2015.04.28 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 28, 2015
6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1.Roll Call
2.(15 Minutes)
AM-7666
Discussion and Potential Action on an Ordinance Amending the 2015 Budget
3.(30 Minutes)
AM-7661
Continued closed-record review of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on
proposed field improvements at the Former Woodway High School.
STUDY SESSION
APRIL 28, 2015
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
5.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-7662 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2015.
B.AM-7660 Approval of claim checks #213891 through #213992 dated April 23, 2015 for
$854,676.51 (reissued checks #213916 $25.48 & #213958 $9.85).
Approval of payroll check #61589 for $166.66 for the pay period April 1, 2015 through
April 15, 2015.
C.AM-7664 City Park Award of Bid for construction of Spray Pad and granting of utility easement.
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
7.(20 Minutes)
AM-7659
Draft Streetscape/Street Trees Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
8.(30 Minutes)
AM-7663
Progress Update on Development and Critical Area Codes
9.(15 Minutes)
AM-7665
Revenue bond financing presentation.
10.(10 Minutes)
AM-7657
Presentation of easement documents from the 7500 Building & Dairy Queen for the
76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements Project
11.(10 Minutes)
AM-7656
Proposed Ordinance authorizing the acquisition by negotiation or condemnation of real
property interests for the 76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements project.
12.(10 Minutes)
AM-7668
Presentation of Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1
Basin and Flow Study
13.(10 Minutes)
AM-7654
Presentation for award of the construction contract for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer
Replacement Project
14.(10 Minutes)
AM-7655
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
15.(15 Minutes)
AM-7653
Discussion on the Project Funding and Award of the 228th St. SW Corridor
Improvements Project
16.(15 Minutes)
AM-7670
Discussion of Potential Interest in Acquiring the Edmonds Conference Center
17.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
18.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
19.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
20.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
AM-7666 2.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and Potential Action on an Ordinance Amending the 2015 Budget
Recommendation
Approval of the 2015 1st Quarter Budget Amendment
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
There are a total of 14 budget amendments.
Two of the budget amendments have previously been discussed by Council. The first is a request from
the Historic Preservation Fund to transfer General Fund money into the Historic Preservation Fund for
the printing of brochures. The second budget amendment is for the 220th St SW Overlay project.
There are five new budget amendments which reduce the General Fund ending fund balance. Two of the
requests are from the Community Services Department, one for the 125th Anniversary Celebration and
the second an increase to the lobbyist contract. Two of the requests are from the Development Services
Department, one is a request for extra help with the comprehensive plan update and the second is for
increased merchant fees due to increased payments with credit cards. The final request is for the Council
Chambers / Court AV Equipment.
The Equipment Rental Fund has two requests which will reduce the Equipment Rental ending fund
balance. The first request is for a vehicle replacement. The vehicle was totaled in an accident. The City
received insurance money to cover almost half the cost of the vehicle but the remaining amount will use
replacement fund money. The second request is for the replacement of police radios. The radios have a
replacement fund similar to the vehicles.
The remaining budget amendments are offset by either grants or donations, including two General Fund
requests.
Attachments
First Quarter 2015 Budget Amendment
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 04/23/2015 12:06 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 12:07 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 06:59 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 04/23/2015 12:01 PM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3991 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund
Transfers and increases in appropriations; and
WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is
transferred from one fund to another; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations
and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and
federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2015
Budget; and
WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified;
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3991 adopting the final budget for the
fiscal year 2015 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F
adopted herein by reference.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
1
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY ___
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
2
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 3991 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________,2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
3
EXHIBIT “A”: Budget Amendment Summary (April 2015)
2015 2015
FUND FUND BEGINNING ENDING
NO.DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE
001 GENERAL FUND 5,964,686 36,818,544 39,042,952 3,740,278
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 518,557 276,200 361,825 432,932
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 724,375 1,180 - 725,555
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 4,563,491 19,800 800,000 3,783,291
013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.55,859 - - 55,859
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 1,062 9,500 9,900 662
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 215,149 708,000 793,800 129,349
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 42,632 43,000 76,033 9,599
111 STREET FUND 208,647 1,729,030 1,703,419 234,258
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 305,230 8,026,935 8,146,704 185,461
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 408,637 97,359 152,775 353,221
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,764 61 - 17,825
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 112,841 67,675 70,000 110,516
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 55,412 20,564 26,871 49,105
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 12,938 1,240 3,000 11,178
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 75,297 22,900 21,500 76,697
125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,989,184 904,000 2,485,000 408,184
126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 689,893 902,000 943,400 648,493
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 248,128 46,478 43,795 250,811
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 15,922 - - 15,922
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 90,325 164,500 171,784 83,041
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,065,746 5,498,765 6,001,243 563,268
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 150,868 533 - 151,401
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 848,760 11,970 - 860,730
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,190 10,212 10,400 3,002
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 650,000 650,000 -
211 LID FUND CONTROL 5,967 22,600 28,567 -
213 LID GUARANTY FUND 76,581 28,627 - 105,208
231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND - 667,693 667,693 -
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 925,310 925,310 -
421 WATER 5,693,945 7,581,442 10,354,300 2,921,087
422 STORM 4,736,346 3,778,407 6,973,141 1,541,612
423 SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT 9,585,482 9,833,310 15,071,010 4,347,782
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 843,959 844,416 845,416 842,959
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 5,520,333 1,519,185 1,717,825 5,321,693
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 179,364 65,350 77,629 167,085
Totals 45,026,570 81,296,786 98,175,292 28,148,064
4
EXHIBIT “B”: Budget Amendments by Revenue (April 2015)
ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.2015
FUND FUND 3985 3990 3991 Amended
NO.DESCRIPTION 12/26/2014 2/13/2015 2/27/2015 April 2015 Budget
001 General Fund 36,806,017$ -$ -$ 12,527$ 36,818,544$
009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 276,200 - - - 276,200
011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 1,180 - - - 1,180
012 Contingency Reserve Fund 19,800 - - - 19,800
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,500 - - 2,000 9,500
016 Building Maintenance 356,600 156,400 - 195,000 708,000
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 43,000 - - - 43,000
111 Street Fund 1,729,030 - - - 1,729,030
112 Combined Street Const/Improve 7,458,211 448,724 120,000 - 8,026,935
117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 78,859 - - 18,500 97,359
118 Memorial Street Tree 61 - - - 61
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 67,675 - - - 67,675
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 20,564 - - - 20,564
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,240 - - - 1,240
123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 22,900 - - - 22,900
125 Park Acq/Improvement 904,000 - - - 904,000
126 Special Capital Fund 902,000 - - - 902,000
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,478 - - - 46,478
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 164,500 - - - 164,500
132 Parks Construction 4,998,765 500,000 - - 5,498,765
136 Parks Trust Fund 533 - - - 533
137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd 11,970 - - - 11,970
138 Sister City Commission 10,212 - - - 10,212
139 Transportation Benefit District 650,000 - - - 650,000
211 Lid Fund Control 22,600 - - - 22,600
213 Lid Guaranty Fund 28,627 - - - 28,627
231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 667,693 - - - 667,693
232 2014 Debt Service Fund 925,310 - - - 925,310
421 Water 7,581,442 - - - 7,581,442
422 Storm 3,681,407 93,000 - 4,000 3,778,407
423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 9,833,310 - - - 9,833,310
424 Bond Reserve Fund 844,416 - - - 844,416
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,502,567 - - 16,618 1,519,185
617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 65,350 - - - 65,350
Totals 79,730,017$ 1,198,124$ 120,000$ 248,645$ 81,296,786$
5
EXHIBIT “C”: Budget Amendments by Expenditure (April 2015)
ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.2015
FUND FUND 3985 3990 3991 0 Amended
NO.DESCRIPTION 12/26/2014 2/13/2015 2/27/2015 April 2015 Budget
001 General Fund 38,585,504$ 100,271$ 120,000$ 237,177$ 39,042,952$
009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 361,825 - - - 361,825
012 Contingency Reserve Fund 800,000 - - - 800,000
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,900 - - 2,000 9,900
016 Building Maintenance 380,000 218,800 - 195,000 793,800
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 76,033 - - - 76,033
111 Street Fund 1,703,419 - - - 1,703,419
112 Combined Street Const/Improve 7,501,107 525,597 120,000 - 8,146,704
117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 134,275 - - 18,500 152,775
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 70,000 - - - 70,000
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,871 - - - 26,871
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 - - - 3,000
123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 21,500 - - - 21,500
125 Park Acq/Improvement 2,361,000 62,000 62,000 - 2,485,000
126 Special Capital Fund 471,400 200,000 12,000 260,000 943,400
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 43,795 - - - 43,795
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 171,784 - - - 171,784
132 Parks Construction 5,362,900 638,343 - - 6,001,243
138 Sister City Commission 10,400 - - - 10,400
139 Transportation Benefit District 650,000 - - - 650,000
211 Lid Fund Control 28,567 - - - 28,567
231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 667,693 - - - 667,693
232 2014 Debt Service Fund 925,310 - - - 925,310
421 Water 9,738,039 616,261 - - 10,354,300
422 Storm 6,607,641 361,500 - 4,000 6,973,141
423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 14,235,422 835,588 - - 15,071,010
424 Bond Reserve Fund 845,416 - - - 845,416
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,667,801 - - 50,024 1,717,825
617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 77,629 - - - 77,629
Totals 93,536,231$ 3,558,360$ 314,000$ 766,701$ 98,175,292$
6
EXHIBIT “D”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Fund Number
Change in
Beginning Fund
Balance Revenue Expense
Change in Ending
Fund Balance
001 - 12,527 237,177 (224,650)
014 - 2,000 2,000 -
016 - 195,000 195,000 -
117 - 18,500 18,500 -
126 - - 260,000 (260,000)
422 - 4,000 4,000 -
511 - 16,618 50,024 (33,406)
Total Change - 248,645 766,701 (518,056)
7
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendment Summary (April 2015)
Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Pg#Description
Previously Discussed By Council
Historic Preservation 014 000 62 557 20 49 00 Miscellaneous 2,000 9
Historic Preservation 014 000 397 19 001 00 Interfund Transfer 2,000
General Fund 001 000 39 597 19 55 14 Interfund Transfer 2,000
General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,000
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 19 Interfund Services 7,500 10
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 91 Professional Services 42,500
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 91 Construction 210,000
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 10 Interfund Services 7,500
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 42,500
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 00 Construction 210,000
REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 41 19 Interfund Services 7,500
REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 41 90 Professional Services 42,500
REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 65 90 Construction 210,000
REET 1 126 000 39 508 30 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 260,000
Historic Preservation
Printing
220th St SW Overlay
Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Pg#Description
New Items for Council
General Fund 001 000 61 557 20 49 00 Miscellaneous 5,000 11 125th Anniversary
General Fund 001 000 61 557 20 41 00 Professional Services 4,000 12 Lobbyist Contract
General Fund 001 000 62 558 60 49 00 Miscellaneous 5,225 13
General Fund 001 000 62 524 20 49 00 Miscellaneous 5,225
General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 19,450 Change Ending FB
General Fund 001 000 62 558 60 11 00 Salaries 10,600 14
General Fund 001 000 62 558 60 23 00 Benefits 3,600
General Fund 001 000 333 11 110 00 Solar Grant 6,000
General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 8,200
General Fund 001 000 64 571 22 49 00 Miscellaneous 2,527 15
General Fund 001 000 367 00 100 00 Donation 2,527
General Fund 001 000 64 571 22 31 00 Supplies 1,882 16
General Fund 001 000 64 571 22 35 00 Minor Equipment 2,118
General Fund 001 000 367 00 100 00 Donation 2,000
General Fund 001 000 337 20 000 00 Verdant Grant 2,000
Building Maintenance 016 000 66 594 19 64 00 Equipment 195,000 17
Building Maintenance 016 000 381 10 000 00 Interfund Loan 110,000
Building Maintenance 016 000 397 19 001 00 Interfund Transfer 85,000
General Fund 001 000 39 581 10 79 00 Interfund Loan 110,000
General Fund 001 000 39 597 19 55 16 Interfund Transfer 85,000
General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 195,000
Municipal Arts Fund 117 100 64 573 20 41 00 Professional Services 8,500 18
Municipal Arts Fund 117 100 367 00 000 00 Donation 8,500
Municipal Arts Fund 117 200 64 575 50 41 00 Professional Services 10,000 19
Municipal Arts Fund 117 200 367 00 000 00 Donation 10,000
Storm 422 000 72 594 31 41 12 Interfund Services 3,000 20
Storm 422 000 72 594 31 41 20 Professional Services 1,000
Storm 422 000 334 03 101 00 Grant 4,000
Equipment Rental 511 100 77 594 48 64 00 Equipment 37,718 21
Equipment Rental 511 100 77 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 21,100
Equipment Rental 511 100 395 20 000 00 Insurance Proceeds 16,618
Equipment Rental 511 100 77 548 68 35 00 Small Equipment 12,306 22
Equipment Rental 511 100 77 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 12,306
Merchant Fee
Charges
Wildlife of Edmonds
Poster
Health & Fitness Expo
Supplies
Council
Chambers/Court AV
Equipment
Planning Extra Help
Fleet Van
Police Radios
4th Ave Cultural
Corridor
Hazel Miller Concerts
Grant Funding
Perrinville Creek
Stormwater Flow
Reduction
8
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
100 2,000 0 0 0 0
0 2,000 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 $100 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4,100 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)2,000 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 2,000 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
001.000.39.597.19.55.14 - Interfund Transfer
Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:Included in 2014 Budget
The Council allocated $2,000 for the reprinting of an informational brochure for
the Historic Preservation Commission in the 2014 budget. The money could not be
spent in 2014, but the project is still needed. This amendment would re-allocate
the unspent money to the 2015 budget so that the brochures can be reprinted.
Development Services
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION GIFT
Planning Fund
Name:Historic Preservation Printing
Rob Chave
014.000.62.557.20.49.00
014.000.62.557.20.49.00 - Miscellaneous
Total Expenses
Comments
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
014.000.397.19.001.00
9
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0 (7,500)0 0 0 0
0 (42,500)0 0 0 0
0 (210,000)0 0 0 0
30,000 7,500 0 0 0 0
170,000 42,500 0 0 0 0
840,000 210,000 0 0 0 0
0 7,500 0 0 0 0
0 42,500 0 0 0 0
0 210,000 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total $1,040,000 $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)260,000 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 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 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
From other Fund-Construction 112.200.68.595.33.65.91
Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:Dec 16 2014
The City Council approved $1.2M for the Street Presevation Program in 2014 and staff
withheld $260,000 to provide a local match on a federal grant to overlay 220th St. in
2015. This budget amendment will add the $260,000 that was removed during the 2015
Budget preparation process. The funding will be provided by the 126 REET 1: Special
Capital Projects Fund.
Public Works
STREET
CONSTRUCTION
Engineering Fund
Name:220th St. SW Overlay (76th Ave-84th Ave)
Rob English
c462
4a.2 (Street Maintenance)
From other Fund-Interfund Svcs 112.200.68.595.33.41.19
From other Fund-Professional Svcs 112.200.68.595.33.41.91
Interfund Svcs 112.200.68.595.33.41.10
Professional Svcs 112.200.68.595.33.41.00
Construction 112.200.68.595.33.65.00
To other Fund-Interfund Svcs 126.000.68.595.33.41.19
To other Fund-Professional Svcs 126.000.68.595.33.41.90
To other Fund-Construction 126.000.68.595.33.65.90
Total Expenses
Comments
126.000.39.508.30.00.00
10
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0 5,000 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 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)5,000 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 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 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Edmonds 125th Annniversary celebration festivities. Total gross estimated
promotion and production costs = $7,500. Request for City funding of up to 2/3 of
the cost, not to exceed $5,000, with remainder intended to be underwritten by
sponsors, fundraising, etc.
Community Services
GENERALFund
Name:125th Anniversary Celebration
Patrick Doherty
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
Furthers Strategic Objective 3
Partial funding Edmonds 125th Anniversary celeb.
Total Expenses
Comments
11
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?On-Going
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
36,300 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
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 $36,300 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
$40,300 $40,300 $40,300 $40,300 $40,300
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Ending Cash: Carryforward 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 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Increase of $4,000 in compensation for state lobbyist from $36,300 to $40,300 due
to cost of living increase. No increase in contractor rate has been implemented for
the last five years.
Community Services
GENERALFund
Name:Lobbyist Contract
Patrick Doherty
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
Supports funding & legislation for initiatives pursuant to Strategic Objectives 3, 4 & 5.
Cost of living increase for lobbyist contract
Total Expenses
Comments
12
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?On-Going
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0 5,225 5,225 5,225 5,225 5,225
0 5,225 5,225 5,225 5,225 5,225
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 $0 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450
$10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)10,450 10,450 10,450 10,450 10,450
Ending Cash: Carryforward 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 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Merchant fee charges are paid by the department for each transaction by a
customer using a credit card. These fees effectively are deducted from the fees
collected for land-use and building permits. In 2014 the amount of these fees
totalled $10,450. This amendment updates the department budget to reflect these
charges. Staff is developing a plan for compensating for these charges.
Development Services
GENERALPlanning and Building Fund
Name:Merchant Fee Charges
Leif Bjorback
62
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
Total Expenses
Comments
13
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
542,788 10,600 0 0 0 0
208,692 3,600 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 $751,480 $14,200 $0 $0 $0 $0
$765,680 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)8,200 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 6,000 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $14,200 $0 $0 $0 $0
Planning Benefits 62.558.60.23.00
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
The 2015 budget included funding for exta help for the Comprehensive Plan update at 20
hours a week. We have found that an additional 10 hours per week is needed through June to
complete this project, including SEPA documentation, and, in July, about 25 hours of planner
assistance is needed to prepare any final Plan changes and submit documentation to state
agencies and PSRC. (Note: Regular full time staff are already pressed with high levels of
permit activitiy, not to mention assisting with long-range projects such as the critical areas
code update, the tree code update, and the major development code update.) To help offset these
cost the City obtained additional funding from the Department of Commerce for the City's
ongoing Rooftop Solar Challenge grant. The amended grant amount for 2015 increases the
grant by an additional $6,000 ($6,000 was already budgeted for 2015, so the amended total
will be $12,000).
Development Services
GENERALPlanningFund
Name:Planning Extra Help
Rob Chave
62
1a.7; 1a.8; 1b.6; 1b.8; 1b.10; 1f.1; 3a.10; 3a.11; 3a.12; 4a.7; 4a.15
Planning Salaries 62.558.60.11.00
001.000.333.11.110.00
Total Expenses
Comments
14
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
71,250 2,527 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 $71,250 $2,527 $0 $0 $0 $0
$73,777 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 2,527 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $2,527 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Expenses
Comments
001.000.367.00.100.00
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
We received a grant from Hubbard Family Foundation in the amount of $2,527.08
to fund the printing of a Wildlife of Edmonds poster. The grant was deposited on
March 2, 2015 to the Parks Donation GL account. The printing of the poster was
paid for from the Recreation Miscellaneous GL account.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
GENERALRecreationFund
Name:Wildlife of Edmonds Poster
Renee McRae
001.000.64.571.22
2. Maintain, enhance, and create a sustainable environment
Miscellaneous - 49
15
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
7,500 1,882 0 0 0 0
0 2,118 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 $7,500 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$11,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 2,000 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 2,000 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
We have secured $4,000 in sponsorship for the Health & Fitness Expo. The
monies will be used for supplies and minor equipment for the 3rd annual expo on
May 16, 2015.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
GENERALRecreation
Supplies - 31
Minor Equipment - 35
Fund
Name:Health & Fitness Expo Supplies
Renee McRae
001.000.64.571.22
3. Maintain and enhance Edmonds' community character and quality of life
Total Expenses
Comments
001.000.367.00.100.00
001.000.337.20.000.00
16
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0 195,000 0 0 0 0
0 110,000 0 0 0 0
0 85,000 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total $0 $390,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$390,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)195,000 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
Interfund Transfer to Fund 016 85,000 0 0 0 0
Interfund Loan Proceeds to 016 110,000 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $390,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Fiund Interfund Trasfer to Fund 016
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Update Council Chambers/Court Audio and Video equipment. Cost of the update
would be paid out the Franchise Education Fee revenues and from the annual
Washington State Judicial contribution. As of March 31, 2015, $85,000 in
Education Fees and $20,000 in Judicial contributions are availalbe to pay towards
the $180,000 of project costs plus $15,000 for project contingencies. The
remaining balance of $110,000 would come from a two year General Fund Loan.
The loan would be paid off by the end of 2017 from future Education Fees.
Facilities Maintenance
GENERALPublic Works
Council/Court Chamber Audio/Video Upgrade
General Fund Interfund Loan to Fund 016
Fund
Name:Council Chambers/Court AV Equipment
Scott James
016 Building Maintenance Fund & 001 General Fund
Total Expenses
Comments
Project Expense
From General Fund
From General Fund
17
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
49,000 8,500 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 $49,000 $8,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
$57,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 8,500 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $8,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Expenses
Comments
117.100.367.00.000.00
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Grant funding for Summer Concerts at Hazel Miller Plaza. The Hazel Miller
Foundation has awarded a grant to fund the 12 free summer concerts presented by
the Edmonds Arts Commission at the Hazel Miller Plaza in July and August.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
MUNICIPAL ARTS
ACQUISITION
Cultural Services
Professional Services 41
Fund
Name:Hazel Miller Concerts grant funding
Frances Chapin
117.100.64.573.20
1.e.1 and 2, Arts and Culture organization and promotion
18
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
70,000 10,000 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 $70,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 10,000 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Donation for 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Interim Art Project from Edmonds
Arts Festival Foundation
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
MUNICIPAL ARTS
ACQUISITION
Cultural Services Fund
Name:4th Ave Cultural Corridor Interim Art Project
Frances Chapin
117.200.64.575.50
1 e 4 4th Ave Cultural Corridor
Professional Services 41
Total Expenses
Comments
117.200.367.00.000.00
19
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
1,000 3,000 0 0 0 0
0 1,000 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 $1,000 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 4,000 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study - The City received
comments from the Department of Ecology later than expected. The original
budget for 2015 ($1,000) is not adequate to finish the reports and close out the
project.
Public Works
STORMEngineering
Interfund Svcs 422.000.72.594.31.41.12
Professional Svcs 422.000.72.594.31.41.20
Fund
Name:Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit S
Jerry Shuster
E3FC/c408
N/A
Total Expenses
Comments
422.000.334.03.101.00
20
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0 31,518 0 0 0 0
0 6,200 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 $0 $37,718 $0 $0 $0 $0
$37,718 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)21,100 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 16,618 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $37,718 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Expenses
Comments
511.100.395.20.000.00
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Unit # 26, a 2010 Chevrolet Van, was involved in an accident that totaled the
vehicle. Our insurance company paid the City $16,618 for the loss. Budget
appropriation is needed for the City to purchase a replacment vehicle. The cost
of the new vehicle is $31,518. An additional $6,200 is requested to cover the cost
of coverting the new van to Bi-Fuel propane.
Public Works
EQUIPMENT RENTALFleet
2015 Ford Transit Van
Prins Bi-Fuel propane system
Fund
Name:Fleet Van
Mike Adams
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
21
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (April 2015)
Budget Amendment for:First Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0 12,306 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 $0 $12,306 $0 $0 $0 $0
$12,306 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)12,306 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 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 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $12,306 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Expenses
Comments
Decrease in B fund
New Item For Council To Consider
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Replacement of Police Radios for theThree Police Motorcycles: The radios that
were replaced were purchased in 2003 and went out of production in 2004/2005.
The radios had been out of warranty for 10 years and out of support by the
manufacturer for 7 years. One radio could no longer be repaired and the other
two were quickly approaching the same situation. It was decided that it was best
to replace all three with new technology that is P25 compliant and upgradable to
Phase II.
Police
EQUIPMENT RENTALPatrolFund
Name:Police Radios
Jim Lawless
511.100.77.548.68.35.00
N/A
(3) 7/800 Single Band APX7500 Radios
22
AM-7661 3.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Michael Clugston
Department:Planning
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Continued closed-record review of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on proposed field
improvements at the Former Woodway High School.
Recommendation
Uphold the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve bleachers and ball control fencing for the
site. Direct the City Attorney to prepare a memo summarizing Council's findings, conclusions and
decision for approval on a future consent agenda.
Previous Council Action
Council opened this closed-record review on April 21 and continued it to April 28 to allow time to review
a summary of testimony complied by the Hearing Examiner that was not included in the April 21 agenda
memo.
Narrative
This agenda memo supplements memo AM-7627 from April 21. The attached summary of testimony
was part of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the project. However, the summary was not
received until after the agenda memo for the April 21 meeting had been created.
Attachments
Summary of testimony at Hearing Examiner
Edmonds School District Response
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 09:11 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/23/2015 10:22 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/23/2015 11:57 AM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 04/23/2015 08:30 AM
Final Approval Date: 04/23/2015
Edmonds March 26, 2015
Woodway Field Project
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated March 19, 2015 w/ 18 attachments (listed on page 2 of the staff
report and public comments)
Exhibit 2 powerpoint slides
Exhibit 3 posters about uses of grass
Exhibit 4 photograph by Mr. Cain
Exhibit 5 Packet submitted by Mark Wall – (a) A traffic impact statement, (b) a letter from
the Audubon Society, (c) an audio engineer study, (d) a statement from the
Capital Projects Manager (Ryan Hague), (e) the deed for the property with
restrictions, (f) sections of the staff report (pages 11 and 16), (g) six photos of
empty play fields
Staff Testimony
Michael Clugston stated that the application is for field improvements at Woodway High School.
The school building area is zoned RS-8 and the open space is zoned OS. Because there are two
zones involved, the land use permitting process is complicated. The project has been discussed
for some time. The City Council updated the parks, recreation, and open space plan to include
specific reference to the Woodway project with the intent to create adult soccer and multi-use
turf fields for year-round recreation options. Edmonds School District is proposing a three-phase
process to meet the updated plan requirements. Phase 1 is the subject of the current application
and includes the installation of synthetic turf fields, fences, backstops, bleachers, dug-outs, and
lights. If phase 1 is successful, the School District will implement two more phases with
additional fields, amenities, and possibly a concession area. The existing school buildings and
vehicular access patterns will remain unchanged for phase 1. There are five land use permits
associated with phase 1: Design Review, a variance for fence height in the RS-8 zone, a
conditional use permit for lighting, bleachers, and fence height in the OS zone, a variance for
light pole height in the RS-8 zone, and a variance for light pole height in the OS zone. The
Architecture Design Board reviewed the project several weeks ago and made a recommendation
to the Hearing Examiner. The field material is not in the scope of this hearing. The School
Board will make a decision about the field material at a later date, and the city will review that
decision. The Hearing Examiner will submit a recommendation to the City Council. The City
Council will later hold a closed record review and make a quasi-judicial decision on the five land
use permits.
In regard to the Design Review, Mr. Clugston noted that the Architecture Design Board looked
at the proposed layout and landscaping for the project. The Board recommended approval of the
permits with some conditions.
In regard to the conditional use permit (CUP), the CUP is for lighting, bleachers, and bulkhead
fencing higher than 25ft in the OS zone. To be issued a CUP, an application must meet four
criteria: (1) consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, (2) consistency with the zoning
ordinance, (3) not detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare, and (4) answer the question
of transferability. The playfield improvements are mentioned in the parks and recreation portion
of the Comprehensive Plan. The Architecture Design Review Board found that the proposal met
the community cultural and urban design criteria detailed in Chapter 11. In regard to consistency
with the zoning ordinance, the application must review five criteria for the OS zone: (1) visual
impact on the character of the neighborhood, (2) orientation of facilities to developed and
undeveloped areas, (3) preservation of natural vegetation and other natural features, (4) hours of
operation and performance standards with noise ordinance, and (5) ability of facility to provide
adequate parking and mitigate traffic impacts. The lights are designed to minimize light spill and
buffers are being utilized to further mitigate light spill. In regard to noise, Edmond’s Code
Chapter 5.30 states that noises from school-sponsored athletic activities are exempt from the
noise ordinance at all times. There are 239 parking stalls required for the combined school and
athletic field uses. There are 307 parking spaces available on site.
According to Mr. Clugston, the project is not significantly detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare. The site will be buffered from the surrounding neighborhood, and the new
facilities will serve a larger portion of the public. In regard to transferability, the permit will be
personal to Edmonds School District and will not run with the land.
In regard to the three variances, Mr. Clugston noted there are six criteria that must be met for
each: (1) special circumstance, (2) special privilege, (3) Comprehensive Plan, (4) zoning
ordinance, (5) not detrimental, and (6) minimum necessary. In regard to the fence in the RS-8
zone, fencing of this nature is normally limited to 15ft; however, the School District is asking for
a variance to allow the fences to reach up to 30ft. This variance meets all six criteria. The
School District could use lower fencing, but it would not provide the necessary safety and
protection for the site. In regard to the light pole height in the RS-8 zone, accessory structures in
the RS-8 zone can only be 15ft; however, the School District is asking for a variance to allow the
light poles to be from 60ft to 90ft. This variance meets all six criteria as well. The light poles
could be shorter, but that would require more poles. Additionally, taller light poles decreases
light throw. Taller poles focuses light on the fields more directly than shorter poles. In regard to
the light poles in the OS zone, accessory structures in OS zones can be 25ft; however, the School
District is asking for a variance to allow the light poles to be from 75ft to 90ft. This variance
also meets all six criteria. Similarly to the RS-8 zone, the School District could utilize shorter
poles, but then it would require many more poles.
In regard to public comments, Mr. Clugston stated there were a number of general comments in
favor of the field itself. There were also comments regarding the field material; however, the
field material choice is not part of the city’s review for the subject permits. Additionally, the
public noted concerns about noise, light, and traffic. In regard to noise, the noise ordinance
exempts any school athletic event. The new facility will not change the current access and
parking. There is sufficient parking for phase 1 of the project. The lighting will be different
from what is present currently; however, the light spill will be minimal. At the northwest fields,
one foot of light will reach beyond the site’s bounds and will be at a 3ft height. At the southwest
field, the light will reach less than one foot beyond the site’s bounds. The code requires lighting
for play fields to be set off before 10:15p.m. The city recommends approval of all five permits
with conditions. He is not sure how use will be shared between the school and parks and
recreation. The school buildings are still used for regular school activities. Staff will not review
traffic impacts until the building permit stage.
Applicant Testimony
Stewart Mhyre, Executive Director of Business Operations for Edmonds School District,
testified that the site was formerly Woodway High School. It was used as a high school with
over a thousand students until 1989. The proposal was first developed in 2005 and was the
product of various community groups. Overtime, the School District has applied to the
legislature to receive funding for the project. In 2008, as a part of the District’s Capital Levy
Program, 500,000 dollars was designated to fund the project. The project is also being funded by
the City of Edmonds, a grant from the State of Washington, and a grant from the Health
Commission. The School District has held two community meetings, on March 16th and 17th, to
provide information to the community about the project and hear the public’s concerns. Citizens
also spoke directly to the School Board on March 24th. The School District has engaged an
environmental consultant to assist with the review of additional information regarding turf fields.
In regard to current use, the school building is used for educational programs and will continue
to be utilized for these purposes. The school community also still uses the fields, and the
District’s sports team will practice and play games on the new fields. The School District will
enter into an agreement with Edmonds’ Parks and Recreation Department to manage and
schedule the fields for the School District’s use and private use.
Public Testimony
Ms. Hoverson stated that she lives adjacent to the field. She has lived there for 39 years. She
enjoys watching the games played on the field; however, she is worried about size increase with
the new project. There will be four times the noise and traffic in the area. Before this new
proposal, she knew the noise would be gone by the evening; however, by including lights in the
new project, the noise will continue into the night. The facilities will be used most nights of the
year. Traffic will become a huge problem beginning with phase 2. The hill leading up to the
school will be unable to accommodate the increase in traffic, and there will not be sufficient
parking. She is worried players and spectators will begin parking on 102nd and impede her
neighborhood’s traffic flow. The gate was put in place to ensure safety because students were
improperly using the roads. When her area was annexed into the City of Edmonds, one of the
conditions was that the gate would remain closed except for in emergency and special events.
Phase 2 will put too much strain on the area.
Kristine Wear testified that she has multiple sclerosis and spends much of her time outside in her
backyard. She requires a quiet space in order to take naps for her health. She moved to her
home on 101st W because she was reassured it was a quiet and safe neighborhood. She is
concerned about the noise level of constant soccer and baseball games year-round. Her
neurologist is concerned for her to be living in an area with increased noise levels. She is also
worried about the increased traffic because the additional cars will also create more noise. The
side of her house with a garden faces 100th Avenue. She is worried about the safety walking on
100th. She is concerned about the lights not being blocked by the old trees with widespread
branches. She previously lived in Seattle a mile and a half away from sports fields and could see
the lights. She is also unsure this space will be utilized by the school-children; instead, she
believes private adult sports clubs will use the fields most often. She does not believe she will be
able to take her dog on walks in the area anymore because of the traffic and noise. She is not
against sports, but believes the size of this project is inappropriate for this space.
Mike Meints stated his son attends Edmonds Heights and that he is a small business owner. He
believes this project does not make sense economically. He is concerned about the possible
health risks of utilizing turf. He does not know who would be liable if there were health issues
from using the turf material. He used to live near ball-fields with improvements, and the fields
were constantly used creating continuous noise and light. He does not think the current parking
can accommodate the four new fields. He does not believe an adult soccer league using the
fields should be part of the noise exemption for school athletic activities.
Randy Burke noted that his property borders the southside of the subject property. In the past,
the school has been a great neighbor and very supportive of any concerns. He has lived at his
property for 39 years. His biggest concern with the project is the traffic. Over the years, the area
has developed with apartment buildings which have all increased traffic. With four active fields
and possibly a concession stand, there is going to be a huge increase in traffic and a need for
more parking. Having these fields active until after 10pm at night will disrupt neighbors. The
lights will be along the edge of fields which are part of critical mass areas on the hillside. He is
unsure if proper studies have been done to ensure these areas can sustain these lights. He also
wants to know who will be liable for any health issues that arise from the synthetic field surfaces.
Douglas Knutsen stated that he has lived in Edmonds since 1950. He commends Edmonds for
its standards in developing over the years. The noise, lights, parking, and lowered property
values concern him. In his personal experience, crossing the street on Edmonds Way and at the
entrance to the ball fields is very dangerous. Cars do not obey the traffic signs in the area. The
Police Department does not have the resources to do anything about the traffic in this area. The
ferry traffic impacts this area already. Students tend to fail to pay attention when walking and
driving in the area. He wants to ensure the School District is benefitting from these facilities and
it is not just a money-motivated endeavor.
Christine Johnson testified that she has been a real estate agent for over 30 years. She has owned
a home on 101st Avenue W for 29 years. Homeowners have the right to the quiet enjoyment of
their homes. This facility will ruin the quiet of the area. She lives near a place where swim
meets occur occasionally. When swim meets occur, it is very noisy all around her home. She is
only half a block away from the proposal site so the noise will reach her. She lives below the
planned facilities and believes there will be light pollution which reaches her home.
Additionally, she is concerned about increased traffic. The planned facility is an inappropriate
use for this land. Property values will go down if the facility is built. She believes it would be
better to renovate existing fields to render them usable rather than build new ones.
Ms. Mcguire stated that the proposal is ugly and includes too many fields. The fields are
crowded into too small a space. Other fields in the area are beautiful, and she does not
understand why this facility is not being planned similar to those. Edmonds values open space,
and this facility does not reflect that with its current design. This facility could have up to 400
people on it at a time which does not match the character of the city.
Susie Schaefer testified that the Pilchuck Audubon Society submitted a letter in regard to the
project because its members are concerned about the wildlife in the area. The SEPA review said
there would be no effect on wildlife, but there is always effect on wildlife. She is worried about
bird’s nesting on the new light poles. She wants to ensure there is a nice habitat in the space, and
all species in the area are preserved. She observed over 20 native species in the area. The lights
could have a serious impact on the birds, especially with migration of birds at night.
Jean Sayers stated that she lives on 101st behind Woodway High School. She has lived at her
property for 20 years. She is against the proposal. She agrees with the previous comments in
regard to the lights, noise, and traffic.
Scott Newman testified that he is Director of Coaching for Northwest Nationals Premier Soccer
Club. Northwest Nationals is recognized as the premier soccer league for the Edmonds School
District. Many of its players come through the Edmonds School System. It has close to 500
student athletes in the program with close to 13 teams. The league is in need of fields to use.
They have had to book up to six teams on one field in a given time spot to accommodate the
league needs. This new facility will provide more opportunities for student athletes in the
community to participate in physical activities. He has games at Lynwood High School which
has a similar facility and there is sufficient parking at that site.
Jasmine Herrick (5th grader at Edmonds Heights), Eliana Herrick (4th grader at Edmonds
Heights), Emma Johnson (6th grader at Edmonds Heights), Hayden Johnson (3rd grader at
Edmonds Heights) testified that they do not want the fields to be made of material that can hurt
animals. They believe the same standards used for other environmental review need to be used
for this facility to ensure it is safe. They are also concerned about the turf releasing carcinogens,
light pollution, and too much noise. The turf should not be considered if it is health risk.
Alexandria and Samuel Markel submitted posters showing uses of grass (Exhibit 3). They are
worried about how using turf will affect the environment.
Kristy Davis asked whose responsibility it is to decide the environmental impacts of using turf
for the fields. She believes the city is ignoring the need for open space. The field is used by the
neighborhood as open space. The new facility will take away open space for everyone and give
it to premier sport leagues.
Greg Cain, 2304 Robin Hood Drive, stated that he lives on the west-side just beyond the
greenbelt of the current field. His property is located between the two fields where the path
enters. He submitted a photo looking east from his home where the greenbelt is 35ft (Exhibit 4).
The picture was taken in the morning, on Saturday, March 21st. The picture demonstrates the
light spill that comes in through the greenbelt from the subject property to Mr. Cain’s property.
He does not see how the greenbelt will mitigate light from the new lighting poles. He is
concerned that all the noise from the use of the field is exempt from the noise ordinance. He said
Civic Field is a different setting than Woodway so it is not comparable. He moved into his home
in 1992 and chose the location because of its seclusion. His home is probably the closest
residence to the playfields. Increasing the volume and activity of the field uses will completely
change his living situation.
Mark Wall testified that the facility is money-driven and is not meant for the community. The
SEPA checklist is minimal, but the School District did not complete it. The area is inhabited by
many fish and wildlife, and the School District was notified of this in a letter of incomplete
application. The area has endangered species including bald eagles and owls. The science
teacher at the school uses the fields to show different animal habitats. The School District did
not list any wildlife as inhabiting the area. The SEPA checklist also claimed the site was not part
of a migration route; however, it is used for migration. The area is a wildlife conservation
habitat because there are known endangered species within the area. In regard to noise, the
School District claimed the noise levels would not go up and may even decrease because lawn
mowers will no longer be used; however, the site will be used at least 4 times as much. Mr. Wall
hired his own acoustic engineers to review the site. He also paid for his own traffic study. The
project needs a traffic study because it is being placed in the middle of a residential
neighborhood. The school building hosts a drama production at least 50 nights a year. On these
nights, the parking lot is completely full. The Capital Projects Manager gave a statement saying
there was a known traffic concern for illegal parking surrounding old Edmonds Woodway.
Often, people double park in the parking lot because the streets are full. If the city had required a
traffic study, these issues would be known. The SEPA determination of non-significance should
be overturned because there is information that environmental impacts will occur and the School
District misrepresented the situation. The deed for the property says it must be used for school
purposes. The School District claims the site will be used for physical education; however, the
fields will be used for non-school activities. School activities are almost always done by
5:30pm. The facility is being marketed to for-profit sports organizations. According to the code,
the Architectural Design Board must give each public use extensive review in regard to its
relationship with the neighbor; however, the Design Board failed to do an extensive review. The
School District claims there is a need for playing fields; however, there are plenty of available
grass fields in the area. Mr. Wall took pictures of vacant fields during the evening hours
including Civic Field. The existing fields are not utilized because the professional teams want
turf fields. There is only a field shortage because private businesses want high-end, turf
facilities. Soccer and other sports can easily be played in grass and mud. He submitted a traffic
impact statement, a letter from the Audubon Society, an audio engineer study, a statement from
the Capital Projects Manager (Ryan Hague), the deed for the property with restrictions, sections
of the staff report (pages 11 and 16), and six photos of empty play fields (Exhibit 5).
Tammy Dunn, Snohomish County Tourist Commission, testified that the Commission supports
athletic events that will being tourism to the county and provide economic benefits.
Development that serves the visitors will also enhance the quality of life for county residents.
Alvin Rutledge stated that there were previous meetings developing the project, beginning in
2005. The Hearing Examiner should review the reports of these meetings to understand the time
and money that has been put in this project. He wishes the School District would disclose how
much the project will cost. He also asked what the timeline for the second and third phases of
the project are. He thinks a specific time should be set for turning the lights off on weekdays and
weekends.
Maggie Pinson testified that she is in favor of athletic events and children being active. She has
nieces and nephews who play on select soccer teams. She believes all sports need to be
represented. Her son attends Edmonds Heights, and she just moved into 23142 107th Place W
Harley. Her property is 0ft from the School District line. Her kitchen window is only 50ft from
the planned sideline of the northern most soccer field. She is very concerned about the lights and
noise. Currently, during the day, the noise is happy, laughing voices and at night the noise is
bird calls and other animal noises. The noise from a ballfield would be much louder. The light
will impact the entire neighborhood. Private sports teams should not take precedence over the
people living in the community. There needs to be another forum to discuss the health risks of
using turf on the fields. Three minutes at a hearing is not enough to discuss the health issues that
could arise. The site is a part of the Pacific flyway migration route. The Audubon Society has
identified many migratory birds that use the space for resting along their migration routes. There
are many discrepancies in the documents the School District submitted as part of its application.
The perimeter of the property is identified as a Fish and Wildlife Conservation area, and the
mature trees in that area are at most 75ft tall. There has been no development on the property as
far back as the 1800s including no underground gas lines or sewer systems. There will never be
a field area in Edmonds as pristine as the subject property. This site can be used for better
purposes.
Tom Teigen, Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Director, stated that the Edmonds School
District and the City of Edmonds are working together on this project which should make it a
well-done project. Snohomish County has also put money in to the project. Turf fields are often
the best environmental way to develop open space. Turf fields do not use fertilizer and have far
fewer injuries. He appreciates the need to be environmentally conscious. The area needs viable,
well-designed playfields. Typically, the School District and the city work very well with the
public. This proposal is a great use of the property and will benefit the community.
Laura Johnson testified that her three children attend Edmonds Heights. She recently applied for
a permit to install a decorative fence at her home. A permit is required because of her property’s
proximity to a stream. The permit application requires her to hire a biologist to do an
environmental study to ensure the fence will not negatively impact the salmon in the stream. She
does not understand why this strict standard does not apply to the subject proposal. In regard to
Woodway, the current setback for the proposal site is 125ft. For a project of this size, there
should be an environmental study. The city should not accept the School District’s
determination of non-significance.
Sierra Johnson stated that she is a freshman at Edmonds Heights. As a teenager, she would
rather run around on a beautiful, grass field rather than a turf field. She does not trust the
unnatural turf. She said many of her fellow students do not want the turf field. There has not
been enough thought put into this project.
Mr. Newman testified that he is President of Edmonds Youth Sports which organizes lacrosse for
kindergartners through 8th graders. It is not an elite sports teams and none of the coaches are
paid. Due to prior rulings, most lacrosse games and practices must be played on turf fields.
Currently, there are 60 plus kids playing in the league and most of them are from Edmonds.
They are forced to play in Bothel because there are not enough turf fields in Edmonds. There are
two lacrosse organizations in Edmonds, but neither can actually play in Edmonds. This facility
would be a huge benefit or the kids who are part of Edmonds Youth Sports. The latest any game
goes is 8pm so the lights would be off by that time.
Rudy Askman stated he lives on Robin Hood Drive. He has experienced intense traffic from
swim meets occurring near his home. People park in front of his home because there is not
enough parking in the area. He fears that people will begin parking in his driveway. He does not
feel safe walking on the sidewalks when there are so many cars parked illegally. He lives within
30ft of the buffer and has seen a lot of wildlife in the area including bald eagles. The light spill
will go beyond the buffer and come into his backyard. The lights will impact the health of the
birds in the region. The noises will also disrupt his home life. He does not want increased
pedestrian traffic around his home. The people in favor of the project do not live in the
surrounding neighborhood. The negatives of this project far outweigh any community benefits.
Mary Mcallister testified that she is a certified arborist and lives on Robin Hood Drive. She
concurs with the previous concerns in regard to the light, noise, traffic, and environmental
impacts. In regard to drainage, there is quite a bit of water that flows down the property because
of the grade change. A study needs to be conducted to determine the drainage issues and
mitigate any problems. The water will soak into the greenbelt unless there is a really good drain-
field put into place. She does not believe the city has done an adequate review of this project.
The project has already gone out to bid. She also asked what the hours for construction would
be. She is concerned that the review process is not being taken seriously.
Julie Stroncek stated that she is the Athletics Director for Edmonds School District. The school
building houses the VOICE students who are developmentally disabled students. The School
District has a unified sports program which partners abled-athletes with developmentally-
disabled athletes. They practice every Monday and Wednesday, but the natural grass fields are
often too muddy to use. Currently, students have to be bussed out to other fields because
Edmonds does not have the necessary facilities. Finding field time for the girls’ soccer teams is
almost impossible. Currently, the track team has no place to practice on Thursdays. The fields
will also allow the softball teams to practice more often because some of the fields will have the
necessary lines. The partners in the community have worked hard to make this project happen.
Geoff Bennett, Assistant Principal at Edmonds-Woodway, stated that he has lived in the city
since 1954. This new facility would benefit the students of Edmonds greatly. There are not
enough fields in the area. This project will create more opportunities for kids to play on safe
fields.
Maggie Pinson said that the fields are used by the local neighborhood people in the evening for
dog-walking and bird-watching. There are currently no lights on the field.
Carrie Hite, Parks Recreation and Cultural Services Director for Edmonds, stated that the intent
of the project is to increase the recreational opportunities for all community members. It is not
meant just for private use. The use will be for general recreation programs, and it is not a
revenue generating business. Edmonds has discussed with the School District how the fields will
be maintained. They will charge some organizations minimal fees to rent the field to offset some
maintenance needs. Edmonds intends to be a good neighbor. It receives complaints from
neighbors at other fields, such as Civic Field, and the city responds to these complaints and
makes changes accordingly. The goal of this project is to provide athletic opportunities that are
all-weather. Edmonds does not have any all-weather fields or full-size fields currently.
Mark Wall testified that there was a recent case, Blanchett v. City of Seattle, that declared light
cannot be mitigated.
Ed Weigelp stated that he bought his property on Robin Hood Drive in 1957. He built his home
in 1961 and has lived there since. His property abuts the old Woodway High School. Woodway
was supposed to remain a pig farm; however, the property was given to the Department of
Natural Resources who then sold it to the School District. People will park at Robin Hood Drive
rather than the parking lot by the school building.
Staff Rebuttal
Michael Clugston stated that he believes there are ongoing field uses at the property now, but he
is not sure to what extent. Traffic will be addressed at the building permit stage and mitigation,
fees will be assessed at that time. He noted that the appeal period for the SEPA determination has
expired. The construction hours for Edmonds are 7am-6pm on weekdays, no allowance on
Sundays, and 10am-6pm on Saturdays. If the School District had not applied to build the fencing
and other structures, then the five land use permits would not have been required. There will be
no impact to the existing forest buffer from the development of the fields. The noise exemption
ordinance has been in place since 1985. Only City Council can adjust the code. Parking has
been addressed for phase 1. There are 307 parking stalls on site, and only 239 are required.
Drainage is not addressed until the building permit stage. The School District will have to meet
all the requirements of the Public Works Code at the building permit stage. The permit meets the
criteria for the CUP and variances with the lighting.
Applicant Rebuttal.
Mr. Mhyre testified that, at this time, there is no funding for phase 2. Phase 2 is just a concept at
the moment. The School District is aware of the use of the school building and will work to
schedule around events occurring at the facility.
Upon questioning by Mr. Burke, Mr. Mhyre noted that the School District may not end up
lighting the project.
Public Testimony
Maggie Pinson stated that she is worried about the traffic mitigation plans being developed after
the initial permit approval. The property is located on a very narrow, steep road which is already
very dangerous. She does not believe there are actually 300 hundred available spaces. Overflow
parking at the tennis courts is not appropriate.
AM-7662 5. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2015.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 04-21-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 04/23/2015 09:14 AM
Final Approval Date: 04/23/2015
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
April 21, 2015
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Linda Coburn, Municipal Court Judge
Rob English, City Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Mike Clugston, Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss
pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the
Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson,
Fraley-Monillas, Petso, Bloom, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, and
City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 6:54 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Buckshnis.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
MAKE ITEM 10 DISCUSSION ONLY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 1
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BLOOM, TO MOVE ITEM 11 TO ITEM 8B, FOLLOWING THE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF REVISED CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 7, 2015
B. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 2015
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #213799 THROUGH #213890 DATED APRIL 16, 2015
FOR $382,189.75 (REISSUED CHECKS #213806 $10.35 & #213890 $282.57) APPROVAL
OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61573 THROUGH #61583 FOR
$472,864.88, BENEFIT CHECKS #61584 THROUGH #61588 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF
$514,840.97 FOR THE PAY PERIOD APRIL 1, 2015 THROUGH APRIL 15, 2015
D. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - NORTH SOUND METRO SWAT
E. DIVERSITY COMMISSION ORDINANCE
F. JANUARY 2015 BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
G. CITY PERSONNEL POLICY UPDATE
5. PROCLAMATION FOR "STAND AGAINST RACISM DAY"
Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring April 24 in Edmonds to be Stand Against Racism Day and
called upon all public officials, educators, businesses, community leaders and all people of Edmonds to
observe this day and commit themselves going forward to fight against racism whenever and wherever it
may appear. He presented the proclamation to Mary Anne Dillon, YWCA’s Senior Director for
Snohomish County.
Ms. Dillon introduced Luanne Kunz, YMCA Regional Community Affairs Coordinator and her daughters
Madeline and Ella. She explained Stand Against Racism Day (SARD) was originally founded at the
Trenton, New Jersey YWCA in 2007 and has grown to be nationwide movement. Friday, April 24 will be
the fifth annual SARD; there will be a screening of “Race: The Power of an Illusion” at the Everett Music
Hall. The YWCA is dedicated to eliminating racism, empowering women and opening doors to women
and families facing poverty, violence and discrimination. They focus on eliminating the great disparities
that disproportionately affect women and families of color in education, healthcare, employment, housing
and nearly every institution in the country. Standing together against racism this evening reminds us there
is still work to be done in the community and together we can make a difference.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Doug Schwartz, Edmonds, relayed Edmonds Community College (EdCC) has declared the Edmonds
Conference Center obsolete and they want to dispose of it. His research uncovered several rumors. First,
that EdCC wants Northsound Church to purchase the property; Mary Heffernan who runs the E-learning
center at EdCC said there have been no discussions with anyone and they are completely out of process of
disposing of the property. Second, that State agencies have to decide first whether they want the property
and have until May 4 to express interest; Stefanie Fuller, Department of Enterprise Services, who is
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 2
handling the disposal stated, “we do not require a detailed proposal. Actually just an email or letter that
simply states your interest is sufficient. Just responding you have interest as a legitimate purchaser is all
that is necessary.” He also heard that the City cannot afford the $2.3 million purchase price. Ms. Fuller
specifically said that is only a reference point; there are many offsets that can be used including job
creation or tax revenue to the State that would allow the purchase price to be reduced. He supported the
City acquiring this property if, after investigation, it makes sense. He proposed the City Council formally
investigate the purchase of the property and indicate interest by the May 4 deadline.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, thanked everyone who donated to Carol Rowe Food Bank’s Easter food drive at
IGA. Food can also be dropped off at the Food Bank at 828 Caspers.
Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, commented the City has a unique opportunity now that conference center is
available from State as surplus property as stated in their bulletin sent out March 4 and April 13. The
language in the bulletin states the department is acting on behalf of the State and may transfer, exchange,
sell, or lease the property in full or part consideration for land or improvements, or for construction of
improvements equivalent to fair market value or for mutual and offsetting benefits to any of the following
government agencies which includes the City in which the real property is located. There are few
possibilities for the City to grow its facilities in the downtown core. Potential uses include downtown
restrooms and rental space for community groups. She suggested the Council schedule discussion on their
agenda.
Sam Markiel, Edmonds, said he and his sister have gifts for the Council.
Alex Markiel, Edmonds, recognized carbon neutrality was important for the City. For every artificial turf
field, the City will need to plant 3,210 trees to stay carbon neutral. Sam and Alex Markiel provided plants
to Councilmembers and the Mayor.
Emily Hill, Edmonds, commented it was a proud moment in history; the Mayor and Council have
listened to and fostered the efforts of concerned residents to welcome the immigrant community to the
City, recognize the groundswell interest in becoming a more diverse community and provide for
underprivileged children from economically challenged households. She referred to the bounty of
resources the community can muster such as the Edmonds Mom Facebook page members who cloth, bag
food and put out the call to community resources on behalf the 407 homeless Edmonds School District
children, the Edmonds Senior Center that shelters the homeless and provides community to the aged, the
Edmonds School District Foundation that involves Edmonds businesses and patrons in harnessing
resources for children, the many residents who participated in raising over $57,000 via GoFundMe for the
Rice brothers when their dad passed away on Christmas, chess clubs that promote speaking, and a new
church forming for the Latino community. There are generous shop owners willing to donate such as
Nama Candy who provided gifts of welcome for this evening’s Gambian visitors. She summarized there
have been many “Do the Right Thing” efforts/events in Edmonds.
Ms. Hill expressed gratitude to Mayor Earling for the Stand Against Racism Day proclamation and to the
Gambian delegation for believing Edmonds is a welcoming community. Edmonds becomes more
enriched, more learned and stands taller when it stands against racism and fosters the efforts of forming a
diverse community. She thanked the Council, Mayor and Ms. Hite for their thoughtful deliberation over
the past eight months toward making this evening one that showcases the best Edmonds can be.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled speaking to the Council last week about his concern with the Tree
Code proposed by the new Tree Board and under review by the Planning Board. After listening to the
discussion about the formation of a Diversity Commission, he wondered if each Councilmember planned
to propose a new committee so they would each have their own committee. Every committee costs
citizens a lot of money. He suggested the City was getting off track and should stick to the business of
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 3
water, sewer and roads and things that are really important although he objected to some of the methods
for financing utilities. The Water Fund currently has a balance of $13 million, another fund has $8 million
and the Sewer Fund has $42 million from the bond sale although there are not $42 million in projects.
Staff has proposed to “soak us all well now for what they want to do in the future” which he assumed
meant more committees, staff, etc. Residents will be restricted from cutting trees on their own property,
fees for staff and penalties if they did it wrong, as well as billed for utility work that will not be done in
the near future. He suggested reversing the process by eliminating extra committees and the proposal by
the Tree Board to restrict property rights so there is time to deal with things like how much citizens are
being billed. He summarized the most volatile issue to Edmonds citizens is restricting their property
rights.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the passionate plea made by two citizens related to the Edmonds
Conference Center which has also included emails to Council in February. She suggested they be given
some idea whether the Council intends to take any action regarding the Edmonds Conference Center.
Mayor Earling said Council President Fraley-Monillas intends to bring that up under Council Comments
at end of the agenda.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE PROFITT/ASTELL HOUSE
LOCATED AT 825 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE
EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION. (FILE NO. PLN20100013)
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the Profitt/Astell House has been nominated for consideration for
placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The property owners nominated the house and
signed the authorization form. He described the effects of listing on the register:
• Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds
• Prior to commencing any work on a register property (excluding repair and maintenance), owner
must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission
• May be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation
He provided an aerial map and identified the location of the house on 825 Main Street. He reviewed
designation criteria and how the Profitt/Astell House meets the criteria:
• Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural
heritage of Edmonds
o This house is associated with the early residential growth of Edmonds and is associated with
George Profitt one time water superintendent and plumbing proprietor of Reliable Flooring
and James Astell (son of Carrie Yost Astell) who served several terms as a city councilman as
well as the town’s Fire Chief
• Has integrity
o The house is a largely intact example of a 2-story Craftsman bungalow
• At least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less the 50 years old
o The building was constructed in 1901 and thus is 114 years old
• Falls into at least one of designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.a-k
b. Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type period, style
e. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history
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
o The building was moved in 1927/1928, approximately the time the Edmonds Elementary
School (currently the Francis Anderson Center) was being constructed
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 4
He provided a photograph of the house and described significant features:
• The building is a two-story rectangular building Craftsman bungalow
• The building has a front gable roof and a full width hip roofed front porch along the entire south
facade.
• The building has four simple supporting brackets, a common feature of a Craftsman bungalow
The Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing and found:
• The nomination meets the criteria and is eligible for designation in the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places.
• The exterior of the structure contains the significant features.
• Recommends the property be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Place
The packet contains a proposed ordinance for listing the property on the Edmonds Register of Historic
Places. Mr. Lien provided a 1906 photograph of 6th Avenue and Dayton; this house was constructed in
1901.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present
who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 3995, DESIGNATION THE EXTERIOR OF THE
PROFITT/ASTELL HOUSE LOCATED AT 825 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT - 2015
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained draft updates to the Comprehensive Plan are being
reviewed one at a time. Drafts, with refinements, will be considered all together in early July. The
existing Comprehensive Plan does not have a specific section regarding street trees and streetscape; the
2006 Streetscape Plan is adopted by reference and includes various appendices such as the Street Tree
Plan. This update includes only minor amendments to the Street Tree Plan; further revisions to the plan
will be made in the future. She reviewed the current proposal with regard to a streetscape and street trees:
• Add a new Streetscape and Street Tree section into the Comprehensive Plan to address goals and
policies
• Make minor adjustments to the Street Tree Plan to allow for better performing trees along certain
trees;
• Do not adopt the Streetscape Plan by reference, but include it as an appendix to the
Comprehensive Plan.
• Add two implementation strategies to the Streetscape & Street Tree section of the Comprehensive
Plan
1. Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016
2. Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2107
The Planning Board discussed the Streetscape & Street Tree Section on March 11th (introduction) and
April 18th (recommendation) and the Tree Board discussed the same material on April 9th. Through
meetings with staff from the Parks and Recreation Department, staff identified the following key points:
• Certain tree species in the existing Street Tree Plan (2006) were underperforming or the wrong
shape and size for the area indicated for planting
• The existing Street Tree Plan Map was difficult to read
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 5
• A more in-depth study on street trees is needed
Ms. Hope displayed the draft 2015 Street Tree Plan map. Proposed changes to trees in the Street Tree
Plan include:
• Replace European Hornbeam with Capital Pear
• Replace Sargents Cherry with Bowhall Maple
• Replace Kwanson Flowering Cherry with Capital Pear
She explained tonight is a public hearing on the Streetscape & Street Tree Plan update. Further discussion
on the Streetscape & Street Tree update is scheduled for the April 28 Council study session.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the Street Tree Map applied only to downtown. Ms. Hope answered
it is primarily the downtown area and a couple other corridors. Councilmember Petso asked whether the
Street Tree Map covers the entire bowl area or only west of 5th. Ms. Hope offered to confirm that.
Councilmember Nelson recalled reading that the Planning Board recommended the Plan include pictures
of the trees. He agreed that would be helpful.
Councilmember Johnson advised the Streetscape Plan includes Highway 99, the 4th Avenue Corridor and
the downtown area.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed planning for trees in the right-of-way was important, recalling some
have damaged sidewalks and/or become oversized. His primary concern was view corridors and the loss
of air and light when things get too big and block views. He suggested the ordinance address view
blockage, protecting view corridors and add a maximum height. For example, planting the wrong tree
species in front of a business could be detrimental to the business if the tree blocked the public’s view of
the business. He recalled a citizen at a Tree Board meeting who expressed concern with a tree in a right-
of-way island that grew so large it blocked their view of Puget Sound. He suggested the residents in the
surrounding area be consulted whenever a tree is planted in the right-of-way.
Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, suggested instead of focusing on tree removal/trimming on private property,
the City look at how trees block access on sidewalks. When walking in the City, people often have to
duck under trees or walk single file because hedges are growing onto the sidewalk. She suggested the City
trim vegetation that blocks downtown sidewalks rather than charging property owners for cutting trees
that are problematic for them and their neighbors.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
11. PRESENTATION ON DRAFT PROJECT LIST AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS
FOR THE 2015 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PLAN
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss recalled about a month ago, a presentation was made to Council
regarding the goals and policies in the Transportation Plan. Work on the plan began in October 2014 and
is scheduled to be completed in July. All the projects and LOS standards have been reviewed by the
Transportation Committee which also acts as the Walkway Committee, and the Edmonds Bicycle Group.
This presentation was also made to the Planning Board on April 8.
Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers, clarified these projects are capital roadway improvements and are not the
entire Transportation Improvement Program that the City adopts annually. Many projects are included as
reference within the Transportation Plan covering maintenance, traffic calming and other operational
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 6
elements. GMA requires cities look into the future; the City’s traffic model looks to 2035 based on land
use, growth assumptions in Edmonds and in the surrounding communities. He explained LOS grading is
A to F. He reviewed the Roadway LOS Standard:
Facility Standard (Measured during PM peak hour
City Streets Arterials: LOS D or better (except state routes)
Collectors: LOS C or better
State Routes SR 99 north of SR 104 & SR 524: LOS E or better
He displayed and described several maps:
• Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
o LOS designation
o Intersections that meet LOS designation
o Highway of Statewide Significance intersections – State has control over setting the LOS
o Non-Edmonds City intersection
• 2035 Intersection LOS
o Intersections that meet and do not meet LOS standard
o Highway of Statewide Significance intersections
• Recommended Capital Road Improvements (intersections and roadway improvements)
He explained virtually all the intersections that do not meet LOS standards in 2013 were in the previous
plan and are carried forward. He highlighted two projects on 84th and 238th that are primarily safety
improvements although they also improve roadway capacity by creating 3 lanes but are not specifically
needed to meet the LOS standard. He referred to a list of capital road projects in the Council packet.
Mr. Hauss reviewed a map of Existing and Recommended Walkways, projects identified by the
Transportation/Walkway Committee. The projects are located throughout the City including 27 long (over
1,000 feet in length) walkway projects and 12 short (less than 1,000 feet) walkway projects. Granting
agencies require walkways be identified in the Walkway Plan; these 39 projects that would be grant
eligible.
The projects were ranked by the Transportation/Walkway Committee using six criteria such as safety,
pedestrian safety, connectivity to transit, schools, etc. He identified the top ranked walkway projects:
• Long Walkways
1. 80th from 206th to 212th
2. 218th from 76th to 84th
• Short Walkways
1. Dayton Street across from Frances Anderson Center, a 250-foot section with no walkway on
the south side
2. 2nd Avenue between Main and James, a 100-foot section without sidewalks
Mr. Hauss described the pedestrian LOS standard:
LOS Within Pedestrian Priority Network
Green Provides pedestrian facility* as shown in Walkway Plan
Yellow Provides a lower-level pedestrian facility* than recommended in Walkway Plan
Red No pedestrian facility provided
Mr. Hauss displayed and reviewed a map of Recommended Bicycle Facilities, explaining the map
contains existing and proposed facilities. Facilities can be bike lanes where the roadway width allows
striping for bike lanes (may require removal of parking), bike sharrows in areas where the roadway is not
wide enough for bike lanes, and bike routes. The City secured a grant along with Lynnwood and
Mountlake Terrace for $1.9 million to do many of the bicycle facilities proposed on the map such as:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 7
• 76th from Olympic View Drive to 220th: convert from 4 lanes and 2 lanes with parking to 3 lanes
(1 northbound, 1 southbound and a center turn lane) and bike lanes on both sides. In areas where
there is parking, evaluation will be done with regard to remove parking on one side of street (part
of roadway is in Lynnwood).
• 212th from Five Corners to Highway 99: convert 4 lanes to 3 lane with bike lanes
• 220th from 84th to 76th: Currently 2 lanes with parking on both sides, as part of overlay, restripe to
add bike lanes
• Numerous bike routes
• Olympic View Drive from 196th/SR 524 to 76th: Bike sharrows (striping to alert drivers of the
possibility of bicycles)
Mr. Hauss described bicycle LOS standard:
LOS Within Bicycle Network
Green Provides bicycle facility* as shown in Bicycle Plan
Yellow Provides a lower-level facility* than recommended in Bicycle Plan
Red No bicycle facility provided
He summarized current and proposed bike facilities in the City:
• Bike Lanes
o Currently: 6 miles
o Proposed: 9 miles
• Bike Route Signage
o Currently: 5 miles
o Proposed: 20 miles
• Bike Sharrows
o Currently: 1.7 miles
o Proposed: 3 miles
• Bike Racks
o Proposed: Yost Park and City Park
Mr. Samdahl displayed and reviewed a map of Existing Transit Service, explaining transit planning is
required under GMA. Although transit service is not under the City’s control, there are things the City can
do to make transit accessible such as sidewalks and other crossing treatments. The map illustrates areas
within ¼ mile of bus stops and shows fairly high accessibility although grades and discontinuous streets
may affect access. He identified an area where bus service was removed by Community Transit 2-3 years
ago during budget problems.
Mr. Samdahl displayed and reviewed a Future Transit Map that was developed by working with
Community Transit. The map shows the same bus routes as the Existing Transit Service map and
identifies Priority Transit Corridors, areas where the City would work with Community Transit to provide
special amenities for bus service and to advocate for bus service in areas where it currently does not exist.
The map also identified New Transit Service Options. The map illustrates the proposed Link Light Rail to
Lynnwood; it is likely Community Transit will restructure bus service in the future to feed the light rail
stations which may provide opportunity for better local service. The plan will include a recommendation
to work closely with Community Transit on that.
Mr. Samdahl relayed next steps:
May 19 – Public hearing on draft Transportation Plan
May 26 – Council discussion on Draft Transportation Plan
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 8
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the Recommended Capital Road Improvements, and asked about
coordination with Snohomish County on road improvements on 84th which primarily runs through
Esperance. Mr. Hauss advised that project was identified in the previous plan; the cost in the previous
plan was approximately $20 million which would be split between the City and Snohomish County. Mr.
Samdahl will be updating the cost estimates. When the City discussed the project with Snohomish County
six years ago, it was also in their plan.
Councilmember Petso observed the existing Transportation Plan includes a table with LOS criteria
measured in seconds of delay per intersection. She asked whether any changes would be made to that
table or were the measurements in the presentation consistent with that table. Mr. Samdahl advised LOS
is measured in seconds of average delay at an intersection; those values have not changed and the same
table will be included in the plan.
With regard to state routes that are designated regional, Councilmember Petso asked why they are
designated LOS E instead of D. Mr. Samdahl answered although the City has some responsibility for
those intersections, they are still subject to the state defining the acceptable standard. In the case of
regional facilities such as the north portion of Highway 99, it is designated LOS E. The City could
propose a better LOS but that is the minimum. Councilmember Petso expressed interest in designating the
minimum as LOS D.
Councilmember Petso recalled the City is not required to designate LOS on routes of statewide
significance. She asked whether the City could choose to designate those intersections LOS D. Mr.
Samdahl responded the City is not required to do any analysis for concurrency requirements for the State
on highways of statewide significance; the City and State would have to agree to it. Councilmember Petso
said the reason she asked was when an intersection approaches LOS D, people end up cutting through
neighborhoods rather than waiting at the intersection, thus there may be some benefit to the City
designating its preferred LOS to be consistent with the policy of having traffic on arterials instead of in
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Petso referred to walkways projects L10 and L19 that did not appear to go the entire
length of the road. Mr. Hauss recalled there is existing sidewalk to the east. Councilmember Petso said
she was familiar with 232nd (L10) and it appeared a sidewalk as being proposed only for the west end. Mr.
Hauss said the intent was to complete missing links to connect to other sidewalks. He will research those
two.
Councilmember Petso recalled discussion regarding the Westgate plan that the 2012 study shows if
9th/100th is reduced from the current 5 lanes to 3 lanes to make room for bike lanes, the LOS will drop at
that intersection. She asked whether consideration was still being given to reducing that to three lanes or
was consideration being given to adding width for five lanes at the intersection and bike lanes. Mr. Hauss
recalled the LOS with bike lanes was D. Mr. Samdahl said that is still being reviewed and will be
presented to the SR 104 Committee next week. There will be some degradation of delay; consideration is
being given to a northbound right turn lane which would provide a better LOS than was indicated in the
study.
Councilmember Petso recalled Mr. Williams provided in last week’s packet for a Consent Agenda item a
table of traffic volumes that might allow reduction to three lanes; the measure was not ADT but
something else such as peak vehicles per direction. The current traffic at that intersection according to
that measure did not fall within the parameters of a successful road diet. Public Works Director Phil
Williams agreed, recalling the recommended per direction trips during afternoon peak hour was 750; the
number he provided was 790 which he noted was not a huge difference. That is only one of the metrics
used in analyzing whether a road diet was likely to be successful and accepted; there are a number of
others. That is still being analyzed and further information will be provided.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 9
Councilmember Petso observed the bicycle group had been consulted regarding routes but the public at
large or people living on those streets had not been consulted about their reaction to losing travel lanes or
parking. She asked whether the intent was to include the bike facilities in the plan and then take public
comment from those who are affected. Mr. Williams referred to the public hearing May 19 and further
Council discussion on May 26 where the public could provide comment. The intent is to entertain the
concept of a road diet with bike lanes as long as it does not have a significant negative impact on
congestion. The City Council will ultimately determine what a significant negative impact on congestion
is. The benefits of bike lanes for bicyclists, improved safety for pedestrians due to the buffer bike lanes
provide, as well as enhanced vehicle safety with three lanes versus four lanes, may come at a small
penalty on congestion. That can be discussed further in May.
Councilmember Petso requested staff notify people who rely on the parking outside their house of the
May 19 public hearing. Mr. Williams said the public hearing will be advertised but special mailings to
inform property owners that parking may be removed was not part of plan. Parking utilization at different
times of the day is being analyzed and will be considered. If parking is not well used, it may be
appropriate to sacrifice it for the benefits provided for non-motorized, pedestrian and vehicular safety.
Councilmember Mesaros inquired about citizen input received to date. Mr. Hauss said the ten
Transportation/Walkway Committee members who have various degrees of knowledge and interest in the
modes of transportation have been meeting monthly for the past six months. Staff has met with 8-9
members of the Edmonds Bike Group 2-3 times. Mr. Hauss added there was also an open house that was
advertised on the City’s website, the newspaper and other places.
Although she was not certain how it could be accomplished, Council President Fraley-Monillas supported
Councilmember Petso’s suggestion to notify the affected neighborhoods. She was recently contacted by a
resident near 100th complaining about neighbors parking on the parking strip instead of in their driveways.
Mr. Hauss advised there will be open houses regarding many of the projects such as the restriping on 76th
from 220th to Olympic View Drive. With regard to 100th, this is the first stage; there will still be a lot of
public involvement.
Councilmember Bloom appreciated the ranking done by the Transportation Committee with regard to the
walkways. She asked whether the entire list of walkway projects was from the existing Transportation
Plan. Mr. Hauss said the existing plan included approximately the same number of walkway projects; a
couple completed projects were removed and a couple were added. Mr. Samdahl advised 2-3 projects
were added by public as part of the open house and subsequently rated. Councilmember Bloom asked
staff to highlight those as well as the ones that have been completed and whether they were short or long
walkways. Mr. Hauss offered to send Council that information tomorrow.
Councilmember Johnson asked when the updated cost estimates and a financing plan would be available.
Mr. Samdahl said the cost estimates will be provided prior to the May 19 public hearing. Mr. Williams
referred to Councilmember Johnson’s reference to a financing plan, explaining the May 19 public hearing
will include a list of potential revenue sources to fund the projects. Councilmember Johnson said she
thought GMA required a financing plan. Mr. Williams advised a variety of potential funding sources will
be identified; how to proceed is a Council policy decision.
Councilmember Bloom asked how crosswalks fit into the Transportation Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hauss
advised the Walkway Map includes proposals for:
• Mid-block crossing at SR 104 and 232nd where there is currently an emergency traffic signal.
Consideration is being given to adding pedestrian activation with beacons
• Mid-block crossings on 100th north and south of Westgate
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 10
• Mid-block crossing to Community Transit bus stop near the intersection southbound on 5th before
the bridge over SR 104
Mr. Hauss explained staff receives requests for crosswalks on a regular basis but their installation depends
on the amount of pedestrian activity at the location. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the process to
get crosswalk on the list. Mr. Hauss said residents can call the Engineering Department who then does a
2-hour pedestrian study to determine if it meets the threshold to warrant a crosswalk. Councilmember
Bloom asked if that same process was used for determining the walkways that were added to the list. Mr.
Hauss explained the list of walkway project was developed by the Walkway Committee and in response
to public comment. An in-depth pedestrian study is conducted to determine the level of pedestrian activity
before a walkway project is added to the list. He explained research done at the national level found
installing a crosswalk where there is limited pedestrian activity can make it less safe because drivers do
not expect pedestrians versus installing a crosswalk where there is a lot of pedestrian activity.
Councilmember Bloom asked that the crosswalks that were added to the plan be included with the
information provided to Council regarding walkways.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to a blinking light on 76th Avenue SW at about 236th to cross
to a transit and school bus stop. When 76th was paved, the crosswalk was removed but the blinking light
remained. She suggested adding a crosswalk in that location. Mr. Hauss said a crosswalk was not
removed as part of the interurban trail; he asked if it was removed ten year ago. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said yes and suggested either installing a crosswalk or removing the blinking light.
Guest from Gambia
Emily Hill welcomed Babucarr Jallow, Executive Director of the Seattle Gambia Association.
Councilmember Peterson introduce here to Mr. Jallow when the community participated in the Edmonds
Embraces Diversity March at the waterfront; Mr. Jallow is a friend of Edmonds resident Dembo Sanneh.
Mr. Jallow introduced several delegates in the audience. He provided a history of Gambia, a small county
on the west coast of Africa, 420 kilometers long and 110 kilometers wide. Gambia was a British colony
for 400 years. Gambians are very peace loving people and have been called the smiling coast of West
Africa and nicknamed, Gambia no problem. Dembo Sanneh, the person affected at the Edmonds
waterfront, did not react which illustrates how peace loving Gambians are. A lot people come from
Gambia to the United States due to political tension. Gambians are flocking to the northwest and Seattle
area primarily because it is considered very quiet, peace loving and welcoming. A lot of Gambians live in
the Snohomish County area. He expressed appreciation for everything the Council and Edmonds and
Snohomish County communities are doing. They only ask for more open and welcoming doors because
they are part of the community.
9. EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT 2014 REPORT
Municipal Court Judge Linda Coburn thanked Court Administrator Joan Ferebee for developing the
numbers for the report and the PowerPoint, Probation Officer Rick Bomar who provided numbers
regarding jail alternatives and Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless and Executive Assistant Caroline
Thompson for providing information regarding police staffing issues.
Judge Coburn reviewed a comparison of filings 2009-2014, explaining the purpose of court is not to
generate revenue but to provide a well needed governmental service to the community. The court is
reactive to legislation by Washington government as well as the Council and is impacted by Police levels
of service. Filings in 2014 of 5800 were below the normal range of 7700-7900. In 2012 the Court also
experienced below normal filings. One explanation was adjustments in police staffing. ACOP Lawless
explained in 2014 dedicated patrol was below the level of service for much of the year due to 3 vacant
positions, 3 new officers at the academy, and 2-3 sick or injured officers which greatly impacted the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 11
number of filings. In May 2014 the highest producing traffic officer resigned. His position has been
replaced but due to staffing to fill vacancies, that person has not yet transitioned to the traffic unit. As
happened in 2013, filings increased when staffing issues normalized; she expected that to occur in 2015.
She reviewed a comparison of types of case filings 2009-2014 (traffic infractions, non-traffic infractions
(dogs or nuisance) parking infractions, DWI, criminal traffic and criminal non-traffic). She reviewed a
comparison of revenues 2009-2014, explaining if filings are down, revenues are also down. She displayed
a Revenue Status Report for 2014, noting when revenues are down, net revenues are also down. A large
portion of the revenue collected by the Court is remitted to the State.
Judge Coburn reviewed an Expenditure Status Report, relaying expenses were under budget. The
previous Judge anticipated starting a paperless court project. That has not happen yet but is the goal and
funds have been set aside from Court Improvement Funds for that.
She reviewed Passport Revenue 2002 to 2014, explaining passports are not typically the responsibility of
the court in other cities. The number of passports processed has been increasing. Staff plans to collect
better data regarding the amount of time passport processing takes to better assess the best way to provide
this service to the public.
She explained although jail costs are not specifically related to the Court’s budget, the Court’s efforts
reduce jail costs. Jail alternatives include electronic home monitoring (EHM), out-of-custody work crew,
and community service. In 2014 the cost of a jail day at Snohomish County Jail was $66.63/day and
increased in 2015 to $85/day plus a booking fee. Alternatives to jail translate to savings to the City. In
2014 defendants spent 94 days on EHM and 120 days on a SCRAM (alcohol sensor-monitoring) bracelet,
30 days on out-of-custody work crews and 2,528 hours of community service for a total savings of over
$94,000 in jail costs. The Court will continue looking at alternatives to jail and imposing them when
appropriate.
The City receives money from the State by having the judicial position an elected position, designated for
court improvement costs. Since 2006 the City has received $101,986. As of December 31, 2014, $39,090
has been expended from this account on various court improvements, leaving a balance of approximately
$63,000. She expressed willingness to dedicate part of the funds for improvements to the Council
Chambers/Courtroom. Recent enhancements include the addition of a phone tree and she anticipated
online payments will be possible in the near future.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about future court improvements. Judge Coburn said one of them is an
improved audio system due to problems with the existing FTR system. Marysville also has a combined
City Council and Court facility; the City’s IT Department has agreed to talk with them about the
program/application they use. Currently equipment for the video in-custody hearings must be hooked up
by staff when it is needed; if video equipment were mounted, it could be used by both the Council and the
Court. Councilmember Johnson observed the Council has experienced some technical difficulties as well.
Councilmember Nelson asked when the daily jail cost will increase from $66 to $85. Judge Coburn said it
did in 2015. She said that is the baseline cost; the daily cost increases for inmates with medical or mental
health issues. Councilmember Nelson asked if there was a cap on the amount. Judge Coburn said it is in
the contract.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented inmates on Medicare do not qualify to have their
medications paid for while they are incarcerated. She asked whether defendants are still being sent to the
jail in Yakima. Judge Coburn answered yes for long term incarceration (over 14 days) because the daily
jail cost is less than the Snohomish County Jail.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 12
Procedure Discussion regarding Item 12
Mayor Earling advised 20 minutes has been allocated for both proponents and opponents of the project.
Anticipating that many of the audience members were in opposition, he suggested they get together and
determine who would be best to address Council within the 20 minutes at 3 minutes each.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess, requesting audience members not engage Councilmembers during
the break as this is a closed record review.
Mayor Earling relayed his understanding many people in the audience would like an opportunity to speak.
There are 24 people signed in to speak which represents approximately 1½ hours of testimony and equal
time is provided to both parties. After Item 10, the meeting will likely last another 2-3 hours. He said it
was up to Council how to proceed.
Councilmember Petso observed the people in the audience have already been here for over 2 hours and
she preferred to allow them an opportunity to speak.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso, and inquired about the guidelines. Mayor
Earling explained each speaker will have three minutes and in theory limited to the two issues that are
before the Council.
Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified no new information can be presented. Mayor Earling
explained a closed record review is on the same information that was provided previously to the Hearing
Examiner; no new information is to be presented. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the
Council was provided those comments. Mayor Earling advised the Council was not and asked City
Attorney Jeff Taraday to explain. Mr. Taraday said because this must be on the record and because there
is the possibility of litigation following this hearing, he preferred not to have some of the discussion
before the budget amendment and some after. He suggested the Council either not discuss the budget
amendment tonight or continue this discussion after that agenda item to prevent a bifurcated discussion.
Mayor Earling asked Finance Director Scott James if the budget amendment could be delayed until next
week. Mr. James agreed it could.
10. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015
BUDGET
This item was delayed until next week’s Council meeting.
12. CLOSED-RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON
PROPOSED FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the packet includes a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner
and the Council is being asked to approve or reject that recommendation. Unfortunately it was discovered
today that the summary of testimony that the Hearing Examiner was supposed to attach to his
recommendation was not actually attached. For that reason, the Council does not have the entire record;
the summary of testimony is an important part of the record. Without a transcript or audio recording, the
summary of testimony is supposed be the Council’s opportunity to review the testimony as well as allow
the parties to ensure that neither side is inserting new information into the record. That information was
provided to the Council late this afternoon and he assumed most had not had an opportunity to review it.
For that reason, Mr. Taraday recommend even if the Council gets most of the way through the hearing
tonight that the record be left open for the Council to come back next week or as soon as practicable to
ask questions based on the summary of testimony as well as to allow clarifications or possible rebuttal
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 13
from the parties based on the questions. He anticipated that part of the hearing would significantly shorter
as there may not be any questions.
Councilmember Johnson asked how to ensure no new information is provided. Mr. Taraday answered
even if the summary of testimony was available and even if the Council had studied it, it was difficult to
know. For that reason, it is up to the parties to object when one of them is under the impression that new
information is being presented. Mr. Clugston and he will do their best to interrupt a speaker who is
providing new information. He clarified this is not testimony. At the end of all the oral argument, the
parties will be provided an opportunity at the next meeting to object to the introduction of new evidence if
they heard something improper and can seek to have it stricken from record.
Councilmember Johnson observed the closed record review is based on the Hearing Examiner’s report
and all the information presented. In his summary he stated certain items were outside the purview of his
consideration, specifically two issues, the type of turf and lighting because the School District withdrew
that request. She asked if that was the framework for testimony. Mr. Taraday suggested he answer that
question and any other substantive questions after the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine disclosures.
Mayor Earling explained the purpose of this closed record review is for the City Council to consider the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner with regard to the following applications submitted by the
Edmonds School District:
• PLN20140065 (design review)
• PLN20140066 (height variance for ball control fencing in the RS-8 zone)
• The portion of PLN20140067 relating to a Conditional Use Permit for bleachers and ball control
fencing height in the OS zone.
Tonight’s hearing follows a Type III-B process where the Hearing Examiner forwards a recommendation
to the City Council for a final decision. Unlike hearings before the Hearing Examiner, participation in
tonight’s hearing is limited to parties of record. The parties of record include the applicant, any person
who testified at the open record public hearing on the applications and any person who individually
submitted written comments concerning the applications at the open record public hearing.
Mayor Earling explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires the hearing be fair in form,
substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. He asked
whether any member of the decision-making body has engaged in any oral or written communication with
opponents or proponents of the project outside the presence of the other party.
Councilmember Johnson said she has not had any discussion with any members. She read a couple of
emails related to turf until she was informed by Mr. Taraday that Councilmembers should delete those.
Councilmember Bloom said she not had any discussions. She opened one email from Nick Brossoit
because she did not realize it was about the Woodway Fields. As soon as she realized it was, she stopped
reading.
Councilmember Petso said she had a number of contacts prior to learning this was a closed record review
and she has provided those to Mr. Taraday. She received subsequent emails from Hilser, Wills, Bill,
Nusava, Zackey, Lindsey, Plumis, Bauer, McGuire, Pinson, Brossoit, Bloom, Wall, Brossoit and Davis.
Because of the instruction not to engage in outside contact, she filed these away and did not particularly
read them other than to ascertain that they were on this topic. To the best of her knowledge she has not
gained any information that is not already in tonight’s packet.
Councilmember Mesaros said he did not have any discussions with any individuals regarding this topic.
He did received emails but when he saw the subject, he deleted them.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 14
Councilmember Nelson said he has not had any discussions. Similar to Councilmember Johnson, he
received a couple emails regarding the turf but did not read them after hearing from Mr. Taraday.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has not talked to any of the parties regarding the playfield but
has opened couple of emails which she immediately forwarded to Mr. Taraday or trashed upon learning
they were regarding the ballfields. Any emails she has received since Mr. Taraday instructed the Council
not to open she has put in the recycle bin.
Mayor Earling said he not had any conversations regarding this issue. He received some of same emails
and followed the same process that Councilmembers spoken of.
For Councilmembers who actually read the substance of an email regarding this topic either before or
after he advised them not to, Mr. Taraday requested they forward the emails to him. He will compile them
in a packet for the next meeting to provide an advance opportunity for those statements to be rebutted.
The purpose of this exercise is to ensure if one party is contacting Councilmembers outside the official
process, the other party has an opportunity to rebut. Councilmember Petso said she previously sent the list
to Mr. Taraday and she preferred the City Clerk provide copies of the emails to avoid her seeing them
again. Mr. Taraday agreed that was appropriate.
Mayor Earling asked whether any member of Council had a conflict of interest and believed he/she could
not hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner.
Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmembers Nelson, Mesaros, Petso, Bloom, and Johnson
and Mayor Earling said they had no conflicts and could hear the matter in a fair and impartial manner.
Mayor Earling asked if any audience member objected to his or any other Councilmember’s participation
as a decision-maker in the hearing. No objections were voiced.
Mayor Earling asked the Council whether they agreed to the following procedure for the presentation of
oral argument: 5 minutes for staff, an as yet to be determined length of comment, both parties will have
equal time if they choose to use it, the applicant can reserve time for rebuttal, and Council can ask
questions of staff after arguments have been made. At that point Council may decide they want to have
additional oral argument on one or more issues.
Before beginning the presentations, Mr. Taraday recommended establishing a total amount of time for the
applicant and opposing parties. Because the applicant goes first, the applicant needs to know the total
amount of time in order to reserve time for rebuttal. Mayor Earling observed there are 24 people signed
up which equates to 72 minutes. Mr. Taraday explained there is no legal requirement that each speaker be
provided three minutes to speak. He suggested asking how many in the audience wished to speak; 17
audience members indicated their intent to speak. Mayor Earling observed at 3 minutes each, that equates
to 51 minutes; both sides will be allocated that amount of time. Mr. Taraday reiterated the Council is not
legally required to provide speakers 3 minutes to speak. In order to speak tonight, the speakers have
already spoken to the Hearing Examiner and a summary of that testimony has been provided to the
Council. Mayor Earling advised each person would be provided three minutes; they could shorten the
length of their comment if they wished.
Staff Presentation
Planner Mike Clugston displayed an aerial photo explaining the project is design review and Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) for ball control fencing and bleachers in the OS zone portion of the site and a variance
for ball control fencing in the RS-8 portion of the site. The lighting element was removed by the School
District.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 15
He displayed an excerpt from the PROS Plan, “Implement previous community process to work with the
Edmonds School District to redevelop the former Woodway High School site into a regional sports and
recreation asset with adult soccer/multi-sports turf fields, providing for year-round recreation options and
serving a growing community. Involve the community in design development.”
He displayed a drawing of the site, explaining the intent to replace two existing fields on the site with two
new fields, soccer fields at the southwest corner of the site and softball elements and ball control fencing
around the perimeter of the site and bleachers for patron seating, walkways and associated other activity
features around the site. The Architectural Design Board looked at the project in its entirety including the
lighting and unanimously recommended approval with conditions on March 4, 2015. The Hearing
Examiner recommended approval in his decision dated March 26, 2015. On April 15, 2015 the School
District submitted a letter removing the playfield lighting element from the project.
He explained the record provided for Council review, in addition to the summary of testimony received
from the Hearing Examiner today, includes:
Exhibit 1: Staff Report
Exhibit 2: PowerPoint at Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 3: Poster from Davis/Markiel
Exhibit 4: Photo from Cain-Lewis
Exhibit 5: Materials from Wall
Exhibit 6: Public hearing sign-in sheet
Exhibit 7: Hearing Examiner’s recommendation
Councilmember Mesaros requested Mr. Taraday answer Councilmember Johnson’s earlier question. Mr.
Taraday recognized the City has received many comments expressing concern about the possible negative
health effects associated with crumb rubber turf. That issue was not before the Hearing Examiner for
consideration and it is not before the Council for consideration. There was no recorded developed at the
Hearing Examiner for the Council to review. Crumb rubber is something the City does not regulate; it is a
matter for the School District to decide whether they want to use grass, crumb rubber or some other
substance. The issue of lighting was before the Hearing Examiner and he recommended denial. The
School District subsequently withdrew their application for lighting. By virtue of that withdrawal there is
no basis for the Council to consider lighting related issues.
Councilmember Mesaros relayed his understanding tonight the Council was being asked to decide about
fencing and bleachers. Mr. Taraday clarified the Council will not be deciding anything tonight; the
Council hear oral argument on the bleachers and fencing, a decision will be made at the Council’s next
meeting.
Councilmember Petso asked how much fencing this project will include and whether it was fencing at 30
feet high all the way around or a 30-foot back stop and lesser fencing elsewhere. Mr. Clugston referred to
Exhibit 1, Attachment 3, sheets F2.5 and F2.6 (construction drawings) that show the proposed fencing.
The backstops will be the higher elements behind the softball field home plate area. The ball control
fencing of a lower height extends from the backstop along first and third baselines for safety reasons.
Councilmember Petso asked the approximate height of the “lower height” fencing. Mr. Clugston
answered 30-foot backstop, 20-foot netting over chain link adjacent to the backstop, 15-foot over 8-foot
chain link adjacent to that, 8-foot chain link and 10-foot chain link adjacent to those. He summarized it
varied from 8 feet to a maximum of 30 feet in the backstop area.
Councilmember Petso asked about the seating capacity in the bleachers. Mr. Clugston deferred to the
School District. The plans indicate there would be two small bleachers in the area around home plate and
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 16
one more. This is only the design but the School District indicated the bleachers were used in the parking
calculation. He did not recall the number of seats.
Councilmember Bloom referred to an issue raised in the letters in the packet regarding field orientation
and asked whether that could be addressed. Mr. Clugston deferred to the School District on their choice of
field orientation. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that was an issue before the Council. Mr.
Clugston said the only issues being considered tonight are the ball control fencing and the bleachers.
Applicant Presentation
Edward Peters, Capital Projects Director, Edmonds School District, introduced legal counsel Kristine
Wilson, Perkins Coie; and Bob Harding, Project Designer, DA Hogan. Mr. Peters said he would
summarize what was presented to the Hearing Examiner Closed record hearing and asked to reserve time
for rebuttal.
Before the Council tonight are the District’s permit applications for design review, a height variance for
ball control fencing in the RS-8 zone and a CUP for bleachers and fencing in the OS zone for two fields
in the southwest corner of the property. The District withdrew its application for lighting; therefore issues
related to lighting and the impacts associated with lighting are not part of this decision. City staff and the
Hearing Examiner both recommend approval of the fencing and bleacher permits for the two fields and
the School District respectfully requests Council approval to allow the project to proceed.
This project arose from grassroots’ requests and was developed as a collaborative effort between the City
and School District and has undergone extensive planning and review. He has been working on it for
about ten years. In 2008 the voters of the District approved a capital levy that explicitly and specifically
provided initial funding for this project. It is supported by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The District
underwent design review with the City as well as Hearing Examiner review.
For the ball control fence, the City’s code imposes a maximum height of 15 feet for accessory structures
in the RS-8 zone; the District is requesting a 30-foot fence to enhance safety which requires a variance.
The bleachers require a CUP under the City’s code. There are 5 sets of bleachers in the design which
provide seating for about 60 people each for a total of about 300 people. Parents have said they like to sit
while watching their kids play soccer.
Mr. Peters summarized the issues before the Council are fairly simple and straight forward. The staff and
Hearing Examiner have recommended approval and the District respectfully requests the Council approve
the permits to allow this project to proceed.
Kristine Wilson, Perkins Coie, said she did not appear before Hearing Examiner but will limit her
comments to legal argument about the process. She expected the Council may hear comments in
opposition that raise issues outside the scope of the record and permit applications. The District withdrew
its application for lighting so issues related to lighting and any impacts associated with lighting are not
before the Council. The issue of whether or not the District installs crumb rubber fields or some other turf
material is also not before the Council, does not requires a City permit and is an issue for the School
District to decide at a future Board meeting. Permitting for future phases of the project, Phases 2 and 3,
which are dependent on future District and public funding are also not before the Council.
Ms. Wilson explained the School District is the lead agency for SEPA review and in accordance with
SEPA rules and the District’s SEPA policies and procedures the District issued a Determination of Non-
Significance (DNS) for Phase 1. The District will conduct further SEPA review at such time as it is ready
to proceed with future phases such as lighting if and when that occurs. The issues before the Council are
limited; the permits are limited to design review, bleachers and the 5-foot height variance of the ball
control fencing. Staff and the Hearing Examiner both recommend approval and the District respectfully
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 17
requests the permits be approved. She relayed the District’s request to reserve the balance of its time for
rebuttal.
Parties of Record (POR)
Mark Wall, Edmonds, displayed a map from the record. He commented this property is the last open
space in Edmonds that is not tidelands or marsh. Community meetings started with the introduction that
recreational sports teams generate over $100 million in revenue in the State which indicated this was
about money. Everything about this project has been a rush, ask questions later. He referred to the nearby
intersection that is already impacted by ferry traffic in the summer, noting the District has said this project
will have no effect. He commented on parking for the Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club in their
neighborhood and in the District’s lot. The District stated in the SEPA checklist they will obey all noise
ordinances but later say they are exempt from all noise ordinances. Mr. Harding was notified on
December 15 that it is a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, an area with endangered, threatened
and sensitive species. The site is a known migration route, there are Bald Eagles, owls, hawks, yet the
SEPA checklist states no wildlife seen in the area. Their response to noise when expanding from two
fields to four is noise will be about the same, in fact will be quieter because there will not be a lawn
mower. He found the responses in the SEPA checklist disingenuous.
Mr. Wall said he hired his own traffic engineer who stated for projects less than this he is forced do a
traffic study and pay all the fees; he questioned how the District could get around that especially in one of
the busiest intersections. He testified to the Hearing Examiner that the SEPA statement was fraudulent
and the Hearing Examiner found that was outside the City’s jurisdiction because the City is not the lead
agency. However WAC 197-11-340 requires the School District withdraw the DNS if there is new
information indicating a probable significant adverse environmental impact or it was procured through
misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure. He recalled the Hearing Examiner stating in thousands of
cases he has done, he has never seen a permit chopped up like this to avoid the cumulative impact of a
project; all he was ruling on was fence, bench and lights. He encouraged the Council to read the
information in the record. When this was over, whatever the decision, he urged Councilmembers to
contact him so that he could provide the information he has compiled.
Christi Davis, Brier, agreed the SEPA statement was fraudulent. The District has refused her request to
pull it. She asked the City not to go into this with unclean hands; to hold themselves above it and conduct
themselves as they should. In the SEPA statement, the City acknowledges the fields are pollution
generating surfaces and that the stormwater will empty into Deer Creek from which Olympic View Water
gets its drinking water supply. The City’s stormwater engineer decided not to require the District comply
with 2005 Western Washington Stormwater and Sewer Standards because he thought it would
excessively burden the project with capital and maintenance costs. Therefore stormwater entering Deer
Creek will not be properly filtered; the filter media that has been selected is not designed to properly filter
the water which will be toxic to aquatic wildlife. She asked the Council to protect the environment, honor
the wishes of Edmonds’ wishes who have said open space and parks are a priority. These fields are only a
priority for the sports leagues who think children cannot play on grass.
Ms. Wilson asked for clarification when objections can be made regarding information that is outside the
record. Mr. Taraday suggested the School District representatives and opponents sit the tables in the front
of the room. He said objections could be made as comments are made or they could be made next week.
He recognized the bell cannot be un-rung.
Sierra Johnson, Edmonds, a freshman at Edmonds Heights, said the field is used as it is by numerous
classes, students and members of the public. People sit on the fields during lunch or to read and classes
including science, PE, and photography often use the field during school hours. Science uses it to explore
the outdoors, students run and play games in the grass during PE and it is a gorgeous area to take pictures
during photography class. Installing turf will take away the greatest form of education this field provides
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 18
the school. She questioned how turf will fulfill the requirement for the field and the area around the
school to be used for educational purposes. The only way to fulfill that would be to bus in students from
other schools that already have own turf fields. Although sports are wonderful, the field can be used for
much more wonderful things. This area is loved by students and teachers and is used all the time. Her
science teacher has come within 25 feet of a Bald Eagle on the field and Bald Eagles, owls, woodpeckers
and many birds and wildlife can be seen feeding on the field and in their natural habitat in the forested
area. She referred to the award-winning high school theater program with over 50 shows a year that
completely fill the parking lot. This campus is a place her siblings and hundreds of students will grow up
learning on; she and many parents want them to grow up in a safe, clean and natural environment.
Kate Smith, Edmonds, a resident east of the old Woodway High School on 234th Place SW, whose
children attend Edmonds Heights K-12. Ms. Wilson asked if she was a POR. Ms. Smith said she
submitted written comment to the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Smith referred to the District’s indication that
the bleachers will provide seating for 300 observers; the information states there are 239 parking spaces.
The theater program at the school uses a lot of parking spaces on many nights. She summarized parking
will be a big issue for neighbors. She referred to the presentation of plants to the Council earlier in the
meeting, noting everyone enjoyed that and it brought them together as a community. Her family attends
school at Edmonds Heights but they and others also uses the fields in the afternoons, summer evenings,
and on weekends as open space and it is extremely important not to remove the last green open space. In
the San Jose area, there are thousands of acres of open space within five minutes of nearly anywhere in
the Bay area and the passage of Measure Q in November 2014 allocated 15,000 more acres. King
County’s goal is 500,000 acres of open space; they have current protected 142,000 acres. Vienna has the
most open space of any open space in the world with 51% of their city land allocated as open space; each
person has 120 square meters of open space. Open space is very important for a livable and wonderful
city. She urged the Council to consider the other places for turf that would not remove this valuable
resource.
Susie Schaefer, Pilchuck Audubon Society, said Pilchuck Audubon Society’s concerns are with the
SEPA review that did not acknowledge migratory birds or wildlife in the area. They have documented
neotropical migrants in the area. The Society is also concerned there should have been an EIS instead of a
simple SEPA checklist that allows no research or review. She referred to the plan for construction,
explaining birds were singing in that area yesterday which signifies they are getting ready to nest. There
are a lot of nesting birds in the immediate area where the fencing and bleachers will be installed
particularly at the south end. She provided a picture of a Pileated Woodpecker, a Fish and Wildlife
priority species that has been documented in the area. If the field project proceeds, she was interested in
mitigation to modify and improve the impact on fish and wildlife. She suggested many cities are
outlawing crumb rubber.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Emma Johnson, Edmonds, a sixth grader at Edmonds Heights K-12, explained math, science and
engineering classes use the field a lot. If turf fields are installed, these classes will not be able to explore
for nature. Students see birds of all kinds; she loves birds. She referred to an Audubon Society article that
documented Pileated Woodpeckers which is listed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as an
important bird because of its impact on the ecosystem, as well as neotropical species of swallow, yellow
rumped warbler and green violet swallow in the trees surrounding the fields, birds that are protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. She questioned why the Audubon Society and she can see these birds in
the area, yet when the School District filled out the SEPA checklist they stated there were no known
migrating birds or important species of birds. This property is meant to be used for school education and
she felt the fields were being built for private sports teams and not school education; Edmonds Heights
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 19
does not have a school sport team that practices on the fields. She suggested spending some of the money
for this project on better grass fields that students can use too.
Greg Cain, Edmonds, resident west of the property next to the green belt, congratulated the School
District for allowing comments that seem to be outside the narrow purpose of this review. By voting
yes/no on the narrow purpose, the City Council can speak to larger matters that are important to the
community and have not been fully heard during the process so far. He believed when a jurisdiction
develops a project for the public good it is inherent on that jurisdiction and fair policy to mitigate the
impact of the development on those who are adversely affected. According to the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) for areas zoned as open space, the predominant zone to be developed by this
project, section 16.65.01 permits the use of playgrounds or playfields providing that they are developed
on previously cleared land. Chapter 16.80 of the ECDC, the public use ordinance, the primary description
of purpose, item a, states, provide for siting and development of regional public facilities to be located in
and near residential areas and to establish standards which minimize the impact of these facilities on
nearby properties. There is no plan to minimize or mitigate noise; the plan relies on a City ordinance that
exempts any playfield noise from restriction with no accounting for noise level, frequency or duration.
The notion that somehow the greenbelt with reduce sound levels is not accurate; the District’s own
architect admits the greenbelt is virtually transparent.
Mr. Cain displayed a photograph of the greenbelt along the west side of the property, which in his
experience is acoustically transparent. There is no plan for mitigation of airborne pollutants; if residents
can smell the turf, they will be inhaling plasticizers and vulcanizing chemicals that are carcinogenic.
There is no acknowledgement or plan to mitigate the impact on surrounding property values; this plan
affects the single most forested neighborhood within the city limits. Homeowners choose to live in
Sherwood Forest due to the natural forested setting. Placing the project in the middle of this community
seriously degrades the desirability of any property within earshot of the playfield. These factors are not
compatible with the public use code that asks a project to minimize impacts on the nearby community; in
this case there seems to have hardly been any effort at all.
Cade Johnson, Edmonds, a 9-year old in third grade at Edmonds Height K-12, said two of his favorite
classes are two outdoor science and aeronautics. His outdoor science class uses the fields to explore
nature and study the environment. His aeronautics class uses the space to fly rockets they make in class.
During recess students use the field to play; they love the grass fields. Sometimes they see an eagle in the
trees. He also plays lacrosse and loves to play on grass fields. He described what he does to staff safe
when playing on artificial turf fields: he wears long tights and shirts to totally cover his body even in
summer, he does not eat or drink while on the field and when he is done he takes off all his equipment
and puts it his sports bag and showers when he gets home. In the summer artificial turf smells like
burning tires; he has heard stinky tires may cause cancers. If turf fields are installed at his school, they
will not be able to use them as an outdoor classroom and students will lose a place to place at recess and
during PE because they cannot shower afterwards. He knew the City wanted to put in more playing fields
but he did not think the fields should be more important than his school and learning. He definitely did
not think kids should have to worry about getting cancer from playing sports. There should be grass fields
or a safe type of artificial field. He urged the Council to do what’s right for his school and health.
Mike Meints, Seattle, expressed concern that the noise ordinance would not apply to these fields. There
previously was one football and one baseball field on the site; the proposal is for four fields. He used to
live next to Pop Keeney Stadium; after the field was improved, the noise was constant and included
amplification. He was uncertain whether amplification was proposed at this field and hoped it was not.
The Planning Director decided not to include lights due to traffic; he noted the traffic problem will be the
same during the day regardless of whether there are lights. He summarized there are too many fields for
this area and the driveway access is not adequate for four fields. Installation of four fields will drastically
affect the neighborhood and change the current conditions. He and his son walk the field often and see
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 20
many others using the field. The way this project is packaged piece by piece is not right; a person building
a house is required to have the entire project approved. Not having any environmental protection for what
can happen and not allowing residents to discuss the fields that will be installed is not right. He suggested
he could stack tires on his property because it did not matter what washed off them. He is totally against
this project as it totally changes the existing field.
Kristine Wear, Edmonds, speaking for people who do not have a voice, people with disabilities such as
herself with Multiple Sclerosis and the elderly, explained are several people on her street who are
disabled; half are in their late 60 and 70s, and their houses are within 300 feet of the project on the south
end. Due to physical and financial limitations they do not have the luxury of getting away during the day
and on weekends; they depend on environments within their neighborhood for exercise. A huge part of
their enjoyment is the wildlife habitat conservation area of the Woodway fields. On her good days she and
her dog walk to the fields, listen to the birds and watch forest animals play in the grass; it is a great place
to meet neighbors and enjoy wildlife. Walking in a peaceful wildlife environment is imperative to her and
her neighbors’ ability to maintain their health. The School District and City want the fields for select team
from throughout the northwest, healthy, wealthy adults who have many choices of where to exercise; the
neighbors do not have those choices. She questioned how the City and School District could ignore the
disabled and elderly in the community by taking their neighborhood away in favor of dollars. Verdant
states on their webpage, “We are working to improve the health and wellbeing of our community.” She
questioned how Verdant, the City, the School District was improving the health and wellbeing of the
disabled and elderly financially challenged people who live 300 feet from the Woodway fields. She
moved to Edmonds six years ago because she thought the City was concerned for the environment and
had respect for everyone. She and her neighbors already live challenging lives; she questioned how the
City and School District could take away the beautiful wildlife the Woodway fields offer them.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, explained she recently began installing a decorative fence in her front yard.
Per City code, a fence under 6 feet with a 15-foot setback from the right-of-way does not require a permit.
Her fence is 4 feet tall and setback 20 feet from the public right-of-way. A few weeks ago the City
informed her that her front yard is considered a critical area buffer because it contains a small creek and
as such she must obtain a permit before building a fence. She is constructing the fence to create a visual
marker and turn the front 25 feet of her property into a native growth buffer that will protect the creek and
the possibility of future salmon. Mr. Clugston informed her she must hire a qualified stream biologist to
do an environmental study and submit a report before her permit will be approved. This will be a personal
cost of a few thousand dollars to determine if her fence will harm the critical area buffer. She plans to hire
a biologist and provide the City with an environmental study to show she will not have a negative impact
on the critical area. If the City requires a resident to go to such careful measures to ensure a tiny creek and
its buffers are protected, she questioned how it can allow this project to proceed without an environmental
study. The proposed fields with their 30-foot fence, bleachers, lights and acres of artificial turf will be
installed on land that is surrounded by a wooded area designated as State Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Area. The City has accepted the School District’s SEPA checklist finding of non-significance and
therefore not requiring the District to provide any environmental impact study for this project. In essence
the City is requiring her to provide an environmental study to show her small fence will not harm the
environment, yet they are allowing the School District to proceed with this massive project. She was
concerned with the negative effect this project will have on the environment and health of the residents.
She urged the Council to use the same standards for this project that are used for her fence.
Jen Carrigan, Edmonds, said her son attends Edmonds Heights based in the former Woodway High
School and her family enjoys recreational activities on the field many days of the week. She shared her
deep concern with the use of crumb rubber on the fields and the potential risk to the surrounding
environment as well as the health hazards for children who play on the field, the neighboring wildlife,
water runoff into Puget Sound. Edmonds is a beautiful community that purports to care deeply about the
stewardship of the surrounding natural resources and the health and welfare of its children and residents.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 21
Her son’s class of 7-9 year olds shared their concerns about the future health impacts on them, their
friends, their family, the wildlife, the trees, grass and Puget Sound. With so many questions and concerns
about the use of crumb rubber, she urged the decision makers to do the right thing for kids and either use
a non-toxic substance or keep the natural grass. She preferred to pay the small cost of either non-toxic
substance of natural grass rather that the untold potential toll on the health of children and natural
resources.
Jean Sayers, Edmonds, requested Mr. Walls speak for her because she has laryngitis. Mr. Walls
paraphrased her written statement, stating everything about this project is disingenuous. It was originally
described as a regional sports complex; once negative feedback was received, it was referred to as the
health and wellness campus, painting a picture that there was a registered dietitian and blood pressure
monitoring stations. The solution for this development is don’t ask, don’t follow rules and regulations,
ignore City and State laws and statutes. The way this gets done is private businesses email thousands of
parents that these fields are needed and asking that they email the City. Emails have been provided by
Pacific Little League, Northwest Nationals. The Director of Coaching for Northwest Nationals lives in
West Seattle but comes to Edmonds to tell them what their neighborhood needs. As a coaching director,
Mr. Walls said the going rate for coaches in select soccer teams who charge kids $250/month, is over
$10,000/year per team and many coach 3 teams. A coaching director makes $60,000/year. This is why the
fields are needed; it is a business. An example of how residents are not being treated fairly: both sides
sent emails to express their opinions. For those that expressed support to Ms. Hite in the Parks
Department invited them to the Hearing Examiner and Council meetings. When residents expressed
concern, they were told don’t worry about it, it was something the City needed. The Parks Department is
lobbying for support; it is not a fair fight.
Mr. Taraday said Mr. Clugston was provided 24 photos prior to the meeting, 20 of which were new
evidence and they were removed. The pictures provided to the Hearing Examiner are still in the folder.
Mr. Wall explained these pictures were provided by the coach of the University of Washington Women’s
Soccer who was not allowed to present at the Hearing Examiner meeting. Randy Burke, Edmonds,
acknowledged there are two issues, the bleachers and the fence. Ms. Johnson made a good point regarding
her fence and that the School District is not held to the same standards as a resident. The School District
plans to install 5 bleachers with seating for 60 people each, a total of 300 people. He pointed out 2 fields
with 2 teams each is another 80 people bringing the total to 380 with parking spaces for 304 cars. Parking
for school functions will also compete with the field users. There is one road in and out of the site; he
anticipated 300 cars coming and going for games throughout the day could be up to 1200 cars/day. He
encouraged Councilmembers to observe the intersection after a school function when a mere 200 cars are
leaving the site or after school when school buses are leaving the site. He questioned who would be held
liable for accidents at the bottom of the hill. He suggested the lighting was removed in an end run to get
the fields in and he anticipate the fields would have lighting sooner or later. He urged the City to make
everyone accountable from the beginning and to make their decision after looking at the area.
Maggie Pinson, Edmonds, said ideas that began 10 years ago may not be good ideas in 2015. She
learned today that the District withdrew their application for lights, perhaps due to the Hearing
Examiner’s decision that lights would increase field use during evening hours when peak traffic
congestion is at its worst. The Hearing Examiner also said bleachers would bring in a lot of people. She
pointed out the fields will be most intensively used during the summer when the sun sets late and areas
stay well lit into the evening without artificial illumination. Also during the summer, ferry traffic is at its
peak in the evening due to commuters and vacationers. Adding artificial sports turf with bleachers will
increase traffic congestion at the most congested intersection, 100th & Edmond Way. Organized sports
leagues say they want more organized sports fields but not why they need to use the unique, beautiful,
natural setting at the campus utilized by Edmonds Height and others. The beauty and natural features are
quite stunning; there are better locations for developed sports fields than in the heart of a neighborhood.
She wanted the beautiful grass fields to remain natural dirt and grass. Other than the Edmonds Marsh and
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 22
the beach along Puget Sound, these grass fields that are designated open space are the only remaining
land designated open space in the entire City. When old growth timber was logged, a perimeter of forest
was left intact around the grass fields. The forested perimeter is the Fish and Wildlife conservation area
that provides nesting, shelter, food and water for local and migratory birds who feed from the grass fields.
The fields and surrounding trees serve as one seamless outdoor classroom that provides unlimited
opportunity for students who practice science, technology, engineering and math outdoors. She asked
whether Edmonds wanted to be a City that ripped up beautiful fields and took away from its gorgeous
natural settings in order to lay down a suffocating artificial turf, chop up the environment by extremely
high chain link fences and pock mark the area with 90-foot light poles or does Edmonds want to create
beautiful, unstructured, natural settings to be enjoyed in many ways.
Christine Johnson, Edmonds, said the Council has heard testimony about how the local neighborhood
and community uses this space. She used to walk the track when recovering from chronic fatigue
syndrome. The impact on the neighborhood has been poorly studied and in some cases ignored by
decision makers. As a fulltime professional real estate agent for over 30 years in this area, it was her
professional opinion that all the values of properties surrounding the proposed project would be severely
impacted. Although she recognized things change, the scope of this project is too much for the area. She
requested the Council reconsider and restudy the traffic, light noise and quality of life impacts of the
fields.
Mayor Earling declared a brief break to confer with the City Attorney.
Mr. Taraday recommended the applicant be allowed to make rebuttal based on the various opposing
statements that were made tonight. The Council will need to have a short meeting on this subject next
week to allow the Council ask questions based on the part of the Hearing Examiner decision that was not
in the packet (summary of testimony) and also opportunity for the parties to object to testimony offered
this week as new information because they did not have the summary of testimony available and possibly
have it stricken from the record as new information. Next week’s meeting will be strictly limited to
factual questions that arise from the summary of testimony and objections based on new information. He
suggested substantive rebuttal be provided tonight because next week’s agenda is very full. He suggested
determining if the School District and opponents were agreeable to that recommendation. Mayor Earling
suggested the Council proceed as Mr. Taraday suggested.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday clarified the School District’s rebuttal was not limited to 15 minutes; they have 45 minutes
of time left if they wish to use it.
Ms. Wilson said the School District has concerns about the ability to identify what was outside the record
before the Hearing Examiner. The School District will save the balance of its time to rebut argument that
was outside the record at the next meeting. Mr. Taraday suggested that be done in writing and submitted
prior to the next meeting. Ms. Wilson agreed.
Ms. Wilson said testimony about turf material should be excluded from the Council’s review because it is
not part of the application and not part of the Council’s jurisdiction. There was also significant testimony
regarding lighting and traffic which is beyond the scope of the prior testimony. There was new evidence
presented with regard to pollution generating surfaces and City stormwater standards. There were also
questions about parking spaces and bleachers.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 23
Mr. Peters observed there were remarks about parking and bleacher space; as they and staff testified at the
previous hearing, the School District complied with the City’s requirements for parking. The City’s
requirements were driven in large part by the bleacher count and at the City’s request, they demonstrated
they have the necessary number of parking spaces. The District has also agreed to pay the traffic
mitigation fee.
Ms. Wilson said the rest of their objections were with regard to items that are outside the scope of the
record for review and will be addressed in writing prior to the next meeting.
Mr. Taraday said little more could be accomplished tonight. With regard to the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine, he reminded Councilmembers should not discuss the matter amongst themselves between now
and the next meeting nor should they discuss it with members of the public or proponents or opponents of
the project and they should not do any outside or independent investigation. He recalled one of the
speakers requested Councilmembers look at the situation; he said they should not do that as the Council’s
decision must be based on the record; any independent investigation would not be in the record and could
not be considered in the decision. Any legal questions can be directed to him. He advised the matter will
be completed next week and the Council can deliberate.
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the Council would have an opportunity next week to ask legal
questions with regard to the scope of the decision. Mr. Taraday answered yes, explaining the main
purpose of next week’s meeting in addition to deliberations is to ask any questions regarding the
summary of testimony.
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling had no report.
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether Councilmembers wanted to have a discussion regarding
purchasing the Edmonds Conference Center on next week’s agenda. If a majority of the Council is
interested in further discussion, she will obtain as much information as possible such as maintenance,
rental income, annual costs, etc. Councilmember Mesaros suggested providing the scope of what is
necessary for the Council to express interest.
Councilmember Nelson expressed support in looking into the property. Councilmember Mesaros agreed.
Councilmember Petso supported taking up that topic next week. She agreed with Councilmember
Mesaros that one of the things she would like to know before next week is how much of a statement of
interest the City needs to provide to the State. Councilmember Bloom read from the email from Stefanie
Fuller, Acquisition and Disposal Manager, Real Estate Services, Department of Enterprise Services, State
of Washington to Doug Schwartz, “with respect to a responsive proposal we do not need a detailed
proposal, actually just an email or letter that simply states your interest in acquiring the property and your
proposed terms and conditions. These do not have to be finite, just basic terms such as your proposed
purchase price, closing date, earnest money, due diligence period, etc.” It was her understanding that
needed to be done by May 4.
Councilmember Johnson agreed with discussing this further next week and requested as much
information be provided in the packet as possible.
Council President Fraley-Monillas read from the State of Washington Surplus Property Bulletin that
states the Department of Enterprise Services has the responsibility to dispose of the property for a
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 24
minimum fair market value of $2.3 million. Interested entities will be given 10 days to provide a detailed
proposal to the State and acting on behalf of the State, DES will work with interested entities to seek
proposals by May 4. In the event no government entities are interested in acquiring the property, the
property will become immediately available to the private sector.
Councilmembers identified the information they wanted next week to make a determination:
• What offsets may be available from the State (Councilmember Petso)
• The condition of the facility (Councilmember Petso)
• EdCC’s experience as the owner of the facility (Councilmember Petso).
• the facilities relationship to the City’s Comprehensive Plan as adopted and the long range
financial budgeting tools such as the CIP and CFP (Councilmember Johnson)
• Proposed intended uses for the property (Councilmembers Johnson and Bloom)
• source of funds if the Council chose to move forward (Councilmember Mesaros)
• Cost of operations (Councilmember Bloom)
• Approximate annual rental income (Councilmember Bloom)
Council President Fraley-Monillas requested Councilmembers email her their requests for information.
For the audience, Councilmember Johnson explained because EdCC no longer has a use for the Edmonds
Conference Center, located at the intersection of 4th & Bell on the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, there is an
opportunity for government entities to consider its purchase.
Councilmember Bloom asked how the public would be informed the Council was considering this. Mayor
Earling observed Ms. Wippel could report on it. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested including
on the agenda that public comment could be provided during Audience Comment.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Douglas Schwartz and Jenny Anttila for bringing this to the Council’s
attention again.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the Gambia delegation for attending tonight’s meeting.
15. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
16. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 21, 2015
Page 25
AM-7660 5. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #213891 through #213992 dated April 23, 2015 for $854,676.51 (reissued
checks #213916 $25.48 & #213958 $9.85).
Approval of payroll check #61589 for $166.66 for the pay period April 1, 2015 through April 15, 2015.
Recommendation
Approval of claim and payroll checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:854,843.17
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $854,676.51
Reissued checks $35.33
Payroll Employee check $166.66
Attachments
Claim cks 04-23-15
Project Numbers 04-23-15
Payroll Summary 04-20-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 04/23/2015 12:06 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 12:07 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 07:01 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 04/23/2015 08:04 AM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213891 4/23/2015 075085 1LINGUA LLC 72 INTERPRETER ONLINE SERVICES
INTERPRETER ONLINE SERVICES
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 50.00
Total :50.00
213892 4/23/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 348545 WWTP - PEST CONTROL
April Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94
Total :79.94
213893 4/23/2015 072189 ACCESS 0943646 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 4/1/15 - 4/30/15
STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 4/1/15 - 4/30/15
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 115.67
SHRED SERVES0943745
SHRED SERVES
001.000.23.523.30.49.00 70.90
Total :186.57
213894 4/23/2015 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 41605 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
A130 101 74 seperator element
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 368.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 34.96
Total :402.96
213895 4/23/2015 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9659 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES
421.000.74.534.80.33.00 101,705.81
Total :101,705.81
213896 4/23/2015 074736 ALLISON, JUDY 4/17 REFUND 4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.239.200 27.00
1Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :27.002138964/23/2015 074736 074736 ALLISON, JUDY
213897 4/23/2015 075222 ALTMANN, HELEN 4/17 REFUND 4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.239.200 4.00
Total :4.00
213898 4/23/2015 075223 AMERICAN PACIFIC MORTGAGE 4/17 REFUND 4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.239.200 3.75
Total :3.75
213899 4/23/2015 001430 AMERICAN RED CROSS 10361308 Fac Maint - CPR Class
Fac Maint - CPR Class
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 648.00
Total :648.00
213900 4/23/2015 060228 ANS OF WASHINGTON INC 4-21-15 Notary Renew Notary supplies - Spellman~
Notary supplies - Spellman~
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 156.50
Total :156.50
213901 4/23/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987968576 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 40.95
Total :40.95
213902 4/23/2015 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0727353-IN WWTP - DIESEL FUEL
ULSD #2 dyed bulk fuel - 3900 gallons
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 6,954.58
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 660.67
Total :7,615.25
213903 4/23/2015 075217 BASLER, TONY 7732 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 108.00
2Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213903 4/23/2015 (Continued)075217 BASLER, TONY
INTERPRETER FEE7824
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 133.00
Total :241.00
213904 4/23/2015 002258 BENS EVER READY 10418 Library 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
Library 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 126.00
FAC 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 191.00
Cemetery 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 6.00
Yost Pool 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 56.00
City Hall 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 129.00
Parks Bldg 2015 Annual Fire
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 60.00
Old PW 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 262.00
Museum 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 24.00
PW 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher Service
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 218.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 20.71
MCH 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 123.00
Beach Shack
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 6.00
PS 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher Service
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 134.00
Courts 2015 Annual Fire Extinguisher
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 36.00
3Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213904 4/23/2015 (Continued)002258 BENS EVER READY
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 109.53
Total :1,501.24
213905 4/23/2015 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 10005 E4JA.SERVICES THRU MARCH 2015
E4JA.Services thru March 2015
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 3,605.25
Total :3,605.25
213906 4/23/2015 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 131639 INV#131639 - EDMONDS PD - SACKVILLE
5.11 STRYKE PANTS
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 69.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 6.65
Total :76.64
213907 4/23/2015 075218 BNCC INC 140933 HYDRANT METER DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND /
HYDRANT METER DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND /
421.000.245.110 950.00
Total :950.00
213908 4/23/2015 060141 BRANOM INSTRUMENT 548239 WWTP - C412 CONTROL SYSTEMS UPGRADE
18376 Banner Gateway
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 1,195.00
Freight
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 11.04
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 114.57
Total :1,320.61
213909 4/23/2015 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IM79686 2014 New Holland T6.165 Tractor with
2014 New Holland T6.165 Tractor with
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 121,484.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 10,326.16
4Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :131,810.412139094/23/2015 002840 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC
213910 4/23/2015 075221 BROFSKY PRODUCTIONS LLC BID-I-2014-159 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR BUS ADVERTISING MAY JUNE
Photography shoot and license to use
140.000.61.558.70.41.00 3,000.00
Total :3,000.00
213911 4/23/2015 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1045835 E7AC.PUBLISH BID DOCS
E7AC.Publish Bid Docs
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 239.15
Total :239.15
213912 4/23/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14817575 Lease/Council Office Printer Copier
Lease/Council Office Printer Copier
001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65
CANON COPIER CHARGES14817576
Copier lease pmt for C1030
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.33
Copier lease pmt for C1030
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88
Copier lease pmt for C1030
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33
INV#14817579 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD14817579
B/W METER USE 02/28-03/31/15
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 140.57
COLOR METER USE 02/28-03/31/15
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 170.24
MONTHLY COPIER RENTAL (4)
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 581.60
9.5% Sales Tax
5Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213912 4/23/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 84.76
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE14817580
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36
PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001-14817581
PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE14817582
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91
BLDG DIV COPIER/PRINTER14817584
BLDG DIV COPIER/PRINTER
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16
P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001-014817585
P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65
C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105-00414825005
Finance dept copier contract charge
001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75
PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC1030IF SCHEDULE14825009
PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC1030IF SCHEDULE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 36.16
Total :2,222.27
213913 4/23/2015 075220 CAROL & GLEN ELLINGTON 1-07000 RE:#500022629-KD UTILITY REFUND
RE:#500022629-KD Utility Refund -
411.000.233.000 192.60
Total :192.60
6Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213915 4/23/2015 070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES 2523-244357 Unit 106 - Fuel Filters
Unit 106 - Fuel Filters
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 30.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.91
Unit 91 - Filters2523-244370
Unit 91 - Filters
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.03
Unit 8 - Filters
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 32.82
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.83
Unit 124 - Belt (Returned)2523-244426
Unit 124 - Belt (Returned)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 32.19
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.06
Unit 448 - Supplies2523-244427
Unit 448 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.40
Fleet - Hose Connector - Returned2523-244439
Fleet - Hose Connector - Returned
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 145.76
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.40
Fleet Returns2523-244475
Fleet Returns
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -50.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -4.80
Unit 124 - Belt2523-244477
7Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213915 4/23/2015 (Continued)070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES
Unit 124 - Belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 30.09
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.86
Unit 137 - Filters2523-244527
Unit 137 - Filters
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 77.78
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.39
Unit 137 - Seals and Bearings2523-244567
Unit 137 - Seals and Bearings
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 61.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.87
Unit 33 - Oil Filter2523-244847
Unit 33 - Oil Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.33
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.60
Fleet Return2523-244878
Fleet Return
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -145.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -13.85
Unit 44 - Oil and Filter2523-244924
Unit 44 - Oil and Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 37.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.55
Unit 183 - Oil2523-244985
Unit 183 - Oil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 65.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.23
8Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213915 4/23/2015 (Continued)070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES
Unit 66 - Fuel and Air Filters2523-245023
Unit 66 - Fuel and Air Filters
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 123.62
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.74
Unit 66 - Oil Filter2523-245046
Unit 66 - Oil Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.81
Unit 66 - V Belt2523-245108
Unit 66 - V Belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.80
Unit 66 - Belt2523-245128
Unit 66 - Belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 27.97
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.66
Unit 23 - Air Filter2523-245563
Unit 23 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.64
Unit 95 - Air Filter2523-245601
Unit 95 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.81
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.84
Unit 95 - Wiper Blades2523-245647
Unit 95 - Wiper Blades
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.18
9.5% Sales Tax
9Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213915 4/23/2015 (Continued)070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.73
Unit 791- Air Filter2523-245703
Unit 791- Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.70
Fleet Shop - Mini Lamps2523-245964
Fleet Shop - Mini Lamps
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.92
Unit 2 - Air Filter2523-245984
Unit 2 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.56
Unit 9 - Radiator Cap2523-246061
Unit 9 - Radiator Cap
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.03
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.38
Unit 24 - Oil Filter2523-246183
Unit 24 - Oil Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.56
Unit 24 - Air Filter2523-246205
Unit 24 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.64
Fleet Returns2523-246227
Fleet Returns
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -71.45
10Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213915 4/23/2015 (Continued)070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -6.79
Unit 35 - Oil Filter2523-246631
Unit 35 - Oil Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.28
Unit 35 - Oil Filter2523-246632
Unit 35 - Oil Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.28
Unit 97 - Air Filter2523-246666
Unit 97 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.64
Unit 126 - Lamp Lens2523-246872
Unit 126 - Lamp Lens
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.18
Unit 41 - Lamp Lens2523-246874
Unit 41 - Lamp Lens
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.42
Unit 947 - Oil Filter2523-246977
Unit 947 - Oil Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.02
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.29
Unit 16 - Oil Filter2523-247058
Unit 16 - Oil Filter
11Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213915 4/23/2015 (Continued)070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.02
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.29
Fleet Shop Supplies2523-247211
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 16.54
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.57
Unit 21 - Oil Filter2523-247732
Unit 21 - Oil Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.12
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.58
Unit 106 - Oil Filter2523-248031
Unit 106 - Oil Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.66
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.96
Unit 106 - Air Filter2523-248045
Unit 106 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.78
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.21
Unit 106 - Air Filter2523-248047
Unit 106 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.58
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.24
Unit 106 - Supplies2523-248062
Unit 106 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.46
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.80
Unit 106 - Oil Filter2523-248084
12Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213915 4/23/2015 (Continued)070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES
Unit 106 - Oil Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.81
Unit 35 - Brake Rotor (Returned)2523-248492
Unit 35 - Brake Rotor (Returned)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 141.42
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.44
Unit 681 - Radiator Fan Relay2523-248528
Unit 681 - Radiator Fan Relay
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 139.91
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.29
Total :1,047.91
213916 4/23/2015 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT 17799 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 17799
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 17799
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 25.48
Total :25.48
213917 4/23/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11432 EDMONDS PARTICIPATION 2014
Edmonds Participation for 2014
423.000.75.535.80.47.20 138,985.00
Total :138,985.00
213918 4/23/2015 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 23K-067834 Storm Supplies Brass Locks
Storm Supplies Brass Locks
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 295.05
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 28.03
Total :323.08
213919 4/23/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS NW2762594 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS
Loop end mop heads
13Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213919 4/23/2015 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 86.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 8.21
Total :94.61
213920 4/23/2015 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC RO 27705 Unit 7 - Repairs
Unit 7 - Repairs
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,688.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 160.42
Total :1,849.02
213921 4/23/2015 075089 COMPUCOM SYSTEMS 62736371 ADOBE ACROBAT PRO DC FOR CITY CLERK
Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
001.000.25.514.30.48.00 569.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.48.00 54.06
Total :623.08
213922 4/23/2015 075224 COOK, BRIAN 4/17 REFUND 4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.239.200 23.50
Total :23.50
213923 4/23/2015 072848 COPIERS NW INV1187685 COPIER
COPIER
001.000.23.512.50.45.00 16.44
Total :16.44
213924 4/23/2015 006635 DEPT OF LICENSING 4-21-15 Notary Appnt Notary Public Appointment Application
Notary Public Appointment Application
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 30.00
Total :30.00
213925 4/23/2015 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY ADVERTISING
CEMETERY ADVERTISING
14Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213925 4/23/2015 (Continued)073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC
130.000.64.536.20.41.40 68.08
Total :68.08
213926 4/23/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3546 COUNCIL MINUTES 04/14/15
04/14/15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 336.60
Total :336.60
213927 4/23/2015 073772 DIRECT MATTERS 53588 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.23.512.50.31.00 556.08
SUPPLIES53594
SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00 182.55
SUPPLIES53657
SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00 262.90
Total :1,001.53
213928 4/23/2015 075153 DOPPS, MARIA 8052 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 100.91
INTERPRETER FEE8059
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 100.91
INTERPRETER FEE8099
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 100.91
Total :302.73
213929 4/23/2015 074492 EARTHCORPS 5154 317-14-01 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT GEN MGMT
317-14-01 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT GEN
125.000.64.575.50.41.00 5,945.20
Total :5,945.20
213930 4/23/2015 070884 EARTHWORK ENTERPRISES INC E4JA.Pmt 7 E4JA.PMT 7 THRU 03/13/15
15Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213930 4/23/2015 (Continued)070884 EARTHWORK ENTERPRISES INC
E4JA.Pmt 7 thru 03/13/15
421.000.74.594.34.65.10 294,415.39
Total :294,415.39
213931 4/23/2015 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 46550 PM COMB WR SHORT, COMB WR POL REG
PM COMB WR SHORT, COMB WR POL REG
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.45
Total :5.17
213932 4/23/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / METER 75832746
OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / METER 75832746
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 90.47
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER 71-00655
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM / METER 72851-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 620.38
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 16191-00875
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 1619
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE / METER1-00925
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER 91-01950
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.02
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ METER 27191-02125
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ METER 2719
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER 718703461-03710
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER 71870346
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
16Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213932 4/23/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METER 752275311-03900
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METER 75227531
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (NORTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-03950
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 694.55
SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METER 75401-05125
SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METER 7540
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / METER 7189251-05285
SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / METER 16331-05340
SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / METER 1633
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-05350
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 84.47
CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 714586761-05650
CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71458676
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / METER 2701-05675
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / METER 270
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 640.70
SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER 719647871-05700
SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER 71964787
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 92371-05705
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 9237
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 80.13
SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER 699729491-09650
SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER 69972949
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METER 320385471-09800
SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METER 32038547
17Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213932 4/23/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 757614521-10778
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75761452
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 41.02
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER 51621-10780
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER 5162
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 690138971-13975
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 69013897
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 595.71
CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 24351-14000
CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 2435
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 95.37
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METER 87291-16130
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METER 8729
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METER 699897051-16300
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METER 69989705
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 699727311-16420
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 69972731
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 150 5TH AVE1-16450
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 150 5TH AVE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 44.57
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER 752139791-16630
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER 75213979
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METER 719650861-17475
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METER 71965086
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER 61631-19950
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER 6163
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 73.91
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METER 32858301-36255
18Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213932 4/23/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
Total :3,857.70
213933 4/23/2015 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR 7637 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 106.86
Total :106.86
213934 4/23/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 111995 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.23.523.30.48.00 119.39
ADDITIONAL COPIES112201 1
ADDITIONAL COPIES
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.91
ADDTL COPIES112202 1
ADDTL COPIES
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 22.90
COPIER MAINT112627
COPIER MAINT
001.000.23.512.50.48.00 8.43
Total :181.63
213935 4/23/2015 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 ES REF # 94513310 7
Q1-15 Unemployment Benefits
001.000.39.517.78.23.00 1,186.34
Total :1,186.34
213936 4/23/2015 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0107595-IN INV#0107595-IN ACCT#0011847 - EDMONDS PD
BADGE-SERGEANT RETIRED
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 98.00
BADGE CASE FOR RETIRED SGT
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 27.00
TIE TACK - 35 YEARS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 45.00
19Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213936 4/23/2015 (Continued)008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO
TIE TACK - 25 YEARS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 135.00
TIE TACK - 20 YEARS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 272.00
TIE TACK - 15 YEARS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 102.00
TIE TACK - BLANK
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 408.00
OFFICER OF THE YEAR BADGE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 95.00
EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR BADGE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 95.00
PACKAGE INSURANCE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 21.00
PACKAGING MATERIALS FEE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.20
Freight
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 18.00
Total :1,323.20
213937 4/23/2015 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 113502 ESA- CRITICAL AREAS UPDATE
ESA- CRITICAL AREAS UPDATE
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 8,750.15
Total :8,750.15
213938 4/23/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH625055 LEGAL NOTICE PLN20140070 & 0071
LEGAL NOTICE PLN20140070 & 0071
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 65.36
LEGAL NOTICE PLN20140072 & 0073EDH625418
LEGAL NOTICE PLN20140072 & 0073
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 70.52
LEGAL NOTICE PLN20150011EDH625748
legal notice pln20150011
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 73.96
20Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :209.842139384/23/2015 009350 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
213939 4/23/2015 075225 FARLEY, BETH 4/17 REFUND 4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.239.200 11.25
Total :11.25
213940 4/23/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU35471 PM: OFFSET WRENCH
PM: OFFSET WRENCH
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 146.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.92
Total :160.45
213941 4/23/2015 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 443 16361 CORNER PARK TAGS
CORNER PARK TAGS
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 16.50
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 1.58
Total :18.08
213942 4/23/2015 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 3319209 PM UNION, WROT, WATER PRV, BRS BUSH, NIP
PM UNION, WROT, WATER PRV, BRS BUSH,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 118.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.23
PM SEAVIEW PK RESTROOM LF 1 1/2 BRS UNIO3319209-1
PM LF 1 1/2 BRS UNION, WTR PRV
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 379.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 36.09
Total :545.46
213943 4/23/2015 075226 FRITZ, KAREN 4/17 REFUND 4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
4/17 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.239.200 10.00
21Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :10.002139434/23/2015 075226 075226 FRITZ, KAREN
213944 4/23/2015 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 32.26
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 32.25
WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE425-712-0423
WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 68.55
PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
001.000.65.518.20.42.00 15.99
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 79.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 67.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 67.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 89.55
425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET425-771-4741
425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET
130.000.64.536.20.42.00 84.76
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 62.17
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 60.48
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 39.54
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 128.27
22Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :828.092139444/23/2015 011900 011900 FRONTIER
213945 4/23/2015 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 7584 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.59
Total :105.59
213946 4/23/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9711535048 City Hall - Safety Bollard
City Hall - Safety Bollard
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 163.40
Fac Maint - Charger
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 145.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 13.85
WWTP - REPAIR/REPLACE, MAINTENANCE9716076626
pump, mag drive, 230V 50/60 hz
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 461.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 43.80
Total :843.37
213947 4/23/2015 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 158360/1 Hydrants and Supplies
Hydrants and Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4,062.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 385.89
Total :4,447.89
213948 4/23/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 5010113 PM RTD SHTG
PM RTD SHTG
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 101.11
PM NO KINK BIBB, EDGE HOUND, BOX, PLIER5015760
PM NO KINK BIBB, EDGE HOUND, BOX, PLIER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 143.51
23Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213948 4/23/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
PM SIKA AF26023044
PM SIKA AF2
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.73
PM BUCKETS, QT CLR BUC, FLT SCRP, WD40,71764
PM BUCKETS, QT CLR BUC, FLT SCRP, WD40,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 80.06
PM AK FASTSET8015557
PM AK FASTSET
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.25
PM RLLR COV, UTLTYBRUSH, RESPIRATOR, TRA8020245
PM RLLR COV, UTLTYBRUSH, RESPIRATOR,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 108.63
PM 6" SCREWS8020268
PM 6" SCREWS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.75
Total :514.04
213949 4/23/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2606310 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00 146.94
HANGING FILE FOLDER & DRY ERASE PENS2611059
HANGING FILE FOLDER & DRY ERASE PENS
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 28.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 2.68
Shared office supplies- copier paper2614283
Shared office supplies- copier paper
001.000.61.557.20.31.00 37.50
Shared office supplies- copier paper
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 37.50
Shared office supplies- copier paper
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 37.50
Office Supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 8.84
9.5% Sales Tax
24Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213949 4/23/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
001.000.61.557.20.31.00 3.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 3.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 4.41
Total :310.76
213950 4/23/2015 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 12898747 C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 930.49
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.46
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.46
Total :943.41
213951 4/23/2015 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 753990 Water Sewer Work Jackets
Water Sewer Work Jackets
421.000.74.534.80.24.00 89.85
Water Sewer Work Jackets
423.000.75.535.80.24.00 89.85
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00 8.54
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.24.00 8.53
Total :196.77
213952 4/23/2015 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 651029 WWTP - SUPPLIES, HYPOCHLORITE
hypochlorite, 4662 gallons
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 3,518.85
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 334.29
WWTP - SUPPLIES, CAUSTIC651150
Caustic Soda Solution. 50% membrane
423.000.76.535.80.31.52 1,825.60
25Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213952 4/23/2015 (Continued)015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.52 173.43
Total :5,852.17
213953 4/23/2015 075227 JOHNSON, JEFFREY 19701 CARTOONIVERSIT 19701 CARTOONIVERSITY INSTRUCTOR FEE
19701 CARTOONIVERSITY INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 320.00
Total :320.00
213954 4/23/2015 075137 KELAYE CONCRETE LLC E3DE.Pmt 4 E3DE.PMT 4 THRU 3/18/15
E3DE.Pmt 4 thru 3/18/15
112.200.68.595.33.65.00 4,359.57
E3DE.Ret 4
112.200.223.400 -217.98
Total :4,141.59
213955 4/23/2015 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 04132015-01 INV#04132015-01 - EDMONDS PD
19 CAR WASHES $5.03 (INC TX) 3/15
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 95.57
Total :95.57
213956 4/23/2015 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER 05-01-2015 Cigna 05-01-15 CIGNA
May Cigna Insurance Premiums
811.000.231.550 10,939.91
Total :10,939.91
213957 4/23/2015 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 3954 Follow Up Hearing Testing
Follow Up Hearing Testing
001.000.22.521.10.41.00 425.00
Total :425.00
213958 4/23/2015 074752 LOHMAN, JENNIFER LOHMAN 02122014 RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.239.200 9.85
Total :9.85
26Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213959 4/23/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 27337687 WWTP - SUPPLIES & REPAIR/REPLACE, MAINTE
batteries
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 66.98
ball valve & tube fitting
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 199.56
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 4.98
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 1.66
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL27429664
ball valve
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 350.82
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 6.59
WWTP - SUPPLIES, MAINTENANCE27617029
hi temp paint
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 33.36
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 8.31
WWTP - SUPPLIES, MAINTENANCE27643223
saw blades and angle grinder cutoff
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 134.08
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 8.14
Total :814.48
213960 4/23/2015 063773 MICROFLEX 00021782 SALES TAX ONLY FOR ANNUAL ONLINE SERVICE
Sales tax only for annual online
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 114.00
Total :114.00
213961 4/23/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 208051 PM EDGER BLADES
PM EDGER BLADES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 57.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.51
27Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213961 4/23/2015 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
WWTP - ELECTRIC HAMMER RENTAL208815
60# electric hammer
423.000.76.535.80.45.21 217.75
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.45.21 20.69
WWTP - PROPANE208966
propane refill
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 24.84
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 2.36
Total :329.11
213962 4/23/2015 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0402837-IN Water - Rain Boots
Water - Rain Boots
421.000.74.534.20.24.00 92.60
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.20.24.00 8.80
Total :101.40
213963 4/23/2015 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 60797 WWTP - SODIUM BISULFITE
sodium bisulfite
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 429.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 40.76
Total :469.76
213964 4/23/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1181809 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET
CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85
SEAVIEW PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1182751
SEAVIEW PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 237.50
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1184936
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 218.78
28Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213964 4/23/2015 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
WILLOW CREEK HONEY BUCKET2-1185146
WILLOW CREEK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85
Total :683.98
213965 4/23/2015 073869 NORTON CORROSION LIMITED LLC 250493 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, FACILITIES
Corrosion evaluation
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 9,376.00
Total :9,376.00
213966 4/23/2015 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 553 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 306.00
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMM MEETING NOTES000 00 555
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMM MEETING NOTES
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 170.00
Total :476.00
213967 4/23/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 104612 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES 10- REAM CASE
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 137.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 13.05
INV#163566 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD163566
PATROL MEMO PADS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 19.35
3x5 POST IT NOTES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.24
BLACK RETRACTABLE PENS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 35.46
YELLOW LEGAL PADS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 24.16
KLEENEX FACIAL TISSUES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 40.61
9.5% Sales Tax
29Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213967 4/23/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.44
DISCOVERY: BINDER187215
DISCOVERY: BINDER
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 15.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 1.46
Total :310.49
213968 4/23/2015 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO SS21377001 PW - Elevator Operations Maint
PW - Elevator Operations Maint
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,399.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 132.94
Total :1,532.30
213969 4/23/2015 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 337562 Wellness Committee - Apples for
Wellness Committee - Apples for
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 51.25
Total :51.25
213970 4/23/2015 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 15654 Water Quality 2015 Brochure Mailings
Water Quality 2015 Brochure Mailings
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 2,385.00
Total :2,385.00
213971 4/23/2015 073231 POLYDYNE INC 960100 WWTP - SUPPLIES, POLYMER
polymer clarifloc
423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,184.00
Total :8,184.00
213972 4/23/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 215325 WWTP - POSTAGE
dept. L&I safety & health video
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 30.98
Total :30.98
213973 4/23/2015 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 99411 INV#99411 - EDMONDS PD
30Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213973 4/23/2015 (Continued)070955 R&R STAR TOWING
TOW 2014 TOYOTA #ANL1698
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77
Total :181.77
213974 4/23/2015 074834 ROBINSON, JASON 4-21-15 PHOTOS ROBINSON EXPENSE CLAIM - DEPT PHOTOGRAPH
16X20 DEPARTMENT PHOTO FOR DISPLAY IN
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 22.89
8X10 DEPARTMENT PHOTOS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 119.24
Total :142.13
213975 4/23/2015 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L 04/20/2015 Overtime refund for sick leave
Overtime refund for sick leave
001.000.41.521.71.11.00 33.40
Total :33.40
213976 4/23/2015 067003 SCHOETTLE, GEORGE 041415 FIRST AID/CPR/AED TRAINING
FIRST AID/CPR/AED TRAINING
001.000.65.518.20.49.00 239.76
FIRST AID/CPR/AED TRAINING
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 89.10
FIRST AID/CPR/AED TRAINING
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 254.34
FIRST AID/CPR/AED TRAINING
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 254.34
FIRST AID/CPR/AED TRAINING
111.000.68.542.90.49.00 210.60
FIRST AID/CPR/AED TRAINING
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 210.60
FIRST AID/CPR/AED TRAINING
001.000.64.576.80.49.00 361.26
Total :1,620.00
31Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213977 4/23/2015 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52229806 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 2,222.86
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 211.17
Total :2,434.03
213978 4/23/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0486641 PM DAYTON ST PLAZA STRAW WATTLES
PM DAYTON ST PLAZA STRAW WATTLES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 209.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.94
Total :229.87
213979 4/23/2015 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 15-106 Q1-15 EMS BILLING & POSTAGE
Q1-15 Ambulance billings & postage
001.000.39.522.70.41.00 13,604.33
Total :13,604.33
213980 4/23/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 956.73
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE2003-9895-6
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,398.99
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / METER2006-1131-7
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 257.74
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 100002007-2302-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 48.34
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / MET2014-3124-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.38
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 100042014-4175-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER
32Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213980 4/23/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 90.45
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,618.75
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 34.32
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 85.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 322.99
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 322.99
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 322.99
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 322.99
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 322.97
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8945-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 179.12
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,436.06
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,922.76
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.37
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 557.70
33Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213980 4/23/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /2202-1638-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 145.82
Total :13,409.46
213981 4/23/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2015-2413 INV 2015-2413 EDMONDS PD - JAIL MED JAN
PROVIDENCE EVERETT MED CENTER - INMATE
001.000.39.523.60.41.00 1,635.24
NORTHSOUND EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS -
001.000.39.523.60.41.00 757.00
EASTSIDE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS - INMATE
001.000.39.523.60.41.00 576.00
INMATE MEDICATIONS - JAN 2015
001.000.39.523.60.31.00 152.82
INV#2015-2493 - EDMONDS PD2015-2493
302.67 HOUSING @$84 - 02/15
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 25,424.28
56.58 BOOKIINGS @ $115 - 02/15
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 6,506.70
2 HOME DETENTION @ $22 - 02/15
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 44.00
35.67 MEDICAL/PREM $48.50 - 02/15
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,730.00
25 MENTAL HEALTH @ $117 - 02/15
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,925.00
12.25 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50 - 02/15
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,414.87
18 WORK RELEASE @ $50 - 02/15
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 900.00
CREDITS ON #2015-2493 -SNO CO JAIL2015-2493
CR CHAPARRO 11/14 & 12/14
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -2,132.16
18 WORK RELEASE @ $20 02/15S
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -360.00
34Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :39,573.752139814/23/2015 063941 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
213982 4/23/2015 074494 UK SOCCER ELITE 19657 UK ELITE 19657 UK ELITE SPRING BREAK INSTRUCTOR F
19657 UK ELITE SPRING BREAK INSTRUCTOR
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 1,056.00
Total :1,056.00
213983 4/23/2015 062693 US BANK 3405 Safeway -City Hall Supplies
Safeway -City Hall Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.27
Guardian Sec - Old PW
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00
MI Controls - Credit for Double Charge3405
MI Controls - Credit for Double Charge
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 -95.00
NEEC - Cert for L LaFave3405
NEEC - Cert for L LaFave
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 65.00
Guardian Sec - Old PW
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00
Seattle Home Appliance - Dev Svc Fridge
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 688.74
City Wide - Refib Pads
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 336.00
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 60.20
Green River CC - Water Class - V Smith3439
Green River CC - Water Class - V Smith
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 250.00
Green River CC - Water Class - R Shore
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 250.00
LMI - Notary Renewal for C Raymond3546
LMI - Notary Renewal for C Raymond
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 135.75
NWWA - Water Class J Waite
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 75.00
35Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213983 4/23/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
NWWA - Water Class J Daniels
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 75.00
WSU Conf D Myers
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 705.00
Evergreen Rural Water - Class for K
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 145.00
USPS - PW Postage
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 49.00
King Salmon Marina - Unit M-16 -7492
King Salmon Marina - Unit M-16 -
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,670.55
Office Max - Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 34.79
Amazon - Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.26
WA DOL - Unit 26 Relicense Fees
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 33.00
NW Equip - Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 151.74
Fisheries Supply - Shop Parts Washer
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.32
Harbor Freight - Shop Small Tool
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 10.94
WA DOL - Unit EQ99RE License Fees
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 49.75
ClearWater Carwash - Unit 15
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 8.00
Fisheries - Fuel Island - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 159.30
Amazon - Street - IPad Cover8305
Amazon - Street - IPad Cover
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 82.39
Total :5,080.00
36Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213984 4/23/2015 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0600334-WA INV 0600334-WA EDMONDS PD
PE BASIC - MCINTYRE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00 90.00
RESP. QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW - LEE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00 36.00
RESP. QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW - MACHADO
001.000.41.521.40.41.00 36.00
RESPIRATOR PE - RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.41.00 50.00
LAB - LEAD WITH ZPP - BLOOD - MACHADO
001.000.41.521.40.41.00 60.00
RESP. QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW - GREENMUN
001.000.41.521.40.41.00 36.00
Total :308.00
213985 4/23/2015 072841 VS VISUAL STATEMENT INC 25556 INV#25556 - EDMONDS PD
TRUE PARTNER MAINT 5/06-5/06/16
001.000.41.521.71.35.00 1,259.10
Total :1,259.10
213986 4/23/2015 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8040983081 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB
carboy - rect. w/ spiggot
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 497.68
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 47.28
Total :544.96
213987 4/23/2015 047455 WA ST DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB50414001 IT MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FOR FIBER OP
IT Maintenance & Operations Fiber Optic
001.000.31.518.87.48.00 773.98
Total :773.98
213988 4/23/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 482694 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 83.00
Freight
37Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213988 4/23/2015 (Continued)075154 WALTER E NELSON CO
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.64
WWTP - SUPPLIES, FACILITIES483262
paper supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 85.66
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 8.14
Total :193.35
213989 4/23/2015 067086 WASHINGTON CRANE AND HOIST CO 0025265-IN WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
inspection & maintenance
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 855.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 81.23
Total :936.23
213990 4/23/2015 075215 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 1004 INV#1004 - EDMONDS PD
ULTRA STINGER SL-20L BATTERIES
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 149.70
Freight
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 10.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 15.23
Total :175.51
213991 4/23/2015 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 11976 PM PLANTS
PM PLANTS RED MAPLE, SPIRAEA, DWARF
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 620.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 58.95
Total :679.45
213992 4/23/2015 075214 WUNG, EDWARD 8046 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
38Page:
04/23/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
7:44:30AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
213992 4/23/2015 (Continued)075214 WUNG, EDWARD
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 110.08
Total :110.08
Bank total :854,711.84101 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
854,711.84Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report101
39Page:
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
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 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
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
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
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
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project
PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
STM E2FA 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
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
STR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
ENG E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FA 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
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
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
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
STM E5FA 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)
SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail
General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program
STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza
PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project
PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support
FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs
WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain
STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update
STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project
FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project
STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements
STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park
WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project
STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program
WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC c444 E4LA Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR c451 E4CB 2014 Chip Seals
STR c452 E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays
ENG c453 E4DA Train Trench - Concept
STR c454 E4DB SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM c455 E4FE Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR c456 E4GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM c459 E4FF Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR c460 E4JC 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR c461 E4GC Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR c462 E4CD 220th Street Overlay Project
STR c463 E5CA 2015 Overlay Program
STM c466 E5FA 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM c467 E5FB Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR c468 E5JA 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR c469 E5GA 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
STR c470 E5AA Trackside Warning System
STR c471 E5AB 2015 Traffic Calming
STM c472 E5FC Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR c473 E5KA Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM m013 E7FG NPDES
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
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 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
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 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
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 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
Revised 4/22/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
Revised 4/22/2015
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 792 (04/20/2015 to 04/20/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 0.00 190.75
Total Net Pay:$166.66
$190.75 0.00
04/23/2015 Page 1 of 1
AM-7664 5. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
City Park Award of Bid for construction of Spray Pad and granting of utility easement.
Recommendation
Council approve award of bid to Wyser Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Spray Pad at City
Park.
Council authorize Mayor to sign an agreement with Wyser Construction in the amount of $728,919.60 for
construction of the City Park Spray Pad.
Council authorize the granting of a utility easement on tax parcel 27032600101300 (City Park) to
Snohomish County PUD No. 1 and Frontier Communications Northwest, Inc. for the purpose of
providing primary power for the City Park Spray Pad.
Previous Council Action
Council authorized expenditures and received grants for City Park Spray and Play revitalization.
Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with MacLeod Reckord for Architectural and
Engineering services for the City Park revitalization project.
Council authorized the Mayor to sign an award of bid for the Play Equipment.
Council authorized the Mayor to sign an award of bid for the Spray Equipment.
Council terminated contracts with MacLeod Reckord and Aquatic Specialty Services
Council awarded bid to Site Workshop to design the Spray pad portion of the project.
Council approved updated project budget in December 2014 ( see attached).
Council authorized the purchase of the spray equipment in March 2015.
Narrative
When Council awarded the bid for the purchase of the City Park Spray Pad equipment in March, staff
indicated that the award of bid for construction would be back to Council soon.
The action tonight is for award of bid for the City Park Spray Pad construction. The City advertised a bid
for the construction in late March with the opening of the bids on April 23rd, 2015. We received 6 bids,
and would like to award the bid to the lowest bidder, Wyser Construction, Inc. The bid tabulation, and
Wyser Construction bid are both attached.
The construction amount is 10% over the Engineer's estimate, and still falls within the Council approved
budget, but will use the 10% management reserve before breaking ground. Staff would like to come back
to Council soon to attain additional authorization for a 10% management reserve, so that the construction
can be managed efficiently.
The staff will work with the City Attorneys to put together an agreement for this work for the Mayor's
signature.
In addition to the construction award of bid, the recommendation is for the Council to also grant an
easement to Snohomish County PUD and Frontier Communications Northwest for the purpose of
providing primary power to the spray pad. This is customary, and the easement in included with the
packet.
This is on the consent agenda after discussion with the Council President. There wasn't available
capacity on the Council agenda for a full presentation until June, and since this project has been in front
of Council many times in the past year, it was decided to seek approval on the consent agenda. Staff
would like to break ground in mid May, so as to have ample time for the Spray Pad to open before we
reach the weather window. If Council has any questions on this, please feel free to email or call, or pull it
from the consent agenda for a brief discussion.
Prior to this action, following is the background on the City Park Spray and Play revitalization project.
In March, 2015, Council awarded the bid to Aquatic Specialty Services for purchase of the spray
equipment.
In December 2014, Council received an update of the City park project and approved of the project
budget. Also, in preparation for the construction permit and bid documents, the City Council approved
additional services for Site Workshop for design services for the pedestrian improvements into the park,
and preparation of separate bid documents for the Spray Pad equipment.
The pedestrian improvements were required by the SEPA that was issued, and something that is
necessary for the project. As a recommendation from our City transportation engineer, there will be
lights added to the already existing crosswalk. Site Workshop is in the process of designing this portion
so it can be included in the construction bid documents. The design services cost an additional $1800 and
were included in the Council approved budget in December 2014.
Council received an update on February 25th and April 1, 2014, as staff worked through design
challenges, phasing the project with the installation of the Play Equipment and contracting with Site
Workshop for the redesign of the Spray Pad. The City hosted a very successful community build project
in June 2014 to replace the play equipment. We also worked with the Student Conservation Corps to
begin the wetland mitigation in the wetland buffer area directly north of the park. We have been working
with Site Workshop for 100% construction documents for the spray pad.
A building permit was issued for the construction of the Spray Pad in December 2014. Since then, the
City bid out the Spray equipment, prepared construction bid documents, and completed a successful bid
process. We are now ready to contract for construction and are hopeful to break ground in mid May,
2015.
The approved budget for construction is attached for your reference.
Attachments
Spray Pad bid tabulation
Wyser Construction bid
PUD Easement
PUD plans
City Park budget
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/24/2015 10:42 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 11:11 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 11:12 AM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 04/23/2015 10:03 AM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
Page 1 of 2
AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County
Attn: Real Estate Services - 04
P.O. Box 1107
Everett, WA 98206
1180 (Rev. 3/92) DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT E-
Underground and/or Overhead NE/NE 26-27-03
397137-06 17197
THIS INDENTURE made this day of 20 , between
CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation__, hereinafter referred to as Grantor, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, and Frontier Communications Northwest, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Grantee;
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain lands and premises situated in the County of Snohomish, State
of Washington, described as follows:
The South ¾ of the West half of the Northeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Sec. 26; Twp. 27N; Range 03E,
W.M., EXCEPT that portion dedicated to the public for street right-of-way.
Tax Parcel No. 27032600101300 NE/NE 26-27-03
AND WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of acquiring certain rights and privileges across, over, under and
upon the said lands and premises.
NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable
consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys and grants to Grantee, its agents,
contractors, successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege, and authority to construct, erect, alter, improve,
extend, repair, operate, and maintain electric distribution line faci lities consisting of poles and/or structures and/or
underground facilities, or combinations thereof, with necessary braces, guys, and anchors, and to install or place
upon or suspend from such poles or facilities, distribution wires, insulators, cross -arms, transformers, and other
electrical equipment, communication wires and/or cables, and other necessary or convenient appurtenances,
across, over, under and upon the following described lands and premises situated in the County of Snohomish ,
State of Washington, to-wit:
A strip of land 10 feet in width, being 5 feet on each side of Grantee’s facilities as constructed, to be
constructed, extended or relocated within the above described real property. The exterior boundaries
of said Easement Area being widened accordingly to provide Grantee 8.00 feet of easement area
adjoining all sides of Grantee’s transformers.
Together with the right of ingress to and egress from said lands across adjacent lands of the Grantor, for the
purpose of constructing, reconstructing, repairing, renewing, altering, changing, patrolling and operating said line,
and the right at any time to remove said facilities from said lands.
Also the right at all times to cut and/or trim all brush, timber, trees or other growth standing or growing upon
the lands of Grantor which, in the opinion of Grantee, constitute a menace or danger to said line or to persons or
property by reason of proximity to said line. Grantor and the heirs, successors, or assigns of Grantor hereby
covenant and agree not to construct or permit to be constructed any structures of any kind on the easement area
without approval of the District.
The Grantor and the heirs, successors or assigns of Grantor covenant and agree not to do any blasting or
Page 2 of 2
discharge any explosives within a distance of three hundred (300) feet of said line without giving reasonable notice
in writing to the Grantee, its successors or assigns, of intention so to do.
The rights, title, privileges and authority hereby granted shall continue to be in force until such time as the
Grantee, its successors or assigns, shall permanently remove said poles, wires and appurtenances from said lands,
or shall otherwise permanently abandon said line, at which time all such rights, title, privileges and a uthority hereby
granted shall terminate.
The Grantor also covenants to and with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of land
aforesaid; has a good and lawful right and power to sell and convey same; that same are free and clear of
encumbrances, except as above indicated; and that Grantor will forever warrant and defend the title to said
easement and the quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims and demands of all persons whomsoever.
Any mortgage on said land held by the Mortgagee is hereby subordinated to the rights herein granted to the
Grantee, but in all other respects the said mortgage shall remain unimpaired.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed the day and year first above written.
Please sign and have notarized below
GRANTOR: CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation
By:
Its:
REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
State of
County of
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she/they) (was/were) authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the of to be
the free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated:
Signature of
(Seal or Stamp) Notary Public
Title Notary Public
My appointment expires
STATE ROUTE 104A-48694
BY CUSTOMER
SECONDARY
CABLE
VAULT
OF (1)
MAKE PO REEL
TRANSFORMER
MAKE
SER
UTC
DATE: 16-Mar-15 13:03TAGS
VAULT:
CABLE:
VICINITY MAP
FEES REQ'D
E#
DATE APPROVED
PHASECIRCUIT NO
SUBSTATION
PRIMARY
RECEIPT#
WORK IN RIGHT OF WAY
UGND NO
WO NO
APPROVED
JPN#
SCALE
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
BASIC FEE
$=$@FT
BASIC FEE
LEU#
LEO#
$@ =$
VAULT
PERMIT #
ONE CALL DATE
LOCATION MAP PAGE
PRE-CONSTR REQUIREMENTS
(DATE GRANTED)
TREE TRIM
TREE TRIM
$
$
PRIMARY OVERHEAD
RT
PUD LOCATOR
BACKHOE
POLE STENCILING
FROM TO
TAKE OFF POLE
FOREIGN CONTACTS
EASEMENTS REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
PERMITS
CITY
COUNTY
STATE
YES NO
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
TOTAL DUE
DATE PAID
$
$
$
$
$
$
$@ $
SECONDARY UNDERGROUND
$@ $
PRIMARY UNDERGROUND
DATE WORK COMPLETED FOREMAN
REASON FOR WORK
POLE NO
LOCATION
DATE
AREA
ENGINEER
DRAFTER
ROAD CROSSINGS ONLY
DATEAPPVNO.DESCRIPTION
DATEAPPV DESCRIPTION
DATEAPPVNO.DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
AS-BUILT
ENGINEER
PHONE
CUSTOMER
PHONE
‚S
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO 1
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
PROVIDE 1Ì PRIMARY
UNDERGROUND SERVICE FOR
PRINTED
NOTED
/'=
/'=
CELLULAR
PAGER/
SECONDARY
TASK
REQUEST NO.
JOINT TRENCH FRONTIER & CATV
JOINT BORE FRONTIER & CATV
XFMR
POLE/
READY
GIS
1 LINE
PHASING
FINISHED
JOINT USE
WORKING
DATE
&
600 3RD AVENUE S, EDMONDS 98020 SO COUNTY
NE 26 27 3
EDMONDS CITY PARK
40KW CONN LD
3/16/15
McALLISTER
McPHERSON
397137
06
13428
WESTGATE
12-405
N/A
N/A
454, F6
CSLER
RICH LINDSAY
(425) 771-0289
INSPECTOR
S
D
W
U
LAYOUT LEGEND:
OVHD
SCHEMATIC LEGEND:
J
J
P
S
P
ALL FOOTAGES APPROXIMATE
BY PUD OR PUD'S CONTRACTOR
7200-240/120V
BY PUD OR PUD'S CONTRACTOR
STREET LIGHTING
YES NO
N
NORTH
CELLULAR
ADDITIONAL UGND TAPPED AT T/O POLE
FAULT INDICATOR
FEED THRU BUSHING ON TRANSFORMER
PULL THRU BOX
FEEDER LINE
STANDOFF BRACKET
DISCONNECT SWITCH, NORMALLY CLOSED
DISCONNECT SWITCH, NORMALLY OPEN
EXISTING OVERHEAD
ABANDONED PRIMARY UNDERGROUND CABLE
PRIMARY UNDERGROUND CABLE
FUSE
600 AMP J-BOX
200 AMP J-BOX
SUBMERSIBLE TRANSFORMER
3 Ì TRANSFORMER
1 Ì TRANSFORMER
UNDERGROUND LOCATOR MARKER
STREET LIGHT
FIRE HYDRANT
WATER MAIN/METER
STORM DRAIN/CATCH BASIN
SANITARY SEWER/MANHOLE
FUTURE DUCT
EXISTING DUCT
EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
POLE AND OVERHEAD LINE
SERVICE CONDUIT
STREET LIGHT CABLE
1/0 SECONDARY UNDERGROUND CABLE
4/0 SECONDARY UNDERGROUND CABLE
#350 SECONDARY UNDERGROUND CABLE
PRIMARY UNDERGROUND CABLE
STREET LIGHT PEDESTAL
LARGE SECONDARY PEDESTAL
SMALL SECONDARY PEDESTAL
SWITCH CABINET
PULLING VAULT
SECONDARY VAULT
SUBMERSIBLE J-BOX
ABOVE GROUND J-BOX
SUBMERSIBLE TRANSFORMER
PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
SL
AL 15KV CNCTRC NEUT JCKTD PRI IN 2" PVC
DATE
FT MARK TO
FILE: W:\UG\13000\13428.dgnA-48694 37.5 KVA
BY PUD OR PUD'S CONTRACTOR
A-48694
ACCESS HOLE
4'8" x 4'8" x 6" COVER W/A 12" x 28"
4'8" x 4'8" x 3'6" CONCRETE VAULT AND
FROM POLE TO A-48694
SECONDARIES AT A-48694
405'1/0
500 KCMIL 500 KCMIL
DUCT
A 2"OF (1) PVC
BY CUSTOMER
350'
2
(425) 670-3216
MARY McALLISTER
(425) 501-1254
A-48694
90527 UGND 13428STMAIN
196TH ST SW
3RD AV N9TH AVS104
524
WOODWAY
EDMONDS 88TH AV WSOUND
PUGET
A
1" = 40'
LAYOUT
NTS
SCHEMATIC
N-28778-X
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
AT TAKE OFF POLE
INSTALL UGND TERMINAL POLE RISER (ASSY# 12U111).
BY CUSTOMER (DIRECT TO XFMR)
(1) RUN OF AL TPX WITH NEUTRAL
PINE ST3RD AVE SSITE
WORK
A-48694
37.5-
90527
2
OVHD
AMPS
FU 40
N
City Park Spraypark
City of Edmonds
Permit Phase Cost Estimate
12/8/2014
SiteWorkshop Page 1
EDMONDS CITY PARK SPRAYPARK (DRAFT)General Contractor Markups
Project Size: General Conditions:8%
Bid Date: Winter 2014 Overhead & Profit 11%
Duration: 5-6 Months Estimating Contingency:10%
Escalation:0%
Unit of Unit Total Estimated Base Bid
No. Description Quantity Measure Cost Raw Cost Cost w/GC markups
TESC
Subtotal $16,820 $19,763
Site Clearing & Demolition
Subtotal $6,450 $8,321
Earthwork
Subtotal $29,050 $37,475
Storm Drainage
Subtotal $66,680 $86,017
Water Service
Subtotal 6,035$ 7,785$
Sanitary Sewer
Subtotal 32,287$ 41,650$
Electrical (Power)
Subtotal $48,564 $58,297
Surfacing, Walls, and Curbs
Crosswalk Improvements on 3rd 1 Allow $20,000.00 $20,000 $25,800
Subtotal $111,072 $143,283
Site Furnishings & Fixtures
Subtotal $1,200 $1,548
Play Equipment and Surfacing
Subtotal $9,578 $12,356
Sprayground Mech Building/HVAC
Subtotal $45,213 $46,725
Sprayground Water Quality System & Controls
Subtotal $188,440 $197,401
Sprayground Play Products
Subtotal $265,298 $306,332
Pre-Tax Bid Total (MACC):$826,687 $966,952
Sales Tax(9.5%):$91,860
Construction Grand Total $1,058,812
AM-7659 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope
Department:Development Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Draft Streetscape/Street Trees Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
Recommendation
Discuss, ask any questions, make comments, or, by consensus, provide direction
Previous Council Action
City Council held an April 21 public hearing on this topic
Narrative
BACKGROUND
Draft updates to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan are being reviewed and discussed, one element at a time. The drafts, with any
refinements, will be considered all together for adoption in July. The updated Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-year.
STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT
The existing Comprehensive Plan does not contain a special section on streetscape or street trees.
However, one line of the text adopts by reference a 2006 Streetscape Plan prepared by the City's Parks Department. The 2006
Streetscape Plan is available online at the Parks Department webpage:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Parks_and_Recreation/Documentation/Streetscape_TOTAL_doc.pdf.
It focuses on streetscape concepts for key public areas of the City. Various aspects of that plan need updating, but doing so would take
more time than current resources allow.
Instead, a new section in the Community Culture & Urban Design has been drafted that would bring streetscape and street trees into the
main body of the Comprehensive Plan. (See Attachment 1 for a "clean version" and Attachment 2 for an "edits" version.) Note: This
section was noted as a placeholder, but not discussed, during the City Council's previous review of the Culture & Urban Design Element.
At that time, the section was not ripe for discussion because it had not been fully reviewed by the Planning Board or Tree Board.
Thus, the current proposal is to:
A. Add a new section directly into the Comprehensive Plan about streetscape/street trees goals and policies.
B. Make minor amendments to the Street Trees appendix included in the Streetscape Plan to allow better performing trees along certain
streets (See Attachments 3 and 4);
C. Don't adopt by reference the Streetscape Plan (with minor Street Trees amendments) but include it as an appendix to the
Comprehensive Plan for the 2015 update;
D. Add two implementation strategies to the Comprehensive Plan element covering streetscape/street trees, as follows
(1) Develop and update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016.
(2) Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017.
PLANNING BOARD AND TREE BOARD INPUT
The Planning Board Community Culture & Urban Design Element discussed the "Streetscape and Street Trees" section of the
Community Culture & Urban Design Element on March 11 and April 8. (See Planning Board minutes, Attachments 5 and 6.)
The Tree Board discussed the same material on April 9. (Tree Board minutes were not available when this memo was being prepared.)
7.
City Council Meeting
Shane Hope
Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Draft Streetscape/Street Trees Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
Recommendation
Discuss, ask any questions, make comments, or, by consensus, provide direction
Previous Council Action
City Council held an April 21 public hearing on this topic
Narrative
BACKGROUND
Draft updates to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan are being reviewed and discussed, one element at a time. The drafts, with any
refinements, will be considered all together for adoption in July. The updated Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-year.
STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT
The existing Comprehensive Plan does not contain a special section on streetscape or street trees.
However, one line of the text adopts by reference a 2006 Streetscape Plan prepared by the City's Parks Department. The 2006
Streetscape Plan is available online at the Parks Department webpage:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Parks_and_Recreation/Documentation/Streetscape_TOTAL_doc.pdf.
It focuses on streetscape concepts for key public areas of the City. Various aspects of that plan need updating, but doing so would take
more time than current resources allow.
Instead, a new section in the Community Culture & Urban Design has been drafted that would bring streetscape and street trees into the
main body of the Comprehensive Plan. (See Attachment 1 for a "clean version" and Attachment 2 for an "edits" version.) Note: This
section was noted as a placeholder, but not discussed, during the City Council's previous review of the Culture & Urban Design Element.
At that time, the section was not ripe for discussion because it had not been fully reviewed by the Planning Board or Tree Board.
Thus, the current proposal is to:
A. Add a new section directly into the Comprehensive Plan about streetscape/street trees goals and policies.
B. Make minor amendments to the Street Trees appendix included in the Streetscape Plan to allow better performing trees along certain
streets (See Attachments 3 and 4);
C. Don't adopt by reference the Streetscape Plan (with minor Street Trees amendments) but include it as an appendix to the
Comprehensive Plan for the 2015 update;
D. Add two implementation strategies to the Comprehensive Plan element covering streetscape/street trees, as follows
(1) Develop and update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016.
(2) Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017.
PLANNING BOARD AND TREE BOARD INPUT
The Planning Board Community Culture & Urban Design Element discussed the "Streetscape and Street Trees" section of the
Community Culture & Urban Design Element on March 11 and April 8. (See Planning Board minutes, Attachments 5 and 6.)
The Tree Board discussed the same material on April 9. (Tree Board minutes were not available when this memo was being prepared.)
Both bodies found acceptable the proposed general goals and policies for the main part of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 1). They
also recognized that the Street Tree Plan appendix needed more updating but that with the short timeframe available this year, the minor
proposed amendments for it were acceptable.
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council reviewed the proposal for streetscape and street trees, asked questions, and heard comments at a public hearing on
April 28. [Some interest was expressed in testimony for adding language about views. A note about views could be added to a later
version of the streetscape/street tree element.]
NEXT STEPS
--April 28 - City Council discussion (See Attachment 7 for presentation.)
--April-June - Any final draft refinements and public input
--July 7 - City Council action on adopting 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update (all elements)
Attachments
Att. 1: Streetscape/Street Tree section - Clean
Att. 2: Streetscape/Street Tree section - edits
Att. 3: Street Tree plan changes memo
Att. 4: Street Tree plans
Att. 5: PB minutes 3.11.15
Att. 6: PB draft minutes of 4.8.15
April 28 Presentation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 11:57 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 07:06 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 04/22/2015 03:57 PM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
Both bodies found acceptable the proposed general goals and policies for the main part of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 1). They
also recognized that the Street Tree Plan appendix needed more updating but that with the short timeframe available this year, the minor
proposed amendments for it were acceptable.
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council reviewed the proposal for streetscape and street trees, asked questions, and heard comments at a public hearing on
April 28. [Some interest was expressed in testimony for adding language about views. A note about views could be added to a later
version of the streetscape/street tree element.]
NEXT STEPS
--April 28 - City Council discussion (See Attachment 7 for presentation.)
--April-June - Any final draft refinements and public input
--July 7 - City Council action on adopting 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update (all elements)
Attachments
Att. 1: Streetscape/Street Tree section - Clean
Att. 2: Streetscape/Street Tree section - edits
Att. 3: Street Tree plan changes memo
Att. 4: Street Tree plans
Att. 5: PB minutes 3.11.15
Att. 6: PB draft minutes of 4.8.15
April 28 Presentation
Form Review
Date
04/23/2015 11:57 AM
04/24/2015 07:06 AM
04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Started On: 04/22/2015 03:57 PM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
C.2 Site Design. Site design should allow for vechicular access and parking as well as
safe access and circulation for pedestrians. Whenever possible, sites should provide
connections between adjacent businesses and between businesses and nearby
residential neighborhoods.
C.3 Landscaping and Buffering. Landscaping, fencing or other appropriate techniques
should be used to soften the street front of sites and also used to buffer more
intensive uses from adjoining less intensive use areas (e.g. buffer commercial from
residential development).
Urban Design Goal D: Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Design in neighborhood commercial
areas should seek to support the function of the neighborhood center while paying close attention to
its place within the neighborhood setting.
D.1 Landscape and Buffering. Special attention should be paid to transitions from
commercial development to surrounding residential areas, using landscaping and/or
gradations in building scale to provide compatible development.
Streetscape and Street Trees
General. “Streetscape” is a term that refers to the street environment, often including pedestrian features,
landscaping, lighting, pavement materials, and signage. The streetscape plays an important role in the
livability and character of Edmonds. Public streets, with their associated walkways and pedestrian spaces,
provide the places for people to interact with their neighbors, accommodate public events and commerce,
promote human needs for enjoyment and exercise including arts and aesthetics, and can improve the
ecological function of the city. When designed properly, the streetscape complements the urban design
elements incorporated into the development of private property.
A Streetscape Plan was developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department
and updated in 2006. It focused on the public realm along streets, certain areas of the City such as the 4th
Avenue Arts Corridor, Highway 99 International area, and downtown.
In 2011, the City adopted a ‘Complete Streets’ program that prioritizes accommodating the needs of all
users – including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and individual vehicles – in transportation projects. The
intent is to create safe environments for people of all ages and abilities while improving transportation
options and connections between the City’s destinations and centers of activity. A complete streets
approach can improve the ability of residents and visitors to experience the City in a variety of ways
while improving environmental quality, enhancing economic activity, and promoting healthy lifestyle.
Where feasible, street trees or other landscaping located between the travel lane and the sidewalk can
improve the pedestrian experience.
This section has a key goal and several policies specifically related to streetscape and street trees within
the public right of way.
126 Community Culture and Urban Design
DRAFT
Goals and Policies
Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree
choices.
A.1. Encourage inprovments to streets that link parks, open spaces, recreation centers,
employment centers, and transportation nodes.
A.2. Balance the need for short-term parking for shoppers and loading for businesses
with the need for pedestrian-oriented design, especially downtown.
A.3. As opportunities arise, provide for sustainable streetscapes that can enhance the
natural environment, help ensure safety, and complement the characteristics of
the neighborhood or district in which they are located.
A.4. Promote the planting and maintainence of landscaping and street trees to enhance
City gateways and connections; strengthen the character and identify of
downtown and other retail/commercial centers; and improve the pedestrian
environment.
A.5. Seek to maintain and retain existing healthy trees in the rights-of-way without
sacrificing public safety or public infrastructure or encouraging a hazard or
nuisance.
A.6. Selecting trees for planting in the public rights-of-way should be based on a
variety of factors, such as aesthetics, safety, maintainence, size, spacing,
longevity, location, utilities, habitat compatibility, and other appropriate factors.
Implementation Actions
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to
address high priority Streetscape and Street Tree goals. The actions identified here are
specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or measures
that may be used by the City.
Action 1: Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016.
Action 2: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017.
Community Culture and Urban Design 127 DRAFT
D.2.d. Landscaping: Use of landscaping berms in and around parking areas and
setbacks to provide a visual screen.
D.3. Neighborhood Shopping Centers
General AppearanceLandscape and Buffering. Special attention should be paid to
transitions from commercial development to surrounding residential areas, using
landscaping and/or gradations in building scale to provide compatible
development.
Streetscape and Street Trees
General. “Streetscape” is a term that refers to the street environment, often including pedestrian features,
landscaping, lighting, pavement materials, and signage. The streetscape plays an important role in the
livability and character of Edmonds. Public streets, with their associated walkways and pedestrian spaces,
provide the places for people to interact with their neighbors, accommodate public events and commerce,
promote human needs for enjoyment and exercise including arts and aesthetics, and can improve the
ecological function of the city. When designed properly, the streetscape complements the urban design
elements incorporated into the development of private property.
A Streetscape Plan was developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department
and updated in 2006. It focused on the public realm along streets, certain areas of the City such as the 4th
Avenue Arts Corridor, Highway 99 International area, and downtown.
In 2011, the City adopted a ‘Complete Streets’ program that prioritizes accommodating the needs of all
users – including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and individual vehicles – in transportation projects. The
intent is to create safe environments for people of all ages and abilities while improving transportation
options and connections between the City’s destinations and centers of activity. A complete streets
approach can improve the ability of residents and visitors to experience the City in a variety of ways
while improving environmental quality, enhancing economic activity, and promoting healthy lifestyle.
Where feasible, street trees or other landscaping located between the travel lane and the sidewalk can
improve the pedestrian experience.
This section has a key goal and several policies specifically related to streetscape and street trees within
the public right of way.
Formatted: Keep with next
Formatted: Intro
190 Community Culture and Urban Design
DRAFT
Goals and Policies
Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree
choices.
A.1. Encourage inprovments to streets that link parks, open spaces, recreation centers,
employment centers, and transportation nodes.
A.2. Balance the need for short-term parking for shoppers and loading for businesses
with the need for pedestrian-oriented design, especially downtown.
A.3. As opportunities arise, provide for sustainable streetscapes that can enhance the
natural environment, help ensure safety, and complement the characteristics of
the neighborhood or district in which they are located.
A.4. Promote the planting and maintainence of landscaping and street trees to enhance
City gateways and connections; strengthen the character and identify of
downtown and other retail/commercial centers; and improve the pedestrian
environment.
A.5. Seek to maintain and retain existing healthy trees in the rights-of-way without
sacrificing public safety or public infrastructure or encouraging a hazard or
nuisance.
A.6. Selecting trees for planting in the public rights-of-way should be based on a
variety of factors, such as aesthetics, safety, maintainence, size, spacing,
longevity, location, utilities, habitat compatibility, and other appropriate factors.
Implementation Actions
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to
address high priority Streetscape and Street Tree goals. The actions identified here are
specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or measures
that may be used by the City.
Action 1: Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016.
Action 2: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017.
Signs: Use sign concept from downtown.
Lighting: Oriented away from residential areas. Designed for safety rather than advertisement of
uses.
Community Culture and Urban Design 191 DRAFT
March | 2015
Street Tree Plan: Draft 2015 Updates
Key Map Changes for 2015
• Cleaned up the color palette to improve the Plan’s readability
• Shortened the designated corridor for Main Street east of downtown. Previous plan indicated
planting the entire corridor between Five Corners and downtown. New map stops at 9th Ave S.
due to concerns about lack of space to plant trees.
• Changed the following species due to concerns listed:
o Prunus sargentii ‘Columnaris’ / Sargents Cherry replaced with Acer rubrum ‘Bowhall’ /
Bowhall Maple in Civic Center
Concerns: Poor performance, prone to disease, difficult to prune.
o Prunus serrulata ‘Kwanson’ / Kwanson Flowering Cherry replaced with Pyrus
colleryana ‘Capital’ / Capital Pear along Main Street
Concerns: Irregular shape, difficult to prune, disease and pest problems.
o Carpinus betulus ‘Fastigiata’ / Pyramidal European Hornbeam replaced with Pyrus
colleryana ‘Capital’ / Capital Pear on northern portion of 3rd Ave. S
Concerns: Poor performance. Shopkeepers did not like due to obscuring storefronts.
o Fraximus Pennsylvania ‘Summit’ / Summit Ash replaced with Acer Rubrum ‘Karpick’ /
Karpick Maple from along 4th Ave. S. from SR-104 to start of 4th Ave. Cultural Corridor
Concerns: Height and width (60’ x 50’) concerns at maturity.
o Changed the 4th Ave. Cultural Corridor from Fraximus Pennsylvania ‘Summit’ / Summit
Ash to mix of tree species as identified in the 4th Ave Cultural Corridor Plan (2009) and
4th Ave. Arts Corridor (currently appx. E of Streetscape Plan)
Concerns: Consistency with other documents.
2015 STREET TREE PLAN DRAFT
2010 STREET TREE PLAN
121 Downtown street tree distribution map. 2006 STREET TREE PLAN
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
March 11, 2015 Page 3
Comprehensive Plan, but there is no “values” element. He advised that the Development Services Director would like to
conduct a City visioning process, but this will take a tremendous amount of time and effort, and will not be part of the current
update.
Chair Tibbott commented that improving the physical character of Edmonds assumes the City has values. Articulating the
community’s values and choices about the character of Edmonds will be an evolving conversation, and bringing the issue to
the forefront as part of the Board’s discussion about design and streetscape is appropriate. He said he hopes the City Council
and public will comment regarding community values as they review the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Vice Chair Lovell recalled that there are at least two specific examples of recent developments on SR-104 that were criticized
relative to design. He asked if the Architectural Design Board (ADB) reviewed both of the projects. Mr. Chave answered
that the ADB did review the Compass Development, but he is not sure design review was required for the daycare building.
He recalled that the concerns relative to the Compass Development were more about bulk and configuration than design, and
the Development Code was recently amended to address the problems.
DISCUSSION ON DRAFT STREETSCAPE AND STREET TREE PLANS
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the list of key changes to the Street Tree Map (Attachment 3) and requested more
background information about the term “poor performance.” She also asked who guided the replacement schedule. Mr.
Chave answered that the proposed changes to the Street Tree Map was drafted by Rich Lindsey, Parks Maintenance Manager,
and Engineering Department staff. These two groups reviewed the existing Street Tree Plan and Street Tree Map and
considered how successful or unsuccessful the tree species had been. In some situations, they found that the tree species
were inappropriate for the location and that they impacted the infrastructure. Board Member Rubenkonig asked who
proposed the replacement species. Mr. Chave said the same staff team identified the replacement species. Based on their
experience, these are tree species that have been shown to be successful. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would have
liked to hear that a landscape architect had provided input. However, she supports the input from staff as it is likely the
recommended species are already used successful in the City. Mr. Chave advised that the draft Street Tree Plan will be
presented to the Tree Board for feedback, as well.
Vice Chair Lovell also referred to Attachment 3, which explains the changes that have been proposed based on concerns
about poor performance, irregular shape, difficulty pruning, disease and pest problems, and height and width concerns at
maturity. It does not mention problems that occur when roots grow so large they heave up the sidewalks. Mr. Chave said
that, although it is not listed in Attachment 3 as a specific concern, he knows it was considered by the staff team when
drafting the proposed changes. Vice Chair Lovell voiced support for a gradual program of replacing trees that interfere with
the sidewalk, are difficult to maintain, grow too large, perform poorly, etc. However, he expressed concern that there could
be an overwhelming desire to save every tree in downtown Edmonds irrespective of the risk it may impose to the residents,
buildings and infrastructure.
Mr. Chave explained that all three maps were provided to illustrate the different versions of the map. Board Member Stewart
asked Mr. Chave to describe the differences between the 2006, 2010 and 2015 Street Tree Maps. He explained that the maps
are more similar than different, but there were some changes to the list of tree species. Student Representative Zhao noted
that a species is spelled “Ginko Biloba” on the 2006 Street Tree Map and “Ginkgo Biloba” on the 2015 Street Tree Map.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that (Capital Pear) is the species called out in the existing plan for 3rd Avenue, and it
would remain the same. As per the proposed plan, Capital Pear would also be located on Main Street from the Ferry
Terminal to 5th Avenue. She noted that the existing trees have started to bloom. They are lovely and tend to guide people
down 3rd Avenue. Bowhall Maple is identified for Main Street from 5th Avenue to 9th Avenue. This is a beautiful, statuesque
tree that has presence. It does not continue all the way down Main Street to the Ferry Terminal because it would likely grow
too large for the constrained area in the downtown and waterfront. She said she would like an opportunity to have a
discussion with someone who can describe how the proposed plan is intended to flow and give importance to the different
areas. Mr. Chave suggested the Board could ask Mr. Lindsey, who has on-the-ground experience with street trees, to be part
of their next discussion. Chair Tibbott said it would also be helpful for Mr. Lindsey to provide pictures of the different tree
species.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
March 11, 2015 Page 4
Mr. Chave summarized that the original Street Tree Plan was prepared by a landscape architectural firm. The intent was not
to redo the plan, but to make a few adjustments where they know things are not working. He advised that the original plan
that was prepared by the landscape architect is available for the Board’s review. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that
reviewing the original plan could provide additional understanding as to why the Street Tree Map is the way it is.
Chair Tibbott noted that, as per the Extended Agenda, the Board would continue its review of the draft Street Tree Plan on
March 25th. Vice Chair Lovell asked if this would be sufficient time for the Tree Board to review the Street Tree Plan and
provide feedback to the Board. Mr. Chave noted that the Tree Board is not scheduled to meet again until April. He agreed to
talk with the Development Services Director to find out if she is anxious to forward the Street Tree Plan to the City Council
as soon as possible or if it could wait until the Tree Board has provided feedback. He said he would be very surprised if the
Tree Board recommends major changes to the Street Tree Plan, but their comments would be helpful to the process. He
summarized that, given the Board’s comments, he is not sure there is much more they can do until the Tree Board has
reviewed the document and provided feedback. The Board agreed to remove the discussion related to the draft Street Tree
Plan from the March 25th agenda. They further agreed to review the draft Street Tree Plan again in April after the Tree
Board’s review.
Mr. Chave specifically referred to the goals and policies related to Streetscape and Street Trees found in the draft Community
Culture and Urban Design Element (Attachment 2). He specifically noted that Policies A.5 and A.6 address the issue Vice
Chair Lovell raised earlier about street trees that impact the public infrastructure.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
The Board tentatively scheduled its retreat for July 8th, and Chair Tibbott invited Board Members to forward their suggestions
for agenda topics. It was noted that a briefing on the Marina Beach Master Plan is scheduled for that evening and could be
added as part of the retreat agenda.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Tibbott referred to the written report provided by the Development Services Director.
Vice Chair Lovell specifically referred to the report relative to the Community Profile Brochure that was prepared to
highlight some key demographic facts about Edmonds. He said he obtained a copy of the brochure at the open house that
took place prior to the Board’s regular meeting. He noted that the information in the brochure would also be posted on the
City’s website. He expressed his belief that the brochure is an excellent public relations tool.
Board Member Rubenkonig said it was wonderful to hear about the City’s progress in reducing the greenhouse gasses
attributed to City facilities by 26.4%.
Chair Tibbott voiced appreciation for the report, which summarizes the activities taking place around the City, as well as
neighboring jurisdictions. The information is helpful to the Board Members.
DEVELOPMENT CODE MAJOR UPDATE: PROGRESS REPORT
Mr. Chave referred to the written report prepared by the Development Services Director to keep the Board informed of the
ongoing process to update the Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott announced that he and Vice Chair Lovell would present the Planning Board’s quarterly report to the City
Council on March 17th. He advised that Vice Chair Lovell prepared a PowerPoint presentation to highlight the Board’s
recent activities. He invited other Board Members to attend, as well. Mr. Chave agreed to confirm with the City Clerk that
the presentation is scheduled on the Council’s agenda for March 17th.
DRAFT
Subject to April 22nd Approval
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 8, 2015
Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Neil Tibbott, Chair
Todd Cloutier
Carreen Rubenkonig
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
Evan Zhao, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rich Lindsey, Parks Maintenance Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Tibbott acknowledged the written report from the Development Services Director. There were no comments and
questions from the Board Members relative to the report.
UPDATE ON DRAFT STREETSCAPE AND STREET TREE PLANS
Mr. Chave reviewed that the Board last discussed the Streetscape and Streetscape section of the Community Culture and
Urban Design Element on March 11th. At that time, they agreed to continue their discussion after the Tree Board met on
April 2nd. They also requested that staff provide additional information to support the proposed changes in tree species. He
reported that the Tree Board’s meeting was postponed from April 2nd to April 9th, so they have not yet had an opportunity to
review the plan and provided feedback. However, he advised that Rich Lindsey, Parks Maintenance Manager, was present to
address questions and provide additional information related to the proposed changes to street tree species.
Mr. Lindsey explained that the City’s Street Tree Plan was originally adopted in 2002. Since that time, it has been
determined that some of the species identified in the plan did not work well as street trees. For example, staff is proposing
that the Columnar Sargent Cherry be replaced with Columnar Bowhall Maple. He explained that Columnar Bowhall Maples
have proven to be very resilient, with brilliant spring, summer and fall colors. They are very low maintenance and disease
and drought resistant, as well as slow growing and easy to prune and shape. They are also thornless, fruitless, resistant to
pests, and the roots are non-invasive. They have done well in other areas of the City, and staff believes they would result in a
cost savings from a maintenance point of view.
Mr. Lindsey said staff is also proposing to replace the Kwanson Flowering Cherry species. Although this species is beautiful
in park-like settings, they do not make good street trees. Street trees must be pruned on a regular basis, and pruning of this
species causes the trunk to become enlarged. In addition, the roots become aggressive and cause sidewalks to lift. These
trees have done a lot of damage throughout the City. At the Tree Board’s next meeting, he will propose that this species be
replaced with Capital Pear, which is very similar to a Columnar Bowhall Maple. Capital Pear trees are very tough and have
white flowers in the spring, shiny green leaves in the summer and read and purples leaves in the fall. They are draught and
disease tolerant and resistant to breakage. They are also slow growing.
Chair Tibbott asked if staff could provide pictures of the species identified in the plan. He suggested the City Council would
likely be very interested in seeking samples of the species of trees that are currently being recommended. He expressed
appreciation for the work the staff and Tree Board have done to select trees that are compatible with the sidewalks, easy to
maintain, etc.
Board Member Robles referred to the Columnar Sargent Maple Trees that are planted in front of City Hall, and noted that the
sun conditions in this location are substantially different than in other areas of the City. The lack of morning and evening sun
could tax any tree species. Mr. Lindsey agreed but said he believes the Columnar Bowhall Maple species have proven to be a
good tree in any type of sun condition.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that, at their last discussion relative to the Street Tree Plan, it was noted that
shopkeepers do not like a particular species of tree. She asked how members of the community can express their disinterest
in a tree species. Mr. Lindsey said he deals with public complaints relative to street trees, especially pruning, on a regular
basis. The goal is to select species that are hardy and slow growing so they do not disrupt pedestrian access or block views.
Chair Tibbott asked if Mr. Lindsey is confident that the recommended species will fit the maintenance criteria outlined for
the City, will be compatible with surrounding vegetation, and will result in satisfactory landscaping design that fits the
circumstances and can be approved by the City. Mr. Lindsey said he is comfortable that the proposed species meet all of
these criteria.
Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the proposed Tree Code calls for the City to complete an Urban Forest Management
Plan (UFMP) by the end of 2017. Mr. Chave said that is an action item included in the draft Tree Code. Board Member
Rubenkonig said it seems out of sync to adopt a new Tree Code prior to the completion of the UFMP. Board Member
Cloutier recalled that the Board previously indicated preference for completing the UFMP prior to adopting the new Tree
Code. Chair Tibbott questioned if it would be acceptable for the Board to postpone any action on the draft Tree Code until a
UFMP has been completed. Mr. Chave agreed that would be within the scope of what the Board could recommend to the
City Council. For example, the Board could specifically ask that funding for the UFMP become a priority. He suggested
they could discuss the options in more detail when Mr. Lien returns with the collective comments submitted to date by the
Board Members. He noted that the draft Tree Code indicates that the UFMP should be completed by the end of 2017; it
doesn’t say the City must wait until the end of 2017. The goal is to provide flexibility to accommodate funding
opportunities, but the UFMP must be completed by a specific date.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council is supposed to take action on the Comprehensive Plan in June of 2015.
If the Board is far enough along in its review of the draft Tree Code to agree that the priority belongs with the UFMP, they
could make that suggestion as part of their recommendation to the City Council relative to the Comprehensive Plan update.
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
April 8, 2015 Page 2
Board Member Stewart referred to the most recent draft of the Street Tree Plan and noted that the comments she submitted to
staff in writing since the last meeting have not been incorporated. Mr. Chave clarified that no changes were made to the
Street Tree Plan since it was last reviewed by the Board. Staff is waiting for feedback from the Tree Board, as well as written
feedback from Board Members before updating the document for the Board’s continued review.
2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN (DRAFT PROJECT LIST/LEVEL OF SERVICE)
Mr. Hauss reviewed that the City has been working with consultants from Fehr and Peers since last October to update the
City’s Transportation Plan. He reminded the Board that the draft goals and policies for the Transportation Plan were
presented on February 11th, and tonight’s discussion will focus on the first draft of the project list to be included in the 2015
Transportation Element update, as well as the draft Level of Service (LOS) Standards to be considered for each travel mode.
He noted that the Transportation Committee, Walkway Committee and Edmonds Bicycle Club have reviewed the draft
project list, as well. He advised that the draft project list and LOS Standards would be presented to the City Council in a few
weeks.
Chair Tibbott commented that it would be helpful to understand the difference between LOS A and LOS D. If it is
essentially based on the amount of time spent at an intersection, then perhaps it would be helpful to provide some quantitative
information. Mr. Hauss replied that a description of the LOS ratings and how they were applied throughout the City would
be provided as a figure in the Transportation Plan.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the Board previously reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which ranks
projects based on roadway conditions and the functionality of the roadway rather than LOS. Board Member Cloutier pointed
out that many of the roadway projects identified in the CIP are intended to address LOS issues, such as the Five Corners
Roundabout.
Mr. Samdahl emphasized that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to set LOS standards for arterials and
transit routes. The regional planning process also anticipates that cities will set similar LOS standards for bicycles and
pedestrians. He explained that LOS is basically a measure of a facility’s quality of service. In the case of roadways, the
scale uses A through F. An LOS A means that the average delay when approaching an intersection is virtually zero, and an
LOS D means that an intersection is not quite failing, but the average delay is about 50 seconds. LOS F indicates extreme
congestion with delays in excess of one and even two minutes. He advised that, consistent with the City’s current LOS
standards, the draft Transportation Plan identifies a standard of LOS D or better for arterials and LOS C or better for collector
streets.
Mr. Samdahl pointed out that standards for State Routes are different; and currently, the State has identified a standard of
LOS E or better for SR-524 and Highway 99 north of SR-104. SR-104 and Highway 99 south of SR-104 have been
designated as Highways of Statewide Significance, meaning that they are controlled by the state and connect major
destinations. No City standard is defined for these roadways, which are not subject to concurrency. However, to monitor
operations on Highways of Statewide Significance, the plan identifies existing and potential future deficiencies, as well as
improvements that might be needed, if the State’s standard is exceeded.
Mr. Samdahl explained that the proposed roadway projects were analyzed based on LOS and/or safety. He referred to Figure
1, which shows the existing LOS at intersections within the City. He summarized that all intersections currently meet the
City’s adopted LOS standard; and with the exception of the intersection at 238th Street Southwest and SR-104, all
intersections on Highways of Statewide Significance met the State’s LOS standard. Mr. Samdahl also referred to Figure 2,
which illustrates the anticipated 2035 LOS conditions, both with and without improvements, based on growth forecasts for
the City and the region over the next 20 years. He summarized that, without improvements, several intersections are
anticipated to exceed the City’s LOS Standard. For those intersections that would not meet the City’s LOS standard, projects
were identified to improve the conditions (Table 2). With the exception of the intersection at Highway 99 and 212th Street
Southwest, the proposed improvements would get all intersections operating satisfactorily within the standard. While
improvements have been proposed for the intersection of Highway 99 and 212th Street Southwest to make the situation better,
widening the highway to provide additional lanes would be needed to fully address the issue. In discussions with both the
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
April 8, 2015 Page 3
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
City Council Meeting | April 28, 2015 |
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
•Draft updates to the Comprehensive Plan are being reviewed one at a time.
•Drafts, with refinements, will be considered all together in early July.
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
Existing Comprehensive Plan does not contain special
section on Streetscape and Street Trees.
However, 2006 Streetscape Plan (with Street Tree Plan as
appendix) is currently adopted by reference.
Time & resources are not currently available for major
update to 2006 Streetscape/Street Tree Plan.
Instead, simple Streetscape & Street Tree section can be
added into Community Culture & Urban Design
element.
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
Through meetings with key staff from multiple
departments, staff identified the following key points:
•Existing Street Tree Plan Map was difficult to read;
•Certain tree species in 2006 Street Tree Plan were
underperforming or wrong shape/size for intended
area;
•More in-depth study on street trees is needed but
could occur next year.
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
CURRENT PROPOSAL:
•Add new Streetscape & Street Tree section into
Comprehensive Plan to address goals & policies;
•Based on 2006 Streetscape Plan
•Do not adopt Streetscape Plan by reference, but
include it as appendix to Comprehensive Plan
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
CURRENT PROPOSAL:
•Add 2 tree-related implementation strategies to
Culture & Urban Design Element of Comp Plan:
1)Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the
end of 2016.
2)Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by
the end of 2017.
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
CURRENT PROPOSAL:
•Make minor adjustments to Street Tree Plan (appendix
to Comp Plan):
A.Improve map readability
B.Adjust street tree species in 4 locations to
encourage better performing trees
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
Draft 2015 Street Tree Plan
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
2015 Street Tree Plan changes
Changed species from European
Hornbeam to Capital Pear
Shop owners were
generally unhappy with
the European Hornbeam.
While the tree is pretty
and performs fairly well, it
obscures storefronts and
attracts pests (scale and
aphids); both of which
were found on this
specimen on April 20th,
2015.
European Hornbeam on 2nd Ave. and
James St.
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
2015 Street Tree Plan changes
Changed species from Kwansan
Cherry to Capital Pear
The Kwansan Cherry is a
good tree in park-like
settings, but as a street
tree we have found it does
not perform well due to
irregular shape, difficult to
prune, and roots are very
invasive lifting sidewalks
and streets where planted.
This tree is also prone to
many types of diseases
and pest problems.
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
2015 Street Tree Plan changes
Changed species from Sargents
Cherry to Bowhall Maple
At the April 9th Tree Board
meeting, Ronald Brightman
correctly identified the
cherry trees in front of City
Hall as Amanogawa Cherry.
In general, cherry trees
have not performed well as
street trees in Edmonds.
The Tree Board
recommends changing
Sargents Cherry to Bowhall
Maple to create a cohesive
streetscape with trees
planted at the Public Safety
building.
Amanogawa Cherry at City Hall.
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
2015 Street Tree Plan changes
Changed species from Kwansan
Cherry to Bowhall Maple
The Kwansan Cherry is a
good tree in park-like
settings, but as a street
tree we have found it
does not perform well
due to irregular shape,
difficult to prune, and
roots are very invasive
lifting sidewalks and
streets where planted.
This tree is also prone to
many types of diseases
and pest problems.
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
2015 Street Tree Plan changes
Changed species from Summit
Ash to mix of trees as per 4 th
Ave. Cultural Corridor Design
Implementation and Funding
Plan (2009) & 4th Ave. Arts
Corridor Concept Plan (2006)
Trees species listed in the plans
include:
•Red Oak
•Rivers Purple Beech
•Norway Maple
•Chanticleer Flowering Pear
•Sunset Maple
•Frontier Elm
•Little Gem Magnolia
•All existing trees that are viable
should be saved
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
PLANNING BOARD AND TREE BOARD INPUT
Planning Board discussed proposal on March 11th & April
8th.
Tree Board discussed same material on April 9th.
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
City Council held public hearing on April 21
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
Background
Key Points
Maps
Proposed
Changes
Next Steps
STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES
Planning
Board
•March 11th - Introduction to Streetscape & Street Tree update
•April 8th - Recommendation for Streetscape & Street Tree update
Tree Board
•April 9th, - Review Streetscape & Street Tree update
City Council
•April 21st - Public Hearing on Streetscape & Street Tree update
•April 28th - Discussion on Streetscape & Street Tree update
•June/July- More public input & final decision on full Comp Plan
AM-7663 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Progress Update on Development and Critical Area Codes
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
The Council has provided funding for both the Development Code and Critical Area Ordinance Updates.
Narrative
Development Code Major Update
A review and major update of the City’s Development Code is underway. It is being carried out through
funding allocated by the City Council.
The first open house for the major Development Code Update was held March 11 to explain the process
and get early public input. (See Attachment 1 for some information that was displayed at the open house.)
Numerous other opportunities for public input will be provided along the way.
The update is intended to make city regulations more understandable and effective—including fixing
gaps in existing regulations and offering improvements.
While rewriting the entire Development Code is not possible in the current phase, significant updates will
be proposed. These will address subdivisions, planned residential developments, low impact stormwater
management, processes, definitions, multifamily housing, signage, and more.
Other specific information is posted on the City’s website at:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/ecdc-code-updates.html.
A draft Development Code Update is expected for public review this fall.
CAO Update
All cities and counties in Washington State are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the Growth
Management Act (GMA). As defined by the GMA,
"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." [RCW 36.70A.030(5)]
Counties and cities are required to include Best Available Science (BAS) in developing policies and
development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. All jurisdictions are required
to review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas ordinances according to an update
schedule. The City of Edmonds critical area ordinance (CAO) update is due in 2015. The City's CAO and
BAS has not had a comprehensive review and update in nearly 10 years since the current version of the
City's critical area regulations became effective in 2005.
The City of Edmonds selected environmental consultants ESA to assist the City in updating the 2004
City's Best Available Science Report (Attachment 2) and to evaluate the City's critical area regulations
given the changes in science. Attachment 3 contains the Best Available Science addendum and Gap
Analysis Matrix of the existing code prepared by ESA.
The City's existing critical area regulations are largely compliant with Best Available Science; however,
there are a few areas where ESA has suggested changes to the CAO. Particular provisions that require
some modification include: 1) changing the City's wetland regulations to be consistent with Department
of Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities (Ecology Publication #10-06-002), 2) updating the geologically
hazardous provisions, 3) creating a new Biodiversity Areas and Corridors section intended to replace an
existing provision requiring retention or establishment of native vegetation in RS-12 and RS-20 zones,
and 4) reviewing the allowed activities including development within physically separated and
functionally isolated buffers and development within a previously developed footprint.
The Planning Board has begun its review of draft critical area code provisions. This will continue over
the next couple of Planning Board meetings with a Public Hearing and recommendation of the draft
Critical Area Ordinance currently scheduled on July 8, 2015.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Development Code Open House Posters
Attachment 2 - 2004 City of Edmonds Best Available Science Report
Attachment 3 - 2015 Best Available Science Addendum with Gap Analysis Matrix
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Development Services Shane Hope 04/23/2015 10:10 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 11:57 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 07:00 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 04/23/2015 09:53 AM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
Edmonds Community Development Code Update
Title
18
24
Title Tree reTenTion
Tree retention is being addressed by
tree board.
Other code updates will be
coordinated with the work already
done.
Integrate NPDES requirements (e.g.,
natural stormwater drainage) into
new code section.
Remove barriers to low-impact
stormwater techniques and add
support in standards for:
Lot coverage
Topsoil and native vegetation
preservation
Impervious surfaces (paving)
minimization
STormwaTer
managemenT
Edmonds Community Development Code Update
Title
Identify ways to make the review
processes clearer and fairer.
Explore better provisions for bonding,
insurance, non-conforming uses
(grandfathered uses), etc.
example iSSueS
Chapter 20.75 uses different titles for
various staff positions and lacks cross
references.
Temporary signs are not required to
get a permit and are difficult to track.
20permiT review
proceSS
Encourage high-quality development
with stronger design guidance.
example iSSue
Some design standards are in Title 16,
but they are not sufficient for setting
design expectations.
Titles
16 & 22mulTifamily
developmenT
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I – IV)LEGISLATIVE
TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III-A TYPE III-B TYPE IV-A TYPE IV-B TYPE V
Recommendation by:N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning board Planning board
Final decision by:Director Director Hearing
examiner
Hearing
examiner/
ADB
City council City council City council
Notice of application:No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Open record public
hearing or open
record appeal of a
final decision:
No Only if
appealed,
open record
hearing
before
hearing
examiner
Yes, before
hearing
examiner
to render
final
decision
Yes, before
hearing
examiner
or board
to render
final
decision
No Yes, before
planning board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Yes, before
planning board
which makes
recommendation
to council or
council could hold
its own hearing
Closed record
review:
No No No Yes, before
the council
No Yes, before the
council
Judicial appeal:Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Edmonds Community Development Code Update
Titles
Titles
Strengthen the minimum
development standards and design
guidelines.
Allow different ways to meet
the standard’s intent through a
transparent process.
16, 20,
& 22
16, 20,
& 22
Strengthen the design review process
with more specific and consolidated
design standards.
example iSSue
Two design review processes
exist—one in general and one for
specific districts. Consolidating and
augmenting these standards and
procedures could provide better
guidance to the Architectural Design
Board and others.
predicTabiliTy
& flexibiliTy inTenT
guidelineS
deparTureS
deSign review
An intent statement clarifies the purpose of the
following guidelines. No matter how the guidelines
are met, the design must accomplish the intent.
Sample guidelines organization
The guidelines provide specific ways to meet the
intent. Requirements are clear and noted with
“shall.” Flexible items are noted with “should.”
The guidelines are not meant to hinder creativity
and innovative architectural designs. As long as the
intent is met, variances and departures are allowed.
This section clarifies what types of departures are
appropriate.
Edmonds Community Development Code Update
Title
20
Write clearer, consistent regulations
to reduce need for “staff
interpretation” and increase likelihood
of Planned Residential Development
(PRD).
example iSSueS
Code allows “minor revisions” to the
preliminary plat but is not clear about
what is meant by “minor,” nor the
process for approving such changes.
The Subdivision chapter does not
reference survey requirements in the
section describing requirements for a
land division application.
SubdiviSionS
& prdS
The City of Edmonds
2004 Best Available Science Report
A companion document to the 2004
critical areas ordinance update including
a comparative code analysis and
description/justifi cation of proposed
conceptual code changes.
Prepared by:
EDAW Inc.
815 Western Avenue Suite 300
Seattle Washington 98104
Prepared for:
The City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds Washington 98020
The City of Edmonds
2004 Best Available Science Report
Prepared by:
EDAW, Inc.
815 Western Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98104
Prepared for:
The City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
November 2004
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page i
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose ..............................................................................................................2
1.2 Best Available Science Overview .....................................................................2
1.3 Integration of the CAO and Shoreline Master Program ...................................3
1.4 City of Edmonds Overview ..............................................................................4
2.0 REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION .............................................................7
2.1 Related Actions and Regulations ......................................................................7
3.0 CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE MECHNISMS SUMMARY ...............................9
4.0 WETLANDS...............................................................................................................11
4.1 Wetlands: Code Review and Comparison ......................................................11
4.2 Review of Scientific Literature .......................................................................15
4.3 Assessment of Wetland Ordinance .................................................................24
4.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment ..................................................................26
5.0 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS.........................................................................29
5.1 Frequently Flooded Areas: Code Review and Comparison ............................29
5.2 Review of Scientific Literature .......................................................................30
5.3 Assessment of Frequently Flooded Areas Ordinance ......................................33
5.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment ..................................................................33
6.0 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ..............................................................35
6.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas: Code Review and Comparison ....................35
6.2 Review of Scientific Literature .......................................................................39
6.3 Assessment of Geologically Hazardous Areas Ordinance ..............................40
6.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment ..................................................................41
7.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS..............................43
7.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: Code Review
and Comparison ...............................................................................................44
7.2 Review of Scientific Literature .......................................................................51
7.3 Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Ordinance .....53
7.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment ..................................................................54
8.0 CAO ORGANIZATION ..............................................................................................55
8.1 Organizational Code Review and Comparison ...............................................55
8.2 Assessment of Critical Areas Ordinance Organization ..................................56
8.3 Conclusions and Risk Assessment ..................................................................57
9.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................59
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page ii
List of Tables
Table 4-1. Wetlands code comparison ...............................................................................13
Table 4-2. Wetland rating systems.....................................................................................18
Table 4-3. Buffer effectiveness ..........................................................................................20
Table 5-1. Frequently flooded areas code comparison ......................................................31
Table 6-1. Geologically hazardous areas code comparison ...............................................37
Table 7-1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas code comparison ........................47
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BAS Best Available Science
CAO Critical Areas Ordinance
cfs cubic feet per second
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CTED Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development
CWA Clean Water Act
DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
DOE Washington Department of Ecology
ECDC Edmonds Community Development Code
ESHB Engrossed Substitute House Bill
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
GIS geographic information system
GMA Growth Management Act
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SAO Sensitive Areas Ordinance
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SMA Shoreline Management Act
SMP Shoreline Master Program
T/E Threatened/Endangered
TES Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page iv
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities and counties in the
state to protect critical areas within their jurisdiction to preserve the natural environment
and protect the public’s health and safety. To respond to this mandate, jurisdictions have
developed Critical Areas Ordinances (CAO) that define buffers and other standards to
protect these resources. The GMA was amended in 2002 to require jurisdictions to
update their comprehensive land use plan and critical areas ordinance every 7 years to
ensure the protection of sensitive resources. Five critical areas are identified by the GMA
(RCW 36.70A.030[5]):
• Wetlands
• Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water
• Frequently flooded areas
• Geologically hazardous areas
• Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
Each of these categories is discussed in detail later in this document, except aquifer
recharge areas, which are not a concern in Edmonds. Protecting these critical areas
within a jurisdiction aids in reducing risk to natural disasters such as floods and
landslides, and for retaining the ecosystem functions of elements of the landscape such as
streams and wetlands.
Counties and cities are required to include the best available science (BAS) in developing
policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas.
In addition, counties and cities are required to give special consideration to conservation
or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish populations
(those that mature in salt water and spawn in freshwater). Protecting the function and
values of a critical area does not mean exclusion of all uses or development within or
adjacent to these areas, but requires managing changes in land use, new activities, and
development that can harm these resources (CTED 2003).
According to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development (CTED), there are four primary steps in developing a local critical areas
program. These steps can progress concurrently:
1. Identify the local critical areas;
2. Review BAS information relevant to local critical areas;
3. Set goals and policies under the comprehensive plan for protecting critical areas; and
4. Define, designate, and protect critical areas.
Identification of critical areas and mapping these resources is the first step in the update
process. Most jurisdictions have some level of inventory data and will use the CAO
update process to refine these data. Comprehensive plan updates help define the broader
goals and policies of managing the landscape within a jurisdiction. These goals are then
used as a framework to update existing CAO codes and regulations. Some classifications
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 2
of critical areas, such as streams and wetlands, have changed on a state level, and these
elements also need to be updated in the new code. Finally, jurisdictions will provide
public comment on the daft CAO and will submit the final regulations to CTED for
review and comment.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this BAS review is to provide technical information to City staff
regarding the efficacy of protection measures regarding critical areas within their
jurisdiction. This information will allow decision-makers to update the Edmonds CAO in
accordance with GMA and CTED guidelines that reflect the available resources and
particular needs of the City.
1.2 Best Available Science Overview
In 1995, the Washington State Legislature added a new section to the GMA that requires
cities and counties to use reliable scientific information when developing policies and
development regulations regarding critical areas. This new requirement (RCW
36.70A.172) requires all counties and cities in Washington to “include the best available
science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and
values of critical areas.” It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction that their CAO
update includes a review of BAS relevant to the resources within their boundary. In
1998, CTED organized a technical team of experts from state and local agencies to
clarify the issue of BAS for jurisdictions undertaking CAO updates. CTED eventually
adopted six new sections to the Procedural Criteria, Part Nine, WAC 365-195. The
science rules are codified at WAC 365-195 through 925 and took effect on August 27,
2000.
The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board applies three factors to
determine if a local or county government has included BAS in their process:
• The scientific evidence contained in the record.
• Whether the local government’s analysis of the “scientific evidence and other
factors involved a reasoned process.”
• Whether the local government’s decision was within the parameters of the GMA
as directed by the provisions of RCW 36.70A.172(1).
The local jurisdiction’s record supporting their CAO process and decisions should
include the following (WAC 365-195-915):
• The specific policies and regulations adopted to protect the functions and values
of critical areas.
• Copies of (or references to) the best available science used in the decision-making
and the nonscientific information used as a basis for departing from science-based
recommendations.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 3
• The rationale supporting the local government’s reliance on the nonscientific
information.
• Actions taken to address potential risks to the functions and values of the critical
areas that policies and regulations are intended to protect.
Jurisdictions also must give special consideration to anadromous fish when developing
their CAO. Specifically, WAC 365-195-192 explains what “special consideration”
entails:
• The county or city should take the same steps it takes to demonstrate it has
included the best available science. It should make a record showing that its
critical areas policies and regulations identify and address “conservation or
protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries” that
are grounded in BAS.
• The “conservation or protection measures” for anadromous fisheries should
include measures that preserve or enhance habitat for all life stages of
anadromous fish.
Protection of critical areas can preserve and enhance anadromous fish habitat through a
variety of mechanisms including buffers around streams and wetlands that provide
protection from ground-disturbing activities, erosion, and surface water runoff.
Requirements for proper erosion control and stormwater control also protect aquatic
habitats. These and other protection measures are explored in the following chapters.
1.3 Integration of the CAO and Shoreline Master Program
In reaction to a decision in Everett Shorelines Coalition v. the City of Everett (Central
Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board No. 02-30009c), the 2003
Washington Legislature adopted Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1933, which
clarifies the relationship between the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and GMA.
Among other items, the bill stipulates that critical areas that occur within or exist as
shorelines of the state (as defined by SMA) are to be protected by the jurisdiction’s
Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Local governments must ensure this protection while
updating their SMP to meet Washington State Department of Ecology’s (DOE) new SMP
guidelines. Regulations for critical areas under the SMP must be as stringent under the
SMP as the CAO. During the period of time between the effective date of ESHB 1933
and a local government’s update of its SMP, the local government’s GMA critical areas
regulations continue to apply to designated critical areas throughout the jurisdiction,
including those in the vicinity of shorelines of the state.
The City of Edmonds is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan and CAO and plans
to update its SMP in 2005. Thus, the City’s CAO will cover critical areas within
shorelines until the updated SMP is adopted.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 4
1.4 City of Edmonds Overview
The City of Edmonds is located in southeastern Snohomish County along Puget Sound
just north of the Town of Woodway and south of the City of Lynwood. The Burlington
Northern/Amtrak train line runs parallel to the shoreline for the entire north-south
shoreline of Edmonds.
While no comprehensive critical areas geographical information system (GIS ) database
was previously available for the resources within the City limits, a number of
unconnected data sources were available for wetlands, streams, steep slopes, landslide
areas, and some critical wildlife habitat zones.
Because of the City’s topographic position and its relatively small size, the drainages that
flow through the jurisdiction are relatively small. No streams meet the 20 cubic foot per
second (cfs) annual flow threshold for classification as a water of the state. While a few
streams provide limited access for coho salmon, these are limited to the lower reaches of
the streams (Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, and Willow Creek). Stream reaches that
flow through parks or other protected public lands or are adjacent to undevelopable land
(steep slopes) have defined riparian habitat. In contrast, many lower stream reaches have
been subject to historical residential development and have no riparian zones, with grass,
concrete, or other man-made banks.
Larger wetland systems in the City, such as the Edmonds Marsh and Good Hope Marsh,
are protected within public open space. Lake Ballinger (partially within the City limits),
however, in the southeastern corner of the City, is developed down to its shoreline with
little or no native vegetation buffer. Many smaller wetland complexes are associated
with the headwaters of streams such as Shell Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Fruitdale
Creek. Other less significant wetlands are scattered throughout the jurisdiction. Most of
the creeks within Edmonds originate within the City limits and flow directly into Puget
Sound. While the wetlands present in these small watersheds may be minor in size,
because of past development and loss of riparian zones, these wetlands provide
significant functions within these small watersheds.
Steep slopes and landslide issues, particularly in the Meadowdale portion of the City,
have been constant concerns for City staff trying to balance public safety and reasonable
development. Several recent engineering studies have helped refine the issues, map
susceptible areas, and provide input into the CAO update process. Continued vigilance
and accurate assessment of proposed development in this area is required.
The City contains a number of important fish and wildlife habitat zones in addition to
wetlands and streams. While the interaction between upland areas and the Puget Sound
shoreline has been diminished from the construction of the railroad right-of-way and
other developments, the Edmonds shoreline still provides productive estuarine habitat for
a number of fish species, marine mammals, and recreation in the form of the designated
underwater diving park. Riparian zones, wetlands, and adjacent buffers form some
connected patches of habitat, particularly along the stream corridors. Where these are
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 5
supplemented by public open space, such as Yost Park and Southwest County Park, the
area and connectivity of wildlife habitat is substantially increased. These features are
important in providing limited and connected wildlife habitat within a relatively urban
zone.
The City of Edmonds is unique in two particular areas when compared to other
jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area:
• There are few parcels of land that have not previously been developed
• Historical building practices have left minimal and often no buffers along the
small streams that flow through the City.
The small streams that are present in the City often traverse through residential lots where
they have been diverted around structures, are located directly adjacent to houses, are
bridged by driveways, or have been incorporated into residential landscaping.
Developing buffer recommendations that are practical and enforceable for the CAO is
difficult because of this urban residential context of few undeveloped parcels and
historical integration of residential housing and these small streams.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 6
2.0 REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
The update of the Edmonds CAO is being completed under CTED guidelines regarding
BAS. The concept of BAS is to have jurisdictions review the science of resource
protection in the context of the critical areas within their jurisdiction. Much of the data
regarding protection of resources from development impacts concerns the appropriate
width of buffers of native vegetation between critical areas and development. There is no
one answer, however, regarding the width of buffers needed to protect resources such as
streams and wetlands. Often, it depends on a specific research topic addressed, such as
protection from nutrient loading, excess sediment, excess stormwater flow, or protection
of wildlife habitat. Ultimately, the larger the buffer, the greater protection will be
provided, up to an often undefined threshold. As an example, some of the literature
suggests buffers of over 900 feet along streams to attain protection of wildlife habitat
(Knutson and Naef, 1997, FEMAT 1993), while buffers of 50 feet are sufficient to
protect streams from the majority of pollutants from runoff (Lee et al. 2000).
GMA sets up an inherent conflict for urban growth areas. The primary goal of the act is
to discourage sprawl and the damage to natural resources from unplanned growth, and
encourage denser growth in urban zones. In contrast, urban growth jurisdictions are also
directed to protect and enhance resources within their boundaries. Thus, policy-makers
must decide on the level of resource protection (such as buffer widths) that are
appropriate for their resources that does not unduly restrict urban growth directed by
GMA. While the science can provide some clear guidelines regarding these issues,
ultimately, this is a policy and public-process decision.
2.1 Related Actions and Regulations
The City is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan and coordinating this update effort
and the CAO update. In addition, once the Comprehensive Plan and CAO are adopted by
the City Council, a joint State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document will be
completed on the implications of these updates.
The updated GMA rules stipulate that special emphasis must be given to anadromous
fish, those that spend their adult life in marine waters but return to spawn in freshwater
rivers and streams. A number of anadromous species in Puget Sound are protected by the
Federal Endangered Species Act; thus, jurisdictions should be aware of the effects of
their CAOs to these species. Protection in the CAO is generally provided from buffers
along streams, wetlands, and the estuarine shoreline.
CAO regulation of activities near wetlands and streams often overlaps with wetland fill
laws under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), administered by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps). CAOs usually provide very specific guidelines regarding
such items as buffer widths and mitigation rations for wetland enhancement or
replacement from development loss where the Corps’ guidelines do not. In addition, the
minimum size of wetland fill under the Corps’ guidelines is generally much larger that
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 7
the minimum size for compliance with CAOs. Thus, in general, local ordinances can
provide added protection for these resources as appropriate for their community above
the Federal requirements.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 8
3.0 CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE MECHANISMS SUMMARY
Several general strategies can be incorporated into CAO for resource protection. These
include:
• Engineering analysis and design
• Buffer requirements
• Mitigation requirements
• Incentives and public education
• Upland native vegetation retention
Reports on steep slopes and landslide hazard areas are often required in CAO to
determine if and how development can proceed. Specific buffer widths are often
recommended for these areas but can be adjusted if a report, provided by a qualified
geotechnical expert, determines that development can be accommodated with certain
engineering or construction elements. The primary concern with these critical areas is
public safety. Many jurisdictions do not include specific recommendations in their CAO
but refer to guidelines within their building code.
Buffer requirements are often the primary mechanism used to protect sensitive resources,
which range from wetlands and streams to bald eagle nest sites. The general idea is to
allow development only at a set distance from the resource to protect it from physical,
chemical, and noise effects. Most often, the buffers must consist of native vegetation,
which also provides a visual screen important for some wildlife species. If impacts to a
wetland or stream, or its buffer, cannot be avoided, then CAOs usually provide a ratio of
mitigation or enhancement to compensate for the development impact. The ratios are
usually based on the relative value of the lost resource and the estimated time to regain
those lost functions. For instance, a high ratio of habitat replacement to habitat loss
would be appropriate for loss of forested wetland because of the time it would take for a
forested wetland to become established compared to the loss of a wetland dominated by
emergent, non-woody vegetation. CTED recommends that mitigation ratios be increased
when:
• Uncertainty about potential success exists;
• A significant period of time is expected before a functioning wetland recovers;
• Mitigation results in a lower category wetland or diminished function; and
• Wetland impacts were not authorized.
While not often directly part of a CAO, incentives and public education are important
components of retention of native vegetation in urban zones. Particularly in Edmonds,
historical residential development is already a part of the landscape adjacent to streams
and within recommended buffer zones. It is important to foster community awareness of
the functions of stream and wetland buffers so residents will protect existing native
vegetation and potentially enhance areas with native species outside a regulatory
construct.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 9
Upland areas outside of sensitive area buffer zones are generally key development parcels
within urban growth boundaries. However, undeveloped upland parcels often also
provide habitat for wildlife and may be components of habitat corridors comprised of
adjacent open space parcels around stream corridors, steep slopes, or wetlands. Rather
than clear an entire developable lot and then implement landscaping with non-native
plant species, it can be beneficial to consider the placement of structures, driveways, and
roads to limit the amount of clearing of vegetation. CAOs can include provisions for
retention of a certain percentage of existing native vegetation on undeveloped lots to help
preserve small-scale habitat segments, particularly if they contribute to a larger parcel or
corridor of open space. Development of a Vegetation Management Plan to assess the
options for retaining vegetation on undeveloped sites can provide the required analysis
for City staff to work with project proponents. Flexibility on both sides is often needed
in these cases to accommodate reasonable development and protection of resources in an
urban environment.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 10
4.0 WETLANDS
Wetlands in Washington State are fragile ecosystems that perform a number of important
beneficial functions. As such, wetlands are identified in the Washington GMA as a
distinct critical area for which continued protection is imperative (see WAC 365-190-
080[1]). Wetlands reduce the risk of erosion, siltation, flooding, and ground and surface
water contamination as well as provide valuable habitat for wildlife, plants, and fish.
Wetland destruction or degradation may result in increased public and private costs or
propert y losses through increased risk of flooding.
In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, jurisdictions are required to use the
definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030(20) as follows:
"Wetland" or "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do
not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from 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 created to mitigate
conversion of wetlands.
In addition, to comply with definitive mandates of BAS, CTED encourages counties and
cities to develop protective measures consistent with the intent and goals of “protection
of wetlands,” Executive Orders 89-10 and 90-04 as issued on September 1, 1990.
Additionally, counties and cities must consider updated guidance on wetlands protection
provided by DOE.
Recent CAO updates typically include modification of wetland classification systems to
conform with the state system developed and intensively reviewed by DOE for
consistency with BAS. Although adoption of DOE’s system is not mandatory, CTED
encourages counties and cities that do not rate wetlands or intend classification updates to
consider a wetland rating system to reflect the relative function, value, and uniqueness of
wetlands in their jurisdictions. In developing wetland rating systems, CTED guidance
(CTED 2003) instructs counties and cities to consider the following:
• The Washington State four-tier wetlands rating system;
• Wetlands functions and values;
• Degree of sensitivity to disturbance;
• Rarity; and
• Ability to compensate for destruction or degradation.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Science Report Page 11
4.1 Wetlands: Code Review and Comparison
The City of Edmonds’ current CAO uses a modified three-tiered system for wetland
classification (Table 4-1). This system is not consistent with CTED guidance on
classifying Washington State wetlands in accordance with BAS. As indicated in
Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas, CTED
encourages adoption of the four-tiered wetland classification system developed by DOE.
This four-tiered system – in both its 1993 revised (DOE 1993) and recently updated
(2004a) draft form – allows refined distinction of wetland categories based upon function
and value, especially in regard to “lower quality” wetland types. DOE has prepared a
draft document that reviews the science of wetland management and buffers in
Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (DOE
2004b). DOE provided input to CTED regarding the appropriate buffers for wetlands and
streams.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 12
Table 4-1. Wetlands code comparison.
City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Draft Mukilteo CAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents.
Wetland Classification
Existing Code: Three categories
defined as follows.
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Uses 4-tiered wetland classification
system per DOE:
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Uses 4-tiered wetland
classification system per DOE’s
1993 wetland rating system:
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Basically uses a 3-tiered system
with a 4th category (Category 4
wetlands) defining wetlands
associated with a specific
hydrologic system (Lake Burien).
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4 – Lake Burien and
associated wetlands.
Adopts DOE 4-tiered wetland
classification system:
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
• In general, all jurisdictions in Washington are adopting the 4-
tiered system developed by DOE, typically with slight
modification.
• Edmonds code currently only specifies use of the Federal
manual for wetland delineations. CTED and most
jurisdictions typically specify use of the State manual, which
is based upon the Federal manual. In practicality, both
manuals are used for field delineation and updated code
should allow for use of both.
• Edmonds code only regulates wetlands larger than 2,500
square feet in size. This regulatory minimum is inconsistent
with guidance provided by CTED and DOE, although most
jurisdictions retain minimum size requirements in updated
CAO.
Wetland Buffers
Existing code:
Category 1 – 100 ft
Category 2 – 50 ft
Category 3 – 25 ft
Category 1
high intensity – 300ft
moderate intensity – 250 ft
low intensity – 200 ft
Category 2
high intensity – 200 ft
moderate intensity – 150 ft
low intensity – 100 ft
Category 3
high intensity – 100 ft
moderate intensity – 75 ft
low intensity – 50 ft
Category 4
High intensity – 50 ft
low and moderate intensity – 35 ft
Category 1 – 160 ft
Category 2 – 100 ft
Category 3 – 75 ft
Category 4 – 50 ft
(As programmatic mitigation for
use of smaller buffers, Mukilteo
requires development of a
Buffer Enhancement Plan for
any parcel containing a
regulated wetland.)
Category 1 – 200 ft
Category 2 – 100 ft
Category 3 – 50 ft
Category 4 – 30 ft
Category 1 – 300 ft
Category 2 – 200 ft
Category 3 – 100 ft
Category 4 – 50 ft
• “Intensity” classification for wetland buffers in CTED’s
Example Code Provisions refer to “land use intensity.”
Numerous jurisdictional precedents reflect an opposite
correlation between regulated buffer widths and “intensity”
of land use: i.e., buffers are typically reduced in size in urban,
built-out jurisdictions to accommodate existing development
and land uses.
• Currently, Edmonds code allows for a minimum spot
reduction through buffer averaging to 50% of standard buffer
width. This is inconsistent with CTED guidance, which
allows spot reduction to 75% of standard width or to 35 ft,
whichever is larger. Other jurisdictions (e.g., King County)
do not stipulate a minimum but, instead, include text
confirming that wetland functions and values will not be
reduced.
• Many jurisdictions include details on wetland buffer
enhancement plans. Mukilteo, to provide systematic
mitigation for the potential adoption of reduced standard
buffer widths, stipulates in its updated wetland ordinance that
a buffer enhancement plan is required for all parcels
containing a wetland regardless of the potential for impacts.
Wetland Mitigation
Existing code: Compensatory
mitigation ratios as follows.
Category 1-6:1
Category 2-forested 3:1, shrub
Category 1 – 6:1
Category 2 – 3:1
Category 3 – 2:1
Category 4 – 1.5:1
Category 1 – 6:1
Category 2 – 3:1
Category 3 – 2:1
Category 4 – 1.5:1
Category 1 and 2 – 3:1
Category 3 and 4 – 2:1
On-site:
Restoration.
Category 1,2,3 – 3:1
Category 4 – 2:1
Enhancement or creation.
Category 1,2,3 – 4:1
Category 4 – 3:1
• CTED’s Example Code Provisions stipulates mitigation ratio
increases when: (a) uncertainty about potential success exists;
(b) a significant period of time is expected before wetland
functioning recovers; (c) mitigation results in a lower
category wetland or diminished functions; and (d) wetland
impacts were not authorized.
• King County allows for reduced compensatory ratios under
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 13
Table 4-1. Wetlands code comparison.
City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Draft Mukilteo CAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents.
2:1, emergent 1.5:1
Category 3-1.25:1
Off-site same drainage basin:
Restoration.
Category 1,2,3 – 4:1
Category 4 – 3:1
Creation.
Category 1,2,3 – 5:1
Category 4 – 4:1
Enhancement:
Category 1,2,3 – 6:1
Category 4 – 4:1
Off-site different drainage basin:
Restoration.
Category 1,2,3 – 5:1
Category 4 – 4:1
Creation.
Category 1,2,3 – 6:1
Category 4 – 5:1
Enhancement.
Category 1,2,3 – 8:1
Category 4 – 5:1
various – very specific – conditions, typically requiring an
applicant to provide valid proof (hydrological data,
monitoring precedents, etc.) of mitigation success.
• Currently, alternatives for mitigation other than compensation
are not directly addressed in Edmonds CAO. Many
jurisdictions provide managers with leeway in determining
appropriate strategies for wetland impact mitigation. Many
jurisdictions (e.g., Burien, King County, etc.) include
provisions for wetland enhancement as mitigation. Under
such provisions, applicants are allowed to enhance existing
wetlands and buffers in lieu of compensatory wetland
creation.
Wetlands – Permitted Uses
Existing code:
Depending on wetland category,
wetlands may be used for
stormwater treatment.
Stormwater management facilities,
limited to stormwater dispersion
outfalls and bioswales, may be
allowed within the outer 25% of
the buffer of Category 3 and 4
wetlands only provided that: no
other location is feasible; and,
facilities do not degrade the
function and values of such
wetlands.
“Stormwater Management
Facilities […] shall not be
located within the required
buffer unless no other locations
are feasible and the location of
such facilities will not have an
adverse impact on the wetland.
Stormwater detention ponds
shall not be allowed in wetlands
or their buffers.”
Sewer utility corridors may be
allowed in certain wetlands and
stormwater facilities are allowed
consistent with requirements based
upon wetland category.
Practically allows stormwater
discharge and utilities in
wetlands and wetland buffers as
long as wetland function and
values are maintained or
enhanced from original
conditions.
• Jurisdictions incorporating BAS generally allow stormwater
facilities in wetland buffers and establish mechanisms in the
code for variances to allow planning departments leeway with
placement of facilities as practical. However, all code
updated in accordance with BAS includes text specifically
stating that all attempts should be made to exclude
stormwater facilities from wetlands and wetland buffers.
facilities may be incorporated into wetlands and buffers only
as necessary.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 14
Inclusion of a fourth wetland category in the Edmonds CAO will provide consistency
with BAS and the updated classification systems of jurisdictions throughout Western
Washington. In addition, use of a four-tiered classification system will allow for
standards of development that are not unduly restrictive and provide a level of protection
suited to the lower functions and values associated with Category 4 wetlands common to
urban, built-out environments.
Edmonds CAO currently mandates wetland protection by category, with the following
buffer widths:
• Category 1 – 100 ft
• Category 2 – 50 ft
• Category 3 – 25 ft
These existing code mandates are not consistent with CTED and DOE guidance or
provisions for increased buffer widths adopted by other local jurisdictions in accordance
with BAS (Table 4-1). CTED and DOE guidance on wetland buffer protection provides
a range of buffer widths depending upon the degree of “land-use intensity” in
surrounding areas. DOE and CTED provide guidance on buffer widths for wetland
protection by category based upon land-use intensity as follows:
• Category 1 Wetland
high intensity – 300 ft
moderate intensity – 250 ft
low intensity – 200 ft
• Category 2 Wetland
high intensity – 200 ft
moderate intensity – 150 ft
low intensity – 100 ft
• Category 3 Wetland
high intensity – 100 ft
moderate intensity – 75 ft
low intensity – 50 ft
• Category 4 Wetland
high intensity – 50 ft
moderate and low intensity – 35 ft
Given the density and size of residential lots in the City of Edmonds, buffer widths
specified by CTED and DOE – especially those prescribed for high intensity land-use
areas – may be unreasonable and overly restrictive. In addition, provisions for some
buffer flexibility along low quality wetlands may be appropriate for the Edmonds CAO to
allow for use of reduced buffer widths. The City of Mukilteo is using such a strategy to
mitigate for the proposed adoption of reduced wetland buffer widths in its updated draft
CAO. Although Mukilteo’s updated draft wetland ordinance deviates from CTED
guidance by mandating reduced wetland buffers widths (Category 1 – 160 ft; Category 2
– 100 ft; Category 3 – 75 ft; Category 4 – 50 ft), the ordinance also requires that any
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 15
applicant seeking a permit for a parcel containing a regulated wetland develop a buffer
enhancement plan, regardless of the potential for impact to the wetland. As indicated in
the draft 2004 Critical Areas Inventory, only two Category 1 and two Category 2 wetland
are known to exist within the entire jurisdiction of Edmonds. Potential wetland buffer
width reduction should necessarily focus on Category 3 and 4 wetlands to limit the
potential for land-use conflicts within the Edmonds City limits.
Current compensatory replacement ratios for wetland mitigation specified in the existing
Edmonds CAO are consistent with CTED and Ecology guidance on BAS for Category 1
wetlands (6:1) and forested Category 2 wetlands (3:1). However, existing replacement
ratios for Category 2 shrub (2:1) and emergent wetlands (1.5:1), and Category 3 wetlands
(1.25:1) are lower than those prescribed under CTED guidelines (all Category 3 wetlands
2:1; Category 4 wetlands 1.5:1). Surrounding jurisdictions (e.g., Mukilteo) are generally
adopting replacement ratios per CTED guidelines. King County’s updated draft CAO
modifies CTED’s suggested ratios to allow decreased ratios for on-site and local
compensatory mitigation. Mitigation sequencing to be specified in Edmonds updated
CAO will mandate compensation only as “last resort” mitigation. If compensatory
mitigation is necessary, it is likely to be implemented on or near a project site. Thus,
reduced replacement ratios or modification similar to that proposed by King County for
on-site and local wetland compensation may be appropriate for consideration by the City
of Edmonds.
Other elements of the City of Edmond’s existing ordinances pertaining to wetlands that
will likely require modification in accordance with BAS include: specification of both
the State and Federal manual for use in delineation and wetland boundary determination,
and reduction of the minimum size requirement for a regulated wetland. Although the
State manual, Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, is
based on the Federal manual, in Washington State, both manuals are used for field
delineation.
Currently, the City regulates only those wetlands larger than 2,500 square feet in area.
This minimum requirement is inconsistent with CTED and DOE guidance on BAS –
neither advocate adoption of a minimum wetland size requirement. However, many
jurisdictions have retained original or modified minimum wetland size requirements
through the BAS update process to minimize land-use restrictions on private parcels
(Table 4-1).
4.2 Review of Scientific Literature
Scientific literature documenting the effectiveness of wetland protections has been in a
dynamic state of flux since wetlands were first emphasized as a valuable and declining
natural resource in the 1970s. Studies typically do not provide a “right” or a “wrong” but
rather a range of parameters or conditions that result in an estimated probability of
protection. Identification of those parameters indicative of increased wetland protection
is also subjective to a degree. Wetlands perform a variety of beneficial functions – e.g.,
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 16
flood protection, sediment removal, water quality control, wildlife habitat provision, etc.
– and individual studies typically focus on only a single parameter.
The sections below provide a summary of empirical evidence documented on the
effectiveness of wetland classification, buffers, and mitigation regarding preservation of
different beneficial wetland functions. Comparison of the data provided in these
summaries and Table 4-2 will allow development of CAO wetland protections consistent
with both updated information on BAS and the needs of the Edmonds community.
Wetland Classification
Just as there is no single definition of wetlands used by ecologists, land managers, and
regulators (Dennison and Berry 1993, Mitsch and Gosselink 1993), there is no universal
system of wetland classification. Wetland classification is simply a tool to assist land
managers in the identification and protection of those areas located at the fringe of
aquatic and upland ecosystems that are known to provide important beneficial functions
in terms of wildlife habitat, flood control, maintenance of water quality, nutrient cycling,
etc. Empirical study of wetland classification focuses on the percentage of such areas
existing in a region that are afforded protection under different systems of wetland
classification.
Classification based on vegetation has been the most common approach to rating
wetlands since the publication of Cowardin et al. (1979). Even newer systems of
classification – such as the hydrogeomorphic method (Brinson 1993) and classifications
based on trophic status (Rieley and Page 1990) or hydrology (Kistritz and Porter 1993) –
still largely rely on delineation of plants and vegetation communities existing within a
wetland complex. Basing wetland categories on vegetation has the advantage of allowing
for rapid field assessment due to the conspicuous nature of plants and the ease with which
they can be identified, often at a distance.
Most systems of wetland classification in use in Washington are based on one of two
models. The older system was first developed by King County in the 1980s. It is a three-
tiered system in which the major factors are total wetland size and the number of
different vegetation classes present, with vegetation classes defined by Cowardin et al.
(1979). DOE developed a more complex wetland rating system in 1993 (DOE 1993) that
is currently being revised and updated based on BAS. Both DOE’s 1993 and revised
2004 draft wetland rating systems are based on a four-tiered system of classification that
incorporates the number of vegetation classes and additional vegetative analysis on
factors such as vegetative class interspersion, intra-class plant species diversity, and the
presence of unwanted, invasive species. In addition to plant data, the DOE system
considers many other factors such as the presence of threatened or endangered plant or
animal species and whether the wetland is regionally rare (such as a mature forested
wetland) or has greater than average sensitivity to disturbance (such as bogs or fens).
Table 4-2 provides a summary of different wetland rating systems used in the state.
Ecology’s most recent (2004) revised system allows for greater distinction between
wetlands with varying degrees of function and value.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 17
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 18
Table 4-2. Wetland rating systems.
Rating System Summary Basis Notes
3-Tiered Rating System
Based on King County
Model (1980s)
Original system
designed to distinguish
among wetland types in
King County.
Adopted and modified by other
jurisdictions based on practical
understanding without
standardization or empirical
study of effectiveness.
• One of the first state jurisdictional systems of
distinguishing wetland types to vary protection.
• Developed without extensive scientific validation prior
to GMA BAS mandates.
DOE’s 1993 4-tiered
Wetland Rating System
Defines wetland types
based on 7 criteria:
sensitivity, rarity,
Natural Heritage status,
replacement potential,
functions, T/E species,
local significance.
Based on classification of 122
reference wetlands:
Cat. 1 – 27 (22%)
Cat. 2 – 68 (56%)
Cat. 3 – 20 (16%)
Cat. 4 – 7 (6%)
• DOE system – often with slight modification – adopted
by many state jurisdictions.
• First state system developed with extensive scientific
review and standardization.
• Source: Washington State Wetland Rating system for
Western Washington. (DOE 1993).
DOE’s 2004 Updated 4-
tiered Draft Wetland
Rating System
Refines 1993 system
based upon 10+ years
of practical use.
Reduces number of
criteria for wetland
categorization to 5.
Based on classification of 122
reference wetlands:
Cat. 1 – 24 (20%)
Cat. 2 – 50 (41%)
Cat. 3 – 39 (32%)
Cat. 4 – 9 (7%)
• Increased emphasis on lower quality wetlands, more
accurately reflecting Washington conditions.
• Five of seven criteria for categorization retained from
1993 DOE system.
• Removes consideration of Threatened and Endangered
Species and “local significance.”
• Source: Washington State Wetland Rating system for
Western Washington – Revised. (Hruby 2004).
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 19
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 20
Use of this system in an urban residential community like Edmonds would limit the
misclassification or over-valuation of lower quality wetlands most typically occurring in
a built-out environment. Use of DOE’s revised system would also allow for more
stringent regulatory protections for the one Class 1 and one Class 2 wetland existing in
Edmonds: the Edmonds Marsh and the wetlands associated with Good Hope Pond,
respectively.
Wetland Buffers
For wetland protection, protective buffers are typically vegetated upland areas
immediately adjacent to a wetland. Existing Edmonds code defines buffers for aquatic
areas as “a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an
integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem” (ECDC 20.15B.020 D). Although many
factors, including vegetation density, soil composition, and adjacent land-use, affect the
functioning of a wetland buffer, most buffer regulations focus primarily on buffer width.
Many studies have been published summarizing the effectiveness of various buffer
widths (e.g., Castelle et al. 1992, Castelle and Johnson 2000, Desbonnet et al. 1994,
FEMAT 1993, etc.). Table 4-3 provides a summary of empirical studies and literature
surveys documenting the efficacy of wetland buffers based on buffer width. As
indicated, it is difficult to discern a direct valid correlation between the width of a
wetland buffer and its effectiveness in regard to maintaining water quality. All aspects of
water quality protection – control or removal of sediment, phosphorous, nitrate, fecal
coliform, bacteria, etc. and water temperature control – may be affected by the type of
wetland buffer, the vegetation established within the buffer, and the environment in
which a wetland and its buffer is located. In general, studies indicate that buffers with
dense vegetative cover on slopes less than 15% are most effective for water quality
functions, and buffer widths most effective at preventing water quality impacts are
generally 100 feet or greater.
The majority of empirical studies on wetland buffer efficacy focus on the effectiveness of
protective buffers at maintaining or improving water quality (Table 4-3). However,
wetland buffers also function to maintain wetland hydrology, provide habitat for wetland
associated wildlife species, and minimize impacts from direct human disturbance. An
assessment of wetland buffer effectiveness in terms of these beneficial buffer functions is
provided in DOE’s Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness (Castelle et al. 1992).
Wetland buffers maintain wetland hydrology by preventing large, sudden fluctuations
associated with flash surface run-off in developed areas with impervious surfacing. In
terms of maintaining wetland hydrology, there is a direct correlation between the amount
of undisturbed, pervious vegetated lands adjacent to a wetland and the degree to which
severe hydrological fluctuation is minimized (Castelle et al. 1994). While larger buffer
widths better limit hydroperiod extremes, it is generally thought that buffer widths of 100
feet or more function to effectively maintain wetland hydrology (Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority 1991, Wenger 1999)
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 21
.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 22
Table 4-3. Empirical Studies on Buffer effectiveness.
Buffer Function Effectiveness Source/Location
10-20 ft grass buffer Sediment control.
Phosphorous control.
Nitrogen control.
Nitrate control.
Orthophosphorous
control.
Sediment reduction – 66-77%.
Phosphorous reduction – 37-
52%.
Nitrogen reduction – 28-42%.
Nitrate reduction – 25-42%.
Orthophosphorous reduction –
34-43%.
• Source: Lee et al. 1999.
• State: Iowa.
13-30 ft grass buffer Sediment control.
Nitrogen control.
Phosphorous control.
Sediment reduction – 84%.
Nitrogen reduction – 73%.
Phosphorous reduction – 79%.
• Source: Dillaha et al. 1989.
• State: Virginia.
16 ft grass buffer Nitrate and
Orthophosphorous
control.
Nitrate and orthophosphate
reduction 90%.
• Source: Madison et al. 1992.
16-30 ft grass buffer Nutrient control. Nutrient reduction – <50%. • Source: Magette et al. 1989.
• State: Maryland
16-30 ft grass buffer Herbicide control. Herbicide reduction – 28-72%. • Source: Mickelson et al. 1995.
• State: Iowa.
20-59 ft grass buffer Sediment control.
Phosphorous control.
Total Kedall N.
Ammonia control.
Nitrate control.
Orthophosphorous
control.
Sediment reduction – 30-60%.
Phosphorous reduction – 60%.
Total Kedall N – 35-50%.
Ammonia reduction – 20-50%.
Nitrate reduction – 50-90%.
Orthophosphorous reduction –
50%.
• Source: Daniels and Gilliam 1996.
• State: North Carolina.
23-52 ft mixed buffer Sediment control.
Phosphorous control.
Nitrogen control.
Nitrate control.
Orthophosphorous
Sediment reduction – 70-90%.
Phosphorous reduction – 46-
93%.
Nitrogen reduction – 50-80%.
Nitrate reduction – 41-92%.
• Source: Lee et al. 2000.
• State: Iowa.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 23
Table 4-3. Empirical Studies on Buffer effectiveness.
Buffer Function Effectiveness Source/Location
control Orthophosphorous reduction –
28-85%.
30 ft grass buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction – 85%. • Source: Ghaffarzadeh et al. 1992.
62 ft forested buffer Nitrogen control.
Phosphorous control.
Nitrogen reduction – 89%.
Phosphorous reduction – 80%.
• Source: Shisler et al. 1987.
• State: Maryland.
65 ft grass buffer Herbicide control.
Sediment control.
Herbicide reduction – 8-100%.
Sediment reduction – 40-100%.
• Source: Arora et al. 1996.
• State: Iowa
75 ft grass buffer Fecal coliform control. Fecal coliform reduction –
30%.
• Source: Schellinger and Clausen 1992.
80 ft grass buffer Nitrate control.
Phosphorous control.
Sediment control.
Bacteria control.
Nitrate reduction – 96%.
Phosphorous reduction – 88%.
Sediment reduction – 80%.
Bacteria reduction – 0%.
• Source: Chaubey et al.1994.
• State: Arkansas.
82 ft grass buffer Sediment control.
Sediment reduction – 92%.
• Source: Young et al. 1980.
• State: Minnesota.
85 ft grass buffer Sediment control.
Phosphorous control.
Total Kedall N.
Ammonia control.
Sediment reduction – 45%.
Phosphorous reduction – 78%.
Total Kedall N – 76%.
Ammonia control – 2%.
• Source: Schwer and Clausen 1989.
• State: Vermont
89 ft grass buffer Nitrogen control. Nitrogen reduction – 84%. • Source: Young et al. 1980.
• State: Minnesota.
100 ft forested buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction – 75-80%. • Source: Lynch et al. 1985.
100 ft grass buffer Fecal coliform control. Fecal coliform reduction –
60%.
• Source: Grismer 1981.
115 ft grass buffer Microorganism control. Microorganism reduction –
<1,000/100ml.
• Source: Young et al. 1980.
200 ft grass buffer Sediment control. Sediment reduction – 80%.
• Source: Horner and Mar 1982.
• State: Washington.
100 ft Wildlife habitat Buffer size effective for • Source: Emmons and Olivier Resources.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 24
Table 4-3. Empirical Studies on Buffer effectiveness.
Buffer Function Effectiveness Source/Location
provision. unthreatened (non-special
status) wildlife species.
200-300 ft
Wildlife habitat and
corridor protection.
Effective for special status
(TES) wildlife species.
• Source: Emmons and Olivier Resources 2001.
50 ft in rural area
100 ft in urban area
Maintenance of wildlife
species diversity.
Effective for maintenance of
species diversity.
• Source: Emmons and Olivier Resources 2001.
50-175 ft Preventing wildlife
disturbance.
Maintenance of 175 ft buffers
effective in preventing direct
disturbance to avian species.
• Source: Josselyn et al. 1989.
• State: California
200-300 ft plus Preventing avian
species disturbance
(flushing).
Concludes 300 ft buffers may
not be sufficient to prevent
direct avian disturbance.
• Source: WDFW 1992.
20 ft forested Reducing noise
impacts.
Loss of 4-6 decibels of noise
(equivalent to tripling the
distance to the noise source.
• Source: Harris 1985.
50-100-200 ft Maintenance of wildlife
species diversity.
Buffers of 50 to 100 to 200 feet
were found to effectively
maintain diversity dependant on
wetland size.
• Source: Milligan 1985.
100 ft Maintenance of suitable
fish habitat.
100-ft buffer effective at
providing aquatic fish habitat if
50-75% shading at midday.
• Source: Raleigh 1982, Raleigh et al. 1984.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 25
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 26
Wetland buffers larger than 100 feet in width have generally been advocated to provide
habitat area suitable to maintain wetland-associated populations of wildlife (Dodd and
Cade 1998). The vegetated uplands adjacent to wetlands are considered to be one of the
richest zones for aquatic organisms, mammals, and birds (Clark 1977, Williams and
Dodd 1978). In Washington State, 85% of terrestrial vertebrate species are known to use
wetlands and their buffers: 359 of 414 species in western Washington (Brown 1985a),
and 320 of 378 species in eastern Washington (Castelle et al. 1992). In association with
DOE’s 1992 assessment of wetland buffer effectiveness, the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) prepared a report entitled Buffer Needs of Wetland Wildlife
(WDFW 1992) to, in part, assess buffer widths necessary to maintain healthy wetland-
associated wildlife populations. WDFW concluded in their report that:
To retain wetland-dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers
need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the
wetland. This is especially the case where open water is a component of
the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or
provided feeding for heron. The size needed would depend upon
disturbance from adjacent land use and resources involved. (WDFW
1992)
The increased buffer width of 200 to 300 feet suggested by WDFW for protection of
wetland-associated wildlife provided the justification for DOE to include increased buffer
width mandates for high quality (Category 1 and 2) wetlands in their guidance on critical
areas protections.
Wetland buffers provide an important protective function by limiting human intrusion
and impacts in a wetland area (WDFW 1992). Direct human impacts to wetlands most
often consist of refuse dumping, trampling of vegetation, and noise. Cooke (1992)
studied 21 wetlands in King and Snohomish counties in a post-project evaluation to
assess the effectiveness of buffers in protecting wetlands from human disturbances.
Efficiency was measured qualitatively, using observations of human-caused disturbance
to the wetland and buffer to indicate loss of buffer effectiveness. Buffers functioned most
effectively when adjacent development was of low intensity; when buffer areas were 50
feet wide or greater and were planted with shrub and/or forested plant communities; and
when the buffers were next to residential lots or land owned by individuals who
understood the rationale for establishing buffers. Nearly all buffers less than 50 feet wide
at the time they were established demonstrated a significant decrease in effective size
within a few years; in some instances, degradation was so great that the buffers were
effectively eliminated. Fewer than half of the buffers that were originally at least 50 feet
wide showed demonstrable degradation (Cooke 1992).
Wetland Mitigation
Wetland mitigation refers to any action serving to compensate for a potential impact to or
degradation of the functioning and/or value of a wetland. Wetland replacement ratios are
a regulatory tool used to standardize the extent of replacement, and are expressed as a
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 27
ratio of wetland area replaced to wetland area lost. There is a growing body of literature
and scientific consensus recommending ratios greater than 1:1 in order to ensure full
replacement of wetlands. These recommendations stem from research that demonstrates
a significant rate of failure in current wetland replacement projects, as well as a loss of
wetland function over the time it takes for a created wetland to represent a fully
functioning ecosystem (Ossinger 1999, National Academy of Sciences 2001, Johnson et
al. 2000). Some investigators doubt that created systems can ever reach the functional
equivalent of a natural system (Johnson et al. 2002). Thus, to ensure that mitigation is
successful, ratios of wetland replacement area should be higher than the area of wetland
lost. Wetlands of greater value require higher replacement rations than wetlands with
low value.
4.3 Assessment of Wetland Ordinance
The City’s updated wetland ordinance will include a four-tiered wetland rating system.
The four wetland rating categories (Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4) will be defined and
delineated in accordance with CTED and updated DOE guidance (Hruby 2004) as
provided below:
“Category 1 Wetlands. Category 1 wetlands are those that meet one or more of
the following criteria:
i. Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre;
ii. Wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural
Heritage
Program/DNR as high quality wetlands;
iii. Bogs larger than ½ acre;
iv. Mature and Old growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre;
v. Wetlands in coastal lagoons;
vi. Wetlands that perform many functions well as indicated by a score of
70 or more on the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form.
Category 2 Wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are:
i. Estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands
larger than
1 acre;
ii. A wetland identified by the state Department of Natural Resources as
containing
“sensitive” plant species;
iii. A bog between ¼ and ½ acre in size; or,
iv. Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions as indicated by a
score of 51-69 on the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form.
Category 3 Wetlands. Category 3 wetlands are: Wetlands with a moderate level
of functions as indicated by a score of 30-50 points on the City of Edmonds
Wetland Field Data Form.
Category 4 Wetlands. Category 4 wetlands are those with the lowest levels of
functions as indicated by scores below 30 on the City of Edmonds Wetland
Field Data Form.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 28
Wetland ratings will largely be based upon field assessment using the City of Edmonds
Wetland Field Data Form. The City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form was modified
for use in the Edmonds vicinity from the Draft Wetland Rating Form for Western
Washington used in DOE updated wetland classification and assessment system (Hruby
2004).
Protective buffer widths for revised wetland categories will be mandated in Edmonds
updated code as follows:
Category 1 – 200 ft
Category 2 – 100 ft
Category 3 – 50 ft
Category 4 – 35 ft
These wetland buffer widths are consistent with BAS, CTED, and DOE minimum
requirements for wetland protection and ordinances for wetland protection recently
adopted by Western Washington jurisdictions. Edmonds updated ordinances will also
include provisions for buffer reductions for Category 3 and 4 wetlands if a Wetland
Buffer Enhancement Plan is developed and implemented. Specific requirements for a
Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan including requirements for performance standards
used to measure success will be provided in the updated code.
Development of a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan will be required prior to approving
applicant requests for buffer reductions. In addition, the updated wetland ordinance will
include provisions for retaining wetland function and values if buffer averaging will be
used for spot reductions of wetland buffer widths. To the extent practical, proof of
retention of wetland functions and values will be required for both buffer reductions and
buffer averaging. Provision for spot buffer reductions up to 50% of the standard buffer
width, as stipulated in Edmonds existing code, will be retained. However, updated
wetland provisions will allow for buffer averaging only across the extent of a wetland
buffer existing on an applicant’s property and not the entirety of a wetland buffer. These
updated provisions and additional requirements pertaining to wetland buffer reductions
and use of buffer averaging will allow Edmonds updated wetland code to meet or exceed
wetland protections mandated by BAS.
Compensatory mitigation ratios for wetland replacement currently specified in the
existing Edmonds code are largely consistent with CTED and DOE guidance and BAS.
However, the updated Edmonds code must include additional compensatory mitigation
ratios to accommodate the additional wetland category in the updated four-tiered system
of wetland classification. Compensatory mitigation ratios in the updated code will be
mandated as follows:
Category 1 – 6:1
Category 2 – 3:1
Category 3 – 2:1
Category 4 – 1.5:1
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 29
These updated compensatory mitigation ratios are consistent with CTED and DOE
guidance and BAS information on compensatory mitigation efficacy.
The updated CAO will include specific requirements for a Wetland Mitigation Plan to be
developed and submitted to the Edmonds Planning Department for approval when the
function or value of a wetland is anticipated to be affected by project development.
Wetland Mitigation Plan requirements will be designed to discourage the use of
compensatory mitigation and wetland replacement to the extent practical. Instead, the
focus will be on avoidance of impacts directly to wetlands and buffers. Compensatory
mitigation should be viewed as a last resort. This “re-focusing” of mitigation strategies
in the updated Edmonds code will increase conformance with recent BAS information
emphasizing the high probability of failure often associated with compensatory wetland
replacement as mitigation.
As with the update of ordinances pertaining to other critical area types, the most notable
alterations to Edmonds wetland ordinances will likely result from general organizational
changes. The Edmonds CAO update will include the re-organization of existing code to
simplify the organization and language, and make the code more accessible to users. The
Edmonds critical areas code will be re-organized to include separate chapters pertaining
to each of the five GMA-identified critical areas types. As with other updated code
sections, the Wetlands Chapter will include four subsections consistent with CTED and
DOE guidance: Designation, Rating, and Mapping; Allowed Activities; Additional
Report Requirements; and Development Standards. The revised wetland ordinances will
include specific directions on the process of managing wetlands in the vicinity of a
subject parcel and specifically identify report requirements and steps in the process of
classifying, assessing, and mitigating wetlands in accordance with the requirements of
project development (see Section 8.0 below).
4.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment
Overall, revision and update of the City of Edmonds wetland provisions will increase
protection of area wetlands and decrease the risk to the continued preservation of these
important habitat areas. In addition, update of the Edmonds wetland ordinances will
generally increase protection to the community and City public and private facilities
through increased flood protection and water quality control. The text below provides a
risk assessment for anticipated changes resulting from the three central conceptual
revisions to Edmonds wetland ordinances: update of Edmonds wetland classification to a
four-tiered system; revision of Edmonds wetland protective buffer widths for consistency
with agency and BAS guidance; and alteration to the potential wetland mitigation
alternatives offered under City code.
It should be emphasized that the adoption of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory for the
City of Edmonds will immediately decrease risk to both the continued preservation of
wetland areas located within the jurisdiction and to the flood and water quality protection
afforded by these important environmental areas. Although current Edmonds wetlands
ordinances refer to the existence of critical areas inventory, no such tool has been
available for use by City planning to identify potential land-use conflicts between
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 30
wetland areas and potential future development. Instead, Edmonds planning relied on a
number of dispersed data sources and applicant disclosure to identify wetlands to which
protective code provisions might apply. The 2004 inventory identifies all significant
wetland areas existing in Edmonds. However, the inventory may not include all small
wetlands and applicants will still be required to conduct a field delineation regardless of
designation on the inventory.
Under the revised four-tiered system of wetland classification with associated buffer
provisions to be prescribed in the updated Edmonds code, protection of wetland areas
will increase, resulting in a decreased risk to continued preservation of area wetlands.
The value of wetlands will be more clearly defined and subject to appropriate protection
levels. With the revised buffer requirements, it is likely that wetland buffer widths will
increase jurisdiction-wide. However, the potential for increases in land-use conflicts
resulting from such wetland buffer width increases will be mitigated substantially by the
alternatives for mitigation and discretion offered the City planning department under the
updated wetland provisions. In addition, wetland buffers for the least valuable wetlands
are the smallest. This, in combination with some flexibility in buffer requirements, will
allow City staff to accommodate growth while protecting these resources.
Adoption of provisions for effective alternatives to compensatory wetland creation will
decrease the risk to wetlands. Buffer averaging and spot buffer width reductions will
only be approved with the submittal of a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan by a project
applicant. This represents a significant increase in wetland protection in comparison to
the existing code. In addition, the required development of a viable Wetland Mitigation
Plan for projects anticipated to impacts a wetland’s function and/or value will decrease
risk to area wetlands as well as decrease risk to the Edmonds community. Furthermore,
updated Edmonds code provisions will discourage reliance on compensatory wetland
mitigation and instead focus mitigation strategy on preservation of existing wetlands and
enhancement and/or restoration of degraded wetland areas.
Updated Wetland Buffer Widths
Updated wetland buffer widths (Category 1 – 200 ft; Category 2 – 100 ft; Category 3 –
50 ft; Category 4 – 35 ft) will effectively double the width of wetland buffers for
Category 1, 2, and 3 wetlands (the updated width for Category 4 wetlands [35 ft]
represents a 40% increase over the existing buffer width for Category 3 wetlands in
Edmonds). If buffer width directly correlated with environmental protection, then buffer
width increases mandated in the updated CAO would constitute a doubling of protection
for wetlands within the jurisdiction of Edmonds. However, though the width of a
wetland buffer largely influences protective efficacy (Keller et al. 1993), buffer width is
not the only factor affecting buffer effectiveness. Establishment of wetland buffer widths
in accordance with BAS must necessarily consider the environmental conditions and
general land uses of the region in which they will be implemented.
For urban built-out areas, the emphasis in establishing suitable buffer widths must be on
preserving existing sensitive wetland habitat types and on protecting those features,
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 31
functions and values most important in an urban environment. Expansive wetland
buffers advocated by Ecology (e.g., Category 1 – 300 ft; Category 2 – 200 ft; Category 3
– 100 ft; Category 4 – 50 ft) are not suited to or based upon BAS for urban areas and may
in fact provide an inappropriate level of protection for functions and values that are not
germane in urban settings. For instance, very large buffer widths (200 or 300 ft plus)
have been shown to be important in the provision and protection of maximum habitat
function for wildlife (Milligan 1985, Wenger 1999). However, the City of Edmonds is
estimated to be 96% built-out and it is likely that wildlife diversity has already been
influenced by habitat fragmentation, road density, residential development and general
human disturbance. Wildlife species that would most benefit from expansive buffer
widths – typically mammals with large home ranges and species intolerant of increased
human disturbance – likely no longer occur in the region or could not be sustained
regardless of buffer widths. Thus, updated wetland buffer widths for the City of
Edmonds have been established to preserve wetland and habitat functions most important
within an developed, built-out community.
In assessing the potential effectiveness of Edmonds updated wetland buffer widths and
comparing them to mandates of BAS, it is important to remember that much of the
literature on wetland buffer widths cited above was developed from studies in rural areas,
forested regions, and generally more pristine natural environments. As mentioned above,
areas within the jurisdiction of Edmonds cannot be expected to provide habitat for
species requiring large contiguous areas of forest habitat. Without this consideration,
BAS indicates that those functions and values most important within a built-out urban
area like Edmonds (e.g., water quality protection, flood storage, provision of habitat for
species common to developed areas) can be adequately protected with buffer widths
commensurate with those proposed in the updated CAO.
The City of Edmonds is largely built-out with approximately 96% of the land previously
developed. GMA density goals will be met through redevelopment. Instituting large
buffers that would extend into residential yards that were previously developed would
offer no additional protection for the resource. To ensure improvement in wetland buffer
function over time the new CAO requires buffer enhancement for redevelopment that
expands an existing structure footprint into a buffer. The CAO provides flexibility for
City staff to work with landowners in developing a scientifically-based enhancement plan
for such redevelopment.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 32
5.0 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Frequently flooded areas are one of five critical area types specifically identified for
protection in the Washington GMA (see WAC 365-190-080[3]). Floodplains and areas
subject to flooding perform important hydrologic functions and can present a risk to
persons and property. According to DOE and CTED guidance on critical area
classification (CTED 2003), frequently flooded areas should at least include those areas
within the 100-year floodplain designated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood Insurance Program.
According to CTED guidance (CTED 2003), jurisdictions should consider the following
when designating and classifying frequently flooded areas:
• Effects of flooding on human health and safety and on public facilities and
services.
• Available documentation including Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and
programs; local studies and maps; and Federal flood insurance programs.
• The future flow floodplain, defined as the channel of the stream and that portion
of the adjoining floodplain that is necessary to contain and discharge the base
flood flow at build-out without any measurable increase in flood heights.
• The potential effects of tsunami, high tides with strong winds, sea level rise
resulting from global climate change, and greater surface runoff caused by
increasing impervious surfaces.
5.1 Frequently Flooded Areas: Code Review and Comparison
In general, there is little divergence among jurisdictions in the definition, delineation, and
regulation of frequently flooded areas. Most jurisdictions’ existing CAO – including
Edmonds’ – are consistent with minimum guidelines on frequently flooded areas
provided by CTED.
Within all Washington State jurisdictions, frequently flooded areas include those lands
located within the 100-year floodplain as delineated on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM). FIRMs provide the basic critical areas designation tool for frequently
flooded areas used, almost universally, by cities and counties in the state. However,
CTED guidance advocates the use of newer, more refined data in the delineation of
frequently flooded areas whenever possible (CTED 2003). Data supplementing FIRM
floodplain information should focus on those areas within a jurisdiction known to be
susceptible to frequent flooding. Inclusion of supplemental data and designation of areas
outside the FEMA 100-year floodplain is the principal exception to the noted consistency
among jurisdictions on frequently flooded area designations (Table 5-1).
Table 5-1 provides a comparison of Edmonds’ existing frequently flooded area ordinance
with the CTED example code provisions and other jurisdictions’ regulations. CTED
suggests incorporation of additional specific data on “channel migration, maps showing
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 33
built-out conditions, riparian habitat areas, etc.” (CTED 2003). The drainages that occur
within the City are small and often confined by ravines or the built environment. Thus,
channel migration zones, which are more applicable to large alluvial rivers, are not an
issue within the City.
As indicated in Table 5-1, protection of frequently flooded areas typically focuses on
avoiding development within the 100-year floodplain and/or incorporating design
modifications and providing for compensatory storage within the floodplain to limit the
risk of flooding. The existing Edmonds CAO does not provide specific development
standards or protective provisions for frequently flooded areas. Instead, frequently
flooded areas are regulated under ECDC Chapter 19.97, the Floodplain Management
section of the building code. However, ECDC Chapter 19.97 provides no direct
reference to frequently flooded areas. Although it may be appropriate to retain regulation
of frequently flooded areas within the City’s building code, to be compliant with CTED
guidelines, the Edmonds updated CAO should, at a minimum, include development
standards for frequently flooded areas with reference to ECDC Chapter 19.97.
5.2 Review of Scientific Literature
For many cities and counties in Washington, little emphasis is placed on frequently
flooded areas simply because the extent of the 100-year floodplain within the boundary
of a jurisdiction may be limited. This is certainly the case in Edmonds where FIRM data
indicate that, aside from the shoreline of Puget Sound itself, the FEMA 100-year
floodplain only includes: the Edmonds Marsh; a small portion of the Shell Creek
drainage extending about 0.25 mile upstream from stream outfall; and shoreline areas of
Lake Ballinger located within the City limits (FEMA 2003). In total, these areas include
only 84 acres or 0.67% of Edmonds’ total jurisdictional area. These limited floodplain
areas are clearly indicated on the 2004 Edmonds Critical Areas Inventory (EDAW 2004).
Technical literature and documents potentially identifying areas outside of the FEMA
100-year floodplain to be identified as frequently flooded areas include Edmonds’ 2003
Comprehensive Plan (City of Edmonds 2003a), the 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive
Plan (City of Edmonds 2003b), and the Meadowdale Drainage Investigation (RW Beck
2000). In particular, Section IX of the City’s Stormwater Comprehensive Plan identifies
specific areas with drainage problems that are prone to flooding brought to the attention
of the City of Edmonds Public Works, often through public complaint. In addition,
public response to a mailer distributed as part of the Meadowdale Drainage Investigation
(RW Beck 2000) identified seven problem areas in the Meadowdale region alone that
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 34
Table 5-1. Frequently flooded areas code comparison.
City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents.
Frequently Flooded Areas –
FEMA Consistency
Currently defined by 100-year
floodplain – “those lands in the
floodplain subject to a one
percent or greater chance of
flooding in any given year.”
Consistent with current Edmonds
code with language allowing for
more liberal delineation (i.e.,
inclusion of other areas important
for flood prevention).
“Classifications of frequently
flooded areas include, at a
minimum, the 100-year floodplain
designations of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
and the National Flood Insurance
Program.”
Defines frequently flooded areas
as all areas within the 100-year
FEMA floodplain.
Does not include the term
“frequently flooded areas” per se,
but regulates lands within the 100-
year floodplain as “flood hazard
areas” consistent with FEMA and
CTED guidance.
Includes provisions for specific
areas within the floodplain:
A. Floodplain;
B. Flood fringe;
C. Zero-rise floodway; and
D. FEMA floodway.
Does not include the term
“frequently flooded areas” per
se, but regulates lands within the
100-year floodplain as “flood
hazard areas” consistent with
FEMA and CTED guidance.
Flood hazard areas: those areas
in King County subject to
inundation by the base flood and
those areas subject to risk from
channel relocation or stream
meander including, but not
limited to, streams, lakes,
wetlands and closed
depressions. (Ord. 11621 § 31,
1994: 10870 § 135, 1993).
• Need to ensure CAO pertaining to Frequently Flooded Areas
are consistent with the Washington Model of the Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance prepared by FEMA and DOE.
Frequently Flooded Areas –
Regulatory Protection
Protections and provisions for
frequently flooded areas
currently regulated under
Edmonds building code, ECDC
Chapter 19.97.
Example code provisions provide
specific protective provisions for
frequently flooded areas within
distinct CAO chapter.
Regulated under Chapter 21.56
of Kirkland Municipal Code
(Flood Damage Prevention
section of the Buildings and
Construction Code)
Provides development standards
and specific provisions, focusing
on building design and safety
modifications, within the CAO.
Includes specific provisions for
distinct areas within the floodplain
including both the zero-rise
floodway and the FEMA
floodway.
Provides development standards
and specific provisions, focusing
on building design and safety
modifications, within the CAO.
Includes specific provisions for
distinct areas within the
floodplain including both the
zero-rise floodway and the
FEMA floodway.
• Although the provisions provided in ECDC Chapter 19.97 are
generally consistent with CAO development standards for
frequently flooded areas, this critical area type is not
specifically referenced in the building code.
• Many jurisdictions delineate and provide specific provisions
for distinct areas within the 100-year floodplain. However,
this level of detail may not be appropriate given the limited
extent of the 100-year floodplain within Edmonds
jurisdiction.
Frequently Flooded Areas –
Identification of Specific
Areas
Current Edmonds CAO does
not include specific call-out of
areas within the City know to be
prone to flooding.
ECDC Chapter 19.97 does not
include separate provisions for
distinct areas within the
floodplain (i.e., flood fringe and
floodway).
Example code provisions designate
frequently flooded areas as:
1. Areas Identified on the Flood
Insurance Map(s).
2. Areas Identified by the Director.
Example code provisions do not
mandate inclusion of specific
provisions for distinct areas within
the floodplain (i.e., flood fringe and
floodway).
Does not include call-out of
specific areas within the
jurisdiction prone to flooding.
However, code includes
provisions for separate sections
within the flood-plain including
the flood-way and shallow-
flooding areas.
CAO does not include call-out of
or reference to specific areas prone
to flooding within Burien.
Provides distinct provisions for
risk management within:
A. Floodplain;
B. Flood fringe;
C. Zero-rise floodway; and
D. FEMA floodway.
CAO does not include call-out
of or reference to specific areas
prone to flooding within King
County.
Includes provisions for distinct
areas within the floodplain as
well as separate regulations for
management within “channel
migration zones.”
• Given the limited extent of the floodplain within Edmonds,
call-out of specific areas prone to flooding may be more
appropriate than reference to separate zones within a
floodplain in general (i.e., floodway and flood fringe).
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 35
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 36
were prone to frequent flooding (problem areas were often associated only with a single
residence). The updated CAO should allow City discretion in the delineation and
identification of frequently flooded areas existing in Edmonds outside of the 100-year
floodplain.
5.3 Assessment of Frequently Flooded Areas Ordinance
Aside from organizational changes to the Edmonds CAO (see Section 8.0), update of
provisions pertaining to frequently flooded areas will focus on establishing consistency
between Edmonds CAO and ECDC Chapter 19.97. Chapter 19.97 only regulates “areas
of special flood hazard.” Such areas are consistent with the CAO definition of frequently
flooded areas – all areas existing within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. However, neither
the existing CAO nor Chapter 19.97 provide a “link” equating the two areas. The updated
code will define frequently flooded areas and include language specifying equivalency
with special flood hazard areas as regulated in Chapter 19.97.
Revision of Edmonds provisions pertaining to frequently flooded areas will also include
specific requirements for geotechnical review and report development necessary to
ensure the continued protection of frequently flooded areas. As in the revision of wetland
ordinances where lists of specific requirements will be provided in the CAO text, updated
critical areas provisions pertaining to frequently flooded areas will include a description
of the process, field assessments, and reports required for review of areas containing or
adjacent to frequently flooded areas.
Jurisdictions with substantial areas included within the FEMA 100-year floodplain and/or
with complex river systems with large corridors for channel migration identify specific
areas within the floodplain (e.g., flood fringe, flood way, etc.) for specific protective
provisions. Update of the Edmonds CAO will not include call-out of these specific sub-
areas within the 100-year floodplain. This level of detail is inappropriate for the extent of
floodplain areas and types of drainage systems existing within the Edmonds jurisdiction.
However, prior to adoption of the 2004 Comprehensive Critical Area Inventory,
Edmonds Planning and Public Works Departments will review historical data on area
flooding to determine if additional areas outside of the 100-year floodplain should be
specifically identified on the inventory. This review and potential inclusion of additional
areas as frequently flooded areas, and the additional discretion afforded the City by the
updated code, will represent a substantial improvement to the City’s CAO.
5.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment
Although provisions for the protection of Edmonds areas located within the FEMA 100-
year floodplain will remain largely unchanged through the update of the City’s CAO,
adoption of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory and organization changes to code
provisions pertaining to frequently flooded areas will substantially reduce the risk to
continued preservation of such areas. Currently, Edmonds planning has no consistent
methodology for the identification of frequently flooded areas within the jurisdiction.
City pl anners have previously relied on applicant disclosure and geotechnical
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 37
consultation to identify frequently flooded areas. With the adoption of the 2004
inventory, the City will be able to conclusively identify those properties where protective
provisions for frequently flooded areas are applicable.
Review of the 2004 inventory and the discretion offered the City of Edmonds to identify
areas prone to frequent flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain will result in an
increased level of protection to the Edmonds community and a decreased risk of
catastrophic flood damage. Re-organization of the code to include specific provisions on
frequently flooded areas will clarify the requirements within the code.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 38
6.0 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
The Washington State GMA identifies a broad range of potential geologically hazardous
areas for protection as environmentally critical areas (See WAC 365-190-080[4]). This
critical area includes areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological
events. Geologically hazardous areas pose a threat to health and safety when
incompatible commercial, residential, or industrial development is sited in areas of
significant hazard. Geologically hazardous areas can also function to maintain habitat
integrity and facilitate important ecological processes. Mass wasting events, such as
landslides and debris flows, contribute sediment, brush, and nutrients to develop healthy,
complex instream habitats, estuarine marshes, and beaches important for fisheries,
wildlife, and recreation. At the same time, mass wasting events may pose a substantial
risk to habitat and developed communities.
The risk from geological hazards can often be significantly mitigated through
engineering, design, and/or modified construction and development techniques. When
mitigation alternatives cannot viably reduce risks to human health and safety to
acceptable levels, building in geologically hazardous areas should be avoided. However,
risk mitigation and protections for this critical area generally emphasize specialized
development standards to avoid unduly limiting the amount of buildable lands.
In interpreting WAC 365-190-080[4] (CTED 2003), CTED guidance indicates that areas
susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards should be classified as a
geologically hazardous area:
• Erosion hazard (including river and coastal streambank erosion areas and channel
migration areas).
• Landslide hazard.
• Seismic hazard.
• Areas subject to other geological events such as coal mine hazards and volcanic
hazards including: mass wasting, debris flows, rock falls, and differential
settlement.
6.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas: Code Review and Comparison
Table 6-1 provides a comparison of Edmonds’ current ordinance pertaining to
geologically hazardous areas with the CTED example code provisions and those of other
jurisdictions. In general, delineation and protection of geologically hazardous areas
under current Edmonds CAO is consistent with other jurisdictions and BAS guidance
provided by CTED. However, there are notable inconsistencies in the organization of the
existing ordinance (see Table 6-1 and Section 8.0).
The principal difference between Edmonds’ existing geologically hazardous areas
ordinance and CTED example code provisions lies in the classification of specific hazard
areas. CTED’s example code provisions identify only three specific types of geologically
hazardous areas regarding Edmonds’ environment: erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 39
areas, and seismic hazard areas. Existing Edmonds code includes provision for four
distinct categories of geologically hazardous areas: erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard
areas, seismic hazard areas, and steep slope hazard areas. Aside from the existence of an
additional category in Edmonds code, CTED example code and Edmonds’ provisions are
consistent because CTED incorporates Edmonds’ definition for steep slope hazard areas
– slopes of 40% or greater with a minimum vertical rise of 20 feet – into the criteria for
delineating landslide hazard areas. Limiting the number of specific geologic hazards to
three would effectively streamline the Edmonds CAO and avoid confusion where areas
may currently meet criteria for multiple classes of geologically hazardous areas.
Buffers for geologically hazardous areas are typically ancillary to the principal mitigation
of risk provided by geologically hazardous areas. The majority of protections for
geologically hazardous areas stem from specific recommendations developed as part of a
geotechnical report and assessment required for development sited in the vicinity of
hazard areas. Typically, detailed requirements for geotechnical reports associated with
different classes of geologically hazardous areas are provided in a jurisdiction’s CAO
(Table 6-1). However, report requirements are not specifically addressed in Edmonds’
current CAO. Instead, existing Edmonds CAO references and defers to chapters of the
City’s building code (ECDC Chapter 18.30, 18.45,19.05) for specific protective
provisions. To be consistent with CTED guidance, the Edmonds geologically hazardous
areas ordinance should be re-organized and include details on geotechnical report
requirements at a minimum consistent with the requirements of the City’s building code
The City of Edmonds Planning Department has reported regulatory confusion resulting
from the criteria delineating steep slope hazard areas in the current CAO. Under ECDC
20.15B.060 A3c, steep slope hazard areas are defined as:
[…] any ground that rises at an inclination of 40 percent or more within a
vertical elevation change of at least 20 feet (a vertical rise of 10 feet or
more for every 25 feet of horizontal distance). A slope is delineated by
establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination
over at least 20 feet of vertical rise.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 40
Table 6-1. Geologically hazardous areas code comparison.
City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents.
20.15B.060 A 3 a
Erosion Hazard Areas
Currently defined as:
Slopes of 15% or greater with
specific soil types.
“…at least those areas identified by
the USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service as having
‘moderate to severe,’’severe,’ or
‘very severe’ rill and interrill
erosion hazard. Erosion hazard
areas are also those areas impacted
by shoreland and/or stream bank
erosion and those areas within a
river’s channel migration zone.”
Defines as follows:
Erosion Hazard Areas – Those
areas containing soils which,
according to the USDA Soil
Conservation Service King County
Soil Survey dated 1973, may
experience severe to very severe
erosion hazard. This group of soils
includes, but is not limited to, the
following when they occur on
slopes of 15 percent or greater:
Alderwood gravelly sand loam
(AgD), Kitsap silt loam (KpD),
Ragnar Indianola Association
(RdE) and portions of the Everett
gravelly sand loams (EvD) and
Indianola Loamy fine sands (InD).
Geologically Hazardous Areas are
not clearly defined in Burien SAO.
No definition for Erosion Hazard
Area could be found.
Erosion hazard areas. Erosion
hazard areas: those areas in
King County underlain by soils
which are subject to severe
erosion when disturbed. Such
soils include, but are not limited
to, those classified as having a
severe to very severe erosion
hazard according to the USDA
Soil Conservation Service, the
1990 Snoqualmie Pass Area Soil
Survey, the 1973 King County
Soils Survey or any subsequent
revisions or addition by or to
these sources. These soils
include, but are not limited to,
any occurrence of River Wash
("Rh") or Coastal Beaches
("Cb") and the following when
they occur on slopes 15% or
steeper:
(Lists soil types.)
• Current reference to soil type parameters for this critical area
may be unnecessary as the soil types are prevalent and
common throughout Snohomish County.
20.15B.110
Geologically Hazardous Area
Buffers
Currently 50 ft reducible to 10
ft.
Minimum buffer width is 50 feet or
the height of a slope, whichever is
greater. The buffer may be reduced
to 10 ft through geotechnical
recommendation.
Does not include specific
provisions for geologically
hazardous areas protection (e.g.,
buffers). Instead, protection of
areas is subject to the discretion
of the planning department and
consulting engineers.
Standard buffer for Geologically
Hazardous Areas (Burien includes
Seismic, Erosion and Landslide
Hazard Areas) is 50 ft which may
be reduced to zero if allowed by
planning department.
King County does not define
and regulate Geologically
Hazardous Areas per se. Instead,
typical subclassifications of
Geologically Hazardous Areas
(e.g., Landslide, Steep Slope,
Seismic hazard Areas) are
defined and regulated as
separate distinct critical area.
• In accordance with Example Code Provisions incorporating
all BAS, Edmonds development standards for Geo Hazard
areas may allow for more varied design alternatives as
determined by City staff.
• Buffer distances of fifty (50) feet, height of slope, or
potentially ten (10) feet are commonly used by jurisdictions
to protect against erosion and landslide hazards. However,
such distances may not be appropriate in all jurisdictions,
and they should be scientifically evaluated in relation to local
hazards before being adopted. (CTED Example Code
Provisions A-89)
Steep Slope Hazard Area
Currently:
Any ground that rises at an
inclination of 40 percent or
more within a vertical elevation
change of at least 20 feet.
Steep Slope Hazard Areas are not
included as a Geologically
Hazardous Area. In the Example
Code Provisions, similar
parameters – 40% slope over 10
feet of vertical rise – are used to
define a Landslide Hazard Area.
Does not include steep slope
hazard areas as a geologically
hazardous area subtype.
Steep Slope Hazard Areas are not
included as a Geologically
Hazardous Area by the City of
Burien although protections for
steep slopes are include within the
SAO.
Steep Slope Hazard Area
included as a distinct critical
area though not addressed in
BAS documentation directly.
No specific development
standards are included for Steep
Slope Hazard Areas although a
distinction is made between
• Consistent with Example Code Provisions developed with
BAS, Edmonds may eliminate the Steep Slope Hazard Area
as a specific classification of Geologically Hazardous Area.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 41
Table 6-1. Geologically hazardous areas code comparison.
City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents.
landslide hazard areas greater
and less than a 40% slope.
Development within a Steep
Slope Hazard Area
Currently:
Development is not allowed
unless a reasonable use
exception or variance is granted.
CTED Example Code Provisions
such areas are protected and
defined as Landslide Hazard Areas.
Example Code allows development
in such areas with submittal of a
suitable hazard analysis indicating
development would not increase or
would mitigate the hazard.
Does not include as a
geologically hazardous area.
Allows development in vicinity
of steep slopes at the discretion
of the planning department and
consulting engineers.
Not applicable: Burien does not
define or regulate Steep Slope
Hazard Areas.
No specific development
standards are included for Steep
Slope Hazard Areas although a
distinction is made between
landslide Hazard Areas greater
and less than a 40% slope.
• Zipper Zeman Associates (2000) recommend modification of
development standards for Steep Slope Hazard Areas to allow
for development on slopes > 40% that are not also defined as
a Landslide Hazard Area. (See specific language in ZZA
memo dated 8/17/2000). Zipper Zeman Associates also
provide further description of recommended parameters for
exemption from Steep Slope development standards.
• Zipper Zeman’s recommendation may not be necessary give
that development may be allowed on Steep Slope Hazard
Areas in accordance with a RUE or variance.
• This specific critical area definition may be incorporated in to
the Landslide Hazard Area subcategory of Geologically
Hazardous Area as suggested by the CTED Example Code
Provisions.
• Edmonds code should include mandates for a specific
geotechnical hazards analysis prior to issuance of a RUE or
variance for development in areas currently defined as Steep
Slope Hazard Areas.
Landslide Hazard Areas
Code refers to 1979 and 1985
geotechnical reports and 5
parameters in 20.15B.060 3 b.
Defined as:
1. Areas of historic failures.
2. Areas with all of the 3
characteristics:
• slope steeper than 15%
• hills intersecting geologic
contacts with permeable
sediment overlying
impermeable substrate
• springs or ground water
seepage
Defined as:
Landslide Hazard Areas – Both
of the following:
a. High Landslide Hazard Areas
– Areas sloping 40 percent or
greater, areas subject to previous
landslide activities and areas
sloping between 15 percent and
40 percent with zones of
emergent groundwater or
underlain by or embedded with
impermeable silts or clays.
b. Moderate Landslide Hazard
Areas – Areas sloping between
15 percent and 40 percent and
underlain by relatively
permeable soils consisting
largely of sand and gravel or
highly competent glacial till.
(Definition includes steep slope
areas > 40%.)
Landslide Hazard Areas are
regulated as a Geologically
Hazardous Area by the City of
Burien although a definition could
not be located in the code.
Landslide Hazard Areas are
specifically regulated in the new
draft King County CAO. The
classification for Landslide
Hazard Areas seems to
encompass the classification and
protection for Steep Slope
Hazard Areas – the distinction
between the 2 Geologically
Hazardous Areas is unclear in
the new draft King County
CAO.
• As defined in both current code and CTED Example Code
Provisions most undeveloped marine embankments (coastal
areas) should be delineated as Landslide Hazard Areas.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 42
The Planning Department notes that problems in delineating the toe and top of a slope
arise when slopes exist along oblique ridgelines. Additional parameters for delineating
steep slopes and/or definitions effectively used by other jurisdictions (Table 6-1) should
be considered in updating the CAO.
6.2 Review of Scientific Literature
The 2004 Critical Areas Inventory for Edmonds identifies geologically hazardous areas
based on Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program and Divisions of Geology and Earth Resources data, as well as from historic
landslide information provided by the City. Regardless of classification, the City
throughout its development has successfully managed risk from multiple areas prone to
landslides, erosion, and other mass wasting events.
Edmonds is located in the Puget-Willamette Lowland physiographic province. The Puget
Sound region and Edmonds area have been shaped by several advances of continental ice
sheets from the north followed by post-glacial meltwater, interglacial stream action, and
periods of marine submergence. The Edmonds area consists of a series of
semiconsolidated and unconsolidated sediments bordered on the west by Puget Sound.
In the vicinity of Edmonds, Vashon age till (approximately 13,000 years old and
approaching thicknesses of up to 30 ft), forms a relatively strong and resistant cap that
covers much of the uplands and highlands and protects softer, less cohesive underlying
layers from erosion. Although till is in many places impermeable to groundwater,
fractures and gullying in the till surface can allow percolation into the lower sedimentary
layers. The till in the Edmonds area commonly overlies advance outwash deposits
locally known as the Esperance Sand (DNR 2004).
Esperance Sand, deposited by streams issuing from melting glacial ice as the Puget
glacial lobe advanced into the Puget Sound area, is highly permeable and poorly
consolidated due to the general lack of silt and clay. The advance outwash deposits are
underlain by transitional beds and undifferentiated Pleistocene deposits. These units
range from sand and gravel to silt and clay and are transitional between the overlying
advance glacial outwash deposits and the underlying older non-glacial related deposits.
The older non-glacial deposits in Edmonds consist of the Whidbey Formation. This
formation consists of compact medium to coarse-grained sand with interbeds of gravel
and peat layers. The unit also contains sequences of silt and clay.
Small areas of Edmonds are underlain by post-glacial sediments deposited as the Puget
lobe retreated (recessional outwash) and alluvial sediment deposited in low-lying areas
by streams. Low-lying areas along the shoreline and adjacent to wetland and marsh areas
have also been filled.
Types of landslide hazards typical of the high, steep slopes underlain by glacial deposits
in the Puget Sound region include high bluff peel-off (earth fall or topple), shallow
colluvial sliding (debris slide and debris flow), groundwater blow-out (debris flow, earth
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 43
flow), and deep-seated landslides (rotational slide, deep translational slide, large earth
flow).
High bluff peel-off occurs on very steep slopes underlain by very compact deposits such
as glacial till or high cohesion sand and gravel deposits. Slabs up to a few feet thick will
pull off and topple due to weathering and surface and/or groundwater flow.
Shallow colluvial sliding takes place within loose colluvial soils and top soils, especially
on slopes steeper than 70%. These slides commonly occur on steep slopes during periods
of wet weather when pore pressure in the soil rises.
Groundwater blow-out occurs within layers of permeable soils overlying less permeable
soils. In typical Esperance Sand deposits (advance glacial outwash), the upper part may
be dry, even in winter, whereas groundwater flows rapidly through its basal zone, where
the water is perched on underlying clays and silts, if present. The seepage of perched
groundwater toward the free face of a steep slope can cause pore-water pressures
sufficient to cause the sand unit to fail and flow as a debris flow or earth flow.
Deep-seated landslides can involve large areas of the slope. A deep-seated landslide
occurred in the Meadowdale area of north Edmonds in the past. Deep-seated slides are
controlled by the underlying geologic units, local stresses on the geologic units, and the
local water table.
6.3 Assessment of Geologically Hazardous Areas Ordinance
In general, the City of Edmonds currently regulates geologically hazardous areas in
accordance with BAS, CTED and DOE guidance, and consistent with updated provisions
adopted by similar and/or neighboring Western Washington jurisdictions. However, the
Edmonds CAO pertaining to geologically hazardous areas is not in compliance with
GMA mandates because specific provisions for protection are not included within the
City’s CAO. Instead, provisions stipulating the protection of areas potentially meeting
criteria for geologically hazardous areas are contained within ECDC Chapter 18.
However, nomenclature within Chapter 18 often does not specifically identify or
reference geologically hazardous areas as defined in the City’s CAO.
In large part, update of critical areas provisions pertaining to geologically hazardous
areas will involve incorporating protections and development standards contained within
Chapter 18 into the Edmonds CAO and ensuring consistency between chapters. The
updated CAO will include only three subclasses of geologically hazardous areas: Erosion
Hazard Areas, Seismic Hazard Areas, and Landslide Hazard Areas. (Note: Steep Slope
Hazard Areas will no longer be included as a subclass of geologically hazardous areas
within the updated CAO.) However, provisions for protection of areas meeting current
criteria for Steep Slope Hazard Areas within the City’s existing CAO will remain largely
unchanged and be incorporated into provisions protecting Landslide Hazard Areas. The
exclusion of Steep Slope Hazard Areas as a subclass is consistent with CTED guidance –
Steep Slope Hazard Areas are not identified as geologically hazardous areas in CTED’s
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 44
Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas – and will
streamline the updated code.
The existing Edmonds CAO does not include a description of the process of review and
compliance pertaining to geologically hazardous areas. The updated Edmonds CAO will
include a distinct chapter on geologically hazardous areas (see Section 8.0) with specific
requirements for geotechnical report development.
Although Steep Slope Hazard Areas will no longer be included as a geologically
hazardous area subclassification under the City’s updated CAO, areas meeting criteria for
Steep Slope Hazard Areas under the existing code will be protected as Landslide Hazard
Areas. Slopes between 15% and 40% will be protected as Erosion Hazard Areas and
slopes greater than 40% will be defined as Landslide Hazard Areas. Delineation of the
top and toe of such slopes for geotechnical analysis will remain necessary. As mentioned
above, Edmonds planning has identified the code text defining the toe and top of slopes
as problematic for slopes with oblique ridgelines and for slopes where the toe or top is
located off a subject parcel. To eliminate confusion in the delineation of slopes as
Landslide Hazard Areas, the updated code will include the modification of text defining
the toe and top of slopes as follows:
The current text – “A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top
and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 20 feet of vertical
rise.”
Will be replaced with - “A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and
top and measured by averaging the inclination over the full rise and run of
the slope from toe to top, which must include at least 20 feet of vertical
rise. If the toe and/or top of a slope is located off of a subject parcel, the
toe and/or top of the slope will be delineated 200 feet from the property
boundary or at its topographic location, whichever is closer, following the
steepest possible incline.”
With this text modification, the toe and/or top of a slope located off a subject
parcel will be arbitrarily delineated 200 feet from the property boundary
following the steepest possible incline. This modification to the current text
defining the toe and/or top of a slope will eliminate confusion in the assessment of
slope inclines. In addition, it will allow for geotechnical recommendations
consistent with the incline of a slope within and immediately adjacent to a subject
parcel.
6.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment
Adoption of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory for Edmonds and the conceptual
modifications to CAO pertaining to geologically hazardous areas described above will
significantly improve the process of review of geologically hazardous areas existing on a
parcel and the development and enforcement of suitable associated protections. The
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 45
improvement and facilitation of this process, in turn, will decrease risk to the Edmonds
community potentially associated with development within or adjacent to geologically
hazardous areas.
The 2004 Critical Areas Inventory identifies known geologically hazardous areas in the
Edmonds vicinity. This helpful tool will ensure that geotechnical review is completed
commensurate to the risk of existing site conditions and potential geological hazards. By
increasing the facility of identification of geologically hazardous areas for both permit
applicants and the City Planning Department, the updated inventory substantially
decreases the potential risk to the Edmonds community.
Perhaps the most substantial benefit resulting from the update of the CAO pertaining to
geologically hazardous areas is the clarification of the process of critical areas review
regarding geohazards. The City of Edmonds has noted that the existing critical areas
code is not “user friendly” and requires familiarity with multiple sections of City code
additional to Chapter 21.15B. Update of the Edmonds CAO will include a separate
chapter on geologically hazardous areas with information necessary to complete review
and meet requirements for compliance. The development of a report analyzing the
geologically hazardous areas existing in the vicinity of a subject parcel is central to
critical areas compliance. The updated CAO will include geotechnical report
requirements based on geologically hazardous area sub-class. Clarification and
facilitation of the process of critical areas review and compliance will result in uniform
application of regulation pertaining to geologically hazardous areas within the
jurisdiction.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 46
7.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
The Washington GMA requires jurisdictions within the state to address land use issues
that directly and indirectly impact fish and wildlife habitat. Fish and wildlife habitat
conservation requires the management of land for maintaining species in suitable habitats
within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations subject to
increased risk of extinction are not created. This does not require the protection of all
individuals of all wildlife species at all times. However, the GMA mandate does
specifically emphasize that cooperative and coordinated land-use planning is critically
important among jurisdictions within a region. The principal mechanism for preservation
of wildlife species and habitat in Washington State is through the designation and
protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as stipulated in WAC 365-190-
080[5].
In some cases, intergovernmental cooperation and coordination among jurisdictions may
be sufficient to ensure that wildlife species populations remain viable in counties and
cities in a region. However, to ensure protection of wildlife species and fisheries
important to the State, CTED guidance suggests that designation of fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas include (CTED 2003):
• Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary
association.
• Habitats and species of local importance.
• Commercial and recreational shellfish areas.
• Kelp and eelgrass beds.
• Mudflats and marshes.
• Herring, surf smelt, and sand lance spawning areas.
• Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that
provide fish or wildlife habitat.
• Waters of the state.
• Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or
tribal entity.
• State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas.
• Areas critical for habitat connectivity.
In addition, CTED suggests adherence to the following principles in classification and
designation of this critical area:
• Creating a system of fish and wildlife habitat with connections between larger
habitat blocks and open spaces.
• Providing for some level of human activity in such areas including presence of
roads and level of recreation type (passive or active recreation may be appropriate
for certain areas and habitats).
• Protecting riparian ecosystems.
• Evaluating land uses surrounding ponds and fish and wildlife habitat areas that
may negatively impact these areas.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 47
• Establishing buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from
the habitat areas.
• Restoring lost salmonid habitat.
7.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: Code Review and
Comparison
While city and county planning departments have been aware of the need for protection
of some important community environmental resources – notably wetland and streams –
since the late 1970s and early 1980s, jurisdictions have struggled with the appropriate
identification and protection of habitat areas used by fish and wildlife. Prior to recent
CAO updates, most jurisdictions have identified fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas without providing specific protective provisions within CAO. Furthermore, most
jurisdictions have not identified fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on existing
critical areas inventories. In practicality, enforced protection of fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas has been largely overlooked to date in most Western Washington
jurisdictions.
Existing Edmonds code defines three fish and wildlife habitat conservation area
subtypes under ECDC 20.15B.060 A1 as follows:
“a. Critical Habitats.
i. Known or documented habitat for any species listed by the state or
federal process as rare, endangered, threatened, or sensitive.
Approximate locations of such habitats will be available for city staff
review on maps located at City Hall and provided by the Washington
State Department of Wildlife. Mapped locations of habitat for known
listed species shall not be made available for public disclosure.
ii. Streams, rivers, and wetlands used by salmonids. Refer to ECDC
20.15B.120 and 20.15B.130 for further detail.
b. Significant Habitats.
i. Inventoried and mapped habitat for species identified as having local
significance within the city of Edmonds. Areas may include, for
example, specific areas known to be utilized by large numbers of
migratory waterfowl; or
ii. Habitats of significance within the city of Edmonds as inventoried
and mapped during the city’s critical area mapping process.
c. Habitats and Species of Local Importance.
To be determined and defined in locally adopted administrative
procedures.”
Although current code provides additional explanation in regard to these
subtypes, identification of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas has
previously been left to the discretion of the planning department and/or a permit
applicant. In practicality, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas have not
been consistently regulated by the City. Other jurisdictions define fish and
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 48
wildlife habitat conservation areas by the presence of particular species as defined
in the critical areas code (Table 7-1).
Typically, jurisdictions do not rely on buffers to provide protection for fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas. Instead, the focus of protection has often been
on the restriction of development in areas known to support important fish and
wildlife populations. When impacts from development to such areas cannot be
avoided, jurisdictions often require the development of mitigation plans utilizing
native plant species for landscaping to retain and support wildlife populations as
practical.
Jurisdictions differ in the designation and identification of streams as critical areas.
Previously, most jurisdictions identified and classified streams as a separate critical area
type, with limited exceptions (e.g., City of Seattle). However, CTED and DOE guidance
suggests that streams should be included as a sub-class of fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas. This directive from CTED is intended to emphasize the importance
of streams to both fish and terrestrial wildlife species (pers. comm., Doug Peters, Senior
Planner, CTED).
Jurisdictions updating their CAO in accordance with BAS mandates have utilized various
methodologies to designate and protect streams as fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas. Many jurisdictions have developed nomenclature (e.g., riparian corridors, City of
Seattle; aquatic areas, King County; riparian areas, King County) that reiterate the
importance of critical areas to fish and wildlife conservation. Other jurisdictions have
retained streams as separate critical area types, contrary to CTED and DOE guidance.
Edmonds’ existing code includes streams as a separate critical area and uses a three-
tiered system of classification (Table 7-1). Both inclusion of streams as a separate critical
area type and the three-tiered system of classification run contrary to CTED and DOE
guidance. Most jurisdictions with updated critical areas code have adopted either DNR’s
five-tiered interim system of stream classification or a modified version of DNR’s
permanent water typing system. DNR’s permanent system of water typing is to be
adopted by jurisdictions statewide upon completion of fish habitat water type maps
showing the location of classification of streams, rivers, lakes, and other waterways
throughout the state (WAC 222-16-030). DNR’s permanent water typing system, as
described in WAC 222-16-030, classifies streams as follows 1:
• "Type S Water" means all waters, within their bankfull width, as
inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the
rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, including periodically
inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
"Type F Water" means segments of natural waters other than Type S
Waters, which are within the bankfull widths of defined channels and
periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands, or within lakes,
ponds, or impoundments having a surface area of 0.5 acre or greater at
1 Abbreviated text. Additional information and classification criteria can be found in WAC 222-16-030.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 49
seasonal low water and which in any case contain fish habitat or are
described by one of the following four categories:
(a) Waters, which are diverted for domestic use by more than 10
residential or camping units.
(b) Waters, which are diverted for use by federal, state, tribal or private
fish hatcheries.
(c) Waters, which are within a federal, state, local, or private
campground having more than 10 camping units.
(d) Riverine ponds, wall-based channels, and other channel features
that are used by fish for off-channel habitat.
• "Type Np Water" means all segments of natural waters within the
bankfull width of defined channels that are perennial nonfish habitat
streams.
• "Type Ns Water" means all segments of natural waters within the
bankfull width of the defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np
Waters. These are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in which surface flow
is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and are
not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water.
Existing Edmonds code mandates protective buffer widths for streams as follows:
Category 1 – 50 ft
Category 2 – 25 ft
Category 3 – 10 ft
These buffer widths are far smaller than those suggested by BAS (see detailed buffer
discussion for wetlands Section 4.0) that have been incorporated into CTED and DOE
guidance, and are generally smaller than protective stream buffer widths adopted by other
jurisdictions with updated critical areas code (Table 7-1).
Many of the provisions for protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas contained within Edmonds’ existing code may be retained through the
update process, but clearer definitions of the critical areas are needed. Increased
protection of fish and wildlife habitat within the Edmonds jurisdiction will result
primarily from the formal delineation of this critical area type on the 2004 Critical
Areas Inventory. CTED and DOE guidance, developed in consultation with
WDFW, advocate protection of the following specific habitat areas and species
through fish and wildlife habitat conservation area provisions (Table 7-1):
• Areas with which State or Federally designated Endangered, Threatened,
and Sensitive Species have a primary association.
• State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 50
Table 7-1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas code comparison.
City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area Subtypes
Currently 3 subtypes:
1. Critical Habitat
2. Significant Habitat
3. Habitat/Species of
Local Importance
Includes the three critical are
identified in current Edmonds CAO
in addition to others. CTED
Example Code Provisions
specifically identify 10 types of
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas.
1. Areas with which State or
Federally designated
Endangered, Threatened,
and Sensitive Species have
a primary association.
2. State Priority Habitats and
Areas Associated with
State Priority Species.
3. Habitats and Species of
Local Importance.
4. Commercial and
Recreational Shellfish
Areas.
5. Kelps and Eelgrass Beds
and Herring and Smelt
Spawning Areas.
6. Naturally Occurring Ponds
Under 20 Acres.
7. Waters of the State.
8. Lakes, Ponds, Streams, and
Rivers Planted with Game
Fish by a Government or
Tribal Entity.
9. State Natural Area
Preserves and Natural
Resource Conservation
Areas.
10. Areas of Rare Plant
Species and High Quality
Ecosystems.
11. Land Useful or Essential
for Preserving Connections
Between habitat Blocks
and Open Spaces.
Includes only significant habitat
areas, defined as:
“An area that provides food,
protective cover, nesting,
breeding, or movement for
threatened, endangered,
sensitive, monitor, or priority
species of plants, fish, or
wildlife. The terms threatened,
endangered, sensitive, monitor,
and priority pertain to lists,
categories, and definitions of
species promulgated by the
Washington Department of
Wildlife (Non-Game Data
Systems Special Animal
Species), as identified in WAC
232-12-011 or 232-12-014, or in
the Priority Habitat and Species
(PHS) program of the
Washington State Department of
Wildlife, or in rules and
regulations adopted from time to
time by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.”
Includes:
A. Areas with which endangered,
threatened, and sensitive species
listed by the federal
government or the State of
Washington have a primary
association;
B. All public and private tidelands
or bedlands suitable for
commercial or recreational
shellfish harvest;
C. Kelp and eel-grass beds
identified by the Washington
Department of Natural Resources;
D. Herring and smelt spawning
areas as outlined in Chapter 220-
110 WAC and the Puget
Sound Environmental Atlas as
presently constituted or as may be
subsequently amended;
E. Naturally occurring ponds under
20 acres and their submerged
aquatic beds that provide
fish or wildlife habitat;
F. Bald eagle habitat protected
pursuant to the Washington State
Bald Eagle Protection
Rules (WAC 232-12-292); or
G. Heron rookeries or active
nesting trees.
Specifically defines Wildlife
Conservation Areas as:
A. Bald Eagle Nests
B. Great Blue Heron Rookeries
C. Marbled Murrelet Nest
D. Goshawk Nest
E. Osprey Nest
F. Peregrine Falcon Nest
G. Spotted Owl Nest
H. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat
Nursery or Hibernacula
I. Vaux’s Swift Nest
Specific guidance on protection
and buffer widths around each
of these areas is provide in the
CAO.
(Note: King county also
regulates Wildlife Habitat
Networks as distinct critical
area. Such areas are more
generally defined to include
wildlife corridors and open
space areas providing significant
wildlife habitat in the County.)
• As per protections for streams included in updated CAO to be
adopted by reference in SMPs, specific protections for the
marine habitats and shoreline areas identified as Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation in CTED’s Example Code
Provisions should be developed.
• Typically, jurisdictions either vaguely or very specifically
define Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. For Edmonds, it
may be appropriate to do both: generally define areas in
accordance with CTED’s example provisions; and,
specifically cite important habitat features (e.g., Bald Eagle
Nests, Kelp and Eelgrass beds, Pigeon Guillemot breeding
colonies) with detailed specific associated protections.
• Note: King County and other jurisdiction with detailed CAO
provide specific guidance on buffer widths and compensatory
mitigation ratios – King County’s is very specific – for
Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas.
Streams as Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas
Regulates Streams as Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Streams retained as distinctly
regulated critical area.
Streams regulated as distinct
critical area category.
Under the new draft KC CAO,
streams are regulated as a type
• CTED has included streams within the critical area of Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas to emphasize that
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 51
Table 7-1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas code comparison.
City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents.
Currently, streams are regulated
as a distinct critical area.
Areas – as either a Water of the
State or as “Lakes, Ponds, streams,
and Rivers Planted with Game Fish
by a Government or Tribal Entity.”
of Aquatic Area. An Aquatic
Area is a distinct type of critical
area.
wildlife habitat is to be protected and not simply a
watercourse.
Stream Classification
Currently a 3-tiered system of
stream classification.
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Stream Categories
Currently 1,2,3.
Currently no length parameter
included in stream definition.
Stream categories defined in WAC
222-16-031 include 5 (1,2,3,4,5)
types of Waters of the State.
3-tiered system of stream
classification:
Class A Streams – Streams that
are used by salmonids. Class A
streams generally correlate with
Type 3 streams as defined in the
Washington State Hydraulic
Code.
Class B Streams – Perennial
streams (during years of normal
precipitation) that are not used
by salmonids. Class B streams
generally correlate with Type 4
streams as defined in the
Washington State Hydraulic
Code.
Class C Streams – Seasonal or
ephemeral streams (during years
of normal precipitation) not used
by salmonids. Class C streams
generally correlate with Type 5
streams as defined in the
Washington State Hydraulic
Code.
(Provisions for protection differ
depending upon if stream is
within a Primary or Secondary
basin.)
4-tiered classification system:
i. Type 1: Streams inventoried as
“Shorelines of the State” under
Chapter 90.58 (RCW).
ii. Type 2: Streams that are natural
streams that have perennial (year
round) or intermittent
flow and have documented use by
salmonids.
iii. Type 3: Streams that are natural
streams that have perennial flow
and are not used by
salmonids.
iv. Type 4: Streams that are natural
streams with perennial or
intermittent flows that are not
used by fish. [Ord. 394 § 1, 2003]
King County uses a 4-tiered
water typing system consistent
with DNR’s water typing
unmodified. Water types
include:
Type S
Type F
Type N
Type O
Note: water types include but
are not limited to streams.
• BAS precedents suggest Edmonds should adopt the 4-tiered
stream classification or water typing system. However,
stream protections will have to be highly modified to suit the
incorporation of native stream channels into the landscaping
of contiguous tracts of urban/residential lots as exist in
Edmonds.
Stream Buffers
Class 1-50 ft
Class 2-25 ft
Class 3-10 ft
Type 1 and 2, shorelines of the
State, or shorelines of Statewide
significance – 250 ft
Type 3; and perennial and/or fish-
bearing streams 5-20 ft wide – 200
ft
Type 3 <5 ft wide – 150 ft
Stream
Class
Primary
Basins
Secondary
Basins
A 75 feet N/A
B 60 feet 50 feet
C 35 feet 25 feet
Type 1 - 125
Type 2 - 100
Type 3 - 50
Type 4 - 25
Within the King County Urban
Growth Area
Type S and F – 115 ft
Type S and F (special urban
type water*) – 165 ft
Type N – 65 ft
Type O – 25 ft
• The delineation of streams as critical area is currently in a
state of flux. Although streams have, in the past, been
consistently regulated as critical area, the “Everett ruling”
suggests stream protection is to be afforded through a
jurisdiction’s SMP. However, CAO updates for all
jurisdictions include streams as critical area and typically
adopt DOE’s (DNR’s) classification for waters of the state.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 52
Table 7-1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas code comparison.
City of Edmonds CTED Example CAO Kirkland SAO Burien CAO Draft King County CAO Notes: Best Available Science and other precedents.
Type 4 and 5 or intermittent with
low mass wasting potential – 150 ft
Type 4 and 5 or intermittent
streams with high mass wasting
potential – 225 ft
(Outside Urban Growth Area
Type S and F – 165 ft
Type N – 65 ft
Type O – 25 ft)
*CAO specifically calls out
many streams within the Urban
growth Boundary identified as
such.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 53
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 54
• Habitats and Species of Local Importance.
• Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas.
• Kelps and Eelgrass Beds and Herring and Smelt Spawning Areas.
• Naturally Occurring Ponds Under 20 Acres.
• Waters of the State.
• Lakes, Ponds, Streams, and Rivers Planted with Game Fish by a Government or
Tribal Entity.
• State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas.
• Areas of Rare Plant Species and High Quality Ecosystems.
• Land Useful or Essential for Preserving Connections Between habitat Blocks and
Open Spaces.
In development of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory, these specific areas and resources were
included by focusing the identification and designation of fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas on four important general categories and habitats:
• Streams
• WDFW-identified priority habitat and species
• Shoreline habitat
• Urban open space
WDFW data identified priority habitats and species existing in Edmonds including:
• Bald eagles and bald eagle breeding territories
• Heron rookeries
• Sand lance and surf smelt spawning grounds
• Marine mammal haul-out sites
These species and their associated habitats represent important natural resources that help define
the character of the City of Edmonds. Most of these WDFW-identified Priority Habitats and
Species are associated with City shoreline areas. In addition, the shoreline reaches of Puget
Sound along Edmonds are known to be valuable areas for recreational shellfishing and scuba
diving. The emphasis on urban open space allowed for designation for remaining areas of
contiguous upland forested areas and smaller patches of remaining undeveloped habitat that have
been shown to be vitally important to the maintenance of natural wildlife populations in built-out
regions of the Pacific Northwest (see below).
7.2 Review of Scientific Literature
Researchers and biologists tend to agree on the importance of protecting small areas of actively
used wildlife habitat and habitat features, such as nesting trees and hibernacula sites (Rodrick
and Milner 1991, Van Horne and Wiens 1991). It is also widely accepted that wildlife habitat,
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 55
ecosystems, and habitat features vary in usage and distribution over time. For example, nesting
sites for sensitive avian species found in the Pacific Northwest, such as bald eagles and red-tailed
hawks, may blow down or degrade from year to year. Thus, these bird species, and other
wildlife associated with specific natural habitat features, must constantly respond to
environmental changes to find suitable habitat in which to thrive. To maintain viable
populations, wildlife species must have access to alternate sources of habitat and appropriate
habitat features (Thomas 1979, Marzluff and Ewing 2001). Conservation of active breeding,
foraging, and refugia habitat is essential to maintaining native wildlife populations within a
region. However, it is equally important to maintain alternate potential habitat areas within a
region to accommodate temporal and spatial environmental changes (Gotzwiller 2002, Peterson
and Parker 1998, Bissonette 1997, Forman 1995). Identification and protection of fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas are intended to maintain area wildlife populations through the
preservation of suitable habitat areas regardless of active usage.
Management of wildlife in urban areas is often difficult because of the competing and
simultaneous demands on the land (Milligan-Raedeke and Raedeke 1995). In such areas, a
delicate balance must be achieved between the needs of a community and the needs of wildlife
populations. Two general strategies are often utilized to strike a balance of needs and maintain
populations within urban areas. The first is to focus wildlife preservation within large,
contiguous ecological reserves that are relatively homogenous in vegetative composition and
habitat structure regardless of adjoining land use (e.g., forested ecological reserves; Soule and
Wilcox 1980; Frankel and Soule 1981; Wright 1998). The second approach strives to protect
wildlife species across an entire region by enhancing and maintaining the quality of existing
habitat where available, even in small non-contiguous habitat patches (Franklin 1993, Morrison
et al. 1998). While the second approach may be more difficult to implement, it is often the only
viable option for wildlife management in developed built-out regions.
In general, large patches of suitable habitat have been found to be more valuable to wildlife
populations than small patches (Brown 1985b). In Western Washington, habitat patches larger
than 75 acres have been found to support a broad diversity of native terrestrial wildlife species
(Donnelly 2002). However, numerous studies have demonstrated the value to wildlife of
preserving and maintaining small, isolated patches of diverse habitat (Potter 1990, Burel 1989).
Small habitat patches (e.g., 5-20 acres) have been postulated to both provide habitat suitable to
maintaining small wildlife populations, and to act as “stepping stones” for species (notably birds)
to move between larger habitat areas (Fahrig and Merriam 1994).
Studies on how habitat should be maintained, and which habitat parameters should be enhanced,
generally point to the importance of maintaining sufficient forested cover. A study by Marzluff
and Donnelly (2002) conducted in the Puget Sound region concluded that to conserve native
forest species within the context of an urban environment, policy-makers should:
1. Limit development to 52% of the landscape;
2. Maintain at least 64% of remaining forested areas in single contiguous patches, with an
emphasis on preserving stands greater than 103 acres (42 hectares); and
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 56
3. Maintain a tree density of at least 4.0 per acre (9.8 per hectare) with a minimum of 23%
conifers.
In another Puget Sound area study, Rohila and Marzluff (2002) found that cavity-nesting bird
species – an avian group often identified for special status protection – may be adequately
protected in urban areas if at least 30% is retained in develop areas and high live-tree densities
and large tree diameters are retained. The authors recommend that forested areas be retained in
the largest patches possible (74 acres [30 hectares] or greater) and that average patch size does
not fall below 7.4 acres (3 hectares); (Rohila and Marzluff 2002).
7.3 Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Ordinance
Streams will be distinguished as a sub-type of fish and wildlife habitat conservation area for
which buffer protections will be based on an updated stream classification system consistent with
DNR’s four-tiered permanent water typing system (S, F, Np, Ns). Protective buffer widths for
streams will be increased for consistency with BAS and jurisdictional precedents as follows:
Type S – 150 ft
Type F – 100 ft (anadromous) 75 ft (non-anadromous)
Type Np – 50 ft
Type Ns – 25 ft
All streams currently existing in the City of Edmonds provide general “fish” habitat but are not
designated as “shorelines of the state.” Thus, all Edmonds streams currently meet DNR criteria
for Type F waters. However, some Edmonds streams - Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell
Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds Creek – are known to support anadromous
fish. In order to provide special consideration for and increased protection of anadromous
fisheries, Edmonds updated CAO will further classify streams as either Anadromous Fishbearing
Streams or Non-Anadromous Fishbearing Streams. Buffers for Anadromous Fishbearing Streams
will be increased by 30% (100 ft for Anadromous Fishbearing Streams vs. 75 ft for Non-
Anadromous Fishbearing Streams) to provide increased protection for anadromous fish and
associated habitat.
Provisions will be provided in the code to allow stream buffer reductions with the development
of a viable Buffer Enhancement Plan, similar to provisions to be included in the updated wetland
ordinances. The updated code will include specific requirements for development of the Buffer
Enhancement Plan to be completed by the applicant or representative.
Aside from the special consideration for anadromous fish, the most practical improvement to the
protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas under the 2004 code update stems from
the development of the Critical Areas Inventory. The 2004 inventory includes the delineation of
all areas to be designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas within the jurisdiction of
Edmonds. The inventory delineates areas based on WDFW data on TES (Threatened,
Endangered and Sensitive) species presence, fish spawning areas, raptor nests, heron rookeries,
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 57
breeding species aggregations, shellfish areas, marine mammal haul-out areas, and contiguous
areas of undeveloped open space suitable to supporting native wildlife species populations.
Delineation of terrestrial areas on the inventory emphasizes riparian habitat and forested open
space unlikely to be developed in the future. The inventory will be used as an effective tool by
the City Panning Department to identify projects that may result in impacts to important fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas.
Aside from the provisions for stream buffering to be included in the updated code, provisions for
the protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas will principally focus on the
regulation of development in and around these areas, and the mitigation of potential impacts.
Although land-use conflicts are unlikely given the minimal potential for development on fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas as delineated on the 2004 inventory, provisions within the
updated code will allow for development in and around some identified fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas upon completion of a suitable mitigation plan. Mitigation will be dependent
upon the wildlife species and/or natural resources likely supported within a fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area. In general, an increased emphasis will be placed on retention of native
vegetation on undeveloped parcels. New development or expansion of existing development
into fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas would require a native vegetation enhancement
plan. Buffers for estuarine shoreline habitat would be consistent with Edmonds SMP and BAS.
In order to protect potential fish and wildlife habitat throughout the jurisdiction of Edmonds, the
updated CAO will include specific provisions for native vegetation retention on undeveloped,
sub-dividable lands. Although this provision will not specifically apply to fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas, it will allow for increased protection of fish and wildlife species and
populations. Updated CAO will require that 30% of native vegetation be retained on
undeveloped, subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20. The focus of this provision will be on
retention of large trees suitable for perching and use by bald eagles, a protected wildlife species
known to occur in the Edmonds vicinity. In addition to providing general wildlife habitat,
retention of vegetation can reduce surface water runoff and sedimentation, and can contribute to
slope stability.
7.4 Conclusions and Risk Assessment
Overall, update of the Edmonds CAO pertaining to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
will substantially decrease risk to the continued preservation of habitat important to area fish and
wildlife populations. As mentioned above, the process of critical areas review and compliance
for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas had not previously been systematic or coordinated
in Edmonds due to a lack of formal designation for such areas. Adoption of the 2004 Critical
Areas Inventory will provide City planning with an effective tool for identifying areas important
to fish and wildlife where critical areas provisions apply. In addition, the updated code will
include a provision requiring the development of a mitigation plan to preserve the function and
value of fish and wildlife habitat if development will potentially result in impacts to fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas. These updated provisions along with the requirement for
30% native vegetation retention on select undeveloped land, will represent a significant
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 58
improvement in the sustainable management of fish and wildlife habitat in the Edmonds area and
reduce the risk to the very natural resources that define the unique character of the City.
The buffers proposed for streams in Edmonds do not meet the recommendations listed by CTED,
DOE, or WDFW. These agencies recommend buffer widths of 200-250 ft wide on either side of
a stream. While these larger buffers could provide benefits if a streamside was not developed,
the majority of streams in Edmonds flow through previously developed residential
neighborhoods and have limited streamside vegetation. There are exceptions where streams flow
through public land or within steep ravines that were never developed. Given the built-out
nature of Edmonds and the minimal potential buffers that can be developed in this urban area,
smaller buffers were chosen as practical alternatives that provide increased protection over the
existing CAO. In addition, the new CAO requirement for stream buffer enhancements for
construction projects that increase a structure’s footprint into a buffer will provide some benefit
to streams over the long term.
Updated Stream Buffer Widths
Stream buffer widths mandated under the updated CAO (Type S – 150 ft; Type F – 100 ft
[anadromous] 75 ft [non-anadromous]; Type Np – 50 ft; Type Ns – 25 ft) constitute a tripling of
buffer widths from those proscribed under the existing CAO (Category 1 – 50 ft; Category 2 – 25
ft; Category 3 – 10 ft). However, updated stream buffer widths are less those recommended by
DOE. As is the case with wetland buffer widths (see above), this apparent discrepancy between
updated Edmonds stream buffer widths and DOE guidance largely stems from the context and
environmental settings used to assess stream buffer width efficacy. Though smaller stream buffer
sizes have been proven to provide adequate protection of functions important in urban setting
(flood storage, water quality protection, sediment removal etc.) wildlife species requiring large
home ranges benefit from increased stream buffer sizes. As mentioned above, such species are
unlikely to occur within the jurisdiction of Edmonds. The mandated smaller stream buffer widths
will effectively provide protection of Edmonds streams and aquatic habitat while balancing other
important policy objectives – e.g., allow for focused growth and density increase in UGAs and
built-out areas, provide for a variety of uses along shoreline areas, etc. – with the updated CAO.
Because approximately 96% of the City’s land area is already developed, incremental effects to
stream buffers will occur from redevelopment. The City has addressed this issue by an overall
doubling of buffer widths on fish-bearing streams with similar increases for high gradient and
seasonal water courses. In addition, the new CAO includes requirements for enhancement of
stream buffers when a proposal increases the footprint of an existing structure into a stream
buffer. Buffer width flexibility, only with the backing of a scientific-based enhancement plan,
will provide incremental buffer improvements for areas is residential neighborhoods where
current buffer function is minimal.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 59
8.0 CAO ORGANIZATION AND CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW PROCESS
The 2004 Edmonds CAO update will include broad-scale re-organization of the City’s critical
areas code from its current structure. The proposed re-organization has been requested and
approved by the Edmonds Planning Department and will, perhaps, be the most prominent overall
change to the existing code.
Edmonds planning has noted that the City’s current critical areas code is not “user friendly” and
requires permit applicants to have a working knowledge of a complex and arguably byzantine
code structure and/or coordinate closely with City personnel. As opposed to separate chapters or
sections on the five GMA-mandated critical areas types, the current code interweaves definitions
and directions on the process of critical areas review and compliance in an amalgam of code text.
As mentioned above, many provisions for critical areas protection are contained within other
ECDC chapters, and references to code sections often do not use nomenclature consistent with
ECDC Chapter 21.15B (Critical Areas).
It is anticipated that both the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory and the updated critical areas code
will be available for public access on a City-hosted interactive website. This noted increase in
user accessibility should clarify and streamline the process of critical areas review and
compliance and decrease the burden on City planning. Integral to the code re-organization and
increase in “usability” is the inclusion of separate chapters germane to each of the five GMA-
mandated critical areas types. Each distinct critical areas chapter will include both updated
provisions for critical areas protection as well as applicant instructions on the process of critical
areas review and compliance, including a description of specific requirements and report outlines
and/or templates as appropriate. Not only will this notable re-organization increase the usability
of the code and decrease confusion and complications in regard to the process, but it will also
bring the code into compliance with GMA mandates and CTED and DOE guidance. In addition,
the substantial potential effects of the re-organization should not be discounted within the
context of a comprehensive risk assessment. By increasing the code usability and potential
access to information on critical areas compliance to the Edmonds community, both the risk to
the continued preservation of critical areas and the risk posed to the Edmonds community by the
destruction or degradation of these important environmental resource areas may be substantially
decreased.
Adoption of the updated and re-organized CAO will result in a substantial change in the City of
Edmonds’ process of critical areas review and approval. This change will provide consistency
with CTED guidance on the process of critical areas review and help to streamline the process
for the Edmonds planning division. Currently, the Development Services Department relies upon
the issuance of Reasonable Use Exceptions when development proposals are anticipated to
impact critical areas, regardless of mitigation. This is a public process requiring review by the
City hearing examiner. Consistent with the critical areas review process for most Washington
State jurisdictions, CTED guidance advocates a critical areas determination process. Under this
process, the Development Services Director has authority to approve, condition or deny critical
areas determinations (often included as part of an initial SEPA determination) without hearing
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 60
examiner review. The process becomes public and requires hearing examiner review only if an
applicant pursues a variance, a public agency and utility exception, or a reasonable use
exception. This avenue for critical areas ordinance compliance, however, should only be
considered if an applicant cannot maintain the function and values of critical areas through
mitigation, enhancement or restoration pursuant to the requirements of mitigation sequencing as
part of the critical area determination process.
8.1 Organizational Code Review and Comparison
CTED and DOE guidance on critical areas code organization provided in Example Code
Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas includes separate code chapters
divided by critical areas type. Most jurisdictions updating critical areas ordinances in accordance
with GMA mandates follow this basic organizational protocol. However, some jurisdictions
(e.g., Kirkland, Burien, etc.) have deviated from this general organizational structure, with
varying degrees of success. It is not uncommon for updated CAO to include reference to other
code sections (e.g., building code, stormwater code, etc.) for specific provisions. This strategy is
problematic, however, when inconsistencies in cross-referencing and nomenclature across code
sections do not provide the modicum of protection mandated under GMA for specific critical
areas types. Under Edmonds’ current code, provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas
and geologically hazardous areas are generally provided in alternative code sections (ECDC
Chapter 18 and 19). However, because nomenclature is inconsistent across these sections and
critical area types are often not referenced by nam e, the existing code does not meet compliance
standards mandated under Washington’s GMA.
Notably absent from Edmonds’ existing critical areas ordinances, in comparison with those of
other jurisdictions, is specific direction on the process of critical areas review and compliance.
Updated CAO typically include step-by-step directions for permit applicants and representatives
on the sequencing of critical areas review and necessary requirements, depending on the type of
critical area associated with a subject parcel. While Edmonds existing code does include a
minimal amount of direction and information on requirements, the code organization is not
conducive to applicant understanding of process based on the type of critical area of concern.
The updated CAO will include a General Provisions sections providing a basic overview of the
critical areas review process, as well as separate section within each chapter relating to different
critical areas types on process sequencing, including written report requirements. In addition,
each chapter will include an outline of necessary reports and a list of requirements necessary for
critical areas review.
8.2 Assessment of Critical Areas Ordinance Organization
Most critical areas code follows a sub-structure within each critical areas type section similar to
that provided in CTED’s Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical
Areas. In general, separate sections on each of the five GMA-mandated critical areas include
four sub-sections: Designation, Rating, and Mapping; Allowed Activities; Additional Report
Requirements; and Development Standards. Edmonds’ existing critical areas code includes no
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 61
such subsections, and the code structure follows no typical critical areas code protocol outline.
The updated code will include separate sections for each critical area type and sub-sections
consistent with CTED and DOE guidance and the general CAO structure of other Western
Washington jurisdictions.
While the overall structure of Edmonds’ existing critical areas code will be altered substantially
as part of the 2004 update, alterations to code content and provisions will generally be limited to
the conceptual changes described for each critical areas type above. Most of the specific
development standards within Edmond’s existing code are consistent with BAS and agency
guidance. An effort will be made to retain text and code content from Edmonds’ existing CAO to
the extent practical through the 2004 update. Additional wording will be necessary, primarily to
provide description of the process and sequencing of critical areas review and compliance, and as
narrative text in support of the inclusion of outlines, templates and requirements for applicant
produced reports.
8.3 Conclusions and Risk Assessment
Re-organization of Edmonds’ critical areas code to increase usability and applicant
understanding of the process of critical areas review and compliance will significantly reduce the
risk to critical areas and to the Edmonds community. The very process of CAO review and
update has increased public awareness on the importance of local critical areas to the protection
of the public and Edmonds’ community facilities. The re-organization and update of Edmonds’
critical areas code, coupled with the development of the 2004 Critical Areas Inventory, will
increase access and understanding of code provisions and critical areas protections by permit
applicants and the Edmonds public. This revision will go a long way toward reducing the risk to
the continued preservation of Edmonds critical areas and the benefits to community protection
such areas afford.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 62
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 63
9.0 REFERENCES
Arora, K., S.K. Mickelson, J.L. Baker, D.P. Tierney, and C.J. Peters. 1996. Herbicide retention
by vegetative buffer strips from runoff under natural rainfall. Trans. ASAE. 39:2155-
2162.
Bissonette, J.A., ed. 1997. Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. 410 pp.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.
Brown, E.R. (ed.). 1985a. Riparian Zones and Freshwater Wetlands. Management of Wildlife
and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington, Part I - Chapter
Narratives. pp. 57-80.
Brown, Reade E. (ed.). 1985b. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western
Oregon and Washington, Part 1 and 2. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region.
Burrel, F. 1989. Landscape structure effects on carabid beetles spatial patterns in western
France. Landscape Ecology. 2:215-226.
Castelle, A.J., and A.W. Johnson. 2000. Riparian vegetation effectiveness. National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement Technical Bulletin No. 799. 26 p.
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Connolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size
requirements - a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878-882.
Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, M.
Bentley, D. Sheldon, and D. Dole. 1992. Wetland Mitigation Replacement Ratios:
Defining Equivalency. Adolfson Associates, Inc., for Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Pub. No. 92-08.
Chaubey, I., D.R. Edwards, T.C. Daniel, P.A. Moore Jr., and D.I. Nichols. 1994. Effectiveness
of vegetative filter strips in retaining surface applied swine manure constituents. Trans
ASAE 37:845-850.
City of Edmonds. 2003a. City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. City of Edmonds. Mayor:
Gary Haakenson.
City of Edmonds. 2003b. City of Edmonds 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. Mayor:
Gary Haakenson.
Clark, J. 1977. Coastal ecosystem management. John Wiley, New York, 811 pp.
Cooke, S.S. 1992. Wetland Buffers: A Field Evaluation of Buffer Effectiveness in Puget Sound.
Included as Appendix in Wetland Buffers: Use and effectiveness.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 64
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development).
2003. Critical areas assistance handbook: Protecting critical areas within the framework
of the Washington Growth Management Act. Washington State Department of
Community Trade and Economic Development. Available at URL =
www.ocd.wa.gov/growth
Daniels, M.B., and J.W. Gilliam. 1996. Sediment and chemical load reduction by grass and
riparian filters. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 60:246-251.
Dennison, M.S., and J.F. Berry. 1993. Wetlands: guide to science, law, and technology. Noyes
Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey, USA.
Desbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone: A
summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography, Narragansett, Rhode Island. Technical Report No.
2064. 72 pp.
DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2004. Puget Sound Bluffs: the where,
why, and when of landslides following the holiday 1996/97 storms. Washington Geology.
vol. 25, no. 1. March 1997.
Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for
agricultural non-point source pollution control, Transactions of ASAE 32 (2), 491-496. 5
Dodd, C.K., and B.S. Cade. 1998. Movement patterns and the conservation of amphibians
breeding in small, temporary wetlands. Conservation Biology 12:2, 331- 339.
DOE 2004a. (Washington State Department of Ecology). Washington State Wetland Rating
System for Western Washington – Revised. Publication 04-06-025.
DOE 2004b. Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands.
Publication 04-06-024.
DOE. 1993. Washington State wetland rating system for Western Washington. Publication
#93-74.
DOE 1997. Washington State wetlands identification and delineation manual. Publication #96-
94.
Donnelly, R.E. 2002. Design of habitat reserves and settlements for bird conservation in the
Seattle metropolitan area. PhD Dissertation. University of Washington College of Forest
Resources.
Dunne, Thomas, and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning: W. H. Freeman &
Co. [San Francisco], 818 p.
EDAW, Inc. 2004. Draft 2004 Comprehensive Critical Areas Inventory for the City of
Edmonds.
Emmons and Olivier Resources. 2001. Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A Study of Functions,
Values and Size. Prepared for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Available at:
http://www.eorinc.com/Projects/MCWD_Buffer_Study_Final_Report.pdf
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 65
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Fahrig, L, and G. Merriam. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation
Biology. 8(1):50-59.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2003. Flood Insurance Manual. National
Flood Insurance Program, Includes flood insurance rate maps. Federal Emergency
Management Agency. May 2003 Edition.
FEMA and DOE. 2003. Washington Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Available
at:http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/PubSafe/emergency/floodord.aspx.
FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem
management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest
Service and other agencies.
Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Frankel, O.H., and M.E. Soule. 1981. Nature reserves. Pp. 97-132 in Conservation and
Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or landscapes? Ecological
Applications 3:202-205.
Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater: Prentice-Hall [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.], 604
p.
Ghaffarzadeh, M., C.A. Robinson, and R.M. Cruse. 1992. Vegetative filter strip effects on
sediment deposition from overland flow. Agronomy Abstracts, American Society of
Agronomy. Madison, WI.
Gerstel, W.J., M.J. Brunengo, W.S. Lingley, R.L. Logan, H. Shipman, and T.J. Walsh. 1997.
Puget Sound Bluffs: The Where, Why, and When of Landslides Following the Holiday
1996/97 Storms: Washington Geology, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 17-29.
Gotzwiller, K.J., ed. 2002. Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer.
518 pp.
Grismer, M.E. 1981. Evaluating dairy waste management systems influence on fecal coliform
concentration in runoff. M.Sc. Oregon state University, Corvalis. OR.
Harris, R.A. 1985. Vegetative Barriers: An Alternative Highway Noise Abatement Measure.
Noise Control Engineering Journal 27:4-8.
Horner, R.R., and B.W. Mar. 1982. Guide for water quality impact assessment of highway
operations on maintenance. WSDOT. No. WA-RD-39.14.
Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington - Revised.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-014.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 66
Johnson, P.A., D.L. Mock, A. McMillan, L. Driscoll, and T. Hruby. 2002. Washington State
Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study, Phase 2: Evaluating Success. Washington State
Department Ecology Publication #02-06-009. Olympia, Washington.
Johnson, P.A., D.L. Mock, E.J. Teachout, and A. McMillan. 2000. Washington State Wetland
Mitigation Evaluation Study, Phase 1: Compliance. Washington State Department
Ecology Publication #00-06-016. Olympia, Washington.
Josselyn, M.N., M. Martindale, and J. Duffield. 1989. Public Access and Wetlands: Impacts of
Recreational Use. California Coastal Conservancy. 56 pp.
Keller, C.E., C.S. Robbins, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of
different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands. 13(2): 137-144.
Kistritz, R., and Glen Porter. 1993. Proposed Wetland Classification System for BC: a
discussion paper. Report (Victoria, BC: Kistritz Consultants Ltd., 1993). Allen Banner,
Research Branch, MOF, 31 Bastion Square, Victoria, BC, V8W 3E7.
Lee, D., T.A. Dillaha, and J.H. Sherrard. 1999. Modeling phosphorous transport in grass buffer
strips. J. Env. Eng. ASCE 115:409-427.
Lee, K.H., T.M. Isenhart, R.C. Schultz, and S.K. Mickelson. 2000. Landscape scale patterns of
forest fragmentation and wildlife richness and abundance in the southern Washington
Cascade Range. in USFS PNW-GTR-285, Portland Oregon.
Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best management practices for controlling
non-point source pollution on forested watersheds. J. of Soil and Water Conservation.
40:164-167.
Madison, C.E., R.L. Blevins, W.W. Frye, and B.J. Barfield. 1992. Tillage and grass filter strip
effects upon sediment and chemical losses. Madison Wisconsin. Agronomy Abstracts,
ASA p 331.
Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer, and J.D. Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment
removal by vegetated buffer strips. Trans. of the ASAE 32:663-667
Marzluff, J.M., and K. Ewing. 2001. Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation
of birds: a general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes.
Restoration Ecology. 9:280-292.
Marzluff, J.M., and R.E. Donnelly. 2002. Conserve native birds in residential neighborhoods by
managing neighborhood forests and limiting surrounding development. Fact sheet.
Online at URL = www.urbanecology.washingotn.edu/products/FactsheetReserve.pdf
Mickelson, S.K., I.L. Bakerf, K. Arora, and A. Mistra. 1995. A summary report: the
effectiveness of buffer strips in reducing herbicide loss. Proc. 50th Mtg. Soil and Water
Conservation Society.
Milligan, D.A. 1985. The ecology of avian use of urban freshwater wetlands in King County,
Washington. M.S. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 67
Milligan-Raedeke, D.A., and K.J. Raedeke. 1995. Wildlife habitat design in urban forest
landscapes. Pp. 139-149 in G.A. Bradley, ed. Urban forest landscapes: integrating
multidisciplinary perspectives. The University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, NY, USA.
Morrison, M., B.G. Marcot, and R.W. Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-habitat relationships: concepts
and applications. Second Edition. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 2004. Website. City and county codes
for Washington State jurisdictions available at URL = http://www.mrsc.org/codes.aspx
National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean
Water Act. National Academy Press. Washington DC.
Ossinger, M. 1999. Success Standards for Wetland Mitigation Projects- a Guideline.
Washington State Department of Transportation. Olympia, WA. (Available at URL =
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/biology/docs/success_guidelines.pdf).
Peters, Doug, Senior Planner, CTED telephone communication with Kirk Prindle,
biologist/wetlands specialist, EDAW Inc. May 2004.
Peterson, D.L., and V.T. Parker, eds. 1998. Ecological scale: theory and applications. Columbia
University Press. 615 pp.
Potter, M.A. 1990. Movement of North Island brown kiwi between forest fragments. New
Zealand Journal of Ecology. 14:17-24.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991. Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
R.W. Beck. 2000. Meadowdale Drainage Investigation. April 2000.
Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Brook Trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl.
Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.24.
Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat Suitability
Information: Rainbow Trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.60.
Rieley, J.O. and S.E. Page. 1990. Ecology of Plant Communities: A Phytosociological Account
of the British Vegetation. Longman Scientific and Technical, with John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York.
Rodrick, E., and R. Milner, editors. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington’s
priority habitats and species. Wildlife Management, Fish Management, and Habitat
Management Divisions, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Rohila, C.M., and J.M. Marzluff. 2002. Landscape and local effects on snags and cavity-nesting
birds in an urbanizing area. Masters Thesis. University of Washington, College of Forest
Resources, Seattle, Washington.
Schellinger, G.R., and J.C. Clausen. 1992. Vegetative filter treatment of dairy barnyard runoff
in cold regions. J. Env. Qual. 21:40-45.
City of Edmonds CAO Best Available Science Report
Best Available Scince Report Page 68
Schwer, C.B., and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Vegetated filter treatment of dairy milkhouse
wastewater. J. Env. Qual. 18:446-451.
Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N. Wargo. 1987. Coastal wetland buffer delineation. New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
Soule, M.E., and B.A. Wilcox, eds. 1980. Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological
perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
Thomas, J.W., ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon
and Washington. USDA For. Serv. Agri. Handb. No 553. Forest Service US Department
of Agriculture. 512 pp.
Thorsen, G.W. 1987. Soil bluffs + rain = slide hazards: Washington Geologic Newsletter, v. 15,
no. 3, p. 3-11.
Van Horne, B., and J.A. Wiens. 1991. Forest bird habitat suitability models and the
development of general habitat models. Fish and Wildlife Research. 8:1-30.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1992. Buffer needs of wetland wildlife.
Washington State Department of Wildlife Habitat management Division. Final Draft:
February 12. 1992.
Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and
Vegetation. Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of
Georgia, Athens, 59 p.
Williams J.D., and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 1978. Importance of Wetlands to Endangered and Threatened
Species. pp. 565-575. In: Phillip E. Greeson, John R. Clark, and Judith E. Clark (eds.),
Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. American Water
Resources Association.
Wright, J.B. 1998. The role of conservation easement sites in biogeoghraphic and biological
research in the USA. Environmental Conservation. 25:85-89.
Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of riparian buffer strips in
controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 9:483-487.
Zipper Zeman Associates. 2000. Memo dated 8/17/2000.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page i
ESA
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Updates to City of Edmonds Setting ......................................................................................................... 1
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Updates to Scientific Literature ................................................................................................................ 3
Assessment of Current Wetland Provisions and Summary of Code Recommendations .......................... 7
Frequently Flooded Areas ............................................................................................................................. 7
Updates to Scientific Literature ................................................................................................................ 8
Assessment of Current Frequently Flooded Areas Provisions and Summary of
Code Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 9
Geologically Hazardous Areas.................................................................................................................... 10
Updates to Scientific Literature .............................................................................................................. 10
Assessment of Current Geologically Hazardous Areas Provisions and Summary of
Code Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 11
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ........................................................................................... 11
Updates to Scientific Literature .............................................................................................................. 12
Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Provisions and
Summary of Code Recommendations ............................................................................................... 13
Critical Areas Inventory Mapping .............................................................................................................. 14
CAO Organization and Critical Area Review Process ............................................................................... 16
References ................................................................................................................................................... 17
Acronyms and Abbreviations…………………………………………………………See 2004 BAS Report
Attachments
Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix – Final
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 1
ESA
INTRODUCTION
The City of Edmonds (City) is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) in accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW
36.70A). The CAO is adopted into the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) within Title 23
(Natural Resources), sections ECC 23.40 thru 23.90. The GMA requires the use of best available science
(BAS) in the development of critical areas policies and regulations. This report reviews the existing
CAO, additions to BAS and regulatory changes since the last update, and recent changes to the Edmonds
setting in the context of updates to BAS since 2004.
Purpose
The purpose of this addendum report is to provide technical information to City staff regarding the
efficacy of the City’s current critical areas protection measures, and to provide recommendations for
CAO updates that improve consistency with BAS.
Background
In 2005, the City reviewed the BAS and updated the CAO to comply with the GMA. The 2005 update to
the CAO was comprehensive, with BAS documented in The City of Edmonds 2004 Best Available
Science Report (EDAW, 2004). This Report is provided as an addendum to the City’s 2004 BAS Report.
Current assessment of BAS is focused on considerations and changes for critical areas protection that
have emerged from recent regulatory agency guidance, regional and local studies, or other scientific
information since 2004.
More recently, the City has been completing a comprehensive update to its Shoreline Master Program
(SMP); approval of the updated SMP is anticipated in 2015 (City of Edmonds 2014; Lien 2014). The
Planning Board Recommended Draft SMP (updated SMP) will integrate the majority of the City’s CAO
protections. This integrated SMP requires a shoreline variance process for specific provisions (providing
allowances for buffer reduction and other activities) related to wetlands, geologically hazardous areas,
and FWHCA where they occur within shoreline jurisdiction, and excludes other provisions of the CAO
related to reasonable economic use, exemptions, variances. Additionally, an alternative regulatory
approach for wetlands, applicable to wetland ratings, buffer widths, mitigation ratios, and other standards,
is proposed within the SMP in order to improve consistency with new BAS and guidelines from Ecology
and the Corps (see Section 24.40.020 of the updated SMP for specifics). Many of the same changes are
provided as recommendations for the City-wide CAO update within this BAS Addendum report.
The City expects the current CAO update to be relatively limited in scope, with the majority of the focus
on provisions relating to wetlands, existing development within buffers, upland vegetation in larger tracts,
and tree protection within critical areas and buffers.
Updates to City of Edmonds Setting
Since 2004, the City of Edmonds has seen relatively low population growth, with 39,709 residents
according to the 2010 US census and an estimated 40,727 residents as of 2013 (approximately 340 new
residents per year, less than 1 percent annually). This estimated growth in the last four years is actually a
slight increase from very low population change between 2000 and 2010, during which time the City
added approximately 200 residents. Over the same ten year period, the City added approximately 850
housing units, close to a 5% increase (2000 and 2010 US Censuses). The majority of these units were
added as part of the Point Edwards development which occurred at an abandoned oil tank farm site on the
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 2 March 2015
ESA
western edge of the City. The relatively steady residential population is consistent with the largely built-
out character of land use across the City.
Outside of completion of the multifamily development at Point Edwards (development was occurring at
the time of the last CAO update, and was permitted before the existing CAO was adopted), no major
development activities affecting critical areas within the City has occurred since the last CAO update.
Development adjacent to critical areas has occurred primarily as redevelopment and additions on existing
single-family residential lots. This pattern is anticipated to continue into the future.
The City has not annexed any new areas since 1999.
METHODS
According to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), Washington’s counties and cities are required
to continually review, evaluate, and update comprehensive land use plans and development regulations
using BAS, with the intent of identifying, designating and protecting critical areas and giving special
consideration to anadromous fisheries. Critical areas include the following elements: wetlands, critical
aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and
geologically hazardous areas (RCW 36.70A.030). There are no critical aquifer recharge areas within
Edmonds and thus are not discussed below.
BAS is defined as scientific information about critical areas, prepared by local, tribal, state, or federal
natural resource agencies, or qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with the following
criteria:
Scientific information is produced through a valid scientific process that includes:
o Peer review,
o A discussion of methods used to gather information,
o Logical conclusions,
o Data analysis,
o Information used in the appropriate context, and
o References of literature and other sources of information used.
Scientific information is obtained through a common source such as:
o Research,
o Monitoring,
o Inventory,
o Survey,
o Modeling,
o Assessment,
o Synthesis, or
o Expert opinion.
In the context of critical areas protection, a scientific process is one that produces reliable information
useful in understanding the consequences of regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas policies
and regulations that are effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 3
ESA
Non-scientific information can supplement, but it is not an adequate substitute for valid and available
scientific information. Common sources of non-scientific information include: anecdotal information;
non-expert opinion; and hearsay.
This addendum relies upon several regulatory guidance and BAS documents pertaining to critical areas.
Current examples of regulatory language pertaining to critical areas can be found in Critical Areas
Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth
Management Act (CTED, 2007). BAS documents specific to each critical area are discussed in the
following sections.
ESA reviewed the City’s CAO for consistency with the current scientific literature and applicable
regulatory agency guidance. For provisions specific to geologic hazards, The Stratum Group provided
technical review as a subconsultant to ESA. The ESA team also reviewed recently updated critical area
codes from other neighboring jurisdictions and recommended changes that would help Edmonds achieve
greater consistency with current standards and practices. Our recommendations also reflect our
professional judgment and experience assisting numerous cities and counties with code interpretation and
administration.
To organize our review and recommendations, we created a matrix (attached to this memo) documenting
consistency between CAO provisions and GMA regulations, relevant agency guidance and BAS
published since 2004.
WETLANDS
Wetlands are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by the Growth Management Act
(WAC 365-190-080[3]). The current CAO provides standards for protection of wetlands in ECDC
Chapter 23.50. This section summarizes new scientific literature and regional policy concerning wetlands
protection and management, provides an assessment of current CAO provisions, and summarizes
recommendations for updates to ensure consistency with BAS.
Updates to Scientific Literature
In general, the latest documents in the record pertaining to wetlands have been prepared by state and
federal agencies. Since the City’s last major CAO update, new scientific findings have been published
describing methods for assessing wetlands on a watershed-based and landscape-scale, alternative
mitigation strategies (mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs), improving the success of
compensatory mitigation, and buffer effectiveness. For example, the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) released a two -volume BAS
document that is still the primary source of new information for wetland management: Wetlands in
Washington State – Vol. 1 A Synthesis of the Science (Sheldon et al. 2005) and Vol. 2 Guidance for
Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Granger et al. 2005).
Wetland Model Code
The wetland model code found in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas
Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007) was updated in 2012
and can be found in Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington
Version (Bunten et al., 2012). This model code offers example language that reflects many of the updates
to BAS described in this section.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 4 March 2015
ESA
Wetland Delineation and Rating
In 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts (Corps, 2010). The regional
supplement updates portions of the 1987 Corps’ Wetland Delineation Manual and provides additional
technical guidance and updated procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands. State law requiring
the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997) was repealed in
2011, and the state manual is no longer required or supported by Ecology. The Regional Supplement is
now required by state law (WAC 173-22-035).
Ecology released an update to their wetland rating system, the Washington State Wetland Rating System
for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby, 2014), that goes into effect January 2015. Most of the
material in the 2014 updated manual remains the same as that in the 2004 manual. The updated wetland
rating manual includes a new scoring range (i.e., between 9 and 27 under the updated manual versus 1 to
100 in the 2004 manual) that is based on a qualitative scale of functions from high, medium, or low. The
new approach to scoring wetland functions on a high, medium, or low scale is more scientifically
supportable (Hruby, 2014). The 2014 updated manual also includes new sections for assessing a
wetland’s potential to provide functions and values on a landscape-scale.
Alternative Mitigation
One of the most significant changes in BAS since Edmonds last code update involves alternative
mitigation strategies. According to the National Research Council, compensatory mitigation
implemented in the past, particularly on-site mitigation installed by the permittee, has frequently been
unsuccessful and has not achieved the national policy of “no net loss” of wetland area and functions
(NRC, 2001). Traditionally, permit applicants have constructed mitigation projects to compensate for
effects to aquatic resources (e.g., wetlands, streams, marine waters) with limited oversight and
enforcement of mitigation requirements. This type of mitigation is referred to as “permittee-responsible”
mitigation. Additionally, alternative forms of mitigation, such as mitigation banks and in-lieu fee (ILF)
programs, and advance mitigation were not established uniformly across the country, or within individual
states, and there were numerous cases where alternative mitigation programs were operated
unsuccessfully.
To address these mitigation deficiencies, in early 2008 the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released revised regulations governing compensatory mitigation
for authorized impacts to waters of the US, including wetlands. The Federal Rule, formally known as the
Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, lays out criteria and performance
standards designed to improve the success and quality of mitigation activities (Corps, 2008).
The Federal Rule emphasizes a watershed approach to mitigation as part of the planning, implementation,
and management of mitigation projects. A watershed approach is an analytical process for making
compensatory mitigation decisions that support the sustainability or improvement of aquatic resources in
a watershed; it involves consideration of watershed needs, and how locations and types of compensatory
mitigation projects address those needs.
Alternatives to permittee-responsible mitigation are increasingly implemented within Washington State
and around the country to compensate for authorized effects to aquatic resources. Common forms of
alternative mitigation include:
Mitigation Banks— restoring, establishing, enhancing, and/or preserving aquatic resources
through funds paid to a public or private Sponsor to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 5
ESA
for Corps permits. At banks, the Sponsor has already secured a mitigation site and initiated
mitigation activities before fees are accepted. Typically, mitigation banks exist at one location
and the Corps does not have authority over bank expenditures.
In -Lieu Fee (ILF) Programs—restoring, establishing, enhanceing, and/or preserving aquatic
resources through funds paid to a governmental or non-profit natural resources management
entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for Corps permits. In -lieu fee programs
accept mitigation fees before securing and implementing projects. These programs implement
mitigation at multiple sites as funds become available and after the Corps approves project
funding.
Consolidated Off-site Mitigation— restorating, establishing, enhancing, and/or preserving aquatic
resources through funds paid to a public or private entity Sponsor. Mitigation typically occurs at
a single location in a phased approach; as compensatory mitigation fees are paid to the public or
private entity by permit applicants, portions of the mitigation site are constructed.
Advance Mitigation— restorting, establishing, enhancing, and/or preserving of aquatic resources,
undertaken by public or private permit applicants in advance of permitted impacts. This type of
mitigation is considered permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation because only the permit
applicant who implements the advance mitigation may use it to satisfy their compensatory
mitigation obligations.
Alternative forms of mitigation do not change the requirements for permit applicants to adhere to
“mitigation sequencing” required by regulatory agencies. These are step-wise requirements under federal
and state laws that mandate permit applicants to demonstrate that avoidance and minimization measures
have been taken before the remaining aquatic resource effects are determined unavoidable. Avoidance
and minimization measures occur during project design and are intended to avoid and reduce a project’s
effects prior to construction. Once a determination is made that project effects are unavoidable,
compensatory mitigation is required.
In the Federal Rule, the Corps outlined a mitigation hierarchy, preferring mitigation banks over ILF
programs and ILF programs over permittee-responsible mitigation.
Compensatory Mitigation
Where compensatory mitigation (permittee-responsible) is the best option for mitigating wetland impacts,
recent guidance has been developed to improve mitigation success. Ecology, in coordination with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), developed
a two-part guidance document intended to improve the quality, consistency, and effectiveness of
compensatory mitigation in Washington State.
Part 1 of the document, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance
(Ecology Publication #06-06-011a, March 2006a), provides regulatory background and outlines
information that regulatory agencies use. Some of this information has been superseded by recent
guidance discussed in the Alternative Mitigation section; however, wetland mitigation ratios listed in this
document are the basis for many local jurisdictions’ mitigation requirements. Part 2 of the document,
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology Publication #06-
06-011b, March 2006b) provides specific technical guidance on developing a compensatory wetland
mitigation plan.
As an alternative to using mitigation ratios, Ecology developed Calculating Credits and Debits for
Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Hruby, 2012) for estimating whether a
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 6 March 2015
ESA
project’s compensatory mitigation plan adequately replaces lost wetland functions and values . Termed
the “Credit-Debit Method,” this manual uses a functions and values-based approach to score functions
lost at the project site (i.e., “debits”) compared to functions gained at a mitigation site (i.e., “credits”). A
mitigation project is considered successful when the “credit” score for a compensatory mitigation project
is higher than the “debit” score. Based on our local experience, the Corps and Ecology are increasingly
relying on the Credit-Debit Method instead of mitigation ratios alone.
Buffer Effectiveness
In 2005, Ecology and WDFW released Wetlands in Washington State – Vol. 1 A Synthesis of the Science
(Sheldon et al. 2005) that synthesized literature related to wetland buffers and buffer effectiveness. In
2013, the Department of Ecology updated the 2005 synthesis with a literature review of scientific
documents published between 2003 and 2012, titled Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science,
Final Report (Hruby, 2013).
The updated buffer synthesis confirmed that buffers perform an important water quality function by
trapping pollutants before they reach a wetland. Generally, the wider the buffer, the more effective it may
be at protecting water quality; however, recent research reveals that several other factors contribute to the
effectiveness of water quality functions (e.g., slope, type of vegetation, surface roughness, soil properties,
type and concentration of pollutants, etc.). Specifying only the width of a buffer as a means for protecting
water quality functions can be complicated and may not address these other factors (Hruby, 2013). With
respect to protecting habitat quality, research in the past decade reveals that larger buffers are needed to
protect wetland-dependent species, which may require larger areas of relatively undisturbed uplands for
survival (Hruby, 2013).
Ecology’s model code outlines a combined fixed-with and variable-width approach to wetland buffers,
with a minimum buffer prescribed based on a wetland’s category and an additional buffer based on
increasing habitat points (Bunten et al., 2012; Table XX.1 revised December 2014). For reductions to a
standard buffer width, an applicant should demonstrate that a smaller buffer will protect wetland
functions and values, with additional mitigation measures applied where needed to support “no net loss”
of those functions and values (Granger et al., 2005). In highly developed communities, such as Edmonds,
standard buffer widths may be difficult to achieve. As noted in the 2004 BAS Report, many wetland and
stream buffers extend into residential yards that have been previously developed and likely provide
limited function in terms of wetland protection. Furthermore, some buffers are substantially developed
and contain impervious surfaces, commercial or residential buildings. While not explicitly stated in BAS
and buffer guidance documents, a scientific judgment of these areas would conclude they do not provide
the same function and values as a vegetated or undeveloped buffer due to the physical separation.
Ecology’s model code (Table XX.2) outlines required mitigation measures that can be used to protect
wetlands (Bunten et al., 2012). The model code recommends that standard buffers should not be reduced
below 25 percent of the standard buffer with mitigation measures (Bunten et al., 2012). Granger et al.
(2005) notes that for some situations where the buffer is composed of non-native vegetation, and therefore
providing limited functions and values, simply applying a fixed width buffer may fail to provide the
necessary characteristics to protect a wetland’s functions. In these cases, it can be better to restore the
buffer through enhancement activities.
Other Sources of Information
Other scientific sources have also generated relevant information, which we reviewed and have
referenced in the gap analysis matrix and in the references section of this report.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 7
ESA
Assessment of Current Wetland Provisions and Summary of Code
Recommendations
The wetlands section of the CAO needs to be updated in a few key areas to improve its consistency with
BAS and current agency guidelines, as detailed in the attached matrix. A summary of key
recommendations follows:
Update references to newer manuals (e.g., Corps Regional Supplement and the updated Wetland
Rating Manual).
Update buffer widths to reflect those recommended in Ecology’s “Table XX.1” and in the City’s
draft SMP. Note that Table XX.1 was revised in December 2014 to reflect the new scoring
system used in the 2014 updated Wetland Rating Manual.
Prioritize buffer averaging with enhancement over buffer reductions with enhancement: Buffer
averaging results in the same amount of buffer area, while buffer reductions result in a net loss of
area.
Update provisions for buffer reductions with enhancement or for buffer averaging to be no greater
than 25 percent of the standard buffer width and include the list of mitigation measures from
Ecology’s Table “XX.2” (Bunten et al., 2012) to further protect wetlands. Where additions to
legally constructed structures will occur beyond the 25 percent reduction in the standard buffer
(Section 23.50.040.H), a development footprint threshold and buffer mitigation measures (e.g.,
enhancement plan and elements from Table XX.2) should be required for consistency with BAS
and “no net loss.”
Include provisions to address for physically separated and functionally isolated buffers and
development within the previously developed footprint to be consistent with the City’s draft
SMP.
Update wetland mitigation requirements to reflect BAS regarding wetland mitigation guidance
(e.g., compensatory mitigation technical guidance, watershed-based documents, and the Credit-
Debit Method) and the mitigation preference sequence (federal- and state-approved mitigation
banks, in lieu fee programs, then compensatory mitigation).
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Frequently flooded areas are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by GMA (WAC 365-
190-110). The current CAO provides standards for protection of frequently flooded areas in ECDC
Chapter 23.70, which includes standards for identification, reporting, and protection of floodplains, and
additionally references floodplain standards for new development and structures within the International
Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC), both adopted by reference in ECDC Title
19. In addition, the updated SMP includes flood hazard reduction regulations (proposed ECDC
24.40.030) that were not in effect at the time of the last CAO update (City of Edmonds 2014).
This section summarizes new scientific literature and regional policy concerning frequently flooded areas
protection and management that has emerged in the last 10 years, provides an assessment of current CAO
provisions, and summarizes recommendations for updates to ensure consistency with BAS.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 8 March 2015
ESA
Updates to Scientific Literature
There is relatively little area of floodplain within Edmonds. For this reason, as noted within the 2004
BAS, little emphasis is placed on frequently flooded areas. The currently effective FIRM for the City
(revised and effective on January 30, 1998) remains consistent with floodplain mapping that was
available during the 2004 BAS review; however, in November 2014 the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) released draft flood zone maps that include coastal floodplains subject to inundation by
the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event.
The 2004 BAS notes several City documents that detail areas of potential flooding outside of the flood
zones depicted on FIRMs. The 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan (City of Edmonds 2003b) was
updated by the 2010 Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (City of Edmonds
2010). Chapter 3 of the 2010 Plan details flooding issues in the City, including discussion of flooding
associated with increased impervious surfaces and runoff during storm events, and site-specific problems.
Many of the site-specific problems are associated with undersized and/or failing stormwater infrastructure
that results in flooding issues. Some site-specific problems (and proposed capital improvement solutions)
are located within FIRM flood zones (Edmonds Marsh, Perrinville Creek at Talbot Road, Lake Ballinger);
however many others are located outside of flood zone mapping (for example, high priority flood
protection projects within the Southwest Edmonds Basin).
The 2004 BAS discussed frequently flooded areas chiefly from the perspective of flood effects on human
health, safety, and property, and the effects of human activities on flooding. Floodplains perform a
variety of beneficial functions including providing for natural flood and erosion control, water quality
maintenance, groundwater recharge, biological productivity, fish and wildlife habitat (Steiger et al. 2005),
production and of wild and cultivated products, recreational opportunities, and areas for scientific study
and outdoor recreation (Kusler 2011). Floodplains typically contain several major types of habitats
including aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland habitat.
Recent BAS and regional guidance for protection of ecological functions within a floodplain emphasizes
the importance of other critical areas (including wetlands, streams, riparian areas, and FWHCAs) within
floodplains, and emphasizes the importance of protection of these critical areas (PSP 2010; NMFS 2009).
Guidance highlights the importance of other critical areas provisions in ensuring that floodplain
ecological functions are protected into the future. Due to a 2009 Biological Opinion by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding protection Endangered Species Act listed salmonid species
from the effects of floodplain development activities, assessment of floodplain habitat impacts and new
standards for protection are now required for NFIP participating communities (NMFS 2009; FEMA
2013).
Climate Change and Frequently Flooded Areas in Edmonds
A recent review of the effects of climate change (ISAB 2007) identified the following probable
consequences of global warming along the Pacific coast of North America, as relevant to Edmonds:
Sea level rise will shift coastal beaches inland and increase erosion of unstable bluffs (Huppert et
al. 2009)
Urban stormwater infrastructure - regional climate model simulations generally predict increases
in extreme high precipitation over the next half-century; existing drainage infrastructure designed
using mid-20th century rainfall records is anticipated to reach capacity and result in urban
flooding more frequently (Rosenberg et al. 2009).
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 9
ESA
Both of these consequences suggest that hazards associated with both coastal and urban flooding could
increase in the decades ahead. Management of frequently flooded areas provides an opportunity for the
City to anticipate increased flood hazards related to climate change and provide standards to further
minimize future risks.
Assessment of Current Frequently Flooded Areas Provisions and Summary of
Code Recommendations
Current frequently flooded areas provisions remain generally consistent with minimum guidelines
provided by FEMA for NFIP communities and Washington State (WACs 173 and 365). ECDC includes
provisions that ensure adequate reporting of development activities within frequently flooded areas,
including standards to ensure that areas important to floodplain habitat functions (wetlands, streams, and
other critical areas) are documented where they occur within floodplains. The updated SMP, which
includes almost all floodplain areas (both along the City’s Puget Sound shoreline and along Lake
Ballinger), includes proposed standards that restrict development and redevelopment from occurring
where it would require structural flood hazard reduction measures. Furthermore, the updated SMP only
permits structural flood control works when necessary to protect health/safety or existing development,
and only when documented that permitted facilities would not result in a net loss of ecological functions.
ECDC Chapter 23.70 primarily relies on reference to the IBC and IRC, as adopted by reference in ECDC
Title 19. The IBC and IRC include flood hazard protections (IBC Section 1612 Flood Loads and IBC
Appendix G Flood Resistant Construction). While these adopted by reference standards are consistent
with minimum requirements for NFIP communities, most other Western Washington communities adopt
their own flood hazard regulations. Including flood damage prevention standards directly within the
City’s Development Code would make requirements more readily apparent and may improve compliance
for future floodplain development.
ECDC Title 19 building code requires that the lowest living space in a residential structure be at or above
the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) (1% chance flood zone). This meets the minimum standards of the
NFIP, but FEMA recommends and many communities have adopted higher standards – either 1 or 2 feet
above the BFE. It has become a widely accepted policy to require at least a 1-foot above BFE for
residential structures to reduce their potential loss or damage from flooding.
While the majority of the City’s floodplain occurs along the marine shoreline of Puget Sound, the
frequently flooded areas also extend along the shorelines of Lake Ballinger. In this area, recent BAS and
guidance highlighting the importance of requiring compensatory floodplain storage is relevant (Steiger et
al. 2005, FEMA 2013). Lake Ballinger, as well as upstream reaches of Hall Creek and downstream
reaches of McAleer Creek have known flooding issues (Otak et al. 2009). For the Lake Ballinger
floodplain, the City should consider amending ECDC Chapter 23.70 to require compensatory storage for
new floodplain development.
Additionally, current frequently flooded areas provisions (either as adopted by reference or as proposed
within the updated SMP) do not include any higher standards that would greatly reduce flood risks within
coastal floodplains (Coastal A zones and V zones). The risks associated with wave run-up and impact
forces within coastal floodplains are significant. A number of recommendations for additional flood
hazard reduction are provided within the attached Matrix.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 10 March 2015
ESA
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Geologically hazardous areas are specifically identified as a critical area by GMA (WAC 365-190-120).
Three geologic hazard areas are located in Edmonds: 1) erosion hazard areas, 2) landslide hazard areas,
and 3) seismic hazard areas. The current CAO provides standards for protection of safety of citizens from
geologically hazardous areas in ECDC Chapter 23.80, which includes standards for identification, report
requirements for geologic hazard areas, and development and mitigation standards for geologically
hazardous areas
The 2004 BAS Report states that the risk from geological hazards “can often be significantly mitigated
through engineering, design, and/or modified construction and development techniques.” While some
geology hazards may be reduced through engineered mitigation measures, it is also important to
emphasize that where possible geological hazardous areas should be avoided by locating structures
outside of potential hazard areas. When mitigation alternatives cannot viably reduce risks to human
health and safety to acceptable levels, building in geologically hazardous should not be permitted.
In addition to CAO standards for geologically hazardous areas, as last comprehensively updated in 2004,
the City developed and implemented standards for development activities within “designated earth
subsidence and landslide hazard areas” of the City in ECDC Chapter 19.10 (Building Permits – Earth
Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas). These standards, which were adopted in 2007 and last
amended in 2013, were developed primarily to address risks associated with a specific landslide hazard
area in Edmonds, the Meadowdale Landslide.
This section summarizes new scientific literature and regional policy concerning geologically hazardous
areas that has emerged in the last 10 years, provides an assessment of current CAO provisions (including
considerations for integration with ECDC Chapter 19.10), and summarizes recommendations for updates
to ensure consistency with BAS and risk management policies.
Updates to Scientific Literature
The two most noteworthy new science additions applicable to Edmonds are the North Edmonds Earth
Subsidence and Landslide Area Summary Report (Landau, 2007) and the availability of LiDAR (light
detection and ranging) imagery. The Meadowdale Landslide summarized in the Landau (2007) summary
is a large, deep-seated landslide that is called out in the existing CAO but has specific regulations for that
hazard area in Chapter 19.10 EDC. The LiDAR data should provide a clearer means of identifying
potential landslide hazard areas as steep slopes potentially subject to landslides can be readily identified.
Ongoing seismic research has better characterized fault zones to the north and south of the Edmonds, the
South Whidbey Fault Zone and the Seattle Fault Zone (Kelsey et al. 2004a; Kelsey and Sherrod, 2004b;
Liberty and Pape, 2006; Liberty and Pape, 2013). Edmonds is located approximately mid-way between
these two identified fault zones. The United States Geologic Society (2014) has updated seismic hazard
maps for the area and shows similar peak ground acceleration risk as previous mapping in 2008 and 2002.
Walsh and others (2014) have modeled potential tsunami hazards associated with a maximum credible
seismic event on the Seattle Fault and found wave amplitudes in the Edmonds area to be approximately
4.5 feet. Modeling of seismic induced landsliding associated with the Seattle Fault (Allstadt and Vidale,
2012) suggests many landslides would be triggered and these effects will be of significant consequence.
While not new science, communities throughout Washington State have been grappling with best
practices for addressing geologically hazardous areas. Some additional languages and changes have been
added to the BAS to reflect lessons learned elsewhere. Washington State Department of Licensing
Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington (2006) provides reference
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 11
ESA
guidance for preparation of geologic reports that can be utilized for simplifying code language regarding
geology hazard reports.
Assessment of Current Geologically Hazardous Areas Provisions and Summary
of Code Recommendations
In general, the City currently regulates geologically hazardous areas in accordance with BAS, CTED and
DOE guidance, and consistent with updated provisions adopted by similar and/or neighboring Western
Washington jurisdictions. However, the current Edmonds CAO pertaining to geologically hazardous
areas does not include a full listing of potential landslide areas that should be evaluated per WAC
guidance language. The code should be updated to capture the range of potential landslide hazards as
provided in the WAC guidance. Utilizing the language in the WAC guidance for slopes greater than 40%
will eliminate confusion regarding measurement of slope break. The code should be updated to define
slopes greater than 40% as potential landslide hazard areas regardless of toe and top of slope. That is if a
40% slope is present that is at least 10 feet high it will be considered a potential landslide area.
Potential geologic hazardous areas should be treated as potential hazards that require further assessment
to determine if in fact the site is a geologic hazardous area. That determination should be made by a
geologist. The code should be clarified to reflect that the specific areas considered as potential landslide
and erosion hazard areas that should be reviewed by a qualified geologist to determine if they are a
landslide or erosion hazard, and if they area what actions should be taken.
The current code provides a lengthy description of what should be included in geology and geotechnical
reports but is not clear in what is required. A flow chart in the existing CAO suggests a clear path of
types of reports and content. The CAO language should better reflect the flow chart which is consistent
with the best available science and guidance and clarifies report requirements with the goal of
establishing clear reports that assess the geologic hazards and mitigation as applicable.
Standard buffers should no longer be used. Buffers and setbacks should be determined by a geologist
specific for the site. Additionally, clarity on the setback criteria should be added so that structures will
not be at risk for the life of the structure (120 years) and that in evaluation of the geologic hazard there is
a determination that there will be no on- or off-site increase in risk of erosion or landslides.
The Meadowdale Landslide area is covered in a separate code section in 19.10 and is referenced within
the CAO. The Meadowdale Landslide is a deep-seated landslide and policy for development and/or
denial of development is established within EDC 19.10. EDC 19.10 allows for development in an area
where there is a known geologic hazard. For consistency the CAO should treat this particular landslide
hazard differently than other landslide and erosion hazard areas. EDC 19.10 should be modified to better
reflect the specific zone recommendations presented in Table 1 of the Landau report and each zone should
be treated somewhat differently as the risks vary from zone to zone.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by
the Growth Management Act (WAC 365-190-080[3]). The current CAO provides standards for
protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in ECDC Chapter 23.90. This section
summarizes new scientific literature and regional policy concerning wetlands protection and management,
provides an assessment of current CAO provisions, and summarizes recommendations for updates to
ensure consistency with BAS.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 12 March 2015
ESA
Updates to Scientific Literature
The latest documents in the record pertaining to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas have been
prepared predominantly by state, federal, and tribal agencies. Much of this science is related to protecting
salmon and fisheries habitat. For example, in 2009, WDFW published Land Use Planning for Salmon,
Steelhead and Trout: A Land Use Planner’s Guide to Salmonid Habitat Protection and Recovery as part of
an initiative to integrate local planning programs with salmon recovery efforts (Knight, 2009). Other
documents are related to managing biodiversity and habitat quality with urban development. In 2009,
WDFW also published Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in
Developing Areas, which provides guidance for wildlife issues related to rural and urban residential
development.
Ecology has published guidance on minimum riparian buffer widths for implementing riparian restoration
or planting projects that use water quality-related state and federal pass-through grants or loans (Appendix
L in Ecology, 2013). The buffer widths are recommended by the NMFS to help protect and recover
Washington’s salmon populations. NMFS recommends a 100-foot minimum buffer for surface waters
that are currently or historically have been accessed by anadromous or listed fish species and a 50-foot
buffer for surfaces that do not have current or historic access.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Model Code
The model code found in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the
Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007) is the most recent related to fish
and wildlife habitat conservations areas; however, portions of Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for
Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012) are applicable or were referenced for
code consistency.
Buffer Effectiveness
When discussing BAS for buffers and buffer effectiveness for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
one must distinguish between stream/riparian buffers (those areas providing functions related to fish
habitat and stream processes) and habitat buffers (areas including riparian buffers and the terrestrial areas
adjacent to them which provide wildlife functions for a variety of species). Recommendations for stream
buffers have remained relatively similar since the City’s last CAO update, with recommended buffer
widths varying from 75 feet to well over 300 feet to protect a suite of ecological functions (Brennan et al.,
2009; May, 2003; Knutson and Naef, 1997). As mentioned previously with regard to wetland buffers,
achieving these recommended widths in the highly developed landscape of Edmonds may be difficult to
achieve. Some stream/riparian buffers include commercial or residential buildings with actively
maintained landscapes or impervious surface. These areas provide limited functions in comparison to
fully vegetated buffers. In these cases, enhancement activities of the existing buffer width may be more
effective in improving the functions and values of the stream/riparian buffer than simply increasing the
buffer width (Granger et al. 2005).
Much of the recent scientific research regarding buffer effectiveness and habitat quality is related
specifically to wetlands and wetland-dependent species, and is summarized in Update on Wetland
Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report (Hruby, 2013). Although this synthesis of the science is
directly related to wetlands and wetland-dependent species, these species may also use riparian buffers for
travel or life processes.
Research indicates that uplands surrounding wetlands and streams can serve as critical habitat for some
species, a concept that expands the notion of a buffer beyond simply protecting wetland and riparian
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 13
ESA
functions to protecting aquatic-dependent species (Hruby, 2013; Semlitsch and Jensen, 2001). Several
literature sources have suggested that these terrestrial areas adjacent to wetlands and streams be termed
“core habitat.” Studies on wetland-dependent species report that core habitat needs to extend between
1,000 feet to 0.6 mile from the wetland edge to be effective in supporting population survival; however,
there is little information on how much connectivity is needed between a critical area and core habitat
(Hruby, 2013). Research indicates that stream/riparian buffers alone will not be enough to protect certain
species and that a broader approach to protecting wildlife is needed, especially in areas that are intensely
developed (Hruby, 2013; Semlitsch and Jensen, 2001).
Research related to general wildlife habitat connectivity, however, indicates that connectivity is important
for species to travel and carry out life processes. Small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles are generally
more sensitive to changes and gaps in connectivity compared to larger mammals and birds (WDFW,
2009). Areas with less than 50 percent undisturbed land cover (i.e., developed urban environments) need
assistance to ensure that habitat connectivity is maintained (WDFW, 2009). In addition to using local
critical areas inventory information and Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data, WDFW recommends
protecting large undeveloped habitat patches and open space areas as part of planning and building habitat
corridors (WDFW, 2009). Habitat corridor widths greater than 1,000 feet generally provide the most
benefit for the most species (WDFW, 2009).
In general, the standards related to wetland buffer reductions and averaging discussed earlier are deemed
to be applicable to fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffers, although specific requirements and
protections may be required for local, state, and federally listed species. The mitigation measures
outlined in Ecology’s model code (Table XX.2; Bunten et al., 2012) can also be used to minimize impacts
to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, which are
mainly geared towards improving water quality, can also have secondary benefits to wildlife (WDFW,
2009).
Other Sources of Information
Other scientific sources have also generated relevant information, which we reviewed and have
referenced in the gap analysis matrix and in the references section of this report.
Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Provisions
and Summary of Code Recommendations
The fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas section of the CAO needs to be updated in a few key
areas to improve its consistency with BAS and current agency guidelines, as detailed in the attached
matrix. A summary of key recommendations follows:
Increase buffer widths to reflect BAS guidance. Buffer widths of 300 feet or greater are not
feasible given the developed nature of the City. At a minimum, we suggest Type Ns streams be
increased to a 40-foot buffer. Type F streams with anadromous fish habitat can continue to be
protected with a 100-foot buffer, which is consistent with NMFS riparian buffer
recommendations (Appendix L in Ecology, 2013).
Prioritize buffer averaging with enhancement over buffer reductions with enhancement: Buffer
averaging results in the same amount of buffer area, while buffer reductions result in a net loss of
area.
Update provisions for buffer reductions with enhancement or for buffer averaging to be no greater
than 25 percent of the standard buffer width and include the list of mitigation measures from
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 14 March 2015
ESA
Ecology’s Table XX.2 (Bunten et al., 2012) to further protect fish and wildlife conservation areas .
Where modifications or additions to legally constructed structures will occur in addition to the 25
percent reduction in the standard buffer, we suggest that a development footprint threshold and
buffer mitigation measures (e.g., enhancement plan and elements from Table XX.2) be required
for consistency with BAS and to achieve “no net loss.”
Include additional subsection for physically separated and functionally isolated buffers and
development within the previously developed footprint to be consistent with the City’s draft
SMP. Include additional discussion of how piped/culverted stream systems are approached with
respect to buffers.
Revise vegetation retention section for parcels zoned RS-12 or RS-20: The vegetation retention
requirement is not currently related to critical areas functions; therefore, we suggest this section
be revised to focus on retaining “core habitat.” There are several ways this can be achieved:
o Requiring larger critical areas buffers for wetlands, streams, and local habitats and
species of importance for parcels zoned RS-12 or RS-20. This approach would likely be
the easiest for the City to implement.
o Including a vegetation retention requirement for core habitats—i.e., uplands within a
certain distance (e.g., 1000 feet) from wetlands, streams, or habitats and species of local
significance that have connectivity with those critical areas. Vegetation retention can
also be achieved by requiring LID strategies, which have secondary benefits to wildlife.
This approach might protect more overall areas for vegetation retention, but would need
clarification and criteria for the City to implement this effectively (i.e., clearly defining
core habitat and requirements for connectivity with wetlands, streams, buffers, etc.).
o Outlining a management approach which prioritizes areas for vegetation and habitat
retention and tying this to the requirement for a habitat assessment in Section 23.90.020.
Typically this would require development of a habitat model or completion of a City-
wide assessment. This approach would likely be more costly than the approaches above,
but could be incorporated with the City’s current development of an Urban Forestry
Management Plan.
CRITICAL AREAS INVENTORY MAPPING
Currently the data that exists for the City’s critical areas are as follows:
Stream and fish habitat layers;
Wetland layers – wetland known extents, wetland boundaries not completely delineated, potential
wetlands, areas with potential wetlands, 2003 NWI wetlands; and
Geologic hazards – WDNR seismic hazards, earth subsidence hazard areas, 40% slopes, severe
erosion hazard areas, and erosion hazard areas.
The City also maintains detailed mapping of stormwater infrastructure. This dataset integrates natural
flow pathways, including streams and wetland areas, along with built conveyance features.
Upon initial review, the current breadth of potential critical areas mapped by the City is very good,
because it covers the relevant critical areas including fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
(streams), wetlands, and geologically hazardous areas. Inventory data sets include features extending
across the City’s jurisdiction, suggesting that there are no major gaps in terms of coverage. That said,
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 15
ESA
additional datasets including LIDAR provide opportunity to improve the precision of critical areas
inventory mapping.
LIDAR coverage for the region, including the City and its Municipal Urban Growth Areas, was provided
by the Puget Sound LIDAR Consortium (PSLC) and is a subset of the 2000-2005 Puget Sound Lowlands
data. High resolution aerial imagery dated from 2012 was also provided by the City.
LIDAR data is a measurement of the earth’s surface, and therefore is a good tool for evaluating
topographic driven critical areas including streams, wetlands, and geological hazards. LIDAR would be
less effective in updating frequently flooded areas mapping; as methods for determining the extent of
these areas are well defined, relying on multiple data sources and/or modeling.
Integrating LIDAR into Stream and Wetland Mapping: Surface water tends to flow from high areas
of elevation to low lying areas, unless a barrier interrupts that flow. Since we have accurate elevation
data in the form of LIDAR, the direction of water flow is determined by the direction of steepest descent,
or maximum drop, from each cell of elevation data. This method of deriving flow direction is presented
in Jenson and Domingue (1988). Once the direction each cell will flow towards is known, the
accumulated flow into each cell can be determined. Identification of flow direction and accumulation can
be derived from tools integrated into ArcGIS. The output of the flow accumulation is the number of cells
flowing into each cell, which essentially creates a network of the lowest lying areas.
ArcHydro’s stream definition tool has been used to develop a water network dataset indicating areas
where wetlands and streams could likely occur. The dataset derived from LIDAR is being evaluated,
refined, and verified with additional datasets, including the City’s existing inventories for streams and
wetlands, stormwater infrastructure, recent 2012 aerial imagery, land cover, and soils. The following
specific steps are being implemented to integrate LIDAR into inventory datasets for streams and
wetlands:
1. Use LIDAR data to create potential water flow network dataset using ArcGIS / ArcHydro tools,
as indicated above;
2. Identify dense areas of flow networks to be evaluated further as potential streams and/or
wetlands;
3. Verify LIDAR approach by comparing identified areas with City’s “wetlands known extent”
dataset;
4. Compare potential wetland and stream areas with existing land use / land cover conditions using
high resolution aerial imagery; eliminate highly urbanized / impervious areas from further
evaluation.
5. Evaluate vegetative cover within remaining potential wetland and stream areas to refine potential
wetland extent;
6. Update wetland and stream inventory mapping:
a. Streams – compare remaining identified areas to City’s stream mapping, stormwater
network mapping and DNR hyro mapping; rely on detailed LIDAR topo to update and
improve accuracy of stream inventory.
b. Wetlands – compare remaining identified areas to City’s current wetland data layers;
update the “potential wetlands” data layer to include newly identified wetland areas.
7. Complete field review of updates to stream and wetland inventories for targeted areas.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 16 March 2015
ESA
Updates to stream and wetland inventory mapping is still underway. Evaluation of water flow network
has revealed approximately 20 sites where existing inventory layers for wetlands could be updated. As
anticipated, very minor updates to stream inventory mapping have been identified and will be completed
as part of the update process are underway.
CAO ORGANIZATION AND CRITICAL AREA REVIEW PROCESS
In general, the Edmonds CAO is one of the better ordinances in the region in terms of clarity,
completeness, and comparable structure with state guidelines. The Edmonds CAO needs to be updated in
a few key areas to improve its consistency with BAS and current agency guidelines, as detailed in the
attached matrix, but no major overhaul or additional review is needed at this time.
The Critical Areas General Provisions (Section 23.40) should be updated with the following revisions to
improve consistency with BAS and other code sections:
Include additional information on the review process and the information or criteria needed
related to critical areas (e.g., criteria for granting a waiver, criteria for critical areas reports and
mitigation reports). These are minor revisions.
Update mitigation language to be consistent with wetlands mitigation guidance (Corps, 2008;
Ecology 2006a, 2006b; Hruby 2012).
Minor updates to allowed uses, especially provisions for trails and walkways in critical areas.
Increasing the standard monitoring period from 3 to 5 years to be consistent with BAS (CTED,
2007).
Revise the penalties for critical areas violations.
The tree removal portion of the CAO (Section 23.40.220.C.7.b.0 is generally consistent with BAS;
however, portions of Section 18.45—Land Clearing and Tree Removal are not consistent with this section
and would allow clearing and tree cutting within wetland and stream buffers without mitigation or
reference to the provisions in Section 23.40. Section 18.45 should be revised to be consistent with Section
23.40.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 17
ESA
REFERENCES
GENERAL REFERENCES
City of Edmonds. 2014. Planning Board Recommended Draft City of Edmonds SMP. Available:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development-services-home/planning-
division-home/plans-long-range-planning/shoreline-master-program-update.html
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). 2007. Critical
Areas Assistance Handbook: Protection Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington
Growth Management Act. Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic
Development.
Lien, Kernen. 2014. Personal Communication. Email and phone call from November 21, 2014 regarding
City’s Shoreline Master Program Update.
WETLANDS
Literature Cited
Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. 2012. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small
Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No.
10-06-002. October 2012 2nd Revision. Olympia, WA.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Massachusetts.
Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April
2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing
Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA.
Hruby. 2012. Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western
Washington. Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1006011.pdf
Hruby, 2013. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report, October 2013.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-11.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
Washington Department of Ecology (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA.
National Research Council [NRC]. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act.
The National Academies Press. Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.
March 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington
State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps]. 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources;
Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70): 19594-1970.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 18 March 2015
ESA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps]. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts.
Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 173-22-035. Wetland Identification and Delineation.
Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas.
Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development [CTED]. Revised
2007. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of
the Washington Growth Management Act.
Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual.
Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], and US
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2006a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part
1: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ecology Publication: #06-06-011a. March 2006.
Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], and US
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2006b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part
2: Developing Mitigation Plans. Ecology Publication #06-06-011b. March 2006.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012. Advance Permittee-Responsible
Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206015.pdf
Other Literature Reviewed But Not Cited
Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley. 2009. Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed
Approach. Washington State Department of Ecology (Publication #09-06-032). Olympia, WA.
Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. 2008. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the
Mitigation that Works Forum. Ecology Publication No. 08-06-018.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0806018.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]. 2012. Guidance on In-Lieu Fee Mitigation. Ecology
Publication No. 12-06-012. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206012.pdf
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Literature Cited
City of Edmonds. 2003b. City of Edmonds 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. Mayor: Gary
Haakenson.
City of Edmonds. 2010. Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by
Herrera Environmental Consultants and City of Edmonds. October 14, 2010. Available:
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 19
ESA
http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development-services-home/planning-
division-home/plans-long-range-planning.html
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Model Ordinance for Floodplain Management
under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act. FEMA - Region
10. Bothell, WA. April 2011
Huppert, D.D., A. Moore and K. Dyson. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on the Coasts of Washington
State. Available: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach8coasts651.pdf
ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River basin
fish and wildlife. ISAB, Report 2007-2, Portland, Oregon
Kusler, J.A. 2011. Functions of floodplains: Issues and approaches; future directions. Prepared for the
Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. Berne, NY. October 18, 2011.
NMFS. 2009. Final Biological Opinion Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the
State of Washington, Phase One Document – Puget Sound Region
Otak, Inc., Golder Associates, Inc., Clear creek Solutions, Inc. and EnviroIssues. 2009. Greater Lake
Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Study – Strategic Action Plan. Prepared for the Lake
Ballinger / McAleer Creek Forum. Available:
http://www.cityofmlt.com/cityServices/publicWorks/stormWaterDivision/LkBallingerWatershed
Forum.htm
PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2010. Floodplain Management: A Synthesis of Issues Affecting Recovery
of Puget Sound. Prepared by Millie Judge (Lighthouse Natural Resource Consulting, Inc.); David
St. John (PSP) and Caitlin Imaki (PSP)
Rosenburg, E.A., P. Keys, D. Booth, D. Hartley, J. Burkey, A. Steinemann, D. Lettenmaier. 2009.
Precipitation Extremes and the Impacts of Climate Change on Stormwater Infrastructure in
Washington State. Available: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach9storminfra652.pdfc
Steiger J., E. Tabacchi, S. Dufour, D. Corenblit, and J.L. Peiry. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic processes
affecting riparian habitat within alluvial channel-floodplain river systems: A review for the
temperate zone. River Research and Applications 21(7): 719–737.
Other Literature Reviewed but Not Cited
Mantua, N.J., I.Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on Key Aspects of Freshwater
Salmon Habitat in Washington State. Climate Impact Group, 2009, Ch. 6, pp. 217-253; The
Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. M. McGuire Elsner, J. Little and L. Whitely
Binder (eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the
Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Literature Cited
Allstadt, Kate; Vidale, John. 2012. Seismically induced landsliding in Seattle--A magnitude 7 Seattle
Fault earthquake scenario: U.S. Geological Survey, External research support--Final technical
reports--Funded research, Pacific Northwest, 8 p.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Page 20 March 2015
ESA
Kelsey, H.M., Sherrod, B., Johnson, S.Y. and Dadisman, S.V. 2004a. Land-level changes from a late
Holocene earthquake in the northern Puget Lowland, Washington. Geology, 32, 469-472.
Kelsey, Harvey M. and Sherrod, Brian S. 2004b. Investigation of north-side-up reverse faults of the
Seattle Fault zone using uplifted and offset wave-cut platforms and exploratory trenching--Final
technical report. U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program, External Research
Support, Funded Research Final Technical Reports, 12 p.
Landau Associates. 2007. North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Summary
Report. Prepared for the City of Edmonds.
Liberty, L. and K. Pape. 2013. Seismic Characterization of the Seattle and Southern Whidbey Island Fault
Zones in the Snoqualmie River Valley, Washington. Center for Geophysical Investigation of the
Shallow Subsurface (CGISS) - Boise State University.
Liberty, L.M. and Pape, K.M. 2006. Seismic characterization of the Seattle and Southern Whidbey Island
fault zones in the Snoqualmie River valley, Washington--Final technical report: U.S. Geological
Survey Earthquake Hazards Program, External Research Support, Funded Research Final
Technical Reports, 17 p.
Sherrod, Brian L.; Blakely, Richard J.; Weaver, Craig S.; Kelsey, Harvey M.; Barnett, Elizabeth; Liberty,
Lee; Meagher, Karen L.; Pape, Kristin. 2008. Finding concealed active faults--Extending the
southern Whidbey Island fault across the Puget Lowland, Washington: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 113, B05313
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. Two-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map
of peak ground acceleration
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2014/2014_pga2pct50yrs.pdf
Washington State Department of Licensing. 2006. Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports
in Washington.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
Literature Cited
Brennan, J., H. Culverwell, R. Gregg, and P. Granger. 2009. Protection of Marine Riparian Functions in
Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife by
Washington Sea Grant. June 15, 2009. 148 pp.
Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. 2012. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small
Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No.
10-06-002. October 2012 2nd Revision. Olympia, WA.
Hruby, 2013. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report, October 2013.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-11.
Knight, K. 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 21
ESA
Knutson, K. L., and Naef, V. L. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats:
Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 181 pp.
May, C.W. 2003. Stream-riparian ecosystems in Puget Sound lowland eco-region: A review of best
available science. Watershed Ecology LLC.
Semlitsch and Jensen. 2001. Core Habitat, Not Buffer Zone. National Wetlands Newsletter: 23(4).
Accessible at:
http://www.northinlet.sc.edu/training/media/2011/06142011IsolatedWetlands/RESOURCES/CO
RE_HABITAT.pdf
Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 232-12-292. Bald Eagle Protection Rules.
Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2013. Appendix L- Riparian Restoration and
Planting in Funding Guidelines State Fiscal Year 2015 – Water Quality Financial Assistance.
Ecology Publication No. 13-10-041.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife:
Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas.
Other Literature Reviewed But Not Cited
Cramer, Michelle L. (managing editor). 2012. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines. Co-published by
the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Transportation and
Ecology, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Puget Sound Partnership, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington.
CRITICAL AREAS INVENTORY MAPPING
Jenson S. K. and J. O. Domingue. 1988. Extracting Topographic Structure from Digital Elevation Data
for Geographic Information System Analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
54 (11): 1593-1600.
Schulz, William H. "Landslide Susceptibility Revealed by LIDAR Imagery and Historical Records,
Seattle, Washington." Engineering Geology 89.1-2 (2007): 67-87. Web.
City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
March 2015 Page 23
ESA
Attachments
Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix
iii
iv
AM-7665 9.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Revenue bond financing presentation.
Recommendation
For Information only.
Previous Council Action
On April 7th, staff, Scott Bauer of A. Dashen & Associates presented a revenue bond proposal to
Council.
Narrative
City Staff along with A. Dashen and Associates, and Alice Ostdiek will present a draft Ordinance for the
sale of revenue bonds to fund water, sewer and stormwater projects. Repayment period and amount of
bond issuance will be discussed.
Attachments
Draft 2015 Revenue Bond Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 04/23/2015 02:41 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 02:41 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 07:04 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 04/23/2015 11:48 AM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
DRAFT
[For Council Work Session 4/28/15]
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington,
relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the
waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting and ordering the
carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and
extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the
issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds in
an aggregate amount not to exceed $___________ for the purpose
of providing the funds necessary: (a) to pay all or a portion of the
costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (b) to make a deposit to
the debt service reserve account, and (c) to pay the costs of
issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with
respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the
City’s designated representative to approve the final terms of the
sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters.
Passed ________, 2015
This document prepared by:
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 447-4400
51435754.4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. Findings and Determinations ......................................................................................1
Section 2. Definitions...................................................................................................................2
Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions ....................................................................................8
Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds ....................................................................8
Section 5. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative .....................8
Section 6. Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds. .................................................9
Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds ..................................................................................10
Section 8. Payment of Bonds .....................................................................................................10
Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds. ................................10
Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds................................................................................................12
Section 11. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds ....................................................................12
Section 12. Security for the Bonds; Bond Fund ..........................................................................12
Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds .........................................................................................14
Section 14. Flow of Funds ...........................................................................................................14
Section 15. Additional Covenants................................................................................................14
Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account .......................................................................................16
Section 17. Separate Utility Systems ...........................................................................................16
Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Parity Certificate ...................................................16
Section 19. Parity Conditions ......................................................................................................17
Section 20. Tax Matters. ..............................................................................................................18
Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure. ..............................................................18
Section 22. Amendatory Ordinances. ..........................................................................................19
Section 23. General Authorization and Ratification ....................................................................21
Section 24. Severability ...............................................................................................................21
Section 25. Effective Date of Ordinance .....................................................................................21
Exhibit A Parameters for Final Terms of the Bonds
Exhibit B Parity Conditions For Issuance of Future Parity Bonds
Exhibit C Description of Plan of Additions
Exhibit D Form of Continuing Disclosure Undertaking
*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.
-i-
51435754.4
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington,
relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the
waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting and ordering the
carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and
extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the
issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds in
an aggregate amount not to exceed $__________ for the purpose
of providing the funds necessary: (a) to pay all or a portion of the
costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (b) to make a deposit to
the debt service reserve account, and (c) to pay the costs of
issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with
respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the
City’s designated representative to approve the final terms of the
sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council of the City of Edmonds,
Washington (the “City”) makes the findings and determinations set forth below. Capitalized
terms have the meanings given in Section 2.
(a) Plan of Additions. The City is in need of funds with which to finance the Plan of
Additions, the estimated cost of which is more than $[________], and the City does not have
available sufficient funds to pay the costs. The life of the improvements comprising the Plan of
Additions is declared to be at least [__] years.
(b) Previously Issued Bonds and Loans. The City previously issued the 2011 Bonds
and the 2013 Bonds and by the Outstanding Parity Bond Ordinances provided for the issuance of
Future Parity Bonds on a parity of lien with the Outstanding Parity Bonds if certain Parity
Conditions are met at the time those Future Parity Bonds are issued. The City also has several
outstanding Loans, which are secured by a pledge of net revenues that is junior and inferior to
the pledge securing the Parity Bonds.
(c) Parity Conditions Met. The City Council finds and declares that the amounts
required to have been paid into the Bond Fund for the Outstanding Parity Bonds have been paid
and maintained as required therein, and that all other Parity Conditions for the issuance of the
Bonds as Future Parity Bonds will have been met and satisfied before the Bonds are delivered to
the Purchaser.
(d) Sufficiency of Gross Revenue. The City Council finds and determines that the
Gross Revenue and benefits to be derived from the operation and maintenance of the Water and
Sewer Utility at the rates to be charged for services from the Water and Sewer Utility will be
-1-
51435754.4
more than sufficient to meet all Operating and Maintenance Expense and to permit the setting
aside into the Bond Fund out of the Gross Revenue of amounts sufficient to pay the principal of
and interest on the Outstanding Parity Bonds and the Bonds when due. The City Council
declares that in fixing the amounts to be paid into the Bond Fund under this ordinance it has
exercised due regard for Operating and Maintenance Expense and has not obligated the City to
set aside and pay into the Bond Fund a greater amount of Gross Revenue of the Water and Sewer
Utility than in its judgment will be available over and above such Operating and Maintenance
Expense.
(e) Issuance of Bonds. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that it is in the
best interest of the City to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser, pursuant to the terms set forth
in the Bond Purchase Contract as approved by the City’s Designated Representative consistent with
this ordinance.
Section 2. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the
following meanings:
(a) “2011 Bonds” means the City’s outstanding Water and Sewer Improvement and
Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2011, authorized by the 2011 Bond Ordinance.
(b) “2011 Bond Ordinance” means Ordinance No. 3863, passed on December 6,
2011, authorizing the issuance of the 2011 Bonds.
(c) “2013 Bonds” means the City’s outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds,
2013, authorized by the 2013 Bond Ordinance.
(d) “2013 Bond Ordinance” means Ordinance No. 3933, passed on July 16, 2013,
authorizing the issuance of the 2013 Bonds.
(e) “Adjusted Net Revenue” means Net Revenue, plus withdrawals from the Rate
Stabilization Account and less deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account.
(f) “Annual Debt Service” means, for any calendar year, with respect to all Parity
Bonds outstanding or maturing in that year, all amounts required to be paid in that year in respect
of principal of and interest on those Parity Bonds, less all bond interest payable from the
proceeds of any Parity Bonds, and less all Tax Credit Subsidy Payments scheduled to be received
in that year. Parity Bonds issued as Variable Interest Rate Bonds shall be assumed to bear
interest at a fixed rate equal to the higher of (i) the highest variable rate borne during the
preceding 24 months by any then-outstanding Variable Interest Rate Bonds or, (ii) if no Variable
Interest Rate Bonds are then outstanding, a rate determined by reference to the index to be used
to determine the interest rate on the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued or a comparable
index.
(g) “Authorized Denominations” means $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof
within a maturity of a Series.
(h) “Average Annual Debt Service” means, as of its date of calculation, the sum of the
Annual Debt Service for the current calendar year and the calendar years remaining to the last
scheduled maturity of the applicable issue or issues of bonds divided by the number of those
years.
(i) “Beneficial Owner” means, with respect to a Bond, the owner of any beneficial
interest in that Bond.
-2-
51435754.4
(j) “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
bond counsel in the field of municipal finance.
(k) “Bond Fund” means the City’s Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Bond Fund,
2011, created by the 2011 Bond Ordinance for the payment of the principal of and interest on all
Parity Bonds.
(l) “Bond Insurance Policy” means a municipal bond insurance policy issued by a
Bond Insurer insuring the payment when due of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds as
provided in such policy.
(m) “Bond Insurer” or “Insurer” means a bond insurance company providing a Bond
Insurance Policy or Reserve Securities for any outstanding Parity Bonds.
(n) “Bond Purchase Contract” means an offer to purchase a Series of the Bonds,
setting forth certain terms and conditions of the issuance, sale and delivery of those Bonds,
which offer is authorized to be accepted by the Designated Representative on behalf of the City,
if consistent with this ordinance. In the case of a competitive sale, the official notice of sale, the
Purchaser’s bid and the award by the City shall constitute the Bond Purchase Contract for
purposes of this ordinance.
(o) “Bond Register” means the books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar for
the purpose of identifying ownership of each Bond.
(p) “Bond Registrar” means the Fiscal Agent, or any successor bond registrar
selected by the City.
(q) “Bonds” means the bonds authorized to be issued by this ordinance.
(r) “City” means the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State.
(s) “City Council” means the legislative authority of the City, as duly and regularly
constituted from time to time.
(t) “Code” means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and
applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
(u) “Construction Fund” means the City’s 412 Construction Fund.
(v) “Coverage Requirement” means for any calendar year, an amount of Adjusted Net
Revenue at least equal to 1.25 times the Annual Debt Service in that year on all then-outstanding
Parity Bonds. For purposes of calculating the Coverage Requirement, ULID Assessments due in
that year and not delinquent shall be subtracted from Annual Debt Service.
(w) “Designated Representative” means the officer of the City appointed in Section 5
of this ordinance to serve as the City’s designated representative in accordance with RCW
39.46.040(2).
(x) “DTC” means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, or its
nominee.
(y) “Final Terms” means the terms and conditions for the sale of a Series of the
Bonds including the amount, date or dates, denominations, interest rate or rates (or mechanism
-3-
51435754.4
for determining interest rate or rates), payment dates, final maturity, redemption rights, price, and
other terms or covenants.
(z) “Finance Director” means the Finance Director of the City or any other City
official who succeeds to the duties now delegated to that office, or the designee of such officer.
(aa) “Financial Advisor” means A. Dashen and Associates of Bellevue, Washington,
or any other Financial Advisor then appointed and acting as financial advisor to the City.
(bb) “Fiscal Agent” means the fiscal agent of the State, as the same may be designated
by the State from time to time.
(cc) “Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance” means an ordinance of the City
authorizing the issuance and sale and establishing the terms of Future Parity Bonds.
(dd) “Future Parity Bonds” means all revenue obligations and other obligations of the
City for borrowed money (including, without limitation, financing leases) issued or incurred after
the date of the issuance of the Bonds, the payment of the principal of and interest on which
constitutes a charge or lien on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments equal in rank with the
charge and lien upon such revenue and assessments required to be paid into the Bond Fund to
pay and secure the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds.
(ee) “Government Obligations” means those obligations described under the definition
of government obligations in RCW 39.53.010(4), as it now reads or hereafter may be amended,
and which are otherwise lawful investments for the City.
(ff) “Gross Revenue” means all of the earnings and revenues received by the City
from the maintenance and operation of the Water and Sewer Utility, including but not limited to:
revenues from the sale, lease or furnishing of commodities, services, properties or facilities; all
earnings from the investment of money in the Bond Fund that are deposited into the Principal
and Interest Account; earnings from the investment of money in any maintenance fund or similar
fund; all connection and capital improvement charges collected for the purpose of defraying the
cost of capital facilities of the Water and Sewer Utility; and withdrawals from the Rate
Stabilization Account. However, the Gross Revenue shall not include: (a) revenues from City
taxes; (b) principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or any other borrowings, or earnings or proceeds
from any investments in a trust, defeasance or escrow fund created to defease or refund
obligations relating to the Water and Sewer Utility (until commingled with other earnings and
revenues included in the Gross Revenue) or held in a special account for the purpose of paying a
rebate to the United States Government under the Code; (c) income and revenue which may not
legally be pledged for revenue bond debt service; (d) improvement district assessments including
ULID Assessments; (e) federal or state grants, and gifts from any source allocated to capital
projects; (f) payments under bond insurance or other credit enhancement policy or device;
(g) insurance or condemnation proceeds used for the replacement of capital projects or
equipment; (h) proceeds from the sale of Water and Sewer Utility property; (i) earnings on bond
proceeds in any construction fund or bond redemption fund; (j) deposits to the Rate Stabilization
Account; (k) Tax Credit Subsidy Payments; or (l) revenue from any Separate Utility System.
(gg) “Independent Utility Consultant” means a professional consultant experienced
with municipal utilities of comparable size and character to the Water and Sewer Utility and in
such areas as are relevant to the purpose for which he or she is being retained. Such a consultant
shall be deemed independent so long as he or she is not an employee or officer of the City.
-4-
51435754.4
(hh) “Issue Date” means, with respect to a Bond, the date of initial issuance and
delivery of that Bond to the Purchaser in exchange for the purchase price of that Bond.
(ii) “Letter of Representations” means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations
dated August 6, 1996, between the City and DTC, as it may be amended from time to time, and
any successor or substitute letter relating to the operational procedures of the Securities
Depository.
(jj) “Loans” means any State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund loans, State
Drinking Water Revolving Fund loans, or similar loans entered into by the City to fund
improvements to the Water and Sewer Utility, the payment of which is a claim on the Net
Revenue that is junior and inferior to the lien and charge of the Parity Bonds.
(kk) “Maximum Annual Debt Service” means, as of the date of calculation, the
maximum amount of Annual Debt Service that will mature or come due in the current fiscal year
or any future fiscal year with respect to all outstanding Parity Bonds.
(ll) “Maximum Interest Rate” means, with respect to any Variable Interest Rate Bond,
a numerical rate of interest that is the maximum rate of interest those Future Parity Bonds may
bear at any time.
(mm) “MSRB” means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
(nn) “Net Revenue” means the Gross Revenue, less Operating and Maintenance
Expenses.
(oo) “Official Statement” means an offering document, disclosure document, private
placement memorandum or substantially similar disclosure document provided to purchasers and
potential purchasers in connection with the initial offering of a Series of the Bonds in
conformance with Rule 152-12 or other applicable regulations of the SEC.
(pp) “Operating and Maintenance Expenses” means all reasonable expenses incurred
by the City in causing the Water and Sewer Utility to be operated and maintained in good repair,
working order and condition, including payments made pursuant to contract for such service to
any other municipal corporation or private entity for sewage treatment and disposal, water supply
and distribution or stormwater, or other utility service (if the City combines such service into the
Water and Sewer Utility), and including budget charges for the City’s administration expenses
allocated to the Water and Sewer Utility, but shall not include depreciation, or any taxes (or
charges in lieu of taxes) levied or imposed by the City.
(qq) “Outstanding Parity Bond Ordinances” means the 2011 Bond Ordinance and the
2013 Bond Ordinance.
(rr) “Outstanding Parity Bonds” means any Parity Bonds outstanding at the time of
issuance of any Future Parity Bonds. As of the date of issuance of the Bonds, the Outstanding
Parity Bonds will consist of the then-outstanding 2011 Bonds and 2013 Bonds.
(ss) “Owner” means, without distinction, the Registered Owner and the Beneficial
Owner.
(tt) “Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance(s)” means, as applicable to each series of
Parity Bonds, the 2011 Bond Ordinance, the 2013 Bond Ordinance, this ordinance and any
Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance.
-5-
51435754.4
(uu) “Parity Bonds” means any Outstanding Parity Bonds, the Bonds and Future Parity
Bonds.
(vv) “Parity Conditions” means the conditions precedent to the issuance of Future
Parity Bonds, originally set forth in Exhibit A of the 2011 Bond Ordinance, and set forth in
Exhibit B to this ordinance, which is incorporated by this reference.
(ww) “Permitted Investments” means investments that are legal investments for the City
at the time of such investment.
(xx) “Plan of Additions” means the system or plan of additions and improvements to
and betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility specified, adopted and ordered to
be carried out by Section 3 of this ordinance.
(yy) “Principal and Interest Account” means the account of that name created in the
Bond Fund for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds.
(zz) “Purchaser” means the corporation, firm, association, partnership, trust, bank,
financial institution or other legal entity or group of entities selected by the Designated
Representative to serve as purchaser in a private placement, underwriter or placement agent for a
negotiated sale or awarded as the successful bidder in a competitive sale of any Series of the
Bonds.
(aaa) “Rate Stabilization Account” means the account of that name created for the
purposes described in Section 16.
(bbb) “Rating Agency” means a nationally recognized rating agency or agencies, if any,
providing a rating on the Bonds at the request of the City.
(ccc) “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 redemption of a 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 redemption in accordance with Section 9.
(ddd) “Registered Owner” means, with respect to a Bond, the person in whose name
that Bond is registered on the Bond Register. For so long as the City utilizes the book–entry only
system for the Bonds under the Letter of Representations, Registered Owner shall mean the
Securities Depository.
(eee) “Reserve Account” means the account of that name created in the Bond Fund for
the purpose of securing the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds.
(fff) “Reserve Securities” means, in lieu of cash and investments, any bond insurance,
collateral, security, letter of credit, guaranty, surety bond or similar credit enhancement device
providing for or securing the payment of all or part of the principal of and interest on Parity
Bonds, issued by an institution which has been assigned a credit rating at the time that such
Reserve Security is provided, in the two highest rating categories without regard to gradations
within those categories (i.e., AAA or AA).
(ggg) “Reserve Requirement” means for all Parity Bonds, an amount equal to the lesser
of (i) Maximum Annual Debt Service, (ii) 125% of Average Annual Debt Service, or (iii) 10% of
the original proceeds of the then-outstanding Parity Bonds. The Reserve Requirement may be
met by a deposit of cash, Reserve Securities, or any combination of the foregoing, and the
-6-
51435754.4
amount payable under any Reserve Securities shall be credited against the amount otherwise
required to be deposited into the Reserve Account.
(hhh) “Rule 15c2-12” means Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
(iii) “SEC” means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
(jjj) “Securities Depository” means DTC, any successor thereto, any substitute
securities depository selected by the City that is qualified under applicable laws and regulations
to provide the services proposed to be provided by it, or the nominee of any of the foregoing.
(kkk) “Separate Utility System” means any water supply, sewage collection or
treatment, stormwater management or other utility service or facilities that may be created,
acquired or constructed by the City as provided in Section 17 of this ordinance.
(lll) “Series of the Bonds” or “Series” means a series of the Bonds issued pursuant to
this ordinance.
(mmm)“Sewer System” means the sanitary sewage collection and disposal system of the
City, also referred to as the sewer utility.
(nnn) “State” means the State of Washington.
(ooo) “Stormwater System” means the stormwater management utility combined into
the Water and Sewer Utility pursuant to chapter 7.60 of the Edmonds City Code.
(ppp) “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.
(qqq) “Tax Credit Subsidy Bond” means any bond that is designated by the City as a
“build America bond” or other type of tax credit bond, pursuant to the Code, and which is further
designated as a “qualified bond” under Section 6431 of the Code (or under similar provisions of
the Code providing for “direct-pay” tax credit bonds), and with respect to which the City expects
to receive a Tax Credit Subsidy Payment.
(rrr) “Tax Credit Subsidy Payment” means the amounts which the City expects to
receive as a tax credit payable by the United States Treasury to the City under Section 6431 of
the Code (or under similar provisions of the Code providing for “direct-pay” tax credit bonds), in
respect of any bonds issued as Tax Credit Subsidy Bonds.
(sss) “Tax-Exempt Bonds” means any Series issued on a tax-exempt basis.
(ttt) “Term Bond” means those Bonds that are designated as term bonds and are
subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity in the years and amounts set forth in the Bond
Purchase Contract.
(uuu) “ULID” means any utility local improvement district now existing or hereafter
created for the acquisition or construction of additions, extensions or betterments of any portion
of the Water and Sewer Utility, which additions, extensions or betterments are financed through
the issuance of Parity Bonds. As used in this ordinance, the term ULID does not include any
utility local improvement district created for the financing of additions, extensions or betterments
by methods other than the issuance of Parity Bonds.
-7-
51435754.4
(vvv) “ULID Assessments” means the assessments levied in any ULID, including
installment payments of any assessment as well as the interest and penalties (if any) thereon, less
any prepaid assessments permitted by law to be paid into a construction fund or account.
(www) “Undertaking” means the undertaking to provide continuing disclosure entered
into pursuant to Section 21 of this ordinance.
(xxx) “Variable Interest Rate” means a variable interest rate or rates to be borne by a
series of Future Parity Bonds or any one or more maturities within a series of Future Parity
Bonds. The method of computing such a variable interest rate (or parameters with respect
thereto) shall be specified in the ordinance authorizing such Future Parity Bonds, which
ordinance also shall specify either (i) the particular period or periods of time or manner of
determining such period or periods of time for which each value of such variable interest rate
shall remain in effect or (ii) the time or times upon which any change in such variable interest
rate shall become effective.
(yyy) “Variable Interest Rate Bonds” means, for any period of time, Future Parity
Bonds which bear a Variable Interest Rate during that period, except that Future Parity Bonds the
interest rate or rates on which shall have been fixed for the remainder of the term thereof no
longer shall be deemed to be Variable Interest Rate Bonds.
(zzz) “Water and Sewer Utility” means the combined utility, as described in chapter
7.60 of the Edmonds City Code, including the component Water, Sewer and Stormwater
Systems, together with all additions thereto and betterments and extensions thereof at any time
made, and any other utility systems hereafter combined with the Water and Sewer Utility.
(aaaa) “Water and Sewer Utility Fund” means, together, the Water Fund, the Sewer
Fund and the Stormwater Fund, each of which has previously been established by the City.
(bbbb) “Water System” means the system of water supply and transmission of the City,
also referred to as the water utility.
Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions. The City specifies, adopts and orders the
carrying out of the projects described in Exhibit C as a system or plan of additions to and
betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility. The Plan of Additions shall be
carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by the City’s
engineers and consulting engineers. The City Council may modify the details of the Plan of
Additions where, in its judgment, it appears advisable if such modifications do not substantially
alter the purposes of that system or plan. The cost of the Plan of Additions, including the cost of
issuance and sale of the Bonds, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds and from other
money available to the Water and Sewer Utility.
Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds. The City is authorized to borrow
money on the credit of the City and issue water and sewer revenue bonds evidencing
indebtedness in the amount of not to exceed $__________ to provide the funds necessary (1) to
carry out the Plan of Additions, (2) make a deposit to the Reserve Account, and (3) to pay the
costs of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be allocated to paying the respective costs of the
Plan of Additions in such order of time as the City determines is advisable and practicable.
Section 5. Description of the Bonds; 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 Bonds in the manner and upon the terms deemed most
-8-
51435754.4
advantageous to the City, and to approve the Final Terms of each Series of the Bonds, 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 6. Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds.
(a) Registration of Bonds. Each Bond shall be issued only in registered form as to
both principal and interest and the ownership of each Bond shall be recorded on the Bond
Register.
(b) Bond Registrar; Duties. The Fiscal Agent 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 Bonds, 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 Bonds transferred or
exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the
City’s paying agent for the Bonds 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 each Bond.
The Bond Registrar may become an 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 Owners.
(c) Bond Register; Transfer and Exchange of Bonds. The Bond Register shall contain
the name and mailing address of each Registered Owner and the principal amount and number of
each Bond held by each Registered Owner. A Bond surrendered to the Bond Registrar may be
exchanged for a Bond or Bonds in any Authorized Denomination of an equal aggregate principal
amount and of the same Series, interest rate and maturity. A Bond may be transferred only if
endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. Any exchange
or transfer shall be without cost to the Owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be
obligated to exchange any Bond or transfer registered ownership during the period between the
applicable Record Date and the next upcoming interest payment or redemption date.
(d) Securities Depository; Book-Entry Only Form. If a Bond is to be issued in book-
entry form, DTC shall be appointed as initial Securities Depository and each such Bond initially
shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the nominee of DTC. Each Bond registered in
the name of the Securities Depository shall be held fully immobilized in book-entry only form by
the Securities Depository in accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Representations.
Registered ownership of any Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository may not
be transferred except: (i) to any successor Securities Depository; (ii) to any substitute Securities
Depository appointed by the City; or (iii) to any person if the Bond is no longer to be held in
book-entry only form. Upon the resignation of the Securities Depository, or upon a termination
of the services of the Securities Depository by the City, the City may appoint a substitute
Securities Depository. If (i) the Securities Depository resigns and the City does not appoint a
substitute Securities Depository, or (ii) the City terminates the services of the Securities
Depository, the Bonds no longer shall be held in book-entry only form and the registered
ownership of each Bond may be transferred to any person as provided in this ordinance.
-9-
51435754.4
Neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any obligation to participants of any
Securities Depository or the persons for whom they act as nominees regarding accuracy of any
records maintained by the Securities Depository or its participants. Neither the City nor the Bond
Registrar shall be responsible for any notice that is permitted or required to be given to a
Registered Owner except such notice as is required to be given by the Bond Registrar to the
Securities Depository.
Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds.
(a) Form of Bonds; Signatures and Seal. Each Bond shall be prepared in a form
consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law. Each 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 a 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, that 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. Any 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 a Bond bearing a Certificate of Authentication in
substantially the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or
obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: “Certificate Of
Authentication. This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, Water
and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2015.” The authorized signing of a 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 8. Payment of Bonds. Principal of and interest on each Bond shall be payable
in lawful money of the United States of America. Principal of and interest on each Bond
registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable in the manner set forth in the
Letter of Representations. Interest on each Bond not registered in the name of the Securities
Depository 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 each Bond
not registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable upon presentation and
surrender of the Bond by the Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar. The Bonds are not subject
to acceleration under any circumstances.
Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds.
(a) Optional Redemption. The Bonds shall be subject to redemption at the option of
the City on terms acceptable to the Designated Representative, as set forth in the Bond Purchase
Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A.
-10-
51435754.4
(b) Mandatory Redemption. Each Bond that is designated as a Term Bond in the
Bond Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A, and except for
optional redemptions as set forth below, shall be called for redemption at a price equal to the
stated principal amount to be redeemed, plus accrued interest, on the dates and in the amounts as
set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. If a Term Bond is redeemed under the optional
redemption provisions, defeased or purchased by the City and surrendered for cancellation, the
principal amount of the Term Bond so redeemed, defeased or purchased (irrespective of its
actual redemption or purchase price) shall be credited against one or more scheduled mandatory
redemption installments for that Term Bond. The City shall determine the manner in which the
credit is to be allocated and shall notify the Bond Registrar in writing of its allocation prior to the
earliest mandatory redemption date for that Term Bond for which notice of redemption has not
already been given.
(c) Selection of Bonds for Redemption; Partial Redemption. If fewer than all of the
outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed at the option of the City, the City shall select the Series
and maturities to be redeemed. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds of a maturity of a
Series are to be redeemed, the Securities Depository shall select Bonds registered in the name of
the Securities Depository to be redeemed in accordance with the Letter of Representations, and
the Bond Registrar shall select all other Bonds to be redeemed randomly in such manner as the
Bond Registrar shall determine. All or a portion of the principal amount of any Bond that is to be
redeemed may be redeemed in any Authorized Denomination. If less than all of the outstanding
principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond to the Bond Registrar,
there shall be issued to the Registered Owner, without charge, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the
option of the Registered Owner) of the same Series, maturity and interest rate in any Authorized
Denomination in the aggregate principal amount to remain outstanding.
(d) Notice of Redemption. Notice of redemption of each Bond registered in the name
of the Securities Depository shall be given in accordance with the Letter of Representations.
Notice of redemption of each other Bond, unless waived by the Registered Owner, shall be given
by the Bond Registrar not less than 20 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for
redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner at the address appearing
on the Bond Register on the Record Date. The requirements of the preceding sentence shall be
satisfied when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by an
Owner. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed or sent electronically within the same
period to the MSRB (if required under the Undertaking), to each Rating Agency, and to such
other persons and with such additional information as the Finance Director shall determine, but
these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of any Bond.
(e) Rescission of Optional Redemption Notice. In the case of an optional redemption,
the notice of redemption may state that the City retains the right to rescind the redemption notice
and the redemption by giving a notice of rescission to the affected Registered Owners at any time
prior to the scheduled optional redemption date. Any notice of optional redemption that is so
rescinded shall be of no effect, and each Bond for which a notice of optional redemption has
been rescinded shall remain outstanding.
(e) Effect of Redemption. Interest on each Bond called for redemption shall cease to
accrue on the date fixed for redemption, unless either the notice of optional redemption is
rescinded as set forth above, or money sufficient to effect such redemption is not on deposit in
the Bond Fund or in a trust account established to refund or defease the Bond.
-11-
51435754.4
(f) Purchase of Bonds. The City reserves the right to purchase any or all of the Bonds
offered to the City at any time at any price acceptable to the City plus accrued interest to the date
of purchase.
Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds. If the principal of any Bond is not paid when the
Bond is properly presented at its maturity date or date fixed for redemption, the City shall be
obligated to pay, from the sources pledged herein, interest on that Bond at the same rate provided
in the Bond from and after its maturity or date fixed for redemption until that 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. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding
bonds pursuant to State law or use money available from any other lawful source to carry out a
refunding or defeasance plan, which may include (a) paying when due the principal of and
interest on any or all of the Bonds (the “defeased Bonds”); (b) redeeming the defeased Bonds
prior to their maturity; and (c) paying the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If the City sets
aside in a special trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that redemption or
defeasance (the “trust account”), money and/or Government Obligations maturing at a time or
times and bearing interest in amounts sufficient to redeem, refund or defease the defeased Bonds
in accordance with their terms, then all right and interest of the Owners of the defeased Bonds in
the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the
defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. Thereafter, the Owners of defeased Bonds shall
have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds solely
from the trust account and the defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding. In that
event, the City may apply money remaining in any fund or account (other than the trust account)
established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purpose, subject
only to the rights of the Owners of any other Parity Bonds then outstanding.
Unless otherwise specified by the City in a refunding or defeasance plan, notice of
refunding or defeasance shall be given, and selection of Bonds for inclusion in a refunding or
defeasance shall be conducted, in the manner prescribed in this ordinance for the redemption of
Bonds.
Section 12. Security for the Bonds; Bond Fund.
(a) Pledge of Net Revenues. The Net Revenue and ULID Assessments are pledged
irrevocably to the payment of the amounts required to be paid into the Bond Fund for the
payment of the Bonds and all Future Parity Bonds. This pledge shall constitute a lien and charge
upon the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments prior and superior to any other charges
whatsoever.
(b) Bond Fund; Deposits to Bond Fund. The Bond Fund has been established within
the Water and Sewer Utility Fund as a special fund of the City and divided into two accounts: the
Principal and Interest Account, and the Reserve Account.
So long as any of the Parity Bonds are outstanding, the City obligates and binds itself to
set aside and pay into the Bond Fund all ULID Assessments and, out of the Net Revenue, certain
fixed amounts, without regard to any fixed proportion, namely:
-12-
51435754.4
(1) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each interest payment date of the
Parity Bonds, an amount that will be sufficient, together with other money on
deposit therein, to pay the interest on the Parity Bonds on the next succeeding
interest payment date; and
(2) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each principal payment date of the
Parity Bonds (including any mandatory redemption date), an amount that will be
sufficient, together with other money on deposit therein, to pay the principal of
the Parity Bonds on the next succeeding Principal Payment Date, including
mandatory redemption amounts due on that date with respect to any Term Bonds;
and
(3) Into the Reserve Account, an amount sufficient that the amount on deposit in the
Reserve Account satisfies the Reserve Requirement for the Parity Bonds in the
time and manner required by this ordinance.
When the total amount on deposit in the Bond Fund equals the total outstanding amount of
principal and interest for all Parity Bonds to the last maturity thereof, no further payment need be
made into the Bond Fund. The Finance Director may create sinking fund accounts or other
accounts in the Bond Fund for the payment or securing the payment of Parity Bonds as long as
the maintenance of such accounts does not conflict with the rights of the owners of Parity Bonds.
(c) The Reserve Account; Reserve Requirement. The City covenants and agrees that
it will at all times maintain in the Reserve Account an amount (including the value of all Reserve
Securities deposited therein) equal to the Reserve Requirement, except for withdrawals as
authorized in this subsection, until there is a sufficient amount in the Principal and Interest
Account and Reserve Account to pay the principal of and interest on all outstanding Parity
Bonds, at which time the money in the Reserve Account may be used to pay any such principal
and interest so long as the money remaining on deposit in the Reserve Account is not less than
the Reserve Requirement calculated based on the remaining outstanding Parity Bonds. The
Reserve Requirement shall be deemed satisfied by any combination of Parity Bond proceeds,
Reserve Securities or other legally available money equal to the Reserve Requirement, or by the
deposit of available funds of the City in approximately equal annual installments so that the
Reserve Requirement is funded no later than three years after the issuance of any Future Parity
Bonds.
If there is a deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account in the Bond Fund to make
the next upcoming payment of either principal or interest, that deficiency shall be made up from
the Reserve Account by the withdrawal of amounts necessary for that purpose. Any deficiency
created in the Reserve Account by reason of any such withdrawal shall then be made up from the
next available payments of Net Revenue and ULID Assessments after making necessary
provision for the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account.
(d) Investment of Money Deposited in Bond Fund. All money in the Bond Fund may
be kept in cash; deposited with an institution (as permitted by law) in an amount in each
institution not greater than the amount insured by any department or agency of the United States
Government; or invested in Permitted Investments or other legal investments permitted to the
City maturing not later than the date when needed (for investments in the Principal and Interest
Account) or the last maturity of any outstanding Parity Bonds (for investments in the Reserve
Account). Income from investments in the Principal and Interest Account shall be deposited in
-13-
51435754.4
that account. Income from investments in the Reserve Account shall be deposited in that account
until the amount therein is equal to the Reserve Requirement, and thereafter shall be deposited in
the Principal and Interest Account or used for other Water and Sewer Utility purposes.
(e) Action to Compel Payments. If the City fails to set aside and pay into the Bond
Fund the amounts set forth above, the owner of any of the outstanding Parity Bonds may bring
action against the City and compel the setting aside and payment.
Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. On the Issue Date, proceeds of the Bonds in an
amount sufficient to satisfy the Reserve Requirement shall be deposited into the Reserve
Account. The remaining proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in the Construction Fund and
be used to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds and the costs of carrying out the Plan
of Additions. Until needed to pay such costs, the City may invest those proceeds temporarily in
any legal investment, and the investment earnings shall be retained in the Construction Fund and
used for the purposes of that fund, except that earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate
requirement (if applicable) may be withdrawn from the Construction Fund and used for those tax
or rebate purposes.
Section 14. Flow of Funds. So long as any Parity Bonds are outstanding, the City
covenants that all ULID Assessments (if any) shall be paid into the Bond Fund, and the Gross
Revenue shall be deposited into the Water and Sewer Utility Fund (or the respective System
funds therein) to be used for the following purposes only in the following order of priority:
(1) To pay Operating and Maintenance Expenses.
(2) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account
in respect of interest on the Parity Bonds.
(3) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account
in respect of principal of (and premium on, if any) the Parity Bonds, whether at
maturity or pursuant to redemption prior to maturity.
(4) To make when due all payments required to be made into the Reserve Account.
(5) To make when due all payments required to be made under any reimbursement
agreement with a Bond Insurer in any priority not inconsistent with this
ordinance, which the City may hereafter establish by ordinance.
(6) To make when due the required payments to be made into any revenue bond, note
warrant or other revenue obligation redemption fund, debt service account or
reserve account created to pay and secure the payment of any revenue obligations
of the Water and Sewer Utility having a charge upon the Net Revenue junior and
inferior to the charge thereon for the payment of the Parity Bonds.
(7) Without priority, to retire by redemption or to purchase in the open market any
outstanding Parity Bonds or junior lien obligations, to make necessary
betterments and replacements of or repairs, additions or extensions to the Water
and Sewer Utility, to make deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account, or for
any other lawful purpose.
Section 15. Additional Covenants. So long as any Parity Bonds are outstanding, the
City covenants and agrees with the owner of each Bond at any time outstanding as follows:
-14-
51435754.4
(a) Maintenance and Operation. The City will at all times maintain, preserve and
keep the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility in good repair, working order and condition,
will make all necessary and proper additions, betterments, renewals and repairs thereto, and
improvements, replacements and extensions thereof, and will at all times operate or cause to be
operated the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility and the business in connection therewith
in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost.
(b) Establishment and Collection of Rates and Charges. The City will establish,
maintain and collect rates and charges for all services and facilities provided by the Water and
Sewer Utility which will be fair and nondiscriminatory. The City will adjust those rates and
charges from time to time so that: (i) the Gross Revenue will at all times be sufficient to (A) pay
all Maintenance and Operation Expenses on a current basis, (B) pay when due all amounts that
the City is obligated to pay into the Bond Fund and the accounts therein, (C) pay all taxes (or
payments in lieu thereof), assessments or other governmental charges lawfully imposed on the
Water and Sewer Utility and any and all other amounts which the City may now or hereafter
become obligated to pay from the Gross Revenue by law or contract; and (ii) the Adjusted Net
Revenue in each fiscal year will be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement.
(c) Sale or Disposition of Utility Property. The City will not sell, lease, mortgage or
in any manner encumber or dispose of all the property of the Water and Sewer Utility unless
provision is made for payment into the Bond Fund of a sum sufficient to pay the principal of and
interest on all Parity Bonds then outstanding. Further, the City will not sell, lease, mortgage, or
in any manner encumber or dispose of (each, a “disposition”) any part of the property of the
Water and Sewer Utility that is used, useful and material to the operation thereof (the “affected
portion”) unless provision is made for replacement thereof or for payment into the Bond Fund of
an amount which shall bear the same ratio to the amount of Parity Bonds then outstanding (less
the amount of cash and investments in the Bond Fund and the accounts therein) as (i) the Net
Revenue from affected portion of the Water and Sewer Utility for the twelve months preceding
such disposition bears to (ii) the Net Revenue from the entire Water and Sewer Utility for the
same period. Any money paid into the Bond Fund as a result of such a disposition shall be used
to retire that proportion of then-outstanding Parity Bonds at the earliest possible date.
(d) Books and Records. The City will maintain complete books and records relating
to the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility and its financial affairs, and will cause such
books and records to be audited annually, and cause to be prepared an annual financial and
operating statement, which shall be provided to any owner of Parity Bonds upon request.
(e) No Free Service. Except to aid the poor or infirm, to provide for resource
conservation or to provide for the proper handling of hazardous materials, the City will not
furnish or supply or permit the furnishing or supplying of any service or facility in connection
with the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility free of charge to any person, firm or
corporation, public or private, other than the City.
(f) Collection of Delinquent Accounts. On at least an annual basis, the City will
determine all accounts that are delinquent and will take all necessary action to enforce payment
of such accounts against those property owners whose accounts are delinquent.
(g) Insurance. The City will at all times carry fire and such other forms of insurance
on such of the buildings, equipment, facilities and properties of the Water and Sewer Utility as
are ordinarily carried on such buildings, equipment, facilities, and properties by utilities engaged
-15-
51435754.4
in the operation of similar utility systems to the full insurable value thereof, and also will carry
adequate public liability insurance at all times. The City may self insure or participate in a joint
intergovernmental insurance pool or similar plan, and the cost of that insurance or self insurance
shall be considered a part of Operating and Maintenance Expenses.
(h) ULID Assessments. The City will promptly collect all ULID Assessments and
deposit such collections into the Bond Fund to pay or secure the principal of and interest on any
Parity Bonds without those ULID Assessments being particularly allocated to any particular
series of Parity Bonds.
Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account. The Rate Stabilization Account has been
previously established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund. Deposits and withdrawals shall
be made in accordance with this section at any time up to and including the date 90 days after the
end of the fiscal year for which the deposit or withdrawal will be included as Adjusted Net
Revenue for that fiscal year, as follows:
(a) Deposits to the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may at any time, as
determined by the Finance Director and as consistent with the covenants contained in this
ordinance, deposit into the Rate Stabilization Account amounts of Gross Revenue and any other
money received by the Water and Sewer Utility and available to be used therefor, excluding
principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or other borrowing. However, no deposit of Gross Revenue
may be made into the Rate Stabilization Account to the extent that such deposit would prevent
the City from meeting the Coverage Requirement in the relevant fiscal year.
(b) Withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may withdraw money
from the Rate Stabilization Account at any time upon authorization of the City Council (which
may be by motion, resolution or ordinance) for inclusion in the Adjusted Net Revenue for any
fiscal year of the Water and Sewer Utility, except that the total amount withdrawn from the Rate
Stabilization Account in any fiscal year may not exceed the Annual Debt Service in that year.
Earnings from investments in the Rate Stabilization Account shall be deposited in that account
and shall not be included as Adjusted Net Revenue unless and until withdrawn from that account.
Section 17. Separate Utility Systems. The City may create, acquire, construct,
finance, own and operate one or more additional systems for water supply, sewer service, water,
sewage or stormwater transmission, treatment or other commodity or utility service. The revenue
of that Separate Utility System, and any utility local improvement district assessments payable
solely with respect to improvements to a Separate Utility System, shall not be included in the
Gross Revenue and may be pledged to the payment of revenue obligations issued to purchase,
construct, condemn or otherwise acquire or expand the Separate Utility System. Neither the
Gross Revenue nor the Net Revenue may be pledged to the payment of any obligations of a
Separate Utility System except that the Net Revenue may be pledged on a basis subordinate to
the lien of the Parity Bonds.
Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Parity Certificate.
(a) Manner of Sale of Bonds; Delivery of Bonds. The Designated Representative is
authorized to sell each Series of the Bonds by negotiated sale or private placement or by
competitive sale in accordance with a notice of sale consistent with this ordinance, based on the
assessment of the Designated Representative of market conditions, in consultation with
appropriate City officials and staff, Bond Counsel, the Financial Advisor and other advisors. In
-16-
51435754.4
determining the method of sale of a Series of the Bonds and accepting 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.
(b) Procedure for Negotiated Sale or Private Placement. If the Designated
Representative determines that a Series of the Bonds is to be sold by negotiated sale or private
placement, the Designated Representative shall select one or more Purchasers with which to
negotiate such sale. The Bond Purchase Contract for each Series of the Bonds shall set forth the
Final Terms. The Designated Representative is authorized to execute the Bond Purchase
Contract on behalf of the City, so long as the terms provided therein are consistent with the terms
of this ordinance.
(c) Procedure for Competitive Sale. If the Designated Representative determines that
a Series of the Bonds is to be sold by competitive sale, the Designated Representative shall cause
the preparation of an official notice of bond sale setting forth parameters for the Final Terms and
any other bid parameters that the Designated Representative deems appropriate consistent with
this ordinance. Bids for the purchase of each Series of the Bonds shall be received at such time
or place and by such means as the Designated Representative directs. On the date and time
established for the receipt of bids, the Designated Representative (or the designee of the
Designated Representative) shall open bids and shall cause the bids to be mathematically
verified. The Designated Representative is authorized to award, on behalf of the City, the
winning bid and accept the winning bidder’s offer to purchase that Series of the Bonds, with
such adjustments to the aggregate principal amount and principal amount per maturity as the
Designated Representative deems appropriate, consistent with the terms of this ordinance and
such award shall constitute the Bond Purchase Contract. The Designated Representative may
reject any or all bids submitted and may waive any formality or irregularity in any bid or in the
bidding process if the Designated Representative deems it to be in the City's best interest to do
so. If all bids are rejected, that Series of the Bonds may be sold pursuant to negotiated sale or in
any manner provided by law as the Designated Representative determines is in the best interest
of the City, within the parameters set forth in this ordinance.
(d) Parity Certificate. At the time of issuance of the Bonds, the Designated
Representative shall cause to be executed and have on file a certificate of coverage as required
for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds under Section 20 of the 2011 Bond Ordinance and
Section 19 of the 2013 Bond Ordinance.
(e) Preparation, Execution and Delivery of the Bonds. The Bonds will be prepared at
City expense and will be delivered to the Purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase
Contract, together with the approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel regarding the Bonds.
Section 19. Parity Conditions. The City reserves the right to issue Future Parity Bonds
which will constitute a charge and lien upon the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity
with the Bonds and the Outstanding Parity Bonds if the Parity Conditions are met and complied
with at the time of the issuance of those Future Parity Bonds. Nothing contained in the Parity
Conditions shall prevent the City from issuing revenue obligations having a lien on the Net
Revenue that is junior to the lien thereon that secures the Parity Bonds, or from pledging to pay
into a bond redemption fund or account for such junior lien obligations assessments (including
interest and penalties thereon) in any utility local improvement district that are levied to pay part
or all of the cost of improvements being constructed out of the proceeds of the sale of such junior
-17-
51435754.4
lien obligations. Neither shall anything contained in this ordinance prevent the City from issuing
revenue obligations to refund maturing Parity Bonds for the payment of which money is not
otherwise available.
Section 20. Tax Matters.
(a) Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Tax-Exempt Bonds. The City
covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds
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 Bonds issued as Tax-Exempt Bonds (or
other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds) that will cause interest on
the Tax-Exempt Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City
also covenants that it will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirements of Section 148 of the
Code are applicable to the Tax-Exempt Bonds, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be
treated as having complied) with those requirements in connection with the Tax-Exempt Bonds.
(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 Tax-Exempt Bonds from being included in gross
income for federal tax purposes.
(c) Designation of Bonds as “Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations.” A Series of the
Tax-Exempt Bonds may be designated as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for the purposes of
Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, if the following conditions are met:
(1) the Series of Tax-Exempt Bonds does not constitute “private activity bonds”
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 Tax-Exempt Bonds are
issued will not exceed $10,000,000; and
(3) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Series of Tax-Exempt Bonds,
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 Series of
Tax-Exempt Bonds are issued does not exceed $10,000,000.
Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure.
(a) Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The Designated Representative
shall review and, if acceptable to him or her, approve the preliminary Official Statement
prepared in connection with each sale of a Series of the Bonds to the public or through a
Purchaser as a placement agent. For the sole purpose of the Purchaser’s compliance with
paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12, if applicable, the Designated Representative is authorized to
deem that preliminary Official Statement final as of its date, except for the omission of
information permitted to be omitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City approves the distribution to
potential purchasers of the Bonds of a preliminary Official Statement that has been approved by
-18-
51435754.4
the Designated Representative and been deemed final, if applicable, in accordance with this
subsection.
(b) Approval of Final Official Statement. The City approves the preparation of a final
Official Statement for each Series of the Bonds to be sold to the public in the form of the
preliminary Official Statement that has been approved and deemed final in accordance with
subsection (a), with such modifications and amendments as the Designated Representative deems
necessary or desirable, and further authorizes the Designated Representative to execute and
deliver such final Official Statement to the Purchaser if required under Rules 15c2-12. The City
authorizes and approves the distribution by the Purchaser of that final Official Statement so
executed and delivered to purchasers and potential purchasers of a Series of the Bonds.
(c) Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. If necessary to meet the
requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to the Purchaser acting as a
participating underwriter for a Series of the Bonds, the Designated Representative is authorized
to execute a written undertaking to provide continuing disclosure for the benefit of holders of a
Series of the Bonds in substantially the form attached as Exhibit D.
Section 22. Amendatory Ordinances.
(a) This ordinance shall not be modified or amended in any respect subsequent to the
initial issuance of the Bonds, except as provided in and in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of this section.
(b) The City, from time to time, and at any time, without the consent of or notice to
the Owners of the Bonds, may pass amendatory ordinances as follows:
(1) To cure any formal defect, omission, inconsistency or ambiguity in this ordinance
in a manner not adverse to the owner of any Parity Bonds;
(2) To impose upon the Bond Registrar (with its consent) for the benefit of the
registered owners of the Parity Bonds any additional rights, remedies, powers,
authority, security, liabilities or duties which may lawfully be granted, conferred
or imposed and which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this ordinance as
theretofore in effect;
(3) To add to the covenants and agreements of, and limitations and restrictions upon,
the City in this ordinance, other covenants, agreements, limitations and
restrictions to be observed by the City which are not contrary or inconsistent with
this ordinance as theretofore in effect;
(4) To confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and the subjection to any
claim, lien or pledge created or to be created by this ordinance of any other
money, securities or funds;
(5) To authorize different denominations of the Bonds and to make correlative
amendments and modifications to this ordinance regarding exchangeability of
Bonds of different authorized denominations, redemptions of portions of Bonds of
particular authorized denominations and similar amendments and modifications of
a technical nature;
-19-
51435754.4
(6) To modify, alter, amend or supplement this ordinance in any other respect which
is not materially adverse to the registered owners of the Parity Bonds and which
does not involve a change described in subsection (c) of this section; and
(7) Because of change in federal law or rulings, to maintain the exclusion from gross
income of the interest on the Bonds from federal income taxation.
(c) Except for any amendatory ordinance passed into pursuant to subsection (b) of
this section, subject to the terms and provisions contained in this subsection (c) and not
otherwise:
(1) Registered owners of not less than 50% in aggregate principal amount of the
Parity Bonds then outstanding shall have the right from time to time to consent to
the passage of any amendatory ordinance deemed necessary or desirable by the
City for the purpose of modifying, altering, amending, supplementing or
rescinding, in any particular, any of the terms or provisions contained in this
ordinance. However, consent by the registered owners of all the Bonds then
outstanding is required for any amendatory ordinance authorizing: (i) a change in
the times, amounts or currency of payment of the principal of or interest on any
outstanding Bond, or a reduction in the principal amount of redemption price of
any outstanding Bond or a change in the redemption price of any outstanding
Bond or a change in the method of determining the rate of interest thereon; (ii) a
preference of priority of any Bond or Bonds or any other bond or bonds; or (iii) a
reduction in the aggregate principal amount of Bonds.
(2) Any amendatory ordinance passed for any of the purposes of this subsection (c),
shall not become effective except in accordance with this subsection (c)(2). Upon
passage of any such amendatory ordinance, the City shall cause notice of the
proposed ordinance to be given by first class United States mail to all registered
owners of the then outstanding Parity Bonds and to the Rating Agency. Such
notice shall briefly describe the proposed ordinance and shall state that a copy is
available from the Finance Director for inspection. The amendatory ordinance
shall become effective in substantially the form described in the notice only if
within two years after mailing of such notice, the City has received (i) the
required consents, in writing, of the registered owners of the Parity Bonds (or of
the Bonds, as applicable) and (ii) an opinion of Bond Counsel stating that such
amendatory ordinance is permitted by this ordinance; that upon the effective date
thereof, it will be valid and binding upon the City in accordance with its terms;
and its passage will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for
federal income tax purposes of interest on the Bonds.
(3) If registered owners of not less than the percentage of Parity Bonds (or Bonds, as
applicable) required by this subsection (c) have consented, no owner of the Parity
Bonds shall have any right to object to the passage of the ordinance (or to any of
the terms and provisions contained therein or the operation thereof), or in any
manner to question the propriety of the passage thereof, or to enjoin or restrain the
City from passing, or from taking any action pursuant to, the same.
(d) Upon the effective date of any amendatory ordinance passed pursuant to the
provisions of this Section 22, this ordinance shall be amended in accordance therewith, and the
-20-
51435754.4
respective rights, duties and obligations under this ordinance of the City, the Bond Registrar and
all Registered Owners of Bonds then outstanding, shall thereafter be determined, exercised and
enforced under this ordinance subject in all respects to such amendments.
Section 23. 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 each Series of the Bonds to the Purchaser and for the proper application,
use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds. 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 24. 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 25. 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 and is
not subject to referendum.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds,
Washington, at an open public meeting thereof, this _____ day of ________, 2015.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
Bond Counsel
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
-21-
51435754.4
Exhibit A
DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS
(i) Principal Amount. The Bonds may be issued in one or more Series and shall
not exceed the aggregate principal amount of
$____________, and may be issued as either taxable or tax-
exempt obligations.
(ii) Date or Dates. Each Bond shall be dated the Issue Date, which date may
not be later than one year after the effective date of this
ordinance.
(iii) Denominations, Name, etc. The Bonds shall be issued in Authorized Denominations
and shall be numbered separately in the manner and shall
bear any name and additional designation as deemed
necessary or appropriate by the Designated Representative.
(iv) Interest Rate(s). Each Bond shall bear interest at a fixed rate 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. One or more rates of interest may be
fixed for the Bonds. No rate of interest for any Bond may
exceed [5.50%], and the true interest cost to the City for
each Series of the Bonds may not exceed [5.25%].
(v) Payment Dates. Interest shall be payable semiannually on dates acceptable
to the Designated Representative, commencing no later
than one year following the Issue Date. Principal payments
shall commence on a date acceptable to the Designated
Representative and shall be payable at maturity or in
mandatory redemption installments on dates acceptable to
the Designated Representative.
(vi) Final Maturity. Each Series of the Bonds shall mature no later than the date
that is _________ years after the Issue Date of that Series.
(vii) Redemption Rights. The Designated Representative may approve in the Bond
Purchase Contract provisions for the optional and
mandatory redemption of Bonds, subject to the following:
(1) Optional Redemption. Any Bond may be designated
as being (A) subject to redemption at the option of
the City prior to its maturity date on the dates and at
the prices set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract;
or (B) not subject to redemption prior to its maturity
date. If a Bond is subject to optional redemption
prior to its maturity, it must be subject to such
redemption on one or more dates occurring not
more than 10½ years after the Issue Date.
-1-
51435754.4
Exhibit A
(2) Mandatory Redemption. Any Bond may be
designated as a Term Bond, subject to mandatory
redemption prior to its maturity on the dates and in
the amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase
Contract.
(viii) Price. The purchase price for each Series of the Bonds may not be
less than [97%] or more than [130%] of the stated principal
amount of that Series.
(ix) Other Terms & Conditions. The Designated Representative may determine whether it is
in the City’s best interest to provide for bond insurance or
other credit enhancement; and may accept such additional
terms, conditions and covenants as he or she may determine
are in the best in interests of the City, consistent with this
ordinance.
-2-
51435754.4
Exhibit B
PARITY CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF FUTURE PARITY BONDS
The City may issue Future Parity Bonds on a parity with the Bonds if and only if the
following conditions are met and complied with at the time of issuance of those proposed Future
Parity Bonds:
(a) At the time of issuance of such Future Parity Bonds, there may not be any
deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account or the Reserve Account of the Bond Fund.
(b) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must require that all ULID
Assessments levied in connection with those Future Parity Bonds will be paid directly into the
Bond Fund.
(c) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance shall provide for the payment of
the principal thereof and interest thereon out of the Bond Fund.
(d) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must provide for the deposit into
the Reserve Account of amounts necessary to comply with the Reserve Requirement and Section
12 of this ordinance.
(e) At the time of the issuance of such Future Parity Bonds, the City shall have on
file, either:
(1) A certificate from an Independent Utility Consultant showing that, in his or her
professional opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the
Parity Bonds then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued
shall, for each year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such
certification, the Net Revenue for any 12 consecutive calendar months out of the
immediately preceding 24 consecutive months shall be used, and the following
adjustments may be made to the historical net operating revenue:
(i) Any rate change that has taken place or been approved, may be reflected;
(ii) Revenue may be added from customers actually added to the Water and Sewer
Utility subsequent to the 12-month base period;
(iii) Revenue may be added from customers to be served by the improvements
being constructed out of the proceeds of the Future Parity Bonds to be issued;
and
(iv) A full year’s revenue may be included from any customer being served, but
who has not been receiving service for the full period of operation used as a
basis for the certificate; and
(v) Actual or reasonably anticipated changes to the Operating and Maintenance
Expenses subsequent to such 12-month period shall be added or deducted, as
is applicable.
(2) A certificate of the Finance Director showing that, in his or her professional
opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the Parity Bonds
then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued shall, for each
year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such certification,
the Finance Director shall assume that (A) the proposed Future Parity Bonds will
remain outstanding to their scheduled maturities, and (B) any Parity Bonds to be
-1-
51435754.4
Exhibit B
refunded by those Future Parity Bonds are not outstanding. The Finance Director
shall not make any of the adjustments referred to above.
However, if the Future Parity Bonds are being issued for the sole purpose of refunding
then-outstanding Parity Bonds (including paying costs of issuance and providing for the
Reserve Requirement), no coverage certification is required if, as result of the issuance of
those Future Parity Bonds, (a) the Annual Debt Service on the Future Parity Bonds to be
issued is not increased by more than $5,000 over the Annual Debt Service for that year of
the bonds being refunded, and (b) the various annual maturities of the refunding Future
Parity Bonds will not extend more than one year longer than the Parity Bonds being
refunded. Furthermore, no certificate shall be required in connection with the issuance of
Future Parity Bonds if the amount of such bonds proposed to be issued does not exceed
the ULID Assessments levied in support of such Future Parity Bond issue by more than
$5,000 plus any amount of the proceeds of such Future Parity Bonds deposited in the
Reserve Account as capitalized reserve.
-2-
51435754.4
Exhibit C
DESCRIPTION OF PLAN OF ADDITIONS
Water System Plan of Additions:
A summary of the planned additions and betterments to the water utility, as set forth in the City’s
Water Capital Improvement Program (“Water CIP”), is as follows:
Water System Plan of Additions. The existing water system was analyzed in 2010 to
determine its ability to meet current regulations and the City’s own policies and design
criteria. Several analyses were performed to evaluate all components of the water system
under both existing and future water demand conditions. The results of the analyses were
used to identify and size improvements for the water system. The City will use proceeds of
the Bonds to fund a portion of these improvements. A summary of the improvements
expected to be financed with proceeds of the Bonds is as follows:
• Recoating and related improvements to the Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir and 1.5 MG
Reservoir
• Pressure relief improvements needed to protect the water system from potentially high
pressure that could occur during certain events
• Replacement of several pressure-reducing valve stations and improvements to other
stations to ensure long-term operation and reliability
• Water main replacement projects for repair and replacement of water mains and related
appurtenances due to age and undesirable pipe material and a need to improve flows
• Water System Comprehensive Plan Update
Sewer System Plan of Additions:
A summary of the planned additions and betterments to the sewer utility, set forth in the City’s
Sewer Capital Improvement Program (“Sewer CIP”), is as follows:
Sewer System Capital Improvements. The existing sewer system was analyzed in 2013 to
determine its ability to meet current regulations and the City’s own policies and design
criteria. Several analyses were performed to evaluate all components of the system under
both existing and future demand conditions. The results of the analyses were used to identify
and size improvements and upgrades for the sewer system. The City will use proceeds of the
Bonds to fund a portion of these improvements. A summary of the improvements expected
to be financed with proceeds of the Bonds is as follows:
• Sewer main replacement project for repair and replacement of sewer pipe sections and
related appurtenances needed due to age and undesirable pipe material and a need to
improve flows
• Rehabilitation of existing pipe with “cured in place pipe”(CIPP) to address pipe integrity
problems in the sewer pipe system
• Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
• Lift Station #1 Metering and Flow Study
-1-
51435754.4
Exhibit C
• The City’s share of the costs of certain improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plant:
o Control system upgrades
o Facility repair and improvements
o Clarifier #3 Repair
o Outfall study
o Phase 4 Energy Work Air compressor/aeration blower/diffuser replacement
o Phase 5 Energy Work Solids processing equipment replacement
o Phase 6 Energy Work UV and flow shearing improvement
Stormwater System Plan of Additions:
A summary of the planned additions and betterments to the stormwater management utility, as
set forth in the City’s Stormwater Capital Improvement Program (“Stormwater CIP”), is follows:
Stormwater System Capital Improvements. The stormwater system capital improvement
program includes the design, permitting, and construction of flood control and water quality
improvement projects. These include projects that will replace pipes, catch basins, and other
infrastructure in undersized systems or in those that have reached their useful life; adding
stormwater management systems to areas that were annexed from the County in the late
1990s that either had no systems or substandard systems; and City capital projects to build or
expand treatment, waste management, and other facilities to meet the water quality
requirements of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit
administered by the State Department of Ecology. The City will use proceeds of the Bonds
to fund a portion of these improvements. A summary of the improvements expected to be
financed with proceeds of the Bonds is as follows:
• Edmonds Marsh Restoration/Willow Creek Daylighting
• Dayton Street & State Route 104 drainage improvement pump station
• Drainage improvements for:
o Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
o 105th/106th Ave SW
o Dayton Street between 3rd and 9th Avenues
o 88th Avenue W & 194th Street SW
o Additional City-wide drainage improvements
• Perrinville Creek high flow management
• Rehabilitation of Northstream pipe under Puget Drive and pipe abandonment
• Storm system video assessment
• Stormwater Fund contribution to transportation projects for drainage infrastructure
-2-
51435754.4
Exhibit D
Form of
UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
City of Edmonds, Washington
Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2015
The City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”) makes the following written Undertaking
for the benefit of the holders of the above-referenced bonds (the “Bonds”), for the sole purpose
of assisting the Purchaser in meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as
applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds. Capitalized terms used but not defined
below shall have the meanings given in Ordinance No. _____ of the City.
(a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Listed
Events. The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a
designated agent, to the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB,
accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB:
(i) Annual financial information and operating data of the type included in
the final official statement for the Bonds and described in subsection (b) of
this section (“annual financial information”);
(ii) Timely notice (not in excess of 10 business days after the occurrence of
the event) of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to
the Bonds: (1) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non-
payment related defaults, if material; (3) unscheduled draws on debt
service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on
credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of
credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6) adverse tax
opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or
final determinations of taxability, Notice of Proposed Issue (IRS Form
5701 – TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to
the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status
of the Bonds; (7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds, if
material; (8) bond calls (other than scheduled mandatory redemptions of
Term Bonds), if material, and tender offers; (9) defeasances; (10) release,
substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if
material; (11) rating changes; (12) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or
similar event of the City, as such “Bankruptcy Events” are defined in Rule
15c2-12; (13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition
involving the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the
City other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a
definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a
definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its
terms, if material; and (14) appointment of a successor or additional
trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material.
(iii) Timely notice of a failure by the City to provide required annual financial
information on or before the date specified in paragraph (b).
-1-
51435754.4
Exhibit D
(b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual
financial information that the City undertakes to provide in paragraph (a):
(i) Shall consist of (1) annual financial statements prepared (except as noted
in the financial statements) in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles applicable to State local governmental units such as
the City, as such principles may be changed from time to time, which
statements shall not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited
financial statements are otherwise prepared and available to the City they
will be provided; (2) [references to the specific sections of the Official
Statement to be inserted upon publication of the Official Statement];
(ii) Shall be provided not later than the last day of the ninth month after the
end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending
December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or
permitted by State law, commencing with the City’s fiscal year ending
December 31, 20__; and
(iii) May be provided in a single or multiple documents, and may be
incorporated by specific reference to documents available to the public on
the Internet website of the MSRB or filed with the SEC.
(c) Amendment of Undertaking. This Undertaking is subject to amendment after the
primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker,
dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency or the MSRB, under
the circumstances and in the manner permitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City will give notice to the
MSRB of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief
statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual
financial information to be provided, the annual financial information containing the amended
financial information will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type
of information to be provided.
(d) Beneficiaries. This Undertaking shall inure to the benefit of the City and the
holder of each Bond, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any rights in any other person.
(e) Termination of Undertaking. The City’s obligations under this Undertaking shall
terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City’s obligations under
this Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of Rule 15c2-12 which require the City to
comply with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any
reason, as confirmed by an opinion of Bond Counsel delivered to the City, and the City provides
timely notice of such termination to the MSRB.
(f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon as practicable after the
City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due
diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated
person to comply with the Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The
sole remedy of any holder of a Bond shall be to take action to compel the City or other obligated
person to comply with this Undertaking, including seeking an order of specific performance from
an appropriate court.
-2-
51435754.4
Exhibit D
(g) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking. The Finance
Director of the City or his or her designee is authorized to take such further actions as may be
necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry out this Undertaking in accordance with Rule 15c2-
12, including, without limitation, the following actions:
(i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information undertaken to be
provided;
(ii) Determining whether any event specified in subsection (a) has occurred,
assessing its materiality, where necessary, with respect to the Bonds, and
preparing and disseminating any required notice of its occurrence;
(iii) Determining whether any person other than the City is an “obligated
person” within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 with respect to the Bonds,
and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide any annual
financial information and notice of listed events for that person in
accordance with Rule 15c2-12;
(iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants,
including but not limited to financial advisors and legal counsel, to assist
and advise the City in carrying out the Undertaking; and
(v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking.
-3-
51435754.4
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 ________, 2015, 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 is expected to be ________, 2015; and
3. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the
meeting and a majority of its members voted in the proper manner for the passage of the
Ordinance.
Dated ________, 2015.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
_____________________________________
City Clerk
51435754.4
AM-7657 10.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of easement documents from the 7500 Building & Dairy Queen for the 76th Ave/212th
Street Intersection Improvements Project
Recommendation
Forward the right of way documents for each parcel to the consent agenda for approval and acceptance at
the May 5, 2015 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The City has reached agreements with two property owners for right of way and easements necessary for
the 76th Ave and 212th Street Intersection Improvements project.
The owners of the 7500 Building have agreed to 272 square feet of right of way acquisition and 739
square feet of temporary construction easement during construction of the 76th Ave and 212th Street
Intersection Improvements. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $13,500.
The owners of Dairy Queen have agreed to 1,635 square feet of right of way acquisition and 1,261 square
feet of temporary construction easement during construction of the 76th Ave and 212th Street Intersection
Improvements. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $55,000. It is anticipated the
property owners will sign the necessary documents during the week of April 27th.
The right of way cost for both properties will be funded by a federal transportation grant and a 13.5%
match in local funds.
Attachments
7500 Building - Real Property Voucher
7500 Building - Statutory Warranty Deed
7500 Builidng - Temporary Construction Easement
DQ - Real Property Voucher
DQ - Temporary Construction Easement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/23/2015 04:34 PM
Public Works Kody McConnell 04/24/2015 08:08 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/24/2015 08:09 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 08:35 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 08:35 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/22/2015 11:59 AM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
Page 5 of 5 Tax Parcel No. 007388-000-101-00 thru 007388-000-218-00, inclusive
Accepted and Approved by Grantee
CITY OF EDMONDS (MAYOR)
By:
Date: ------------
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:
Office of the City Attorney
ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED
By: -----------
Scott Passey, City Clerk
City of Edmonds
Real Property Voucher
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements Project
Claimant(s)
Shannon and Donna Stafford
Howard S. Roehl and The Estate of Joan Roehl 9439 NE 20th St.
Belleview, WA 98004-2531
Tax Parcel No. 004504-000-002-01
A full, complete, and final payment for settlement for the title or interest conveyed or released as
fully set forth in the Bargain and Sale Deed and Temporary Construction Easement, dated
_____________________.
Lands Conveyed Fee: 1,634 SF (m/l) $42,500.00 (R)
Temporary Construction Easement: 1,261 SF (m/l) 3,300.00 (R)
Total $45,800.00 I/we hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and amounts listed herein are proper
charges against the City of Edmonds, that the same or any part thereof has not been paid, and
that I/we am/are authorized to sign for the claimant.
___________________________________
Howard S. Roehl
Date: ______________________
___________________________________
The Estate of Joan Roehl
Date: _____________________
___________________________________
Shannon Stafford
Date: ______________________
___________________________________
Donna Stafford
Date: _____________________
_____________________________________
Dillon R. Ohrt, Right-of-Way Consultant
Date:
Place Signed:
City of Edmonds
Printed Name:
Its:
Date:
Place Signed:
City of Edmonds
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements Project
Property Address: 7530 – 212th St SW
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel No.: 004504-000-002-01
Property Owner: Roehl and Stafford
The undersigned, Howard S. Roehl and Joan Roehl, husband and wife, and Shannon Stafford
and Donna Stafford, husband and wife, for themselves and for their heirs, successors and assigns,
hereafter together referred to as “GRANTOR(S)”, for and in consideration of the promises set forth
below and the improvements to the City’s 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Improvements Project, hereby
convey and grant to the City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, and its successors and assigns,
hereafter together referred to as “the City”, a temporary, non-exclusive easement (the “Temporary
Construction Easement”) over, under, in, along, across and upon the GRANTOR(S)’ property as
depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the “Temporary
Easement Area”), for the purpose of construction 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements. The
GRANTOR(S) further grant the use of the property immediately adjacent to the Temporary Easement
Area for the purpose of performing this work. Work will include intersection improvements, sidewalk
and gutter and associated utility work and incidental items necessary to restore the property to a
condition similar to its previous state. All costs of this work shall be completely borne by the City.
The GRANTOR(S) and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually covenant
and agree as follows:
1. The City shall upon completion of the work, remove all construction debris and restore the
surface of the above-described property to substantially its original condition, except as
modified by the subject project.
2. Access to the GRANTOR(S)’ property shall be maintained at all times during the City’s 76th
Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements Project.
3. This Temporary Construction Easement shall commence upon the date this Agreement is
signed by both parties and shall terminate and expire upon the City’s final acceptance of
this project by the Edmonds City Council.
4. This Temporary Construction Easement is valid for twelve (12) month(s) from the start of
construction and shall not be revoked by GRANTOR(S) without giving the City forty-five
(45) days’ advance written notice.
5. Upon the expiration of the term of this Temporary Construction Easement, all of the rights
and benefits of the City in, to and under this Agreement with respect to the Temporary
Construction Easement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect.
DATED this day of , 20___.
___________________________________
Howard S. Roehl
Date: ______________________
___________________________________
Joan Roehl
Date: _____________________
___________________________________
Shannon Stafford
Date: ______________________
___________________________________
Donna Stafford
Date: _____________________
_______________________
Phone Number (Optional)
ACCEPTED BY:
City of Edmonds
_______________________________ ______________________
Printed Name: ___________________ Date
Title: ___________________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
} SS.
County of }
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Howard S. Roehl and Joan Roehl (is/are) the
person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this
instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her/their) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes
mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: ____________________________
_________________________________________
Name (typed or printed): _____________________
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
Residing at ________________________________
My appointment expires: _____________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
} SS.
County of }
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Shannon Stafford and Donna Stafford (is/are)
the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed
this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her/their) free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: ____________________________
_________________________________________
Name (typed or printed): _____________________
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
Residing at ________________________________
My appointment expires: _____________________
EXHIBIT A
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TAX PARCEL NO. 00450400000201
PARENT PARCEL:
LOT 3 AND THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 LYING NORTH OF THE EASTERLY PRODUCTION OF
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3, AND WEST OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 165 FEET
EASTERLY, AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 2 AND 3, OF THE WEST
LINE OF SAID LOT 3, FORSHEE'S UPLAND TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,
RECORDED IN VOLUME 13 OF PLATS, PAGE 57, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS BY
DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 2345901.
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT:
A PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MONUMENTED CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 19, 20, 29, AND 30,
TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
THENCE SOUTH 88°04’36” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 29 AND THE CENTERLINE OF 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST FOR A DISTANCE OF
195.75 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 1°55’24” WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH MARGIN
OF SAID 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST, THAT POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EAST LINE OF ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL
SOUTH 0°35’03” WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 3.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89°30’00” WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.82 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 88°59’12” WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.89 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 78°38’55” WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 16.83 FEET TO A POINT ON AN ARC
OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
78°03’51” FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 0°35’03” WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.40 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF
ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL;
THENCE SOUTH 88°03’54” EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0°35’03” EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.52 FEET TO A POINT ON AN ARC OF
A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
78°03’51” FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.25 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 78°38’55” EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 16.29 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 88°59’12” EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.37 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89°30’00” EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.83 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE
ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL;
THENCE NORTH 0°35’03” EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 1,261 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT “B”
AM-7656 11.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance authorizing the acquisition by negotiation or condemnation of real property interests
for the 76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements project.
Recommendation
Forward the item to the May 5, 2015 Council meeting for a Public Hearing.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Right of way is needed from eight property owners to construct the 76thAve and 212th Street Intersection
Improvements. The City’s right of way consultant, Universal Field Services, Inc., is negotiating the
purchase of the needed land and property rights to build the project.
The City has adopted right of way procedures for federal-aid projects that require the City to offer fair
and equitable compensation for the property rights being acquired. On acquisitions of more than $25,000,
a full appraisal is completed by a certified appraiser to establish the compensation due for the property
rights being acquired. In addition to the first appraisal, an independent appraiser reviews the first
appraiser’s work to confirm that the offer is fair and equitable.
On simple acquisitions less than $25,000, the appraiser can establish an offer for compensation based on
market transactions and other pertinent information. However, the property owner is made aware at the
time of the offer that an appraisal has not been done and that one can be prepared if they desire to have
the information.
The City’s goal is to ensure that property owners are fairly compensated for the value of the land
and property rights needed for the Project. However, there are times when a property owner and the City
cannot agree on a settlement for those property rights. When an agreement cannot be reached through
negotiations, the City can pursue the purchase of the property rights by condemnation.
In order to utilize this right, the City Council must adopt an ordinance authorizing condemnation. The
proposed ordinance is attached and includes six out of the eight properties. Two properties, 7500 Building
and Dairy Queen, both on southeast corner of the 76 th Ave and 212th Street intersection, have signed
their right of way documents and those are pending City Council approval.
A public hearing for the proposed ordinance is scheduled for the May 5, 2015 City Council meeting. The
six remaining properties have been notified of the public hearing.
Attachments
Condemnation Ordinance
ROW Plan
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/22/2015 05:08 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 04/23/2015 04:07 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 06:02 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 07:04 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/22/2015 10:35 AM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
NEGOTIATION OR CONDEMNATION OF REAL
PROPERTY INTERESTS NEEDED FOR THE 76th @ 212th
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds (the “City”) is working to plan, design and construct the
76th @ 212th Intersection Improvements, which consists of improving intersection capacity with
the addition of left turn lanes for the northbound and southbound movements, as well as right
turn lanes for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. A new traffic signal will
be installed with protected-permissive left turn phasing and right turn overlaps for all approaches.
Additional improvements include new sidewalk, ADA compliant curb ramps, bike lanes, street
lights, stormwater detention and water quality enhancements, and water / sewer pipeline
replacements (collectively, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City issued a SEPA Determination of Non-significance, which threshold
determinations are final; and
WHEREAS, in order to carry out the Project, the City must obtain land and/or property
rights, including any necessary easements and/or rights-of-way in or along 76th Ave. W and 212th
St. SW: and
WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the Project, and is responsible for obtaining all
necessary land and property rights for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and Federal policies and regulations, the City is acquiring
real property rights, including necessary fee simple titles, easements and rights-of-way, through
negotiations with property owners in or along 212th St. SW and 76th Ave. W.
WHEREAS, if the City is unable to acquire the necessary land and/or property rights, such
as fee simple titles, easements and rights-of-way, in a timely manner, the City must file a petition in
eminent domain (condemnation petition) in order to meet the funding and construction deadlines
for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Chapter 35A.64 RCW to exercise the power of
eminent domain pursuant to Chapters 8.12 and 8.28 RCW;
- 2 -
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as if
set forth in full herein.
Section 2. Acquisition of Real Property. The rights and interests in the real property shown
in yellow highlight in the Right-of-Way Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
is necessary for the construction of the 76th @ 212th Intersection Improvements Project, and is
condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged in fee, easement and/or right-of-way for public
purposes, subject to the making or paying of just compensation to the owners thereof in the manner
provided by law.
Section 3. Source of Funds. The cost and expense of acquiring all rights and interests in
the Property shall be paid for from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant and City
Transportation (Fund 112) funds.
Section 4. Condemnation Authorization. City staff, the City Attorney, and City consultants
for the Project have been negotiating with the property owners to obtain land / property rights. They
have been authorized and directed to enter into any and all negotiations and agreements necessary
to acquire the interests in the Property as shown in yellow highlighted parcels in Right-of-Way plan.
If such negotiations fail to acquire such interests in the Property in a timely manner, as determined
by the Mayor, the City Attorney is authorized to prosecute proceedings provided by law to
condemn, appropriate and take the Property and carry out the provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
- 3 -
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
-1-
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
NEGOTIATION OR CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY
INTERESTS NEEDED FOR THE 76th @ 212th INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
AM-7668 12.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Mike DeLilla Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow
Study
Recommendation
Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the May 5, 2015, Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Lift Station #1 is the City’s largest sewer lift station and serves over 25% of the City’s sewer service area.
The lift station was originally built in 1957 and was upgraded in 2002. The lift station is located in City
right of way, north of the Edmonds ferry terminal. Effluent from the lift station is pumped to a gravity
sewer main that flows to Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Tetra Tech will provide a basin analysis and flow study of Lift station #1. The analysis will determine:
If load/flows directed to the lift station can be reduced;
If an increase in wet well storage is possible;
If modifications to the existing Sanitary Sewer overflow and associated tie in to the storm system
pipe basin are needed, including assessing the outfall in Puget Sound;
The viability/location of a scalping lift station;
The benefit/possibility of installing/replacing sewer mains so that a larger portion of this basin
drains by gravity directly to the treatment plant;
Schematic level design and construction costs for each alternative.
Statements of qualification's (SOQ) were received from five firms in response to the RFQ. Based on a
review of the SOQ's and comparison to the selection criteria, Tetra Tech was selected as the preferred
consultant based on their qualifications and experience.
Staff and consultant have agreed upon a scope of services for the project. The negotiated fee for the
professional services agreement will be provided at the April 28 meeting. A copy of the professional
services agreement is attached.
Attachments
Draft Tetra Tech Agreement & Scope
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/23/2015 03:10 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 04/23/2015 04:07 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 06:02 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 06:58 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/23/2015 02:15 PM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH · EDMONDS, WA 98020 · 425-771-0220 · FAX 425-672-5750
Website: www.edmondswa.gov
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
DAVE EARLING
MAYOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter
referred to as the "City", and Tetra Tech, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant";
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a
consulting firm to prepare a study to determine how to manage peak flows of Lift Station #1 with
respect to the Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study;
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
$XXXX.
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
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 terms 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.
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 contract.
9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's
status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract 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.
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 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
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:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
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.
DATED THIS _______ DAY OF __________________, 20_____.
CITY OF EDMONDS TETRA TECH, INC.
By By
David O. Earling, Mayor
Its
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
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:
4/23/2015 1 Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Exhibit A
City of Edmonds
Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study
SCOPE OF WORK
Project Overview
Lift Station #1 is the largest sewage pump station operated by the City of Edmonds, and it serves
approximately one third of the City. The City’s 2013 Sewer Plan indicates that LS#1 barely has enough
pumping capacity to prevent raw sewage overflows to Puget Sound. It has a duty pump and a standby
pump, each rated at 2 mgd, and both pumps must run to prevent overflows during peak wet weather
events. This is contrary to Department of Ecology guidelines which require the pump station to have
sufficient capacity without using the standby pump. This capacity deficiency is expected to get worse in
the future if flows increase as estimated in the 2013 Sewer Plan. This Scope of Work prepares a study of
the LS#1 basin to determine how to manage peak flows to avoid wastewater overflows into Puget Sound.
The City wants the study to analyze the following improvement options:
Identify opportunities to reduce flows to LS #1
Redirect flows away from LS #1
Provide possible storage to manage peak flows
Upgrade LS#1 to handle peak flows
Identify viability/location for a scalping station
The tasks and associated subtasks are as follows:
Task 1 - Project Management
Task 1 includes the effort required to manage the project. This task includes monitoring budgets,
preparing and reviewing invoices, attending kick-off and progress meetings, preparing a work plan, and
quality assurance review of deliverables.
Kick Off Meeting. Conduct a two hour kick off meeting with city staff and key consultant
team members to discuss project approach, schedule, and anticipated deliverables.
Work Plan. The Consultant will prepare a Work Plan defining staff and subconsultant
responsibilities and schedules. The Work Plan will be used as a template to identify project
scope, individual work elements, responsible individuals for each work element, manpower
required, and schedule requirements incorporating internal and external milestones.
Progress Meetings. Progress meetings will be held periodically to coordinate work activities
and keep the City informed of progress to date. Meetings are anticipated to be approximately
every three to four weeks; however, meetings may be held more or less frequently, depending
on the project requirements at the time. Meetings may also be held via conference call. The
Consultant will prepare agendas and meeting minutes for distribution to the project team.
Meetings specific to a particular task will be included under the specific task described below.
SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY
4/23/2015 2 Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Progress Reports and Invoicing. Prepare a monthly written progress report and submit to the
City with each monthly invoice to document the work effort during the billing period.
Quality Control Reviews. The project manager will assign reviewers independent of the project
team to review all task memos, reports, and other significant work product s before final
issuance to the City. Comments will be incorporated into the documents or will be documented
as to why comments are not included. Below is a list of documents anticipated for quality
control review prior to final issuance to the City.
o Flow Analysis Technical Memorandum
o Draft Predesign Report
o Final Predesign Report
Assumptions:
1. Assumes 12 months to complete the study.
2. Assumes up to 5 progress/management meetings will be held with the city.
3. The Work Plan will be for the Predesign Phase only.
Task 1 Deliverables:
1. Kick-off meeting agenda and meeting minutes.
2. Work Plan - one hard copy and one electronic copy.
3. Up to 12 monthly progress reports with the invoices.
4. Meeting minutes for up to 5 Progress/Management meetings.
Task 2 – Background Information
Review Background Information. A thorough review of previous work is critical to the initiation
of this planning effort. It provides the framework necessary to understand existing conditions in
order to develop possible alternatives. The consultant will review historical reports and
correspondence, operating records, electronic copies of topographic maps and aerial photographs,
as-built drawings and data, including all pertinent city GIS files to understand the conveyance
system in the LS #1 drainage basin. Included in this effort is a four hour field visit of Lift Stations
#1, #2, and #3.
Assumptions:
1. City to provide records for review.
2. City staff to provide access for 4 hour site visit of City lift stations.
Task 3 – Flow Analysis & Modeling
Review Existing Data. Review existing sewer system information including lift station as-builts,
flow monitoring data from the lift station and available information relating to system flooding
events to assist in evaluation of the existing XP-SWMM model.
Survey of Overflow Weirs. The City will assist the Consultant in measuring depths of overflow
weirs at Lift Station #1 and at other overflow locations identified by the City.
SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY
4/23/2015 3 Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Lift Station #1 Draw Down Test. The City will assist the Consultant in conducting a draw down
test in Lift Station #1 to supplement existing flow information.
Review XP-SWMM Model. The Consultant will review the City’s existing sewer system model
for the LS #1 basin and the data used to calibrate it, including the future flow estimates from the
2013 Sewer Plan. The Consultant will provide a brief memorandum summarizing the model
adequacy for application for this project in determining peak wet weather flows and future design
flows in the basin. The memo will be submitted to the City prior to meeting with the City to
discuss the flow model.
Flow Meeting. The Consultant will attend one 2-hour meeting with City staff to discuss its review
of the model. Where flow information is lacking, the consultant will work with the city to assess
risk and determine to what level of contingency should be built into the flow model.
Update Model. The Consultant will incorporate significant changes in overflow weir elevations
and future flow estimates determined from the meeting with the City.
Flow Analysis Technical Memorandum. The Consultant will provide a technical memorandum
that documents the modeling effort and the flows that will be used in the LS #1 basin study. The
Flow Analysis Technical Memorandum will be included in the Draft and Final Predesign Report.
The report will document results of the pump draw down test and it will also identify where
additional flow monitoring may be appropriate to improve model accuracy in designing the
recommended alternative.
Assumptions:
1. Scope of Work does not include supplemental flow monitoring. Flow monitoring can be
added by amendment and conducted in the future, in the 2015-2016 or 2016-2017 wet season,
if needed to confirm design flows for the recommended project.
2. Population and land use projections will be based on those shown in the City’s most recent
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Recalibration of the model is not included, because little additional flow data is available
since the model was calibrated in 2013. Model recalibration can be added by amendment in
the future if additional data is collected to confirm design flows.
Task 3 Deliverables:
1. Model Review Memorandum.
2. Flow Analysis Technical Memorandum
3. Updated XP-SWMM Model.
Task 4 - Survey
Mobile GIS Data Collection. Consultant will use recently purchased mobile GIS mapping
equipment to locate manholes covers and sewer lines in street right-of-way. This information will
be used to supplement city GIS data files in developing general site plans and profiles for various
alternatives. The base mapping will be tied to City’s vertical (NAVD 88) and horizontal (83/91)
datum’s. The City will provide measure-down depths to pipe inverts in each manhole using
existing City as-built information. The base maps will only show the edge of street paving, 2 to 5
foot contours, sewer lines, manhole and access covers, and pipe invert elevations in the lower half
of the drainage basin.
SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY
4/23/2015 4 Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Follow up Field Survey (as required). Perform field checks (assume up to 2 crew days) to
respond to miscellaneous field requests and to verify accuracy of the base maps.
Assumptions:
1. Vertical and horizontal datum will be to City datum.
2. City provides measure-down depths from as-built information.
3. Maximum of five crew days to pick up miscellaneous field information.
4. No potholing will be required.
5. Topographical mapping will not be done on private property.
6. Base mapping will show sanitary sewers and other utilities as identified in City GIS files,
except as modified by surveying in Task 4.
Task 4 Deliverables:
1. Base maps showing streets, contours, sewer lines, manhole covers, manhole cover and pipe
invert elevations.
Task 5 – Alternative Analysis
5.1 Alternatives Identification Phase
Alternative Identification. This initial phase identifies and brainstorms possible alternatives that
have potential to prevent raw sewerage overflows from enter ing Puget Sound from the LS #1
basin. Opportunities include alternatives that reduce I/I, add additional conveyance pipelines
either by open-cut for trenchless methods, add pipeline or tank storage, upgrade LS #1, add a
scalping pump station, or through a combination thereof. The Consultant will prepare a
description of each alternative and identify associated advantages and disadvantages.
Alternative Identification Workshop. Of all the alternatives identified above, the Consultant will
recommend to the City 8 to 10 alternatives judged to be the best in meeting the project objectives.
A four-hour workshop will be held with the City to review, discuss and agree on the best
alternatives to be taken forward for further evaluation during the Alternative Screening Phase.
The Consultant and City will discuss and agree on the approach to the screening process and the
criteria used in the evaluation. The Consultant will prepare an agenda for the workshop and
provide follow up meeting minutes with action items.
5.2 Alternatives Screening Phase (8 to 10 Alternatives)
Alternative Screening. This phase screens the 8 to 10 alternatives identified in Subtask 5.1
down to 2 or 3 to carry forward to subtask 5.3. Based on available information the Consultant
will prepare a preliminary evaluation matrix and ranking of the 8 to 10 alternatives. The matrix
will consider factors such as feasibility, constructability, impacts to traffic and the evaluation
criteria agreed to with the City in subtask 5.1.
Alternative Screening Workshop. A 4 hour workshop will be held to determine the best two or
three alternatives. The City and Consultant will review the preliminary evaluation matrix and
ranking prepared by the Consultant and modify it as needed during the workshop to determine the
best 2 or 3 alternatives to carry forward to subtask 5.3. The Consultant and City will review and
confirm the evaluation criteria, weighting factors and score for each alternative. Possible
evaluation criteria may be grouped in categories of community, technical, operations, and costs.
Construction costs will be generally graded as low, medium, or high. Key City engineers and
operations and maintenance staff will be invited to participate in the workshop. The Consultant
will prepare an agenda for the workshop and meeting minutes with action items.
SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY
4/23/2015 5 Exhibit A
Scope of Work
5.3 Alternative Refinement Phase (2 or 3 Alternatives)
Alternative Refinement Phase. This phase refines and clarifies the 2 or 3 best alternatives from
subtask 5.2 and compares and evaluates them to facilitate selection of a Recommended
Alternative. The Consultant will develop a schematic level design of the alternatives and prepare
planning level estimates of capital construction costs, O&M costs and life cycle costs. Sources for
the cost estimates will come from unit process cost curves, recent bid results, and/or percent
allowance from equipment and structural costs.
Alternative Refinement Meeting. The Consultant will meet with the City to review the schematic
designs of the alternatives and select a recommended alternative. The Consultant will document
the alternatives selection process in a Predesign report. The Consultant will prepare a meeting
agenda and follow up afterwards with meeting minutes with action items.
Assumptions:
1. No community involvement is anticipated.
2. Geotechnical assumptions based on existing geotechnical information.
3. Alternative Identification (Task 5.1) will rely on existing utility information from the City
GIS files.
4. Alternative Screening (Task 5.2) will rely on existing utility information from the City GIS
files and mobile mapping from Task 4.
5. Alternative Refinement (Task 5.3) will rely on existing utility information from the City GIS
files, mobile mapping, and spot field surveys from Task 4. More precise locations of buried
utilities can be confirmed in a future design phase if needed, such as with potholing or ground
penetrating radar and additional surveying.
6. Estimate assumes a maximum of 8 to 10 Screening Alternatives and 2 to 3 Refinement
Alternatives.
Task 5 Deliverables:
1. Meeting minutes with action items for the Alternative Identification Workshop.
2. Meeting minutes with action items for the Alternative Screening Workshop.
3. Meeting minutes with action items for the Alternative Refinement Meeting.
Task 6 - Recommended Alternative and Report
Recommended Alternative. The preferred alternative will be further developed as the
recommended plan. The plan will include more detailed design criteria, a hydraulic profile,
identification of permits and implementation schedule as described below:
o 10% Design Submittal. Prepare half size (11” X 17”) schematic plans at the 10 percent
design level for inclusion in the predesign report. The schematic design drawings will
include plan/elevation/sections of the recommended alternative.
o Probable Construction Cost Estimate. The Consultant will update the Probable
Construction Cost Estimate to include appropriate contingencies, including contractor’s
overhead and profit and sales tax. The cost of land acquisition will be included (if
applicable).
SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY
4/23/2015 6 Exhibit A
Scope of Work
o Implementation Schedule. The Consultant will develop an implementation program to
reflect priority actions in the form of a schedule for construction of, and/or upgrades to,
the system.
o Permit Identification. The Consultant will identify all required environmental permits
and agreements needed for the construction of the preferred alternative, including the
strategies and requirements for acquiring all necessary permits. A listing of all permits
and agreements required for this project will be included in the Final Design Report.
o Predesign Report. The Consultant will prepare a draft and final predesign report complete
with executive summary and description of the evaluation process. A planning level
Opinion of Probable Cost will be included in the report. Consultant will send a draft
copy of the report to the city for review and comment. Comments received will be
incorporated into the final predesign report for presentation to City Council. The
consultant will attend the City Council meeting to present report and answer questions.
Assumptions:
1. Up to 10 preliminary design drawings.
2. An Ecology approved Engineering Report per WAC 173-240-060 and a SEPA checklist are
not required. If required, those services can be included by amendment in the scope of work.
Task 6 Deliverables:
1. Draft Predesign Report. Two hard copies and one electronic copy.
2. Final Predesign Report. Two hard copies and one electronic copy.
3. Electronic copies will be provided in MS WORD, AutoCAD 2014, pdf and XPSWMM files.
AM-7654 13.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Mike DeLilla Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Presentation for award of the construction contract for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
Recommendation
Place item on the City Council consent agenda after the construction bids have been opened and a low
bidder is determined.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
This project is part of the City’s program to replace/repair and upgrade existing sewerlines at various
locations around the City that are reaching the end of their useful service life, are undersized and unable
to meet current requirements, or has some other existing system deficiency. The project will replace, at
three locations in the City, approximately 2250 linear feet of sewerline, associated manholes and services.
In addition, the project will repair, via trenchless methods, 30 feet of sewermain.
The project costs are being funded by the 423 Sewer Utility Fund.
Construction bids are due by April 30, 2015, which may provide an opportunity to award the project at
the May 5th City Council Meeting. The bid results, project budget and recommendation to award will be
provided with the agenda memo for the May 5 th meeting. Construction is expected to begin in June and
be completed by the end of 2015.
Attachments
Site Map
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/22/2015 04:31 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 04/23/2015 04:07 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 06:02 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 07:05 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/21/2015 04:27 PM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
AM-7655 14.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
Recommendation
For information only.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Attached is the quarterly report for capital improvement projects managed by the Public Works
Department. The first quarter report for 2015 contains information on the estimated project budget, 2015
budget, change orders, funding sources and schedule.
Attachments
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 04/23/2015 04:00 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 04/23/2015 04:07 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/23/2015 06:02 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 06:58 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 07:41 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/21/2015 04:41 PM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
4/23/2015 PAGE 1
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2015 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ESCO III Facilities Ameresco $758,683 $300,000 $60,000 _016 _Jun-15 Con ●ESCO Contract through WA DES process.
●Edmonds Senior Center rooftop HVAC units have already
demonstrated excellent energy savings (40% less natural gas in
January).
●The connection to Meadowdale's heating system is still the
major item to complete.
●Another $100 of utility rebates was received, with just under
$10,000 still remaining to be obtained.
Fishing Pier Rehab Design/Permit Facilities Consultant $190,000 $146,400 _$190,000 016 Mar-16 Oct-15 Design ●Design and permitting funded through WDFW grant.
Permitting has begun by WDFW.
●Additional grant funding will be sought for construction project.
●BergerABAM has produced 60% drawings as of mid-February.
●Construction will not begin until 2016 to enable work under the
most favorable weather conditions for the maximum time.
●Estimate of construction costs is in line with expectations for
MACC at this point, but additive alternates are being developed
within the scope to allow maximum flexibility at bid time.
Public Works Yard Water Quality
Upgrade (Waste Facility Upgrade)
Facilities Consultant $141,316 $2,000 _$170,000 422 Jul-14 Sep-14 Cl-Out ● Construction complete. (75% grant funded).
● Grant expired 12/31/2014.
● Project close-out 2Q 2015.
City Park Spray Park Parks Site Workshop $1,550,000 $854,900 _$500,000 125, 132 Apr-15 Aug-15 Des ●Council awarded Spraypark equipment proposal to Aquatic
Specialty Services on 3/3/15.
●Contract with CXT for purchase of prefab maintenance building
signed on 3/6/15.
●Spray Park Design at 100%.
● Construction bids due on 4/23/15. Council Bid Award
scheduled for 4/28/15.
●Site Workshop hired 3/14 by City to complete design.
●Playground Structures installed 6/14.
Dayton Street Plaza Parks Barker $168,000 $108,000 __132 May-15 Aug-15 Des ●Demolition of existing plaza structures scheduled for April,
2015.
● Parks Dept intends construction in 2015
2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Sewer MSA $2,236,034 $2,056,230 __423 Apr-15 Dec-15 Des ●Design at 90%; consultant working on final plans & specs.
●Property owners contacted about obtaining utility easements
for existing sewerlines 12/14.
●SEPA application submitted 12/14. DNS received 1/15.
●HPA permit received 4/15.
●$5,157 - 2015 Budget Carry Forward from 2014 to 2015 on
1/2015
2015 Sewerline Overlays Sewer City $117,600 $117,600 __423 Apr-15 Sep-15 Des ●Site selection completed 2/15.
●Construction to take place summer 2015.
2016 Sewerline Replacement Sewer Consultant $1,308,326 $411,622 __423 Feb-16 Dec-16 Pre ●Final selection/negotiation of Consultant that will perform the
work in progress.
Annual Sewer Replacement
Project Phase 1
Sewer MSA $1,553,299 $22,500 $40,334 _423 Mar-14 Sep-14 Cl-out ●Council accepted project 3/2015.
●Carry over of $196,808 2014 funds to 2015 on 1/2015
●Closeout in progress.
●Change Order #1 $40,333.84
●$417,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
●Shoreline Constr awarded $1,224,607.49 contract in April
2014.
Annual Sewer Replacement
Project Phase 2
Sewer CHS $2,204,970 $693,780 $118,148 _423 May-14 Jan-15 Cl-out ●Carryover of $638,780 2014 funds to 2015 on 1/2015
●Change Order #3 $46,267.81
●Change Order #2 $75,930.02
●Change Order #1 ($4050)
●Shoreline Construction awarded $1,778,837 contract May
2014
●Budget Amendment $838,000 March 2014
Citywide Sewer CIPP Sewer City $929,600 $524,600 __423 Jul-15 Dec-15 Pre ●Site selection began 9/14. With design to commence once
sites are finalized. Finalization of sites expected by June 2015.
●-$500,000 -2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
ScheduleProject Budget
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
4/23/2015 PAGE 2
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2015 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Sewer Consultant $100,000 $100,000 __423 NA NA Study ●Discussions with City of MLT regarding the joint use of this
Sewer Main in progress.
●RFQ Advertisement for study planned for 2nd half of 2015.
Lift Station #1 Metering Sewer Consultant $100,000 $100,000 __423 NA NA Study ●Final selection/negotiation of Consultant that will perform the
study in progress.
Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12,
14 & 15
Sewer CHS $4,602,121 $3,000 $75,091 _423 Aug-12 Oct-13 Cl-Out ● Construction 100% Complete.
●Change Order No.1, $47,087.35
●Change Order No.2, $17,258.72
●Change Order No.3, $18,641.10
●Change Order No.4, $21,190.78
●Change Order No.5, ($29,086.49)
●Substantial Completion 10/25/13
●Physical Completion 7/25/14
●Final Acceptance 10/21/14
2015 City-Wide Drainage Improv.Storm CHS
Tetra Tech
$224,000 $224,000 __422 Aug-15 Dec-15 Des ● Project on 216th St SW near 96th Ave W. in Design
● Project on 183rd PL SW near High St in Pre-Design
238th St Drainage to Hickman
Park - Phase I
Storm City $373,160 $2,000 $2,732 _422 Aug-14 Nov-14 Cl-Out ● Phase I, Change Order No. 1: $2731.82
●Phase I Construction 100% complete. Substantial completion
reached on 11/19/14.
● Project broken into two phases due to grant for sidewalks.
● Phase I constructed in 2014 (Alley infiltration system upgrade
south of 107th PL W. and 102nd AVE W. infiltration system
upgrade - behind church).
● $283,870 - 2014 Budget Amendment (3/14)
Dayton St & SR 104 Drainage
Improvement Study (Pump Station
Pre-Design)
Storm L. Berger $421,000 $100,000 __422 __Study ● Consultant has begun pre-design work for Dayton Street
Pump Station
● Draft Pre-Design Report received March 2015
● Final Pre-Design Report due June 2015
● Additonal design and permitting work to separate
Shellabarger Creek sytem from Dayton St system being done
unde Willow Creek Daylight/ Edmonds Marsh Project
Dayton St. Storm Improvements
(3rd to 9th)
Storm L. Berger $108,809 $108,809 __422 __Study ● Capacity analysis of storm system underway, draft April 2015
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Storm City $62,000 $62,000 __422 __Study ● Edmonds continues to work with the Lake Ballinger/McAleer
Creek Watershed Forum on technical, lobbying, and
administrative issues.
● City of Edmonds Web-based lake level indicator continues to
provide residents with useful information.
Northstream Pipe Abandonment Storm CHS $55,000 $433,356 __422 __Z-on Hold ● Evaluation of options to abandon old 24 and 30 inch storm line
underway.
● Construction originally planned for 2015
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction
Retrofit Study
Storm Tetra Tech $389,772 $1,000 _$188,722 422 __Cl-Out ● $188,772 grant secured from Department of Ecology to
supplement budget.
● $128,037- 2014 Budget Amendment (March carry forward)
● Final Council Report 12/2/14
● Final Reports completed 2/28/2015
● $4,000 - 2015 Budget Amendment (Set for 4/21)
● Project close-out 2Q2015.
Perrinville High Flow Management
Projects
Storm Tetra Tech $220,000 $220,000 _$50,000 422 Jun-15 Dec-15 Des ● Design at 90%; bioretenion (engineered rain garden) in the
right of way (191st St SW near Dellwood DR).
● Constuction Summer 2015.
Rehab of Northstream culvert
under Puget Drive
Storm City $50,000 $50,000 __422 TBD TBD Study ● Video inspection of pipe scheduled for 2nd quarter 2015
● Next steps based on video results
Storm Drainage Improvements -
88th & 194th
Storm CHS $253,400 $253,400 _422 Jun-15 Dec-15 On Hold ● Project on-hold.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
4/23/2015 PAGE 3
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2015 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
SW Edmonds #4-106/105 Storm City $615,607 $517,225 _$70,000 422 Jun-15 Dec-15 Des ● Design near 100%
● Constuction Summer 2015
Video Assessment of Stormwater
Lines
Storm City $250,000 $250,000 __422 __Study ● City purchased new camera system to improve video
assessment capability.
● Training on new system 1 Q 2015.
● Pipe assements begin 2 Q 2015
Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds
Marsh Final Feasibility Study
Storm Shannon &
Wilson
$826,486 $363,000 _$357,331 422 __Study ● $200,000 grant secured from RCO-SRF Board
● Council prsentaion made January 2015
● Project schedule adjusted to merge with Marina Beach Park
Master Planning Process.
● Estimated Draft Feasibiltiy Study June 2015 and Final
Fesibiltiy Study October 2015.
● Addtional $157,331 grant secured from RCO-SRF Board for
prelimnary design and permitting.
● Additonal design and permitting work to separate
Shellabarger Creek sytem from Dayton St system underway.
15th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $374,000 $6,000 $0 $374,000 112 Aug-14 Dec-14 Cl-Out ● Construction Complete
● Education program at Sherwood Elementary is ongoing
● $62,390 2015 Budget Carryforward
2014 Pavement Preservation
Program
Street Snoh. County $940,000 $218,000 __112 Apr-14 Mar-15 Cl-Out ● City signed an agreement with Snohomish County to complete
pavement preservation (short overlay stretches, long overlay
stretches, and chip seal) in 2014.
● $260,000 out of the $1,200,000 was budgeted for a local
match for a Federal grant (programmed for 2015). These funds
are no longer available and will be paid for out of the 2015
Preservation Program
● Construction Complete
2015 Pavement Preservation
Program
Street Snoh. County $1,040,000 $1,040,000 __112 Apr-15 Sep-15 Des ● City signed an agreement with Snohomish County to complete
pavement preservation (short overlay stretches, long overlay
stretches, and chip seal) in 2014.
● $260,000 out of the $1,300,000 is budgeted for a local match
for a Federal grant.
220th St Overlay Project Street Tetra Tech $1,040,000 $1,040,000 _$780,000 112 Jun-15 Sep-15 Des ●Design at 30%
●Federal funds $780,000
●STIP approved January 9, 2015
228th St. SW Corridor Safety
Improvements
Street Perteet $7,190,446 $3,950,400 _$6,491,000 112
421
422
423
MLT
March-15 Jun-16 Des ● Design 100% complete.
● Right of Way acquisition (9 out of 10 property owners have
signed the ROW documents) and the remaining property owner
has agreed to Possession & Use (on-going negotiations /
possible mediation).
● A TIB grant in the amount of $1.7M was secured for additional
construction funding (for total of $5,234,000 in construction
funding when combined with HSIP grant secured in '12).
236th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $494,000 $392,109 _$494,000 112 Jan-16 Oct-16 Des ● Design 90% complete.
● The project proposes the addition of sidewalk on 236th St.
SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary, on one side of the
street.
238th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $1,391,000 $1,557,934 _$591,000 112 Jun -15 Dec-15 Des ● Design 50% complete.
● The project proposes the addition of sidewalk on 238th St.
SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W, on one side of the
street.
● Project will install rain gardens for stormwater
5th Avenue Overlay Project Street Otak, Inc.$1,002,532 $0 _$551,000 112, 422 &
421
Jul-13 Feb-14 Cl-Out ●Contract in Closeout
76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Street Dave Evans $6,106,753 $711,587 _$4,140,397 112
421
422
423
Dec-15 Dec-16 Des /
ROW
● Design 65% complete.
● Grant funds are funding the design and ROW phases.
● A CMAQ grant in the amount of $3,2M was secured for the
construction phase.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
4/23/2015 PAGE 4
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2015 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
ADA curb ramp upgrades along
3rd Ave. S
Street City $129,000 $10,000 _$90,000 112 Oct - 14 Feb-15 Cl-Out ● Construction complete
● Close-out xpected to wrap up June, 2015
● Expected $95,720 2015 Budget Carryforward
Bike-Link Street KPG $736,381 $260,000 __112 Dec-15 Dec-16 Des ● Design 0% complete.
● A Verdant grant was secured for $1.9 Million for the various
bicycle improvements in Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and
Edmonds (installation of bike lanes / sharrows, bicycle racks,
and bicycle route signage).
Five Corners Roundabout (212th
St. SW @ 84th Av. W)
Street Dave Evans $3,809,386 $295,000 $27,811 $2,393,017 112
421
422
Mar-14 Dec-14 Cl-Out ● Construction 99.5% complete.
● Substantial completion was achieved in October '14.
● 1-Yr plant establishment started Nov. '14
● CO #1: No Cost Change Order
● CO #2: $1,740
● CO #3: No Cost Change Order
● CO #4: ($9,240.00)
● CO #5: $3,288.90
● CO #6: No Cost Change Order
● CO #7: $6,186
● CO #8: $4,743
● CO #9: $16,353
● CO #10: ($3,400)
● CO #11: $7,877
● CO #12: $263
Residential Neighborhood Traffic
Calming
Street City $20,000 $20,000 __112 _ Dec-15 Study ● The 2015 budget for this program is $20,000.
● A press release was submitted in February '15 and (18)
responses were received (along with Petition Forms with
signatures from (8) different property owners / form required to
be considered for program).
SR-104 Complete Street Corridor
Analysis
Street Fehr & Peers $150,000 $106,000 __General __Study ● Study 70% complete.
● The project began in September '14 and is scheduled to be
completed in June '15.
State Route (SR) 99 International
District Enhancements (Phase 3)
Street KPG $684,000 $305,000 _$684,000 112 Mar-15 Jun-16 Des ● Design 100% complete.
● Project was advertised in February 2015 and bid opening was
on March 26, 2015.
● The construction of this project is being combined with the
228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project (both projects are
within proximity of each other, have a similar construction
timeline, and same grant funding source).
● A grant for $684,000 was secured for this project ($591,000 of
which is allocated to the construction phase).
Sunset Walkway Improvements Street MacLeod
Reckord
$1,878,000 $10,000 _$248,173 112 TBD TBD On-Hold ● Design 15% complete.
● The City has completed the temporary improvements for a trial
period.
Trackside Warning System Street TBD $350,000 $50,000 __General _TBD Des ● Design 0% complete.
● Funding will need to budgeted in the future years (shown as
2016 in 2015-2020 CIP), in order to complete the construction
phase.
Transportation Plan Update Street Fehr & Peers $180,000 $140,000 __112 __Study ● Plan 70% complete
● The project began in September '14 and is scheduled to be
completed in June '15.
2014 Replacement Program -
Waterline
Water MSA $1,905,784 $603,920 $87,494.61 _421 May-14 Mar-15 Cl-Out ●Change Order No. 1: $18,178.66
●Change Order No. 2: $23,654.45
●Change Order No. 3: $45,661.50
●Construction 100% complete.
●Earthworks Enterprises awarded $1,474,496.90 contract in
6/14.
●$197,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (6/14)
●$558,920 - 2015 Budget Carry Forward
2015 Waterline Overlays Water City $124,000 $124,000 __421 Apr-15 Sep-15 Des ●Construction to take place summer 2015.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
4/23/2015 PAGE 5
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2015 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
2015 Waterline Replacement Water Stantec $2,912,692 $2,752,381 __421 Apr-15 Dec-15 Des ●Design at 95%
●$15,230 - 2015 Budget Carryover from 2014 (Jan-2015)
●$320,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Jun-2014)
2016 Water Comprehensive Plan Water MSA $175,600 $86,100 __421 NA NA Study ●MSA awarded water comp plan update 3/2015.
2016 Waterline Replacement Water Consultant $1,926,510 $391,788 __421 Feb-16 Dec-16 Pre ●Final selection/negotiation of Consultant that will perform the
study in progress.
Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Water _$110,000 $110,000 __421 Feb-16 Dec-16 Pre ●Final selection/negotiation of Consultant that will perform the
work in progress.
Clarifier #3 repair WWTP Tetra Tech/
HWA
GeoSciences,
Inc
$960,000 $60,000 __423 _Dec-16 Pre ● Clarifier # 3 needs structural repairs. In 2015 we determine
the best course of action based on water table and soil
evaluations.
Coating Project WWTP Consultant not
ID'd
$636,000 $0 __423 __Pre ● This project was placed on hold until Clarifier #3 repairs and
the CCC assessment is made.
Control system upgrade WWTP Parametrix $1,680,624 $802,001 $207,001 $207,001 423 Jan-14 Dec-18 Con ● Reliability -replace aging control system equipment and
provide for redundancy
● The project is progressing on schedule.
● A change order for $207,001 was processed to include the
development and implementation of a new control strategy for
the aeration system and to upgrade the generator PLC and
bring to SCADA..
Energy Project - Air Compressor/A
Basin/Blower
WWTP Ameresco $884,792 $1,102,176 $321,312 $321,312 423 _Oct-15 Con ● This work is being completed through the ESCO process.
● The Air Compressor was replaced in 2014 and the blower
and diffusers will be replaced in 2015.
● There was a change order processed to replace a failed
blower for $321,312.42.
Facility repair and improvement
project
WWTP Tetra Tech $341,640 $3,000 $27,209 $27,209 423 Feb-14 Dec-14 Cl-out ● Reliability - The project is in close-out
Offsite Flow Telemetry WWTP City $15,000 $15,000 __423 _Dec-15 Con ● This project installs PLC's in all the offsite flow metering
stations to enable us to capture and save data locally and to
install an radio system to replace leased phone lines.
Pre
Des
ROW
Ad
Con
Cl-Out
Study
Construction
Close-out Construction Contract
Study
Right-of-Way Acquisition
Advertise for Construction Bids
**Active Phase
Preliminary Design
Design
AM-7653 15.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Discussion on the Project Funding and Award of the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project
Recommendation
Award the contract to Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $5,205,040.13 for the 228th St. SW
Corridor Improvements Project and authorize a $499,800 management reserve for changes and
unforeseen conditions during construction.
Previous Council Action
On March 24, 2015, the City Council discussed this project prior to the City receiving construction bids
to build the project.
Narrative
On March 26, 2015, the City received five bids for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. The
bids ranged from a low of $5,205,040 to a high of $6,334,729. The Engineer's Estimate was $5,422,348.
A summary of bid results is attached. Rodarte Construction, Inc. submitted the low responsive bid and
provided bid documents that meet the federal Disadvantage Business Enterprise Goal of 18%. A review
of the low bidder's record has been completed, and responses are positive.
The project will construct the missing link of roadway on 228th St from State Route (SR) 99 to 76th Ave
and install two new traffic signals at the intersections of SR99 / 228th St. and 76th Ave/ 228th St. The
center median will be extended on a portion of SR99 to restrict left turns and improve safety. Sidewalk
and bike lanes will be included along the new section of 228th St. The project also includes the pavement
reconstruction of 228th St/Lakeview Drive in the City of Mountlake Terrace.
The 228th St. Corridor Improvements have been combined with the SR99 Illumination Phase 3 project.
The Phase 3 improvements will install 19 new decorative pedestrian and roadway luminaires with banner
arms on SR99 between 220th St and 212th St. The project is funded by a federal transportation safety
grant.
The proposed construction budget and funding are shown on Exhibit A. A 10% management reserve is
proposed for the 228th St. improvements and 6% management reserve for the SR99 Lighting project.
The management reserve for the SR99 Lighting project is based on the remaining available grant funds.
Attachments
Exhibit A - Budget
Exhibit B - Bid Evaluation
Exhibit C - Project Map
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/23/2015 04:51 PM
Public Works Kody McConnell 04/24/2015 08:08 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/24/2015 08:09 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 08:35 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 08:35 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 04/21/2015 04:14 PM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
Proposed Construction Budget
Description
228th
Improvements SR99 Lighting Total Project
Contract Award $4,687,440 $517,600 $5,205,040
Construction Management & Testing $703,116 $77,640 $780,756
Management Reserve $468,748 $31,056 $499,804
Total =$5,859,304 $626,296 $6,485,600
Construction Funding
Funding
228th
Improvements SR99 Lighting Total Project
Federal Grant 228th Improvements $3,647,376 $3,647,376
Federal Grant SR99 Lighting $626,296 $626,296
Washington State TIB $1,441,188 $1,441,188
Water Fund $106,730 $106,730
Sewer Fund $177,254 $177,254
Stormwater Fund $68,500 $68,500
Mountlake Terrace $418,256 $418,256
Total =$5,859,304 $626,296 $6,485,600
City of Edmonds
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements & SR99 Illumination Phase III
Bid Summary
26-Mar-15
Engineer's Estimate
3,711,594.50$
531,503.50$ 671,415.00$ 523,311.00$ 607,074.25$ 563,319.79$
3,884,310.00$ 3,746,168.50$ 3,928,283.00$ 4,230,073.50$ 4,527,084.51$
5,221,500.27$
192,238.20$ 141,802.50$ 159,694.80$ 216,835.19$ 174,083.21$
5,422,347.83$ 5,205,040.13$ 5,677,150.85$ 5,865,695.76$ 6,334,728.55$ TOTAL
548,876.00$
Schedule A - Roadway
Schedule B - Water System
Schedule C - Sanitary Sewer System
Schedule D - Mountlake Terrace Works
Schedule E - Adminstration Non-Fed
Schedule F - SR99 Illumination
Schedule G - 76th Ave Overlay
Schedule H - 228th St. Overlay
Schedule I - SR99 Decorative Median Treatment
463,400.00$ 517,600.00$ 572,520.00$
187,621.68$
78,155.63$ 85,382.63$ 148,690.05$ 119,448.08$ 230,483.10$ 89,943.30$
Rodarte Construction, Inc.Trimaxx Construction, Inc. Marshbank Construction, Inc.Titan Earthworks, LLC Award Construction , Inc.
20,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,400.00$ 150.00$ 500.00$
550,770.00$ 532,207.25$ 461,675.00$
75,707.00$ 79,062.00$ 105,757.00$ 79,751.00$ 119,736.08$ 88,092.00$
59,254.00$
118,000.00$ 56,050.00$ 23,600.00$ 97,350.00$ 63,012.00$ 59,000.00$
41,661.00$ 46,471.00$ 64,791.00$ 48,007.00$ 80,548.15$
AM-7670 16.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/28/2015
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Patrick Doherty
Department:Community Services
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion of Potential Interest in Acquiring the Edmonds Conference Center
Recommendation
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
On 4/13/15 the State of Washington issued a "Surplus Property Bulletin" (attached here), declaring the
Edmonds Conference Center, owned by Edmonds Community College, to be surplus and available for
purchase, transfer, lease, etc.
The 14,375-square-foot property is developed with an approximately 11,252-square-foot,
wood-frame conference center built in 1997. The property also contains 27 paved on-site parking spaces
behind the building. Noteworthy is the fact that the wood-frame, stucco-clad building has suffered water
leakage and associated damage, as assessed by Allana, Buick & Bers, Inc., last Summer. The "rough
order of magnitude" cost of mitigating said damage was estimated at $1,012,161.23.
Staff has requested a gross profit/loss statement from the State (expenditures versus revenue), which is
still forthcoming as of this date.
The "Surplus Property Bulletin" states the fair market value of the property as $2,305,000.
In addition, the bulletin states that government agencies have the first opportunity to express interest in
acquiring the site. Such written expressions of interest are due by May 4, 2015. Subsequently, interested
parties will have ten days to provide a detailed proposal to the State. If no governmental entities express
interest in acquiring the site, the property will become immediately available to private-sector parties.
The issue in front of City Council is whether to submit a letter of interest in acquiring the Edmonds
Conference Center by the due date of May 4, 2015. Subsequent discussions of the purchase price, deal
terms, etc., could be held at a future Council meeting and may be considered appropriate for an Executive
Session discussion.
Attachments
Surplus Property Bulletin
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 04/24/2015 11:56 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 01:02 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 01:04 PM
Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 04/24/2015 11:29 AM
Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015