E5FC
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
STM
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c434
E4FB
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E6FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
E3FE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1 FN
STM
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
c408
E3FC
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
E5FD
STM
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
c429
E3FG
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STM
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
c430
E3FH
STM
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
c467
E5FB
STM
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
c459
E4FF
STR
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
c424
E3DC
STR
2014 Chip Seals
c451
E4CB
STR
2014 Overlay Program
c438
E4CA
STR
2015 Overlay Program
c463
E5CA
STR
2015 Traffic Calming
c471
E5AB
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 87
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Protect
Fundinq
Protect Title
Number
Number
STR
2016 Overlay Program
i008
E6CA
STR
220th Street Overlay Project
c462
E4CD
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
STR
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
c426
E3DE
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
STR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
STR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
STR
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
c427
E3AB
STR
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
c454
E4DB
STR
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
s014
E6AA
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
STR
Train Trench - Concept
c453
E4DA
STR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
SWR
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehablitation
c390
E2GB
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
SWR
2015 Sewerline Overlays
i007
E5CC
SWR
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
c441
E4GA
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
E5GA
SWR
2016 Sewerline Overlays
iolo
E6CC
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
sol l
E5GB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
WTR
2014 Waterline Overlays
c452
E4CC
WTR
2015 Waterline Overlays
c475
E5CB
WTR
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
c440
E4JB
WTR
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
c460
E4JC
WTR
2016 Waterline Overlays
io09
E6CB
WTR
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
c468
E5JA
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6JB
WTR
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
c418
E3JB
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
E5JB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E5KA
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 88
4.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding Project Title
Number
Number
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
Revised 9/21/2016 Packet Pg. 89
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 783 (09/01/2016 to 09/15/2016)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
-ed2
REGULAR HOURS
Educational Pay Correction
0.00
-156.28
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
122.00
0.00
118
ABSENT
UNPAID L & 1
41.00
0.00
120
SICK
SICK LEAVE - L & 1
36.00
983.94
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
448.34
15,120.38
122
VACATION
VACATION
1,592.47
61,124.63
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
78.00
2,807.89
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
25.00
739.41
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
223.03
8,576.41
129
SICK
Police Sick Leave L & 1
199.50
7,402.99
130
COMP HOURS
Holiday Compensation Used
20.50
688.48
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
32.00
1,195.25
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
16.00
617.55
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kelly Day Used
155.00
5,952.66
152
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME BUY BACK
1.00
41.40
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
72.16
3,239.19
157
SICK
SICK LEAVE PAYOFF
15.00
621.00
158
VACATION
VACATION PAYOFF
15.33
634.66
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
3.00
189.89
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
15,005.84
536,984.81
205
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME .5
46.50
769.47
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
137.63
5,861.03
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
60.00
2,862.26
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
15.00
1,360.53
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
244.00
14,474.90
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
12.75
650.05
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
342.59
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
881.15
600
RETROACTIVE PAY
RETROACTIVE PAY
436.50
4,826.72
601
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP .5
13.00
0.00
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP
46.50
0.00
603
COMP HOURS
Holiday Comp 1.0
27.00
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME
106.75
0.00
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
24.95
09/22/2016 Packet Pg. 90
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 783 (09/01/2016 to 09/15/2016)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
acs
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT
0.00
143.91
boc
MISCELLANEOUS
BOC II Certification
0.00
84.53
colre
MISCELLANEOUS
Collision Reconstructionist
0.00
107.89
cpl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
147.28
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
622.35
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
75.00
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
102.75
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
989.84
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
731.26
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
891.06
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
5,117.28
fmla
ABSENT
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID
77.00
0.00
hol
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
1,247.80
44,283.84
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
102.75
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
888.29
Ig10
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY 5.5%
0.00
396.36
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
737.53
Iq2
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY PAY 4%
0.00
997.22
Iq3
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY 6%
0.00
5,661.69
Iq4
LONGEVITY
Lonqevity 1 %
0.00
240.75
Iq6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevity .5%
0.00
275.57
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevity 1.5%
0.00
931.11
Iq9
LONGEVITY
Lonqevity 3.5%
0.00
82.46
mels
SICK
Medical Leave Sick
91.00
3,547.32
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
200.57
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
47.12
phy
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
1,923.49
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SER
0.00
157.56
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%
0.00
514.51
sqt
MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
0.00
157.56
slw
SICK
SICK LEAVE ADD BACK
34.77
0.00
str
MISCELLANEOUS
STREET CRIMES
0.00
418.92
traf
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAFFIC
0.00
323.67
09/22/2016 Packet Pg. 91
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 783 (09/01/2016 to 09/15/2016)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours
20,697.37
Total Net Pay:
Amount
$749,719.35
$499,534.00
4.4.c
09/22/2016
Packet Pg. 92
Hour Type Hour Class
190 REGULAR HOURS
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 843 (09/01/2016 to 09/15/2016)
Description
REGULAR HOURS
Hours
Amount
80.00 2,480.00
80.00 $2,480.00
Total Net Pay: $2,091.86
4.4.d
09/22/2016 Packet Pg. 93
4.4.e
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 783 - 09/01/2016 to 09/15/2016
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
62331
09/20/2016
chap1
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
50.00
62332
09/20/2016
epoa2
EPOA-POLICE
2,925.00
62333
09/20/2016
epoa3
EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT
388.00
62334
09/20/2016
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
789.99
62335
09/20/2016
teams
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763
5,061.90
62336
09/20/2016
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
1,449.81
10,664.70
Bank: wire - US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
2446
09/20/2016
awc
AWC
322,362.75
2449
09/20/2016
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
19,755.50
2450
09/20/2016
us
US BANK
104,293.16
2451
09/20/2016
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177131
92,101.99
2454
09/20/2016
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,715.92
2455
09/20/2016
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
158.00
2456
09/20/2016
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
647.50
545,034.82
Grand Totals: 555,699.52
9/22/2016
U)
U
a�
U
.y
O
Direct Deposit
Q-
m
0.00
0.00
m
L
0.00
0.00
4-
0.00
m
0.00
c
0.00
f°
0
L
Direct Deposit
0.00
0.00
-
0
0.00
f°
0.00
0
0.00
0.
Q.
0.00
Q
0.00
,n
LO
0.00
m
0.00
r
c
N
CD
O
N
r
d
C
N
O
L
r
E
L
U
a
Packet Pg. 94
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Leadership Day Proclamation (5 min.)
Staff Lead: Dave Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
2016 marks the first Leadership Day celebration in Snohomish County. The day will recognize the work
of Leadership Snohomish County and the many businesses and organizations that contribute to their
success and the success of the community. The day will also recognize the many individuals who have
participated in the program over the past 18 years and the leadership roles they play in Snohomish
County.
Attachments:
Leaders hip_Day_2016
Packet Pg. 95
lirarfamuflan
O
City of Edmonds S Office of the Mayor
Leadership Day
October 14, 2016
WHEREAS: Leadership Snohomish County is recognized as the local organization
specializing in developing leaders for a lifetime, making Snohomish County
vibrant and providing education and opportunities for the past 18 years to
strengthen our community; and
WHEREAS: more than 100 employers in all sectors have participated in Leadership
Snohomish County; and
WHEREAS: in 2016, more than 500 Snohomish County professionals will have graduated
from Leadership Snohomish County programs; and
WHEREAS: Leadership Snohomish County intends to use Leadership Day to unite and
recognize the role of leadership in our County, and encourage community
celebrations on this day; and
WHEREAS: Leadership Snohomish County will undertake the recognition of the many
contributions from our community leaders across Snohomish County as part of
this day, as well as coordinate a leadership service opportunity;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David 0. Earling, Mayor, do hereby proclaim October 14, 2016 as
Leadership Day
in the City of Edmonds, Washington, and join in recognizing the many contributions Leadership
Snohomish County has made.
�S
David 0. Earling, Mayor
September 27, 2016
Packet Pg. 96
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Refunding 2007 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott James
Background/History
On July 27, 2016, staff solicited Council direction in regards to refunding our 2007 Limited Tax General
Obligation Bonds (LTGO). Staff presented the option of refunding the bonds via a new bond issue or
with a bank loan. Of these two options, staff recommended and Council concurred that we pursue the
bank loan option.
Subsequent to the July 271" Council meeting, staff solicited bank loan offers through an RFP process. The
City received three responses, which are attached.
Additional Information/Background on the 2007 LTGO Bond:
In 2007, the City issued $5,230,000 of LTGO bonds to finance general City purposes to provide funds
with which to (a) repay and redeem the City's Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Anticipation Note, 2005
and its Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, 2006; (b) pay or reimburse the City for
HVAC improvements to City facilities; (c) pay or reimburse the City for the Anderson Center seismic
project; (d) pay or reimburse the City for energy conservation measures; (e) pay or reimburse the City
for utility improvements.
The 2007 Bonds are callable any time after December 1, 2016, and the City has the ability to refinance
these bonds, saving the City taxpayers approximately $335,000. The par amount of the 2007 Bonds that
can be refunded totals $3,120,000.
Staff Recommendation
Of the three bank responses, staff is recommending we select JP Morgan Chase, who offered the lowest
loan rate, to refund the 2007 LTGO Bond.
Additionally, JP Morgan Chase offered three prepayment options to refund the bond:
Option A: 1.64% Non -Callable Tax -Exempt Fixed Rate
Option B: 1.72% Callable after 5 years Tax -Exempt Fixed Rate
Option C: 1.67% Callable after 7 years Tax -Exempt Fixed Rate
Staff is recommending we use Option C as this option provides the City with the option to call the bonds
in year seven, yet still take advantage of a very favorable loan rate.
Narrative
Council Motion: Approve the 2007 Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Refunding Ordinance No. XXXX.
Packet Pg. 97
7.1
Attachments:
JP Morgan Proposal
Heritage Bank Proposal
Washington Federal Proposal
City of Edmonds LTGO Bond Ordinance
Packet Pg. 98
ADDENDUM TO
TERM SHEET
7.1.a
This Addendum is attached to and hereby incorporated by reference into that certain Term Sheet ("Term
Sheet") dated September 15, 2016, from JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA ("Bank") to the City of Edmonds.
Washington (the "City"), regarding the City's $3,170,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bond,
Series 2016 (the "Bond" ). This Addendum shall supplement said Term Sheet as indicated below.
FORM OF BOND: Bank will require a single Bond in the full principal amount
of the issuance with installment payments as indicated on the
Term Sheet. Bank intends to hold the Bond for its own
account until final maturity, without reoffering for sale. Bank
will not require DTC registration.
INTEREST RATE_ The Bond would accrue interest at a fixed rate per annum as
set forth below. The following fixed interest rate is fixed
through September 16, 2016, 5:00 pm Pacific and thereafter
is indicative and subject to change daily until the Addendum
to Term Sheet is executed between the City and the Bank:
Option A: 1.64% Non -Callable Tax -Exempt Fixed Rate
Option B: 1.72% Callable Tax -Exempt Fixed Rate
Option C. 1.67% Callable Tax -Exempt Fixed Rate
The interest rate on the Bond is determined to approximate a
particular percentage yield to Bank and assumes that the
Bond is Bank qualified ohligations under the Code.
DEFAULT INTEREST RATE: For all Interest Rate Options, at the election of the Bank, the
interest rate will increase while the Event of Default is
continuing by 150 basis points (1.50%). "Event of Default"
means the declaration by the Bank of an event of default as a
result of a determination by the Bank that there has been: (i) a
failure to pay principal or interest on the Bond when due, as
provided in the Bond; or (ii) a failure by the City to comply
with any of its obligations, or to perform any of its duties,
under the Bond, which failure continues, and is not cured, for
a period of more than 60 days after the Bank has made
written demand on the City to cure such failure; or, (iii) a
material misrepresentation to the Bank by the City in the
entering into of the Bond, as reasonably concluded by the
Bank after investigation and discussion with the City.
REDEMPTION PROVISIONS: Option A: The Bond will NOT be subject to optional
redemption.
Option B: The Bond will be subject to optional prepayment,
in whole or in part, on any date on or after December 1, 2021
at a prepayment price equal to 100% of the principal amount
prepaid plus accrued interest to the date fixed for prepayment.
Option C: The Bond will be subject to optional prepayment,
in whole or in part, on any date on or after December 1, 2023
Packet Pg. 99
7.1.a
at a prepayment price equal to 100% of the principal amount
prepaid plus accrued interest to the date fixed for prepayment.
SECURITY: The Bond will be a limited tax general obligation of the City.
The City will irrevocably pledge that for as long as the Bond
is outstanding, it will include in its annual budget and levy ad
valorem taxes annually, within the constitutional and
statutory tax limitations provided by law without a vote of the
electors of the City, upon all taxable property within the City
in amounts sufficient, together with other money of the City
legally available and to be used therefor, to pay when due the
principal of and interest on the Bond. The full faith, credit
and resources of the City will be pledged irrevocably for the
annual levy and collection of such taxes and the prompt
payment of such principal and interest on the 2016 Bond. The
2016 Bond does not constitute a debt or indebtedness of the
State or any political subdivision thereof other than the City.
INDEPENDENT BANK COUNSEL FEE: $4000 to be paid by the City at closing, as a cost of issuance.
If the Issuer elects not to close the sale of the Bond
notwithstanding the Bank's willingness to purchase, the Issuer
will nonetheless be responsible for payment of the fees of
Bank's counsel.
LEGAL OPINION: The City's bond counsel will deliver a legal opinion as to (i)
validity and enforceability of the Bond under state law, (ii)
exemption of interest on the Bond from Federal income tax.
and (iii) designation of the Bond as "qualified tax-exempt
obligations" under Section 265(b) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended. Bond counsel approving opinion
must be addressed to Bank or permit reliance by Bank.
PAYING AGENTIREGISTRAR: Bank will not serve as Paying Agent or Registrar for the
Bond.
DOCUMENTATION: Documentation shall be prepared by City's bond counsel, at
City's expense. This Addendum to Term Sheet is subject to
approval of the documentation by the Bank and its separate
Bank counsel in the Bank's reasonable discretion, including
but not limited to the form of Bond.
The Bank will make a loan by entering into of the Bond
under the following additional conditions: (i) the Bond is not
being registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and is not
being registered or otherwise qualified for sale under the
"Blue Sky" laws and regulations of any state: (6) the Bank
will hold the Bond as one single debt instrument; (iii) no
CUSIP numbers will be obtained for the Bond. (iv) no
official statement has been or will be prepared in connection
with the private placement of the Bond; (v) the Bond will not
Packet Pg. 100
7.1.a
close through the DTC or any similar repository and will not
be in book entry form; and (vi) the Bond is not listed on any
stock or other securities exchange
PURCHASER'S RECEIPT: The Bank is agreeable to execute a purchaser's receipt and
certification in the form attached. This form has been used
before in the State of Washington with the same bond counsel
and reflects the lending nature of the transaction.
TAXABILITY: This Addendum assumes that the Bond will be issued as bank
qualified, tax-exempt obligations.
FINANCIAL REPORTING: While the Bond is Outstanding, the Issuer shall provide the
Bank (i) within 180 days after the end of each fiscal year; a
copy of the unaudited financial statements of the City for that
fiscal year. prepared (except as noted in the financial
statements) in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles applicable to governmental units of the State such
as the City, as such principles may be changed from time to
time. (ii) annual audited financial statements within 30 days
of receipt, prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles applicable to local governmental units
of the State such as the Issuer, as such principles may be
changed from time to time; (iii) promptly after adoption by
the City, the budget of the Issuer for each fiscal year; and (iv)
such other financial information of the City as the Bank may
from time to time reasonably request.
MATERIAL CHANGE: Any change (whether material or not) in the amount to be
financed or a material change in the financial condition or
prospects of the Issuer may constitute a re -pricing event and
Bank may, at its option and in its sole discretion, terminate
this Term Sheet and/or the Interest Rate may be adjusted.
MUNICIPAL DISCLOSURE: The City acknowledges and agrees that (i) the transaction
contemplated herein is an arm's length commercial
transaction between the City and the Bank and its affiliates,
(ii) in connection with such transaction, the Bank and its
affiliates are acting solely as a principal and not as an advisor
including, without limitation, a "Municipal Advisor" as such
term is defined in Section 15B of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and the related final rules (the
"Municipal Advisor Rules'*), agent or a fiduciary of the City,
(iii) the Bank and its affiliates are relying on the Bank
exemption in the Municipal Advisor Rules, (iv) the Bank and
its affiliates have not provided any advice or assumed any
advisory or fiduciary responsibility in favor of the City with
respect to the transaction contemplated hereby and the
discussions, undertakings and procedures leading thereto
(whether or not the Bank, or any affiliate of the Bank, has
Packet Pg. 101
7.1.a
provided other services or advised, or is currently providing
other services or advising the City on other matters), (v) the
Batik and its affiliates have financial and other interests that
differ from those of the City. and (vi) the City has consulted
with its orvn financial, legal, accounting, tax and other
advisors, as applicable. to the extent it deemed appropriate.
MISCELLANEOUS: Closing will occur upon receipt of all docwnentation required
by Bank, in form and substance acceptable to Bank and its
independent counsel. If not accepted/awarded by September
16, 2016 at 5.00 PM Pacific and/or the expected closing date
does not occur by October 11, 2016, the Bank reserves the
right to re -price or terminate the Bid.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED HEREIN TO THE CONTRARY, IN THE EVENT ANY
MATERIAL CHANGE SHALT. OCCUR IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AFTER THE DATE OF THIS
TERM SHEET, BUT BEFORE CLOSING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION OR OTHER EVENT WHICH MATERIALLY ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE
EXTENSION OF CREDIT BY BANKS, LEASING COMPANIES OR OTHER LENDING INSTITUTIONS,
THE BANK MAY MODIFY THE INDICATIVE PRICING DESCRIBED ABOVE.
ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL COMMITMENTS TO LOAN MONEY, EXTEND CREDIT, OR
TO FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER
WASHINGTON LAW.
We appreciate your interest in us and look forward to your favorable response. Should you have any questions
regarding this Term Sheet, please contact me at (503) 231-3038 or via email at bruce.d.iaeger@chase.com.
Sincerely,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA i
VU
Bruce Jaeger ' `� 6A
Vice President VIFr3
ACCEPTED BY: City of Edmonds, Washington
Option: Option C
By:
Name: David O. Earling
Title: Mayor
Date: September 16, 2016
Packet Pg. 102
7.1.a
[RS Circular 230 Disclosure: Bank and its affiliates (collectively. "Chase") do not provide tax advice. Accordingly. any discussion of
U.S, tax matters contained herein (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used. and cannot he used. in connection
►i ith the promotion. marketing or recommendation by anyone unaffiliated with Chase of any of the matters addressed herein or for the
purpose ofavoiding U.S. tax -related penalties.
Packet Pg. 103
it a . a
:A
September 15, 2016
City of Edmonds
121 5" Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Letter of Interest for Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bond, 2016.
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for considering Heritage Bank ("Bank") for the proposed project using bond financing. I am pleased to
present this Letter of Interest for the proposed financing of the Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bond,
2016 ("Bond").
It is the Bank's expectation that any commitment that may be granted with respect to this project would generally be
on the terms and conditions outlined as follows:
Issuer: City of Edmonds located in Snohomish County, Washington (the `City')
Use of Funds: Proceeds of the Bond will be used to current refund a portion of the City's outstanding
Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007 and to pay costs of issuance for the Bond.
Prannsed Financing
Bond: $3,170,000 Approximate Principal Amount — final amount may vary and is subject to
change depending on costs associated with the issuance of the Bond.
Tax Status: Interest payments on the Bond will be excludable from federal income taxation. Interest
payments will not be treated as a preference item in calculating the federal alternative
minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations.
Bank Qualification: The Bond will be designated by the City as a "qualified tax-exempt bond" for purposes of
Section 265(b)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Term: Final maturity of 12/1/26.
Payment Schedule: Interest payments will be due semiannually on June 1 and December 1, beginning
December 1, 2016. Principal payments will be due annually on December 1, beginning
December 1, 2017 through and including December 1, 2026 (See `Exhibit A' for
principal payment schedule).
Interest Rate: If the Bond is purchased by October 11, 2016, the interest rate will be 2.03%. The rate
will be fixed for the full term of the Bond.
Interest Basis: Interest will be calculated on a 30/360 basis.
800.455.6126 1 www.HeritageBankNW.com I Member FDIC
Packet Pg. 104
7.1.b
Heritage
BANK
Bank Fees: Total bank fees limited to a legal review fee not to exceed $3,500.
Collateral/Security: The Bond will be a limited tax general obligation of the City. The City will irrevocably
covenant and agree in the Bond Ordinance that for as long as the Bond is outstanding, it
will include in its annual budget and levy ad valorem taxes annually, within the
constitutional and statutory limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of
the City, upon all the property within the City subject to taxation in an amount that will
be sufficient, together with all other revenues and money of the City legally available for
such purposes, to pay the principal of and interest on the Bond as the same becomes due.
The full faith, credit and resources of the City will be pledged irrevocably for the annual
levy and collection of such taxes and for the nromot _navy ment of such principal and
interest.
The Bond will not constitute a debt or indebtedness of the State of Washington, or any
political subdivision thereof other than the City.
Call Feature: The Bond can be called in whole after 12/01/2021, at par value or other terms to be
negotiated upon bid acceptance.
Default: At the election of the Bank, the interest rate will increase while the Event of Default is
continuing by 300 basis points (3.00%). "Event of Default" means the declaration by the
Bank of an event of default as a result of a determination by the Bank that there has been:
(i) a failure to pay principal or interest on the Bond when due, as provided in the Bond
and resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bond (the "Resolution"); or (ii) a failure by
the City to comply with any of its obligations, or to perform any of its duties, under the
Resolution, any Bond Purchase Agreement or the Bond, which failure continues, and is
not cured, for a period of more than 60 days after the Bank has made written demand on
the City to cure such failure; or, (iii) a material misrepresentation to the Bank by the City
in the purchase of the Bond, as reasonably concluded by the Bank after investigation and
discussion with the City.
Reporting: If not publicly available, the Annual Financial Report will be due 270 days after the
City's fiscal year end (December 31), commencing with the report for the 2016 fiscal
year.
Other: The Bank will make a loan by purchasing the Bond under the following additional
conditions: (i) the Bond is not being registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and is not
being registered or otherwise qualified for sale under the "Blue Sky" laws and regulations
of any state; (ii) the Bank will hold the Bond as one single debt instrument; (iii) no
CUSIP numbers will be obtained for the Bond; (iv) no final official Statement has been
prepared in connection with the private placement of the Bond; (v) the Bond will not
close through the DTC or any similar repository and will not be in book entry form; and
(vi) the Bond is not listed on any stock or other securities exchange.
Purchaser's Receipt: The Bank is agreeable to execute a purchaser's receipt and certification in the form
attached (`Exhibit B'). This form was used with the Lakewood Water District with the
same bond counsel and reflects the lending nature of the transaction.
800,455.61261 www.HeritageBankNW.com I Member FDIC
Packet Pg. 105
7.1.b
Heritage
BANK
Conditions Precedent to a Formal Commitment will include, but shall not be limited to:
Review and approval of the Bond, the Resolution, and the closing documents relating to the Bond, including the
validity and tax opinions of bond counsel, by Bank and its legal counsel.
Please be advised the information contained in this letter of interest is provided to you with general terms proposed
to support the bonds and may be changed without notice. If you have any questions, or if we can be of any
assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call. I look forward to hearing from you and for the opportunity to assist
you with your financing.
Sincerely,
Rod Cann
SVP & Commercial Team Leader
Heritage Bank
THIS TERM -SHEET IS NOT A COMMITMENT TO LEND MONEY ON OUR PART AND SHOULD NOT
BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS SUBJECT TO FINAL CREDIT APPROVAL AND TO CHANGE BASED UPON
FURTHER ANALYSIS. THE INDICATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE NOT ALL INCLUSIVE.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED HEREIN TO THE CONTRARY, IN THE EVENT ANY
MATERIAL CHANGE SHALL OCCUR IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AFTER THE DATE OF THIS
TERM SHEET, BUT BEFORE CLOSING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION OR OTHER EVENT WHICH MATERIALLY ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE
EXTENSION OF CREDIT BY BANKS, LEASING COMPANIES OR OTHER LENDING INSTITUTIONS,
THE BANK MAY MODIFY THE INDICATIVE PRICING DESCRIBED ABOVE.
ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL COMMITMENTS TO LOAN MONEY, EXTEND CREDIT, OR TO
FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER
WASHINGTON LAW.
800.455.6126 1 www.HeritageBankNW.com I Member FDIC
Packet Pg. 106
Exhibit `A'
PRINCIPAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Period lndin
Amount
12/1/16
$
12/1/17
$
290,000.00
12/1/18
$
295,000.00
12/1/19
$
300,000.00
12/1/20
$
310,000.00
12/1/21
$
315,000.00
12/1/22
$
320,000.00
12/1/23
$
325,000.00
12/1/24
$
330,000.00
12/1/25
$
340,000.00
12/1/26
$
345,000.00
Total
$
3,170,000.00
*Final amount may vary and is subject to change depending on costs associated with the issuance of the Bond.
800.455.6126 1 www.HeritageBankNW.com I Member FDIC
Packet Pg. 107
Exhibit `B'
7.1.b
Heritage
BANK
PURCHASER REPRESENTATION LETTER AND RECEIPT
I am a duly authorized representative of Heritage Bank (the "Purchaser") and with
regard to the <<BondDescription>> (the "Bond") of <<Issuer>> (the "Borrower") do hereby
represent to you as follows:
1. The Purchaser has full power and authority to carry on its business as now
conducted, deliver this Representation Letter and make the representations and certifications
contained herein.
2. The Purchaser: (a) is a lender that regularly extends credit by purchasing loans in
the form of state and local government obligations such as the Bond; (b) has knowledge and
experience in financial and business matters that make it capable of evaluating the Borrower, the
Bond and the risks associated with the purchase of the Bond; (c) has the ability to bear the
economic risk of extending the credit evidenced by the Bond; and (d) is engaged in the business
of extending credit and making loans to state and local governments and non-profit entities and
has total assets in excess of $100 million. The Purchaser is not acting as a broker, dealer,
municipal securities underwriter, municipal advisor or fiduciary in connection with its purchase
of the Bond.
3. The Purchaser has conducted its own investigation of the financial condition of the
Borrower, the purpose for which the Bond is being executed and delivered and of the security for
the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond, and has obtained such information
regarding the Bond and the Borrower and its operations, financial condition and financial
prospects as the Purchaser deems necessary to make an informed credit decision with respect to
the purchase of the Bond.
4. The Purchaser is purchasing the Bond as a vehicle for making a commercial loan for
its own loan account and without any present intention of distributing or selling any interest
therein or portion thereof; provided that the Purchaser retains the right at any time to sell,
transfer or assign the Bond or any interest therein or portion thereof, but agrees that any such
sale, transfer or assignment by the Purchaser shall be made in accordance with applicable law
and the transfer restrictions contained the Bond and related documents.
5. The Purchaser acknowledges that: (a) the Bond has not been registered under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (b) the Bond has not been registered or otherwise qualified
for sale under the securities laws of any state, (c) the Bond will not be listed on any securities
exchange and there is no established market for the Bond and that none is likely to develop; (d)
the purchase and sale of the Bond is not intended to be subject to the requirements of Rule 15c2-
12 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (e) the Borrower
has not prepared or caused to be prepared, any official statement, private placement
memorandum or other offering document.
800,455.61261 www.HeritageBankNW.com I Member FDIC
Packet Pg. 108
Heritage
BAVIC
6. The Purchaser is acting solely for its own loan account and not as a fiduciary for the
Borrower or in the capacity of broker, dealer, placenlent agent, Illunicipal securities Underwriter,
municipal advisor, or fiduciary. The Purchaser has not provided, and will not provide, financial,
legal (including securities law), tax, accounting, or other advice to or on behalf of the Borrower
(including to the financial advisor engaged by the Borrower) with respect to the structuring,
issuance, sale, or delivery of the Bond. The Purchaser has no fiduciary duty pursuant to Section
15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, to the Borrower with respect to the
transactions relating to the structuring, issuance, sale, or delivery of the Bond and the
discussions, undertakings, and procedures leading thereto.
The Purchaser acknowledges receipt this day of the Bond. The Bond is authorized
pursuant to Ordinance No. of the Borrower (the "Bond Ordinance"). The Purchaser is
receiving a fee of $ for the Bond.
The Purchaser expresses no view regarding the legal sufficiency of its representations for
purposes of compliance with any legal requirements applicable to any other party, including but
not limited to the Borrower's financial advisor, or the correctness of any legal interpretation
made by counsel to any other party with respect to any such matters. The transactions between
the Borrower and the Purchaser are arm's length, commercial transactions in which the
Purchaser is acting and has acted solely as a principal and for its own interest, and the Purchaser
has not made recommendations to the Borrower with respect to the transactions relating to the
Bond.
Dated: «ClosingDate»
HERITAGE BANK
Name:
Title:
800.455.6126 1 www.HeritageBankNW.com I Member FDIC
Packet Pg. 109
7.1.c
Washington Federal.
425 Pike Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Pete Sullivan
Vice President
206-626-8111
pete.sulllvan@wafd.com
September 15, 2016
Scott James
Finance Director
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Sent via email to: scott.james@edmondswa.gov
scott@nwmunicipaladvisors.com
Regarding: $3,170,000 Term Loan, Tax Exempt
Dear Mr. James:
We enclose a summary of terms and conditions outlining the proposed terms under which Washington
Federal may extend credit to the City of Edmonds. Please note that this is not a commitment to lend.
Washington Federal appreciates the opportunity to provide our financing proposal. Please call Pete
Sullivan at 206-626-8111 to discuss any questions or comments you may have regarding our proposal.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Pete Sullivan
Vice President
Packet Pg. 110
City of Edmonds
Financing Proposal
Parties to the Transaction:
BORROWER: City of Edmonds (the "Borrower")
LENDER: Washington Federal N.A. (the "Bank")
The Facility:
FACILITY. Term Loan (the "Credit Facility")
FACILITY AMOUNT: $ 3,170, 000
Wasbhigton Federal.
invested here.
CLOSING DATE: October 11, 2016 (estimated)
USE OF PROCEEDS: The proceeds of the Credit Facility will be used to refund a portion of
the Borrower's outstanding 2007 LTGO bonds and to pay costs of
issuance for the Credit Facility.
REPAYMENT/MATURITY: Interest on the Credit Facility shall be paid semi-annually on each June 1
and December 1, beginning June 1, 2017. Principal on the Credit Facility
shall be repaid annually each year on December 1, beginning December
1, 2017.
A principal repayment schedule can be designed to meet the Borrower's
needs and must be mutually agreed upon by Borrower and Bank. The
Credit Facility will mature and all unpaid principal and interest will be
due and payable at maturity on December 1, 2026.
PREPAYMENT: The Borrower may prepay the Credit Facility at any time prior to its final
maturity with a prepayment fee. The prepayment fee shall be in an
amount sufficient to compensate the Bank for any loss incurred by it as
a result of the prepayment, including any loss arising from the
liquidation or reemployment of funds obtained by it to maintain the
funds used to purchase the Credit Facility.
INTEREST CALCULATION: All calculations of interest shall be made on a 30 day month and a 360
day year.
Packet Pg. 111
7.1.c
SECURITY. For as long as the Credit Facility is outstanding, the Borrower will
irrevocably pledged to levy taxes annually in an amount sufficient,
together with other money legally available and to be used to pay when
due the principal of and interest on the Credit Facility. The full faith,
credit and resources of the Borrower will be pledged irrevocably for the
annual levy and collection of those taxes and the prompt payment of
principal and interest of the Credit Facility.
The lien of the Credit Facility is equal to the lien securing the
Outstanding Parity Bonds and any Future Parity Bonds and superior to
all other charges of any kind.
Fees and Expenses:
ORIGINATION FEE: $2,500
BANK COUNSEL: Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson - $5,000 fee estimate (payable at closing)
Rates:
INTEREST RATE: These are firm rates as of submission date and can be held firm until
closing, up to and including October 31, 2016.
$3,170,000, Tax -Exempt --- 2.27%
• A call provision can be added for a 25bps premium.
Rates quoted are for the City of Edmonds, a Tax Exempt entity.
Description of Basic Terms and Conditions
COVENANTS: Usual and customary for transactions of this type.
DOCUMENTATION: Documentation will be usual and customary for transactions of this
type, including:
(a) A copy of the Resolution passed by the Council/Board authorizing
the issuance of the Credit Facility;
(b) A receipt of the original signed Note or Bond at closing;
(c) The resolution or financing/bond purchase agreement
("Agreement"), prepared by bond counsel and subject to approval
by Bank Counsel.
The Agreement will include, but is not limited to, the terms
and conditions outlined herein, as well as provisions that
are customary and standard with respect to conditions
precedent, representations and warranties, covenants,
events of default and remedies;
2
v WashingtonFederal.
rmmsted hue.
Packet Pg. 112
7.1.c
(d) An unqualified legal opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel,
in form and substance acceptable to Bank and its legal counsel that:
i. The resolution and all documents related to the Credit
Facility have been properly adopted, authorized and
executed;
ii. The resolution and all documents related to the Credit
Facility constitute a legally binding obligation of the
Borrower and enforceable according to their terms (subject
to standard exceptions);
iii. Interest on the Credit Facility is excluded from the gross
income of the Bank for federal income tax purposes; and
iv. The Borrower has designated the Credit Facility as either a
"non bank qualified tax-exempt obligation" or "bank
qualified".
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: The Borrower shall provide the following information and statements in
form and content acceptable to the Bank:
(a) Within 270 days after the close of each financial year of the
Borrower, the complete audited financial statements of the
Borrower.
(b) Such other information respecting the affairs, condition and/or
operations, financial or otherwise, of the Borrower as the Bank may
from time to time reasonably request.
EVENTS OF DEFAULT: Usual and customary in transactions of this type including, without
limitation the following:
(a) Nonpayment of principal, interest, fees or other amounts;
(b) Failure to perform or observe covenants set forth in the loan
documentation; or
(c) Loss of the tax-exempt status of the Credit Facility.
DEFAULT RATE: Upon the occurrence of a default, the interest rate on the Credit Facility
shall increase by three percentage points (3.0%) per annum. Such
default interest payable shall be subject to the statutory maximum
interest rate, if any. Interest after the occurrence of a default shall be
payable upon demand.
REMEDIES: The Bank may, among other things, cause the Default Rate to apply to
all outstanding obligations under the Credit Facility and pursue any
other remedies to which it is entitled under the Bond Resolution and
Agreement.
3
v WashingtonFederal.
rmmsted hue.
Packet Pg. 113
7.1.c
Description of the Process:
THE PROPOSAL: This summary of terms is not a commitment. It represents a willingness
on the part of the Bank to seek approval to provide the commitment
indicated herein and consummate a transaction based on the terms and
conditions outlined in the proposal and is subject to:
(a) Final credit approval (see "Credit Process" below),
(b) Such any due diligence as Bank may require, and
(c) Agreement as to all final terms and conditions and satisfactory
documentation thereof (including satisfactory legal opinions).
CREDIT PROCESS: The credit process will take approximately 15 business days from the
point at which the Bank is officially awarded the transaction and has in
its possession all materials necessary to undertake a full credit analysis
Washington Federal Bank is a Seattle based, FDIC insured financial
institution with total assets in excess of $14 billion. Washington Federal
Bank and assigned contacts have specific experience in lending to
governmental issuers.
EXPIRATION: Consideration of a financing based on the terms and conditions
presented in this proposal letter shall automatically expire on
October 31, 2016.
Contacts:
BANK: Washington Federal N.A.
Pete Sullivan
425 Pike Street
Seattle, WA 98101
206-626-8111
pete.sullivan@wafd.com
BANK COUNSEL: Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Brandon Pond
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98104
206-470-7623
brandon.pond@hcmp.com
4
WashingtonFederal.
invested here.
Packet Pg. 114
7.1.c
Disclosure
The transaction contemplated by this term sheet is an arm's length, commercial transaction between
you and the Bank, in which the Bank (i) is acting solely as a principal and for its own interest; (ii) is not
acting as a municipal advisor or financial advisor to you; (iii) has no fiduciary duty pursuant to Section
15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to you with respect to the transaction contemplated hereby
and the discussions, undertakings and procedures leading thereto; and (iv) is not recommending that
you take any action with respect to the transaction contemplated by this term sheet, and before taking
any action with respect to the contemplated transaction, you should discuss the information contained
herein with your own legal, accounting, tax, financial and other advisors, as it deems appropriate.
The only obligations the Bank has to you with respect to the transaction contemplated hereby are set
forth in this term sheet. If you would like a municipal advisor in this transaction that has legal fiduciary
duties to you, you are free to engage a municipal advisor to serve in that capacity. This term sheet is
provided to you pursuant to and in reliance upon the "bank exemption" provided under the municipal
advisor rule of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Rule 1513a1-1 et seq.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL COMMITMENTS TO LOAN MONEY, EXTEND
CREDIT OR FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF A DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER
WASHINGTON LAW.
5
v WashingtonFederal.
W immsted hue.
Packet Pg. 115
7.1.d
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to
contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance, sale and delivery of a
limited tax general obligation refunding bond to carry out a current refunding of
a portion of the City's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007,
and to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bond; fixing or setting parameters
with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bond; appointing the City's
designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bond; and
providing for other related matters.
Passed , 2016
This document prepared by:
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 447-4400
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 116
7.1.d
TABLE OF CONTENTS*
Page
Section1.
Definitions............................................................................................................... 1
Section 2.
Findings and Determinations.................................................................................. 3
Section3.
Authorization of Bond............................................................................................ 4
Section 4.
Description of the Bond; Appointment of Designated Representative ................... 4
Section 5.
Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bond ............................................... 4
Section 6.
Form and Execution of Bond.................................................................................. 5
Section7.
Payment of Bond..................................................................................................... 5
Section 8.
Bond Fund; Use of Proceeds; Refunding Plan ....................................................... 5
Section 9.
Prepayment Provisions and Purchase of Bond ....................................................... 7
Section10.
Failure To Pay Bond............................................................................................... 7
Section11.
Pledge of Taxes....................................................................................................... 7
Section 12.
Tax Covenants; Designation of Bond as a "Qualified Tax Exempt
Obligation".............................................................................................................. 8
Section 13.
Sale and Delivery of the Bond................................................................................ 8
Section 14.
Supplemental and Amendatory Ordinances............................................................ 9
Section 15.
General Authorization and Ratification.................................................................. 9
Section16.
Severability............................................................................................................. 9
Section 17.
Effective Date of Ordinance................................................................................... 9
Exhibit A Parameters for Final Terms
* The cover page, table of contents and section headings of this ordinance are for convenience of reference only,
and shall not be used to resolve any question of interpretation of this ordinance.
-1-
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 117
7.1.d
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to
contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance, sale and delivery of a
limited tax general obligation refunding bond to carry out a current refunding of
a portion of the City's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007,
and to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bond; fixing or setting parameters
with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bond; appointing the City's
designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bond; and
providing for other related matters.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following capitalized terms
shall have the following meanings:
(a) "2007 Bonds" means the City's $5,230,000 original principal amount Limited
Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007, authorized by and issued for the purposes provided in
Ordinance No. 3623, passed by the City Council on January 16, 2007.
(b) "Acquired Obligations " means the United States Treasury Certificates of
Indebtedness, Notes, and Bonds —State and Local Government Series and other direct,
noncallable obligations of the United States of America purchased to accomplish the refunding
of the Refunded Bonds as authorized by this ordinance and in accordance with the Refunded
Bond Ordinance.
(c) "Bond" means the bond issued pursuant to and for the purposes provided in this
ordinance.
(d) "Bond Counsel " means the firm of Foster Pepper PLLC, its successor, or any
other attorney or firm of attorneys selected by the City with a nationally recognized standing as
J
bond counsel in the field of municipal finance.
0
(e) "Bond Fund" means the Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund of the City
w
created for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond.
c
(f) "Bond Register" means the books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar
c�
for the purpose of identifying ownership of the Bond.
c
as
E
(g) "Bond Registrar" means the Finance Director, or any successor bond registrar
selected by the City.
a
(h) "City" means the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State.
1
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 118
7.1.d
(i) "City Council" means the legislative authority of the City, as duly and regularly
constituted from time to time.
0) "Code" means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
and applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
(k) "Designated Representative" means the officer of the City appointed in Section 4
of this ordinance to serve as the City's designated representative in accordance with
RCW 39.46.040(2).
(1) "Final Terms " means the terms and conditions for the sale of the Bond including
the amount, date, interest rate (or mechanism for determining interest rate), payment dates, final
maturity, redemption rights, price, and other terms or covenants, including minimum savings for
refunding bonds (if the refunding bonds are issued for savings purposes).
(m) "Finance Director" means the Finance Director or such other officer of the City
who succeeds to substantially all of the responsibilities of that office.
(n) "Government Obligations" has the meaning given in RCW 39.53.010, as now in
effect or as may hereafter be amended.
(o) "Issue Date" means the date of initial issuance and delivery of the Bond to the
Purchaser in exchange for the purchase price of the Bond.
(p) "Purchase Offer" means the offer of the Purchaser to purchase the Bond on the
terms and conditions set forth therein, including the response to the Request for Financing issued
by the City on August 31, 2016, which offer is authorized to be accepted by the Designated
Representative on behalf of the City, if consistent with this ordinance.
(q) "Purchaser" means the financial institution or other legal entity selected by the
Designated Representative to serve as purchaser of the Bond.
(r) "Record Date" means the Bond Registrar's close of business on the 15th day of
the month preceding an interest payment date. With respect to prepayment of the Bond prior to
its maturity, the Record Date shall mean the Bond Registrar's close of business on the date on
which the Bond Registrar sends the notice of prepayment in accordance with Section 9.
(s) "Redemption Date" means December 1, 2016.
(t) "Refunded Bond Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 3623 of the City.
(u) "Refunded Bonds " means the outstanding 2007 Bonds stated to mature on or after
December 1, 2017.
2
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 119
7.1.d
(v) "Refunding Plan " means (as further described in the Refunding Trust
Agreement):
(1) the deposit with the Refunding Trustee of proceeds of the Bond (together
with other money of the City, if necessary);
(2) the purchase by the Refunding Trustee of the Acquired Obligations and
the application of the principal of and interest on the Acquired Obligations (and any other cash
balance) to the call, payment and redemption of the Refunded Bonds on the Redemption Date at
a price equal to the principal amount being redeemed plus any accrued interest; and
(3) the payment of the costs of issuing the Bond and the costs of carrying out
the foregoing elements of the Refunding Plan.
(w) "Refunding Trust Agreement" means a refunding trust or escrow agreement
between the City and the Refunding Trustee, dated as of the Issue Date, providing for the
carrying out of the Refunding Plan.
(x) "Refunding Trustee " means the financial institution appointed by the Designated
Representative to serve as refunding trustee to carry out the Refunding Plan.
(y) "Registered Owner" means the person in whose name the Bond is registered on
the Bond Register.
(z) "State " means the State of Washington.
(aa) "System of Registration " means the system of registration for the City's bonds
and other obligations set forth in Ordinance No. 2451 of the City.
Section 2. Findings and Determinations. The City takes note of the following facts
and makes the following findings and determinations:
(a) Debt Capacity. The maximum amount of indebtedness authorized by this
ordinance is $3,300,000. Based on the following facts, this amount is to be issued within the
amount permitted to be issued by the City for general municipal purposes without a vote:
(1) The assessed valuation of the taxable property within the City as
ascertained by the last preceding assessment for City purposes for collection in the calendar year
2016 is $7,369,027,390.
(2) As of December 31, 2015, the City had limited tax general obligation
indebtedness, consisting of bonds, loans, capital contracts and nonexchange financial guarantees,
outstanding in the amount of $13,455,836 (of which the City has since retired $72,201), which is
incurred within the limit of up to 1'/2% of the value of the taxable property within the City
permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote.
(3) The City has no unlimited tax general obligation indebtedness outstanding.
J
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 120
7.1.d
(b) The Bond. The City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City and its
taxpayers to issue the Bond in order to carry out the refunding of the Refunded Bonds by
carrying out the Refunding Plan if, in the determination of the Designated Representative, a
savings will be effected by the difference between the principal and interest cost over the life of
the Bond and the principal and interest cost over the life of the Refunded Bonds but for such
refunding, as set forth in Section 8 and in Exhibit A. The City Council further finds that a
Refunding Plan approved by the Designated Representative in accordance with this ordinance
will discharge and satisfy the obligations, pledges, charges, trusts, covenants and agreements of
the City under the Refunded Bond Ordinance as to the Refunded Bonds, and the Refunded
Bonds shall no longer be deemed to be outstanding immediately upon the deposit of the money
specified in the Refunding Plan with the Refunding Trustee. The City Council further authorizes
the sale of the Bond, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Purchase Offer as approved by the
City's Designated Representative consistent with this ordinance.
Section 3. Authorization of Bond. The City is authorized to borrow money on the
credit of the City and issue a negotiable limited tax general obligation refunding bond evidencing
indebtedness in the principal amount not to exceed $3,300,000 to provide funds necessary to
carry out the Refunding Plan.
Section 4. Description of the Bond; Appointment of Designated Representative. The
Finance Director is appointed as the Designated Representative of the City and is authorized and
directed to conduct the sale of the Bond in the manner and upon the terms deemed most
advantageous to the City, and to approve the Final Terms of the Bond, with such additional terms
and covenants as the Designated Representative deems advisable, within the parameters set forth
in Exhibit A, which is attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference.
Section 5. Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bond.
(a) Registration of Bond. The Bond shall be issued only in registered form as to both
principal and interest and the ownership of the Bond shall be recorded on the Bond Register.
(b) Bond Registrar; Duties. The Finance Director is appointed as initial Bond
Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, sufficient books for the registration
and transfer of the Bond, which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond
Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver the Bond if transferred
or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bond and this ordinance, to serve as the
City's paying agent for the Bond and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties
under this ordinance and the System of Registration. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for
its representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Bond.
The Bond Registrar may become the Registered Owner with the same rights it would have if it
were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and
permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect
to, any committee formed to protect the rights of the Registered Owner.
(c) Bond Register; Transfer and Exchange. The Bond Register shall contain the a
name and mailing address of the Registered Owner and the principal amount and number of the
Bond held by the Registered Owner. The Bond may be transferred only if endorsed in the
4
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 121
7.1.d
manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall
be without cost to the Registered Owner or transferee.
Section 6. Form and Execution of Bond.
(a) Form of Bond; Signatures and Seal. The Bond shall be prepared in a form
consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law. The Bond shall be signed by the
Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and
the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. If
any officer whose manual or facsimile signature appears on the Bond ceases to be an officer of
the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bond bearing his or her manual or facsimile
signature is authenticated by the Bond Registrar, or issued or delivered by the City, the Bond
nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and
delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of
the City authorized to sign bonds. The Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any
person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign
bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on its Issue Date.
(b) Authentication. Only if the Bond bears a Certificate of Authentication in
substantially the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall it be valid or
obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: "Certificate Of
Authentication. This Bond is the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, Limited Tax
General Obligation Refunding Bond, 2016, described in the Bond Ordinance." The authorized
signing of the Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so
authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the benefits
of this ordinance.
Section 7. Payment of Bond. Principal of and interest on the Bond shall be payable
in lawful money of the United States of America. Principal of and interest on the Bond is payable
by electronic transfer on the interest payment date, or by check or draft of the Bond Registrar
mailed on the interest payment date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the
Bond Register on the Record Date. However, the City is not required to make electronic transfers
except pursuant to a request by a Registered Owner in writing received on or prior to the Record
Date and at the sole expense of the Registered Owner. Principal of the Bond is payable upon
presentation and surrender of the Bond by the Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar. The
Bond is not subject to acceleration under any circumstances.
Section 8. Bond Fund; Use of Proceeds; Refunding Plan.
(a) Bond Fund. The Bond Fund is created as a special fund of the City for the sole
purpose of paying principal of and interest on the Bond and other limited general obligation
bonds of the City. All amounts allocated to the payment of the principal of and interest on the
Bond shall be deposited in the Bond Fund as necessary for the timely payment of amounts due
with respect to the Bond. The principal of and interest on the Bond shall be paid out of the Bond
Fund. Until needed for that purpose, the City may invest money in the Bond Fund temporarily in
any legal investment, and the investment earnings shall be retained in the Bond Fund and used
for the purposes of that fund.
5
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 122
7.1.d
(b) Appointment of Refunding Trustee. The Designated Representative is authorized
and directed to appoint a financial institution to serve as Refunding Trustee and to perform the
duties of Refunding Trustee under this ordinance.
(c) Use of Bond Proceeds; Acquisition of Acquired Obligations. On the Issue Date,
the proceeds of the sale of the Bond shall be deposited with the Refunding Trustee and used to
carry out the Refunding Plan in accordance with the Refunding Trust Agreement. To the extent
practicable, such obligations shall be discharged fully by the Refunding Trustee's simultaneous
purchase of the Acquired Obligations, bearing such interest and maturing as to principal and
interest in such amounts and at such times so as to provide, together with a beginning cash
balance, if necessary, for the payment of the amount required to be paid by the Refunding Plan.
The Acquired Obligations shall be listed and more particularly described in a schedule attached
to the Refunding Trust Agreement. Any Bond proceeds or other money deposited with the
Refunding Trustee not needed to carry out the Refunding Plan shall be returned to the City for
deposit in the Bond Fund to pay interest on the Bond on the next upcoming first interest payment
date.
(d) Refunding Trust Agreement; Administration of Refunding Plan. The Designated
Representative is authorized and directed to execute a Refunding Trust Agreement setting forth
the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the Refunding Trustee in connection with the
carrying out the Refunding Plan. The Refunding Trust Agreement shall, among other things,
authorize and direct the Refunding Trustee to purchase the Acquired Obligations and to make the
payments required to be made by the Refunding Plan. All Acquired Obligations and the money
deposited with the Refunding Trustee and any income therefrom shall be held irrevocably,
invested and applied in accordance with the provisions of the Refunded Bond Ordinance, this
ordinance, chapter 39.53 RCW and other applicable State law. All administrative costs
(including all necessary and proper fees, compensation, and expenses of the Refunding Trustee
for the Bond and all other costs incidental to the setting up of the escrow to accomplish the
Refunding Plan) and costs of issuance of the Bond may be paid out of the amounts deposited
with the Refunding Trustee or other available money of the City, in accordance with the
Refunding Trust Agreement.
(e) Authorization for Replacement Bonds. The City may issue replacement bonds in
principal amounts reflecting the defeased and nondefeased portions of the 2007 Bonds. The
replacement bonds shall be printed, executed and authenticated in the same manner as the 2007
Bonds.
(f) Call for Redemption of the Refunded Bonds. The Designated Representative is
authorized and directed to call the Refunded Bonds for redemption on their Redemption Date in
accordance with the Refunded Bond Ordinance and this ordinance. Such call for redemption
shall identify the Refunded Bonds, the maturity dates, the Redemption Date and redemption
price (expressed as a percentage of par, plus accrued interest), and shall be irrevocable after the
Bond is delivered to the Purchaser. The Designated Representative is authorized and directed to
give or cause to be given such notices as required, at the times and in the manner required,
pursuant to the Refunded Bond Ordinance, and to take all other actions necessary to effect the
redemption of the Refunded Bonds on the Redemption Date.
6
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 123
7.1.d
(g) Additional Findings with Respect to Refunding. Prior to approving the sale of the
Bond, the Designated Representative shall make the following determinations in writing if in his
or her judgment the following conditions are met:
(1) The Redemption Date is the earliest practicable date on which the
Refunded Bonds may be called for redemption.
(2) The savings that will be effected (as measured by the difference between
the principal and interest cost over the life of the Bond and the principal and interest cost over
the life of the Refunded Bonds, but for such refunding) shall be equal to at least the percentage
savings set forth in Exhibit A. In making such determination, the Designated Representative
shall give consideration to the fixed maturities of the Bond and the Refunded Bonds, the costs of
issuance of the Bond and the known earned income from the investment of the proceeds of the
Bond pending redemption of the Refunded Bonds.
(3) The Refunding Plan will provide sufficient funds to discharge and satisfy
the obligations of the City under the Refunded Bond Ordinance. In making such determination,
the Designated Representative may rely upon a verification by a nationally recognized
independent certified public accounting firm or a certification of the City's financial advisor.
Section 9. Prepayment Provisions and Purchase of Bond.
(a) Prepayment. The Bond shall be subject to prepayment at the option of the City on
terms acceptable to the Designated Representative, as set forth in the Purchase Offer, consistent
with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A.
(b) Notice of Prepayment. Notice of prepayment of the Bond, unless waived by the
Registered Owner, shall be given by the Bond Registrar not less than five business days prior to
the prepayment date by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner at the address
appearing on the Bond Register on the Record Date.
Section 10. Failure To Pay Bond. If the principal of the Bond is not paid when the
Bond is properly presented at its maturity or prepayment date, the City shall be obligated to pay
interest on the Bond at the rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or prepayment
date until the Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its
payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund, or in a trust account established to refund or
defease the Bond, and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the
Registered Owner.
Section 11. Pledge of Taxes. The Bond constitutes a general indebtedness of the City
and is payable from tax revenues of the City and such other money as is lawfully available and
pledged by the City for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bond. For as long as the
Bond is outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges that it shall, in the manner provided by law
within the constitutional and statutory limitations provided by law without the assent of the
voters, include in its annual property tax levy amounts sufficient, together with other money that
is lawfully available, to pay principal of and interest on the Bond as the same become due. The
full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the prompt payment of the
7
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 124
7.1.d
principal of and interest on the Bond and such pledge shall be enforceable in mandamus against
the City.
Section 12. Tax Covenants, Designation of Bond as a "Qualified Tax Exempt
Obligation." -
(a) Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bond. The City covenants that it
will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bond from being included in gross
income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit
any use of proceeds of the Bond or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bond that
will cause interest on the Bond to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
(b) Post -Issuance Compliance. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to
review and update the City's written procedures to facilitate compliance by the City with the
covenants in this ordinance and the applicable requirements of the Code that must be satisfied
after the Issue Date to prevent interest on the Bond from being included in gross income for
federal tax purposes.
(c) Designation of Bond as a "Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligation." The City
designates the Bond as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3)
of the Code, and makes the following findings and determinations:
(1) the Bond does not constitute a "private activity bond" within the meaning
of Section 141 of the Code;
(2) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than
private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in such calculation) that
the City and any entity subordinate to the City (including any entity that the City controls, that
derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City, or that issues tax-exempt
obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during the calendar year in which the Bond is issued
will not exceed $10,000,000; and
(3) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Bond, designated by
the City as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code
during the calendar year in which the Bond is issued does not exceed $10,000,000.
Section 13. Sale and Delivery of the Bond.
(a) Approval of Purchase Offer; Delivery of Bond. The Designated Representative is
authorized to sell the Bond by negotiated sale or private placement based on the assessment of
the Designated Representative of market conditions, in consultation with appropriate City
officials and staff, Bond Counsel and other advisors. The Designated Representative shall select
one or more Purchasers with which to negotiate such sale. The Purchase Offer or a certificate of
the Finance Director shall set forth the Final Terms. The Designated Representative is authorized
to execute the Purchase Offer on behalf of the City, so long as the terms provided therein are
consistent with the terms of this ordinance. In negotiating the Final Terms, the Designated
Representative shall take into account those factors that, in the judgment of the Designated
Representative, may be expected to result in the lowest true interest cost to the City.
8
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 125
7.1.d
(b) Preparation, Execution and Delivery of the Bond. The Bond will be prepared at
City expense and will be delivered to the Purchaser in accordance with the Purchase Offer,
together with the approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel regarding the Bond.
Section 14. Supplemental and Amendatory Ordinances. The City may supplement or
amend this ordinance for any one or more of the following purposes without the consent of the
Registered Owner:
(a) To add covenants and agreements that do not materially adversely affect the
interests of the Registered Owner, or to surrender any right or power reserved to or conferred
upon the City.
(b) To cure any ambiguities, or to cure, correct or supplement any defective provision
contained in this ordinance in a manner that does not materially adversely affect the interest of
the Registered Owner.
Section 15. General Authorization and Ratification. The Designated Representative
and other appropriate officers of the City are severally authorized to take such actions and to
execute such documents as in their judgment may be necessary or desirable to carry out the
transactions contemplated in connection with this ordinance, and to do everything necessary for
the prompt delivery of the Bond to the Purchaser and for the proper application, use and
investment of the proceeds of the Bond. All actions taken prior to the effective date of this
ordinance in furtherance of the purposes described in this ordinance and not inconsistent with the
terms of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed in all respects.
Section 16. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate
and severable. If a court of competent jurisdiction, all appeals having been exhausted or all
appeal periods having run, finds any provision of this ordinance to be invalid or unenforceable as
to any person or circumstance, such offending provision shall, if feasible, be deemed to be
modified to be within the limits of enforceability or validity. However, if the offending provision
cannot be so modified, it shall be null and void with respect to the particular person or
circumstance, and all other provisions of this ordinance in all other respects, and the offending
provision with respect to all other persons and all other circumstances, shall remain valid and
enforceable.
Section 17. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, at an open public
meeting thereof, this day of , 2016, and signed in authentication of its passage
this day of , 2016.
Dave Earling, Mayor
9
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 126
O
� O
n '17
CD
CD
Ct
Attachment: City of Edmonds LTGO Bond Ordinance (1532 : Refunding 2007 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds)
i
V
Q
7.1.d
Exhibit A
PARAMETERS FOR FINAL TERMS
(a) Principal Amount. The principal amount of the Bond shall not exceed
$3,300,000.
(b) Issue Date. The Bond shall be dated the Issue Date, which date may
not be later than one year after the effective date of this
ordinance.
(c) Denomination, Name, etc. The Bond shall be in the denomination of the principal
amount, and shall be numbered in the manner and shall
bear the name and additional designation as deemed
necessary or appropriate by the Designated
Representative.
(d) Interest Rate. The Bond shall bear interest at one or more fixed rates
per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of
twelve 30-day months) from the Issue Date or from the
most recent date for which interest has been paid or duly
provided for, whichever is later. No rate of interest for
the Bond may exceed 5.00%, and the true interest cost to
the City for the Bond may not exceed 3.00%.
(e) Payment Dates. Interest shall be payable on dates acceptable to the
Designated Representative, commencing no later than
one year following the Issue Date. Principal payments
shall commence no later than December 1, 2017.
(f) Final Maturity.
The Bond shall mature no later than December 1, 2026.
(g) Prepayment Rights. The Designated Representative may approve in the
Purchase Offer provisions for the optional prepayment
of the Bond.
(h) Price. The purchase price for the Bond may not be less than
98% or more than 102% of the stated principal amount.
(1) Other Terms and Conditions. (1) The Bond may not be issued if it would cause the
indebtedness of the City to exceed the City's legal
debt capacity on the Issue Date.
B-1
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 128
7.1.d
(2) The Bond shall produce a minimum net present
value savings to the City and its taxpayers of at
least 3.00% (as a percentage of the Refunded
Bonds to be refunded by such Bond). Net present
value savings means the aggregate difference
between (i) annual debt service on the Refunded
Bonds to be refunded, less (ii) annual debt service
on the Bond (including expenses related to costs of
issuance of the Bond) discounted to the Issue Date
using the yield on the Bond as the discount rate,
plus (iii) excess cash, if any, distributed to the City
on the Issue Date, and less (iv) the amount of
additional money of the City contributed to the
refunding, if any, on such Issue Date.
B-2
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 129
7.1.d
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), hereby
certify as follows:
1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. (the "Ordinance") is a full, true and
correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
held at the regular meeting place thereof on , 2016, as that ordinance appears on the
minute book of the City.
2. The Ordinance will be in full force and effect five days after publication in the
City's official newspaper, which publication date will be , 2016.
3. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the
meeting and a majority of the members voted in the proper manner for the passage of the
Ordinance.
Dated: , 2016.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Scott Passey, City Clerk
51548926.5 Packet Pg. 130
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Report on Bids for the Madrona Walkway Project (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On September 13, 2016, staff briefed Council on the Madrona Walkway project.
Staff Recommendation
Staff will provided the final bid results, construction budget and a recommendation to award the project
during the staff presentation.
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.
On September 15, 2016, the City received nine bids for the Madrona Elementary Walkway
project. The bids ranged from a low of $545,410 to a high of $706,324.00. Attached are the
preliminary bid results from the contractors. The Engineer's Estimate was $635,047.50.
The project costs are being funded by a federal grant, Stormwater Utility Funds and the City
Pavement Preservation program.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Preliminary Bid Tab
Packet Pg. 131
CITY OF EDMONDS
7.2.a
Date/Time: 15-Sep-16
Proiect: Madrona Elementary Walkwav
Engineers Est: $635K
Bidder Name
Sched A
Sched B
Sched C
Total
Welwest
$ 423,640.00
$ 149,900.00
$
6,000.00
$
579,540.00
Trimaxx
$ 427,675.00
$ 163,770.00
$
2,000.00
$
593,445.00
RL Alia
$ 431,670.00
$ 182,310.00
$
500.00
$
614,480.00
Westwater
$ 469,790.00
$ 173,500.00
$
1,000.00
$
644,290.00
Kar-Vel
$ 512,055.00
$ 137,300.00
$
1,000.00
$
650,355.00
SRV
$ 518,849.00
$ 187,375.00
$
100.00
$
706,324.00
Taylor's
$ 394,190.00
$ 149,220.00
$
2,000.00
$
545,410.00
RRJ
$ 415,439.46
$ 144,275.24
$
1.18
$
559,715.88
Kamins
$ 452,956.82
$ 131,953.50
$
1.00
$
584,911.32
PRELIMINARY BID RESULTS
Packet Pg. 132
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Confirmation of Appointment of HR Director (5 min.)
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
A slate of 4 candidates were interviewed for the HR Director position by 2 panels and the Mayor. The
slate was narrowed to 2 candidates which were then interviewed by Council at the September 20th
council meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
After interviewing all candidates for the HR Director position and discussion with Councilmembers,
Mayor Earling is appointing MaryAnn Hardie to the position of HR Director.
Packet Pg. 133
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
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 is reviewing Ecology's conditional approval and considering alternatives in response to
Ecology's conditional approval.
Staff Recommendation
For the September 27 meeting: Review the City Attorney's memorandum regarding alternatives for the
setback/buffer for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment.
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
9/27 FOCUS:
At the September 27th Council Meeting, the focus of the discussion will be the City Attorney's
memorandum included as Exhibit 3 and developing an alternative for the setback/buffer for the Urban
Mixed Use IV shoreline environment.
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)
Packet Pg. 134
8.1
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 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. Below is a
summary and discussion of Ecology's required and recommended changes and preliminary decisions 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 preliminary votes or
discussion by the Council on each of the required changes.
A. CRITICAL AREA REQUIRED CHANGES
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.
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.
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.
City Council August 2, 2016 Preliminary Vote
The City Council voted to accept Ecology's required change number 3.
Packet Pg. 135
8.1
4. Revise the exceptions section. This section includes provisions of the City's critical area
regulations that do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction.
Council AUEUst 2. 2016 Preliminary Vote and Discussion
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 (see Council preliminary vote and
required change number 5 below). 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
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 presented during the September 13, 2016 Council meeting. 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. As needed, this can be further discussed at a later City Council meeting.
5. Remove the wetland section from the SMP.
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
guidance document was published by the Department of Ecology - Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates: Western Washington Version, Publication No. 16-06-001. 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 incorporating the City Council's direction on the
required changes related to critical areas within the SMP was presented at the September 13, 2016
Council meeting. The draft version can be discussed further, as needed, at a later City Council
meeting.
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
Packet Pg. 136
8.1
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.
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 as 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).
Council August 16th and September 131h. 2016 Discussion
At the August 16, 2016 Council meeting, the Council voted not to accept Ecology's required
change number 7 and to develop an alternative approach for the UMU IV setback/buffer. At the
August 13, 2016 Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an
evaluation of the possible scientific and regulatory considerations to help prepare an alternative
to the Department of Ecology's required change for buffers and setbacks in the UMU IV
shoreline environment. The City Attorney's memorandum is included as Exhibit 3.
8. Change a footnote related to the setback/buffer to note that the buffer establishment will be
required if more than 50% of the Harbor Square property within shoreline designation is
redeveloped.
Discussion:
The appropriate threshold for when a vegetative buffer should be established is intricately
linked with the alternative approach ultimately proposed by Council. The City Attorney's
memorandum in Exhibit 3 discusses potential thresholds for establishing the vegetative buffer in
the UMU IV shoreline environment.
C. URBAN MIXED USE IV RECOMMENDED CHANGE
The one recommended change for the UMU IV shoreline environment relates to residential uses.
Ecology is recommending that the City consider allowing multi -family residential development in the
UMU IV shoreline environment.
Ecology's reasoning behind this recommended change is that including residential development as a
Packet Pg. 137
8.1
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.
The City is not required to accept the recommended change or offer an alternative as with the required
changes. The City may simply acknowledge the recommendation in our response to Ecology.
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
Packet Pg. 138
auijaJoyS 9ES6) S4u9uay3e;4d 44inn 1enoiddd jeuoi;ipuo3 ABoloa3;o;u9w:Ped9a - ;igiyx3 :;u9uay3e;4d
rn
o
�a� y 1 59
V
STATE OF WASHINGTON a
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
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.
auijaJoyS : 9ES6) S4u9uay3e;4d 44inn 1enoiddd jeuoi;ipuo3 ABoloo3;o;u9w:Ped9a - ;igiyx3 :;u9wLI3844d
ev �
Go 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
8.1.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. 141
8.1.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. 142
8.1.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. 143
8.1.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. 144
8.1.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. 145
8.1.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. 146
8.1.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. 147
8.1.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. 148
8.1.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. 149
8.1.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=
elevation 112/11
No change in water
t ,elevation 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. 150
8.1.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. 151
8.1.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. 152
8.1.a
Attachment A— Findings and Conclusions
City of Edmonds SMP Update
2006 Salt Marsh Boundary
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.
D
I_
O
d
d
to
R
d
C
L
O
L
to
M
LO
r
Packet Pg. 153
8.1.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. 154
8.1.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. 155
8.1.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. 156
ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326)
8.1.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. 157
ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326)
8.1.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+EtieR� Specifically ECDC
prep
72 nn nnn a.P.PI Crnr
c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance
e. €CSC �3..n0cRQ: E-Eemtoens
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 Recreati9n
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. 158
ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326)
8.1.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)
M
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. 159
ATTACHMENT B - DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUIRED CHANGES TO EDMONDS PROPOSED SMP (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION No. 1326)
8.1.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 .
M
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. 160
ATTACHMENT C -DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROPOSED SMP AMENDMENT (11/18/2014, RESOLUTION NO. 1326)
8.1.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. LO
r
Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 161
8.1.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. 162
8.1.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�
M
LO
a
W
E
0
a
3
0
0.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 163
8.1.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�
M
LO
N
c
a)
E
M
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 164
8.1.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
M
LO
N
c
as
E
a
3
0
0.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 165
8.1.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
M
LO
N
c
aD
E
0
a
3
0
L
0.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 166
8.1.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. 167
8.1.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
M
LO
c
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 168
8.1.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. 169
8.1.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. 170
8.1.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�
M
LO
c
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 171
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�
M
LO
c
W
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 172
8.1.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. 173
8.1.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
M
LO
c
as
E
U
M
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 174
8.1.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-
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
M
LO
c
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 175
8.1.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. 176
8.1.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. 177
8.1.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
Q
Packet Pg. 178
8.1.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. 179
8.1.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. 180
8.1.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. 181
8.1.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
M
LO
c
a�
E
U
M
a
3
0
Q.
M
Q
Packet Pg. 182
8.1.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
as
_
`o
W
c�
M
LO
c
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 183
8.1.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
M
LO
c
as
E
0
M
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 184
8.1.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. 185
8.1.a
25
Marsh buffer/
(Landau Associates)
inconsistent with Ecology recommendations within
shorelines have established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation
setback
chapter I I 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 I I 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.
as
_
`o
Cn
c�
M
LO
c
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 186
8.1.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
Q
Packet Pg. 187
8.1.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.
Q
Packet Pg. 188
8.1.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
Q
Packet Pg. 189
8.1.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�
M
LO
N
c
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 190
8.1.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
M
LO
c
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 191
8.1.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. 192
8.1.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. 193
8.1.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. 194
8.1.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
M
LO
_
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 195
8.1.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. 196
8.1.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. 197
8.1.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�
M
LO
c
as
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 198
8.1.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. 199
8.1.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�
M
LO
c
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 200
8.1.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
M
LO
c
a)
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 201
8.1.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�
M
LO
c
m
E
0
a
3
0
Q.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 202
8.1.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. 203
8.1.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.
Q
Packet Pg. 204
8.1.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.
Q
Packet Pg. 205
8.1.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�
M
LO
c
as
E
U
M
Q
3
0
0.
a
z
x
w
m
E
s
c�
Q
Packet Pg. 206
auiJaJoyS 9ES6) s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd 1euoi;ipuo3 Aftloo3;o;u9w:Pedea - ;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d
ev o
N
Co 6
a
m
.�c
a
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
ea
T
00
aulla.aogS : 9£5�) 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
auiJaJoyS : 9ES6) s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd 1euoi;ipuo3 Aftloog to;uew:Pedea - 6;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d
ev
Go
• 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
auiJaJoyS : 9ES6) s;uauayoe;;d 44inn 1enoiddd Ieuog!puo3 Aftloog Io;u9w:Pedea - 6;igiyx3 :;uauayoe;;d
0
ev
N
ao 6
a.
am
M
• 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
8ulJ8J0yS : 9ES6) s;uauayoe;;d 44Inn lenoiddd 1euoi;Ipuo3 Aftloo3;o;u9w:Pedea - ;Igl4x3 :;uauayoe;;d
ev
N
Co 6
a
m
M
Intermittent stream iz
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
flvaFloodplain
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� 8.1.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. 212
8.1.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. 213
8.1.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. 214
8.1.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
M
Ln
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 3 of 160
Packet Pg. 215
8.1.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. 216
8.1.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. 217
8.1.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. 218
8.1.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. 219
8.1.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. 220
8.1.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. 221
8.1.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. 222
8.1.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. 223
8.1.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. 224
8.1.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. 225
8.1.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. 226
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. 227
8.1.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. 228
8.1.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. 229
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. 230
8.1.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. 231
8.1.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. 232
8.1.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. 233
8.1.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. 234
8.1.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. 235
8.1.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. 236
8.1.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. 237
8.1.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. 238
8.1.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. 239
8.1.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. 240
8.1.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. 241
8.1.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. 242
8.1.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. 243
8.1.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. 244
8.1.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. 245
8.1.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. 246
8.1.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. 247
8.1.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. 248
8.1.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. 249
8.1.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. 250
8.1.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. 251
8.1.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. 252
8.1.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. 253
8.1.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. 254
8.1.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. 255
8.1.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. 256
8.1.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. 257
8.1.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. 258
8.1.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. 259
8.1.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. 260
8.1.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. 261
8.1.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. 262
8.1.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. 263
8.1.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
M
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. 264
8.1.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. 265
8.1.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. 266
8.1.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
M
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. 267
8.1.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. 268
8.1.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. 269
8.1.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. 270
8.1.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. 271
8.1.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. 272
8.1.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. 273
8.1.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. 274
8.1.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. 275
8.1.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. 276
8.1.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. 277
8.1.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. 278
8.1.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. 279
8.1.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. 280
8.1.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. 281
8.1.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. 282
8.1.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. 283
8.1.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. 284
8.1.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. 285
8.1.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. 286
8.1.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. 287
8.1.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. 288
8.1.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. 289
8.1.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. 290
8.1.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. 291
8.1.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. 292
8.1.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. 293
8.1.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. 294
8.1.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. 295
8.1.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. 296
8.1.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. 297
8.1.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. 298
8.1.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. 299
8.1.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. 300
8.1.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. 301
8.1.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. 302
8.1.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. 303
8.1.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. 304
8.1.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. 305
8.1.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. 306
8.1.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. 307
8.1.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. 308
8.1.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. 309
8.1.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. 310
8.1.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. 311
8.1.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. 312
8.1.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. 313
8.1.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. 314
8.1.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. 315
8.1.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. 316
8.1.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. 317
8.1.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. 318
8.1.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. 319
8.1.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. 320
8.1.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. 321
8.1.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. 322
8.1.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. 323
8.1.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. 324
8.1.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. 325
8.1.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. 326
8.1.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)
M
Ln
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 115 of 160
Packet Pg. 327
8.1.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. 328
8.1.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
M
Ln
City Council DRAFT City of Edmonds SMP Page 117 of 160
Packet Pg. 329
8.1.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. 330
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. 331
8.1.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. 332
8.1.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. 333
8.1.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. 334
8.1.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. 335
8.1.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. 336
8.1.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. 337
8.1.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. 338
8.1.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. 339
8.1.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. 340
8.1.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. 341
8.1.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. 342
8.1.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. 343
8.1.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. 344
8.1.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. 345
8.1.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. 346
8.1.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. 347
8.1.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. 348
8.1.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. 349
8.1.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. 350
8.1.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. 351
8.1.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. 352
8.1.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. 353
8.1.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. 354
8.1.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. 355
8.1.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. 356
8.1.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. 357
8.1.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. 358
8.1.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. 359
8.1.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. 360
8.1.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. 361
8.1.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. 362
8.1.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. 363
8.1.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. 364
8.1.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. 365
8.1.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. 366
8.1.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. 367
8.1.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. 368
8.1.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. 369
8.1.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. 370
8.1.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. 371
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. 372
8.1.c
Date: September 23, 2016
To: Edmonds City Council
Copy: Mayor Earling
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
From: Jeff Taraday
Re: Evaluation of Scientific and Regulatory Considerations Related to
Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8
I. Purpose of this memo
We were asked to prepare an evaluation of scientific and regulatory
considerations that would assist the city council in preparing an alternative
to Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8, which relate to setbacks and buffers
for the Urban Mixed Use IV (UMU4) environment. In Required Change 7,
Ecology asks the city to change the setback from 100 feet to 65 feet. In both
cases, the setback would contain a 50-foot vegetative buffer. Required
Change 8 relates to the amount of development that would trigger the
requirement to establish the 50-foot vegetative buffer, which does not
currently exist. Ecology asks the city to change the trigger from "new
development" to "redevelopment of greater than 50% of the Harbor Square
property within the shoreline jurisdiction."
With respect to the scientific portion of this assignment, our goal is to
identify scientific authority in the record that could support one alternative
or another. Where scientific authority for a particular alternative appears to
be lacking, our goal is to note that.
N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com
Packet Pg. 373
8.1.c
Legal standards to guide your decision -making
The Department of Ecology has adopted guidelines for Shoreline Master
Programs. These guidelines are found in chapter 173-26 WAC, Part III (WAC
173-26-171 through WAC 173-26-251). Any alternative that you propose for
the UMU4 setback and buffer, and the trigger to establish such buffer, should
be consistent with these guidelines. Here are a several excerpts from the
guidelines that should be helpful:
A. WAC 173-26-186(8)(b): Local master programs shall include
policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of
[shoreline] ecological functions.
B. WAC 173-26-186(8)(c): For counties and cities containing any
shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs
shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions.
C. WAC 173-26-186(9): To the extent consistent with the policy
and use preference of RCW 90.58.020, this chapter (chapter 173-26
WAC), and these principles, local governments have reasonable
discretion to balance the various policy goals of this chapter, in
light of other relevant local, state, and federal regulatory and
nonregulatory programs, and to modify master programs to reflect
changing circumstances.
D. WAC 173-26-201(2)(a): To satisfy the requirements for the
use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58.100(1),
local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into
their master program development and amendment process.
1. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate,
and complete scientific and technical information available that
is applicable to the issues of concern....
Packet Pg. 374
8.1.c
2. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis
incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific
or technical information available....
WAC 173-26-201(2)(d):... local governments shall ... apply
the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below ...
1. Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring
ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to
the natural environment and public health.... Local governments
should ensure that these areas are reserved consistent with
constitutional limits. [Note: this is the highest ranking item in a list
of five]
F. WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(i): When addressing critical areas,
shoreline master programs shall adhere to the standards
established in the following sections, unless it is demonstrated
through scientific and technical information as provided in RCW
90.58.100(1) and as described in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a) that an
alternative approach provides better resource protection.
Packet Pg. 375
8.1.c
G. WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(iv): The planning objectives of
shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be the
protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem -wide
processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and
ecosystem -wide processes.
H. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A): Local governments should
consult the department's technical guidance documents on
wetlands.
WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(D): Master programs shall contain
requirements for buffer zones around wetlands. Buffer
requirements shall be adequate to ensure that wetland functions
are protected and maintained in the long term. Requirements for
buffer zone widths and management shall take into account the
ecological functions of the wetland, the characteristics and setting
of the buffer, the potential impacts associated with the adjacent
land use, and other relevant factors.
J. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(A): Critical saltwater habitats
require a higher level of protection due to the important ecological
functions they provide. Ecological functions of marine shorelands
can affect the viability of critical saltwater habitats. Therefore,
effective protection and restoration of critical saltwater habitats
should integrate management of shorelands as well as submerged
areas.
K. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(B): The management planning
should address the following, where applicable:... Protecting
existing and restoring degraded riparian and estuarine ecosystems,
especially salt marsh habitats; Establishing adequate buffer zones
around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the habitat
areas;
Packet Pg. 376
8.1.c
L. WAC 173-27-080 Nonconforming use and development
standards. When nonconforming use and development standards
do not exist in the applicable master program,' the following
definitions and standards shall apply:
1. 'Nonconforming use or development' means a shoreline
use or development which was lawfully constructed or
established prior to the effective date of the act or the applicable
master program, or amendments thereto, but which does not
conform to present regulations or standards of the program.
2. Structures that were legally established and are used for a
conforming use but which are nonconforming with regard to
setbacks, buffers or yards; area; bulk; height or density may be
maintained and repaired and may be enlarged or expanded
provided that said enlargement does not increase the extent of
nonconformity by further encroaching upon or extending into
areas where construction or use would not be allowed for new
development or uses....
III. Scientific and technical information
As set forth above, WAC 173-26-201(2)(a) requires the city to
identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and
technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. In
this case, the issue of concern is the appropriate buffer width to require for a
Category II estuarine wetland. We have identified the following sources of
scientific and technical information.
A. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington
Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of
Ecology
This document distinguishes Category II estuarine wetlands from Category II
interdunal wetlands and other Category II wetlands, where buffer width is
based on habitat score. Unlike the other kinds, the buffer for Category II
1 Note: the city's SMP does contain provisions for nonconforming use. The
WAC is cited here to demonstrate what regulation Ecology would impose as a
default if the city did not have its own nonconforming use regulation.
Packet Pg. 377
8.1.c
estuarine wetlands does not depend on habitat score. Assuming that certain
impact minimization measures are required, the buffer would be 110 feet.
The measures include things like ensuring that light, noise, and toxic runoff
are directed away from the wetland. If these measures are not implemented,
then the buffer would be 150 feet.
B. Update on Wetland Buffers, The State of the Science,
October 2013, Publication No. 13-06-11, Department of Ecology
This document does not contain any specific guidance on estuarine wetlands.
C. Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small
Western Washington Version, January 2010, (1st Revision July
2011), (2nd Revision October 2012), Publication No. 10-06-002,
Department of Ecology
This document recommended standard buffer widths of 75 feet for Category
II wetlands, with the possibility of additional buffer width being added based
on a habitat score. The buffer table in this document does not have a line for
Category II estuarine wetlands. The 75-foot buffer figure is for all Category II
wetlands, except for interdunal wetlands. The buffers in the city's adopted
CAO were based on the guidance from this document. After the CAO was
adopted, this document was replaced in June 2016 by the Wetland Guidance
for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version.
D. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1, A Synthesis of the
Science, March 2005, Publication No. 05-06-006, Department of
Ecology
This document contains the following passage discussing the importance of
estuarine wetlands:
Estuaries, the areas where freshwater and salt water mix, are among
the most highly productive and complex ecosystems. Here,
tremendous quantities of sediments, nutrients, and organic matter are
exchanged between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine communities.
A large number of plants and animals benefit from estuarine
wetlands. Fish, shellfish, birds, and plants are the most visible
organisms that live in estuarine wetlands. However, a huge variety of
other life forms also live in an estuarine wetland, including many
kinds of diatoms, algae and invertebrates.
Packet Pg. 378
8.1.c
Estuaries, of which estuarine wetlands are a part, are a "priority
habitat" as defined by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Estuaries have a high fish and wildlife density and species richness,
important breeding habitat, important fish and wildlife seasonal
ranges and movement corridors, limited availability, and high
vulnerability to alteration of their habitat ....
E. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2, Guidance for
Protecting and Managing Wetlands, April 2005, Publication No.
05-06-008, Department of Ecology
This document contains the following sections:
A frequent concern about buffers is their applicability to urban and
urbanizing areas. The concerns generally fall into two categories: 1)
the science on buffers comes largely from agricultural and forestry
settings and is perceived to be irrelevant to urban areas; and 2) the
need to maximize density of development in urban areas is in direct
conflict with the protection of large upland areas around wetlands
(and streams).
The concern over the relevancy of the literature on buffers to urban
areas is largely unfounded. While most of the studies of buffer
effectiveness occur in non -urban settings, the principles are the same.
Buffers do not function any differently in urban settings than in rural
settings. The same processes of sediment, nutrient, and toxics removal
operate similarly in urban areas as they do in rural settings. However,
a good stormwater management program can reduce the need for
buffers to perform filtration functions, with the exception of lawns
and landscaped areas which drain into wetlands rather than into
stormwater collection areas.
The role of buffers in providing needed upland habitat for wetland
species and in screening adjacent noise and light is also performed
similarly. In fact, a case can be made that buffers in urban areas are
even more important from a habitat standpoint because there is little
other upland habitat available. The factors that may be different in
urban areas are that urban wetlands may perform some functions at a
lower level because of degradation, and the range of wildlife species
utilizing urban wetlands may be smaller. However, remaining
wetlands (and adjacent upland areas) in urban areas may, in fact,
Packet Pg. 379
8.1.c
function as habitat islands and be critical to many species. Generally,
the protection of wildlife habitat functions of wetlands requires larger
buffers than protection of water quality functions, particularly when
state-of-the-art stormwater management is employed.
However, the best way to address the issue of buffers in urban areas is
to conduct a landscape analysis and develop a subarea plan that
identifies, prioritizes, and protects the most important wetland,
riparian, and upland habitats (see Chapters 5 through 7 of this volume
for additional discussion). Maintaining and restoring connections
between wetland, riparian, and upland habitats is key to protecting
wildlife. A landscape analysis can help identify existing connections
that should be protected as well as areas where connectivity can be
restored. Combined with standards for low impact development and
state-of-the-art stormwater management, this kind of approach could
result in smaller buffers around the other critical areas that are not
providing vital habitat. The studies should always be confirmed on the
ground during project review.
The issue of balancing wetland protection with competing mandates
in the GMA is a legitimate one that can be addressed in a number of
ways. A buildable lands survey with a good wetlands inventory can
provide important information on the actual conflicts that may exist
(rather than a perceived conflict). Provisions to allow density trading
from buffers to adjacent or nearby developable lands can help.
Chapter 8, Section 8.3.8.8.
Where a legally established, non -conforming use of the buffer exists
(e.g., a road or structure that lies within the width of buffer
recommended for that wetland), proposed actions in the buffer may
be permitted as long as they do not increase the degree of non-
conformity. This means no increase in the impacts to the wetland
from activities in the buffer.
For example, if a land use with high impacts (e.g., building an urban
road) is being proposed next to a Category II wetland with a moderate
level of function for habitat, a 150-foot buffer would be needed to
protect functions (see Table 8C-6). If, however, an existing urban road
is already present and only 50 feet from the edge of the Category II
Packet Pg. 380
8.1.c
wetland, the additional 100 feet of buffer may not be needed if the
road is being widened. A vegetated buffer on the other side of the road
would not help buffer the existing impacts to the wetland from the
road. If the existing road is resurfaced or widened (e.g., to add a
sidewalk) along the upland edge, without any further roadside
development that would increase the degree of non -conformity, the
additional buffer is not necessary. The associated increase in
impervious surface from widening a road, however, may necessitate
mitigation for impacts from stormwater.
If, however, the proposal is to build a new development (e.g., shopping
center) along the upland side of the road, the impacts to the wetland
and its functions may increase. This would increase the degree of non-
conformity. The project proponent would need to provide the
additional 100 feet of buffer extending beyond the road or apply
buffer averaging (see Section 8C.2.6).
Appendix 8-C, Section 8C.2.4.2.
F. SMP Handbook, Chapter 11, Vegetation Conservation,
Buffers, and Setbacks, Publication Number 11-06-010, Department
of Ecology
The following excerpts from this document should also be helpful:
Some local governments with intensely developed shorelines have
established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation conservation is
required, and planting new vegetation, replacing noxious weeds and
invasive plants with native plants, and other habitat improvements
are required for new or expanded development. These measures meet
the requirements of the SMP Guidelines to protect ecological
functions, as buffers do.
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 3-4.
New scientific studies conducted after the CAO was adopted may
establish the need for different -sized buffers than included in the CAO.
The SMP Guidelines require "the most current, accurate and complete
scientific and technical information available" to be used for
development of SMPs [WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)].
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 4.
Packet Pg. 381
8.1.c
When SMPs were first adopted in the 1970s, setbacks were
established largely to protect structures from erosion and effects of
wind and water and to prevent new houses from blocking views.
Some consideration was given to habitat, as in Conservancy
environments with bigger setbacks than in Urban environments. We
now know more about the value of buffers in regard to ecological
functions. Recent scientific studies show that 25-foot setbacks do not
protect most ecological functions and will not meet the no net loss
standard of the SMP Guidelines.
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 7.
How do you apply these buffer widths from the scientific literature to
your local shorelines? Much of Washington's shorelines are
developed, unlike the undeveloped shorelines discussed in much of
the scientific literature.
Those land uses include industry, commercial uses, houses, multi-
family dwellings, parks, trails, marinas, bulkheads, parking lots, and
fishing piers, among others. Some upland areas are intensely
developed, and others are more sparsely developed. Some of our
waters are heavily used for ports, industry, marinas and recreational
piers. Many Washington lakes are intensely developed with houses on
the upland and piers and docks in the water, while others remain
undeveloped.
Tailor buffers to local conditions
Determining buffers and setbacks is a challenge. The buffers and
setbacks for marine and freshwater shorelines should be tailored to
local conditions including existing shoreline functions and existing
and planned land use and public access. Buffers and setbacks likely
will vary within a local government's boundaries to reflect different
shoreline conditions and functions. The inventory and
characterization report should provide a complete analysis of
shoreline functions.
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 19.
With this general guidance in mind, considerations for determining
buffer and setback width include:
Packet Pg. 382
8.1.c
• What shoreline ecological functions continue to exist and need
protection or restoration?
• What species of wildlife live along the shoreline, and what
buffer width will protect them?
• Would smaller buffers increase nitrogen and phosphorous
levels in local waters?
• How would removal of riparian vegetation affect slope stability
and hydrology?
• Will future growth include new or expanded water -oriented
uses?
• For developed shorelines, is redevelopment likely?
• Is development projected on vacant parcels?
SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 20.
G. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, Legally Existing Uses and
Development, Publication No. 11-06-010, Department of Ecology
The following excerpts from this chapter should be helpful:
Existing legally established structures and uses are typically allowed
to continue with the approval of updated SMPs. That means they can
continue to exist, be used, maintained and repaired. That's the case
even if the updated SMPs include regulations that would not allow
new uses or development to be configured or built exactly as existing
ones.
For example, under updated SMPs, new buildings may need to be
further away from the water, new development projects may need to
retain some vegetation onsite, or new aquaculture projects may need
to be a specific distance from aquatic vegetation. However, existing
legal development and uses can remain in place.
Ecology and local governments do not expect most existing
development and uses to be eliminated from the shoreline after new
SMP regulations are adopted. In some cases, existing buildings may be
expanded, although there may be limits to the size of the addition, the
total square footage, or new impervious surfaces....
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, pp. 1-2.
Cities with densely developed shorelines may have fewer
opportunities for achieving no net loss than cities or counties with
Packet Pg. 383
8.1.c
less developed shorelines. With a densely developed shoreline, large
buffers or setbacks may not be appropriate or feasible for various
reasons -- small lots cannot accommodate them; large buffers would
include many structures and impervious surfaces that interfere with
buffer functions; regulations regarding structures within buffers could
be complicated.
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 3.
Traditionally, uses and structures that are not consistent with the new
regulations have been categorized as "nonconforming" development.
Nonconforming uses and development were lawfully constructed or
established, but do not conform to current land use regulations or
standards. The regulation of nonconforming uses and development is
an established concept, beginning early in the 20th century, when
municipalities started enacting zoning regulations.
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4.
WAC 173-27-080 applies at the local level only if the local SMP does
not address nonconforming development.
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4.
Some local governments are using different approaches as they
update their SMPs. They would allow existing structures, particularly
single family residences, to continue as conforming structures even
though new shoreline setbacks, buffers, and other regulations in their
Shoreline Master Programs would typically create nonconforming
structures.
SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. S.
IV. Effect of city's marsh restoration efforts
As discussed above, Ecology is requiring a change to the 100/50
setback/buffer for the UMU4 environment. The dimensions of this
setback/buffer were heavily influenced by the city's desire to restore the
Edmonds marsh and daylight Willow Creek and obtain funding for such
restoration. While it is true that Appendix L alone may not support a 100-
foot setback for the UMU4 shoreline environment, the weight placed on
Appendix L by the city council demonstrates its commitment to restoration
of the Edmonds marsh. It is relevant to determining buffers for the UMU4
Packet Pg. 384
8.1.c
that the city has a significant goal of restoring the Edmonds marsh and has
been actively pursuing that goal through grant applications and studies.
These restoration goals are consistent with the SMP guidelines and should
definitely be taken into account when evaluating the local conditions to
which the buffers and setbacks for the UMU4 environment should be
tailored. The SMP guidelines certainly do not mandate an SMP that concedes
that existing conditions cannot be improved.
It should be noted for the record that the city council on August 2, 2016
adopted Resolution 1366, which authorized the submission of another grant
application to RCO related to the daylighting of Willow Creek. The December
18, 2015 final feasibility study for the daylighting of Willow Creek was the
result of a successful grant application from 2013.
The city council appears to hold unanimously the goal of restoring the
ecological functions and values of the Edmonds marsh. To the extent that
there are differing opinions on the city council, they appear to concern the
extent to which the Edmonds marsh can or should be restored, and/or the
best strategies for accomplishing such restoration.
V. Analysis of alternatives to Required Change 7
It will simplify the discussion of alternative buffer widths, if the setback from
the edge of the buffer (not from the edge of the wetland) remains consistent
across the various alternatives. We agree with Ecology that the SMP should
strive for consistency with the CAO in this area. Because the city's CAO
currently requires any structure to be setback from the edge of a buffer by 15
feet, the options discussed below will all assume that structures cannot be
placed any closer than 15 feet from the edge of a buffer. We acknowledge
that the CAO is likely to be amended soon in light of the June 2016 wetland
guidance, but we do not believe that new guidance has any implications for
the 15-foot setback.
A. Option 1: 110-foot buffer / 125-foot setback
The most recent science (Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, June 2016),
clearly indicates that a Category II, estuarine wetland should have a 110-foot
Packet Pg. 385
8.1.c
buffer. Adoption of a 110-foot buffer is appropriate and defensible in light of
this recent guidance.
It should be noted, however, that adoption of a 110-foot buffer requirement
for future development in the UMU4 environment, does not do anything to
change conditions on the ground. Adoption of a 110-foot buffer would make
the existing development at Harbor Square a legal nonconforming use that
the port would be entitled to repair and maintain indefinitely. So,
consideration should be given to a strategy for realizing the 110-foot buffer.
Redevelopment of Harbor Square certainly would provide an opportunity to
make the adopted buffer a reality. But it is possible that such a wide buffer
would disincentive redevelopment of Harbor Square unless some other
action was taken to incentivize redevelopment. Such incentives could take
many forms including, but not limited to, density or height bonuses or the
ability to establish new uses like housing. Because Harbor Square does not
appear likely to redevelop in the near future regardless of what buffer width
is established, one strategy would be to adopt the 100-foot buffer for the
purposes of this SMP update and continue to evaluate and develop a strategy
for making that buffer a reality. If the city determines that it cannot be made
a reality, it would be able to amend this regulation at a later date.
Another possible strategy would be to purchase some or all of the buffer area
from the port and have the city take responsibility for restoring a vegetative
buffer, perhaps through additional grant funding. We do not have an opinion
regarding the feasibility of such a strategy at this time.
B. Option 2: 75-foot buffer / 90-foot setback
This option would be consistent with the city's adopted CAO. While it is not
based upon the most current or applicable wetland guidance, the basis for
this buffer width (Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities), was
in effect when the proposed SNIP was initially adopted in 2014 and when the
CAO was adopted earlier in 2016. It should be noted that the 75-foot buffer
from this document was a baseline that could be increased to a wider buffer
depending on the habitat score of a particular wetland. To our knowledge,
the city does not have a habitat score for the Edmonds marsh.
This option would also make the existing development at Harbor Square a
legal nonconforming use that the port would be entitled to repair and
maintain indefinitely. So, consideration should be given here as well to a
Packet Pg. 386
8.1.c
strategy for realizing the 75-foot buffer. The same analysis of incentives and
disincentives would apply here, except that, because the 75-foot buffer
preserve more land for redevelopment, it seems plausible that offsetting
incentives would not need to be as significant as they might need to be to
trigger redevelopment under Option 1.
C. Option 3: 50-foot buffer / 65-foot setback, but only after
confirming through site specific scientific study that a 50-foot
buffer is appropriate for the UMU4
Ecology's rationale for Required Change 7 appears to make some
combination of the assumptions below, not all of which are expressly stated,
about the Edmonds marsh and the redevelopment of Harbor Square.
• Assumption #1: the only feasible way to improve the condition of the
marsh is through the redevelopment of Harbor Square.
• Assumption #2: redevelopment of Harbor Square will not occur with
a buffer any wider than 50 feet, regardless of what other development
incentive might be available.
• Assumption #3: the ongoing discharge of inadequately treated
stormwater into the Edmonds marsh can only be corrected through
redevelopment of Harbor Square and not as a stand-alone publicly
funded project.
• Assumption #4: the habitat functions and values of the Edmonds
marsh can be maintained with a buffer of 50-feet, even when more
intense redevelopment occurs.
The city council might be willing to adopt a 50-foot buffer upon a satisfactory
test of these assumptions. The 50-foot buffer does represent a significant
departure from the 110-foot buffer that is recommended by the most recent
science. Such a departure may be defensible upon further study that results
in a set of scientifically and/or economically supported findings. But, without
further study, it may be hard to justify this departure. In particular, we are
not aware of any detailed findings as to whether a 50-foot buffer would be
sufficient to ensure no net loss of the habitat functions and values of the
Edmonds marsh. It is possible that a study would result in such a conclusion,
but that work has not been performed yet to our knowledge. So, this option
would involve asking Ecology for more time to test these assumptions.
Packet Pg. 387
8.1.c
D. Option 4: 50-foot buffer / 65-foot setback without awaiting
any further study
This option would be tantamount to agreeing with Ecology's Required
Change 7 and the rationale for it.
VI. Analysis of alternatives to Required Change 8
According to the city's comprehensive plan, Harbor Square is intended to be
redeveloped as part of a master plan. If the city council selects one of the
buffer options that makes the existing improvements legal nonconforming,
the cleanest alternative to Required Change 8 would be to allow maintenance
and repair indefinitely, without triggering the planting of a buffer, and to
have the buffer planted in conjunction with a master planned redevelopment.
Required Change 8 will likely require additional discussion after the city
council has landed on an alternative to Required Change 7.
Packet Pg. 388
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Civic Master Plan Update (45 min.)
Staff Lead: Civic Master Plan Update
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Prepared By: Carrie Hite
Background/History
Civic Center Field was recently acquired by the City from the Edmonds School District. The property
officially closed on February 9, 2016.
The PROS plan and Parks CIP have both identified the City's goals of master planning this property once
acquired.
The kick off meeting to launch the master planning process with the City Council was held on May 3rd,
2016.
Since that time, there have been two open houses, two virtual open houses, many stakeholder
interviews, Planning Board and City Council input.
Staff Recommendation
Provide input and guidance.
Narrative
The City and design team have conducted two in person open houses and two online open houses.
Stakeholder outreach has continued for the duration of the project with recent engagement including
teen groups, parks maintenance staff and planning. Two design options were presented at open house
two which incorporate community feedback to date. Over the next three months, the design team will
be working with the community to refine the two alternatives to one preferred hybrid plan. We will be
hosting one more online and one in -person public open house as well as continued briefings to City
Council, the Planning Board, Edmonds Parks and Recreation and a 21 member Project Advisory
Committee. The two master plan alternatives are as follows:
Plan Option 1 - Meadow Loop
Option 1 introduces more passive landscape features into the park perimeter, including meadows,
berms and stormwater gardens that frame a central multi -use lawn. This option features a jogging trail
with exercise stations and multiple walking paths as well as a large, central play area. The lawn is large
enough to accommodate the same level of soccer usage that occurs now. A wide promenade -style
sidewalk along 6th Avenue allows for strolling or markets. It includes a plaza and shade pavilion, and
could accommodate food concessions, movable tables and chairs, and a small water feature. The project
also includes a small amount of other recreational program - multi -use courts and petanque.
Plan Option 2 - Activity Central
Option 2 maximizes recreational activities and facilitates spectatorship. It includes a 200-meter track,
multi -use lawn for soccer and other sports, and viewing terraces that overlook the playfields. Option 2
Packet Pg. 389
8.2
also includes petanque garden groves, a skate park, and four multi -use courts around an expanded Field
House that could potentially house the Boys and Girls Club or a cafe and a restroom. The north portion
of the park is more landscaped in character, and includes a picnic or performance pavilion and multi -
generational play and exercise areas. A main path runs through the park at Sprague street, and offers a
clear connection from the residential neighborhood to the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. This path offers the
potential for bringing markets and other events into the park.
Planning member Val Stewart is represented on the Project Advisory Committee for the planning
process. City Council member Dave Tietzel and Council President Kristiana Johnson are both on the
Project Advisory Committee.
Attached for your reference are the following:
1. Two alternative concepts
2. Presentation for this meeting
3. Master Plan schedule, dates, with one change
4. PAC team agenda and minutes
5. Draft minutes from the Planning Board meeting from September 14, 2016
In addition, the next steps in this process include:
October 19, 2016: Open house, and Virtual open house begin ( Note: change of date)
October 25th, 2016: Project Advisory Committee meeting ( Note: change of date)
November 9th: Planning Board
November 22nd: City Council
Attachments:
160927 CC MtgPresentation_reduced size(1)
Civic Designs: side by side
9.1 PAC minutes
9.1 PAC agenda
Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates Revised
Draft Planning Board minutes 9.14.16
Packet Pg. 390
8.2.a
Open House #1 Responses
Themes / Priorities
.9
i"iik,
Active:
74
Passive:
62
Civic:
23
w
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 392
8.2.a
Open House #1 Responses
A ctiv ity/F e a to re
V o to
s
a.
r e s t r o o m s
77
U
.2:
U
p e to n q u e
7
6
r
LO
jo g g in g/ w a Ik in g p a th s
7
1
s o c c e r
6
7
m
N
.y
sh a d e t r e e s
5
6
m
s k a t e p a r k
5
0
`I
c
0
playground
50
Z.
c
a�
to n n is
4
9
N
L
IL
21
Boys & G it Is C lu b
4
8
2
v
U
m u Iti-u se la w n
4
2
r-
N
CD
O
form al track
4
0
w
r
c
s m all p e r f o r m a n c e s p a c e
3
9
E
t
g a rd e n s
3
5
a
e tc.
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAl Packet Pg. 393
8.2.a
Open House Responses
=Kl
sescfved! whir pm4e dr.Qetiue
�tl'k,�rnfl palhwaysl
luh
new playFieids- m._. ram9ih If dashed
-Tempraary leutgwo use can be sccommomed
The twn acres Ihal inculde the F60d Fk7uslr }pr tpnrq
�fprt7 the doed IE5rri�tlpn5.
. . .
lnriTx�nt thr Ite or-rnary
�:'1•• INr1
i
CL
CU
LO
:H r
N
r
C
0
E
t
rJ
Q
Packet Pg. 394
8.2.a
Additional Community Engagement
• Student Conservation
Association
• Stakeholder Interviews
• Parks Maintenance
• My Edmonds News
L
d
CU
U
LO
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 395
8.2.a
Available Facilities (Parks + Schools)
TOTAL FACILITIES
(# At Civic Center Playfield)
Soccer Fields (Adult + Youth): .... 10 (2)
Tennis Courts: .................................. 7 (2)
Petanque:....................................... 4 (4)
Basketball Courts: ........................ 10 (2)
Baseball/Softball Fields
(Adult + Youth): ..................... 11 (1)
Skate Park: .................................... 2 (1)
Pickleball:...................................... 10 (2)
Edmonds Area
Parks
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
WAII Packet Pg. 396
N Z Z -v " Z
c Q O O c k 0
(D S H < n
N y ��
(D -0 cn (a (D
C
NN c A n (D ~' - s
<n Q (D Q Q
(Q to C CD H, < (D S
(D� Q Oo
c N (D O O
N Q D CA
(DH .
Q (D Q CDQ — (D p -1
Q (D Q Q N
n Q N c
C
Q Q
o � �
rn
Q �
� o
0
0
(n
m
n
O
z
CA
P
D
n
m
m T N
m m
N O D
n
� � A
(1 m
ti
m
0 m RT
o k
z m
N 3
ti
6 T H A I E N
Isis 11MIN mini
11,M1111111111111 loin loin \\Mimi 101-9
li k
= 4i1
.. I
I
Apr
00
D O
A m
m n
N
m
•
I
m
a
3
0
a
n
0'
n
CD
CD
CD'
a
c.D
V
n
M
FOJ
1 'CO-40 � Attachment: 160927 CC MtgPresentation_reduced size(1) (1541 : Civic Master Plan
8.2.a
Open House #1 Responses
Themes / Priorities
.9
i"iik,
Active:
74
Passive:
62
Civic:
23
w
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 399
Attachment: 160927 CC MtgPresentation_reduced size(1) (1541 : Civic Master Plan
jp-cudn canine
ISIIITITM El•I•]•
w a Ik in g jo g g in g p a th s _
- } S b e r m s j
i
i6 e x i s t i n g
o b sto cle
jee
c o u rse
o r
m uIti-use law nip layfield stati
m e a d o w s UP
& ;.
,i g a r d e n s
y� storm water gardens ` y
8.2.a
Design Option 1 - Meadow Loop
A c t iv it y
Z o n e s
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAI Packet Pg. 402
0
0
Vid
NMI—
r
O
O
Attachment: 160927 CC MtgPresentation_reduced size(1) (1541 : Civic Master Plan
8.2.a
Design Option 1 - Meadow Loop
C o m m u n ity
H u b s
F ie Id H o u se
(B o y s & G i r Is
C Iu b
o r c a f e)
sh a d e
p a v ilio n &
re s t r o o m
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 404
ueld aa}seW OIAIO : 4ti54) (4)azis peon paa-uoi;e;uasaad6IW 00 LZ6094 :;uawtj3L' v
!a o
N �
00 Ch
a
m
u
m
a
cn
w
0
'cx
V
r)
Q
N
w
►;
�a
N
00
CL
O
O
►
I
ueld aa}seW OIAIO : 4ti54) (4)azis peon paa—uoi;e;uasaad6IW 00 LZ6094 :;uauay3L'IIV
w
V)
Z)
i
w
J
m
X
w
J
LL
IMS
w
Q
Z
Cw
0
CL
co
0
Ch
a
m
u
m
a
8.2.a
Meadow F oop Precedents
CREATIVE, INTEGRATED PLAY
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 407
mnw K-nnn Prpcpr
f
8.2.a
Meadow Loop Precedents
MULTI -USE LAWN
L
d
Cu
G
ci
U
Q
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 409
8.2.a
Meadow Loop Precedents
PASSIVE LANDSCAPE GARDENS
U
r
LO
r
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA' Packet Pg. 410
A r., M li'mim MONTE M NICE IFEam do 0 0 M 0
91
(A
m
r
r M
X
M
0
Z
m
M
r
m
,MiL&K
m
a
3
0
a
n
0'
n
CD
cu
sv
m'
Q
z
w
h v
y
N
3
�' Attachment: 160927 CC MtgPresentation_reduced size(1) (1541 : Civic Master Plan
rt
46
W
Attachment: 160927 CC MtgPresentation_reduced size(1) (1541 : Civic Master Plan
N
PO
N
G1
8.2.a
Design Option 2 - Activity Central
S it e P la n
5
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA' IPacket Pg. 414
8.2.a
Design Option 2 - Activity Central
A c t iv it y
Z o n e s
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 415
8.2.a
Design Option 2 - Activity Central
C o n n e c t io n s
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 416
8.2.a
Design Option 2 - Activity Central
C o m m u n ity
H u b s
e x p a n d e d
F i e Id H o u s e
f o r B o y s & G i r Is
C Iub,
a n d / o r cafe,
re stro o m )
p icn is
to r r a ce
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 417
8.2.a
Activity Central precedents
SHADE PAVILION AND PICNIC AREA
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAl Packet Pg. 418
8.2.a
Activity Central Precedent
LANDSCAPE INTEGRATED PLAY
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 419
8.2.a
Activity Central Precedents
LAWN TERRACES FOR SPECTATING AND VIEWS
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 420
8.2.a
Activity Central Precedents
ALL -AGES RECREATION
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 421
ictivity cpnlrra i Prpcpr
lF Sh' +wI' �•
-�'„+.• ,•may .•�. < ir��.___.....5 '��.,,t��... �� f �`�;:.* 4
A.,.
}: *+ v x sad
w � fti ,
8.2.a
Activity Central Precedents
GAME COURTS WITHIN GARDEN GROVES
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 423
8.2.a
Activity Central Event Overlay
S it e P la n
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 424
8.2.a
Plan Option 1 - Meadow Loop
INNr__ , I r _-
y
• 2 smaller or 1 large soccer field
• 4 petanque courts
• 1.5 courts
• playgrounds
• walking jogging paths
• multi -use lawn
• existing Field House / B&G Club
• shade pavilion and restroom
Plan Option 2 - Activity Central a
A
�.1 r
d
zEl
Q. a�
T) 3}10
'n c�
o
AM
1 -
a
• 1 large + 1 small soccer field 2
• 8 petanque courts
• 4 courts • walking jogging paths
• 200m track • multi -use lawn
• skate park • expanded Field Hous(
• sand volleyball for B&G Club / Cafe
• parking restroom w
a
• playgrounds picnic pavilion
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 425
8.2.a
project Schedule
Open House #3 (Preferred Master Plan), October
Online Open House #3, October 19 - November 4
http://edmondscivicfield.participate-online/
Planning Board, November 9
City Council, November 22
Final Plan, January 17
�i
T
le
Ln
2
U
U
E
w
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAI Packet Pg. 426
8.2.a
Small Group Discussion &
Report Back
—160 attendees
16 Discussion Tables
Preferred Plan (by majority at table):
Option 1 preferred: 8
Option 2 preferred: 4
Split: 2
Unclear: 2
Individual Comment Cards:
Option 1 preferred: 5
Option 2 preferred: 3
Undecided / Unclear: 3
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 427
8.2.a
In Person Open House
Most Consistent Comments
• Like the lawn terraces
• Skatepark should remain in the park
• Option 1 curves are nice but want more active program
like in Option 2
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
8.2.a
Online Open House Results
A u g u st 2 4 th to S e p to tu b e r 7 th
1 ,0 5 7 v is i t o r s
3 7 9 re sp o n se s
0 8 8 Prefer O p do n 1 (2 3 .9 %)
0 280 Prefer Option 2 (76.1% )
A g e
Over
7
0: 3 8 (1 7 .7 % )
45-6981
(37.7% )
30-44
80 (37.2% )
1 8 -2
9
7 (3 .3 % )
U n d e
r
1 8: 5 (2 .3 %)
l=
to
a.
d
C�
G
.>
CITY OF EDMONDS
Civic Field Project
to
m
N
.y
Welcome
C
Welrvmelo ihes ndontlne open houw For she Comonds CYylc Centel
3
_
PlayficW Mastor Plan. Here you can learn about the poiact and provldb your
Inputonthefuwre oithe park.lnrespon-se [o lnpu[Irom d,e community,Iwa
altorna[ive plans have boon prod used to Vi"erato more feedback and
discussion- The Anal pl an will likely he a hybrid of Iheahernarlye plans and
G
will be presented at The Clnutlor 17th open hpuie.
}a
This nnllne open house is avallable through Fclday. Wtorriber 9, 2015
C
N
How to use this online open house:
Ylslc Nletahbed's[aclarrs" mlearn abuul [he park, the two proposeddeslgn
t.:'
L
d
Oral— and provide leed,ack. Keep an eye our for survey quest lonsand
submlt your answen. Please Share this site with others who may be Interested
In Ihis project.
Please Join in In -per• n at one of car upwining open houses a[ the Edmond .
U
1. What is your relationship to the pafk? {Cheek all that
Plata Room, e5n Main Srree[, F.dmond%. from B t:70Lpm on thefoflowing daie=
�
apply)
• it[br5day,June2J.JVJ5 A[NelllaslCorn0Qtodi
�
. I l he rear the park
• Wednesday.Fugust24,2d15 Halter r+lan AltcrnaweslCompleN+d1
G
IwnrknearlhePark
• Wedne6d4y.october12.ni1 I'aofwredMaster PIanRcwlow
CO
r
I Imp nndldr work near the park
Changes or updates to public op" hutwofa[es volt tie pieced at:
. .
' I do not Ilye andlor work in Edmonds
mvw [lylcPark cdmoedawa
m
E
t
r
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
WA Packet Pg. 429
8.2.a
Online Open House Results
C o m m o n re a sons re sp o n d e n is
p re fe r r e d o p do n 1 in c lu d e d:
• Free - flow in structure, layout
• W a I in g p a th s
• W a to r fe a tore a n d p la z a
• O pen green spaces and I a w n
• Reduced num b e r of p e t a n q u e
courts
• N o t r a c k
a.
L
d
C�
G
C o m m on reasons respondents V�_
U
p re fe r r e d o p do n 2 in c lu d e d r
LO
•
V i e w t e r r a c e s
m
y
L o n g w a Ik in g a
n d r u n n in g p a th s
m
•
F o c u s o n fi e Id s
a n d a th le tic
0
f a c ilitie s
+°
c
a�
•
E x p a n d e d b o y
s a n d g iris c lu b
N
L
a
a�
•
S k a to p a r k
V
U
•
P o to n tia I fo r la
rg a e v e n is
N
rn
0
•
M o re s p aces for
f a m ilie s a n d
tO
r
c
child re
m
E
t
•
T r a ck
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
WA I Packet Pg. 430
8.2.a
Online Open House Results
G
V
C o m m o n a le m e n is not shown th a t >
U
respondents w o u Id lik a to se a in c lu d e d
LO
• N
A d d itio n a l re stro o m s N
m
B e n c h e s a n d/ o r se a tin g a re a s
m
L
• L ig h tin g
c
0
• A d d itio n a I c o v e re d a th le tic fa c ility
N
N
L
a n d m a r k e t s p a c e a
a�
S to g e U
U
r-
• A D A a cce ssib ility rn
0
co
• A 0 0 -m a to r tra c k
r
c
m
E
t
.r
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 431
8.2.a
Combined Open House Results
a.
L
d
G
V
H ig h Level E stim ate o f D e sig n O p do n
U
Votes Corn bined:
LO
m
N_
O p do n 1: 1 7
8 (3
5% )
N
•
m
V
In -p a r s o
n —
9 0 (6 4 % )
m
L
O n lin a—
8 8
(2 4% )
c
c
a�
N
N
O p do n 2: 3 3
0 (6
5% )
a
a�
In -p a r s o
n—
5 0 (3 6% )
V
U
• r-
O n lin e— 2 8 0 (7 7% ) rn
0
w
T-
.r
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 432
m
a
3
0
a
n
0'
n
CD
CD
CD'
a
z
I
U)
� CL
v
_.
y
O
y
N
O
Fo, I
rta
Attachment: 160927 CC MtgPresentation_reduced size(1) (1541 : Civic Master Plan
N
co
(a;epdn ueld aa;seW 31ni0 : 4tSL) apis Aq apis :su6isaa OIAIO :;uauayaejjV
re;
•
L_J
CL
O
O
J
■
r
r
}
u
Q
LU
J
\
U
U
WALKERIMACY
MEETING MINUTES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING
Time: 10:00-11:30 Topic: Civic Center Playfield Planning Meeting Date: 9/1/2016
Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282
Attendees:
Carrie Hite, City of
Open House
#2 Presentation Review given by Walker Macy
Edmonds
1.
Open House #1 Final Results & Additional Outreach
Renee McRae, City
of Edmonds
2.
Updates on Boys & Girls Club, Restrictions and Grand Stand
Rich Lindsay City
3.
Design Options
of =^nch
4.
In -Person Open House Results
Frances Chapin,
5.
Online Open House Preliminary Results
City of Edmonds
Chris Jones,
Discussion
Walker Macy
•
Track takes up too much space
Ann Marie
Schneider, Walker
.
Would like walking/joggingpaths to be marked or measured
Macy
•
Consider parkour stations
Rob ChAve
•
Existing track use is Boys & Girls Club (2-3 events/yr where they invite kids from other
Dave Teitzel
areas) and Holy Rosary Field Day
Valerie Stewart
•
Petanque would like tournament space
Barbara Chase
•
There are no other programmatic requests that require/request dirt
Deug Shelden
•
Residents do not like the dirt field as it causes dust problems
Steve-Shelten
•
Youth representation is important
•
Consider use of spaces in 20+ years, i.e. if petanque becomes less popular in the long-
mn
term what will the space be used for? Not sure petanque use warrants over 1/51h of the
`o` Me'Alw
park area. Want to make sure the spaces are truly flexible.
Alex GFg
•
The PAC felt like 6 petanque courts seem like a reasonable compromise
Kyla Blair
•
Park is in a signature location and should be designed for everyone
Pat Woodell
•
The park's flatness is unique and conducive to activity
Bob Rinehart
•
Young families and youth are least represented in feedback due to schedule constraints
John McGibbon
•
Goal should be to bring all ages together
Diana White
•
What schools have track and field? Woodway is one.
Emilyems+
•
Would like petanque court borders to be designed such that the space can host other
Dick Van Hollebeke
uses
Jennifer Lambert
•
Recent national survey shows that ages 35 and younger feel discriminated against
•
Creative play and convertible spaces are exciting trends to consider
•
Beach volleyball should be at the beach
•
Skate park is highly used by youth and young families and should be incorporated into
the hybrid scheme.
105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM
Packet Pg. 435
8.2.c
PAC Meeting #3
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
9/1/2016
Page 2 of 2
• Versatility and diversity of features are sought after
• The cost of bringing in material for berms is a concern - the design team will be providing
high level / order -of -magnitude estimates for both options
• Pervious pavement should be considered
• Groundwater table is very high
• Any parking should be ADA access or van storage for B&G Club
• B&G Club interested in--18,000 SF facility with full-size gym - which is what is shown in
option 2
• Moving tennis courts could be expensive. Carrie mentioned they need to be renovated
regardless.
• Should be a load/unload zone in front of B&G Club
• Ballard Commons has a good example of a skate park and water feature
• Smart phones and other devices can now be used to measure runs in lieu of measured
paths
• Angled parking should be explored on 6t" Ave. Walker Macy added that this generally
makes a pedestrian edge that is not pedestrian friendly.
• Can there be parking in the alleys since they are public? Can they be widened or made
one-way?
• Residents feel they are too narrow (17') as is
• Alternative transportation - bike, bus - should be encouraged
• Design and construction considerations should be made for event vehicles/trucks,
especially given the cost to redevelop the park. It is a goal that the Taste of Edmonds
parking will be moved off -site.
• Emergency access to site will be a requirement
• Terraces could be wrapped around south edge; though this could be costly given the
grade
• Public art opportunities will be looked at once the design has advanced and hybridized
Funding for art is limited so one approach is to integrate functional art into the design
and construction of the park.
• Safety is a concern on the alley edges (north/south) and buffering should be included
(fence, berm, planting, etc).
• The predominant pedestrian traffic coming through the park is east to west.
• It was determined we would remove a formal track from the preferred scheme
Packet Pg. 436
WALKERIMACY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING
Time: 10:00-11:30
Location: Frances Anderson Center
"'Janie
laic! �
llays �Itzs,
`val
B^ L t; l;li.:i38
f'2, ,'rpu�icii
'�i.ir•�ra �P;",its-
iiv
Topic: Civic Center Playfield Planning
Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan
Open House #2 Presentation Review
1. Open House #1 Final Results & Additional Outreach
2. Updates on Boys & Girls Club, Restrictions and Grand Stand
3. Design Options
4. In -Person Open House Results
5. Online Open House Preliminary Results
Discussion
Next Steps
Meeting Date: 9/1/2016
Project #: P3282
a
105 S MAIN STREET SUITE 205 I SEATTLE. WA 98104 I PHONE 206 582 3874 1 WEB WALKERMAC4 COM
Packet Pg. 437
8.2.e
Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates
May 3rd: City Council Kick off meeting, 5:30 — 6:45 pm, Brackett room
May 12t": Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00 —11:30 am, Frances
Anderson Center, Room 302
May 17 and 23rd: Stakeholder meetings ( Chris and Carrie, FAC Room 113)
June 23rd: Open House, 6-7:30 pm, Library Plaza Room
July 7t": Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances Anderson
Center, Room 302
July 27t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
August 9t": City Council meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
August 24t": Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room
September 1: Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances
Anderson Center, Room 302
September 14t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
September 27t": City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
October 19th: Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room
October 25th: Project Advisory Board meeting, 10:00-11:30 am., Frances
Anderson Center, Room 302
November 91": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
November 22nd: City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
January 17, 2017: City Council final adoption, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
Packet Pg. 438
8.2.f
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 14, 2016
Vice Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers,
Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5 h Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Philip Lovell, Chair (excused)
Matthew Cheung
Todd Cloutier (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER ROBLES MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director
There was no discussion relative to the report.
CIVIC FIELD MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Ms. Hite reviewed the Civic Center Playfield Master Plan process to date, which started with a kick off meeting before the
City Council in May. Since that time there have been two public open houses, each accompanied by a two -week online open
house. The staff and consultant also held numerous stakeholder meetings, with recent engagements including teen groups
and parks maintenance staff. She reminded the Board that the consultant was previously before the Board and City Council
to present the results of the 1st open house and solicit feedback. This feedback, along with feedback from the community and
stakeholder meetings was used to prepare two options, which were presented at the 2nd open house. Over the next three
Packet Pg. 439
8.2.f
months, the design team will be working with the community to refine the two alternatives to one preferred hybrid plan. The
consultant will also host another online and in -person public open house and provided continued briefings to the City
Council, Planning Board, staff, and the Project Advisory Committee (PAC). She advised that Chris Jones from Walker Macy
was present to present the alternatives to the Planning Board and solicit feedback prior to presenting to the City Council on
September 27th. She advised that Board Member Stewart participates on the PAC, and several of other PAC members were
present in the audience, as well.
Chris Jones, Walker Macy, said he is the landscape architectural consultant for the Civic Center Playfield Master Plan and
was also the consultant for the recently completed Marina Beach Master Plan. He advised that his presentation would be a
summary version of the two alternatives that were presented at the 2nd open house, which started by repeating back to the
community what they heard from the lst open house. At the lst open house, participants were asked to comment on whether
they favored an active, passive or civic design for the park, and most indicated they would prefer either an active or passive
design. The participants were also provided a list of potential activities/features for the park and asked to identify those that
they desired most. The top 13 activities/features included restrooms, petanque courts, jogging/walking paths, soccer, shade
trees, skate park, playground, tennis, Boys and Girls Club, multi -use lawn, formal track, small performance space, and
gardens. In addition to ranking the listed features, participants were also invited to identify additional features/activities they
would like the City to consider. He summarized that the design team has received a lot of feedback from the community,
including the City Council, Planning Board, PAC, Student Conservation Association, stakeholders, and parks maintenance
staff.
Mr. Jones advised that, throughout the process, numerous people have questioned where they could go for a particular type of
activity if it is eliminated from the Civic Center Playfield. To answer these questions, he provided a map that identifies the
location of a number of fields and courts that can be found throughout the City's park system. With the exception of
petanque, there are other places to get the recreation that is currently available at the Civic Center Playfield.
Mr. Jones explained that the project site is 8 acres in size, but the City must abide by a deed restriction that applies to six
acres. The deed restriction limits the design to no more than 10% impervious surface and surface parking must be pervious.
In addition, the site must be preserved as open space and no synthetic turf or buildings are allowed. Both of the design
alternatives accommodate the deed restrictions. He reviewed each of the design options as follows:
Design Option 1 (Meadow Loop). Option 1 introduces more passive landscape features into the park perimeter,
including meadows, berms, and stormwater gardens that frame a central multi -use lawn. The option features a jogging
trail with exercise stations and multiple walking paths, as well as a large, central play area. The lawn would be large
enough to accommodate the same level of soccer usage that occurs now. A wide promenade -style sidewalk along 61h
Avenue would allow for strolling or markets and could include a plaza, restroom and shade pavilion. It could also
accommodate food concessions, movable tables and chairs, and a small water feature. The option also includes a small
amount of the recreational programs, such as multi -use courts and petanque. Option 1 would also maintain the current
Field House for the Boys and Girls Club, with no expansion. The highest activity and noise level would be located
towards the center of the site, and the north, east and south sides of the park would be a much quieter, more passive
space. There would be pedestrian connections and circulation throughout the park. The proposed walking paths would
provide east/west connections, as well as a connection from the north side of the park to downtown. The Field House,
plaza, and shade pavilion/restroom would provide a community hub along the western boundary of the park. He
provided pictures to illustrate some of the concepts proposed in Option 1 such as the meadows and gardens, flexible use
promenade that could accommodate a farmer's market and/or festival booths, creative and integrated play areas, shade
pavilion and plaza, passive landscape gardens and multi -use lawn. He noted that the flexible -use event space would
occupy about 65% of the total park space.
Design Option 2 (Activity Central). Option 2 maximizes recreational activities and facilitates spectatorship. It
includes a 200-meter track, multi -use lawn for soccer and other sports, and viewing terraces that overlook the playfields.
It also includes petanque courts, skate park and four multi -use courts around an expanded Field House that could
potentially house the Boys and girls Club or a cafe and restroom. The north portion of the park is more landscaped in
character, and includes a picnic or performance pavilion and multi -generational play and exercise areas. A main path
runs through park at Sprague Street and offers a clear connection from the residential neighborhood to the 0, Avenue
Arts Corridor. The path also offers potential for bringing markets and other events into the park. The majority of the site
Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 440
8.2.f
would be dedicated to active recreational uses and would have more of a sports feel. The higher uses would be located
in the central and southeast corners of the site, and the lower uses would be along the northern edge. There would be
average activity along the west side of the park (6 h Avenue). In addition to the main pathway that provides an east/west
connection for Sprague Street, there would be other meandering walkways through the park. The community hubs in
Option 2 would be the expanded Field House for the Boys and Girls Club and/or cafe and restrooms. He provided
pictures to illustrate some of the concepts proposed in Option 2 such as the shade pavilion and picnic area, landscaped
integrated play areas within the walkways and topographic features, lawn terraces for spectating and views to replace the
popular grandstands, all -ages recreation, small plaza with an interactive water feature, and game courts within garden
groves so the use can be more flexible. In Option 2, about 90% of the site would be available for flexible -use event
space.
Mr. Jones reported that there were about 140 in attendance at the 1st in -person open house, and about 160 at the 2nd. The 2nd
open house started with a brief presentation, followed by a question and answer period. The participants were then divided
into 16 groups to review the two alternatives, using a side -by -side comparison, and provide feedback on their preferred
alternative, as well as the elements they liked best in each of the alternatives. Eight groups indicated a preference for Option
1, four for Option 2, and four were split or unclear. Individual comment cards indicated a preference for Option 1 over
Option 2. The most consistent comments at the in -person open house indicated support for the lawn terraces and skateboard
park. While the curves are nice in Option 1, most wanted a more active program like in Option 2.
In addition to the in -person open house, Mr. Jones advised that a two -week online open house was also offered. About 360
people visited the site and 132 responses were received. Forty-two respondents indicated a preference for Option 1 and 87
for Option 2. The common reasons that respondents preferred Option 1 included the free -flowing structure, layout and path,
water feature and plaza, open green spaces and lawn, and a reduced number of petanque courts. Common reasons for
preferring Option 2 included the long walking and running paths, track, focus on fields and athletic facilities, expanded Boys
and Girls Club, skate park, view terraces, potential for large events, and more spaces for families and children. Common
elements not shown that respondents would like to see included additional restrooms, benches and/or seating areas, lighting,
additional covered athletic facility and market place, water fountains, stage, ADA accessibility and a 400-meter track. He
noted that restrooms were included in each option, but may not have been explicit. However, the design is not at the level of
addressing items such as benches, lighting, etc.
Mr. Jones summarized that the next step is to present the two options to the City Council on September 27d', along with a
summary of the open house events and feedback from the Board. The design team will present a hybrid design scheme that
reflects the input that has been provided to date at a 3rd open house on October 12th.
Board Member Crank said she was unable to attend the in -person open houses, but she did participate in the on-line open
house. She referred to Option 2 and asked if the school district or adjacent property owners have commented about the need
for a track. Ms. Hite answered that a few people specifically requested that a track be included in the design. The PAC had
an in-depth discussion about this element, and it appears that people are more interested in having a way to measure their
mileage. Perhaps it would be possible to provide this opportunity on the walkway that goes around the perimeter of the park
rather than providing an actual track. In her experience, tracks are not usually located at public parks. They are typically
found on school properties.
Board Member Crank asked if there is infrastructure in place to accommodate the water features that are proposed in both
options. Mr. Jones answered that there is water and power service available at the park site, but nothing has been stubbed out
to serve this need in a particular location. Board Member Robles noted that water features can utilize a lot of water. He
asked if the features would be susceptible to significant water restrictions. Ms. Hite referred to the spray pad at City Park,
which does use quite a lot of water. However, rather than a direct -to -drain resource, the water actually goes into a catch
system where it is treated and reused on the pad. While this option is costly, it could be implemented at Civic Center
Playfield, too.
Board Member Robles asked if one option would be costlier to maintain than the other. Mr. Jones answered that Option 1
would probably require more maintenance from staff. However, they met with parks maintenance staff to discuss the
maintenance needs of both options, and no concern was raised about the City's ability to accommodate the maintenance
needs associated with either option. Ms. Hite added that staff can work with the consultant to incorporate elements of design
Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 441
8.2.f
that require less maintenance such as drought tolerant plants, lower maintenance gardens, and low -impact development (LID)
improvements such as rain gardens. She explained that the maintenance staff already maintains the 8-acre site. While the
maintenance needs would likely increase, the change would not be significant.
Board Member Robles asked if the plan includes an on -site maintenance facility to store equipment that is used for the site.
Mr. Jones said that has not been considered, but it could be built in. Ms. Hite advised that none of the City's parks have on -
site maintenance facilities. The equipment is moved from park to park on a flatbed truck. Staff members go from park to
park, doing the same task.
Board Member Robles asked how many different surfaces are identified in the proposed plan. Mr. Jones answered that
potential surfaces include the track surface, sand volleyball court, asphalt trails, promenade of concrete or unit pavers,
crushed granite petanque courts, natural turf, planted areas, and asphalt basketball courts. Ms. Hite reminded the Board that
the current deed restrictions limit impervious surface to no more than 10% of the 6-acre portion of the site.
Board Member Robles commented that performance -based social gatherings are huge community -building activities. In
addition to opportunities for sporting events, he would like the area to be open to the arts and social activities via the plaza,
multi -use terracing, grass fields, etc. Mr. Jones said they have discussed that the southwest corner in both schemes could
have moveable tables and chairs to support a variety of community uses.
Board Member Robles asked if the current skate park would be relocated or if the features would change. Ms. Hite said the
current park has a cement surface, but the features are moveable. However, they are old and require frequent repairs. A
better discussion would be the idea of creating a new skate park with new equipment. Board Member Robles pointed out that
the current skate park is heavily used.
Board Member Monroe asked if there is a significant upfront cost difference between the two options. Mr. Jones answered
that they will be exploring the rough magnitude costs of each option over the next few weeks. Option 1 would likely have a
higher cost as it would require more manipulation of land forms and a more significant water feature. He commented that,
from his experience, downtown parks similar to this typically cost between $1 million and $1.5 million per acre to develop.
Therefore, $12 million would be a ballpark cost figure based on history. Assuming the City will not foot the bill for
expansion of the Boys and Girls Club, Option 1 would likely cost more to implement than Option 2. Ms. Hite emphasized
that it is likely that the hybrid design will be a combination of both Option 1 and Option 2. Once the preferred hybrid option
has been identified, the consultant will be asked to provide cost estimates.
Mr. Jones said that, based on feedback received to date, the hybrid alternative will likely include active park space, restroom,
athletic fields, a small number of petanque courts, terraced viewing area, water feature, expanded Boys and Girls Club,
basketball courts and a playground. The majority of people at the 2nd open house voiced support for the aesthetics of Option
1, as well.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig noted that only Option 2 details on -site parking for the park. Mr. Jones said the intent was to give
the community two options so they can decide whether or not they want to include on -site parking as part of the park.
Generally speaking, the community has indicated they do not want the 8-acre park to be taken up by parking. However, there
are ways to make parking more efficient on 6t" and 7r'' Avenues. If the Boys and Girls Club remains on the site, there will be
some need for van parking and ADA parking. Vice Chair Rubenkonig noted that the ADA parking that is provided near the
Boys and Girls Club could also serve the park.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked how tall the proposed trees would be. She noted that there have been issues in the past when
trees grow tall and block views from neighboring properties. It appears that both options will have the same number of trees,
but in different locations. She asked if the City has a requirement as to how many trees must be planted on the site. Mr.
Jones responded that there is no City requirement as to the number of trees. The proposed trees were part of the design
strategy to provide shade and divide spaces. People have expressed concern about blocking view, and the trees along 6"'
Avenue will likely be a low -growing species to protect the views from adjacent residential properties. Some people have
actually indicated that, although they love their view of the mountains, they also love the trees that have been proposed. He
noted that there was not a lot of feedback relative to trees at the 2nd open house. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the City
Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 442
8.2.f
would require that the landscaping be native vegetation. Mr. Jones said that the project design has not reached a high level of
specificity yet, but the intent is to use climate -adaptive plantings on the site.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Jones to describe how the Sprague Street right-of-way link came about. She noted that
another path would also bisect the park. Mr. Jones said the intent was to present two different options. Option 1 has a
promenade and civic edge on 6th Avenue. However, if the community does not want an active civic edge, the Sprague Street
right-of-way would be a great way to move people through the park and segregate the playground from the active recreational
uses. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the bisecting pathway between the two playfields could be eliminated from Option 2.
Mr. Jones agreed it could be eliminated, but then the promenade would be the only east/west connection through the park.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked Ms. Hite to provide more context about the deed restrictions. Ms. Hite explained that the deed
restrictions apply to 6 acres on the 8-acre site. and they are connected to the $1 million the City received from the state and
the $520,000 it received from Snohomish County. The State's deed restriction is intended to protect open space parkland so
it cannot be used for anything other than a park. With the exception of a restroom or shade structure, no other structures
would be allowed within the 6-acre area. The deed restriction associated with the Snohomish County Conservation Futures
Grant is more restrictive in that it limits impervious surface to no more than 10%. The County is willing to work with the
City to provide structures such as a restroom and shade shelter, but they would count as part of the allowable impervious
surface. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the deed restrictions should be more clearly pointed out at the next open
house and explained in the master plan.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if it is likely the track would be eliminated from the hybrid design. Mr. Jones answered
affirmatively. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked what purpose the track would serve. Mr. Jones said the community would like
the ability to track how far they are walking or running. It would not be used for organized sporting events. In his opinion, it
would be a very inflexible use of space.
Board Member Stewart said she appreciates the opportunity to participate on the PAC where there has been a lot of
interesting discussion and many different perspectives. Many different ideas were considered, and she appreciates the design
team's effort to reach out to the community, particularly the youth. She asked if there is another skate park in the City of
Edmonds. Ms. Hite answered no, but added that the City provides support to the City of Lynnwood's skate park at Lindale
Park.
Board Member Stewart said she is very interested in sustainable development. Anytime they design, they should consider the
most sustainable way to not only build, but make sure it remains long term, is easy to maintain, and uses resources wisely.
She said she does not recall a PAC discussion about the water feature. It would be attractive to have a water feature at the
Civic Center Playfield, and still water or a fountain would be appropriate. However, she worries about the high cost of
adding a spray pad. Providing a system to recirculate water would be costly and there is already a spray pad at City Park.
Mr. Jones agreed that water features, particularly spray pads, are costly to maintain. Most sustainable water features have a
cistern to recycle the water, and a system of this type would definitely be included as part of any water feature proposed for
the site.
Board Member Stewart asked if the walking path identified in Option 1 would be pavement. She said she is hoping that at
least one side of the pathway could have a forgiving surface for people with joint issues. Ms. Hite pointed out that pavement
is easier to make with impervious surface that drains well. Board Member Stewart asked if rollerblades would be allowed
on the walking path. She also asked is bicyclists would have a way to get through the park and if bike racks would be
provided. If no parking is provided, it will be very important to make sure people can get to, from and through the park via
walking, jogging, biking, and buses.
Board Member Stewart commented that Edmonds has a very active petanque group that consists primarily of older citizens.
While she supports some courts for this use, she would like them to be designed to accommodate a variety of other uses, as
well. She said she supports eliminating the sand volleyball court, since it would be better placed at a beach park. She hopes
the sports fields will be available for drop -in play rather than used only for organized sporting events. She asked to what
degree the fields would be scheduled. Ms. Hite answered that they would probably be scheduled some but will also be
available for drop -in play. The SnoKing Youth Club uses the existing fields a lot, but they are transitioning more towards the
new fields at Woodway. The Boys and Girls Club also uses the fields for open play. Board Member Stewart stressed the
Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 443
8.2.f
need to always ensure there is space for unprogrammed play for both children and adults. She hopes the need for regulation
fields does not usurp the creative, versatile play space that is needed to serve all ages.
Board Member Stewart asked how long the path around the perimeter of the park in Option 1 would be. Mr. Jones answered
that it would be about 1,600 meters or perhaps a little less. Board Member Stewart commented that the more continuous the
pathway the better. The path should also be interesting, as well, and exercise stations would be a wonderful idea. She said
she likes the idea of trees and felt the consultant could work with species to keep the heights where they should be.
Board Member Stewart said she loves the grandstands, but recognizes that they need to be removed. At the PAC meetings,
she raised the idea of providing a viewpoint where people could climb up to have a view over the top of the trees and out to
the mountains. Ms. Hite said this idea makes her think about the conservatory building at Volunteer Park in Seattle where
you can climb up stairs to have a view across the park to the water. Mr. Jones pointed out that there would be a bit of a view
from the south side of the park to the mountains.
Board Member Monroe asked if a covered basketball court was purposefully excluded from the options. Most of the park
features can only be enjoyed during good weather, and it would be great to have a covered basketball court to accommodate
winter play.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the two options would satisfy the needs of the parks and recreation programs the City
sponsors. Ms. Hite answered that lacrosse and soccer are trending right now, and ultimate Frisbee, as well. All three of these
uses could be accommodated on the fields identified in the two options. While Pacific Little League originally voiced a
desire for more baseball fields, no other comments in support of the fields were received. She summarized that the open,
grass space that can accommodate many different kinds of sports and activities will be very helpful to the City's
programming needs.
Board Member Robles asked if there would be any restricted activities at the park. For example, would people be allowed to
fly drones over the park or drive their remote control cars. Ms. Hite answered that there has been a lot of discussion at the
national level about drones in public places and privacy rights. However, the City's current park regulations do not prohibit
drones and people are allowed to recreate as they want. Board Member Robles asked if dogs would be allowed at the park.
Ms. Hite said that has yet to be determined. She explained that the City has specific rules for regulating dogs in parks. She
noted that the City receives comments on a daily basis, about half of which support allowing dogs in parks and the other half
are opposed. Tackling the issue will involve a huge community effort, and she has not opened the conversation up.
Board Member Robles asked what other unique ideas came forward during the public open houses. Mr. Jones said the list
included a zip line, heated seats, fire museum, parking below the park, and doing nothing and leaving the park as is.
Board Member Stewart referred to an email the Board received from a citizen, expressing concern that the civic edges that
are proposed in both options could be monopolized by events. Ms. Hite recalled that after receiving less than favorable
support for civic space at the 15t open house, she talked with the consultant about the idea of having the civic spaces be more
community -oriented gathering areas with a patio, promenade, seating areas, and connections to the downtown. She
expressed her belief that this type of space would be desirable in the hybrid option, as well. She reviewed that in his email,
the gentleman challenged the community and the consultant to design something that would become a signature downtown
park rather than designing for a particular type of community event. She said her discussions with the consultant have been
consistent with this approach, and she requested the consultant provide a drawing to illustrate how each of the options would
be flexible enough to accommodate desired community events. She asked Mr. Jones to answer the question of whether the
designs are reflective of what the community wants or designed to accommodate large community events.
Mr. Jones said it appears that the email is suggesting that the master plan be done without community input. The community
has spoken and identified the elements they want the park to include. Downtown parks are always designed by the
community in which they serve, and the outgrowth of options came from the public input. To accommodate all of the
activities identified as desirable would require a 20-acre parcel. While the concept put forth in the email is an interesting
idea, they cannot overlook the fact that they have gone through a successful, community -led process. Special interest groups
have put forward ideas and his job is to work with staff to balance the ideas. At the last open house, it appeared that people
were excited about the options and there was no outcry that the design options were inconsistent with the public comments.
Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 444
8.2.f
Both options were interesting to the community, and the process was set up so that everyone had a voice. He emphasized
that the Civic Center Playfield is definitely a signature downtown park. Rarely do you find eight acres of parkland in a
downtown area. The design will be a hybrid of the two schemes, but he does not anticipate changing the approach based on
the email. On the contrary, you could question whether the community wants a scheme that does not include any active
recreational opportunities, and this directive could change the course of how the park is designed.
Board Member Stewart asked if benches have been considered as part of the park design. Mr. Jones answered that benches
will be addressed in the next layer of design along with furnishings, lighting, etc. A lot of design work is still needed.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig noted that the fence that currently exists around the field would be removed so that people can access
the park from the alley, 6th Avenue and 7 h Avenue. That means the park will be much more open than what people are
accustomed to. Mr. Jones said that improved access to the park was brought up on a number of occasions, and it is clear that
the park needs to be porous on all sides. However, it is anticipated that landscaping would be used to prevent access to the
park from some locations. Landscaping would also be used near the playground to prevent children from running out into the
alley.
The Board Members were invited to share their thoughts on which element they liked the best and why.
Board Member Crank: She likes Option 1, which is an open concept with clean lines. She likes the very defined civic
area, as well as the idea of incorporating walking paths rather than a physical track which would lend itself more to school
athletic situations that might not be appropriate for the park. She pointed out that the demographics of the audience that
participated in the online open house was different than those who participated in the in -person open house, and that may be
why there was a difference in the preferred option. People who live in the area and already use the park were more interested
in preserving what already exists, and those who participated in the online open house were looking at what elements would
attract them to the park. It is important to create a master plan that preserves what is already good about the park, as well as
features that attract new people. She likes that the park would still feel like a signature downtown park, but also serve as a
neighborhood park.
Board Member Monroe: He likes Option 1, as well, but he would like the water park to be eliminated since there is already
a spray pad at City Park. He supports the skate park as shown in Option 1, but he would also like to include a covered
basketball court that could be used during inclement weather. Option 2 seems to be more of a large playfield, which is not
what a signature park should look like in his mind. He felt the design was off to a good start, and modifying Option 1 would
be acceptable to him.
Board Member Robles: He felt that Option 2 is very ambitious and includes a number of great features. He envisions the
hybrid being Option 2, but with a softer edge. He particularly likes the centering of the Boys and Girls Club, which is a
treasure for the community that includes playfields, basketball courts, skate park, playground and a complex for artist events.
The forested edge seems like a great idea for not only the visual privacy of the park, but also for noise abatement and shade.
It may be possible to take 10 feet away from the perimeter of the park to provide parking space to accommodate better
utilization of the park. He also likes the idea of an elevated tower with stairs for access that would provide both a view and
an opportunity for additional exercise. In addition to providing more curve to the walking paths, the terraced area could also
be curved to accommodate a sense of focus. He said he could support elimination of the track, and he agreed that four
petanque courts would be more appropriate than eight. The water park should be eliminated, as well. He said he does not
prefer one option over the other, and he is relying on the consultant to provide some good, solid thinking around the hybrid
affect.
Board Member Stewart: She likes the feel of Option 1 with the softness of the edges, particularly the southwest edge. It is
important to her that there be a section that offers peace and tranquility, with trees and nature and perhaps a water feature.
However, she does not believe a spray pad is needed. Two smaller fields would work for the community needs and the track
is not essential. However, a meandering loop that is marked for distance, with stations along the way for exercise and
integrated natural elements, would be great. A few tennis courts that could double as basketball courts are standard in most
parks, as are playgrounds. She supports a skate park and accommodating the Boys and Girls Club, and she would love to see
a tower that allows visitors to look out. She agreed that the tower could also provide an element of exercise. She likes the
Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2016 Page 7
Packet Pg. 445
8.2.f
idea of a terraced area with tiered seating. She believes that fewer than eight petanque courts would be appropriate. She
summarized that she likes the feel of Option 1 and hopes the hybrid can maintain at least a portion of the serene feeling.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig: She prefers Option 1 because of the design makes more sense to her. She likes the softer edges,
particularly the civic edge, which serves to green up the space along 6th Avenue, and relates the park to the Public Safety
Building. The civic edge also better defines the entire area as a public center and lends to more future possibilities. For the
opposite reason, the promenade in Option 2 does not provide the same affect that the Civic Edge in Option 1 can provide.
She said she likes the softer edges shown in Option 1, and the design of the southwest corner appears to be more of a
protected area that is more conducive to children's play. She said she also believes that a covered basketball court is essential
because of the weather. It is time for Edmonds to provide this opportunity, not only for the community at large, but for the
Boys and Girls Club to use year round, as well. She said she appreciates the "all ages" recreational challenge course that is
proposed along the walking path, and she agrees that a step terrace is essential to the design and will open up opportunities
for the future use of the park. Electrical outlets are needed, as well. She said she welcomes the idea of a hybrid design, but
she leans towards the clean design of Option 1, particularly as it allows people to go across the park from 6`' Avenue to 7th
Avenue without feeling like they are going through the middle of some activity.
Ms. Hite thanked the Board Members for their ideas and clear direction, which will be reflected in the presentation before the
City Council on September 27th. The Board's minutes will be included in the Council packet. The consultant will come
before the Board again on November 9`h to provide an update on the plan, and Board Members are invited to attend the open
house on October 12th, where the hybrid option will be presented to the public for the first time.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the Board's October 12'h agenda will include a public hearing on the Capital Facilities
and Capital Improvement Plans, as well as a discussion on Comprehensive Plan amendments. The October 26th agenda will
include a presentation on the University of Washington/Forterra Plan for Five Corners, an update on the land use procedures
code, and an update on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that the City Council will be hosting a volunteer dinner on September 16'h at the Senior
Center from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to the summary provided in the Director's Report relative to the joint City Council/Planning
Board meeting that took place on September 6 h. The report states that the general conclusion was that the Board's role
relative to the issue of housing is not so much to figure out exactly how to address a specific number of housing units
projected for Edmonds, but to consider the range of housing issues as local planning and code updates move forward. The
Planning Board will be involved in recommending a draft housing strategy to the City Council. In the meantime, ongoing
code update work may also address emerging housing needs. Board Member Crank said she particularly enjoyed the joint
meeting because the City Council was able to clarify what they want the Board to do. It was good to get away from specific
numbers and focus more on housing types. Board Member Robles said he spoke to a City Council Member following the
meeting and learned that the Council was very pleased with the target of "aging in place," as a problem that needs to be
addressed. There are so many problems related to housing, and this is a path forward that everyone agreed on.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Crank reported that the Taste of Edmonds was more successful overall than last year due to better weather.
She will receive a full report at the morning meeting of the Chamber on September 15th. Board Member Monroe observed
that there were no complaints from neighboring property owners relative to noise this year.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m
Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2016 Page 8
Packet Pg. 446
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Frances Anderson Center Bandshell Award of Bid (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Carrie Hite
Background/History
This bandshell replacement project was adopted as part of the PROS plan adoption in 2014 and the CIP
adoption in 2015. In addition, the Council authorized the project and budget carryover in January 2016.
Staff Recommendation
Award bid to KA Construction for the replacement of the Frances Anderson Center bandshell.
Authorize an additional $36,262 for the completion of the project.
Narrative
This FAC bandshell has been in place for many years. It is to the point of deterioration, and the roof is
separating from the wall. We have been repairing it over the years, and it is in need of replacement. The
Parks Department has identified this in the PROS plan and CIP for replacement because of its condition.
Staff solicited bids for the actual bandshell replacement, and they ranged between $45,000 and
$76,000. Staff also worked with the Arts Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission to
review and give feedback on the low bid for the bandshell itself. Because the bandshell location is on
the campus of the historic Frances Anderson Center the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed this
and was supportive and issued a certificate of appropriateness. The Arts Commission also was also
supportive and excited about the design and the replacement of this structure.
Barker Landscape was hired to assist with the stage design to accommodate the actual bandshell that
was selected.
The engineer's construction estimate for this project, not including the actual bandshell roof, was
$130,600. We published this for bid on August 5t", 2016 for the small works roster. At the close of bid,
we did not receive any bids on this project.
After consultation with the Engineering Division, and their previous guidance from the City Attorney's
office, it was determined that if no bid was received on the call, the Council may enter into a contract
without any further call or may purchase the supplies, material or equipment and perform the work or
improvement by day labor. The Parks Director called three contractors to determine if they may be
interested in giving us a construction quote on this project. One declined. Two contractor's submitted
construction bids. Attached is the bid tabulation from these two interested parties.
Packet Pg. 447
8.3
As Council can see the low bid is higher than the engineer's estimate. In addition, in reviewing the
project budget, we had to contract for geotechnical services, and add the management reserve, which
have all added to the project budget.
The request from Council is to authorize the Mayor to accept the bid of $ $141,420 ( including tax), and
authorize an additional $36,626 for the project. This amount could come from the Parks Capital budget,
especially since we just completed Dayton Street Plaza under budget by approximately $40,000.
Attachments include:
1. Solicited bid summary, with low bid
2. Bandshell quotes from 2015
3. Project budget
4. Bandshell image
5. 2016 Budget amendment
6. Historic Preservation Commission Certificate of Appropriateness
Attachments:
Solicited Bid Summary
Bandshell replacement quotes 2015
Project budget
Bandshell image
FAC Bandshell budget amendment 2016 Q1
Anderson Center Amphitheater Project Certificate of Appropriateness
Packet Pg. 448
8.3.a
City of Edmonds
Frances Anderson Bandshell Replacement
Bid Summary
19-Sep-16
Engineer's Estimate
K-A General Const
Spirit Ridge
Construction Estimate & Bids
$ 130,600.00
$ 141,420.32
$ 188,174.50
Packet Pg. 449
8.3.b
PURCHASE QUOTATION SHEET
F F.Dnj
Purchase which will be over 10,001 will
require three (3) quotations and will
become a part of the purchase request.
Firm
Sitelines / RCP Shelters
Firm
Coverworx
Firm
Northwest Playground
626-128th Street Everett
11800-E 9 Mile Rd MI
2413-Issaquah, WA
Phone #
425-355-5655
Phone #
1-586-486-1088
Phone #
425-313-9161
Quoter
Gary Max
Quoter
Craig Saylor
Quoter
Eric Arneson
Date
10/13/2015
Date
2/10/2015
Date
1/20/2015
Description
Quantity
Unit Req'd
Unit
Quote
Total Quote
Unit
Quote
Total Quote
Unit
Quote
Total Quote
Anderson Center Amphitheater Structure
1
$41,260.00
$44,489.00
$63,690.00
To replace present run down amphitheater
40 ft. x 30 ft. wood structure
Discount
$2,547.60
First sub
$57,590.40
ESTIMATE FREIGHT CHARGES
Included
$5,285.00
$12,021.86
Sub -Total
Sale Tax
Signature of Person Receiving Quote TOTAL
$41,260.00
$49,774.00
$69,612.26
$4,043.48
$4,877.90
$6,822.00
$45,303.48
$54,651.90
$76,434.26
Signature of Mayor or Director to approve quote
a
G:Excel/Forms/Purchase Quote 9/21/2016be
Packet Pg. 450
8.3.c
Frances Anderson Center Bandshell Budget
Item
Amount
Base Bid
$128,798.11
Management Reserve
$12,880.00
Permit Fees
$1,437.00
Bandshell ( by owner)
$41,260.00
Bandshell Engineering
$4,470.00
A & E
$16,385.00
Geotech/Survey
$6,600.00
Total
$211,830.11
Tax at 9.8%
$16,666.20
Grand Total $228,496.31
Authorized $191,870
Need additoinal authority $36,626
a
Packet Pg. 451
10
Ot .
I
Packet Pg. 452
8.3.e
Budget Amendment for: First Quarter
Item Description:
The replacement of the Bandshell at the Frances Anderson Center is scheduled for
2016. $81,870 was carriedforward from 2015 and an additional budget authority
was requested at that time. Another $30,000 is now requested to cover costs for
demolition. This was a " by owner" item, but we just don't have the capacity to
perform this work.
Department:
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Fund
Name:
PARK ACQ/
IMPROVEMENT
Division:
Parks
Title:
Bandshell at Frances Anderson
Preparer:
CCruz for Carrie Hite
Department Account Number:
125.000.64.594.75.65.00
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
JAction 3a.4 (35): Greenways and Parks
Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital
Fill In Item Descri tion[sl
Baseline
Budget
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Construction Projects
30,000
161,870
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sub -Total
$30,000
$161,870
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Expenses 1 $191,870 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0
Revenue and Ending Cash
Comments
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Ending Cash: Decrease Increase
0
0
0
0
0
Ending Cash: Decrease Increase
0
0
0
0
0
Grants/Contributions
0
0
0
0
0
General Fund Subsidy
0
0
0
0
0
New Revenue
0
0
0
0
0
Other
BEET
30,000
0
0
0
0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash
Error
$0
$0
$0
$0
Packet Pg. 453
8.3.f
rnC. l g9\3
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web:.www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Project.
Frances Anderson Center Amphitheater Replacement Project
Location:
Frances Anderson Center
700 Main Street
Property Owner:
City of Edmonds
121 5"' Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Applicant.
City of Edmonds
Anderson Center / Rich Lindsay
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Certificate of Appropriateness
Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.45.040.13, prior to the commencement
of any work on a register property, the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for the proposed work.
Findings
1. Scope. The City of Edmonds is proposing to demolish the existing bandshell and construct a new
one on the same site at the Frances Anderson Center.
2. Review Criteria. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation number two and number
nine as codified in 36 CFR 67:
Standard Two: Retention of Historic Character: The historic character of a property shall be retained
and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property shall be avoided.
Standard Nine: Compatible Additions/Exterior Alterations: New additions, exterior alterations, or
related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The work
shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
3. Significance. The Frances Anderson Center was listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
in October of 2010 under Ordinance No. 3810. Under Ordinance No. 3810, the exterior of the
buildings were designated as significant. The specific buildings listed on the Register include the
original elementary school building (1927-28) along with the 1947 and 1952 additions.
Pagel of 2
Packet Pg. 454
8.3.f
4. Historic Preservation Commission Review. The City of Edmonds Historic Preservation
Commission reviewed the Frances Anderson Center Amphitheater (bandshell) Replacement Project
for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation at their regular
meeting on July 9, 2015.
5. Findings.
Based on the record and information provided by staff, the Edmonds Historic Preservation
Commission finds that the amphitheater is a distinct and separate structure and was not directly
associated with the buildings that are part of the Anderson Center historic register designation. The
amphitheater (bandshell) has been altered over the years and would not be eligible for designation or
listing on the Edmonds Register.
Conclusion
The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission finds that the Frances Anderson Center Amphitheater
Project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and APPROVES the
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050 with the following conditions:
1. Prior to demolition of the existing amphitheater (bandshell) structure photographic documentation
shall be filed with the Anderson Center, with a copy provided to the Edmonds Planning Division.
Chave, Planning Manager
July 20, 2015
Date
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 455
c�T
�~
o
_
m
�
�
d
111
O
O
D—n
n
rf
D
>v
�
CL
cD
(D
a�
n
n
cD
(D
=
B
OD
n
O
M
rt
�
(1%1 �
r —
r
t
1
Mi
6
p.
t
1
11 �
FO
W
Ln
Attachment: Anderson Center Amphitheater Project Certificate of Appropriateness (1540 : Frances Anderson Center Bandshell Award of Bid)
8.3.f
0
12
111, 23 6"
South Elevation
NITS
u
�1
17
r
i
North Elevation Back Elevation
NTS NITS
Z
p m
SHEET: L 7
CITY OF EDMONDS
BANDSHELL
CITY OF EDMONDS
PARKS & RECREATION
PRANCE ANDERSON CENTER
700 MAIN ST. EDMONDS, 98020
APPROVED BY
BY:
DATE:
NO.
DATE:
BY:
REVISION:
COLOR
ELEVATION
fll�
„y p o. Q
ndwnry
DESIGN:
JB
'll/10/2015
Draft Pernit Set
DRAWN:
BS
7 OF 13 SHEETS
700 Main St., Edmonds, WA 96020
VIEWS
CITY ENGINEER
CHECKED:
JB
Dale:
APPROVED;
JB
Packet Pg. 457
8.3.f
CITY OF EDMONDS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
July 9, 2015
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Vogel called the meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. in the 3" Floor
Conference Room of City Hall, 121 — 5"h Avenue North. He read the Commission's mission statement.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Emily Scott, Chair (arrived at 6:30 p.m.)
Lary Vogel, Vice Chair
Sandra Allbery
Katie Bojakowski (arrived at 5:35 p.m.)
Chris Deiner-Karr
Eric Livingston
Tim Raetzloff
Gerry Tays
Dave Teitzel
Kristiana Johnson, City Council Member
Lora Petso, City Council Member
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
Frances Chapin, Arts & Cultural Services Manager
COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED
Steve Waite
COMMISSIONER TEITZEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2015 AS SUBMITTED.
COMMISSIONER DEINER-KARR SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES
The discussion relative to the Frances Anderson Center Amphitheater was placed after "Requests from the Audience." A
discussion related to an underwater archaeology survey was also added to the agenda, as was a discussion about whether or
not to cancel the August meeting.
COMMISSIONER TAYS MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER ALLBERY
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There was no one in the audience.
DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AMPHITHEATER
Ms. Chapin briefly reviewed the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department's proposal to replace the amphitheater
structure. Mr. Chave explained that because the property is listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, a Certificate
of Appropriateness will be required. Staff is seeking feedback from the Commission as to whether or not the design concept
Packet Pg. 458
8.3.f
presented is appropriate for the site. He explained that if the Commissioners feel they have enough information to accept the
conceptual design now, they could authorize staff to approve the building permit once it is submitted. They could also
postpone action until an actual building permit application has been submitted.
Commissioner Tays pointed out that, although the amphitheater is not listed on the Register, it was constructed in the 1950's
and could have historic value. Ms. Chapin noted that the amphitheater was not part of the original Frances Anderson Center
construction, and it has been modified several times over the years. The Commissioners agreed that the amphitheater would
not meet the criteria for inclusion on the Register. However, they agreed that staff should create of record of the existing
structure before it is demolished. Vice Chair Vogel agreed to take pictures and forward them to Ms. Chapin.
Commissioner Deiner-Karr asked if the project includes changes to the grass area. Ms. Chapin said no changes are currently
proposed for the grass step area, as people are very fond of the current configuration and it works well for the site. She
provided additional details to illustrate how the project would fit on the site and complement the existing building.
COMMISSIONER TAYS MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DRAFT A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AMPHITHEATER
PROJECT. COMMISSIONER ALLBERY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Registration Committee
The Registration Committee did not have any items to report.
Education and Outreach Committee
Commissioner Teitzel pointed out that although there is a small plaque on the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) property
that identifies the building as historic, there is no plaque to identify the building as being on a historic register. Vice Chair
Vogel explained that the small plaque on the property was part of the Stages of History Project that was funded by a Preserve
America Grant. Ms. Chapin said the public art project was sponsored by the Edmonds Arts Commission, with participation
from the Historic Preservation Commission.
Commissioner Tays reminded the Commission that although the ECA Building is listed on the State's Register of Historic
Places, it has not been added to the local register yet. He reported that he made a presentation to the County board that
oversees the building several months ago, but they have yet to act on the Commission's recommendation that the building be
added to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
Commissioner Teitzel reported that the Education and Outreach Committee discussed the idea of expanding on the plaque
presentation events, which are covered by the local press and attended by the mayor. For example, Commissioners could
make short presentations at local schools, particularly to students who are studying Washington State History, to share
information about the buildings and explain why they are important to the City's history. The Commissioners expressed
support for the concept to raise awareness and build advocates for historic preservation. Council Member Johnson recalled
that Westgate Elementary celebrated its 50th Anniversary a few years ago. Perhaps the school would be a good candidate for
the Register, as well as an opportunity for some public outreach to students. It was discussed that the interior of the building
has been modified numerous times over the years, but the exterior has remained intact.
Commissioner Teitzel said the Education and Outreach Committee also discussed the concept of having the Historic
Preservation Commission take the lead on putting together "then and now" photos in concert with the Edmonds Museum and
the South Snohomish County Historical Society. The Commissioners discussed the concept further, particularly how the
photographs could be stored and used in the future.
Preservation Planning Committee
The Preservation Planning Committee did not have any items to report.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
July 9, 2014 Page 2
Packet Pg. 459
8.3.f
City of Edmonds
Historic Preservation Commission
Designation Staff Report
"QC. i S9\3
Meeting Date: August 14, 2010
Agenda Subject: Application for designation of the Frances E. Anderson Cultural Center as
eligible for inclusion in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that Frances
Anderson Cultural Center meets the criteria for designation on
the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Staff feels that both
the original 1928 structure and the 1947and 1952 additions
meet the criteria for designation. The exterior of the structure
contains the significant architectural features.
Frances Anderson Center HistPres designation staff report. doc
Packet Pg. 460
8.3.f
D-
m
0
Criteria
Criteria
Comments
2. Has integrity...
®
The original Edmonds Elementary School
M
a
building and site has changed in
—
appearance and layout considerably since
y
1928, particularly with the 1947 and 1952
additions (See Attachment 1). The
0
m
original 1928 structure is largely hidden
from street view by the newer additions.
c
The arched entrances on the north, south
tj
and west facades have also been covered
0
up by the additions, with only the top of
the arches visible from aerial view.
However, that portion of the Frances
Q
Anderson Center still visible above the
1947 and 1952 additions remains intact.
c
The original windows were replaced with
Ui
newer metal windows that simulate the
c
original window patter and the size of the
,4
openings have been preserved.
The 1947 and 1952 additions retain their
d
original appearance.
r
Taken as a whole, the site has integrity.
2
Q
3. Age at least 50 years old, or has
®
The Frances Anderson Center is
0
Q.
exceptional importance if less than 50
comprised of several parts. The core of
a
years old...
the Frances Anderson Center is the
0
Edmonds Elementary School that was
constructed in 1927 — 1928. There were
additions that were constructed in 1947
and 1952.
CD
4. Falls into at least one of the following
®
m
designation categories:
a
Designation Category
a. Associated with events that have
®
The Frances Anderson Cultural Center,
z
made a significant contribution to the
formerly the Edmonds Elementary
z
broad patterns of national, state or
School, is associated with the City of
E
local history.
Edmonds' expansion of the early public
a
school system. Intended to serve the
°3
community of Edmonds early elementary
v
education needs, the school served as an
important educational facility in the
,°�
community for more than 50 years.
Constructed between the world wars after
Q
the public library and the Edmonds High
School were constructed, the building
represents the community's commitment
z
c�
a
Packet Pg. 461
8.3.f
D-
Criteria
Criteria
Comments
to early education. The Frances Anderson
Center also represents the growth in the
City and rapid facility expansion in the
post war boom of the 1940's and 1950's.
The building tripled in size after the
construction of the 1947 and 1952
additions.
m
0
a
_
z
M
00
L
c
b. Embodies the distinctive architectural
®
The Frances Anderson Center is
m
v
characteristics of a type, period, style
comprised of structures from two very
0
or method of design or construction,
distinct styles.
or represents a significant and
The original 1928 school structure is an
Q
distinguishable entity whose
example of the Spanish Mission (or
components may lack individual
Colonial) Revival style. The Spanish
distinction.
Mission Revival style was popular in the
1920's focused on abstraction of design
�i
elements, yet still evoked specific
14
traditional styles. The original 1928
v
school structure had many design
N
characteristics of the style in its exterior
light stucco finishes, pent tile roof, multi-
pane windows, symmetrical layout, inset
Q
panels, broad round arches, and
o
curvilinear parapets.
a
The 1947 and 1952 additions are
c
examples of the Streamlined Modern
+;
style. This style hearkened back to the
U
Art Modern style and the design of
airplane hangars and other military
0
structures that were prominent in the
minds of many architects. At the same
m
time, the International Style of simplified,
0
a`
efficient design was beginning to be
apparent in architectural design of the
Streamlined Modern style. The style
CD
z
features smooth light tinted stucco forms
E
0.
with emphasis on horizontal or vertical
E
bands and windows. Frequently, glassCD
L
brick was used, as were metallic and
r
glassy surfaces. The 1947 and 1952
v
additions are clear examples of the
c
Streamlined Modern style, with layered
horizontal and vertical bands, glass block
13
windows, and light colored stucco
Q
finishes.
m
E
z
c�
a
Packet Pg. 462
8.3.f
Designation
Criteria
c. Is an outstanding work of a designer,
builder or architect who has made a
substantial contribution to the art.
Meets
Criteria
❑
taff
Comments
d. Exemplifies or reflects special
®
Intended to serve the community of
elements of the City's cultural, social,
Edmonds early elementary education
economic, political, aesthetic,
needs, the school served as an important
engineering or architectural history.
educational facility in the community for
more than 50 years. Following the
closure of the school in 1972 due to
declining enrollment, the school was
re -dedicated in 1979 as the Frances
Anderson Cultural Center, a public
facility for arts and cultural activities
operated by the City of Edmonds Parks,
Recreation, and Cultural Services
Department. The Frances Anderson
Center still plays an important role in the
community and the former school now
houses several tenants with various
activities such as tae-kwon-do, clay
sculpture, and ballet.
e. Is associated with the lives of persons
®
The building is significant for its
significant in national, state or local
association with long time principal,
history.
teacher, and civic volunteer Frances
Anderson. Frances Anderson was a
central figure in the development of the
youth and education system in Edmonds.
Frances Anderson began her work in the
community in 1909 when she became
secretary for the local lodge of the
Independent Order of Good Templars,
was elected the first president of the
Edmonds Improvement Club in 1910 and
became leader of a group of Junior Camp
Fire Girls in 1918. She attended
University of Washington before
transferring to the University of
Wisconsin and graduating in 1917.
Frances returned to Edmonds and taught
second grade until 1924 when she was
asked to take the position as principal to
replace the retiring principal. She held
this position for 25 years before returning
to teaching in 1949, and retired from
teaching altogether in 1959.
'm
0
14
Ln
T
a�
c
m
r
2
Q
0
Q.
0.
Q
0
m
0
a�
U
U
m
0
L
a
L
m
r
CD
z
z
0.
E
a
a�
r
c
m
U
c
0
L
m
c
Q
c
m
E
z
c�
a
Packet Pg. 463
8.3.f
Designation
Meets
taff
Criteria
Criteria
Comments
j
After the school was closed due to lack
attendance, the building was rehabilitated
into a community center and named after
Frances Anderson.
f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield
❑
important archaeological information
related to history or prehistory.
g. Is a building or structure removed
❑
from its original location but which is
significant primarily for architectural
value, or which is the only surviving
structure significantly associated with
a historic person or event.
h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical
❑
figure of outstanding importance and
is the only surviving structure or site
associated with that person.
i. Is a cemetery which derives its
❑
primary significance from age, from
distinctive design features, or from
association with historic events or
cultural patterns.
j. Is a reconstructed building that has
❑
been executed in a historically
accurate manner on the original site.
k. Is a creative and unique example of
❑
folk architecture and design created
by persons not formally trained in the
architectural or design professions,
and which does not fit into formal
architectural or historical, the
designation shall include description
of the boundaries of categories.
Significant
1. Shape: Currently irregular in plan, the original 1928 school was originally a
rectangular volume; the 1947 and 1952 additions extended west from the
original building creating a U-shape and the gym addition pushed the
building to the east (See Attachment 1).
2. Roof and Roof The 1928 structure has pent roofs covered with tile between the curvilinear
Features: and rectangular parapets of the end bays and pilasters. The main portion of
the roof is flat.
'm
0
14
LO
a�
c
m
�L
Q.
0
L
Q
0.
Q
0
m
CD
U
U
m
0
a`
L
CD
z
z
0.
E
a
L
d
d
U
c
0
U)
a`)
c
Q
c
m
E
z
ca
a
Packet Pg. 464
8.3.f
3. Openings
Bands of closely spaced windows are between the bays on the east and west
(entries, etc):
elevations. The original arched doorways are lined with brick trim and have
recessed multi -pane transom windows.
On the 1947 additions, many of the windows feature glass block bands
above the horizontal bands of vision windows to allow daylight to penetrate
into the classrooms.
4. Projections:
The north and south elevations of the original structure are divided into two
recessed bays with a wider projecting bay in the center. The center bays are
capped with curvilinear parapets.
5. Trim & secondary
A double -row of brick soldier course extends around the top of the building
features
under the pent roof.
6. Materials:
The exterior of the original structure and the 1947 and 1952 additions are
light colored stucco walls.
7. Setting:
The Frances Anderson Center is located between the eastern edge of the City
of Edmonds downtown business zoning district and surrounding single-
family residential neighborhoods on one of the primary entrances into
downtown Edmonds.
8. Materials at close
N/A
range
9. Craft details:
Decorative elements include diamond -shaped or brick rectangular inlays at
the top of the raised pilasters and bay on all facades.
10. Individual
N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination.
rooms/spaces:
11. Related spaces or
N/A
sequences:
12. Interior features:
N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination
13. Surface finishes &
N/A
materials:
14. Exposed structure:
N/A
'm
0
14
Ln
T
d
c
m
r
2
Q
0
L
Q
0.
Q
0
0
M
CD
U
U
m
0
a`
L
d
t
t
E
a
L
d
d
U
0
U)
L
0
a
c�
G
t
V
a
Packet Pg. 465
8.3.f
Under Construction in 1927 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
44"",�
Edmonds Grade School 1930 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
w
Packet Pg. 466
8.3.f
Edmonds Grade School before the 1947 and 1952 Additions (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical
Museum)
Packet Pg. 467
8.3.f
View of south facade. Notice the glass block windows and vertical bands on the addition which is typical
Packet Pg. 468
8.3.f
Frances Anderson
a�
Edmonds Historical Museum)
Notes on historic register nominations:
Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible
for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed on the register with owner's consent.
According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an
honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or
cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a
historic district. No property may be listed without the owner's permission.
Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and
maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and
receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this
rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register.
Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver
of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Packet Pg. 469
8.3.f
Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation.
* Edmonds Community Development Code
Packet Pg. 470
8.3.f
96'-6'i (REF)
5%
(REF)
20'-6'_ (REF) 1S'-9', 44'-4% (REF)
I (REF)
o
3
5 w
7, 1952 Classroom Addition o w
1952 Administration Addition
t
O �(RE)O -
v
e
1947 School Building Addition 1952 AI- r
teration
Work
(REF)
'-z (REF)TZ
o
zz
Original Elementary
School Building
i
o -
ii
.F 1947 School Building Addition
o w
1947 School Building Addition
Y
160'-8'i: (REF)
95'-4'; (REF)
1947 All -Purpose Room
High
Moderate
Low
j Lower
N
a �
` � I
I
'� 0aytcn 54.
VICINITY MAP
L
o
Q
0
LL
O
N�
a
o
�
L
O
�
to
O
l
o
L
Wn
Q
C
o
cn
_
U
U
N
a0i
•�
N
a
L
VV
LL
U)
a
�
Seismic
Vulnerability
Map
Q
C
d
S K-1 U
a
Q
Packet Pg. 471
8.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Presentation on the Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
For information only.
Staff Recommendation
None.
Narrative
In 2004, the City authorized the collection of Traffic Impact Fees to help pay for transportation projects
that are needed to serve new growth and development. Pursuant to Section 18.82.080(C) of the
Edmonds Community Development Cod (ECDC), Attachment 1 is an accounting of the Traffic Impact Fee
Fund for the year end December 31, 2015. The City collected a total of $66,344.09 in traffic impact fees
during 2015. These revenues combined with the 2015 beginning fund balance of $520,730.67 resulted in
total available funding $587,074.76.
On the expense side and in accordance with section 18.82.100 of the ECDC, the traffic impact fee fund
paid $40,955.59 for the annual debt service to the Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) for the 220th Street
SW Improvements Project. The traffic impact fund also paid $272,128 for the Five Corners Roundabout
project and $57,383 for the 76th Ave & 212th St. Intersection Improvements Project.
Attachments:
2015 Traffic Impact Fee Report
Packet Pg. 472
8.4.a
2015
Transportation Impact
Fee Receipts and Funds Transfer Data Record
Transportation Impact Fee Fund Account Number: 112.502.345.86.000.00
RECEIPTS
Receipt
Applicant
Previous
New
Fee Collected With:
Date
Permit Number
Number
Site Address
ITE Land Use
ITE Land Use
Notes
Bus. License Building Permit
Fee Amount
01/07/15
BLD20141052
REC062310
Almark Corp
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
8040 Cyrus Place
01/20/15
BLD20140634
REC062406
Jantz Investment
parking garage
Meeting Room
Change of Use X
$3,254.16
547 Dayton Street
02/13/15
BLD20150043
REC062571
Channel Marker
restaurant
Restaurant
Additional sq. ft. X
$2,583.66
120 West Dayton, #D1
02/19/15
BLD20140919
REC062628
K & M Home Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
17222 76th Ave W
02/23/15
BLD20141109
REC062654
Echelbarger Investments
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
23913 104th Ave W
03/12/15
BLD20141126
REC062810
Denson
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
7309 164th PI SW
03/16/15
BLD20150214
REC062816
Starbucks
vacant lot
Coffee Shop
X
$10,787.84
9801 Edmonds Way
03/19/15
BLD20141214
REC062850
Echelbarger Investments
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
21814 86th PI W
03/30/15
BLD20150060
REC062933
Landsverk Quality Homes
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
19317 88th Ave W
03/30/15
BLD20150061
REC062934
Landsverk Quality Homes
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
19323 88th Ave W
04/10/15
BLD20150229
REC063033
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23606 105th PI W
04/10/15
BLD20150167
REC063034
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23602 105th PI W
04/10/15
BLD20150230
REC063035
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23601 105th PI W
04/10/15
BLD20150231
REC063036
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23605 105th PI W
04/10/15
BLD20150168
REC063037
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23614 105th PI W
Page 1 Packet Pg. 473
8.4.a
2015
Transportation Impact Fee Receipts and Funds Transfer Data Record
Transportation Impact Fee Fund Account Number: 112.502.345.86.000.00
RECEIPTS
Receipt
Applicant
Previous
New
Fee Collected With:
Date
Permit Number
Number
Site Address
ITE Land Use
ITE Land Use
Notes
Bus. License Building Permit
Fee Amount
05/08/15
BLD20150125
REC063248
Echelbarger Investments
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
21811 86th PI W
5/15/15
BLD20150360
REC063310
Select Homes
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
9503 234th St W
5/19/15
BLD20150378
REC063327
Burnstead Construcion
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23617 205th PI W
5/19/15
BLD20150399
REC063328
Echelbarger Investments
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
21815 86th PI W
6/2/15
BLD20150529
REC063435
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23618 105th PI W
6/2/15
BLD20150528
REC063436
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23622 105th PI W
6/12/15
BLD20140613
REC063545
622 Bell Street LLC
demo/rebuild
Townhome
X
$1,337.24
622 Bell Street
6/17/15
6/25/15
BLD20141014
REC063638
Pacific Ridge Homes
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
22303 95th PI W
7/2/15
BLD20141314
REC063704
Bilanko
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
542 Forsyth Lane
7/27/15
BLD20150498
REC063920
Select Homes
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
20114 84th Ave W
7/28/15
BLD20140317
REC063945
Saunders
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.30
15911 74th PI W
7/28/15
BLD20150400
REC063937
Echelbarger Investments
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
21812 86th PI W
7/31/15
BLD20150007
REC063981
Select Homes
demo/rebuild
SFR
X
$1,196.33
18300 Sunset Way
8/17/15
BLD20150322
REC064143
Kidd
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
932 Olympic Ave
8/27/15
Page 2
TRANSFERS 2015
Fund Name I Reference Transferred Total
PWTF Annual
JE150112 Loan Payment
JE150155 5 Corners
Roundabout
V-
O
0.
$551,130 4'
R
O
$552,326
Q
d
$553,167 ui
t
U
M
$554,363 E
w
$555,204 L
H
$556,045
LO
$557,382 0
a�
-$40,955.59 N
$516,427 Li
$517,623
E
$518,819
w
cc
L
H
$520,016 u7
r
O
N
$521,212
N
E
$522,408 v
R
r
r
Q
$523,604
$524,801
-$272,128.00
Packet Pg. 474
8.4.a
2015
Transportation Impact Fee Receipts and Funds Transfer Data Record
Transportation Impact Fee Fund Account Number: 112.502.345.86.000.00
RECEIPTS
Receipt
Applicant
Previous
New
Fee Collected With:
Date
Permit Number
Number
Site Address
ITE Land Use
ITE Land Use
Notes
Bus. License Building Permit
Fee Amount
9/8/15
BLD20150718
REC064321
Gilbert Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
19228 Olympic View Drive
9/10/15
BLD20150641
REC064335
Omalley
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
754 Bell Street
9/28/15
BLD20150960
REC064501
Burnstead
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23635 105th PI W
9/28/15
BLD20150959
REC064502
Burnstead
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23631 105th PI W
9/28/15
BLD20150375
REC064509
Mietzner
demo/rebuild
SFR
X
$1,196.33
20607 85th PI W
9/29/15
BLD20150891
REC064532
The Trike Stop
Office
Daycare
X
$240.00
23105 100th Ave W
10/1/15
BLD20150951
REC064554
Bloom Learning
Office
Training Center
Review Fee X
$200.00
1233 Olympic View Drive
10/1/15
BLD20150951
REC064554
Bloom Learning
Office
Training Center
X
$2,052.00
1233 Olympic View Drive
10/12/15
BLD20150881
REC064629
Maston Properties
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
22407 96th Ave W
10/13/15
BLD20150868
REC064635
Sprouts
garage
daycare
X
$2,529.45
20919 76th Ave W
10/19/15
BLD20151124
REC064673
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23613 105th PI W
10/19/15
BLD20151125
REC064674
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23621 105th PI W
10/22/15
BLD20150604
REC064715
Wurdeman
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
707 Main Street
10/30/15
BLD20151085
REC064765
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23629 105th PI W
10/30/15
BLD20151086
REC064767
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23625 105th PI W
11/24/15
BLD20150910
REC064945
Classico Homes
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
532 7th Ave S
Page 3
TRANSFERS 2015
Fund Name Reference Transferred Total
O
0.
$253,869 4'
R
O
$255,065
Q
d
$255,906 Li
t
U
M
$256,747 E
w
$257,943 L
t—
$258,183
LO
r
$258,383 0
a�
$260,435 m
a�
LL
$261,632
E
$264,161
w
cc
H
$265,002 Ln
r
O
N
$265,842
N
E
$267,039 v
R
r
r
Q
$267,880
$268,720
Packet Pg. 475
8.4.a
2015
Transportation Impact Fee Receipts and Funds Transfer Data Record
Transportation Impact Fee Fund Account Number: 112.502.345.86.000.00
RECEIPTS
Receipt
Applicant
Previous
New
Fee Collected With:
Date
Permit Number
Number
Site Address
ITE Land Use
ITE Land Use
Notes
Bus. License Building Permit
Fee Amount
11/30/15
12/15/15
BLD20151055
REC065084
Select Homes
demo/rebuild
SFR
X
$1,196.33
17500 72nd Ave W
12/22/15
BLD20151402
REC065127
Burnstead Construction
vacant lot
SFR
X
$840.72
23609 105th PI W
12/22/15
BLD20151040
REC065134
Select Homes
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
18320 Sunset Way
12/29/15
BLD20151258
REC065153
Maston Properties
vacant lot
SFR
X
$1,196.33
21819 92nd Ave W
TOTAL Traffic Impact Fess collected in 2015: $66,344.09
Interest Earned 2015 $0.00
TRANSFERS
2015
Fund Name I Reference Transferred
Total
JE150231 76th & 212th-$57,383.00
Intersection Imp.
$212,178
R
O
$213,374
Q
d
$214,215
LL
t
U
O
$215,411
E
w
$216,608
L
t—
ti
L0
2015 YEAR-END BALANCE
$216,608
v
1=
O
a�
d
a�
LL
r
U
R
E
w
cc
L
ui
r
O
N
r
C
N
E
t
V
R
r
r
Q
Page 4
Packet Pg. 476
8.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with MIG for the ADA Transition Plan (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
None.
Staff Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at a future City Council meeting.
Narrative
As a recipient of federal funds, the City is required to follow federal requirements related to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. One of the requirements is to have a Transition Plan that, at a
minimum, includes the following items:
Identification of the physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit accessibility to its
programs or activities by individuals with disabilities, including those within the public right of
way.
A description of the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible.
A schedule for each facility and/or obstacle to be retrofitted.
Identification of the official responsible for implementation of the plan.
The City completed a Transition Plan in the 1990's. The proposed professional services will update the
Plan to meet current requirements. The City has approximately 72 miles of public sidewalks and 23
traffic signals. Many of the existing pedestrian curb ramps do not comply with ADA requirements and
some intersections have sidewalk with no curb ramp at all.
Five consultants submitted Statement of Qualifications (SOQ's) for this project. MIG and Perteet were
invited to an interview, following a review of the SOQ's by the Selection Committee. MIG was the final
selection, based on their qualifications and experience in preparing similar Plans. Staff and the
consultant have agreed on a scope of services and fee proposal for $96,121. The contract consists of the
evaluation of the City right-of-way (sidewalk, curb ramps, and traffic signals) for ADA compliance, public
outreach, and completion of the plan. A $4,500 management reserve is included, for changes that may
be required during the development of the Plan.
The project is scheduled to start in October 2016 and be completed by spring 2017. This project is in the
2016 Budget and will be funded by REET funding.
Packet Pg. 477
8.5
Attachments:
MIG Agreement
Packet Pg. 478
8.5.a
s CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING
121 5T" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR
Website: www.edmondswa.gov
l890 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter
referred to as the "City", and MIG, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant";
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a
consulting firm to provide consulting services with respect to the ADA Transition Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and
between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material
necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of
Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for
services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full
compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies,
equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work.
A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be
on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no
event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of
$96,121.
B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each
voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the
progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed
in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that
has not been submitted to the City Engineer three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such
late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment
cycle.
C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final
payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
1
Packet Pg. 479
8.5.a
3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data
and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the
services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the
Consultant, provided, however, that:
A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant
shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and
shall at that date become the property of the City.
B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review
and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this
agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and
release under Chapter 42.56 RCW.
C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the
event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work
product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination,
shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a
prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at
no additional cost.
4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this
Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals.
5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any
and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the acts,
errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries
and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction
determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for
damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting
from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees,
and volunteers, the Consultant's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall
be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence.
The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including
RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers.
The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's
own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense,
the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51
RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and
keep in force during the term of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance
with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to
Title 48 RCW.
Packet Pg. 480
8.5.a
Insurance Coverage
A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State.
B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not
less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property
damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000).
C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one
million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit.
D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000).
Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by
the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant
shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the
Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies at any time.
All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State
of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within
fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City.
No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the
City.
The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under
this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified
elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third
parties be limited in any way.
7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex,
sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the
United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any
other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an
independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or
representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of
the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents,
employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement.
9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's
status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement
must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not
perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or
for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written
notification to the City and the City's prior written consent.
Packet Pg. 481
8.5.a
10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party
may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such
termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination.
11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document,
the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as
Exibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended
except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written
Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control.
12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform
services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to
additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be
liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation
is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are
encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a
revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in
this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for
services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment
to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties.
13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary
knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and
any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a
professional manner consistent with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the
schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for
services of the type described in the Scope of Services.
14. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time
limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be
assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for
the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or
resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the
City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from
the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement
shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including
regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and
Packet Pg. 482
licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to
assure quality of services.
The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes
which may be due on account of this Agreement.
18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address:
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
MIG, Inc.
815 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97204-3022
Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the
U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed.
19. Critical areas. To the extent that the Scope of Work under this Agreement
requires the Consultant to perform work in an environmentally critical area, the Consultant shall
comply with any and all applicable provisions of ECDC 23.40 ("Environmentally Critical Areas
General Provisions"). If such work falls within the definition of "minor site investigative work"
authorized under ECDC 23.40.220(C)(9), the Consultant shall consult with the City regarding
appropriate procedures to follow, and obtain separate written permission from the City to
proceed before undertaking this work.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 20
CITY OF EDMONDS MIG, INC.
By By
David O. Earling, Mayor
Its
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Pg. 483
8.5.a
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,
personally appeared , to me known to be the
of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said
instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Packet Pg. 484
8.5.a
EXHIBIT A
ADA Transition Plan
for the Right -of -Way
Scope of Work
The following scope of work addresses the
requirements for developing an ADA Transition
Plan for the Right -of -Way.
TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION
Task 1.1: Project Initiation — City Meeting #1
Following the execution of a contract, MIG will
meet with the City Project Manager and core
project staff to refine the proposed tasks and
schedule, including options and recommendations
for staff and community involvement during the
preparation of the ADA Transition Plan for the
Right -of -Way. MIG will identify all necessary
documents, GIS data, and materials to support the
evaluation process and transition plan
development. The final report format and
proposed content will be reviewed and confirmed
(RFQ Task 10).
MIG: MIG project manager and civil engineer, and
Transpo Group will attend the meeting in person.
MIG principal will participate via conference call.
City Staff: City Project Manager and key staff
members will attend a 1-1/2 to 2-hour meeting
with MIG.
Task 1.2: Public Information Portal
MIG recommends that the City designate a page on
the City's website to ADA Title II topics and the
ADA Transition Plan. The webpage will serve as an
information portal for the Transition Plan process,
meeting summaries, the project schedule, and more
generally the City's ADA Title II Program. The
public review draft of the plan will be posted on the
page for public comment before the final
presentation to Council. At the end of the project,
the website will serve as the City's public
information portal for the identification of the
ADA Coordinator, the ADA grievance procedure,
and requests for accommodations.
MIG: MIG will provide city staff with planning
project announcements and updates for the web
page throughout the duration of the project.
City Staff City staff will designate a page on the
City's website dedicated to the Transition Plan and
will update information as needed.
TASK 2: EVALUATION OF THE RIGHT-
OF-WAY (ROW)
Task 2.1: Review City ROW Policies and
Design Standards
MIG will review existing policy documents related
to pedestrian facilities to identify issues that should
be addressed to ensure that policies are non-
discriminatory to people with disabilities.
Documents to be reviewed will include the City's
design standards and other written City policy
documents relating to the pedestrian environment
such as the City's practices for construction,
maintenance management practices for ensuring
pedestrian accessibility, and project/program
notifications. Based on the review MIG will make
recommendations to modifications of the design
standards and policies. This task is a required
element of an ADA Transition Plan.
Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way— 9.20.2016 I PAGE 1
Packet Pg. 485
8.5.a
MIG:
Standards - MIG will provide the City of Edmonds
with a redlined set of their standard plans. Where a
standard plan is substantially non -compliant and
the detail requires replacement in its entirety, MIG
will note to replace the standard plan instead of
redlining all of the non -compliant items.
Policies — MIG will review the planning and
engineering policy documents regarding the right-
of-way and provide recommendations for changes
to meet ADA requirements.
City Staff: Staff will provide MIG with direction
on the various policy documents for review.
Task 2.2: Conduct ROW Evaluation Strategy
Session — City Meeting #2
MIG will conduct a ROW evaluation strategy
session with City staff responsible for sidewalks,
curb ramps and pedestrian signals. The strategy
session will identify the areas of highest priority for
pedestrian improvement based on the Federal
ADA criteria and discuss specific prioritization
criteria for the City of Edmonds. We will identify
the areas of highest priority for pedestrian
improvement which will inform the timeframe for
the removal of barriers. At this meeting we will also
discuss the process for evaluating the right-of-way
which will inform Task 2.4. Documents to be
reviewed prior to the workshop will include capital
improvement plans, maintenance plans and any
planning documents relating to future projects
(RFQ Task 10).
MIG: MIG principal, project manager and civil
engineer will attend the meeting in person. MIG
will facilitate the meeting. After the meeting MIG
will provide a meeting summary. This meeting will
be held on the same day as Task 2.3.
City Staff.' City Project Manager and key staff
members will attend a 1-1/2 to 2-hour meeting
with MIG.
Task 2.3: Stakeholder Advisory Committee —
Public Meeting #1
MIG will work with the City's Project Manager to
identify a preliminary Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (SAC) to provide review and
perspective for the project in order to meet the
requirements of a transition plan. A major task of
the SAC is to spread the word about the Transition
Plan to members and partners of the disabilities
community, to provide insights during the barrier
prioritization process, and to review the draft
Transition Plan. The MIG team will facilitate two
stakeholder meetings through the planning process.
During the first meeting, the MIG team will
present the City's work plan for the Transition
Plan.
MIG: MIG principal, project manager and civil
engineer will attend the meeting in person. MIG
will facilitate the meeting and collect information
from the stakeholder committee for inclusion in the
barrier removal priorities. MIG will prepare a
meeting summary after the meeting that will be
ready for posting on the City's website.
City Staff.The City will provide any materials or
meeting accommodations requested by the
attendees, including ASL interpreters, alternative
format documents or other program modifications.
The City will provide the venue for meetings.
Task 2.4: Develop Procedures for ROW
Evaluation
In coordination with City staff, MIG will prepare
and customize the procedures needed to conduct
the evaluation of the City's curb ramps, sidewalks
including clearance hazards, rail crossings, and
signalized intersections along the City's pedestrian
PAGE-2 Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way — 9.21.2016
Packet Pg. 486
8.5.a
access routes. The ROW evaluation process will be
scaled to be the most efficient with available City
resources for completing the project.
MIG: The MIG Team will meet with City staff to
review the draft procedures.
City Staff. The City will review and provide
feedback on evaluation procedures.
Task 2.5: Conduct Facility Evaluations
MIG will conduct evaluations of curb ramps,
sidewalks, and pedestrian signals. Barrier data will
be collected using tablets and stored in a real-time
cloud database for immediate review. The data
dictionary structure, which will include sidewalk,
curb ramps, and pedestrian signals, will be updated
in coordination with FHWA and WSDOT. Where
possible, existing data like sidewalk shapefiles will
be built upon to increase the speed of data
collection.
MIG: The results of the evaluation will be
included in a summary report of the identified
barriers which will identify whether curb ramps,
pedestrian signals and clearances meet ADA
standards (RFQ Tasks 1, 2, 5 and 6). Barrier data
will be mapped and summarized to easily show
where and how many barriers exist within the
public right-of-way.
City Staff. The City will review the results of the
evaluations.
Task 2.6: Develop Curb Ramp Inventory and
Matrix
MIG will develop a list of all existing curb ramps
and identify whether or not they meet ADA
standards as well as necessary upgrade(s) to make
them ADA compliant. MIG will also identify curb
ramps that cannot be made ADA compliant
without curb ramp replacement based on site
specific conditions (RFQ Tasks 3 and 4). a.
c
MIG: Based on the data collection process
established in Task 2.4, MIG will identify the types c
of upgrades needed for the inventory of curb
ramps, and will apply the City's MEF information o
to the inventory of curb ramps. Q
City Staff.The City will review the inventory and
matrix and provide comments. E
Task 2.7: Barrier Removal Actions & Priorities
Each identified barrier will have a recommended
barrier removal action and priority with an
associated cost estimate (RFQ Tasks 7 and 8). MIG
will use the field evaluation data to prepare a
spreadsheet listing recommended barrier mitigation
options for the specific ADA deficiencies and apply
the prioritization criteria discussed in Task 2.2. The
spreadsheet will contain preliminary priorities,
barrier removal actions and cost estimates for
barrier mitigation including hard and soft costs.
MIG: MIG will provide the recommendations and
priorities for all barriers identified during Task 2.5.
City Staff The City will review the spreadsheet of
recommendations and priorities.
Task 2.8: Transition Plan Phasing Schedule —
City Meeting #3
MIG will facilitate a meeting with City staff to
review the barrier removal actions and priorities
provided in Task 2.6. The meetings will assist City
staff to determine appropriate responses to
mitigating barriers within the ROW and to develop
a Transition Plan schedule for the removal of
barriers (RFQ Tasks 8 and 10). It is not intended
Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way— 9.20.2016 I PAGE 3
Packet Pg. 487
8.5.a
that the recommendations included in this
Transition Plan will be absolute or unconditional. It
is expected that shifting programs, funding, facility
improvements, and other factors will influence the
prioritization and scheduling of access
improvements.
MIG: MIG project manager and civil engineer,
attend the meeting in person. MIG principal will
participate via conference call.
City Staff. City Project Manager and key staff
members will attend a 1-1/2 to 2-hour meeting
with MIG.
Task 2.9: ADA Implementation Data
Upon the completion of Task 2.7, MIG will
provide the City with GIS readable data containing
all the barrier information collected in the public
right-of-way, including relevant codes and barrier
priorities (RFQ Task 9). The implementation data
has proven effective in monitoring and reporting
the removal of ADA barriers over time. If desired,
the consultant team will work with City staff to
develop procedures to maintain up-to-date data.
MIG: MIG will provide the City with the GIS
containing the results of Task 2.5 through 2.8. The
City (if desired) will also receive the evaluation tool
for maintaining the City's inventory.
TASK 3: PREPARE THE ADA TRANSITION
PLAN
Task 3.1: Prepare the Draft ADA Transition
Plan
Based on the policy and design review, the ROW
evaluations and the prioritization and scheduling
process, MIG will prepare a Draft of the ADA
Transition Plan. MIG will work with City Staff to
prepare the schedule of barrier removals based on
the facility prioritization and cost estimate
information. The Draft plan will include:
ADA Transition Plan requirements and process
including:
o The methodology employed for Plan
development
o Prioritization and scheduling process
o Estimated budget for barrier removal
■ Identification of the ADA Coordinator
■ ADA grievance procedure
■ Public outreach process for Plan development
■ Transition plan phasing schedule
■ Program accessibility guidelines, standards, and
resources
■ Appendices
MIG: MIG will provide the Draft Plan in PDF
format.
City Staff Review the Draft Plan and provide
comments for development of the public review
draft.
Task 3.2: Review Draft Transition Plan — City
Meeting #4
MIG will meet with City Staff to review the edits to
the Draft Plan. After City edits are incorporated
into the plan, MIG will submit a preliminary Public
Review Draft of the Plan to the Stakeholder
Advisory Committee identified in Task 2.3 for
review and comment (RFQ Task 10).
MIG: MIG principal and project manager will meet
with City staff via conference call to discuss
revisions to the Draft Transition Plan. MIG will
revise the draft prior to submitting the plan to the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
PAGE-4 Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way — 9.21.2016
Packet Pg. 488
8.5.a
City Staff Attend a conference call to review the
plan.
Task 3.3: Stakeholder Advisory Committee — Public
Meeting #2
During the second Stakeholder Advisory
Committee meeting, the MIG team will present the
Draft Transition Plan and receive comments and
direction on the Plan. MIG will facilitate the
meeting and collect information from the SAC for
inclusion in the Transition Plan.
MIG: MIG principal and project manager will
attend the meeting in person. MIG will facilitate the
meeting and collect information for inclusion in the
Plan. MIG will prepare a meeting summary after
the meeting that will be ready for posting on the
City's website.
City Staff: The City will provide any materials or
meeting accommodations requested by the
attendees, including ASL interpreters, alternative
format documents or other program modifications.
The City will provide the meeting venue.
Task 3.4: Public Review Draft Transition Plan
After City and SAC edits are incorporated into the
plan, MIG will submit a Public Review Draft of the
Plan for public distribution and comment on the
City's website.
MIG: MIG will provide a tagged PDF and Word
document of the Plan for posting to the City's
website.
City Staff: The City will post the Public Review
Draft to the website for comments.
Task 3.5: Prepare the Final ADA Transition
Plan for the Right -of -Way
After the receipt of the public comments, MIG will
coordinate with City staff on additional edits to the
Draft Plan and prepare the Final ADA Transition
Plan.
MIG: MIG will provide a final Word and PDF
format of the plan for distribution.
Task 3.6: On -going Management of
Communication, Budget and Schedule
MIG will maintain project files, invoicing, records
of meetings, reports, and recommendations. MIG
principal and Project Manager will be available and
in communication with the City of Edmonds
Project Manager and team throughout the project.
The MIG Team will manage the project and
schedule as well as provide quality assurance to
deliver an exceptional product that meets the City's
needs — on time and on budget.
MIG: MIG project manager will communicate with
the City at a minimum every two weeks.
Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way— 9.20.2016 I PAGE 5
Packet Pg. 489
8.5.a
Schedule
The schedule on the following page anticipates this
project being completed over a seven -month time
period.
Fee Proposal
MIG's estimate of costs for the ADA Transition
Plan for the Right -of -Way is provided on the last
page. As in all of our projects, we anticipate
working closely with the City to revise and tailor
the scope and budget to ensure that they reflect the
City's needs, resources and goals.
Fees for any additional services outside the
negotiated scope of work will be calculated based
on the hourly personnel rates per staff person plus
any reimbursable expenses. The hourly rates are
included in the attached fee spreadsheet. Sub -
consultant Transpo Group's fee includes the
following positions:
• Data Collection/Principal $120
• Data Collection/Manager $80
• Data Collection/Field Technician $60
Reimbursable expenses will be billed at cost plus
5%. These include travel expenses; delivery charges
and mailings; printing; supplies and phone. The
mileage charge for personal autos will be the
currently applicable mileage rate established by the
Internal Revenue Service.
PAGE-6 Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way — 9.21.2016
Packet Pg. 490
8.5.a
Estimated -.
EFProject Tasks
♦ PROJECT ♦ •
1.1: Project Initiation — City Meeting #1
(D
1.2: Public Information Portal
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ -
2.1: Review City ROW Policies and Design Standards
2.2: Conduct ROW Evaluation Strategy Session — City Meeting #2
2.3: Stakeholder Advisory Committee — Public Meeting #1
2.4: Develop Procedures for ROW Evaluation
2.5: Conduct Facility Evaluations
2.6: Develop Curb Ramp Inventory and Matrix
2.7: Barrier Removal Actions & Priorities
2.8: Transition Plan Phasing Schedule — City Meeting #3
2.9: ADA Implementation Data
3.1: Prepare the Draft ADA Transition Plan
3.2: Review Draft Transition Plan —City Meeting #4
3.3: Stakeholder Advisory Committee — Public Meeting #2
3.4: Public Review Draft Transition Plan
3.5: Prepare the Final ADA Transition Plan
3.6: On -going Management of Communication, Budget and Schedule.
2
CV
G
Scope of Work: Edmonds ADA Transition Plan for the Right -of -Way— 9.20.2016 I PAGE 7
Packet Pg. 491
City of Edmonds ADA
EXHIBIT B
Cost Categories
Direct Labor Classification(s):
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task
Project
Hours
1.1�
Initiation
Amount■
Task
ublic Information
Portal
Hours
1.2
Amoun77—Amount
Task 2.1
Review City ROW Policies
and d Design Standards
Task
Conduct ROW
Strategy
Meeting
Hours
2.2
Evaluation
Session — City
#2
��
Amount '
Task 2.3 It
Stakeholder Advisory
Committee —Public
Meeting #1 11
ours Amount
11�
Task 2.4 ��
Develop Procedures f
ROW Evaluation
'ours Amount lo'
11f
Task
Conduct
Evaluations
Hours
2.5
Facility
AmounAJMILHours
Task
Develop
Inventory
2.6
Curb Ramp
and Matrix
AS.
Amo.-Nmkffours
Task 2.7
Barrier Removal Actions &
Priorities
Amount
Task 2.8
Transition Plan Phasing
Schedule — City Meeting #3
IOU
Hours,lLAmount
Project Associate 11
Project Associate I
Project Assistant 11
Project Assistant I
Direct Labor
Fixed Fee 15%:
Direct Costs
Project Subtotal
Administrative M!1!L-M
JL
Mk...
$2,255
$9,83
MM
$2,67JJMNh
$3,33dMk1
U"NL
$24,330
J&
$2,570
$7,297
$2,487
Management Reserve
PROJECT TOTAL
W$3,419
26
$2,368
90
$10,326
20
$2,828
28
$3,521
24
$7,676
18
$26,653
21
$2,698
58
$7,662
20
$2,623
Attachment: MIG Agreement (1534 : MIG Agreement - ADA Transition Plan)
City of Edmonds ADA
(a)
(b) (g) (h) (1)
0) (1) (i) (1) 0) 0) 0) (1) (i) 0) W (W) (X)
Task
1
Task 3.1
Task
3.2
Task
3.3
Task
3.4
Task
3.5
Task3.60§
qq
Grand
Cost CategoriesTotal
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
- 1 i i
i
• i. 1 I-
Review
Draft
Stakeholder
Advisory
i
Draft
i.
1.
On -going
Management
(All tasks)
1.ta
TransitiiTransition
Transition
Plan — City
#4
Committee
Meeting
— Public
#2
Communication,
Budget
Direct Labor ClassiricationLsL-
Hours
AmountMeeting
iurs Amount
HoursHours
EngineeringPrincipal-in-Charge
$ 88.46
0
$0
0 $0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0 0 $0
Tim Gilbert, ADA Principal -in -Charge
$ 57.10
0
$0
4
$228
2
$114
8
$457
2
$114
1
$57
12
$685 49
$2,798
Vanessa Hostetter, Civil Engineer
$ 42.10
0
$0
8
$337
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
2
$84
0
$0 129
$5,431
Heather Buczek, Project Manager
$ 38.46
4
$154
20
$769
2
$77
8
$308
6
$231
4
$154
34
$1,308 160
$6,154
ADA Access Specialist
$ 29.81
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0 0
$0
Project Associate II
$ 27.17
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0 12
$326
Project Associate I
$ 25.24
0
1 $0
40
$1,010
2
1 $50
6
$151
12
$303
8
$202
6
$151 148
$3,736
Project Assistant II
$ 25.00
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0 0
$0
Project Assistant I
$ 14.00
2
$28
8
$112
2
$28
2
$28
8
$112
4
$56
2
$28 46
$644
Direct Labor
6
$182
80
$2,456
8
$270
24
$944
28
$760
19
$553
54
$2,172 544
$19,088
Overhead & Fringe (ine G&A) 173.5%:
$315
$4,261
$4681
$1,638
$1,318
$960
$3,769 0
$33,118
Fixed Fee 15%:
$75
IL
1 $1,008
1 $111
1 $387
$312
1 $227
$891 0
$0
Direct Costs
$0
$0
$0
$600
$0
$0
0
S1,675
Subconsultant: Transpo Group
$1,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$28,400
Direct Costs:
$0
$600
'
$0
' 1
$0
I
;25
$30,075
$0
1 i
Administrative Mark-up
5%
$65
SO
$0
S30
$0
$0
i
$1,504
Management Reserve
5%
$93.60
S386.24
$42.40
S178.44
$119.49
$86.98
$342.87
1 $4,506
Attachment: MIG Agreement (1534 : MIG Agreement - ADA Transition Plan)
8.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Stormwater
Management Code Update (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
None.
Staff Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at a future Council meeting.
Narrative
The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in January 2015 to hire a consultant to provide
consulting engineering services to Update the Stormwater Management Code and Associated
Documents. The City received statements of qualifications from four engineering firms and the
selection committee chose Herrera Environmental Consultants to provide consulting engineering
services to the Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents. On May 11, 2015 the City
entered into a $97,932 contract with Herrera Environmental Consultants.
The City proposes entering into a $123,236 Professional Services Supplemental Agreement with Herrera
Environmental Consultants. The contract includes: developing LID standard details, developing checklists
and educational handouts, Phase 2 staff training, and Phase 2 project management and contract
administration.
The supplemental portion of the contract is scheduled to be completed by mid-2017. Completion of the
tasks in the 2015 Professional Services Agreement will be predicated upon finalizing the Stormwater
Code Supplement. The total fee for the Professional Services Agreement is $221,168, including a
management reserve of $11,000 for any unexpected tasks that may come up during the supplemental
work.
Attachments:
Herrera Supplemental Agreement
Packet Pg. 494
Original Contract No.
Supplemental Agreement 1 No.
CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING
1215T"AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX425-672-5750 MAYOR
Website: www.edmondswa.gov
0 igg° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Update the Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and
Herrera Environmental Consultants, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into
an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project
known as Update the Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents project,
dated May 11, 2015; and
WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified to
develop LID standard details, developing checklists and educational handouts, Phase 2 staff
training and Phase 2 project management and contract administration; NOW, THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows:
1. The underlying Agreement of May 11, 2015 between the parties, incorporated by
this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects:
1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement
shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the
stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if
herein set forth.
1.2 The $97,932 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement
and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional
not to exceed amount of $123,236 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this
supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is
increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $221,168 ($97,932 plus $123,236).
1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost
reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached
Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
Packet Pg. 495
8.6.a
2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in
full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein.
DONE this day of
CITY OF EDMONDS
Bv:
Mayor David O. Earling
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
20
HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
By: _
Title:
SAStati\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5FB.Stm Code Update\Herrera.Supp Ldoc Packet Pg. 496
8.6.a
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared , to me known to be the of
the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the
seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
SAStati\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5FB.Stm Code Update\Herrera.Supp Ldoc Packet Pg. 497
EXHIBIT A
SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK
City of Edmonds
Update Stormwater Management Code and Associated
Documents
On May 11, 2015, the City of Edmonds (City) issued a contract (#6522) to Herrera
Environmental Consultants (Herrera) for updating the City's Stormwater Management Code
(currently ECDC Chapter 18.30) and the 2010 Stormwater Code Supplement. The scope of work
for this contract included the following tasks:
■ Task 1 — Background Information Review and Working Sessions
■ Task 2 — Technical Analysis, Options, and Opportunities
■ Task 3 — Develop a New Supplement/Addendum/Manual
■ Task 4 — Expand and Refine Stormwater Management Code
■ Task 5 — City Council and Public Outreach Support
■ Task 6 — Staff Training Resources
■ Task 7 — Project Management/Contract Administration
On August 1, 2016, the City requested Herrera to prepare a supplemental scope of work under
this contract to provide additional support and technical assistance during the City's code
adoption process (designated Phase 2 of the project). This supplemental scope of work includes
a discussion of the activities, assumptions, and deliverables associated with the following tasks:
■ Task 8 — Develop LID Standard Details
■ Task 9 — Develop Checklists and Educational Handouts
■ Task 10 — Phase 2 Staff Training Resource
■ Task 11 — Phase 2 Project Management/Contract Administration
■ Task 12 — Unanticipated Task Reserve
CPD Solutions will work with Herrera staff on this project (referred to in this scope of work as
the Herrera team).
Task 8 — Develop LID Standard Details
The Herrera team will develop a suite of standard construction details for low impact
development (LID) BMPs to support projects on private parcels in the City. The details will
meet Washington State Department of Ecology standards and be tailored for the City's needs.
We will work with the City to develop a set of design details that result in constructible,
functional, maintainable, and aesthetic facilities. Interagency workshops will be held with public
works, design review, inspection, transportation, and maintenance staff to get early and on -going
input on the details.
September 21, 2016 1 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Packet Pg. 498
8.6.a
SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK
The suite of LID standard details will include all of Ecology's "On -site Stormwater
Management" BMPs. Details will include up to 44 detail sheets:
Number
Detail
BMP
Details
Sheets
• Material Sections — Pervious Concrete
• Material Sections — Porous Asphalt
Permeable
• Material Sections — Permeable Pavers
8
Pavement
• Subsurface Check Dams
• Subsurface Outlets
• Edge Treatments 3 sheets
Bioretention
• Bioretention Sections with Optional Underdrain
and Rain
(adjacent to multiple surface types — landscape, paved)
Gardens
• Rain Garden Sections (adjacent to multiple surface
types — landscape, paved)
• Inlet — Curb Cut
• Inlet — Downspout Conveyance
• Inlet — Vegetated Conveyance
12
• Outlet — Overflow Structures
• Outlet — Vegetated Conveyance
• Check Dams (2 sheets)
• Planting Zones — Plan/Section
• Edge Treatments
• Outlet — Orifice Controls
Bioretention
• Rain Garden Plan/Section for Sidewalk Mitigation
and Rain
• Roadside Bioretention Planter with Parking (Step -out
Gardens in the
Zone) — Plan/Section (2 sheets)
Right -of -Way
• Roadside Planter without Parking— Plan/Section (2
9
sheets)
• Roadside Curb bulb Planter — Plan/Section (2 sheets)
• Planter Edge Treatments
• Inlets — Trench Drain Curb Cut
Dr ell
• Dr ell Plan/Section
1
Infiltration
. Infiltration Trench Plan/Section
I
Trench
Downspout
• Plan for Dispersion Trench/Splashblock Options (with
Dispersion
setbacks)
2
• Plan/Detail for dispersion trench
Sheet Flow
. Plan/Detail for flat to moderately sloping driveways
I
Dispersion
Concentrated
• Plan/Detail for steep driveways
1
Dispersion
Perforated
. Plan/Profile/Section
1
Stub -out
September 21, 2016 2 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Packet Pg. 499
8.6.a
SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK
Connection
Post -
Construction
Soil Quality
• Section
I
and Depth
Vegetated
. Section showing layers
I
Roof
General
• Utility Crossings (2 sheets)
• Utility Conflicts (3 sheets)
6
• Cleanouts
Assumptions
■ The City will provide the CAD files for the existing set of standard details
(Attachment I of #E72B).
■ The drawings will be developed as 8 1/2 x I I sheets using the City's CAD
standards.
■ Standard details will be developed based on existing CAD files including
the City's standard details (Attachment I of #E72B), City of Seattle
Stormwater Manual figures, City of Seattle RainWise details, City of
Seattle standard plans, and San Francisco LID typical details.
■ Details will reference existing specifications (e.g., City of Edmonds,
Ecology, WSDOT, Seattle, and regional permeable pavement
specifications).
■ While the level of effort required will vary by detail, it is assumed that 14
of the 44 details will simply require conversion of existing details to City
of Edmonds CAD standards (assuming 2 hours per detail on average).
Revisions for the remaining 30 details assume:
0 2 hours of engineer time will be required to markup existing LID
details for interagency input (on average).
0 5 hours of engineer time and 5 hours of CAD time will be required
per detail (on average).
■ One 2-hour meeting will be held with City staff to kick-off work on this
task and confirm selected details for development.
■ One 2-hour coordination meeting will be held with interagency staff to
review existing standard drawings (with mark-ups) and discuss how best
to tailor the drawings to suit the city's needs.
■ Four 2-hour coordination meeting will be held with interagency staff to
address technical issue and/or review the draft LID BMP details.
■ For each meeting/workshop, up to 4 hours of engineer time is assumed to
develop meeting minutes, document decisions, and provide other follow-
up support.
■ Comments on the mark-ups of existing LID BMP details and draft LID
BMP details will be compiled and reconciled by city staff.
September 21, 2016 3 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Packet Pg. 500
8.6.a
SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK
Deliverables
■ Mark-ups of existing LID BMP details for interagency input (PDF files)
■ Draft set of LID BMP details (PDF files)
■ Final set of LID BMP details (CAD and PDF files)
Task 9 — Develop Checklists and Educational Handouts
Based on the revised Stormwater Code (Task 4) and new Stormwater Code Addendum (Task 3),
the Herrera team will prepare checklists or educational handouts on the following topics for the
general public, private developers, and/or City plan review staff to help facilitate the City's code
implementation process:
■ Submittal Requirements for Category 1 Projects
■ Submittal Requirements for Category 2 Projects
■ Submittal Requirements for Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plans
■ Field and Design Procedures for Bioretention, Permeable Pavement, Rain
Gardens, and Downspout Infiltration
■ Field and Design Procedures for Infiltration Basins and Trenches
■ Methods for Determining Infiltration Rates
■ Design/Review checklists for specific BMPs:
o Soil Preservation and Amendment
o Sheet Flow Dispersion
o Concentrated Flow Dispersion
o Bioretention Cells, Swales, and Planter Boxes
o Permeable Paving
o Rain Gardens
o Downspout Infiltration
o Downspout Dispersion
o Perforated Stub -out Connections
In addition to these topics, the budget for this task includes resources for the development of
checklists or educational handouts for up to five additional topics to be identified at a later date.
Assumptions
■ One 2-hour meeting will be held with Edmonds staff to kick-off work on
this task and confirm selected topics for the development of checklists or
education handouts.
■ Up to two additional 2-hour meetings will be held with Edmonds staff to
review and discuss draft checklists or education handouts.
■ Additional review and coordination will occur via phone and email
■ Checklists or educational handouts for each topic will be 1 to 6 pages in
length.
September 21, 2016 4 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Packet Pg. 501
8.6.a
SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK
Deliverables
■ Draft set of checklists or educational handouts for up to twenty topics
■ Final set of checklists or educational handouts for up to twenty topics
Task 10 — Phase 2 Staff Training Resources
Building on previously developed project case studies (Task 6) and newly developed checklists
and educational handouts (Task 9), the Herrera team will develop a series of internal and external
trainings on the revised Stormwater Management Code and new Addendum. Herrera will then
participate in up to four training sessions:
■ Overview of stormwater code (1 hour) — internal staff training covering
how we got here and what's new
■ Applying the stormwater code to development projects (3 hours) — internal
staff training focusing on roadway project requirements during first 30-45
minutes
■ Applying the stormwater code to development projects (3 hours) — internal
staff training
■ Stormwater code and available resources/tools (1 hour) — external
training/public meeting
Assumptions
■ Up to two staff from the Herrera team will participate in the 3-hour
training sessions with City staff and the external training/public meeting.
■ One staff member from the Herrera team will participate in the 1-hour
stormwater code overview for City staff.
■ Up to two training sessions (Applying the Stormwater Code to
Development Projects) will last up to three hours.
■ Up to two training sessions (Stormwater Code Overview) will last up to
one hour.
Deliverables
■ Draft and final PowerPoint slides for stormwater code overview training
■ Draft and final training exercise handouts based on the Task 6 case studies
and PowerPoint slides for applying the stormwater code to development
projects trainings
■ Draft and final PowerPoint slides for external training/public meeting
Task 11— Phase 2 Project Management/Contract Administration
Herrera will be responsible for ongoing management and contract administration of this project,
including tracking and updating the project schedule, preparing invoices, and coordinating work
efforts with the City's project manager. Herrera's project manager (John Lenth) will have phone
and e-mail contact with the City's project manager on an as -needed basis.
September 21, 2016 5 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Packet Pg. 502
8.6.a
SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF WORK
Deliverables
■ Monthly invoices and progress reports
■ Project schedule
Task 12 — Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed)
A reserve budget amount has been included in the fee estimate for work under this task, which
may include additional unanticipated labor or expenses not specifically identified in the scope of
work tasks defined above. Such work items will be undertaken only after separate written
authorization from the City.
Assumptions
The reserve budget amount for this task is capped at $11,000.
September 21, 2016 6 of 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Packet Pg. 503
EXHIBIT B
HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Cost Estimate for City of Edmonds Update Stormwater Management Code and Associated Documents - Phase 2
Herrera Project No. 15-05994-001
Update Stormwater Management and Associated Documents - Phase 2
Task 8.0
Task 9.0
Task 10.0
Task 11.0
Task 12.0
TOTAL
Number of Tasks: 5
Develop LID Standard
Develop Checklist and
Phase 2 Staff Training
Project Management /
Unanticipated Task
Details
Handouts
Resources
Contract Administration
Reserve
COST SUMMARY
Labor
$70,833
$19,760
$6,250
$6,180
$0
$103,023
Travel and per diem
$136
$39
$78
$0
$0
$253
Other direct costs (ODCs)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subconsultants
$0
$5,120
$3,840
$0
$0
$8,960
Analytical laboratory
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Unanticipated task reserve
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,000
$11,000
GRAND TOTAL
$70,969
$24,919
$10,168
$6,180
$11,000
$123,236
COST ITEMIZATION
Labor
(2016 rates)
Personnel
Rate/Hour
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
P7 Lenth, John
Vice President
$61.90
8
$495
4
$248
4
$248
24
$1,486
0
$0
40
$2,476
P5 Lancaster, Alice
Engineer V
$61.06
54
$3,297
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
54
$3,297
P4 Dugopolski, Rebecca
Engineer IV
$44.97
0
$0
48
$2,159
24
$1,079
0
$0
0
$0
72
$3,238
P3 Feller, Meghan
Engineer III
$39.56
248
$9,811
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
248
$9,811
P3 Prescott, Todd
CAD Technician III
$36.50
184
$6,716
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
184
$6,716
P3 Forester, Kathryn
Landscape Architect III
$35.00
16
$560
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
16
$560
P3 Sytsma, Anneliese
Engineer III
$32.21
0
$0
96
$3,092
16
$515
0
$0
0
$0
112
$3,608
F3 Saavedra, Robin
Accounting Administrator III
$28.00
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
12
$336
0
$0
12
$336
3 Wadkins, Shannon
Administrative Coordinator III
$27.19
0
$0
12
$326
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
12
$326
Subtotal Direct Labor
510
$20,879
160
$5,825
44
$1,842
36
$1,822
0
$0
750
$30,368
Labor Overhead (OH) @
195.00%
$40,715
$11,358
$3,592
$3,552
$0
$59,217
Fee on Burdened Labor @
15%
$9,239
$2,577
$815
$806
$0
$13,438
SUBTOTAL LABOR (Direct Labor+OH+Fee)
$70,833
$19,760
$6,250
$6,180
$0
$103,023
TRAVEL AND PER DIEM COSTS
Unit
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Auto Use
Mile
$0.54
252
$136.08
72
$38.88
144
$77.76
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
468
$253
SUBTOTAL TRAVEL AND PER DIEM
$136
$39
$78
$0
$0
$253
SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
Rate/Hour
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
CPD Solutions
$160
0
$0.00
32
$5,120.00
24
$3,840.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
56
$8,960
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT
$0
$5,120
$3,840
$0
$0
$8,960
Co
iu
Attachment: Herrera Supplemental Agreement (1537 : Herrera Supplement - Stormwater Code)
8.7
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles and surplus city equipment
(5 min.)
Staff Lead: Mike Adams
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Royce Napolitino
Background/History
The city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and
equipment for several years. We have consistently received the best prices and gotten quality service
using this approach. It has proven to be the most cost effective option to manage our larger surplus
items like vehicles and large equipment.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy
Auctioneers to sell (4) surplus city vehicles and (1) emergency power generator.
Narrative
The city would like to utilize the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and
equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items.
The following equipment:
Unit# G-20-FAC 1992 20KW Generator SN# 92A-01588S (Removed from Fire Station 20)
The following vehicles:
Unit# 30-STM 1999 Chevrolet C10 Pickup Vin# 1GCEC19V1XZ166812
Unit# 447-POL 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BV6BX149447
Unit# 86-PRK 1999 Dodge 3500 Flatbed Vin# 3B6MC652XM557551
Unit# 90-PRK 1999 Dodge 3500 Flatbed Vin# 3B6MC3653XM5658700
Packet Pg. 505
8.8
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Authorization to contract with Pick-N-Pull to scrap totaled city vehicles (5 min.)
Staff Lead: Mike Adams
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Royce Napolitino
Background/History
Previously, the city has utilized the services of Pick-N-Pull to scrap totaled surplus city vehicles. This has
proven to be a cost effective method to manage totaled vehicles.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommend that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with Pick-N Pull to scrap (2)
totaled city vehicles.
Narrative
The City currently has two Police patrol vehicles that have been involved in accidents severe enough to
be declared a total loss, i.e. the cost to repair exceeds the repaired value of the vehicle. It is
recommended the City again utilize the services of Pick-N-Pull to scrap these totaled and surplused city
vehicles. This has proven over many years to be the most cost effective method to manage scrapping of
totaled vehicles.
The following vehicles:
Unit # 651-POL 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Vin # 2FAHP71V18X145651 (Total)
Unit # K93-POL 2007 Ford Crown Victoria Vin # 2FAHP71W27X125433 (Total)
Packet Pg. 506