2015.09.08 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
WORK MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1.(5
Minutes)
Roll Call
2.(5
Minutes)
Approval of Agenda
3.(5
Minutes)
Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-7949 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of September 1, 2015.
B.AM-7968 Approval of reissued claim check #215953 dated August 31, 2015 for $13,930.96 and
claim checks #215954 through #216050 dated September 3, 2015 for $2,643,201.84.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61766 through #61778 for $488,100.38,
benefit checks #61779 through #61786 and wire payments of $451,640.24 for the pay
period August 16, 2015 through August 31, 2015.
4.(45
Minutes)
Discussion with the Economic Development Commission
5.
Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
6.STUDY ITEMS
A.(20
Minutes)
AM-7901
Amending ECC 8.48, adding Columbus Day as a Holiday for Parking Enforcement
B.(10
Minutes)
AM-7975
Report on final construction costs for the Annual Sewer Replacement Project - Phase 2
C.(10
Minutes)
AM-7965
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
D.(10
Minutes)
AM-7966
Presentation of a Settlement, Release of Liability, and Easement Agreement – 9232 183rd Place SW.
E.(60
Minutes)
AM-7969
Introduction of Planning Board Recommendation on Critical Area Regulations
F.(10
Minutes)
AM-7967
Presentation of an Agreement with Quiet Zone Technologies for the Wayside Horn project
G.(5 Minutes)
AM-7964
2015-2017 Teamsters collective bargaining agreement (contract)
7.(5
Minutes)
Mayor's Comments
8.(15
Minutes)
Council Comments
9.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
10.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
AM-7949 3. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/08/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of September 1, 2015.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes.
Attachments
City Council 9/1/2015 Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 08/19/2015 10:12 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/19/2015
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 1, 2015
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Ari Girouard, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Sharon Cates, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Earling read a statement into the record. “Last week during the City Council meeting, we had an
unfortunate incident when some of the audience members interrupted and disrupted the Council meeting
with various comments and gestures. Such actions are simply not acceptable. With that in mind I want to
quote from RCW 9A.84.030 Disorderly conduct. “A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if a person
intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority.” We know that
Council meetings are public meetings for the City Council and the public with an agenda which includes
various opportunities for public input such as regularly scheduled public comment periods, comment
periods in public hearing, and/or scheduled comment periods on specific additional agenda items. The
Council values comments from the public; however, we cannot allow a speaker to hijack the proceedings.
Public comment is welcomed and encouraged at appropriate times, disruption is not. Beyond the public
comment opportunities, the meeting is for the City Council to hear information from staff and consultants
as well as discuss issues amongst themselves on the dais including and leading to decisions. Because of
unfortunate incident a week ago, I have ordered the police department to be at City Council meetings for
the foreseeable future. Disruptions such as last week will not be tolerated. Disruptions similar to last week
will lead to a warning followed by ejection from the meeting following that second interruption. Edmonds
expects and deserves civil discourse. Yes, we’ve had some recent difficult issues before the Council with
emotional comments from both cities and Council. However, outbursts such as we had last week will not
be allowed.”
1.ROLL CALL
Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present.
Introduction of New Student Representative
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 2
Council President Fraley-Monillas introduced the new Student Representative Ferrari (Ari) Gerrard, a
senior at Edmonds-Woodway High School. Ms. Gerrard described her background and interests which
include serving as senior class president and softball.
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3.APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 3A be removed from the agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
B.APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #215859 THROUGH #215952 DATED AUGUST 27,
2015 FOR $1,187,259.57. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECK #61765 FOR $102.60 FOR
THE PAY PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2015 THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2015
ITEM A:APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2015
Councilmember Buckshnis will abstain from the vote as she was absent from the meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM A. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS AND NELSON ABSTAINING.
4.AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Scott Blomenkamp, Edmonds, referred to an email he sent the City Council, stating the Council may not
have previously been aware that under ECDC 20.07.005 Procedure for Closed Record Decisions, the
Council had the ability to address most of the concerns citizens had during the closed record review of the
Woodway fields. No testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the City Council except, 1) new
information required to rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte communication provided
during an appearance of fairness disclosure; and 2) relevant information that, in the opinion of the city
council, was improperly excluded by the hearing body/officer. Next, he apologized for his part in
contributing to the discord last Tuesday and offered no excuses. He requested the Council reflect on what
would motivate the father of 7 year-old son, a person who is not a political activist, is not comfortable
with public speaking and who has many other things to do to come to nearly every City Council, Tree
Board, ADB and other local meetings.
Alicia Crank, Edmonds, said she watched last Tuesday’s City Council meeting from home and
abandoned a project she was working on when she saw the breakdown of communication about
telephonic ruling and whether a resolution existed. She searched Edmonds’ and other cities’ online
archives to see what their policies were. The resolution couldn’t be found by staff and a great deal of
discord occurred regarding what should happen. She did not think Councilmembers served to argue and
figure out what to do and the right protocol. It was later discovered work had been done with regard to
telephonic participation in 2013 but was not pursued to conclusion. Since that work was done, the
resolution should have been scheduled on tonight’s agenda for a decision. She summarized this was an
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 3
easy fix and she implored the Council to ensure the next agenda included that easy fix to avoid future
discord or a judgment with regard to a Councilmember’s participation.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, referred to the Puget Sound Starts Here bumper stickers on City vehicles
throughout Edmonds and a banner proclaiming Nothing But Rain Down Storm Drains. She googled that
statement and found it came from the Washington Department of Ecology. The site includes a publication
entitled Reducing Toxic Threats which states much of the pollution that enters our environment comes
from the small but steady releases of toxic chemicals contained in everyday products. Some toxic
chemicals impair development, some affect reproduction, some disrupt our body chemistry, and some
cause cancer. Ecology's Reducing Toxic Threats initiative focuses on identifying priority toxic chemicals
and developing plans to reduce or eliminate their use, or to mitigate their impacts on people and the
environment. It includes developing Chemical Action Plans, supporting a strong toxics policy and
protecting Washington’s children. Washington’s Children’s Safe Product Act is one of the most
progressive in the county thanks to the efforts of Senator Chase and others. The Act requires
manufacturers of children's products sold in Washington to report if their product contains a chemical of
high concern to children and limits the amount of lead, cadmium, and phthalates allowed in children's
products.
Ms. Johnson continued, the Puget Sound Toxics Assessment lists 17 toxic chemicals and chemical groups
and the harmful effects of the toxic chemicals on the environmental health of Puget Sound. The sources of
these chemicals, the pathways they travel to reach Puget Sound such as surface water runoff and priorities
for actions to reduce and control pollution. She cited ways to reduce toxic threats, avoid using toxic
chemicals; prevention is the smartest, cheapest and healthiest approach. Cleanup is the most costly
solution but it is necessary where contamination has occurred. One example would be the Unocal cleanup
site. The best way to reduce toxic threats is to prevent contamination in the first place by limiting the
many sources of toxic chemicals. This includes making informed choices about household products,
keeping pollutants out of storm drains, actively supporting community organizations that work to clean up
water and insisting that elected officials make reducing toxic threats a priority. She questioned whether
the unnecessary and avoidable pollutants would be avoided now or cleaned up later. She asked the
Council to place a stop work order and review the permits especially those that affect human and
environmental health.
Christi Davis, Brier, PhD, referred to the results of a testing done on a sample of crumb rubber installed
under the plastic grass at the fields at the former Woodway High School. Zinc is present in sample at
20,000 parts per million which is consistent with the levels reported in the other samples of field turf with
crumb rubber contained in Gradient’s report to Verdant Health Commission earlier this year. She offered
to email the Council the report. The high zinc level would not be a problem if the zinc stayed in the crumb
rubber but it does not. A well-known study by Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection
collected a total of eight stormwater samples from three different artificial turf fields. In three samples,
one from each field, there were zinc levels high enough to be toxic to aquatic life. Fish were placed in 2
of the stormwater samples for 96 hours and over half died. The crumb rubber also contains numerous
other petrochemicals because crumb rubber is made from petroleum. The turf itself contains phthalates
which makes the plastic grass less abrasive; phthalates fall under the Children’s Safe Product Act. These
chemicals will end up in the waterways, fish people eat and the sea life people consider part of the natural
environment and an essential part of the Pacific Northwest. She found it inexplicable that while the City
boasts of its participation in a program to clean up the Unocal site and is spending thousands of federal
dollars to do it, at the same time is dumping the exact same chemicals on the old Woodway fields and not
even requiring Edmonds School District (ESD) to conform to the 2014 sewer and stormwater regulations.
She questioned whether the entities involved just pretend to care about children and Puget Sound and why
they were polluting the fields and giving them to children to play on.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 4
Kortney Hamilton, Edmonds, read an expert from an online permit site, Section 4, page 6, minimum
requirement #8, The City acknowledges that under the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington, turf fields such as the ones proposed for this project are not called out as
pollution generating impervious substance (PGIS). The 2012 version does clarify that synthetic turf is a
PGIS. The City has potential liability from zinc containing runoff entering its stormwater system
especially in this particular situation where the discharge from the City’s stormwater system will go
directly into Deer Creek, a drinking water source for Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Under the
circumstances, the City will require treatment of the discharge from the proposed field prior to
discharging to the City’s stormwater system. The City would approve a system that just has the sand filter
vault without the media filter. She found it tragic that the City would approve the bare minimum that
mitigated its liability. She called for a stop work order and review of the permits.
Isaac Carrigan, Edmonds, said please don’t put this field in. He loves Puget Sound, marine life, eagles,
the fish, the oysters, the crabs and all marine life. He said he was thankful for freedom.
Jen Carrigan, Edmonds, commented the Council has heard from citizens week after week about many
layers of concern with the project. She asked the Council to place an immediate stop work order while the
permits and codes are reviewed and to not sign the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) until the issues of concern
are addressed.
Cassie Goforth, Edmonds, a mother, trained as a social worker and former teacher, expressed concern
about the decision to put carcinogenic chemicals into a field where many children play and many of the
community’s sports teams play as well as the health of the greater environment. She was concerned such
a decision may be illegal under the Children’s Safe Product Act because artificial turf and crumb rubber
contain elements named in the act such as phthalates, benzene and others. She requested the Council place
a stop work order while the permits are reviewed and the legality and liability is reviewed and not to sign
an ILA until the legality clarified. She believed it would be much cheaper to do that rather than have it
declared illegal after installation and then removed. She was also dismayed by the process and found it
difficult to understand how the School District made this decision in the first place or how it was
approved. She felt there was still time to do the right thing. Many of her neighbors and citizens of
Edmonds would be proud to see the right decision made.
Cliff Sanderlin, Edmonds, said the City, Edmonds School District and Verdant Health Commission
were spending citizens’ tax dollars but citizens have had no input on the decision to spend their tax dollars
on something they know was wrong. He was not speaking only about the immediate neighbors of the
sports fields as concern has been expressed by many, including people at the University of Washington,
scientists around the state and most importantly Senator Marilyn Chase. Senator Chase is very well
informed about issues affecting children and children’s health and has sponsored important legislation. He
urged the Council to listen carefully to what she has to say. Next, if a group of people have a concern and
the Council agrees, he asked how that was enacted by the City, whether Council decisions were filtered
through the Mayor and then to administrative staff. As a community member speaking about issues in the
past that affected his immediate community, he felt his concerns were discounted and the administrative
staff felt they were a pain in the neck and if they waited long enough they would burnout and go away. He
said he burned out and went away for a long time but now was back.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, said he has not heard whether the agreement between the School District and the
City for ballfields has expired. He recalled two weeks ago there were plans to discuss a 60-90 day
extension with the School District.
Senator Marilyn Chase said she watched last week’s Council meeting, and suggested temperatures be
lowered and the issue at hand be address. She has been followed this issue carefully and recently found
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 5
new information on the internet which she provided to the Council. In May the Chairman of the
Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), Elliott Kaye, testified before Congress, saying he was
sorry that in 2009 the Commission said these fields were safe to play on. He said it was a political
decision, the science was not there and the staff at the time did not even follow and agree with that. When
the Commission said safe to play on, that meant something to parents they did not intend to convey or
should have conveyed. Congress directed CPSC to establish a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel to make
recommendations to the Commission about products and chemicals. They issued a ruling in December
and once adopted will take effect 180 days after, banning some phthalates because they are endocrine
disruptors which can cause reproductive problems in children. The American Chemistry Council did not
argue against the findings but the process. She assured it will move forward and every manufacturer of
children’s products will be required to submit to strict testing to determine what chemicals are in their
products. Exxon Mobile who is behind the synthetic turf is one of their chief critics. She summarized the
science is in, the question has been answered. She provided copies for Council and offered to discuss it
further.
David Anderson, PhD in Toxicology from the University of Washington, said he made a presentation to
the Council on July 21, 2015 regarding information not in the materials provided to the Council about
crumb rubber or other alternatives. He referred to documentation he has since located on the internet
regarding alternatives such as Geo Turf including a spreadsheet in the preliminary results of a recently
published Yale report of what is in crumb rubber and their affects. Their summary found 96 chemicals in
crumb rubber and 14 samples analyzed. Of the 96 chemicals 47% have no toxicity assessments; 51% had
some toxicity but of the 49, 10% are probably carcinogens and the others are irritants. He provided a
supplement to a scientific medical publication, Carcinogenesis, whose concern is the potential for
chemical mixtures from the environment to enable the cancer hallmark of sustained proliferative
signaling. He summarized this is an international issues; 24 authors from many nations are discussing this
issue.
Maggie Pinson, Edmonds, commented the Council has heard from impassioned citizens about protecting
children, that children should not be exposed to carcinogens, toxic heavy metals or other toxins,
particularly when there are choices. The Council has heard citizens describe their love of Edmonds and
their impassioned desire to keep Edmonds clean, healthy and safe. Senator Chase has spoken about
phthalates present in crumb rubber and the plastic blades of synthetic turf grass. The Children’s Safe
Product Act lists specific phthalates that children need to be protected from; phthalates are often
endocrine disrupting chemicals. Endocrine disruptors are thought to be blamed for the worldwide
epidemic of Type II diabetes, obesity, reproductive, neurological and many other problems. Only the
Council is in position to make a difference tonight. Only the Council can take the next, necessary and
right step. She requested the Council do the right thing, place an immediate stop work order on the
installation of the synthetic crumb rubber on the Woodway fields as review of the permits, legal issues
and health issues must be undertaken. She also requested the Council not sign the ILA.
Trudy Biolick, Edmonds, a resident within 300 feet of fields, said she signed a letter that has been
provided to the City Council. She was disappointed to learn that installation of lights has occurred after
they were told they would not be. She did not understand how that process was diverted, assuming it was
not meant to be caught. She did not understand the motivation for continuing with crumb rubber. She
described her previous experience with an industrial hygienist in the ESD in the late ‘90s when she
proposed eliminating the use of high hazard pesticides on school building when children were present and
the industrial hygienist said it was effectively okay. The pesticides had already been banned for home use
but could be used for agriculture and in some commercial locations. That experience caused her to
wonder how much of a corporate apologist was involved versus the facts. She had not followed the
money but wondered where the money was that cause people to adhere to this position. As a skeptic and a
resident, she did not understanding adhering to this position. She urged the Council to place a stop work
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 6
order, noting work has already occurred that should not have occurred. She did not understand what
would prevent the Council from unanimously supporting a stop work order and the use of a more
appropriate infill material.
Deb Harrett expressed support for the Council considering a stop work order on the fields. She loves
Edmonds, the world, and children and wants everyone to be safe and healthy. She urged the Council to do
something about this and make a difference for Edmonds and the world.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Mesaros being cut off last week when Mayor
Earling illegally closed the meeting and suggested Council President Fraley-Monillas should have taken
over the meeting so that Councilmember Mesaros could finish his statement and Councilmember Johnson
could also speak. Next, he said if the Council did not sign the ILA, the City would not have to schedule
play on the toxic field. Although that would impact sports teams, it may save a few lives. The Mayor can
instruct staff not to schedule play on the fields; the best way would be for the Council not to sign the ILA.
He relayed the public is losing faith in national as well as local government. With regard to the comment,
follow the law, he said it relates not only to crumb rubber but other issues. He suggested the Council take
a stand and not sign the ILA since they are all against crumb rubber. The Council should also consider
changing the building code to not allow crumb rubber on any fields in Edmonds. The result would be two
non-conforming fields and any new fields would not be crumb rubber. He disagreed the Council did not
have the ability to take action.
Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, PhD, said she is involved in an environmental law and policy program and
today started a new course regarding science in environmental law and policy, noting this may be a good
project for the course to study. She expressed support for stopping work while further research is done.
The emphasis should not be the ESD or City saving face but doing the right thing. Edmonds is so
wonderful and she is proud to say she is from Edmonds, is proud of the plastic bag ban. A recent
newspaper article in the Beacon said the parents and community who oppose crumb rubber are on a
tirade. She relayed the meaning of tirade, a declamatory strain or flight of censor or abuse, a rambling
invective, an oration or harangue abounding in censorious and bitter language. She said the citizens who
care about the community and their children should not be looked down upon; they should be given
respect while they are learning. Everyone is learning about the science and there should be time given to
learn about what is being done and to be sure about what is being done. She supported a stop work order,
considering how much money has been spent and will be spent for possibly a very bad cause.
Andy Perry, Edmonds, a doctor at Community Health Center of Snohomish County in Edmonds,
referred to the Children’s Safe Product Act, pointing out the chemicals in crumb rubber and grass of
artificial turf are known to be toxic, particularly phthalates in the turf which can be an endocrine
disruptor. He urged the Council to look into a stop work order to determine if the installation of the fields
is a violation of the Act. He also urged the Council not to sign the ILA.
Colin Southcote-Want, Edmonds, referred to the Children’s Safe Product Act, RCW 70.240, which
states products that fall under the Act are designed or intended by the manufacturer to be used by a child
at play. Clearly the fields fall under that Act. He referred to WAC 173-334 who provides details regarding
how the people who put down these fields need to report on their products. The introduction states under
the Children’s Safe Product Act, manufacturers of children’s products are required to notify the
Department of Ecology when a chemical of high concern to children is present in their product and
describes how that is done. A list of chemicals of high interest is contained in section173-334-130, a
minimum of 8 of the chemicals are known to be in crumb rubber so the field definitely falls under the
Children’s Safe Product Act. He described what a manufacturer must do: give notice to the Department of
Ecology and give details of the chemicals such as how much is in the product, why they are in the product
and other information. Under the WAC, the field is a tier 3 product; assuming this is a medium size
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 7
developer of fields, they need to have reported the chemical composition by August of this year. He asked
whether that had been done. If the City did not know whether they had reported the chemical
composition, the City has not done its due diligence. He requested a stop work order be issued and that
the Council not provide any funds for the fields until the due diligence is completed.
5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2016-2021 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss recalled staff presented the TIP to the Council on June 6, 2015.
Several changes were made to the document and a public hearing was held on July 7, 2015. The intent of
tonight’s agenda item is for the Council to adopt the TIP. He reviewed revisions to the TIP since the July
7 public hearing (highlighted in orange in the TIP document attached to the packet):
∑Five Corners Roundabout: project was added since work will take place in 2016 to complete the
project
∑Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers: expenditures for 2016 and 2017 have been
modified, in order to be consistent with up-coming Budget documents
∑238th St SW Walkway project from SR-104 to Hwy 99: project was added to the TIP so TIB
grant application can be submitted in August 2015 (requirement in order to be eligible for grant
funding)
∑Minor Sidewalk Program: project was added since Decision Package submitted for the addition
of this project in the 2016 Budget (through General Fund transfer)
∑Bike Link Project: expenditures for 2016 and 2017 have been modified to be consistent with up-
coming Budget documents
∑Edmonds Waterfront Analysis: project description revised to match City Council
recommendation from July 28, 2015 City Council meeting
In response to a Council question submitted prior to the meeting regarding page 2, he said that
information is related to the Hwy 99 & 220th project. In response to another Council question regarding
ellipsis in the description of the Bike Link project and the ferry storage improvement project, he
explained the ellipsis were used for the Bike Link project in lieu of listing all the improvements in the
project. The ellipses were used for the ferry storage project because it is a preliminary project and there
are potentially other solutions in addition to striping and C-curb.
Councilmember Petso referred to her question regarding project descriptions that contain ellipsis such as
bike improvements 212th, 76th … She questioned why she would approve the project when she did not
know what the project actually is and asked when will she learn what the project really is. Mr. Hauss
answered that project is in 30% design; all the stretches are pretty much finalized. The intent was to make
the description as short as possible; the main elements are on 212th and 76th and he did not feel it was
necessary to add the side streets. Councilmember Petso asked where bike lanes will be located on Main
Street. Mr. Hauss advised there likely would be sharrows on Bowdoin. Wayfinding signs will also be
added in some locations. If all the wayfinding signs were listed, the description would be very lengthy.
Councilmember Petso asked when Council would be informed what the whole project is and will there be
an opportunity to vote on the project. Public Works Director Phil Williams said that opportunity will be
created. There are a lot of lane miles and lineal footage that will be improved as part of the Bike Link
project in cooperation with other cities. It will include sharrows in some locations and dedicated bike
lanes in some locations. Those details are not yet resolved because the project is in early in design. As the
design phase moves forward, more will be learned and staff will keep the City Council updated.
Councilmember Petso sought a promise that Council and the public will be given an opportunity to
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 8
provide input on the final project before it is too late. Mr. Williams reiterated that opportunity can be
created when more is known.
Councilmember Petso noted the ferry storage improvement project also contains ellipsis rather than a
description of the project. She said people will not want ferry storage improvements to take away part of
City Park, the treatment plant or the marsh or to include construction of an 8-story parking garage. If the
project is approved in the TIP, she asked when the Council and the public will learn details of the project.
Mr. Williams assured staff would not pursue any of the things Councilmember Petso mentioned.
Including it in the TIP is authorization to research plausible, affordable solutions that do not have
secondary impacts which will then be presented to Council. Councilmember Petso asked for assurance
that there would be a public hearing and opportunity for Council and public input. Mr. Williams
explained a new TIP is adopted every year following a public hearing and Council review. He assured
there would be several opportunities for the council to provide input on TIP projects.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there was no funding for the ferry storage improvements until
2019 so she was not concerned. With regard to Bike Link project, she recalled the Council previously
reviewed that and this is just the funding for it. Mr. Hauss agreed, advising all the stretches were
identified in the Transportation Plan. There will be a couple open houses for the Bike Link project in the
new few months. Mr. Williams recalled the Council approved an ILA with Lynnwood for the Bike Link
project.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the projects highlighted in blue are new and were described in the
narrative. The projects highlighted in orange were added/revised since the July 7 public hearing; for
example, $10,000 for the Five Corners Roundabout to pay the contractor. She recalled the Council also
reviewed the minor sidewalk projects. Mr. Hauss agreed they were reviewed as part of the
Comprehensive Plan.
With regard to the Sunset Avenue Walkway, Councilmember Bloom said the Council has not made a
decision about what will be done, there have been concerns expressed about multi-use on the west side
such as whether pedestrians can safely negotiate with bicycles, skateboards and segways. She asked
whether “multi-use” could be removed from the description and added back if a decision was made to
have it be a multi-use pathway. Mr. Williams answered it has been part of the project description all
along. The efficacy is still being evaluated and at some point a decision will need to be made whether it
continues to be a multi-use pathway. If a decision is made not to have a multi-use pathway, multi-use
could be removed from the project description. He felt it odd to do it the other way around although it
could be done. The Council could take a vote to call the Sunset Walkway something else, indicating
bicycles would not be allowed and then add multi-use in the future. He was uncertain there was any
functional difference with leaving the description as multi-use path until a decision is made.
Councilmember Bloom referred to “various utility upgrades” in the description and asked whether those
depend on whether a multi-use path is constructed on the west side. For example, would various utility
upgrades be done if the survey results indicate the public prefers a modified smaller sidewalk on the west
side. Mr. Williams answered utility work is needed on Sunset whether or not a pathway is constructed.
The timing could vary as it would be desirable to coordinate it with other work on the street like a
pathway or street resurfacing. The replacement of the old water line, upgrading the stormwater system
and potentially some sewer projects are all independent of a walkway project. Staff would coordinate that
utility work with a walkway project.
Councilmember Petso observed a large number of items have been changed since the public hearing
including a couple changes since the Council last reviewed the TIP. She asked whether the changes were
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 9
significant enough to trigger another public hearing. Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s Office, said she had
not seen the changes but did not believe they would necessitate another public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE THE 2016-2021 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE SUNSET WALKWAY BACK TO A WALKWAY
PROJECT FROM A MULTI-USE PATH.
Councilmember Petso said there has been significant public concern with bicycles on the path on the west
side. This proposed change would also be consistent with policies adopted in Comprehensive
Transportation Plan. Further, it was also her understanding the walkway area does not meet the standards
for the recommend width of a multi-use pathway.
Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the amendment for the reasons Councilmember Petso
stated. The Council has heard enough from the public that a multi-use path could potentially be unsafe.
The fact that it does not meet the standard for a multi-use pathway is enough in itself to remove it from
the TIP.
Councilmember Mesaros inquired about the standards referred to by Councilmembers Petso and Bloom.
Mr. Williams answered he was not sure they would necessarily be called standards, they are more design
guidelines. It is true in most instances a 10-foot width would be preferable if there was enough space but
there were opportunities to reduce it to 8 feet if there was not enough space and other conditions exist.
There is not enough space for a 10-foot pathway and 2-foot clear distance from parking and still have
sufficient width in the narrowest part of the street. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the City
Council will have an opportunity to review the design. Mr. Williams answered yes. He referred to the
update provided to the Council last week regarding Sunset Avenue; the survey questions also addressed
the multi-use-nature of the proposed pathway.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if multi-use could be removed if a decision was made not to
make it multi-use. Mr. Williams answered certainly. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether it
would be difficult to get funding for a multi-use pathway if it was not in the TIP. Mr. Williams said the
project needs to be in TIP to be successful in identifying funding in future; that is true of every project.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the wording could be changed in the future if a decision is
made not to have it be multi-use. Mr. Williams answered that has been discussed a number of times in the
past; he has recommended leaving it as a multi-use path until the evaluation has been concluded and
determine how people feel about it and a decision made whether to continue as a multi-use pathway. With
that information, staff could go back to the funding agencies and explain why the project began as a
multi-use pathway and a decision made not to have it be multi-use. That would be a much better
conversation to have when funds have been spent in the design phase on a project described one way and
then changing it. A year’s experience, comments from citizens via the survey and Council comments will
facilitate that conversation.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM,
BUCKSHNIS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the Trackside Warning System at Dayton Street and Main Street
Railroad Crossings, advising $300,000 is proposed to be spent from local and General Fund in 2016.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 10
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO SHIFT $300,000 FOR THE TRACKSIDE WARNING SYSTEM AT
DAYTON STREET AND MAIN STREET RAILROAD CROSSINGS FROM 2016 TO 2017.
Councilmember Johnson recognized this is an important project particularly for those impacted by the
noise from the trains. She supported the amendment for the following reasons:
1. Last year a citizen group proposed a quiet zone or trackside warning system to reduce train noise.
At that time a Local Improvement District (LID) was proposed to pay for the improvements.
Waiting a year would allow the City to pursue that funding options.
2. This project can be coordinated with the study being commenced for the Main and Dayton Street
conflicts with the railroad crossing. Waiting one year will ensure this project does not precede
that study.
3. If the City wants to spend $300,000 there are plenty of non-motorized projects that can be funded
in 2016, all identified and prioritized in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. She is a strong supporter of transportation projects, and this minor change makes sense.
Councilmember Petso said she will vote against the amendment and leave the Trackside Warning System
in the TIP because it is such a big quality of life issue for so many people in the downtown area and will
greatly reduce the number of people who are bothered by train noise. She recognized it had a temporary
duration; at some point a solution may be identified that does not require train horns to sound through
downtown but she was uncertain whether that solution would be realized in 2 years or 20 years. She
preferred to fund the project for the benefits that can be realized at this time. Mayor Earling responded a
permanent solution was closer to 20 years away.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the at-grade crossing issue likely will not resolved for at least
10 years and delaying the project would result in increased costs. She will vote against amendment.
Mayor Earling reported $50,000 was included in the budget and is being spent on that project this year.
There are frequent inquiries to City Hall about the progress of this project. Although it does not have as
much notoriety as crumb rubber, a lot of community members are interested in this project moving
forward. It is included in the 2016 budget at this point.
Councilmember Bloom appreciated Councilmember Johnson’s careful consideration and rationale. She
did not support the amendment for the reasons stated and she had no interest in pursuing a LID to fund
the Trackside Warning System as it should be funded by the City and not the people who live closest to
the train horns. Everyone benefits from less train noise including visitors.
AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING YES.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6.PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
A.JULY 2015 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Finance Director Scott James displayed and reviewed July 2015 Revenue Summary – General Fund
Types without bond proceeds. He displayed a comparison of General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual,
highlighting taxes:
General Fund Resource Category YTD Actual
7/31/2014 7/31/2015 % Change
Taxes
Property Taxes 7,364,006 7,671,011 4.2%
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 11
Sales Tax 3,276,565 3,704,663 13.1%
Utility Tax 4,062,923 4,003,331 -1.5%
Other Taxes 495,733 518,207 4.5%
Total Taxes 15,199,227 15,897,212 4.6%
Licenses & Permits
Business Licenses & Misc Permits 158,224 150,615 -4.8%
Franchise Fees 810,635 815,439 0.6^
Development Related Permits 378,970 426,341 12.5%
Total Licenses & Permits 1,347,829 1,392,395 3.3%
With regard to why utility tax revenues are not higher when the City approved a rate increase, he
explained many utilities are weather dependent and the need for electricity and gas decreases in mild
weather. He reviewed a pie chart of Sales Tax Analysis by Category July 2015 YTD, pointing out retail
automotive is the major source of sales tax revenue followed by contractors. He displayed a bar graph of
Change in Sales Tax Revenue July 2015 compared to July, pointing out contractors had the largest gain,
$302,000 over the same period in 2014.
Mr. James reviewed July 2015 Expense Summary – General Funds, noting an increase of 3.1% due to
higher payments to Fire District 1. He reviewed a General Fund Department Expense Summary,
commenting expenses YTD are 55% of budget; July 31 is 58% through the year.
He reviewed a graph of Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues 2009-2014, advising 2015 REET
revenues are 45.9% higher than the same period last year. He reviewed Utility Fund Revenue
Comparison, advising of an increase of $431,000 over 2014, primarily due to increased sales. Utility Fund
Expense Comparison shows a small increase of $474,000.
Councilmember Nelson asked the amount projected for REET revenues. Mr. James advised he did not
have that information with him. REET revenues are up 45% compared to 2014.
7.MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported he had an opportunity to meet new grandson, Liam Earl Morrison III, last
weekend in Arizona and was able to watch the Seahawk game on Saturday night.
Mayor Earling reported good progress is being made on the 2016 budget and the budget will be presented
to the Council in early October.
With regard to the windstorm on Saturday, Mayor Earling thanked Public Works and Public Safety staffs
for quickly responding to solve problems with downed trees and limbs. In that circumstance, calls are
made to staff and many responded.
8.COUNCIL COMMENTS
Student Representative Girouard asked what ferry storage meant whether it was the area where ferry
traffic waited. Mayor Earling advised that project is not funded until 2019, ample time to have any
questions answered.
In response to Student Representative Girouard’s question, Councilmember Johnson said it was part of
the SR 104 study; the idea was what could be done with current configuration to add another lane of ferry
storage. One option would be to reduce the number of lanes eastbound; further research is needed. She
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 12
assured it does not involve 8-story buildings, moving the treatment plant or impacts to City Park or the
marsh or any other ideas suggested by Councilmember Petso.
Councilmember Petso found that quite reassuring. She requested the resolution regarding Councilmember
participation by speaker phone be added to the agenda of an upcoming work session.
Councilmember Petso observed there were repeated requests tonight during Audience Comments for a
stop work order. She asked how that was done and whether it was something the Council could direct or
was it something done by administration. Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s Office, responded she needed
more information about the status of the Interlocal Agreement (ILA). It was her understanding the ILA
with the Edmonds School District (ESD) had not yet been adopted. Even if the ILA had been adopted, it
was the ESD’s property and the City intends to contribute funds toward the field improvements but not be
involved in the construction of the improvements. Therefore, it was her understanding there was no stop
work order that could come from the City.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding of Ms. Cates’ explanation that the City did not have
jurisdiction to stop work on the project. Ms. Cates said that was her understanding but she could research
to ensure she was answering Councilmember Petso’s question correctly. Councilmember Petso said she
would appreciate knowing whether the City had that power and if so whether it was Council power,
administration power and what would trigger the power. For example, she has been told there are
potential violations of the Children’s Safe Products Act.
Councilmember Petso said she obtained the answer to the following question from City Attorney Jeff
Taraday but he suggested she ask it in open session so it was not attorney-client privilege. She asked
whether the Council has the authority to ban crumb rubber fields on public property in Edmonds. Ms.
Cates said she did not know the answer. Councilmember Petso said if hypothetically the Council could by
passing an ordinance, would it need to go through the Planning Board or could it be done by Council. Ms.
Cates said she would need to research that.
Councilmember Petso recalled a citizen stated the company doing the field work may be in violation of
the disclosure requirements of the Children’s Safe Product Acts. She asked whether that was the City’s
responsibility to determine or was that the Department of Ecology’s responsibility. Ms. Cates responded
if that was related to the decision to use crumb rubber in the Woodway fields project, her understanding
was the City does not have authority over the project construction. The ILA contemplates the contribution
of money to the project but not control over the project. It would be the ESD’s responsibility to take up
that issue.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Councilmember Petso's question whether the City has the authority
to ban crumb rubber on public property, and asked if the City has the authority ban crumb rubber within
the City’s jurisdiction. Ms. Cates said she would need to research that as well. Councilmember Mesaros
pointed out the fields are ESD property, not public property.
Councilmember Bloom asked why the ESD property was considered private property when every
taxpaying member of the community pays taxes to the school district and there were public schools
located on the property. Ms. Cates answered she was uncertain it was considered private property; it is
considered school district property which is handled differently than public property. There are statutes
that provide for how school district property can be used and the school district’s responsibilities.
Councilmember Bloom commented everyone who owns private property is regulated by City laws. For
example, if a person was doing something that was not in accordance with the law and created hazard.
The Council and three surrounding citizens have asked for a review of the permits. If that were done for a
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 13
private property, she asked who is responsible for stopping work on the project to allow time to address
concerns. Ms. Cates asked for clarification, whether Councilmember Bloom was referring to a project on
private property. Councilmember Bloom answered yes, three surrounding property owners and the
Council asked for a permit review and there were concerns about hazards for example someone dumping
toxic waste on their property. Ms. Cates explained a stop work order is issued by the governing authority;
if it is on private property, the property owner tells the contractor to stop. She was certain there were
procedures for private citizens to question what occurs on private property but she would need to research
it. Councilmember Bloom asked whether administration was responsible for enforcement on private
property. Ms. Cates said she would need to research the procedures for addressing questionable projects
on private property.
Councilmember Nelson echoed Councilmember Petso’s request to schedule the resolution supporting
Councilmember’s participation by phone. He commended the efforts of Public Works, Public Safety and
PUD staffs and citizens during the power outage following Saturday’s storm.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the citizens who contacted her, agreeing it was her right to call in and
participate in last week’s meeting. She relayed she likely would have voted in favor of reviewing the
permits despite the fact that a Councilmember thinks they know how she thinks. She found the disrespect
at last week’s meeting very unfortunate.
With regard to the stop work order, Council President Fraley-Monillas said the minutes of last week’s
meeting reflect Mr. Taraday’s statement that the Council cannot file a stop work order. She was able to
watch the Seahawks game from Whistler Canada. She returned last night and was very appreciative the
power was restored before she returned.
With regard to the ability for Councilmembers to call in, Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed it was
important to establish whether Councilmembers could call in. She believed last week had nothing to do
with the resolution; the City Attorney indicated the Council had the ability to allow Councilmember
Buckshnis to call in. Mayor Earling ruled on it, indicating he found it reasonable for Councilmember
Buckshnis to call in. His ruling was overturned by Councilmembers Bloom, Petso and Johnson. More
than 15 times since she has served on Council, Councilmembers have been allowed to call in without a
resolution. She, Councilmember Buckshnis, and almost every Councilmember who served on the Council
has been able to call in without a resolution in place. She found that smoke and mirrors from those who
want citizens to believe it was strictly related to the resolution.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmembers have been allowed to call in and participate
during the six years she has served on Council. When asked about it, Councilmember Bloom indicated
she did not want Councilmember Buckshnis to participate because it would result in a tie vote. This is an
insult to democracy as we know it because Councilmembers Bloom, Johnson and Petso voted to not allow
Councilmember Buckshnis to participate in a meeting when Councilmembers have always been allowed
to voluntarily participate by phone. What occurred last week was related to Councilmembers’ views on
what was occurring at the Council meeting and not democracy. She summarized it was nothing new for a
Councilmember to call in; this had to do with blocking Councilmember Buckshnis’ democracy, her rights
as a Councilmember. She was happy to schedule the resolution that former Councilmember Peterson and
she developed if that helped Councilmembers feel better about what they did but they should be ashamed
that what they did hurt the City as a whole.
Councilmember Bloom asked to respond. Mayor Earling agreed as long as it was a brief response.
Councilmember Bloom said the Council does not function on precedence, it functions on the law and on
established procedures. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Councilmember Bloom to show her the
law. Councilmember Bloom said the law is the Council adopted Robert’s Rules which state a
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 1, 2015
Page 14
Councilmember cannot participate by phone unless a procedure is established. Council President Fraley-
Monillas pointed out the City Attorney said a Councilmember could. Councilmember Bloom reiterated
Council should not function on precedent; a resolution was established because there was not workable
procedure for calling in. The resolution was drafted but it was never voted on. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said it never came before Council. Mayor Earling requested Councilmember Bloom and Council
President Fraley-Monillas cease their discussion.
Councilmember Petso said she could not recall a Councilmember calling in after the Council’s adoption
of Robert’s Rules. The City Attorney stated last week that Robert’s Rules do not permit a Councilmember
to call in unless a process has been established. A Council committee comprised of Council President
Fraley-Monillas and former Councilmember Peterson forwarded it to full Council but that was not done
by Councilmember Buckshnis who was the Council President at that time. She recommended the Council
adopt the resolution and move on.
9.CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
10.RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
11.ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
AM-7968 3. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/08/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of reissued claim check #215953 dated August 31, 2015 for $13,930.96 and claim checks
#215954 through #216050 dated September 3, 2015 for $2,643,201.84.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61766 through #61778 for $488,100.38, benefit checks
#61779 through #61786 and wire payments of $451,640.24 for the pay period August 16, 2015 through
August 31, 2015.
Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
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:3,582,942.46
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $2,643,201.84
Claims reissued check $13,930.96
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $488,100.38
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $451,640.24
Total Payroll $939,740.62
Attachments
Attachments
claim cks 09-03-15
Project Numbers 09-03-15
Payroll Summary 09-04-15
Payroll Benefits 09-04-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 09/03/2015 02:47 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/03/2015 03:06 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/03/2015 03:08 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/03/2015 03:48 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 09/03/2015 10:23 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/03/2015
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215954 9/3/2015 075085 1LINGUA LLC 107 1LINGUA MONTHLY ONLINE SUBSCRIPTION
Monthly subscription fee July 2015
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 4.75
Total :54.75
215955 9/3/2015 072627 911 ETC INC 33826 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT
Monthly 911 database maint
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00
Total :100.00
215957 9/3/2015 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 13-25701 INTERPERTER
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 188.08
INTERPERTER13-25911
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 148.40
INTERPERTER15-28769
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 164.50
INTERPERTER15-28780
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 149.55
INTERPERTER15-29050
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 163.93
INTERPERTER15-29140
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 142.65
INTERPERTER15-29389
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 159.33
INTERPERTER15-29475
interperter
1Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215957 9/3/2015 (Continued)070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 162.78
INTERPERTER15-29477
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 164.50
INTERPERTER15-29589
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 208.53
INTERPERTER15-29849
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 164.50
INTERPERTER15-29990
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 148.40
INTERPERTER15-29995
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 149.55
INTERPERTER15-29996
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 144.38
INTERPERTER15-30072
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 155.30
INTERPERTER15-30367
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 177.73
INTERPERTER15-30368
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 137.48
INTERPERTER15-30662
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 159.78
INTERPERTER15-30778
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 137.48
INTERPERTER15-30802
2Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215957 9/3/2015 (Continued)070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 229.50
INTERPERTER15-30862
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 137.48
INTERPERTER15-30868
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 177.15
INTERPERTER15-30924
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 154.15
INTERPERTER15-30937
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 150.13
INTERPERTER15-30991
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 144.38
INTERPERTER15-30993
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 138.05
INTERPERTER15-30994
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 142.65
INTERPERTER15-31083
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 164.50
INTERPERTER15-31165
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 161.20
INTERPERTER15-31213
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 176.58
INTERPERTER15-31364
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 155.00
3Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215957 9/3/2015 (Continued)070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
INTERPERTER15-31505
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 143.23
INTERPERTER15-31515
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 137.48
INTERPERTER15-31566
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 221.75
INTERPERTER15-31571
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 197.85
INTERPERTER15-31631
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 137.48
INTERPERTER15-31671
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 147.83
INTERPERTER15-31744
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 176.58
INTERPERTER15-31821
Interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 197.28
INTERPERTER15-31856
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 155.88
INTERPERTER15-31898
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 150.70
INTERPERTER15-31963
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 176.58
INTERPERTER15-32130
interperter
4Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215957 9/3/2015 (Continued)070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 137.48
INTERPERTER15-32131
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 137.48
INTERPERTER15-32386
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 151.85
INTERPERTER15-32440
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 176.58
INTERPERTER15-32565
interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 158.75
Total :7,562.40
215958 9/3/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 354588 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 82.12
WWTP - PEST CONTROL354749
August Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94
Total :162.06
215959 9/3/2015 001528 AM TEST INC 87954 WWTP - LABORATORY TESTING
Volatiles, grease and dichlorobenzene
423.000.76.535.80.41.31 250.00
Total :250.00
215960 9/3/2015 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 9378 YOST POOL SUPPLIES: CAL HYPO, THIOTRINE,
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: CAL HYPO,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 603.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 57.34
5Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :660.842159609/3/2015 074718 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC
215961 9/3/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988186199 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS
mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 76.74
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.29
uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE AND RUIN1988186200
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE AND RUIN
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 113.13
Total :201.32
215962 9/3/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 82215 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing /
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 89.37
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing /
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 89.37
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing /
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 92.07
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 333.76
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 333.76
9.6% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.58
9.6% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.58
9.6% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.84
Total :964.33
215963 9/3/2015 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 39746 ROUGH BOX-ROMERO
6Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215963 9/3/2015 (Continued)001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
ROUGH BOX-ROMERO
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 430.00
Total :430.00
215964 9/3/2015 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 85571 SENIOR SOFTBALL ENGRAVING ON PLAQUE
SENIOR SOFTBALL ENGRAVING ON PLAQUE
001.000.64.571.25.31.00 12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00 1.14
Total :13.14
215965 9/3/2015 074640 B2C PUBLISHING 2320 TOURISM AD FOR BIRD FEST SEPTEMBER 2015
Tourism Promotion ad for Bird Fest in
120.000.31.575.42.41.40 625.00
Total :625.00
215966 9/3/2015 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 639 Annual Maintenance Fee Permit Trax
Annual Maintenance Fee Permit Trax
001.000.62.524.10.41.00 6,570.00
Total :6,570.00
215967 9/3/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 16142 INV#16142 - EDMONDS PD - GAGNER
JUMPSUIT W/ITEMS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 515.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 48.93
INV#16253 - EDMONDS PD - GAGNER16253
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.00
EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.30
L/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.00
7Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :740.232159679/3/2015 067391 067391 BRAT WEAR
215968 9/3/2015 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 19924 YOGA 19924 YOGA INSTRUCTION
19924 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 191.88
20531 YOGA INSTRUCTION20531 YOGA
20531 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 43.20
20532 PILATES YOGA FUSION INSTRUCTION20532 PILATES YOGA
20532 PILATES YOGA FUSION INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 19.36
Total :254.44
215969 9/3/2015 075278 BURNS, HOUSTON 8/6-8/27 FIELD ATTEN 8/6-8/27/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
8/6-8/27/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 175.00
Total :175.00
215970 9/3/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 15221636 WWTP - COPIER RENTAL
Copier Rental - August 2015
423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80
CANON LEASE CHARGES15222813
Canon lease pmt for C5051
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35
Canon lease pmt for C5051
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35
Canon lease pmt for C5051
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91
Total :359.54
8Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215971 9/3/2015 073221 CELLMARK FORENSICS INC 010-058883 INV#010-058883 - EDMONDS PD
EVIDENCE TEST #14-2493
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 245.00
Total :245.00
215972 9/3/2015 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 2015 #2 NARCOTICS BUY FUND - EDMONDS 2015 #2
NARCOTICS BUY FUND - 2015 #2
104.100.41.521.21.49.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
215973 9/3/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2799813A PM LINERS
PM LINERS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,022.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 97.18
PM LINERSNCW2799813
PM LINERS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -927.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -88.12
Total :104.35
215974 9/3/2015 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING AUG 2015 DRY CLEANING JULY/AUG 2015 - EDMONDS PD
CLEANING/LAUNDRY JULY/AUG '15
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 512.61
Total :512.61
215975 9/3/2015 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100159918 WWTP - AUGUST JANITORIAL
August 1-31
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 514.00
Total :514.00
215976 9/3/2015 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E4JB.Pmt 2 E4JB.PMT 2 THRU 7/31/15 (BOND FUNDED)
E4JB.Pmt 2 thru 7/31/15 (Bond Funded)
421.200.74.594.34.65.00 339,448.37
E4JB.Ret 2
9Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215976 9/3/2015 (Continued)069529 D & G BACKHOE INC
421.200.223.400 -15,499.93
Total :323,948.44
215977 9/3/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3586 02/03/15 & 08/18/15 TRANSPORTATION BENEF
02/03/15 & 08/18/15 TRANSPORTATION
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 85.80
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 08/25/1515-3588
08/25/2015 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AND
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 313.50
Total :399.30
215978 9/3/2015 075209 DOUGLAS, DAVID 8/25 HMP SHED 8/25/15 HMP CONCERT SHED
8/25/15 HMP CONCERT SHED
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 150.00
Total :150.00
215979 9/3/2015 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 140940 Reimburse Hydrant Deposit
Reimburse Hydrant Deposit
421.000.245.110 650.00
Total :650.00
215980 9/3/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 7-05276 CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 15TH ST SW /
CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 15TH ST SW /
130.000.64.536.50.47.00 147.42
Total :147.42
215981 9/3/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH652415 Legal Description: Public Hearing for
Legal Description: Public Hearing for
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 84.28
Legal Description: GBH Holdings LLCEDH652451
Legal Description: GBH Holdings LLC
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 84.28
Legal Description: RDJ Group LLC,EDH654131
Legal Description: RDJ Group LLC,
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 73.96
Legal Description: Select Homes Inc.EDH654171
10Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215981 9/3/2015 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
Legal Description: Select Homes Inc.
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 89.44
Total :331.96
215982 9/3/2015 009880 FEDEX 5-127-95826 E3DB/E4CD - SHIPPING CHARGES
E3DB.Shipping Specs to Contractor for
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 37.39
E4CD.Shipping Specs to Contractor for
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 36.87
Total :74.26
215983 9/3/2015 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 08312015 PUBLIC DEFENDERS MONTHLY CONTRACT FEE
Public Defender Monthly fee
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 20,000.00
Total :20,000.00
215984 9/3/2015 072453 FIRST CLASS CARPET SERVICE 0645 RM 207 CARPETS CLEANED
RM 207 CARPETS CLEANED
001.000.64.571.28.41.00 229.00
Total :229.00
215985 9/3/2015 075393 FITCH & ASSOCIATES LLC 15-8133-01 PHASE 1 INITIAL MEETING FIRE DISTRICT CO
Consultant Professional Services -
001.000.39.513.10.41.00 4,500.00
Total :4,500.00
215986 9/3/2015 010665 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 40232-49 W/S REVENUE BONDS 2015 LEGAL SERVICE BON
Legal services and disbursements as
422.200.72.592.31.84.00 11,320.00
Legal services and disbursements as
421.200.74.592.34.84.00 17,149.80
Legal services and disbursements as
423.200.75.592.35.84.00 28,130.20
Total :56,600.00
215987 9/3/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE
11Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215987 9/3/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.23
WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256
WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 223.48
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 112.66
Total :377.37
215988 9/3/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 003978596 INV#003978596 ACCT#1001074529 - EDMONDS
BASEBALL CAPS
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 47.80
EMBROIDER EDMONDS POLICE
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 8.34
INV#003978616 ACCT#1001074529 - EDMONDS003978616
UNIFORM BOOTS - COMPTON
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 162.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.48
Total :274.57
215989 9/3/2015 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 9532 INTERPERTER
Interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.66
Total :105.66
215990 9/3/2015 072515 GOOGLE INC 3358448410 BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908
Google Apps - Aug-2015
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.00
Total :31.00
215991 9/3/2015 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 980689239 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
12Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215991 9/3/2015 (Continued)012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
Phoenix Contact * quant. 6~
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 259.98
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 24.70
Total :284.68
215992 9/3/2015 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197331 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR AUGUST 2015
Photography for August 2015
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00
Total :200.00
215993 9/3/2015 075395 HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY 0874407MB HARLEY DAVISON CERTIFICATION CLASS
Harley Davison Certification Class - C
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 1,190.00
Total :1,190.00
215994 9/3/2015 075396 HERBAN WELLNESS LLC 8/26/15 Workshop on Essential Oils and Herbs
Workshop on Essential Oils and Herbs
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 40.00
Total :40.00
215995 9/3/2015 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 37123 E5FB.SERVICES THRU 7/31/15
E5FB.Services thru 7/31/15
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 7,732.62
Total :7,732.62
215996 9/3/2015 074966 HIATT, ELLEN COE_2015_0902 TOURISM MARKETING CONSULTANT AUGUST 2015
Tourism marketing consultant August 2015
120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,000.00
Total :1,000.00
215997 9/3/2015 075255 HILL, FOSTER 8/25 FIELD ATTEND 8/25/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
8/25/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 35.00
Total :35.00
13Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
215998 9/3/2015 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 26079 WWTP - CLARIFIER C465
Groundwater Monitoring
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,492.50
E4MA.TO 15-01.SERVICES THRU 8/22/1526081
E4MA.TO 15-01.Services thru 8/22/15
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 1,240.88
Total :2,733.38
215999 9/3/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2670913 LABELS, LEGAL PADS, PENS, HIGHLIGHTERS
Canary legal pads, Avery shipping
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 103.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9.87
Chair for Jeanie McConnell - Engineering2673492
Chair for Jeanie McConnell - Engineering
001.000.62.524.10.35.00 553.14
BIC BALLPOINT PENS2673775
BIC Ballpoint pens
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 0.25
LIQUID HAND SOAP2675180
Dove Ultra Mild Liquid Hand Soap
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 23.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.28
Total :696.15
216000 9/3/2015 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 761944 PM GLOVES, CABLE TIES
PM GLOVES, CABLE TIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 116.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.03
Total :127.18
216001 9/3/2015 069366 ISSAQUAH HONDA KUBOTA 50944I CEMETERY PARTS BLADE, MULCH
14Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216001 9/3/2015 (Continued)069366 ISSAQUAH HONDA KUBOTA
CEMETERY PARTS BLADE, MULCH
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 361.49
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 34.34
Total :395.83
216002 9/3/2015 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 665395 WWTP - SUPPLIES, HYPOCHLORITE
hypochlorite, 4681 gallons
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 3,868.85
Total :3,868.85
216003 9/3/2015 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC 20061 KINDERMUSIK 20061 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
20061 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 121.00
20067 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION20067 KINDERMUSIK
20067 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 309.38
20530 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION20530 KINDERMUSIK
20530 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 233.75
Total :664.13
216004 9/3/2015 062477 KEEP POSTED 19241 WOTS ADVERT
WOTS ADVERT
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 145.00
POSTING PUGET SOUND BIRD FEST POSTERS19246
Posting Puget Sound Bird Posters
120.000.31.575.42.41.40 309.00
Total :454.00
216005 9/3/2015 067568 KPG INC 71215 E5DA.SERVICES THRU 7/25/15
E5DA.Services thru 7/25/15
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 4,145.99
Total :4,145.99
216006 9/3/2015 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 13072 6" TRIANGLE ENG. SCALE
15Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216006 9/3/2015 (Continued)016850 KUKER RANKEN INC
6" Triangle Eng.Scale
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 5.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 0.57
Total :6.52
216007 9/3/2015 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 08062015-01 INV#08062015-01 - EDMONDS PD
41 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 (INC TX) 8/15
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 206.23
Total :206.23
216008 9/3/2015 069083 LAMPHERE, KAREN 8/26/15 Health Fair Vendor- Food Samples
Health Fair Vendor- Food Samples
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 225.00
Total :225.00
216009 9/3/2015 075260 LAU, PING 9484 INTERPERTER
Interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 134.95
Total :134.95
216010 9/3/2015 075233 LEPAK, JASPAR 8/27 HMP LEPAK 8/27/15 HMP CONCERT LEPAK
8/27/15 HMP CONCERT LEPAK
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 250.00
Total :250.00
216011 9/3/2015 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 141260 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, FACILITIES
Laboratory not cooling
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 1,077.56
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 102.37
Total :1,179.93
216012 9/3/2015 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1515 INTERPERTER
Interperter
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90
16Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :86.902160129/3/2015 069362 069362 MARSHALL, CITA
216013 9/3/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 37604864 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
angle iron, welding curtain, foam
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 309.51
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 26.51
Total :336.02
216014 9/3/2015 071011 MIDCO-WEST INC 460003619 WWTP - FORKLIFT RENTAL
G25E3-5LP
423.000.76.535.80.45.21 200.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.45.21 19.00
Total :219.00
216015 9/3/2015 071501 MIDSCI 466013 INV#466013 - EDMONDS PD
20.6 CU FT LAB REFRIGERATOR
001.000.41.521.80.35.00 830.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.80.35.00 250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.35.00 102.60
Total :1,182.60
216016 9/3/2015 074356 NAVAS-RIVAS, HERNAN 9501 INTERPERTER
Interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 103.23
Total :103.23
216017 9/3/2015 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 10028243 Flex Plan monthly fee
Flex Plan monthly fee
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 77.20
Total :77.20
216018 9/3/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1320690 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET
MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET
17Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216018 9/3/2015 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85
CIVIC CENTER 6TH AND EDMONDS HONEY BUCKE2-1324081
CIVIC CENTER 6TH AND EDMONDS HONEY
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85
Total :227.70
216019 9/3/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 587106 WOTS PACKETS: PAPER, FOLDERS
WOTS PACKETS: PAPER, FOLDERS
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 116.61
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 11.08
Total :127.69
216020 9/3/2015 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 3745-415944 PM 11 PC SKT SET
PM 11 PC SKT SET
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.37
Total :27.36
216021 9/3/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 202245 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130202300
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130202337
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00
Total :264.00
216022 9/3/2015 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 21-23233 WWTP - PLC & SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADE
Phase 03, PLC-501 Replacement Effluent,
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 211.60
Phase 04, PLC-301 Replacement
18Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216022 9/3/2015 (Continued)065051 PARAMETRIX INC
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 21,505.01
Phase 05, PLC-701 Rack Replacement
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 480.00
Phase 06, PLC-601 Replace
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 8,431.90
Phase 09, Integrator, Task 01 :
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 7,688.33
Total :38,316.84
216023 9/3/2015 070003 PAXTON, LAUREL 20108 ACTING CAMP 20108 ACTING CAMP
20108 ACTING CAMP
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 4,290.00
Total :4,290.00
216024 9/3/2015 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 343412 Fruit for Employees/Health Fair
Fruit for Employees/Health Fair
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 74.30
Total :74.30
216025 9/3/2015 008475 PETTY CASH 7/17-8/31/15 FAC MAINT - MILEAGE FOR SUPPLIES -S
FAC MAINT - MILEAGE FOR SUPPLIES -S
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 27.31
FAC MAINT - MILEAGE FOR SUPPLIES - S
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 23.75
CITY HALL FINANCE - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.48
WATER - CDL ENDORSEMENT - J WAITE
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 102.00
FLEET - CDL ENDORSEMENT - D MYERS
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 112.00
FLEET - UNIT 448 MODULE
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 30.99
STORM - CDL ENDORSEMENT - M BROWN
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 102.00
19Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :415.532160259/3/2015 008475 008475 PETTY CASH
216026 9/3/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC H239743 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
LSI S 4 LED LW CW UE 5000K
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 237.60
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 56.62
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 27.95
Total :322.17
216027 9/3/2015 072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 19850 LEGO CAMPS 19850 LEGO CAMPS
19850 LEGO CAMPS
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,080.00
19851 LEGO CAMPS19851 LEGO CAMPS
19851 LEGO CAMPS
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,080.00
Total :4,160.00
216028 9/3/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 216365 WWTP - POSTAGE
18441 N 25th Ave, Suite 101~
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 35.32
Total :35.32
216029 9/3/2015 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 20000 FELDENKRAIS 20000 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
20000 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 203.00
20003 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION20003 FELDENKRAIS
20003 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 339.00
Total :542.00
216030 9/3/2015 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200021829581 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395
423.000.76.535.80.47.63 45.58
Total :45.58
20Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216031 9/3/2015 030455 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL 2016027 MEMBERSHIP DUES 2016
Membership Dues 2016 Puget Sound
001.000.39.513.10.49.00 15,530.00
Total :15,530.00
216032 9/3/2015 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000157643 SHUTTER/NICHE /INSCRIPTION-PRUITT
SHUTTER/NICHE /INSCRIPTION-PRUITT
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 105.00
Total :105.00
216033 9/3/2015 075394 RAYNOR, CHAD 8/25 REFUND 8/25 REFUND DAMAGE DEP AND UNUSED MONITO
8/25 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.239.200 500.00
8/25 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR TIME
001.000.239.200 15.00
Total :515.00
216034 9/3/2015 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 92813 E3DB.TO 15-01.SERVICES THRU 8/8/15
E3DB.TO 15-01.Services thru 8/8/15
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 19,204.17
E3DB.TO 15-02.SERVICES THRU 8/22/1592886
E3DB.TO 15-02.Services thru 8/22/15
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 1,015.00
Total :20,219.17
216035 9/3/2015 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 20009 FIRST AID 20009 FIRST AID INSTRUCTION
20009 FIRST AID INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 250.00
Q4-2015 FIRE SERVICES CONTRACT & RETRO PQ4-2015
Q4-2015 Fire Services Contract Payment
001.000.39.522.20.51.00 1,776,042.50
Retro Payment #4 for 2013-2014 Labor
001.000.39.522.20.51.00 200,507.60
Total :1,976,800.10
216036 9/3/2015 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000391920 Q2-15 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & TAXES
21Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216036 9/3/2015 (Continued)037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT
Quarterly Liquor Board Profits
001.000.39.566.10.51.00 1,750.36
Quarterly Liquor Excise Taxes
001.000.39.566.10.51.00 367.07
Total :2,117.43
216037 9/3/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-6395-3 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER 100025
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 192.80
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 91.27
WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W / METER2019-2991-6
WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W /
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 31.90
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD AV2021-3965-5
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 42.33
Total :358.30
216038 9/3/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2015-2790 INV 2015-2790 SNOHOMISH CO JAIL PHARMACE
INMATE PHARMACEUTICALS 07/15
001.000.39.523.60.31.00 245.86
JAN-APR 2015 CREDIT INMATE PHARMACEUTICAINV 2015-2790
CREDIT FOR JAN-APR 2015 INMATE
001.000.39.523.60.31.00 -132.09
CREDIT FOR MAY-JUNE INMATE PHARMACEUTICAINV 2015-2790 (2)
MAY-JUNE 2015 CREDIT FOR INMATEG
001.000.39.523.60.31.00 -17.65
Total :96.12
216039 9/3/2015 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY SW702918 WWTP - MIXED YARD DEBRIS
yard debris
423.000.76.535.80.47.66 49.00
22Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :49.002160399/3/2015 006630 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
216040 9/3/2015 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L108832 05-15 AUDIT FEES
Audit Fees
001.000.39.514.20.51.00 6,685.69
Audit Fees
111.000.68.543.30.51.00 225.31
Audit Fees
421.000.74.534.80.51.00 2,263.85
Audit Fees
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 1,186.93
Audit Fees
423.000.75.535.80.51.00 2,979.99
Audit Fees
423.000.76.535.80.51.00 1,943.04
Audit Fees
511.000.77.548.68.51.00 296.31
Edmonds TBD Audit May 2015L109106
Edmonds TBD Audit May 2015
139.000.68.542.31.41.00 3,783.36
06-15 AUDIT FEESL109317
Audit Fees
001.000.39.514.20.51.00 15,900.42
Audit Fees
111.000.68.543.30.51.00 535.86
Audit Fees
421.000.74.534.80.51.00 5,384.07
Audit Fees
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,822.85
Audit Fees
423.000.75.535.80.51.00 7,087.23
Audit Fees
423.000.76.535.80.51.00 4,621.08
Audit Fees
511.000.77.548.68.51.00 704.72
Edmonds TBD Audit June 2015L109541
23Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216040 9/3/2015 (Continued)039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
Edmonds TBD Audit June 2015
139.000.68.542.31.41.00 44.30
07-15 AUDIT FEESL109720
07-15 Audit Fees
001.000.39.514.20.51.00 3,206.02
07-15 Audit Fees
111.000.68.543.30.51.00 108.05
07-15 Audit Fees
421.000.74.534.80.51.00 1,085.60
07-15 Audit Fees
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 569.17
07-15 Audit Fees
423.000.75.535.80.51.00 1,429.01
07-15 Audit Fees
423.000.76.535.80.51.00 931.75
07-15 Audit Fees
511.000.77.548.68.51.00 142.09
Total :63,936.70
216041 9/3/2015 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC 19886 BEACH CAMP 19886 BEACH CAMP
19886 BEACH CAMP
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 13,222.50
19893 SLEEPOVER BEACH CAMP19893 BEACH CAMP
19893 SLEEPOVER BEACH CAMP
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 8,775.00
Total :21,997.50
216042 9/3/2015 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 1790 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES AUGUST 2015
Social media services August 2015
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00
Total :300.00
216043 9/3/2015 064493 SUTTON, ROSS E 8/27/15 Sick Leave buyback OT refund
Sick Leave buyback OT refund
001.000.41.521.22.11.00 134.82
24Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :134.822160439/3/2015 064493 064493 SUTTON, ROSS E
216044 9/3/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50949259 E4GC.SERVICES THRU 7/24/15
E4GC.Services thru 7/24/15
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 4,587.97
Total :4,587.97
216045 9/3/2015 075139 THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC 84581 E5FC.SERVICES THRU 8/21/15
E5FC.Services thru 8/21/15
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 2,783.30
Total :2,783.30
216046 9/3/2015 070744 TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS INC 2015-145871 BUSINESS RECRUITMENT AD SEATTLE BUSINESS
Business recruitment ad Seattle
001.000.61.558.70.41.40 2,200.00
Total :2,200.00
216047 9/3/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9751099686 C/A 571242650-0001
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept
001.000.62.524.20.42.00 423.47
iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.42.00 55.87
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ
001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.60
iPad Cell Service Council
001.000.11.511.60.42.00 300.10
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court
001.000.23.512.50.42.00 75.86
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development
001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.59
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
001.000.67.532.20.42.00 655.53
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.16
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance
001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.59
25Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216047 9/3/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR
001.000.22.518.10.42.00 95.59
iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 506.03
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office
001.000.21.513.10.42.00 40.01
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept
001.000.64.571.21.42.00 161.79
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 1,024.96
Air cards Police Dept
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 784.78
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept
001.000.62.558.60.42.00 40.01
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.55
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.59
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.55
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.59
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.58
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 171.70
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.62
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 120.74
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 120.74
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 205.63
26Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216047 9/3/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 245.64
iPad Cell Service Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 175.61
iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.04
C/A 772540262-000019751222586
Lift Station access
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 75.51
Total :6,006.03
216048 9/3/2015 047455 WA ST DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB50818001 IT MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FOR FIBER OP
IT Maintenance & Operations Fiber Optic
001.000.31.518.87.48.00 773.98
Total :773.98
216049 9/3/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 499328 WWTP - SUPPLIES, FACILITIES
c-fold
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 81.16
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 7.71
WWTP - SUPPLIES, FACILITIES499642
enviro bags
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 27.14
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 2.58
Total :118.59
216050 9/3/2015 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1049 AUG-15 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,930.96
Additonal court dates 8/11/15, 8/18/15
001.000.36.515.33.41.00 900.00
Total :14,830.96
27Page:
09/03/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:11:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
Bank total : 2,643,201.8496 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
2,643,201.84Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report96
28Page:
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM 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
WTR 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 Overlays c475 E5CB
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
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
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 Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
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
STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
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
STR 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
SWR 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
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
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
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
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
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STM 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
SWR 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
STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project
STR 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 9/3/2015
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
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM 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 9/3/2015
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
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
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
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
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
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
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 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STM E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
WtR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
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
SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
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
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project
STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
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
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
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
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
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
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
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
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 Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
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 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
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 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
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
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM 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
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 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 Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
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 Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
STR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
Revised 9/3/2015
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 Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
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
SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
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 Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
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
Revised 9/3/2015
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
Revised 9/3/2015
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 755 (08/16/2015 to 08/31/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28
NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 41.12 0.00
SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK120 140.72 3,748.05
SICK LEAVESICK121 414.00 15,356.97
VACATIONVACATION122 2,283.41 89,301.04
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 44.00 1,405.82
FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 26.00 820.16
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 152.25 5,496.58
Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 71.75 2,714.54
Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 36.00 1,290.87
MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 0.00 96.50
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 180.00 6,766.30
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 38.63 1,674.53
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 12.00 682.43
COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 700.00 7,000.00
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 200.00
COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 1,389.86
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 15,743.41 528,293.76
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 2,150.85
LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 26.00 1,001.73
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 28.00 838.70
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 42.00 2,015.90
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 28.00 2,268.95
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 390.00 23,712.60
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 49.00 3,128.66
WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS410 0.00 65.56
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 825.00
RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 163.23
ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 72.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 76.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 13.00 0.00
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.70
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 169.99
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17
09/03/2015 Page 1 of 2
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 755 (08/16/2015 to 08/31/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 138.69
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 143.68
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 597.57
DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 100.25
Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 962.34
EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 713.39
EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 852.06
EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,459.02
HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 2.00 60.80
K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 100.25
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,736.70
LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 407.75
LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 829.20
LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 5,282.79
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 224.25
Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 243.86
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 908.73
Longevity 3.5%LONGEVITYlg9 0.00 86.45
MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 200.50
Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 46.65
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,688.32
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 153.70
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 504.43
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 150.88
SICK LEAVE ADD BACKSICKslw 510.97 0.00
TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 315.78
Total Net Pay:$488,100.38
$723,436.21 21,124.26
09/03/2015 Page 2 of 2
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 755 - 08/16/2015 to 08/31/2015
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
61779 09/04/2015 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,173.00 0.00
61780 09/04/2015 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00
61781 09/04/2015 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,028.10 0.00
61782 09/04/2015 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 901.00 0.00
61783 09/04/2015 cope SEIU COPE 52.00 0.00
61784 09/04/2015 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,469.23 0.00
61785 09/04/2015 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 724.00 0.00
61786 09/04/2015 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,337.51 0.00
9,801.84 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
2269 09/04/2015 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 228,419.44 0.00
2271 09/04/2015 aflac AFLAC 5,125.05 0.00
2275 09/04/2015 us US BANK 96,617.61 0.00
2276 09/04/2015 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 19,935.00 0.00
2277 09/04/2015 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 86,735.20 0.00
2279 09/04/2015 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 4,957.60 0.00
2280 09/04/2015 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 48.50 0.00
441,838.40 0.00
451,640.24 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 19/3/2015
AM-7901 6. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/08/2015
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Amending ECC 8.48, adding Columbus Day as a Holiday for Parking Enforcement
Recommendation
Discussion and Potential Action per City Council
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Edmonds City Code Section 8.48 specifies those public holidays during which there is a moratorium on
overtime parking enforcement on streets where signs are posted limiting parking during certain hours/days
as described in ECC 8.64 and 8.48.140. Confusion can arise on the part of the general public on
Columbus Day, which is an observed federal holiday but not an observed city holiday. Overtime parking
enforcement on Columbus Day pursuant to the aforementioned ECC chapters has resulted in periodic
complaints being raised by those receiving overtime parking notices of infraction. Adding Columbus Day
to the list of holidays observed for the specific purpose of enforcing overtime parking per ECC 8.64 and
8.48.140 would resolve potential confusion on this issue.
Attachments
Draft Ordinance Amending ECC 8.48
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 07/29/2015 09:45 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 07/29/2015 03:29 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/30/2015 09:43 AM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 07/28/2015 03:13 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/30/2015
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 8.48 TO ADD COLUMBUS
DAY AS A “PUBLIC HOLIDAY” FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THAT SECTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined that it
is appropriate to amend Chapter 8.48 of the Edmonds City Code (“ECC”) to add Columbus Day
as a “public holiday” for the purposes of that section; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection .140 of Section 8.48 of the ECC Parking is hereby
amended to read as follows (new text in underline):
8.48.140 Parking prohibited during certain hours on certain streets.
When signs are erected in each block giving notice thereof, no person shall park a
vehicle between the hours specified in ECC 8.64.040 on any day except Sundays
and public holidays within the district or upon any of the streets described in ECC
8.64.040. “Public holidays” within the meaning of this section embrace only days
for the observance of the following:
January 1st (New Year’s Day); February 12th (Lincoln’s Birthday); third Monday
of February (Washington’s Birthday); last Monday of May (Memorial Day); July
4th (anniversary of Declaration of Independence); first Monday of September
(Labor Day); second Monday of October (Columbus Day); November 11th
(Veteran’s Day); fourth Thursday of November (Thanksgiving Day); and
December 25th (Christmas Day).
If any of these public holidays falls upon any Sunday, the day next following such
date shall be the holiday therefor. [Ord. 3564 § 1, 2005].
Section 2. 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 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being legislative in nature and an
exercise of a power delegated to the City as a corporate entity, is subject to initiative or
referendum, and shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage and publication of an approved
summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
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 ECC 8.48 TO ADD COLUMBUS
DAY AS A “PUBLIC HOLIDAY” FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THAT SECTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
AM-7975 6. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/08/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the Annual Sewer Replacement Project - Phase 2
Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the next Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On May 20, 2014, Council voted to award a contract to Shoreline Construction in the amount of
$1,778,836.26 for the Annual Sewer Replacement Project – Phase 2 and authorize a 10% contingency for
construction change orders.
Narrative
On June 6, 2014, Shoreline Construction was given notice to proceed with construction, stipulating 120
working days for completion. This project is part of the City’s program to replace 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 replaced approximately 2,800 linear feet of sewerline piping with associated manholes and sewer
connections, as well as approximately 1,000 linear feet of waterline either disturbed or interfering with the
sewer replacement.
During the course of the contract, six change orders were issued, totaling, ($277,210.56), to deal with
unanticipated field conditions encountered during the course of construction, as well as the deletion of a
portion of the project schedules. Site 4 (7th Ave N - & Edmonds St) work was deleted from the contract
due to soil and groundwater conditions. The final contract amount totaled $1,501,625.70. Substantial
completion of the work was granted December 10, 2014, and physical completion on May 29, 2015.
Attachments
Project Map
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 09/03/2015 05:40 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/04/2015 09:06 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/04/2015 09:16 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/04/2015 11:49 AM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/04/2015 12:59 PM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/03/2015 02:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/04/2015
AM-7965 6. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/08/2015
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 second 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 09/03/2015 03:13 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/03/2015 03:41 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/03/2015 03:47 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/03/2015 10:53 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/04/2015 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/02/2015 05:21 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/04/2015
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
9/3/2015 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
City Facility Condition/Accessibility
Survey
Facilities Consultant $45,000 $45,000 __001 MRSC
Consultan
t Roster
N/A Drawing
up contract
●This supports the City's ADA transition Plan for its facilities.
●The work also supports a survey of City facilities to determine
capital needs and timing of repairs.
●These two goals were originally independent decision
packages in last year's budget process, but made sense to
combine as one contract for two goals.
●The final reports are due back to the City in time to support the
2016 budget process.
ESCO III Facilities Ameresco $758,683 $300,000 $60,000 _016 _Sep-15 Con ●ESCO Contract through WA DES process.
●The connection to Meadowdale's heating system remains the
sole item to complete.
●Another $1,300 of utility rebates was received, with just under
$6,000 still remaining to be obtained.
Fishing Pier Rehab Design/Permit Facilities Consultant $190,000 $146,400 _$190,000 016 Dec-15 Jul-16 Design/Bid ●Design and permitting funded through WDFW grant. Permitting
has gone through WDFW.
●Additional grant funding has now been suecured for
construction project.
●BergerABAM has produced 100% drawings.
●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, and additive alternates have been
developed within the scope to allow maximum flexibility at bid
time.
Meadowdale Roof Replacement Facilities Small Works Bid $20,000 $20,000 __016 Small works Jul-15 Close-out ●The work was bid through the MRSC Small Works Roster.
●The low quote for the work was $27,361.86 with tax, and the
work was performed by this company, Tecta America.
●Meadowdale had been allocated $20,000 from this year's
capital budget for roof work.
●The Cemetery Building had been allocated another $10,000 for
work this year, but this has been delayed to provide the
additional needed funding.
●Work was done during the time Meadowdale Preschool was
out for summer.
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 Sep-15 Con ●Construction is 37% complete
●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.
●Council Awarded $728,919.60 contract to Wyser Construction
on 4/28/15
●Notice to Proceed issued for a 70 working day contract starting
on 5/26/15
●Aquatic Specialty Services delivered 5000 gallon circulation
tank to site on 6/9/15
2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Sewer MSA $2,236,034 $2,056,230 __423 Apr-15 Nov-15 Con ●Construction is 17% complete
●$5,157 - 2015 Budget Carry Forward from 2014 to 2015 on
1/2015
●Council awarded $1,090,411.07 contract to Buno Construction
on 5/5/15
●Notice to Proceed issued for a 100 working day contract
starting on 6/8/15
2015 Sewerline Overlays Sewer City $117,600 $117,600 __423 Apr-15 Oct-15 Con ●Construction to take place summer/fall 2015.
ScheduleProject Budget
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
9/3/2015 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
2016 Sewerline Replacement Sewer BHC $1,308,326 $411,622 __423 Feb-16 Dec-16 Des ●BHC consultants selected to do the work.
●Data gathering in progress.
Annual Sewer Replacement
Project Phase 2
Sewer CHS $2,204,970 $693,780 -$277,212 _423 May-14 Jan-15 Cl-out ●Change Order #6 ($49,670)
●Change Order #5 ($383,174 )
●Change Order #4 $37,485
●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 CHS $929,600 $524,600 __423 Dec-15 May-16 Des ●Design to begin fall 2015.
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Sewer Consultant $100,000 $100,000 __423 NA NA Study ●Discussions with City of MLT and OVWSD regarding the joint
use of this Sewer Main in progress.
Lift Station #1 Metering Sewer Tetra Tech $100,000 $100,000 __423 NA NA Study ●Tetra Tech selected to do the work.
●Data gathering in progress.
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 designed and owner
agreement being drafted (to be completed 3rd Q 2015) .
Dayton St & SR 104 Drainage
Improvement Study (Pump Station
Pre-Design)
Storm L. Berger $255,963 $168,000 __422 __Study ● Final Pre-Design Report completed
● Additional design and permitting work to separate
Shellabarger Creek system from Dayton St system being done
under Willow Creek Daylight/ Edmonds Marsh Project
● Pump station design scheduled for 2017
Dayton St. Storm Improvements
(3rd to 9th)
Storm L. Berger $108,809 $108,809 __422 __Study ● Capacity analysis of storm system completed.
● Design scheduled for 2016
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 on-hold
Perrinville High Flow Management
Projects
Storm Tetra Tech $269,754 $220,000 _$50,000 422 Oct-15 Dec-15 Des ● Notice of grant for $633,750 to design and construction
stormwater infiltration system in Seaview Park (Total est. project
cost $845,000.
● Design at 90%; bioretenion (engineered rain garden) in the
right of way (191st St SW near Dellwood Dr).
● Construction of raingarden in right-of-way Fall 2015.
Rehab of Northstream culvert
under Puget Drive
Storm City $50,000 $50,000 __422 TBD TBD Study ● Video inspection of pipe scheduled for 3nd quarter 2015
● Next steps based on video results
Storm Drainage Improvements -
88th & 194th
Storm CHS $253,400 $253,400 _422 TDB TBD On Hold ● Project on-hold.
SW Edmonds #4-106/105 Storm City $575,277 $517,225 _$70,000 422 Jan-16 Sep-16 Ad ● Design complete
● Bids opened 6/26/2015
● Bids rejected since they were over project budget
● Re-bid scheduled for January 2016: Construction to begin
after school is out June 2016
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
9/3/2015 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
Video Assessment of Stormwater
Lines
Storm City $250,000 $250,000 __422 __Study ● Pipe assessment underway
Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds
Marsh Final Feasibility Study
Storm Shannon &
Wilson
$799,658 $613,000 _$357,331 422 __Study ● $200,000 grant secured from RCO-SRF Board
● Council presentation made January 2015
● Project schedule adjusted to merge with Marina Beach Park
Master Planning Process.
● Draft Feasibility Study August 2015 and Final Feasibility Study
October 2015.
● Additional $157,331 grant secured from RCO-SRF Board for
preliminary design and permitting.
● Additional design and permitting work to separate
Shellabarger Creek system from Dayton St system underway.
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.
2015 Pavement Preservation
Program
Street Snoh. County $1,250,000 $1,250,000 __112,
125, GF
Apr-15 Nov-15 Con ● Pavement overlays to be completed in fall 2015.
220th St Overlay Project Street Tetra Tech $1,040,000 $1,040,000 _$780,000 112, 126 Jul-15 Nov-15 Con ●Lakeside Construction awarded $668,865 contract August
2015
●$260K of local match provided by REET I (Fund 126)
228th St. SW Corridor Safety
Improvements
Street Perteet $7,213,928 $3,950,400 $136,464 $6,491,000 112
421
422
423
MLT
March-15 Mar-16 Con ● Construction is 30% complete.
● The project was awarded to Rodarte.
● 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).
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.
●Negotiations continuing with Edmonds School District for
additional Right-of-Way.
238th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $1,624,927 $1,557,934 _$591,000 112 Jul-15 Dec-15 Con ● Construction to begin in September.
● 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
76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Street Dave Evans $5,669,486 $711,587 _$4,140,397 112
421
422
423
Feb-16 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.
● Right of Way acquisition (3 out of 7 property owners have
signed the ROW documents) and condemnation has been filed
for the remaining (4) properties.
ADA curb ramp upgrades along
3rd Ave. S
Street City $129,000 $95,720 _$90,000 112 Oct - 14 Feb-15 Cl-Out ● Construction complete
Bike-Link Street KPG $736,381 $260,000 __112 Feb-16 Dec-16 Des ● Design 15% 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).
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
9/3/2015 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
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis Street TBD $675,000 $150,000 _$500,000 112, GF __Study ● Analysis 0% complete.
● The SOQ from consultants is due on September 11, 2015.
● A grant in the amount of $500,000 was secured for the
analysis.
Five Corners Roundabout (212th
St. SW @ 84th Av. W)
Street Dave Evans $3,809,386 $295,000 $28,584 $2,393,017 112
421
422
Mar-14 Dec-14 Cl-Out ● Construction 99.9% 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: $289
Traffic Calming Program Street City $20,000 $20,000 __112 _ Dec-15 Des ● 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 __112, GF __Study ● Study completed.
State Route (SR) 99 International
District Enhancements (Phase 3)
Street KPG $684,000 $305,000 _$684,000 112, 125 Mar-15 Mar-16 Con ● Construction 1% complete. DBE Electric will start potholing the
proposed luminaire locations next week to determine the type of
foundation to be used.
● Construction 0% complete.
● The project was awarded to Rodarte Construction Inc.
● 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 QuietZone $350,000 $50,000 __112, GF _Dec-16 Des ● Design 0% complete.
● Design work to begin in fall 2015.
2014 Replacement Program -
Waterline
Water MSA $1,905,784 $603,920 $87,495.00 _421 May-14 Mar-15 Cl-Out ●Construction complete.
●Change Order No. 1: $18,178.66
●Change Order No. 2: $23,654.45
●Change Order No. 3: $45,661.50
●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 Oct-15 Con ●Construction to take place summer/fall 2015.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS
9/3/2015 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 Con ●Construction 15% complete
●$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.
●Data gathering in progress.
2016 Waterline Replacement Water MSA $1,926,510 $391,788 __421 Feb-16 Dec-16 Des ●MSA awarded contract.
●Data gathering in progress.
Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Water MSA $110,000 $110,000 __421 Feb-16 Dec-16 Pre ●MSA was selected as the engineering consultant for the project
on 4/29/15
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 will
determine the best course of action based on water table and
soil evaluations. The initial work from HWA is complete and they
have issued their final report. Tetra Tech is revising their
recommendations based upon the findings.
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-16 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 _Dec-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.
● 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. The project is behind schedule due to
equipment delivery dates. There is a potential impact to the
PLC300 work but at this point we are still on budget for both
projects.
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 and solar to
replace electrical connections. All equipment has been
purchased, All but 1 PLC installed. Solar power has worked
well on our test site. Radios will be installed in Sept.
Pre
Des
ROW
Ad
Con
Cl-Out
Study
Close-out Construction Contract
Study
Right-of-Way Acquisition
Advertise for Construction Bids
**Active Phase
Preliminary Design
Design
Construction
AM-7966 6. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/08/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of a Settlement, Release of Liability, and Easement Agreement – 9232 183rd Place SW.
Recommendation
Forward this item to the consent agenda at a future Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The private parcel at 9232 183rd PL SW hosts an open channel pipe system that carries stormwater runoff from approximately
30 acres, including some City right-of-way (Exhibit A). The parcel and the upstream area were annexed to the City in 1963
from Snohomish County. Most of the existing drainage system was installed prior to the annexation.
The current resident purchased the property in or before 1985. At that time, an open stormwater drainage channel crossed
through the property. In approximately 1985, the current owner altered the course of that drainage channel by relocating it and
enclosing it in a pipe in order to construct a garage. The relocated drainage channel/pipe now occasionally floods in and around
owner’s garage. The owner has asserted the occasional floods have caused cracks in the property’s driveway.
The owner claims that the City improperly determined the size of the stormwater pipe at the time the channel was relocated.
The City disputes that it had any involvement in or responsibility for the sizing or engineering of the pipe at the time the
channel was relocated. There is no documentation that the City was involved in the sizing or engineering of that pipe. The City,
while denying responsibility and liability for any of the flooding problem on the Property, would still like to resolve the
flooding matter amicably and so it does not cause damage to adjacent or upstream properties.
The City and owner met in 2013 to discuss a possible solution to the problem the City summarized that meeting and some
related follow up activity from that meeting in a letter dated March 17, 2015, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The parties now intend to move forward with a resolution as substantially described in the March 17, 2015 letter. This
Settlement, Release of Liability, and Easement Agreement (Exhibit C) is intended to resolve this issue to the
satisfaction of both parties.
The $25,000 included in the Agreement will come from the Stormwater Utility Fund (422) under the capital project “City-wide
Drainage Replacements.” The approximately $5,000 the City spent designing the storm replacement will also come from the
same fund.
Attachments
Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Letter from City to Resident
Exhibit C - Proposed Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 09/03/2015 03:38 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/03/2015 03:41 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/03/2015 03:47 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/03/2015 10:54 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/04/2015 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/02/2015 05:39 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/04/2015
High St
Olympic View Dr92nd Ave W187th St SW 91st Ave W186th Pl SW
1 8 4 t h S t S W
91st Pl WAccess Rd
185th P l SW
94th Ave W 183rd P l S W Access RdNo warranty of any sort, including accuracy, fitness,or merchantability accompany this product.
1 in = 175 ft
0 90 180 270 360 45045
Feet ¹Legend Non Edmonds CBEdmonds C atch BasinNon Edmonds MHEdmonds Man holeStorm PipesEdmonds_Parcels_2 015_03Contour_10 ft_smoothed
9232 183 rd PL SW
Hutt Park
Exhibit A
Settlement, Release of Liability, and Easement Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 15th day of September 2015, by and between the City of
Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter the “City” or “Grantee”), a Washington municipal
corporation, and Olaf and Daryl Van Leunen, a married couple (hereinafter the “Grantor”).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the fee simple owner of a certain parcel of real estate located
in the City of Edmonds, Washington, commonly known as 9232 183rd Place SW and legally
described as set forth in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by this reference (“the
Property”); and
WHEREAS, Grantor purchased the property in approximately in or before 1985; and
WHEREAS, at the time of Grantor’s purchase an open stormwater drainage channel
crossed through the property; and
WHEREAS, in approximately 1985, Grantor altered the course of that drainage channel
by relocating it and enclosing it in a pipe in order to construct a garage on the Property; and
WHEREAS, the relocated drainage channel/pipe now occasionally floods in and around
Grantor’s garage and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has asserted the occasional floods have caused cracks in the
property’s driveway; and
WHEREAS, Grantor claims that the City improperly determined the size of the
stormwater pipe at the time the channel was relocated; and
WHEREAS, City disputes that it had any involvement in or responsibility for the sizing
or engineering of the pipe at the time the channel was relocated; and
WHEREAS, there is no documentation that the City was involved in the sizing or
engineering of that pipe; and
WHEREAS, the City, while denying responsibility and liability for any of the flooding
problem on the Property, would still like to resolve the flooding matter amicably; and
WHEREAS, the City and Grantor met in 2013 to discuss a possible solution to the
problem; and
WHEREAS, the City summarized that meeting and some related follow up activity from
that meeting in a letter dated March 17, 2015, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full, the terms of which are made terms of this
agreement except to the extent that they conflict with the terms expressly set forth below; and
WHEREAS, the parties now intend to move forward with a resolution as substantially
described in the March 17, 2015 letter; and
WHEREAS, the City retained CHS Engineers, at its own expense, to design
improvements to the stormwater infrastructure on the Property (the Improvements), which
design is depicted in the drawing from CHS Engineers dated May 28, 2015, attached hereto as
Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, Grantor acknowledges that CHS Engineers was directed to design the
capacity of the Improvements to handle a 25-year storm event; and
WHEREAS, Grantor had the opportunity to have the CHS Engineers design reviewed by
its own engineer; and
WHEREAS, Grantor has had the opportunity to design an alternate improvement that
would have capacity to handle even larger storm events; and
WHEREAS, the parties intend for the conditions and covenants contained in this
Easement and Agreement to run with the land in perpetuity, and to be binding on all
subsequent owners and occupants of the Property; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by executing this Agreement, have agreed to the
following terms in exchange for the consideration described below:
TERMS
Section 1. The City shall pay the Grantor the actual cost of the City-approved
Improvements PROVIDED THAT such payment shall not exceed Twenty-five Thousand
Dollars ($25,000.00) even if the actual cost exceeds that amount. In exchange for this
payment, the City will receive the Easement, release and waiver, and other terms and
covenants required of Grantor under this Agreement. Payment shall be made within 30 days
of completion of the construction of the City-approved Improvements by the Grantor.
Section 2. The Grantor hereby conveys to the City, and the City hereby accepts, a
perpetual, nonexclusive Stormwater Easement over the Property hereinabove described, of the
nature and character, and to the extent hereinafter described. The portion of the Property
burdened by the Stormwater Easement shall be the area reasonably necessary to allow the
existing stormwater channel and pipe system to cross the Property and the area reasonably
necessary to allow the City to access the Improvements for the purposes of inspecting and, if
it elects to do so, maintaining or repairing the same. Notwithstanding the grant of this
Stormwater Easement, the Parties hereby agree and acknowledge that it shall be the Grantor’s
responsibility, not the City’s, to regularly inspect and maintain the Improvements and keep
them functioning properly. Grantor shall also be obligated to make repairs to the
Improvements if and when such repairs are needed. The granting of this Stormwater Easement
to the City in no way shifts the inspection, maintenance, and repair burdens from the Grantor
to the City. The restrictions, conditions and easements imposed upon the use of the Property,
the acts which the Grantor, the City, and their respective successors and assigns, covenant to
do and refrain from doing upon the Property, and the acts which they covenant to permit to be
done upon the Property shall be as follows:
A. The foregoing Recitals are agreed to and incorporated herein, and shall be binding
upon the parties.
B. The City may, at its option, construct, enhance, install, maintain, repair, replace and
use the Improvements described in Exhibit C.
C. The City may continue to convey stormwater in a channel and/or pipe across, over,
under, and through the Property.
D. Grantor shall, at its own expense, obtain permits for and construct the Improvements
described in Exhibit C. Construction shall be completed no later than _September 30
2016. Any design changes to the Improvements that the Grantor plans to construct must be
approved in writing by the City prior to construction of said Improvements, PROVIDED
THAT if changes need to be made during construction that would typically be made in the
field to account for conditions that could only be discovered during construction, approval
of such changes may be obtained by submitting an as-built plan within ten days of the
completion of construction.
E. The Grantor, its successors and assigns, warrant that the Property shall be used and
maintained in such a manner as not to damage the Improvements or otherwise interfere
with the continuous flow of stormwater across, over, under, and through the Property.
F. Any written notices required by this Agreement shall be sent to the City, c/o Public
Works Director, 7110 210th St SW, Edmonds, WA 98026; or if to the Grantor, c/o Owner,
9232-183rd PL SW, Edmonds WA 98020.
Section 3. The Stormwater Easement and the conditions and covenants set forth herein
shall run with the Property and the benefits and burdens shall bind and inure to the benefit
of both of the parties, their successors and assigns, in perpetuity, and shall constitute a
covenant running with the title to the Property.
Section 4. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any
Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior agreements of any officer or
representative of the parties, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as
entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner whatsoever, this Agreement or
the Agreement documents unless expressly incorporated herein.
Section 5. Grantor, on behalf of its heirs and assigns, hereby waives and releases the
City, its officers, employees, agents, and assigns, from all past, present, and future claims
for damages to Grantor and the Property which may be related to and/or caused by
stormwater crossing, over, under, and through the Property. This scope of this release and
waiver includes, without limitation, claims for damages caused by or related to improper or
negligent design of the Improvements, claims for damages caused by or related to
increases in the volume of water passing through the channel/pipe from upstream, and
claims for damages caused by or related to the failure of the Improvements to prevent
future flooding of the Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed this __
day of __________________, 2015.
GRANTEE, CITY OF EDMONDS:
___________________________________
David O. Earling, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
___________________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
STATE OF WASHINGTON
) ss.
County of __________________ )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that David O. Earling is the person
who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument as the
Mayor of the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, and acknowledged it to be
his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument on behalf of
such Washington municipal corporation.
Dated: __________________
_______________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at: ________________
My appointment expires: ________________
GRANTORS,
OLAF & DARYL VAN LEUNEN:
___________________________________
Olaf Van Leunen
___________________________________
Daryl Van Leunen
STATE OF _________________ )
) ss.
County of __________________ )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Olaf Van Leunen and Daryl Van
Leunen are the persons who appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that they
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in this instrument on behalf of themselves and their marital community.
Dated: __________________
_______________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of
____________, residing at: ________________
My appointment expires: ________________
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Lot 2, Strathy Arbor, Volume 19 of Plats, Page 83, Snohomish County, Washington.
EXHIBIT B
Letter from the City to Resident Dated March 17, 2015
EXHIBIT C
Design Plans
REENIGNELANOIS
S
E
FORP 33197 DERETSIGE
R NOTGN
IHSAWFOETATS EK
N
EH.FNAVE
REENIGNELANOISS
E
FORP 33197 DERETSIGE
R NOTGN
IHSAWFOETATS EK
N
EH.FNAVE
AM-7969 6. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/08/2015
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Introduction of Planning Board Recommendation on Critical Area Regulations
Recommendation
Continue review of critical area regulations at September 22, 2015 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
The Council has provided funding for Critical Area Regulation update and heard a progress report at the
June 23, 2015 Council meeting.
Narrative
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 update of City of Edmonds critical area regulations, commonly referred to as the City's
"critical areas ordinance" (CAO) is due in 2015. The City's CAO and BAS have 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 (Exhibit 1) and to evaluate the City's critical area regulations given
the changes in science.
Exhibit 2 contains the Best Available Science addendum prepared by ESA which reviews the current
science related to critical areas as it has changed over the past 10 years.
ESA has concluded that the City's existing critical area regulations are largely compliant with current Best
Available Science; however, there are a few areas where ESA has suggested changes to the CAO. The
Planning Board reviewed proposed changes to the critical area regulations over the course of five Planning
Planning Board reviewed proposed changes to the critical area regulations over the course of five Planning
Board meetings between March 25 and July 22, 2015; the Board's review included a July 8, 2015 public
hearing (Exhibits 6 - 10). The Planning Board's recommended changes to the City's critical area
regulations are provided in Exhibit 3 in a red-line/strike-out format. In conjunction with its
recommendations on critical areas and frequently flooded area regulations, the Planning Board also
forwarded a recommendation for some modifications to the building code in ECDC 19.10 and definitions
in Title 21 ECDC. These recommended modifications are provided in Exhibit 4 and discussed further
below. Exhibit 5 is a Best Available Science and Gap Analysis Matrix summarizing the recommended
changes.
Below is a summary of the more significant changes in the draft critical area regulations.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Geologically hazardous areas include erosion hazards (slopes 15 - 40%), landslide hazard areas (slopes
greater than 40%) and liquefaction hazard areas (areas susceptible to liquefaction during earthquakes).
Proposed changes to the Geologically Hazardous Areas include revising how landslide hazard areas are
defined and updating the requirements for geotechnical reports. Additionally, rather than establishing
standard buffers and setbacks from landslide hazard areas, appropriate buffers and setbacks will be
determined by a geotechnical report on a case-by-case basis.
Wetlands
The City's wetland regulations contained within ECDC 23.50 are being updated to be consistent with the
Department of Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities (Ecology Publication #10-06-002). This change will
result in a change of wetland buffers, with buffer width being determined by a combination of the category
of wetland and habitat score. Required mitigation ratios will also change to be consistent with Ecology's
Guidance for Small Cities. Another change consistent with the Guidance for Small Cities include
modifications to ECDC 23.50.040.K - Exemptions. This section is being updated to address small
hydrologically isolated wetlands. Certain wetland provisions will not apply to small isolated wetlands, but
they are not exempt from all wetland development standards (as in the existing code). Other wetland code
amendments address technical changes in manuals and terminology.
ECDC 23.90.040.C Native Vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 Zoned Lots
Staff is proposing changes to ECDC 23.90.040.C which requires retention or establishment of a minimum
of 30 percent native vegetation on undeveloped or redeveloped property within the RS-12 and RS-20
zones in the City of Edmonds. The existing provision has characteristics similar to a provision in King
County’s critical area ordinance that was struck down by the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, in
Citizens Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims, 145 Wash. App. 649. The proposed changes focus standards
on site-specific characteristics and provide more definition to specific habitat features to be retained by
this provision. Additionally, a section is added that would allow the director to waive the provisions of
ECDC 23.90.040.C where this habitat is nonexistent on a particular property.
Initially, staff and the consultants considered an approach that would replace this section with new
requirements for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors. However, to fully develop standards for retention and
connection of Biodiversity Areas and Corridors, it is clear that more study is needed. Under current budget
and time constraints, it is not possible to fully flesh out new code provisions for Biodiversity Areas and
Corridors. If the City pursues the development of an Urban Forest Management Plan, this will provide an
opportunity to map Biodiversity Areas and Corridors and identify forested areas important for wildlife
connections throughout the City of Edmonds. This information could then be used to develop new
regulations to protect the Biodiversity Areas and Corridors.
The proposed revisions described above will provide continued protection for naturally vegetated areas of
the City important for wildlife habitat while also providing a more refined code in line with the findings of
Citizens Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims.
Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers
Edmonds is a largely built out community. In many instances when overlaying the standard buffers to a
stream or wetland, one will find existing development which separates the functionality of sites from the
critical area. As an example, a property located on the opposite side of a road from a stream could be
within the proscribed buffer distance, but the road provides a barrier to any benefit the site could provide
to the stream. To address these situations, a new paragraph has been added to the activities section of
ECDC 23.40.220 that would allow development within physically separated and functionally isolated
portions of a stream or wetland buffer. The minimum separation for a physically separated and
functionally isolated buffer is 12 feet and a site analysis may be required to determine if a site is physically
separated and functionally isolated.
Development within Footprint of Existing Development
As noted above, Edmonds is a largely developed community. Given that Edmonds is celebrating its 125th
anniversary this year, much of Edmonds was developed prior to the establishment of critical area
regulations. As a result, many wetland and stream buffers extend into residential yards that have been
previously developed and provide limited function in terms of stream and/or wetland protection.
Additionally, some buffers are substantially developed and contain impervious surfaces and commercial or
residential buildings. Simply applying the standard buffers in situations like this fails to provide the
necessary characteristics to protect a stream and/or wetlands functions. In these cases, it can be better to
restore the buffer through enhancement activities.
To address these types of situations, a new definition for “Footprint of Existing Development” has been
added and new sections have been added to the wetland and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
that would allow development within the footprint of existing development and a requirement for
enhancement of the remaining buffer in order to improve functions of the buffer.
Frequently Flooded Areas
While frequently flooded areas are by definition a type of critical area, development within the flood
zones in Edmonds is guided by building code requirements: ECDC 19.00.025, the International
Residential Code (IRC) for residential development, and the International Building Code (IBC) for
commercial development.
The IRC requires the floors of residences to be constructed to at least the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), but
it does not require single-family residences to be elevated above base flood elevation. The IBC requires
structures to be constructed at or up to two feet above BFE depending on the category of the structure.
Exhibit 11 contains the draft FEMA FIRM map for the Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Area. This map is
the result of the Snohomish County Coastal Flood Risk Review conducted by FEMA in 2014. While this
map is not currently effective, the updated coastal FIRM maps are currently scheduled to become effective
in the fall of 2016. Another issue to consider in the coastal flood risk zones is the effect of sea level rise.
The most recent projections for seal level rise in the mid-Puget Sound region is for an average rise of 24
inches by the year 2100 (National Research Council 2012).
Given the pending FIRM map update and projections for sea level rise in Puget Sound, staff is
recommending that the building code be amended to require the elevation of the lowest floor to be
constructed a minimum of 2 feet above the Base Flood Elevation for all new structures within the Coastal
High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. Exhibit 4 contains draft code language incorporating this
recommendation into ECDC 19.00.025 – International Building Code section amendments.
Requiring structures to be constructed above the BFE will have impacts on the overall allowable height
structures could be constructed to as allowed by the zoning code. The height of structures is measured
from an average level of the undisturbed soil as defined by ECDC 21.40.030. Where existing grade along
the waterfront is at or below the BFE, requiring structures to be built 2 feet above BFE would effectively
eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain existing height allowances, the
Planning Board recommended modifying the definition of height contained in ECDC 21.40.030 to allow
for the height of structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones to be
measured from two feet above BFE.
Restoration Projects
The City does not wish to discourage restoration projects that would provide a net benefit to the City's
critical areas. As such, a new section has been proposed in Section ECDC 23.40.215 to grant relief for
restoration projects that are not required as mitigation for a development proposal. The proposed relief is a
reduction to the standard buffer otherwise required by the critical area regulations. Two types of projects
would be eligible for relief under ECDC 23.40.215:
The daylighting of a stream, or
Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or
wetland buffer
A restoration project may apply a buffer equal to 75% the standard buffer, or the restoration project
proponent may request the buffer be reduced to a minimum of 50% of the standard buffer if certain
criteria apply.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - 2004 Best Available Science Report
Exhibit 2 - 2015 Best Available Science Addendum
Exhibit 3 - Planning Board Recommended Critical Area Regulations ECDC 23.40 - 23.90
Exhibit 4 - Planning Board Recommended Frequently Flooded Area Amendments
Exhibit 5 - Best Available Science and Gap Analysis Matrix
Exhibit 6 - March 25, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 7 - April 22, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 8 - June 10, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 9 - July 8, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 10 - July 22, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 11 - Draft FEMA FIRM Map for Edmonds Waterfront
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 09/03/2015 02:43 PM
Development Services Shane Hope 09/03/2015 03:39 PM
Development Services Shane Hope 09/03/2015 03:39 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/03/2015 03:47 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/03/2015 10:54 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/04/2015 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 09/03/2015 11:29 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/04/2015
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
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 1 of 90
EDMONDS CITY CODE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 23.40
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sections:
Part I. Purpose and General Provisions
23.40.000 Purpose.
23.40.010 Authority.
23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations.
23.40.030 Severability.
23.40.040 Jurisdiction – Critical areas.
23.40.050 Protection of critical areas.
Part II. Critical Areas Review Process
23.40.060 General requirements.
23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation.
23.40.080 Notice of initial determination.
23.40.090 Critical areas report – Requirements.
23.40.100 Critical areas report – Modifications to requirements.
23.40.110 Mitigation requirements.
23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing.
23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements.
23.40.140 Innovative mitigation.
23.40.150 Critical areas decision.
23.40.160 Review criteria.
23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision.
Attachment 3
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 2 of 90
23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision.
23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review.
23.40.200 Appeals.
23.40.210 Variances.
23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Projects
Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties
23.40.220 Allowed activities.
23.40.230 Exemptions.
23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement.
Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures
23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs.
23.40.270 Critical areas tracts.
23.40.280 Building setbacks.
23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring.
23.40.300 Critical areas inspections.
Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science
23.40.310 Best available science.
Part VI. Definitions
23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas.
Part I. Purpose and General Provisions
23.40.000 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this title is to designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to
protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of private
property.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 3 of 90
B. This title is to implement the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of the comprehensive plan
and the Washington State Growth Management Act.
C. The city of Edmonds finds that critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological
and physical functions that benefit Edmonds and its residents, and/or may pose a threat to human safety
or to public and private property. The beneficial functions and values provided by critical areas include,
but are not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain
support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation of flood waters, ground water recharge and
discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, protection from hazards, historical, archaeological, and
aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial functions are not listed in order of priority.
D. Goals. By limiting development and alteration of critical areas, this title seeks to:
1. Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property
damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, or flooding;
2. Maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of unique, fragile, and valuable
elements of the environment, including ground and surface waters, wetlands, and fish and wildlife and
their habitats, and to conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal species;
3. Direct activities not dependent on critical areas resources to less ecologically sensitive sites and
mitigate unavoidable impacts to critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to critical areas;
and
4. Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality, wetlands, and fish and wildlife
habitat, and the overall net loss of wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
E. The regulations of this title are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the Growth
Management Act and through the application of the best available science, as determined according to
WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172, and in consultation with state and
federal agencies and other qualified professionals.
F. This title is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site-specific characteristics. It is not the
intent of this title to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use
of the property nor to prevent the provision of public facilities and services necessary to support existing
development.
G. The city of Edmonds’ enactment or enforcement of this title shall not be construed to benefit any
individual person or group of persons other than the general public. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.010 Authority.
A. As provided herein, the Edmonds development services director or his/her designee (hereafter
referred to as “the director”) is given the authority to interpret and apply, and the responsibility to
enforce, this title to accomplish the stated purpose.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 4 of 90
B. The director may withhold, condition, or deny development permits or activity approvals to ensure
that the proposed action is consistent with this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations.
A. These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning, site development,
stormwater management, building and other regulations adopted by the city of Edmonds.
B. Any individual critical area adjoined or overlain by another type of critical area shall have the buffer
and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any
provision of this title or any existing land use regulation conflicts with this title, that which provides
more protection to the critical area shall apply.
C. These critical areas regulations shall be coordinated with review conducted under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as necessary and locally adopted.
D. Compliance with the provisions of this title does not constitute compliance with other federal, state,
and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, shoreline substantial
development permits, Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart
from the process established in this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.030 Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this title or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall be judged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or
judgment shall be confined in its operation to the controversy in which it was rendered. The decision
shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any part thereof and to this end the provisions of each
clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this law are hereby declared to be severable. [Ord. 3527
§ 2, 2004].
23.40.040 Jurisdiction – Critical areas.
A. The director shall regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect
one or more critical areas, consistent with the best available science and the provisions herein.
B. Critical areas regulated by this title include:
1. Wetlands as designated in Chapter 23.50 ECDC, Wetlands;
2. Critical aquifer recharge areas as designated in Chapter 23.60 ECDC, Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas;
3. Frequently flooded areas as designated in Chapter 23.70 ECDC, Frequently Flooded Areas;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 5 of 90
4. Geologically hazardous areas as designated in Chapter 23.80 ECDC, Geologically Hazardous Areas;
and
5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as designated in Chapter 23.90 ECDC, Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas.
C. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the definition of one or more critical areas, regardless
of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this
title.
D. Areas Adjacent to Critical Areas Subject to Regulation. Areas adjacent to critical areas shall be
considered to be within the jurisdiction of these requirements and regulations to support the intent of this
title and ensure protection of the functions and values of critical areas. “Adjacent” shall mean any
activity located:
1. On a site immediately adjoining a critical area; and
2. Areas located within 200 feet of a subject parcel containing a jurisdictional critical area. [Ord. 3527
§ 2, 2004].
23.40.050 Protection of critical areas.
Any action taken pursuant to this title shall result in equivalent or greater functions and values of the
critical areas associated with the proposed action, as determined by the best available science. All
actions and developments shall be designed and constructed in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120,
Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and restore all adverse impacts. Applicants must first
demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts before the use of actions to mitigate potential
impacts will be allowed. No activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or
values of critical areas. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Critical Areas Review Process
23.40.060 General requirements.
A. As part of this review, the director shall:
1. Verify the information submitted by the applicant;
2. Evaluate the project area and vicinity for critical areas;
3. Determine whether the pro posed project is likely to impact the functions or values of critical areas;
and
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 6 of 90
4. Determine if the proposed project adequately assesses all impacts, avoids impacts, and/or mitigates
impacts to the critical area associated with the project.
B. If the proposed project is within, adjacent to, or is likely to impact a critical area, the director shall:
1. Require a critical areas report from the applicant that has been prepared by a qualified professional;
2. Review and evaluate the critical areas report;
3. Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of
this title, including the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria;
4. Assess the potential impacts to the critical area and determine if they can be avoided or minimized;
and
5. Determine if any mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values
of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes,
objectives, and requirements of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation.
Any person preparing to submit an application for development or use of land that may be regulated by
the provisions of this title may request a preapplication meeting with the director prior to submitting an
application for development or other approval. At this meeting, the director shall discuss the
requirements of this title; provide critical areas maps, scientific information, and other source materials;
outline the review process; and work with the activity proponent to identify any potential concerns that
might arise during the review process, in addition to discussing other permit procedures and
requirements. All applicants, regardless of participation in a preapplication meeting, are held fully
responsible for knowledge and disclosure of critical areas on, adjacent to, or associated with a subject
parcel and full compliance with the specific provisions and goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements
of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.080 Notice of initial determination.
A. If the director determines that no critical areas report is necessary, the director shall state this in the
notice of application issued for the proposal.
B. If the director determines that there are critical areas on the site that the proposed project is unlikely
to impact and the project meets the requirements for and has been granted a waiver from the requirement
to complete a critical areas report, this shall be stated in the notice of application for the proposal. A
waiver may be granted if the director determines that all of the following requirements will be met:
1. There will be no alteration of the critical area or buffer;
2. The development proposal will not affect the critical area in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent,
and requirements of this Title.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 7 of 90
C. If the director determines that critical areas may be affected by the proposal and a critical areas report
is required, public notice of the application shall include a description of the critical area that might be
affected and state that a critical areas report(s) is required.
D. Critical areas determinations shall be considered valid for five years from the date in which the
determination was made; after such date the city shall require a new determination, or at minimum
documentation of a new assessment verifying the accuracy of the previous determination [Ord. 3527
§ 2, 2004].
23.40.090 Critical areas report – Requirements.
A. Preparation by Qualified Professional. The applicant shall submit a critical areas report prepared by a
qualified professional as defined herein. For wetlands, frequently flooded areas and fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas, an applicant may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the
city’s approved list to prepare critical areas reports per the requirements of this title or may apply to
utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant
shall be subject to independent review pursuant to subsection B of this section. Applicants utilizing the
services of a qualified technical consultant from the city’s approved list shall enter into a three- party
contract between the applicant, the consultant and the city. All costs associated with the critical areas
study shall be borne by the applicant.
B. Independent Review of Critical Areas Reports. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically
hazardous areas and those developed by an applicant representative or consultant not as part of a three-
party contract may, at the discretion of the director, be subject to independent review. This independent
review shall be performed by a qualified technical consultant selected by the city with all costs borne by
the applicant. The purpose of such independent review is to provide the city with objective technical
assistance in evaluating the accuracy of submitted reports and/or the effects on critical areas which may
be caused by a development proposal and to facilitate the decision-making process. The director may
also have technical assistance provided by appropriate resource agency staff if such assistance is
available in a timely manner.
C. Best Available Science. The critical areas report shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in
the analysis of critical areas data and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. The
critical areas report shall evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts to critical areas in accordance
with the provisions of this title.
D. Minimum Report Contents. At a minimum, the report shall contain the following:
1. The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of
the permit requested;
2. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal including:
a. A map to scale depicting critical areas, buffers, the development proposal, and any areas to be cleared;
and
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 8 of 90
b. A description of the proposed storm water management plan for the development and consideration of
impacts to drainage alterations;
3. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any
fieldwork performed on the site;
4. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, and buffers
adjacent to the proposed project area;
5. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to ECDC
23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; and
6. Report requirements specific to each critical area type as indicated in the corresponding chapters of
this title.
7. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon;
8. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the critical areas study, including references; and
9. Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed to offset any critical areas impacts, in accordance with the
Mitigation Plan Requirements in Section 23.40.130.
E. Unless otherwise provided, a critical areas report may incorporate, be supplemented by or composed,
in whole or in part, of any reports or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously
prepared for and applicable to the development proposal site, as approved by the director. At the
discretion of the director, reports previously compiled or submitted as part of a proposal for
development may be used as a critical areas report to the extent that the requirements of this section and
the report requirements for each specific critical area type are met.
F. Critical areas reports shall be considered valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine
whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary.[Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.100 Critical areas report – Modifications to requirements.
A. Limitations to Study Area. The director may limit the required geographic area of the critical areas
report as appropriate if:
1. The applicant, with assistance from the city of Edmonds, cannot obtain permission to access
properties adjacent to the project area; or
2. The proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the subject site.
B. Modifications to Required Contents. The applicant may consult with the director prior to or during
preparation of the critical areas report to obtain approval of modifications to the required contents of the
report where, in the judgment of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to
adequately address the potential critical area impacts and required mitigation.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 9 of 90
C. Additional Information Requirements. The director may require additional information to be included
in the critical areas report when determined to be necessary to the review of the proposed activity in
accordance with this title. Additional information that may be required includes, but is not limited to:
1. Historical data, including original and subsequent mapping, aerial photographs, data compilations and
summaries, and available reports and records relating to the site or past operations at the site;
2. Grading and drainage plans; and
3. Information specific to the type, location, and nature of the critical area. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.110 Mitigation requirements.
A. The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of critical areas. Unless
otherwise provided in this title, if alteration to the critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or
from critical areas and buffers resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated
using the best available science in accordance with an approved critical areas report and SEPA
documents, so as to result in no net loss of critical area functions and values.
B. Mitigation shall be in-kind and on-site, when possible, and sufficient to maintain or compensate for
the functions and values of the impacted critical area and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a
critical area.
C. Mitigation shall not be implemented until after the director has provided approval of a critical areas
report that includes a mitigation plan. Mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions
of the approved critical areas report. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing.
A. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid
and minimize impacts to critical areas.
B. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or
compensated for in the following sequential order of preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by
using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or
timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the
conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 10 of 90
4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering
or other methods;
5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action;
6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or
7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary.
C. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. [Ord. 3527 § 2,
2004].
23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements.
When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the director a mitigation plan as
part of the critical areas report. The mitigation plan shall include:
A. Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying
environmental goals and objectives of the compensation proposed and including:
1. A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas and the mitigating actions proposed and
the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of
compensation goals; identification of resource functions; and dates for beginning and completion of site
compensation construction activities. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and
values of the impacted critical area;
2. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation;
3. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project; and
4. Specific mitigation plan and report requirements for each critical area type as indicated in this title.
B. Performance Standards. The mitigation plan shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating
whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained and
whether or not the requirements of this title have been met.
C. Detailed Construction Plans. The mitigation plan shall include written specifications and descriptions
of the mitigation proposed, such as:
1. The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration;
2. Areas of proposed impacts on critical areas or buffers;
3. Grading and excavation details;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 11 of 90
34. Erosion and sediment control features;
45. A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and
56. Measures to protect and maintain plants until established.
These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional
drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other
drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome.
D. Monitoring Program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction and for
assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring
(for example, monitoring shall occur in years one, three, and five after site construction), and how the
monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring
report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency
actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary
to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than three five (5) years
without approval from the director.
E. Contingency Plan. The mitigation plan shall include identification of potential courses of action and
any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards
are not being met.
F. Financial Guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees, as necessary, to ensure
that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the
compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance
with ECDC 23.40.290, Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.140 Innovative mitigation.
A. The city of Edmonds may encourage, facilitate, and approve innovative mitigation projects that are
based on the best available science. Advance mitigation, in lieu fee programs, or mitigation banking are
examples of alternative mitigation projects approaches allowed under the provisions of this section
wherein one or more applicants, or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake a
mitigation project together if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist:
1. There are no reasonable opportunities on- site or within the same sub-drainage basin, or opportunities
on-site or within the sub-drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a
determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should include:
anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and proposed widths, available
water to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood
storage capacity, and potential to mitigate fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity);
1. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of critical areas and open space is preferable to the
preservation of many individual habitat areas;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 12 of 90
2. The group demonstrates the organizational and fiscal capability to act cooperatively;
3. The group demonstrates that long-term management of the habitat area will be provided; and
4. 2. The off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved critical areas
functions than the altered critical area, and there is a clear potential for success of the proposed
mitigation at the identified mitigation site.
3. Off-site locations shall be in the same basin and within the City unless:
a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland
functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or
b. Credits from an approved (State-certified) wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the
use of credits is consistent with the terms of the approved bank instrument;
c. Fees are paid to an approved in-lieu fee program to compensate for the impacts.
B. Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may contribute payment
towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the director, provided that
the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where required. Such mitigation
actions shall be consistent with ECDC 23.40.140.A.1. and ECDC 23.40.140.A.2., and with all other
applicable provisions of ECDC Chapters 23.50 and 23.90.
BC. Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process provides for retention or an increase in the
beneficial functions and values of critical areas within the Edmonds jurisdiction. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.150 Critical areas decision.
The city of Edmonds development services director shall make a decision as to whether the proposed
activity and mitigation, if any, is consistent with the provisions of this title. The decision shall be based
on the criteria of ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and shall affect and be incorporated within the
larger project decision. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.160 Review criteria.
A. Any alteration to a critical area, unless otherwise provided for in this title, shall be reviewed and
approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the proposal’s ability to comply with all of the
following criteria:
1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation
sequencing;
2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the
development proposal site;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 13 of 90
3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110,
Mitigation requirements;
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science
and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
B. The director may condition the proposed activity as necessary to mitigate impacts to critical areas and
to conform to the standards required by this title. Except as provided for by this title, any project that
cannot adequately mitigate its impacts to critical areas in the sequencing order of preferences in ECDC
23.40.120 shall be denied. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision.
If the director determines that the proposed activity meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC
23.40.160, Review criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of this title, the development
services director shall prepare a written notice of decision for the applicant and identify any required
conditions of approval as part of the larger project decision. The notice of decision and conditions of
approval shall be included in the project file and be considered in the next phase of the city’s review of
the proposed activity in accordance with any other applicable codes or regulations.
Any conditions of approval included in a notice of decision shall be attached to the underlying permit or
approval. Any subsequent changes to the conditions of approval shall void the previous decision
pending re-review of the proposal and conditions of approval previously set by the director.
A favorable decision should not be construed as endorsement or approval of any underlying permit or
approval. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision.
If the director determines that a proposed activity is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its
impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria,
and the provisions of this title, the director shall prepare a written decision for the applicant that includes
findings of noncompliance.
No proposed activity or permit shall be approved or issued if it is determined that the proposed activity
does not adequately mitigate its impacts on the critical areas and/or does not comply with the provisions
of this title.
Following notice of decision that the proposed activity does not meet the review criteria and/or does not
comply with the applicable provisions of this title, the applicant may request consideration of a revised
critical area report. If the revision is found to be substantial and relevant to the critical area review, the
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 14 of 90
director may reopen the critical area review and make a new decision based on the revised report. [Ord.
3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review.
The director’s decision regarding critical areas pursuant to this title shall be final concurrent with the
final project decision to approve, condition, or deny the development proposal or other activity involved.
[Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.200 Appeals.
Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of this title may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for
the permit or approval involved. [Ord. 3736 § 71, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.210 Variances.
A. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner
review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant
demonstrates that one or more of the following two conditions exist:
1. The application of this title would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public
utility. A public agency and utility exception may be granted as a variance if:
a. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical
areas;
b. The application of this title would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the
public;
c. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the
development proposal site;
d. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values
consistent with the best available science; and
e. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
2. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of “reasonable
economic use(s)” in ECDC 23.40.320) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be
authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that:
a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel;
b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city
comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 15 of 90
c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic
use of the property;
d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of
actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor;
e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the
development proposal site;
f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available
science; and
g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
B. Specific Variance Criteria. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested
action conforms to all of the following specific criteria:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent
in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district;
2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant;
3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable
economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject
property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide
the applicant with such rights;
4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by
this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances;
5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not
further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the
subject property; and
6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special
consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish
habitat.
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as a Type III-A decision (see Chapter
20.01 ECDC), review variance applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based on a proposal’s ability to comply
with general and specific variance criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 16 of 90
D. Conditions May Be Required. The director retains the right to prescribe such conditions and
safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to
ensure conformity with this title for variances granted through hearing examiner review.
E. Time Limit. The director shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is
required shall be begun, completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the
established time limit shall void the variance, unless the applicant files an application for an extension of
time before the expiration. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the director as a
Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
F. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of a
variance application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application. [Ord. 3783 § 15,
2010; Ord. 3775 § 15, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 72, 73, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Projects
A. When a critical area restoration project is proposed that is not required as mitigation for a
development proposal, the City of Edmonds may grant relief from standard critical area buffer
requirements if the restoration project involves:
1. The daylighting of a stream, or
2. Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or
wetland buffer
B. At the time a restoration project is proposed, a buffer shall be established that will apply to the
restoration project boundary. Restoration project buffers shall be established according to the following
requirements:
1. A buffer may be applied to the restored portion of the stream or wetland that is not less than 75% of
the standard buffer associated with the class of stream or category of wetland; or,
2. The project proponent may request a reduced buffer of between 50% and 75% of the standard buffer
associated with the class of stream or category of wetland. The following criteria will be used by the
City in reviewing the request for a reduced buffer:
a. The Director determines that applying a 75% buffer would significantly limit the use of the property
for existing or permitted uses, thus making the restoration project infeasible;
b. The proposed buffer relief is the minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project;
c. There will be a net environmental benefit from the restoration project with the reduced buffer;
d. Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the critical area restoration project
and consistent with purposes of the City’s critical area regulations.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 17 of 90
Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties
23.40.220 Allowed activities.
A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or
approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a
critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director
may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is
consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas.
B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best
management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management
practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and
sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may
observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the
activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a
critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party’s expense.
C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed:
1. Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development permits and approvals
that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as subdivisions, rezones, or conditional use
permits) and construction approvals (such as building permits) if all of the following conditions have
been met:
a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another approval;
b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area or buffer since the
prior review;
c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years have elapsed
since the issuance of that permit or approval;
d. There is no new information available that is applicable to any critical area review of the site or
particular critical area; and
de. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or approval has been
achieved or secured.;
2. Modification to Structures Existing Outside of Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Structural modification
of, addition to, or replacement of a legally constructed structure existing outside of a critical area or its
buffer that does not further alter or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no
increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 18 of 90
3. Permitted AlterationModifications to Existing Structures Existing Withinwithin Critical Areas and/or
Buffers. Permitted alterationModification to a legally constructed structure existing within a critical area
or buffer shall be allowed when the alterationatmodification: does not
a. Does not increase the footprint of the structuredevelopment; and
b. or Does not increase the impact to the critical area or buffer; and
c. Does not increasethere is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification
or replacement. (
Aadditions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area or buffer that do increase the
existing footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development
standards of the associated critical area type (see ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This provision shall
be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to
nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of a legal nonconforming building
within its footprint;
4. Development Proposals within Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Stream or Wetland
Buffers. Areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland due to
existing, legally established roadways, paved trails twelve (12) feet or more in width, or other legally
established structures or paved areas twelve (12) feet or more in width that occur between the area in
question and the stream or wetland may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated
from the stream or wetland. Once determined by the director to be a physically separated and
functionally isolated stream or wetland buffer, development proposals shall be allowed in these areas.
The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is
functionally isolated.
45. Activities Withinwithin the Improved Right-of-Way. Replacement, modification, installation, or
construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, when such facilities
are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a city-authorized private roadway,
except those activities that alter a wetland or watercourse, such as culverts or bridges, or result in the
transport of sediment or increased stormwater.
56. Minor Utility Projects. Utility projects that have minor or short-duration impacts to critical areas, as
determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact
the function or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best
management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Minor activities shall not result
in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such allowed minor utility projects shall meet the
following criteria:
a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical areas;
b. The activity involves the placement of utility pole(s), street sign(s), anchor(s), or vault(s) or other
small component(s) of a utility facility; and
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 19 of 90
c. The activity involves disturbance of an area less than 75 square feet;
6. Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. New public and private pedestrian trails subject to the following:
a. The trail surface shall be limited to pervious surfaces and meet all other requirements, including water
quality standards set forth in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International
Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19;
b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the trail
corridor, including disturbed areas; and
c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in a manner that
does not increase the risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an approved geotechnical
report; and
d. Trails located only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of critical areas buffers, and located to
avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the
width of the critical areas buffer, trails may be placed in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the
remaining critical area buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet in width and for pedestrian
use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable.
Allowances for trails within the inner seventy-five percent (75%) of critical areas buffers are provided
within applicable sections of ECDC Chapters 23.50 – 23.90.
7. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities:
a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and light hand-held equipment when the area
of work is under one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over
three (3) years:
i. Invasive and noxious weeds;
ii. English ivy (Hedera helix);
iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus);
iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus);
v. Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius); and
vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis);
Removal of these invasive and noxious plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits
or approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or
chemical treatments or other removal techniques. All removed plant material shall be taken away from
the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 20 of 90
Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed
control plan appropriate to that species.
b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public
safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that:
i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape
architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees;
ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified
professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be
removed or converted to wildlife snags;
iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless
removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or
unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability;
iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement
trees for each tree removed (two to one2:1) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration
plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that
planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area.
Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch
in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen
trees as measured from the top of the root ball;
v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist
shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize impacts; and
vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or
private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner
prior to receiving written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days following such action,
the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this
title;
c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State
Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that the removed vegetation shall be replaced in
kind or with similar native species within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan;
d. Chemical Applications. The application of herbicides, pesticides, organic or mineral-derived
fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the City, provided that their use
shall be restricted in accordance with state Department of Fish and Wildlife Management
Recommendations and the regulations of the state Department of Agriculture and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; and
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 21 of 90
de. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of any
vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland shall be
prohibited;
8. Minor Site Investigative Work. Work necessary for land use submittals, such as surveys, soil logs,
percolation tests, and other related activities, where such activities do not require construction of new
roads or significant amounts of excavation. In every case, impacts to the critical area shall be minimized
and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and
9. Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers. Construction or modification of navigational aids and
boundary markers. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.230 Exemptions.
A. Exemption Request and Review Process. The proponent of the activity may submit a written request
for exemption to the director that describes the activity and states the exemption listed in this section
that applies.
The director shall review the exemption request to verify that it complies with this title and approve or
deny the exemption. If the exemption is approved, it shall be placed on file with the city of Edmonds. If
the exemption is denied, the proponent may continue in the review process and shall be subject to the
requirements of this title.
B. Exempt Activities and Impacts to Critical Areas. All exempted activities shall use reasonable
methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. To be exempt from this title does not give
permission to degrade a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Any incidental damage to, or
alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored,
rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party’s expense.
C. Exempt Activities. The following developments, activities, and associated uses shall be exempt from
the provisions of this title; provided, that they are otherwise consistent with the provisions of other local,
state, and federal laws and requirements:
1. Emergencies. Those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or
welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or
preventative action in a time frame too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this title.
Emergency actions that create an impact to a critical area or its buffer shall use reasonable methods to
address the emergency; in addition, they must have the least possible impact to the critical area or its
buffer. The person or agency undertaking such action shall notify the director within one working day
following commencement of the emergency activity. Within 30 days, the director shall determine if the
action taken was within the scope of the emergency actions allowed in this subsection. If the director
determines that the action taken, or any part of the action taken, was beyond the scope of an allowed
emergency action, then enforcement provisions of ECDC 23.40.240, Unauthorized critical area
alterations and enforcement, shall apply.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 22 of 90
After the emergency, the person or agency undertaking the action shall fully fund and conduct necessary
restoration and/or mitigation for any impacts to the critical area and buffers resulting from the
emergency action in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. The person
or agency undertaking the action shall apply for review, and the alteration, critical area report, and
mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the director in accordance with the review procedures contained
herein. Restoration and/or mitigation activities must be initiated within one year of the date of the
emergency and completed in a timely manner;
2. Operation, Maintenance, or Repair. Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing structures,
infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, dikes, levees, or drainage systems that do
not require construction permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to, or
encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a
result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance also includes
normal maintenance of vegetation performed in accordance with best management practices, provided
that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into
the critical area, are not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact
an endangered or threatened species; and
3. Passive Outdoor Activities. Recreation, education, and scientific research activities that do not
degrade the critical area, including fishing, hiking, and bird watching. Trails must be constructed
pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(6), Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.240 Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement.
A. When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this title or the provisions of Chapter
7.200 ECC, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The director
shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all ongoing development work, and order
restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner’s or other responsible party’s expense
to compensate for violation of the provisions of this title. The director may also require an applicant or
property owner to take immediate action to ensure site stabilization and/or erosion control as needed.
B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan
is prepared and approved by the director. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using
the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements
described in subsection C of this section. The director shall, at the violator’s expense, seek expert advice
in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the applicant or violator
for revision and resubmittal.
C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration.
1. For alterations to frequently flooded areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area;
provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained,
these standards may be modified:
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 23 of 90
a. The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat
functions;
b. The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated;
c. The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation
historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values
should be replicated at the location of the alteration; and
d. Information demonstrating compliance with the requirements in ECDC 23.40.130, Mitigation plan
requirements, shall be submitted to the city planning division.
2. For alterations to flood and geological hazards, the following minimum performance standards shall
be met for the restoration of a critical area; provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater
safety can be obtained, these standards may be modified:
a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the predevelopment hazard;
b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and
c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the
hazard.
D. Site Investigations. The director is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are
necessary to enforce this title. The director shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort
to contact any property owner before entering onto private property.
E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the
provisions of this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to penalties equal to the cost of the
permit, plus any applicable penalties, plus a square footage cost of three dollars ($3.00) per square foot
of impacted critical area and critical area buffer. plus a per tree penalty consistent with ECDC
18.45.070B. and C. set forth in ECDC 18.45.070 and 18.45.075. Each day or portion of a day during
which a violation of this title is committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any
development carried out contrary to the provisions of this title shall constitute a public nuisance and may
be enjoined as provided by the statutes of the state of Washington. The city of Edmonds may levy civil
penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for violation of any of the
provisions of this title. The civil penalty shall be assessed as proscribed in ECDC 18.45.070 and
18.45.075.[Ord. 3828 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures
23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs.
A. The boundary at the outer edge of a critical area, critical area buffer or critical area tract may, at the
discretion of the director, be required to be delineated with wood fencing.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 24 of 90
B. The boundary at the outer edge of the critical area or buffer may be identified with temporary signs
prior to any site alteration. Such temporary signs may be replaced with permanent signs prior to
occupancy or use of the site.
C. These provisions may be modified by the director as necessary to ensure protection of sensitive
features or wildlife needs. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.270 Critical areas tracts and easements.
A. At the discretion of the director, critical areas tracts and/or easements may be required in
development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions, and planned unit
developments.developments that include critical areas. These critical areas tracts and/or easements shall
delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers greater than 5,000 square feet including:
1. Landslide hazard areas and buffers;
2. Wetlands and buffers;
3. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; and
4. Other lands to be protected from alterations as conditioned by project approval.
B. Notice on Title. The owner of any property with field-verified presence of critical areas and/or critical
areas buffers, except critical aquifer recharge areas, for which a permit application is submitted shall, as
a condition of permit issuance, record a notice of the existence of such critical area and/or critical area
buffer against the property with the Snohomish County Auditor’s office. The notice shall be approved
by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the
right to challenge this notice and to have it released if the critical area designation no longer applies;
however, the titleholder shall be responsible for completing a critical areas report, subject to approval by
the director, before the notice on title can be released.Critical areas tracts shall be recorded on all
documents of title of record for all affected lots.
C. Critical areas tracts or easements shall be designated on the face of the plat or recorded drawing in a
format approved by the director. The designation shall include the following restrictions:
1. An assurance that native vegetation will be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property
and the environment, including, but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion,
maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat; and
2. The right of the director to enforce the terms of the restriction.
D. The director may require that critical areas tracts be dedicated to the city, to be held in an undivided
interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest passing with
the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowner’s association or other legal entity (such
as a land trust), which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract and contains a
process to assess costs associated therewith.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 25 of 90
E. The use of herbicides within critical areas tracts or easements is prohibited except use of aquatic
approved herbicides where recommended by the Noxious Weed Control Board and where otherwise
consistent with the provisions of ECDC Title 23. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.280 Building setbacks.
Unless otherwise providedExcept for geologically hazardous areas where setbacks are determined by a
geotechnical report, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges
of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. The In
addition to other allowances provided by this Title, the following may be allowed in the building setback
area:
A. Landscaping;
B. Uncovered decks;
C. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area; and
D. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; provided, that such improvements may be
subject to water quality regulations as adopted in the current editions of the International Residential
Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring.
A. When mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to final permit
approval, such as final plat approval or final building inspection, the applicant shall be required to post a
performance bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the director. If the
development proposal is subject to mitigation, the applicant shall post a mitigation bond or other
security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the city to ensure mitigation is fully functional.
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or
the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is
greater. The amount of the performance bond shall include a reasonable allocation for inflation based on
the length of anticipated delay and the provisions of subsection D of this section.
C. The bond shall be in the form of a surety bond, performance bond, and/or maintenance bond from an
acceptable financial institution, with terms and conditions acceptable to the city of Edmonds’ attorney.
D. Bonds or other security authorized by this section shall remain in effect until the director determines,
in writing, that the standards bonded for have been met. Bonds or other security shall be held by the city
for a minimum of three five (5) years to ensure that the required mitigation has been fully implemented
and demonstrated to function, and may be held for longer periods when necessary to achieve these goals.
E. Depletion, failure, or collection of bond funds shall not discharge the obligation of an applicant or
violator to complete required mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 26 of 90
F. Public development proposals shall be relieved from having to comply with the bonding requirements
of this section if public funds have previously been committed for mitigation, maintenance, monitoring,
or restoration.
G. Any failure to satisfy critical area requirements established by law or condition including, but not
limited to, the failure to provide a monitoring report within thirty (30) days after it is due or comply with
other provisions of an approved mitigation plan shall constitute a default, and the city may demand
payment of any financial guarantees or require other action authorized under this title or any other law.
H. Any funds recovered pursuant to this section shall be used to complete the required mitigation. [Ord.
3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.300 Critical area inspections.
Reasonable access to the site shall be provided to the city, state, and/or federal agency review staff for
the purpose of inspections during any proposal review, restoration, emergency action, or monitoring
period. Failure to provide access shall constitute grounds for issuance of a stop work order. [Ord. 3527
§ 2, 2004].
Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science
23.40.310 Best available science.
A. Protect Functions and Values of Critical Areas with Special Consideration to Anadromous Fish.
Critical areas reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science to
protect the functions and values of critical areas and must give special consideration to conservation or
protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as salmon and bull trout,
and their habitat, where applicable.
B. Best Available Science to Be Consistent with Criteria. The best available science is that scientific
information applicable to the critical area prepared by local, state, or federal natural resource agencies, a
qualified scientific professional, or a team of qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with
criteria established in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172.
C. Characteristics of a Valid Scientific Process. In the context of critical areas protection, a valid
scientific process is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a
local government’s regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas policies and development
regulations that will be effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas. To determine
whether information received during the permit review process is reliable scientific information, the
director shall determine whether the source of the information displays the characteristics of a valid
scientific process. Such characteristics are as follows:
1. Peer Review. The information has been critically reviewed by other persons who are qualified
scientific experts in that scientific discipline. The proponents of the information have addressed the
criticism of the peer reviewers. Publication in a refereed scientific journal usually indicates that the
information has been appropriately peer-reviewed;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 27 of 90
2. Methods. The methods used to obtain the information are clearly stated and reproducible. The
methods are standardized in the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not, the methods have been
appropriately peer-reviewed to ensure their reliability and validity;
3. Logical Conclusions and Reasonable Inferences. The conclusions presented are based on reasonable
assumptions supported by other studies and consistent with the general theory underlying the
assumptions. The conclusions are logically and reasonably derived from the assumptions and supported
by the data presented. Any gaps in information and inconsistencies with other pertinent scientific
information are adequately explained;
4. Quantitative Analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or quantitative
methods;
5. Context. The information is placed in proper context. The assumptions, analytical techniques, data,
and conclusions are appropriately framed with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific
knowledge; and
6. References. The assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions are well referenced with
citations to relevant, credible literature and other pertinent existing information.
D. Nonscientific Information. Nonscientific information, such as anecdotal observations, non-expert
opinion, and hearsay, may supplement scientific information, but it is not an adequate substitute for
valid and available scientific information.
E. Absence of Valid Scientific Information. Where there is an absence of valid scientific information or
incomplete scientific information relating to a critical area leading to uncertainty about the risk to
critical area function of permitting an alteration of or impact to the critical area, the director shall:
1. Take a “precautionary or a no-risk approach” that strictly limits development and land use activities
until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved; and
2. Require application of an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods to
evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive
management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining
information in the face of uncertainty. An adaptive management program shall:
a. Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program;
b. Change course based on the results and interpretation of new information that resolves uncertainties;
and
c. Commit to the appropriate time frame and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory and
nonregulatory actions affecting protection of critical areas and anadromous fisheries. [Ord. 3527 § 2,
2004].
Part VI. Definitions
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 28 of 90
23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas.
For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50,
23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply:
“Adjacent” means those areas activities located on- site immediately adjoining a critical area; or a
distance equal to or less than two hundred and twenty five (225)200 feet of a development proposal or
subject parcel and those areas located within 800 feet of a documented bald eagle nest.
“Alteration” means any human-induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or
its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing;
cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or
pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application
of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes
the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas.
“Best management practices” means a system of practices and management measures that:
1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics;
2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities;
3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and
4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas.
“Buffer” means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard
area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards
reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to
and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem.
“Chapter” means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits.
“City” means the city of Edmonds.
“Class” or “wetland class” means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the
wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979).
“Clearing” means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing
vegetation and the use or application of herbicide.
“Compensation project” means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project-induced critical area
or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land
acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping
designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 29 of 90
“Compensatory mitigation” means replacing project-induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. “Restoration” means actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes
that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that no longer meets
the definition of a wetland.
21. “Creation” means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not
formerly exist.
2. “Re-establishment” means actions performed to restore processes and functions to an area that was
formerly a wetland, where the former wetland area was lost by past alterations and activities.
3. “Rehabilitation” means improving or repairing processes and functions to an area that is an existing
wetland that is highly degraded because one or more environmental processes supporting the wetland
area have been disrupted.
34. “Enhancement” means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so
that the functions they provide are of a higher quality; enhancement activities usually attempt to change
plant communities within existing wetlands from non-native communities to native scrub-shrub or
forested communities.
45. “Preservation” means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high-quality
wetlands.
“Creation” means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a
site where one did not formerly exist.
“Critical areas” for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently
flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined
in Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively.
“Development proposal” means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a
permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building
permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing
permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit;
shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit;
subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone;
or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title.
“Director” means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee.
“Division” means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 30 of 90
“Enhancement” means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the
case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the
conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value.
“Erosion” means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such
as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow.
“Erosion Hazard Areas.” See ECDC 23.80.020(A).
“Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.” See Chapter 23.90 ECDC.
“Floodplain” means the total area subject to inundation by a “100-year flood.” “100-year flood” means a
flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
“Footprint of Existing Development” or “Footprint of Development” means the area of a site that
contains legally established: buildings; concrete, asphalt or gravel paved roads, parking lots, storage
areas or other paved areas; driveways; walkways ; outdoor swimming pools; and patios.
“Frequently Flooded Areas.” See Chapter 23.70 ECDC.
“Functions” means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality
protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance
and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value
protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority.
“Geologically Hazardous Areas.” See Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
“Geologist” means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of
Washington who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university and has at least
five years of experience as a practicing geologist or four years of experience and at least two years of
postgraduate study, research or teaching. The practical experience shall include at least three years of
work in applied geology and landslide evaluation in close association with qualified, practicing
geologists and geotechnical/civil engineers. For geologically hazardous areas, an applicant may choose a
geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard.
“Geotechnical engineer” means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil
engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a
geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation.
“Grading” means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the
soil profile which contains decaying organic matter.
“Habitats of local importance” means areas that include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a
given species has a primary association, and which, if altered may reduce the likelihood that the species
will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high relative density or
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 31 of 90
species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include
habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alterations such as cliffs, talus, and
wetlands. In urban areas like the city of Edmonds, habitats of local importance include biodiversity areas
and corridors, which are characterized by a framework of ecological components which provides the
physical conditions necessary for ecosystems and species populations to survive in a human-dominated
landscape. include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary
association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce
over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding
habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited
availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, shorelines, coastal beaches, mudflats,
eelgrass beds, and wetlands. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).)
“In lieu fee program” means a program which sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose
obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in lieu program sponsor, a
governmental or non-profit natural resource management entity.
“Landslide Hazard Areas.” (See ECDC 23.80.020(B).)
“Mitigation” means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of
preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by
using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or
timing to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat
conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical
conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;
4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or
other methods;
5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action;
6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and
habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments;
and
7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 32 of 90
“Native vegetation” means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget
Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. “Native
vegetation” does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies.
“Normal maintenance of vegetation” means removal of shrubs/non-woody vegetation and trees (less
than 3-inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may
include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years.
“Noxious weeds” means any plant which, when established,that is highly destructive, competitive or
difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, limited to those plants on the state noxious weed
list contained in Chapter , as further listed in Chapter 16-750 WAC.
“Planning staff” means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development
services department.
“Qualified critical areas consultant” or “qualified professional” means a person who has the
qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make
recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For geologically hazardous areasFor areas of potential
geologic instability, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or geotechnical engineer.
engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard. If development
is to take place within a geologically hazardous area, the qualified critical areas consultant developing
mitigation plans and design shall be a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Washington and
familiar with landslide and slope stability mitigation. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical
areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a
minimum of two years’ field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest.
Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within
the chapter on each critical area type.
“Reasonable economic use(s)” means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under
applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of
substantive due process.
“Redeveloped land(s)” means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to
allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a
majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re-development of a property or subject
parcel.
“Restoration” means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in
which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. For wetlands,
restoration as compensatory mitigation may include re-establishment or rehabilitation.
“Seismic Hazard Areas.” (See ECDC 23.80.020(C).)
“Species of local importance” means those species that are of local concern due to their population
status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. (See ECDC
23.90.010(A)(4).)
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 33 of 90
“Storm Water Management Manual” means the Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound
Basin by the Washington State Department of Ecology (as included in stormwater manual specified in
Chapter 18.30 ECDC).
“Streams” means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates
clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not
contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or
surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are
used by salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such
watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or
nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).)
“Title” means all chapters of the city of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23.
“Undeveloped land(s)” means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing,
grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those
instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel
in the past.
“Wetland functions” means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food
chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian
species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for
ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows.
“Wetland mitigation bank” means a site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in
exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in
advance of authorized impacts to similar resources.
“Wetlands” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface 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 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. However, wetlands may include those
artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of
wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into
Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. (See ECDC 23.50.010(B).) [Ord. 3952 § 1, 2013; Ord. 3931 § 2, 2013; Ord.
3527 § 2, 2004].
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 34 of 90
Chapter 23.50
WETLANDS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart.
23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Wetlands.
Part II. Allowed Activities – Wetlands
23.50.020 Allowed activities – Wetlands.
Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Wetlands
23.50.030 Special study and report requirements – Wetlands.
Part IV. Development Standards – Wetlands
23.50.040 Development standards – Wetlands.
23.50.050 Mitigation requirements – Wetlands.
23.50.060 Performance standards – Subdivisions.
Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form
23.50.070 Wetland field data form.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart.
See Figure 23.50.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Wetlands.
A. Designating Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the approved federal
wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements as set forth in WAC 173-22-035
Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997), that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All
areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the wetland designation criteria in the Identification and
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 35 of 90
Delineation Manual, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are
subject to the provisions of this title.
B. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State Department of Ecology
wetland rating system found in the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington documents (Western Washington, Ecology Publications Nos. 14-06-02993-74 and 04-06-
025). Thiese documents contains the definitions and methods for determining the criteria and parameters
defining the following wetland rating categories: Consistent with the wetland rating system criteria and
parameters within this document, wetlands that are rated for ecological functions with highest point
totals (23 points or higher) perform ecological functions associated with water flow, water quality and
habitat at highest levels, whereas wetlands that are rated with lowest point totals (15 points or lower)
perform ecological functions at lowest levels. Wetlands that are rated with points between 16 and 22
points perform ecological functions at moderate to high levels.
1. The City of Edmonds Wetland Rating Categories:
a. Category 1 I Wetlands. Category 1 I wetlands are those that represent a unique or rare wetland type;
are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological
attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The
following types of wetlands are Category I:meet one or more of the following criteria:
i. Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one(1) acre;
ii. Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural
Heritage Program/DNR;Wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage
Program/DNR as high-quality wetlands;
iii. Bogs larger than one-half acre;
iv. Wetlands with mature and old growth forests Mature and old-growth forested wetlands larger than
one (1) acre;
v. Wetlands in coastal lagoons;
vi. Wetlands that perform functions at high levels Wetlands that perform many functions well as
indicated by a score of 70 twenty-three (23) points or more based on functions on the city of Edmonds
wetland field data form.
b. Category 2 II Wetlands. Category II wetlands are those that are difficult, though not impossible, to
replace, and provide high levels of some functions. The following types of wetlands are Category 2II
wetlands are:
i. Estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre;
ii. A wetland identified by the state Department of Natural Resources as containing “sensitive” plant
species;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 36 of 90
iii. A bog between one-quarter and one-half acre in size; or
iv. Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions as indicated by a score of 51 to 6920 to 22 points
based on functions on the city of Edmonds wetland field data form.
c. Category 3 III Wetlands. Category 3 III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions as
indicated by a score of 30 16 to 50 19 points on the city of Edmonds wetland field data formbased on
functions.
d. Category 4 IV Wetlands. Category 4 IV wetlands are those with the lowest levels of functions as
indicated by scores below 30 16 points based on functionson the city of Edmonds wetland field data
form.
All wetlands should be rated consistent with the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington using the 2014 Western Washington Rating Form. The city of Edmonds wetland
field data form is provided in ECDC 23.50.070.
C. Date of Wetland Rating. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the wetland exists on the date
of adoption of the rating system by the local government, as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or
as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted activities. Wetland rating categories shall not
change due to illegal modifications.
D. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the city of Edmonds critical
areas inventory. In addition, the National Wetlands Inventory and Soil Maps produced by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service may be useful in helping to
identify potential wetland areas. The inventory and cited resources are to be used as a guide for the city
of Edmonds, project applicants, and/or property owners, and may be continuously updated as new
critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation.
E. Delineation. The exact location of a wetland’s boundary shall be determined through the performance
of a field investigation by a qualified professional wetland scientist applying the approved federal
wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplementsWashington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual as required by RCW 36.70A.175 (Ecology Publication No. 96-94,
1997). Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a
revision or additional assessment is necessary.
F. Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is designated on the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory as a lacustrine
(lake) environment and should not be delineated as a wetland in its entirety. Lake fringe wetlands
existing along the periphery of Lake Ballinger shall be identified according to specific criteria provided
in 23.50.010. the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology
Publication No. 96-94, 1997) and updated guidance provided in Washington State Wetlands Rating
System for Western Washington – Revised (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025, 2004). Consistent with
guidance for delineating lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the existence of jurisdictional
wetlands along Lake Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of persistent
emergent vegetation in shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth. Provisions for protection of Lake
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 37 of 90
Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the city of Edmonds
shoreline master program. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Allowed Activities – Wetlands
23.50.020 Allowed activities – Wetlands.
The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent
with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas
report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland
buffer. These activities include:
A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not
entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland.
B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops
and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or
alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources.
C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water
connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies
by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or
percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed.
D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be
restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after
weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding
may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State
Noxious Weed Control Board list must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control
plan appropriate to that species.
E. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a wetland or wetland buffer that
does not increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing or increase the impact to a
wetland or wetland buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Wetlands
23.50.030 Special study and report requirements – Wetlands.
A. Additional Requirements for Wetlands. In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of
ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for wetlands must meet the requirements of this section. Critical
areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant
type of critical area.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 38 of 90
B. Critical areas report requirements for wetlands may be met in “stages” or through multiple reports.
The typical sequence of potentially required reports that may in part or in combination fulfill the
requirements of this section include:
1. Wetland reconnaissance report documenting the existence and general location of wetlands in the
vicinity of a project area;
2. Wetland delineation report documenting the extent and boundary of a jurisdictional wetland per RCW
36.70A.175; and
3. Wetland mitigation report documenting potential wetland impacts and mitigation measures designed
to retain or increase the functions and values of a wetland in accordance with ECDC 23.50.050 and the
general provisions of this title.
C. A wetland critical areas report may include one or more of the above three report types, depending on
the information required by the director and the extent of potential wetland impacts. The Edmonds
development services director maintains the authority and discretion to determine which report(s) alone
or combined are sufficient to meet the requirements outlined below and to waive report requirements
based upon site conditions and the potential for project impacts.
D. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical area report for wetlands shall be prepared by a
qualified professional who is a certified professional wetland scientist or a noncertified professional
wetland scientist with a minimum of five years of experience in the field of wetland science and with
experience preparing wetland reports. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of
the qualified technical consultants on the city’s approved list in preparing critical areas reports for
wetlands, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an
alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B).
E. Area Addressed in Critical Area Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical area
report for wetlands:
1. The project area of the proposed activity;
2. All wetlands and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the project area; and
3. All shoreline areas, water features, floodplains, and other critical areas, and related buffers within 200
feet of the project area. The location and extent of wetlands and other critical areas existing outside of
the project area or subject parcel boundary may be shown in approximation as practical and necessary to
provide an assessment of potential project effects.
F. Wetland Analysis. In addition to the minimum required contents of ECDC 23.40.090, Critical areas
reports – Requirements, a critical areas report for wetlands shall contain an analysis of the wetlands,
including the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:
1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the wetlands and buffers within 200 feet of the
project area, including the following information at a minimum:
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 39 of 90
a. Wetland delineation and required buffers;
b. Existing wetland acreage;
c. Wetland category;
d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics;
e. Soil and substrate conditions;
f. Topographic elevations, at two-foot contours; and
g. A discussion of the water sources supplying the wetland and documentation of hydrologic regime
(locations of inlet and outlet features, water depths throughout the wetland, and evidence of recharge or
discharge, evidence of water depths throughout the year: drift lines, algal layers, moss lines, and
sediment deposits).
The location, extent and analyses of wetlands not contiguous with the subject parcel existing outside of
the immediate project area may be described in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an
assessment of potential project effects and hydrologic/ecological connectivity to on-site wetlands and
other critical areas.
2. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, proposed to preserve
existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land use
activity.
3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance
on-site habitat and wetland functions.
4. Functional evaluation for the wetland and adjacent buffer using a local or state agency staff-
recognized method and including the reference of the method and all data sheets.
5. Proposed mitigation, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps of the
mitigation area, including the following information at a minimum:
a. Existing and proposed wetland acreage;
b. Vegetative and faunal conditions;
c. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions including an analysis of existing and future hydrologic
regime and proposed hydrologic regime for enhanced, created, or restored mitigation areas;
d. Relationship to the watershed and existing waterbodies;
e. Soil and substrate conditions, topographic elevations;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 40 of 90
f. Existing and proposed adjacent site conditions;
g. Required wetland buffers; and
h. Property ownership.
6. A scale map of the development proposal site and adjacent area. A discussion of ongoing
management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has been developed, including
proposed monitoring and maintenance programs.
7. A bond estimate for the installation (including site preparation, plant materials and installation,
fertilizers, mulch, and stakes) and the proposed monitoring and maintenance work for the required
number of years. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part IV. Development Standards – Wetlands
23.50.040 Development standards – Wetlands.
A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed
activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical
areas.
B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this
title.
C. Category 1 I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category 1 I wetlands, except as
provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections
of this title.
D. Category 2 II Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category 2 II wetlands, the following
standards shall apply:
1. Water-dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would
have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas.
2. Where non-water-dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are
available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that:
a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less
adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and
b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration,
or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its
buffer.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 41 of 90
E. Category 3 III and 4 IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary
impacts may be permitted in Category 3 III and 4 IV wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with
an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan.
F. Wetland Buffers.
1. Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d below have been
establish in accordance with best available science. The buffers are based on the category of wetland and
the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington.
a. The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in ECDC
23.50.040.F.2, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
b. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, than a thirty-
three (33%) increase in the width of all buffer is required.
c. The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community
in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed
activity. If the buffer is composed of nonnative vegetation, lawn, or bare ground, vegetation is
inadequate, then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may
be required to either develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard
width or widen the standard width to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. (see
subsection (F)(3) of this section). Required standard wetland buffers, based on wetland category, are as
follows:
a. Category 1: 200 feet;
b. Category 2: 100 feet;
c. Category 3: 50 feet;
d. Category 4: 35 feet.
d. Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Table.
Wetland Category
Minimum
Buffer
Width
(Wetland
scores 3-4
habitat
points)
Buffer
Width
(Wetland
scores 5
habitat
points)
Buffer
Width
(Wetland
scores 6-7
habitat
points)
Buffer Width
(Wetland scores
8-9 habitat
points)
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 42 of 90
Category I:
Based on total score 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category I:
Bogs and
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
190 ft 190 ft 190 ft 225 ft
Category I:
Forested 75ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category II:
Based on score 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category III (all) 60 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category IV (all) 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft
2. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. The standard wetland buffer widths in ECDC
23.50.040.F.1.e assumes implementation of the following measures, where applicable to a specific
proposal.
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights • Direct lights away from wetland
Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation
plantings adjacent to noise source
• immediately adjacent to the out wetland buffer
Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while
ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 43 of 90
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
wetlands
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and
existing adjacent development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the
buffer
• Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT publication
on LID techniques)
Change in water
regime
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff
from impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
disturbance
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate
buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation
appropriate for the ecoregion
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a
conservation easement
Dust • Use best management practices to control dust
Disruption of
corridors or
connections
• Maintain connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed
• Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 44 of 90
2. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance
with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best
available science on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions
and values based on site-specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the
following criteria:
a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas;
b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and
standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or
c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing
buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and
implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with subsection (F)(3) of this
section may substitute.
d. The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a bald
eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local importance; and it is determined by the
director that an increased buffer width is necessary to protect the species.
53. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as
surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for
approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created,
restored, or enhanced wetland.
64. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of
this chapter.
75. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland
buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds
is required for the duration of the mitigation bond.
G. Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses
1. Where wetland or buffer alterations are permitted by the City of Edmonds, the applicant shall mitigate
impacts to achieve no not loss of wetland acreage and functions consistent with ECDC 23.50.050 and
other applicable provisions of this Title.
2. At the discretion of the Director, standard wetland buffers may be averaged or reduced when
consistent with all criteria in ECDC 23.50.040.G. Wetland buffer averaging with enhancement shall be
preferred over wetland buffer averaging with enhancement. Wetland buffer reduction shall only be
approved by the director when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on-site.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 45 of 90
43. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging with Buffer Enhancement. The director may allow modification of
a standard or reduced wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the
best available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging
buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland
buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a wetland buffer
existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard or reduced buffer
for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional
wetland scientist demonstrates that:
a. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will
be:
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation
is generally intact; or
ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate
to protect the functions and values of the wetland;
a. It will not reduce the function and value of wetlands or associated buffers;
b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character
of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in
places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places;
c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for
wetlands extending off-site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a
standard or reduced buffer; and
d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 50 seventy-five percent (75%) of
the standard or reduced buffer width.
34. Buffer Width Reductions Throughthrough Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the Edmonds
development services director, and only when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site, wetland
buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer
conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and
implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category 3 III and 4 IV wetlands only.
Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland
buffer width reductions to no less than seventy-five 50 percent (75%) of the standard width; provided,
that:
a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be:
i. Iincreased or retained through plan implementation to at least the level provided by a standard buffer
or through additional mitigationfor those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact;
or
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 46 of 90
ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate
to protect the functions and values of the wetland;
b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant
densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees;
c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC
23.40.130(D); and
d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing
increases in wetland buffer functioning as related to:
i. Water quality protection;
ii. Provision of wildlife habitat;
iii. Maintenance of wetland hydrology; and
iv. Restricting wetland intrusion and disturbance.
5. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as
surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for
approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created,
restored, or enhanced wetland.
6. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of
this chapter.
7. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland
buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds
is required for the duration of the mitigation bond.
8. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the
review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they
are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:
a. All activities allowed by ECDC 23.50.020 (Allowed activities – wetlands).
b. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the
soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife.
bc. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical
area report, including:
i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does
not interfere with substrate permeability. , are generally located only in the outer twenty-five percent
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 47 of 90
(25%) of wetland buffers, and are located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally
established development has reduced the width of the wetland buffer, trails may be placed in the outer
twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining wetland buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet
in width and for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable.
The director may allow trails within the inner twenty-five percent (25%) of wetland buffers when
required to provide access to wildlife viewing structures, fishing access areas, or connections to other
trail facilities;
ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and
iii. Fishing access areas down to the water’s edge that shall be no larger than six feet.
c. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and
conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25
percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category 3 or 4 wetlands only; provided, that:
i. No other location is feasible; and
ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland.
iii. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category 1 or 2 wetlands.
iv. Projects shall also comply with all applicable requirements in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Stormwater
Management, including Minimum Requirement #8, Wetland Protection.
GH. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands.
1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be
disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as
to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to
the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect
wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout
construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place.
2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the
director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer.
a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another
nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50
feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be
worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director:
Protected Wetland Area
Do Not Disturb
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 48 of 90
Contact the City of Edmonds
Regarding Uses and Restrictions
b. The provisions of subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure
protection of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Permanent Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer
under the following circumstances, provided that the director may waive this require:
a. As part of any development proposal for single-family plats, single-family short plats, multifamily,
mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to
protect the functions of the critical area, provided that breaks in permanent fencing may be allowed for
access to permitted buffer uses (ECDC 23.50.040.G.8);
b. As part of development proposals for parks where the adjacent proposed use is active recreation and
the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area;
c. When buffer averaging is employed as part of a development proposal;
d. When buffer reductions are employed as part of a development proposal; or
e. At the director’s discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area.
HI. Additions to Structures Existing Within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers.
1. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase
the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development
standards of this section, provided that a wetland and/or buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate
for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all. impacts from temporary disturbances within
the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement
plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard wetland
buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and wetland buffer averaging with enhancement, and
buffer reductions with enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the
following sequencing:
1a. Outside of the standard wetland buffer;
3b. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through buffer averaged (with enhancement)ing per subsection
(FG)(43) of this section;
2c. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced (withthrough enhancement) per subsection (FG)(34) of this
section;
3. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through buffer averaging per subsection (F)(4) of this section; or
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 49 of 90
4d. Outside of the inner twenty five25 percent (25%) of the standard wetland buffer width through the
use of both buffer reduction and buffer averagingwith no more than three hundred (300) square feet of
structure addition footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard wetland buffer width,
provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum three-to-one (3:1) ratio (enhancement-to-impact);
e. Outside of the inner twenty five percent (25%) of the standard wetland buffer width with no more
than five hundred (500) square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard
wetland buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five-to-one (5:1) ratio
(enhancement-to-impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques and other
measures are included as part of the wetland / buffer enhancement plan.
2. Where meeting wetland buffer enhancement requirements required by H.1. of this section would
result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership,
alternative enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could
include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces
with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area.
3. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be
accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing in H.1. of this section (i.e., additions proposed
within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director’s
discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC
23.40.210.
J. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be
allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a wetland buffer, provided that
the following conditions are met:
1. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition
provided in ECDC 23.40.320;
2. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the
wetland edge as is feasible;
3. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are
implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the wetland and not
represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development.
4. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent wetland and associated buffer in
order to improve functions degraded by previous development;
5. Enhancement is provided as wetland or buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of
the newly proposed development within in the footprint of existing development occurring in wetland
buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of
the wetland and remaining buffer; and
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 50 of 90
6. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the wetland buffer shall be addressed through use of best
management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed
alteration.
IK. Small, hydrologically isolated wetlandsExemptions. The director may allow small, hydrologically
isolated Category 3 III or IV4 wetlands under 500one thousand (1,000) square feet in area to be exempt
from the avoidance sequencing provisions of ECDC 23.40.120 and the wetland development standards
provisions of ECDC 23.50.040.F. At the discretion of the director such wetlands may be altered,
provided that provisions of this title. A wetland exemption shall only be granted if a submitted critical
areas report and mitigation plan, in the form of a critical areas reconnaissance or delineation, provides
evidence that all of the following conditions are met:
1. The wetland is underless than 500 one thousand (1,000) square feet in area;
2. The wetland is a low-quality Category 3 III or IV4 wetland scoring less than seventeen (17) points for
all functions;
3. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife; and
4. The wetland is not adjacent to a riparian area;
5. The wetland has a score of less than three (3) points for habitat in the adopted Western Washington
rating system; and
6. A mitigation plan to replace lost wetland functions and values is developed, approved and
implemented consistent with ECDC 23.50.050.
4. Filling of the wetland can maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing
site conditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.50.050 Mitigation requirements – Wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic
functions. Wetland mitigation plans shall be consistent with the state Department of Ecology
Gguidelines for in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans
(Ecology, 2006) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Ecology,
2009)Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals, 1994, as revised.
A. Mitigation shall be required in the following order of preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by
using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 51 of 90
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
BA. Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation actions shall address functions
affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and shall provide similar
wetland functions as those lost, except when:
1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site-specific function assessment, and
the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide
functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington State watershed
assessment plan or protocol; or
2. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet formally identified watershed goals, such as replacement of
historically diminished wetland types.
CB. Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing,
enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference:
1. Implementing compensatory restoration through purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank or
through payment into an approved in lieu fee program.
12. Restoring (re-establishing) wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands.
23. Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily
of nonnative, introduced species. This should only be attempted when there is a consistent source of
hydrology and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the
wetland community that is being designed.
4. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Such
enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area meeting
appropriate ratio requirements.
DC. Type and Location of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological
functioning would result from an alternate approach, compensatory mitigation for ecological functions
shall be in-kind and conducted on the site or in the vicinity of the alteration except when all of the
following apply:
1. On-site opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success, after a determination of the natural
capacity of the site to mitigate for the impacts. Consideration should include: anticipated wetland
mitigation replacement ratios, buffer conditions and proposed widths, hydrogeomorphic classes of on-
site wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and
wildlife impacts (such as connectivity);
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 52 of 90
2. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the
impacted wetland; and
3. Off-site mitigation incorporates guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory
Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Hruby. 2012); and
34. Off-site locations for compensatory mitigation are consistent with city of Edmonds goals for
jurisdictionwatershed-wide ecological restoration. Off-site locations are selected with a preference for
sites within the same basin as the impact, followed by other sites within the city. Specific areas targeted
for restoration efforts include:
a. Lake-fringe wetlands and habitat areas associated with Lake Ballinger;
b. Edmonds marsh;
c. Yost Park wetlands;
d. Good Hope wetlands; and
e. Wetlands and habitat areas peripheral to anadromous fish-bearing streams.; and
f. Sites available through an approved mitigation bank or in- lieu fee program.
This list is not comprehensive and may change as the city of Edmonds identifies areas suitable for
restoration and capital improvement projects consistent with goals for jurisdiction-wide habitat retention
and enhancement provided in the city’s comprehensive plan.
ED. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed with an approved monitoring plan prior
to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitigation shall be completed immediately
following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. Construction of
mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
FE. Mitigation Ratios.
1. Acreage Replacement Ratios. The following ratios in the table below shall apply to creation or
restorationcreation or re-establishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement that is in-kind, is on-site, is the
same category, is timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success.
These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater ratios shall
apply in those cases. The first number specifies the acreage of replacement wetlands and the second
specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced
when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment pursuant to Table 1a,
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance –Version 1, (Ecology
Publication #06-06-11a, or as revised). Creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement
definitions are provided in ECDC 23.40.320 (see definition for “compensatory mitigation”, and shall be
additionally consistent with intent pursuant to Ecology Publication #06-06-11a.:
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 53 of 90
a. Category 1: six-to-one;
b. Category 2: three-to-one;
c. Category 3: two-to-one;
d. Category 4: one and one-half-to-one.
Category and
Type of Wetland
Creation or
Re-
establishment
Rehabilitation
only
Enhancement
only
Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1
Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1
Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1
Category I:
Based on functions 4:1 8:1 16:1
Category I:
Mature and old
growth forest
6:1 12:1 24:1
Category I:
High conservation
value / Bog
Not considered
possible
Not considered
possible
Not considered
possible
Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating
Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report
(Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) if approved by the director.
2. Off-site Mitigation. These ratios provided in ECDC 23.50.050.F.1. do not apply to off-site mitigation,
including the use of credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank or payment to a certified in-
lieu fee program. When off-site mitigation is proposed, or when credits from a certified mitigation bank
or in lieu fee program isare used, replacement ratios mayshould incorporate guidance from Calculating
Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology
Publication #10-06-011, Hruby. 2012), and for mitigation banks or in lieu fee program should be
consistent with the certification requirements of the bank’s certification. Use of mitigation banks shall
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 54 of 90
meet all requirements of ECDC 23.50.050.H.The first number specifies the acreage of replacement
wetlands and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered:
23. Increased Replacement Ratio. The director may require increased compensatory mitigation ratios
under the following circumstances:
a. Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation;
b. A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland functions;
c. Proposed mitigation will result in a lower-category wetland or reduced functions relative to the
wetland being impacted; or
d. The impact was an unauthorized impact.
G. Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation.
1. Impacts to wetland functions may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded
wetlands, but may, at the discretion of the director, be used in conjunction with restoration and/or
creation. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a critical areas report that identifies
how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will
adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement
proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement
actions.
2. At a minimum, enhancement acreage shall be double the acreage required for creation or restoration
under subsection F of this section. The ratios shall be greater than double the required acreage where the
enhancement proposal would result in minimal gain in the performance of wetland functions and/or
result in the reduction of other wetland functions currently being provided in the wetland.
3. Mitigation ratios for enhancement in combination with other forms of mitigation shall range from six-
to-one to three-to-one and be limited to Class 3 and 4 wetlands.
H. Wetland Mitigation Banks and In- Lieu Fee Programs.
1. Wetland Mitigation Banks. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as
compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:
a. The bank is certified under Chapter 173-700 WACstate rules;
b. The director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the
authorized impacts; and
c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank’s certification
instrument.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 55 of 90
d. 2. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall beare consistent with replacement ratios
specified in the bank’s certification.
e. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank are used to compensate for impacts located within
the service area specified in the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank
may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions.
32. In - Lieu Fee Programs. In lieu of wetland mitigation bank creditAs an alternative to on-site or other
off-site mitigation approaches, the director may provideapprove purchase of credit for compensatory
mitigation from an in lieu fee program. Any such program used to compensate for direct wetland
impacts shall be developed and approved through a public process and be consistent with federal rules,
state policy on in lieu fee mitigation and state water quality regulations, Determining credit purchase
necessary to compensate for wetland impacts shall incorporate guidance from Calculating Credits and
Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06-
011, Hruby. 2012). Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may
contribute payment towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the
director, provided that the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where
required. through applicant provision of funds to identified capital improvement projects for wetland
restoration. The director retains discretion to establish a monetary value for applicant provision of funds
which shall be, at a minimum, equal to the cost of designing, developing, implementing and monitoring
in-kind compensatory mitigation on-site or in the project vicinity. Applicant provision of funds for
compensatory mitigation shall only be approved if:
a. The director determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the
proposed wetland impacts;Such funding can be demonstrated to directly support wetland restoration
efforts;
b. The mitigation will occur on a site identified using the site selection and prioritization process in the
approved in -lieu fee program instrument or at a City-identified restoration site consistent with
ECDC23.40.140Funding can be demonstrated to provide compensatory wetland mitigation consistent
with the provisions and ratios of this title;
c. A restoration area and plan have been identified and shall be implemented within three years of
project development;
d. Restoration efforts are focused in those areas identified in subsection (D)(3) of this section and areas
identified as suitable for restoration by the director; and
e. Credits from an approved in- lieu fee program may be used to compensate for impacts located within
the service area specified in the approved in- lieu fee instrument.
A suitable capital improvement project and plan for implementation is in place prior to receipt of an
applicant proposal. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.50.060 Performance standards – Subdivisions.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 56 of 90
The subdivision and short subdivision of land in wetlands and associated buffers is subject to the
following:
A. Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided.
B. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be subdivided; provided, that an
accessible and buildable contiguous portion of each new lot is located outside of the wetland and its
buffer.
C. Access roads and utilities serving the proposed subdivision may be permitted within the wetland and
associated buffers only at the discretion of the director. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form
23.50.070 Wetland field data form.
The city of Edmonds wetland field data used for completion of wetland ratings shall be consistent with
the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology
Publication #14-06-029; Hruby 2014).form is available in the city of Edmonds development services
department and on the city of Edmonds website. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Figure 23.50.000
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 57 of 90
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 58 of 90
Chapter 23.60
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation.
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used
for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing geologic conditions
associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources
or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. CARAs are protected as critical areas
under the Washington State Growth Management Act. However, no areas meeting criteria for CARAs
exist in the vicinity of the city of Edmonds. Thus, additional specific provisions for protection of this
critical area type are not provided within this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 59 of 90
Chapter 23.70
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Frequently flooded areas.
Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.020 Special study and report requirements – Frequently flooded areas.
23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability.
Part III. Development Standards – Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.040 Development standards – Frequently flooded areas.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Frequently flooded areas.
A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include:
1. Those areas identified on FEMA flood insurance maps as areas of special flood hazard, which include
those lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. For
the purposes of this title, areas of special flood hazard for the city of Edmonds are hereby declared
generally to be those areas shown as Zone A (including Zones A, AE, A1–A30, AH, AO, AR and A99)
and Zone V (including Zones V and VE) on the following FEMA maps or panels: 53061C00;
53061C1292 E, Panel 1292; 53061C1285 E, Panel 1285; 53061C1315 E, Panel 1315; and 53061C1305
E, Panel 1305. The following maps and panels were revised and effective on January 30, 1998November
8, 1999, and such maps and panels are adopted by this reference as a part of this chapter as if fully set
forth herein.The city will use the most currently adopted FEMA maps in determining whether a property
is located within a frequently flooded area. Base flood elevations and flood hazard factors for those
areas shown as Zone A on the map have not been determined and the local flood management
administrator shall utilize such other data as may be reasonably available from federal, state or other
sources in administering this chapter as provided in the current editions of the International Residential
Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19.
2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory.
Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special
flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 60 of 90
B. City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city’s critical areas inventory are to
be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or
property owners, and the public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded
areas. As flood insurance maps may be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are
identified, newer and more restrictive information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis
for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to designate and identify areas known to be
prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to the provisions and protections
of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building
Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.020 Special study and report requirements – Frequently flooded areas.
In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for
frequently flooded areas must meet the requirements of this section and the current editions of the
International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Critical
areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant
type of critical area.
A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A frequently flooded areas report shall be prepared by a
qualified professional who is a hydrologist or engineer, licensed in the state of Washington, with
experience in preparing flood hazard assessments. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may
choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city’s approved list in preparing critical areas
reports for frequently flooded areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and
reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC
23.40.090(B).
B. Areas to Be Addressed. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for frequently
flooded areas:
1. The site area of the proposed activity;
2. All areas of a special flood hazard area, as indicated on the flood insurance map(s), within 200 feet of
the project area; and
3. All other flood areas indicated on the flood insurance map(s) within 200 feet of the project area.
C. Flood Hazard Assessment. A critical area report for a proposed activity within a frequently flooded
area shall contain a flood hazard assessment including the following site- and proposal-related
information at a minimum:
1. Site and Construction Plans. A copy of the site and construction plans for the development proposal
showing:
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 61 of 90
a. Floodplain (100-year flood elevation), 10- and 50-year flood elevations, floodway, other critical areas,
buffers, and shoreline areas;
b. Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed structures, fill, storage of
materials, and drainage facilities, with dimensions indicating distances to the floodplain;
c. Clearing limits; and
d. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures, and the level to which any
nonresidential structure has been floodproofed.
2. Watercourse Alteration. Alteration of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If
unavoidable, a critical areas report shall include:
a. Extent of Watercourse Alteration. A description of and plan showing the extent to which a
watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of a proposal;
b. Maintenance Program Required for Watercourse Alterations. A maintenance program that provides
maintenance practices for the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the flood-
carrying capacity is not diminished.
D. Information Regarding Other Critical Areas. Potential impacts to wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat,
and other critical areas shall be addressed in accordance with the applicable sections of this title. [Ord.
3527 § 2, 2004].
23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability.
The degree of flood protection required by this chapter and the current editions of the International
Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, is considered
reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger
floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural
causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside frequently flooded areas or uses permitted within
such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part
of the city of Edmonds, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration for any
flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made
hereunder. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Development Standards – Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.040 Development standards – Frequently flooded areas.
Development standards and provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas are provided as
applicable to areas of special flood hazard in the current editions of the International Residential Code
and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Conformance with the provisions for
flood hazard reduction of the current editions of the International Residential Code and International
Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, shall constitute conformance with ECDC 23.40.050,
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 62 of 90
Protection of critical areas, per the mandates of the Washington Growth Management Act and the
purposes and objectives of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Chapter 23.80
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart.
23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Geologically hazardous areas.
23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas.
23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas.
Part II. Allowed Activities – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.040 Allowed activities – Geologically hazardous areas.
Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.050 Special study and report requirements – Geologically hazardous areas.
Part IV. Development Standards – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.060 Development standards – General requirements.
23.80.070 Development standards – Specific hazards.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart.
See Figure 23.80.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Geologically hazardous areas.
Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other
geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 63 of 90
development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place
itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. Areas susceptible to
one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as a geologically hazardous area:
A. Erosion hazard;
B. Landslide hazard; and
C. Seismic hazard. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas.
A. Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion hazard areas are at least those areas identified by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a “moderate to severe,” “severe,” or
“very severe” rill and inter-rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted by
shoreland and/or stream bank erosion. Within the city of Edmonds erosion hazard areas include:
1. Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that 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:
a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes);
b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes);
c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes);
2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion related to
moving water such as stream channel migration and shoreline retreat.
32. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils
and springs or ground water seepage; and
43. Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing
landslide deposits regardless of slope.
B. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a
combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of
any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors.
Within the city of Edmonds potential landslide hazard areas specifically include:
1. Areas of ancient or historic failures in Edmonds which include all areas within the earth subsidence
and landslide hazard area as identified in the 1979 report of Robert Lowe Associates and amended by
the 1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc. and further discussed in the 2007 report by Landau Associates;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 64 of 90
2. Coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides)
in the Department of Ecology Washington coastal atlas;
3. Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps published by the
United States Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
Figure 1
24. Any slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of ten (10) feet over a
twenty-five (25) foot horizontal run. Except for rockeries that have been engineered and approved by the
engineer as having been built according to the engineered design, all other modified slopes (including
slopes where there are breaks in slopes) meeting overall average steepness and height criteria should be
considered potential landslide hazard areas);
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 65 of 90
5. Any slope with all three of the following characteristics:
a. Slopes steeper than fifteen percent (15%);
b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively
impermeable sediment; and
c. Springs or groundwater seepage; Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical
relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by
establishing its toe and top (as defined in Figure 1 in subsection (B)(1) of this section) and is measured
by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief or 25 feet of horizontal distance.
Benches, steps and variations in gradient shall be incorporated into a larger slope if they do not meet
criteria defining toe and/or top depicted in Figure 1 in subsection (B)(1) of this section (see also Figure 2
at the end of this subsection). If the toe or top of a slope is located off of a subject property, then the
location of the toe or top shall be delineated 200 horizontal feet from the property boundary or at its
natural location, whichever is closer to the subject parcel (see Figure 2 at the end of this subsection);
Figure 2
36. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion; and
47. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by
debris flow or deposition of stream-transported sediments; and
8. Any slopes that have been modified by past development activity that still meet the slope criter .
C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of
earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or
surface faulting. These areas are designated as having a “high” and “moderate to high” risk of
liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County by the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources or areas located within or near landslide hazard
areas.Settlement and soil liquefaction conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless, loose, or soft-
saturated soils of low density, typically in association with a shallow ground water table. [Ord. 3527 § 2,
2004].
23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas.
A. The approximate location and extent of geologically hazardous areas are shown on the city of
Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, resources providing information on the location and
extent of geologically hazardous areas in Edmonds include:
1. Washington Department of Ecology coastal zone atlas (for marine bluffs);
2. U.S. Geological Survey geologic maps, landslide hazard maps, and seismic hazard maps;
3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources seismic hazard maps for Western Washington;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 66 of 90
4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources slope stability maps;
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tsunami hazard maps; and
6. Federal Emergency Management Administration flood insurance maps.
B. The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of
Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners and may be
continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final
critical area designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Allowed Activities – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.040 Allowed activities – Geologically hazardous areas.
The following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas as consistent with ECDC
23.40.220, Allowed activities, Chapter 19.10 ECDC, Building Permits – Earth Subsidence and
Landslide Hazard Areas, and Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water Management, and do not require
submission of a critical area report:
A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Except for installation of fences and as otherwise provided for
in this title, only those activities approved and permitted consistent with an approved critical areas report
in accordance with this title shall be allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas.
B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is
greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly;
2. Additions to existing single-story residences that are 250 square feet or less; and
3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.050 Special study and report requirements – Geologically hazardous areas.
Critical area report requirements for geologically hazardous areas are generally met through submission
to the director of one or more geotechnical engineering reports. In addition to the general critical areas
report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for geologically hazardous areas must
meet the requirements of this section and Chapters 18.30 and 19.10 ECDC as applicable. Critical areas
reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type
of critical area. Geotechnical report(s) submitted for the purpose of critical areas review are required as
necessary in addition to reports, data and other information mandated per ECDC Titles 18 and 19.
Geotechnical report(s) shall be required: whenever a potential erosion hazard area or potential landslide
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 67 of 90
hazard area, as mapped by Edmonds critical areas inventory or shown on other information consistent
with ECDC 23.80.030, is located within 50 feet of the proposed development site; whenever a
development site is located within a seismic hazard area; or when otherwise determined warranted by
the director (e.g. a distance equal to the height of the slope).
A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for assessing a potential geologically
hazardous area shall be prepared by an engineer or geologist licensed in the state of Washington, with
experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems, and who has experience
preparing reports for the relevant type of hazard. If mitigation measures are necessary, the report
detailing the mitigation measures and design of the mitigation shall be prepared by an engineer licensed
in the State of Washington, with experience stabilizing slopes with similar geotechnical properties.
Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas shall be subject to independent review
pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B).
B. Area Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas
report for geologically hazardous areas:
1. The project area of the proposed activity; and
2. All geologically hazardous areas within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be
affected by the proposal.
C. Geological Hazards Assessment. A geology hazard assessment critical areas report for a geologically
hazardous area shall include a field investigation and contain an assessment of whether or not each type
of geologic hazard identified in ECDC 20.80.020 is present or not present and if development of the site
will increase the risk of landslides or erosion on or off the site. Geotechnical reports shall be prepared,
stamped and signed by a qualified professional. These reports must:
1. Be appropriate for the scale and scope of the project;
2. Include a discussion of all geologically hazardous areas on the site and any geologically hazardous
areas off site potentially impacted by the proposed project. If the affected area extends beyond the
subject property, the geology hazard assessment may utilize existing data sources pertaining to that area;
3. Clearly state that the proposed project will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat
to persons or property either on or off site and provide a rationale as to those conclusions based on
geologic conditions and interpretations specific to the project;
4. Provide adequate information to determine compliance with the requirements of ECDC Chapter
23.80;
5. Generally follow the guidelines set forth in the Washington State Department of Licensing Guidelines
for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington (2006). In some cases, such as when it is
determined that no landslide or erosion risk is present, a full report may not be necessary to determine
compliance with the ECDC Chapter 23.80, and in those cases a letter or abbreviated report may be
provided.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 68 of 90
6. If a landslide or erosion hazard is identified, provide minimum setback recommendations for avoiding
the landslide or erosion hazard, other recommendations for site development so that the frequency or
magnitude of landsliding or erosion on or off the site is not altered, and recommendations consistent
with ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
geological hazards including the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:
1. Site and Construction Plans. The report shall include a copy of the site plans for the proposal
showing:
a. The type and extent of geologic hazard areas, any other critical areas, and buffers on, adjacent to,
within 200 feet of, or that are likely to impact the proposal;
b. Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed structures, fill, storage of
materials, and drainage facilities, with dimensions indicating distances to the floodplain, if available;
c. The topography, in two-foot contours, of the project area and all hazard areas addressed in the report;
and
d. Clearing limits;
2. Assessment of Geological Characteristics. The report shall include an assessment of the geologic
characteristics of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the project area and potentially affected adjacent
properties, and a review of the site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading. Soils
analysis shall be accomplished in accordance with accepted classification systems in use in the region.
The assessment shall include, but not be limited to:
a. A description of the surface and subsurface geology, hydrology, soils, and vegetation found in the
project area and in all hazard areas addressed in the report;
b. A detailed overview of the field investigations, published data, and references; data and conclusions
from past assessments of the site; and site-specific measurements, tests, investigations, or studies that
support the identification of geologically hazardous areas; and
c. A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic events;
3. Analysis of Proposal. The report shall contain a hazards analysis including a detailed description of
the project, its relationship to the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the
subject property, and affected adjacent properties; and
4. Minimum Buffer and Building Setback. The report shall make a recommendation for the minimum
no-disturbance buffer and minimum building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the
geotechnical analysis.
D. Incorporation of Previous Study. Where a valid critical areas report has been prepared within the last
five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 69 of 90
are unchanged, said report may be incorporated into the required critical areas report. The applicant shall
submit a hazards assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site.
E. Mitigation of Long-Term Impacts. When hazard mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall
specifically address how the activity maintains or reduces the preexisting level of risk to the site and all
other adjacent properties potentially impacted on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected
lifespan of the activity or occupation). Proposed mitigation techniques shall be considered to provide
long-term hazard reduction only if they do not require regular maintenance or other actions to maintain
their function. Mitigation may also be required to avoid any increase in risk above the preexisting
conditions following abandonment of the activity.
F. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Projects within Erosion and Landslide Hazard
Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas
provided in subsections A through E of this section, technical information for any development within
erosion and earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas shall meet the requirements of Chapter 19.10
ECDC and include the following information at a minimum:
1. Site Plan. The critical areas report shall include a copy of the site plan for the proposal showing:
a. The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross-section of the project area;
b. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of ground water on or within 200 feet of
the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal; and
c. The location and description of surface water runoff features;
2. Hazards Analysis. The hazards analysis component of the critical areas report shall specifically
include:
a. A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover;
b. A description of subsurface conditions based on data from site-specific explorations;
c. Descriptions of surface and ground water conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills
and excavations, and all structural improvements;
d. An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the
slope over the estimated life of the structure;
e. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate or an estimate of the percent risk of landslide area expansion that
recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100-year storm event;
f. Consideration of the run-out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run-out on
down-slope properties;
g. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed cuts, fills, and other site grading;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 70 of 90
h. Recommendations for building siting limitations; and
i. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion;
3. Geotechnical Engineering Report. The technical information for a project within a landslide hazard
area shall include a geotechnical engineering report prepared by a licensed engineer that presents
engineering recommendations for the following:
a. Parameters for design of site improvements including appropriate foundations and retaining
structures. These should include allowable load and resistance capacities for bearing and lateral loads,
installation considerations, and estimates of settlement performance;
b. Recommendations for drainage and subdrainage improvements;
c. Earthwork recommendations including clearing and site preparation criteria, fill placement and
compaction criteria, temporary and permanent slope inclinations and protection, and temporary
excavation support, if necessary; and
d. Mitigation of adverse site conditions including slope stabilization measures and seismically unstable
soils, if appropriate;
4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. For any development proposal on a site containing an erosion
hazard area, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be required. The erosion and sediment control
plan shall be prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC.
G. Limited Report Requirements for Stable Erosion Hazard Areas. At the director’s discretion, detailed
critical areas report requirements may be waived for erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability.
Report requirements for stable erosion hazard areas may be met through construction documents that
shall include at a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with
requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC.
H. Seismic Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically
hazardous areas provided in subsections A through E of this section, a critical areas report for a seismic
hazard area shall also meet the following requirements:
1. The site map shall show all known and mapped active faults within 200 feet of the project area or that
have the potential to be affected by the proposal.
21. The hazards analysis shall include a complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity
on the site (for example, forces generated and fault displacement).
32. A geotechnical engineering report shall evaluate the physical properties of the subsurface soils,
especially the thickness of unconsolidated deposits and their liquefaction potential. If it is determined
that the site is subject to liquefaction, mitigation measures appropriate to the scale of the development
shall be recommended and implemented. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 71 of 90
Part IV. Development Standards – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.060 Development standards – General requirements.
A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that:
1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment
conditions;
2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas;
3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than
predevelopment conditions; and
4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist,
licensed in the state of Washington.
B. Critical Facilities Prohibited. Critical facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas
unless there is no other practical alternative. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.80.070 Development standards – Specific hazards.
A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing erosion or landslide hazards shall
meet the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards – General Requirements, and the
specific following requirements:
1. Minimum Building Setback. The minimum setback shall be the distance required to ensure the
proposed structure will not be at risk from landslides for the life of the structure, considered to be one
hundred and twenty (120) years and will not cause an increased risk of landslides taking place on or off
the site. Buffer Requirement. A setback buffer shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard
areas. The size of the setbackbuffer shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations
provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or
injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and
concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional.
2. Buffer Requirements. A buffer may be established with specific requirements and limitations,
including but not limited to, drainage, grading, irrigation, and vegetation. Buffer requirements shall be
determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to
eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in
whole or part by activities within the buffer area, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical
areas report prepared by a qualified professional.
a. Minimum Buffer. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope existing within the
project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 72 of 90
b. Buffer Reduction. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a qualified professional
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed
development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area;
c. Increased Buffer. The buffer may be increased where the director determines that a larger buffer is
necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development;
23. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area, minimum building setback and/or
buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that:
a. The alteration development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond predevelopment conditions;
b. The alterationdevelopment will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and
c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas;
3. Design Standards within erosion and landslide hazard areas. Development within an erosion or
landslide hazard area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it
can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards
provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this title. The
requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic
maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development design standards are:
a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the
limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If stability at the proposed
development site is below these limits, the proposed development shall provide practicable approaches
to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the
existing factor of safety be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties;
b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other
critical areas;
c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and
foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography;
d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its
natural landforms and vegetation;
e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on
neighboring properties;
f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over
graded artificial slopes; and
g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 73 of 90
4. Vegetation Retention. Unless otherwise provided or as part of an approved alteration, removal of
vegetation from an erosion or landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited;
5. Seasonal Restriction. Clearing shall be allowed only from May 1st to October 1st of each year;
provided, that the director may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis depending on
actual weather conditions, except that timber harvest, not including brush clearing or stump removal,
may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit issued by the city of Edmonds or the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
6. Point Discharges. Point discharges from surface water facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from
an erosion or landslide hazard area shall be prohibited except as follows:
a. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazard areas
downstream from the discharge;
b. Discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, with adequate energy dissipation,
into existing channels that previously conveyed storm water runoff in the predeveloped state; or
c. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low-gradient, undisturbed buffer demonstrated
to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and storm water runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that
such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope; and
7. Prohibited Development. On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited
within erosion and landslide hazard areas and related buffers.
B. Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. In addition to the requirements of this chapter,
development proposals for lands located within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as
indicated on the critical areas inventory shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC.
C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities proposed to be located in seismic hazard areas shall meet the
standards of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards – General Requirements. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 74 of 90
Figure 23.80.000
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 75 of 90
Chapter 23.90
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements flowchart.
23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.020 Special study and report requirements – Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
Part III. Development Standards – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.030 Development standards – General requirements.
23.90.040 Development standards – Specific habitats.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements
flowchart.
See Figure 23.90.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas.
A. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in the city of Edmonds include:
1. Streams. Within the city of Edmonds streams shall include those areas where surface waters produce a
defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the
passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. Streams shall be classified in
accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (WAC 222-16-
030) hereby adopted in its entirety by reference and summarized as follows:
a. Type S: streams inventoried as “shorelines of the state” under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules
promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW;
b. Type F: streams which contain fish habitat;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 76 of 90
c. Type Np: perennial nonfish habitat streams; and
d. Type Ns: seasonal nonfish habitat streams.
All streams included on the inventory that are known to exist within the city of Edmonds do not meet
criteria for “shorelines of the state” but contain fish habitat and, thus, meet designation criteria for Type
F waters pursuant to WAC 222-16-030. However, not all Edmonds streams support anadromous fish
populations or have the potential for anadromous fish occurrence because of obstructions, blockages or
access restrictions resulting from existing conditions. Therefore, in order to provide special
consideration of and increased protection for anadromous fish in the application of development
standards, Edmonds streams shall be further classified as follows:
Anadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds in
which anadromous fish are known to occur. As of 2004, Edmonds fishbearing streams are known to
include Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds
Creek; and
Nonanadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds
which do not support fish populations and do not have the potential for fish occurrence because of
barriers to fish passage or lack of suitable habitat.
Streams with anadromous fish occurrence were identified in the Edmonds Stream Inventory and
Assessment, a 2002 report of Pentec Environmental which is incorporated by this reference as if herein
set forth. The city of Edmonds advocates and encourages the removal of barriers to anadromous fish
passage consistent with the purposes and objectives of this title. The director may provide updated
information on the occurrence of anadromous fish in Edmonds streams consistent with changes in
existing environmental conditions.
2. Areas with Which which State or Federally Designated Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive
Species Have a Primary Association, or offer important fish and wildlife habitat within the urban
environment.
a. Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Fisheries that are in danger of extinction or
threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service should be consulted for current listing status.
b. State-designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species
native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, that are
in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to
become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without
cooperative management or removal of threats. State-designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species are periodically recorded in WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232-12-011
(state threatened and sensitive species). The state Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the most
current listing and should be consulted for current listing status.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 77 of 90
3. State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species. Priority habitats and species
are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective
measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or
recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with
unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique
vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural
element. Priority habitats and species are identified by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. Habitats and Species of Local Importance. Habitats and species of local importance are those
identified by the city of Edmonds, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, due to
their population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include a
seasonal range or habitat element with which a species has a primary association, and which, if altered,
may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term.
45. Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas. These areas include all public and private tidelands or
bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest, including shellfish protection districts established pursuant to
Chapter 90.72 RCW.
56. Kelp and eelgrass beds and herring and smelt spawning areas.
67. Naturally Occurring Ponds Under 20 Acres. Naturally occurring ponds are those ponds under 20
acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial
ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring
ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape
amenities, unless such artificial ponds were intentionally created for mitigation.
78. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters,
underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of
the state of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-031 (or WAC 222-16-030, depending on
classification used).
9. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity.
10. Urban open space and land useful or essential for preserving connections between habitat.
11. Areas of Rare Plant Species and High-Quality Ecosystems. Areas of rare plant species and high-
quality ecosystems are identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources through the
Natural Heritage Program.
B. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting one or more of these criteria, regardless of any formal
identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title and shall
be managed consistent with the best available science, such as the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife’s Management Recommendations for Priority Habitat and Species.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 78 of 90
C. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are
shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Resources providing information on the location
and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas incorporated into the inventory include:
1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species maps;
2. Washington State Department of Natural Resources official water type reference maps, as amended;
3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Puget Sound intertidal habitat inventory maps;
4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources shorezone inventory;
5. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program mapping data;
6. Washington State Department of Health annual inventory of shellfish harvest areas;
7. Anadromous and resident salmonid distribution maps contained in the habitat limiting factors reports
published by the Washington Conservation Commission; and
8. Washington State Department of Natural Resources state natural area preserves and natural resource
conservation area maps.
The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of
Edmonds development services department, project applicants, and/or property owners and should be
continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final
critical areas designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.020 Special study and report requirements – Fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical area reports for
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas must meet the requirements of this section. Critical areas
reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type
of critical area.
A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for a fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a biologist with experience
preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may
choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city’s approved list in preparing critical areas
reports for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical
areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review
pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B).
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 79 of 90
B. Areas Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas
report for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas:
1. The project area of the proposed activity;
2. All fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the
project area; and
3. All shoreline areas, floodplains, other critical areas, and related buffers within 200 feet of the project
area; and.
4. A discussion of the efforts to avoid and minimize potential effects to these resources and the
implementation of mitigation/enhancement measures as required.
C. Habitat Assessment. A habitat assessment is an investigation of the project area to evaluate the
potential presence or absence of designated critical fish or wildlife species or habitat. A critical areas
report for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall contain an assessment of habitats, including
the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:
1. Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area and its associated buffer;
2. Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened,
sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project
area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species;
3. A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations, that have been
developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area.
D. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Streams. Consistent with specific development
standards for Edmonds streams (ECDC 23.90.040(D)), critical areas report requirements for streams
may be met, at the discretion of the director, through submission of one or more specific report types. If
stream buffer enhancement is proposed to reduce a standard stream buffer width or as part of project
mitigation required by the director, a stream buffer enhancement plan may be submitted to fulfill the
requirements of this section. If no project impacts are anticipated and standard stream buffer widths are
retained, a stream survey report, general critical areas report or other reports alone or in combination
may be submitted as consistent with the specific requirements of this section. In addition to the basic
critical areas report requirements for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas provided in subsections
(A) through (C) of this section, technical information on streams shall include the following information
at a minimum:
1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the stream and associated hydrologic features within
200 feet of the project area, including the following information at a minimum:
a. Stream survey showing the ordinary high water mark(s);
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 80 of 90
b. Standard stream buffer boundary;
c. Boundary for proposed reduced stream buffers;
d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics;
e. Soil and substrate conditions; and
f. Topographic elevations, at two-foot contours;
2. A detailed description and functional assessment of the stream buffer under existing conditions
pertaining to the protection of stream functions, fish habitat and, in particular, potential anadromous
fisheries;
3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance
on-site habitat and stream functions;
4. Proposed buffer enhancement, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps and
planting plans for buffer areas to be enhanced, including the following information at a minimum:
a. A description of existing buffer conditions;
b. A description of proposed buffer conditions and how proposed conditions will increase buffer
functioning in terms of stream and fish habitat protection;
c. Performance standards for measuring enhancement success through a monitoring period of at least
three years; and
d. Provisions for monitoring and submission of monitoring reports documenting buffer conditions as
compared to performance standards for enhancement success;
5. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect stream functions and habitat value
through maintenance of vegetation density within the stream buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Development Standards – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.030 Development standards – General requirements.
A. Alterations. A fish and wildlife habitat conservation area may be altered only if the proposed
alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative
functions and values of the habitat. There are no specific development standards for upland habitats of
local importance unless these areas include another critical area (streams, heron rookeries, steep slopes,
etc.). City staff will review the critical areas report (ECDC 23.90.020) and work with the applicant to
minimize effects or improve conditions to upland habitat.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 81 of 90
B. Approvals of Activities. The director shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or
adjacent to a habitat conservation area or its buffers as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential
adverse impacts. Conditions shall be based on the best available science and may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1. Establishment of buffer zones;
2. Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as snags and downed
wood;
3. Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access;
4. Seasonal restriction of construction activities;
5. Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities; and
6. Requirement of a performance bond, when necessary, to ensure completion and success of proposed
mitigation.
C. Mitigation and Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions. Mitigation of alterations to fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions
and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal
site. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency
or improvement on a per function basis. Mitigation shall be located on-site except when demonstrated
that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an off-site location. Mitigation shall be
detailed in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area mitigation plan, which may include the following
as necessary:
1. A native vegetation planting plan;
2. Plans for retention, enhancement or restoration of specific habitat features;
3. Plans for control of nonnative invasive plant or wildlife species; and
4. Stipulations for use of innovative, sustainable building practices.
D. Approvals and the Best Available Science. Any approval of alterations or impacts to a fish and
wildlife habitat conservation area shall be supported by the best available science.
E. Buffers.
1. Establishment of Buffers. The director shall require the establishment of temporary or permanent
buffer areas for permitted activities adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas which may
result in fish or wildlife disturbance (e.g., construction, grading, etc.) when needed to protect fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas. Establishment of buffers shall follow recommendations set forth by a
qualified biologist in the project critical areas report. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 82 of 90
of the habitat and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted nearby and shall be
consistent with the management recommendations issued by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
2. Seasonal and Daily Timing Restrictions. When a species is more susceptible to adverse impacts
during specific periods of the year or day, seasonal restrictions on permitted activities within or adjacent
to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas may be required at the discretion of the director pursuant
to recommendations set forth in a critical areas report.
F. Signs and Fencing of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer
and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be
marked in the field as required by the director in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion
will occur. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be
removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place.
2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the
director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area or buffer.
a. Permanent signs shall be made of a metal face and attached to a metal post or another material of
equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less,
and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with
alternative language approved by the director:
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area
Do Not Disturb
Contact the City of Edmonds
Regarding Uses and Restriction
b. The provisions of subsection (F)(2)(a) of this section may be modified by the director as necessary to
assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Fencing.
a. The director shall determine if fencing is necessary to protect the functions and values of the critical
area. If found to be necessary, the director shall condition any permit or authorization issued pursuant to
this chapter to require the applicant to install a permanent fence at the edge of the fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area or buffer, when fencing will prevent future impacts to the fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area.
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 83 of 90
b. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on-site.
c. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed so as
to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that
minimizes habitat impacts. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.90.040 Development standards – Specific habitats.
A. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species.
1. No development shall be allowed within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer with
which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except
that which is provided for by a management plan established by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency.
2. Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with which
state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall
be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical areas report
prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the director. Approval for alteration of land
adjacent to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to
consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for animal species, the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other appropriate federal or state agencies.
3. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State bald eagle protection rules
(WAC 232-12-292). Whenever activities are proposed within 800 feet of a verified nest territory or
communal roost, a habitat management plan shall be developed by a qualified professional. The director
shall verify the location of eagle management areas for each proposed activity. Approval of the activity
shall not occur prior to approval of the habitat management plan by the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
B. Anadromous Fish.
1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or
in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and
enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, adhering to the following
standards:
a. Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species;
b. An alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible;
c. The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other
critical areas;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 84 of 90
d. Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use bioengineering methods or soft armoring
techniques, according to an approved critical areas report; and
e. Any impacts to the functions or values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area are mitigated
in accordance with an approved critical areas report.
2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies
currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the
upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being
trapped or harmed.
3. Fills, when authorized, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate
any unavoidable impacts and shall only be allowed for a water-dependent use.
C. Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels. As a provision of this title, the
director shall require retention of a minimum of 30 percent of native vegetation on undeveloped (or
redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 per Chapter 16.10 ECDC. This standard for
development shall apply to all undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20
regardless of the potential for designation as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or other critical
areathat contain a landslide hazard area as defined by ECDC 23.80.020.B; a stream or stream buffer; or
a wetland or wetland buffer, except for as provided in ECDC 23.90.040.C.4. This provision for native
vegetation retention will provide increased protection of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the
Edmonds jurisdiction, and shall be applied consistent with the following criteria:
1. Achieving the minimum 30 percent retention requirement for native vegetation shall be determined by
assessing the existing site area that supports native vegetation. For purposes of this provision, areas that
support native vegetation shall include areas dominated by plant species which are indigenous to the
Puget Sound region, which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site, and
within which native trees over 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) make up more than 70
percent of the canopy cover.
2. The goal of 30 percent native vegetation can be met through maintaining existing native vegetation,
establishing native vegetation, or a combination of both.
3. A vegetation management plan, subject to the approval of the director, is required for approval of the
proposed development.
4. For undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 that currently do not
support any native vegetation areas meeting minimum requirements in ECDC 23.90.040.C.1, the
director may waive the requirements of this provision.
D. Streams. No alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted unless consistent with the
provisions of this title and the specific standards for development outlined below.
1. Standard Stream Buffer Widths. Buffers for streams shall be measured on each side of the stream,
from the ordinary high water mark. The following shall be the standard buffer widths for streams based
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 85 of 90
upon the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing system and further
classification based upon fish presence (fishbearing vs. nonfishbearing) for the Type F streams existing
in the city of Edmonds:
a. Type S: 150 feet;
b. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access: 100 feet;
c. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access: 75 feet;
d. Type F nonanadromous fishbearing stream: 75 feet;
e. Type Np: 50 feet;
f. Type Ns: 25 40 feet.
General areas and stream reaches with access for anadromous fish are indicated on the city of Edmonds
critical areas inventory. The potential for anadromous fish access shall be confirmed in the field by a
qualified biologist as part of critical areas review and determination of standard stream buffer widths.
2. Reduced Stream Buffer Widths. Standard stream buffer widths may be reduced by no more than 50
twenty five percent (25%) of the standard stream buffer width concomitant to development and
implementation of a stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the director. Reduced stream buffer
widths shall only be approved by the director if a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively
demonstrates that enhancement of the reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and
qualitative functions and values of the buffer area in terms of fish and stream protection and the
provision of wildlife habitat. Stream buffer enhancement plans must meet the specific requirements of
ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and:
a. Provide evidence that the reduced buffer, through enhancement, will provide equivalent to or greater
than a standard buffer without enhancementThe buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer
reduction provides evidence that functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will
beequivalent to or greater than a standard buffer without enhancement:
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation
is generally intact; or
ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate
to protect the functions and values of the stream;
b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant
densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees;
c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success for a minimum of three five (5) years
in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D) and (E); and
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 86 of 90
d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing
increases in stream buffer functioning as related to:
i. Water quality protection;
ii. Provision of wildlife habitat;
iii. Protection of anadromous fisheries;
iv. Enhancement of fish habitat; and
v. Restricting intrusion and disturbance.
3. Stream Buffer Width Averaging with Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a
standard or reduced stream buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best
available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging
buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a buffer
enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a stream buffer existing within
the project area or subject parcel shall be considered in the total buffer area for buffer averaging.
Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional demonstrates that:
a. The buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer averaging provides evidence that functions
and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will be:
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation
is generally intact; or
ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate
to protect the functions and values of the stream;
b. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for a
stream extending off-site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the
standard buffer;
bc. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 5075 percent of the reduced or
standard width; and
c. The functions and values of the stream and associated buffer will not be diminished through the use of
buffer averaging.
4. Additions to Structures Existing within Stream Buffers.
a. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of
development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of
this chapter (ECDC 23.90.030 and this section). , provided that a buffer enhancement plan is provided to
mitigate for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all impacts from temporary
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 87 of 90
disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and
buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for
standard stream buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and stream buffer averaging with
enhancement, and buffer reductions through enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in
accordance with the following sequencing:
ai. Outside of the standard stream buffer;
bii. Outside of a stream buffer reduced through enhancementaveraged (with enhancement) per
subsection (D)(23) of this section;
ciii. Outside of a stream buffer reduced (with enhancement) through buffer averaging per subsection
(D)(32) of this section; or
div. Outside of the inner twenty five percent (25%) percent of the standard stream buffer width through
the use of both buffer reduction and buffer averagingwith no more than three hundred (300) square feet
of structure addition footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer width,
provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum three-to-one (3:1) ratio (enhancement-to-impact).
v. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard stream buffer width with no more than five hundred
(500) square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer
width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five-to-one (5:1) ratio (enhancement-to-
impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques or other measures that enhance
existing buffer condition are included as part of the stream buffer enhancement plan.
b. Where meeting stream buffer enhancement requirements required by H.1. of this section would result
in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative
enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a
vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with
pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area.
c. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that cannot be
accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within the inner 25
percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director’s discretion as a variance subject to
review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210.
5. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be
allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a stream buffer, provided that the
following conditions are met:
a. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition
provided in ECDC 23.40.320;
b. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the
stream edge as is feasible;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 88 of 90
c. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are
implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the stream and not
represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development.
d. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent remaining stream buffer in order to
improve functions degraded by previous development;
e. Enhancement is provided as buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly
proposed development within in the footprint of existing development occurring in stream buffer, or
through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland
and remaining buffer; and
f. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the stream buffer shall be addressed through use of best
management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed
alteration.
56. Stream Crossings. Stream crossings may be allowed only if all reasonable construction techniques
and best management practices are used to avoid disturbance to the stream bed or bank. Upon
completion of construction, the area affected shall be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted with
native species and/or otherwise protected according to a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan
approved by the director, and maintained and monitored per the requirements of ECDC 23.40.110,
23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and providing for buffer enhancement in accordance with the requirements of
subsection (D)(2) of this section. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that best management
practices will be used during construction to provide the following:
a. Fisheries protection, including no interference with fish migration or spawning;
b. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow periods and shall be timed to avoid stream
disturbance during periods when stream use is critical to salmonids;
c. Crossings shall not occur over salmonid spawning areas unless no other possible crossing site exists;
d. Crossings and culverted portions of the stream shall be minimized to the extent feasible and serve
multiple purposes and multiple lots whenever possible;
e. Roads may cross streams only on previously approved rights-of-way, provided no practical alternative
exists and adequate provision is made to protect and/or enhance the stream through appropriate
mitigation. Roads shall be designed and located to conform to topography, and maintained to prevent
erosion and restriction of the natural movement of ground water as it affects the stream;
f. Roads and utilities shall be designed in conjunction to minimize the area of disturbance to the stream;
and
g. Roads shall be constructed so as to minimize adverse impacts on the hydrologic quality of the stream
or associated habitat to a degree acceptable to the city;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 89 of 90
h. An alternative alignment or location with less impact is not feasible; and
i. The crossing will be designed as near as perpendicular with the water body as possible..
67. Trails. After reviewing the proposed development and technical reports, the director may determine
that a pedestrian-only trail may be allowed in a stream buffer; provided, nonimpervious surface
materials are used, all appropriate provision is made to protect water quality, and all applicable permit
requirements have been met. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed within a stream or its buffer except
as required for necessary maintenance or security. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other
measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect streams by limiting vehicular access to
designated public use or interpretive areas.
78. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes
and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within stream
buffers; provided, that:
a. No other location is feasible;
b. Pipes and conveyance facilities will be in the outer twenty five percent (25%) of the buffer;
c. Stormwater dispersion outfalls, bioswales, and bioretention facilities may be allowed anywhere within
stream buffers;
d. Such facilities are designed consistent with requirements of ECDC Chapter 18.30; and
be. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream or
stream buffer.
89. City Discretion in Protection, Enhancement and Preservation of Streams. The city of Edmonds is
unique within the state of Washington as a built-out community with streams that have been
incorporated within, and often located immediately adjacent to, residential development. This title
allows the director full discretion to condition proposals for development on parcels containing, adjacent
to, or potentially impacting streams to enhance conditions consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the
purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions on development shall be required to enhance streams
and stream buffers as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to provide increased protection of
anadromous fisheries and potential fish habitat in accordance with best available science and the
recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include:
a. Removal of stream bank armoring;
b. In -stream habitat modification;
c. Native planting;
d. Relocation of stream channel portions to create contiguous riparian corridors or wildlife habitat;
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, July 16, 2015
Page 90 of 90
e. Planting of stream bank native vegetation to increase stream shading;
f. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species;
g. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers; and
h. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses.
The right of discretion in provisioning development in regard to streams is maintained in order to
provide for the creation of enhanced conditions over those currently existing around streams in the city
of Edmonds. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard stream buffer widths
as provided in subsection (D)(1) of this section can be accommodated by project development, the
applicant shall be required to submit a stream buffer enhancement plan or a stream mitigation and buffer
enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report indicating that post-project site conditions will
provide equivalent or greater protection of stream functions and fish habitat over a standard stream
buffer and existing site conditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Figure 23.90.000
Proposed Frequently Flooded Areas Code Amendment
Building Code Amendment
Amendment to Building Code requiring structures to be constructed two feet above base flood
elevation:
19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments
Q. IBC section 1612.4.1, Lowest Flood Elevation, is added and reads:
For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the
elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the
applicable FEMA flood hazard map.
Development Code Amendment to Address Height Issues – Definition of Height
21.40.030 Height.
A. Height means the average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a
structure to the highest point of the structure. (See subsection (D) of this section for exceptions to this rule.)
B. “Average level” shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the
smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a corner falls
off the site, its elevation shall be the average elevation of the two points projected downward where the two sides of
the rectangle cross the property line. (See subsection (D) of this section for exceptions to this rule.)
C. Accessory buildings that are attached to the main building by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection so
that the accessory building is separated by 10 feet or less from the main building shall be considered to be part of the
main building for purposes of determining the average level. For the purposes of this section, in order for an accessory
building to be considered to be attached to and a part of the main building, the connecting structure must have a roof
and be constructed of similar materials to both the main building and the accessory building so that it appears to be a
unified and consistently designed building.
D. Height Exceptions.
1. (Reserved) For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, height
is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA
flood hazard map. ;
2. Church steeples;
3. Elevator penthouses, not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet in height, for that portion
above the height limit;
4. Chimneys, not to exceed nine square feet in horizontal section or more than three feet in height, for that portion
above the height limit. In RM districts, chimneys shall be clustered. No multiple-flue chimney shall exceed 39
square feet in horizontal section. The first chimney shall not exceed nine square feet in horizontal section, and
other chimneys shall not exceed six square feet in horizontal section;
5. Vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches in height above the height limit;
6. Standpipes not to exceed 30 inches in height above the height limit;
7. Solar energy installations not to exceed 36 inches in height above the height limit. Such an installation may be
approved as a Type II staff decision if it is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar
access while limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties; and
8. Replacement of existing rooftop HVAC equipment which exceeds the existing height limit, so long as the
replacement equipment does not exceed the height of the existing equipment by more than 12 inches. The
replacement equipment must have earned the Energy Star label. [Ord. 3866 § 1, 2011; Ord. 3728 § 2, 2009; Ord.
3654 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3569 § 2, 2005].
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix
August 2015
Final version – consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 1 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
23.40 Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions
23.40.000 Purpose Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.010 Authority Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.020 Relationship to
other regulations
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.030 Severability Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.040 Jurisdiction –
Critical Areas
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
None; consistent with BAS
23.40.050 Protection of
critical areas
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.060 General
requirements
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.070 Critical areas
preapplication
consultation
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.080 Notice of initial
determination
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
Section B.2 could be
strengthened by including criteria
Add the following statement to Section B.2.:
“A waiver may be granted if there is
CTED, 2007 Revise to remove vague
decision criteria language (do
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 2 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
for granting a waiver. substantial evidence that all of the following
requirements will be met:
a. There will be no alteration of the
critical area or buffer;
b. The development proposal will not
affect the critical area in a manner
contrary to the purpose, intent, and
requirements of this Title; and
c. The proposal is consistent with
other applicable regulations and
standards.
D. Critical areas determinations shall be
considered valid for five years from the date
in which the determination was made; after
such date the city shall require a new
determination, or at minimum
documentation of a new assessment
verifying the accuracy of the previous
determination .
D. Provides for consistency with
23.40.090.F, 23.40.220.C.1.c, and
23.50.010.E
not use the term “substantial
evidence”).
“A waiver may be granted if
the director determines that all
of the following requirements
will be met:…”
Subsection c. not included
because consistency with
“other applicable regulations
and standards” is not
determined with the critical
area review.
23.40.090 Critical areas
report – Requirements
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
Additional detail could be added
to strengthen reporting
requirements in Section D.
Revise Section D to include the following
requirements:
- A statement specifying the accuracy of the
report and all assumptions made and relied
upon;
-A description of the methodologies used to
conduct the critical areas study, including
references
-An assessment of the probable cumulative
effects to critical areas resulting from
development of the site and the proposed
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
These recommendations will
clarify for the City how and what
was done for a critical areas
report as well as bolster the
concept of mitigation sequencing
Revise Section D to include
only the first, second, and
fourth requirements in
suggested change.
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 3 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
development;
- Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed to
offset any effects, in accordance with the
Mitigation Plan Requirements in Section
23.40.130
and appropriate mitigation.
23.40.100 Critical areas
report – Modifications to
requirements
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.110 Mitigation
requirements
Could be brought closer
to consistency
Section B sets the standard for
the types of mitigation allowed
as: “in-kind and on-site, when
possible, and sufficient.” With
respect to wetlands and streams
especially, a watershed-based
focus may be more successful or
provide more ecological benefit.
Language in this section is not
fully consistent with mitigation
banking discussed in 23.50.050.H.
Revise Section B to include allowances for:
off-site and out-of-kind mitigation, in lieu fee
programs, mitigation banks, or other
mitigation strategies according to the criteria
set forth in Innovative Mitigation Section
23.40.140.
Improve internal code
consistency with 23.50.
Revise to include specific
reference to Ecology
Credit/Debit methodology,
and allowance for out-of-basin
mitigation with an approved
mitigation bank or ILF
program.
23.40.120 Mitigation
sequencing
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
None; consistent with BAS
23.40.130 Mitigation plan
requirements
Section C
Generally consistent but
could be strengthened
Does not specify that impact and
mitigation areas should be shown
on plans.
Revise Section C to include areas of proposed
effects to critical areas or buffers.
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
Section D Requires monitoring for 3 years
instead of 5.
Revise Section D last sentence to read: “The
compensation project shall be monitored for
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change.
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 4 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Inconsistent with BAS a period necessary to establish that
performance standards have been met, but
not for a period less than 5 years without
approval from the director.
23.40.140 Innovative
mitigation
Consistent with BAS Could provide additional clarification of types
of innovative mitigation allowed (e.g., in lieu
fee programs).
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Revise to include clearer, more
detailed definition of in-lieu
fee mitigation programs. Use
example language from
Bunten et al. (20012).
23.40.150 Critical areas
decision
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.160 Review criteria Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.170 Favorable critical
areas decision
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.180 Unfavorable
critical areas decision
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.190 Completion of
the critical areas review
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.200 Appeals Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.210 Variances Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.215 Critical Area
Restoration Projects
New section Insert new section that provides relief for
restoration projects that are not required as
mitigation for development proposal.
The City does not want to
discourage projects that would
provide a net benefit to the City’s
critical areas.
Insert new section 23.40.215
that would grant relief for
restoration projects associated
with a stream or wetland allow
buffer reduction of up to 50%
standard buffer if certain
criteria are met.
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 5 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
23.40.220 Allowed
activities
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
Can add additional clarity Revise Section C.1.c. to include “There is no
new information available that is applicable
to any critical area review of the site or
particular critical area;”
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
Section C4
Inconsistent with BAS
Any activities that directly affect
a wetland or stream should
receive further review
Revise Section C.4 to include
“Except those activities that alter a wetland
or watercourse, such as culverts or bridges,
or result in the transport of sediment or
increased stormwater; subject to the
following:
- Retention and replanting of native
vegetation shall occur wherever
possible along the right-of-way
improvement and resulting
disturbance.
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
23.40.220 Allowed
activities
(continued)
New subsection Physically separated and
functionally isolated buffers are
not directly addressed by the
existing CAO.
Provide code language to allow for
development within a physically separated
and functionally isolated buffer.
Improve clarity/user-friendliness Make suggested change.
Section C.6
Partially inconsistent
Updated model code for
wetlands and wetland buffers
suggests more strict
requirements for trails and
walkways. See discussion for
23.50.040.F.8 below.
Revise Section C.6. first sentence to read:
“Public and private trails, except in wetlands,
fish, and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
or their buffers,…”
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change as
described below under
23.50.040, which will allow
trails in buffers under a set of
criteria.
Section C.7
Partially inconsistent
BAS suggests several strategies
including but not limited to: hand
removal, chemical treatment,
Revise Section C.7.a. to include an additional
information regarding invasive removal:
“Removal of invasive plant species shall be
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Make suggested change.
Ensure that all references to
chemical treatments in code
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 6 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
shading, or other techniques may
be appropriate depending on the
species and situation. See
discussion in 23.50.020.
restricted to hand removal unless permits or
approval from the appropriate regulatory
agencies have been obtained for approved
biological or chemical treatments or other
removal techniques. All removed plant
material shall be taken away from the site
and appropriately disposed of. Plants that
appear on the Washington State Noxious
Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds
must be handled and disposed of according
to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to
that species.”
Add additional allowed activities in Section
C.7:
- Chemical Applications. The
application of herbicides, pesticides,
organic or mineral-derived
fertilizers, or other hazardous
substances, if necessary, as
approved by the City, provided that
their use shall be restricted in
accordance with state Department
of Fish and Wildlife Management
Recommendations and the
regulations of the state Department
of Agriculture and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
are revised similarly.
Also add a square foot
threshold for limiting invasive
vegetation removal activities.
Language will be developed
during code revision stage, but
suggest something similar to
City of Seattle Environmentally
Critical Areas Code (SMC
25.09.320), which permits
restoring or improving
vegetation and trees through
invasive plant removal (by
hand) to “promote
maintenance or creation of a
naturally functioning condition
that prevents erosion, protects
water quality, or provides
diverse habitat… when the
area of work is under one
thousand five hundred (1,500)
square feet in area calculated
cumulatively over three (3)
years…”
Section C.7.b.
Inconsistent with BAS
and City code
Generally consistent with BAS
and model code language;
however, portions of 18.45—Land
Clearing and Tree Cutting are not
consistent with Section 23.40 and
would allow clearing and cutting
Revise 18.45 for internal consistency with
Section 23.40. Clearing and tree cutting
should not be allowed within critical areas or
buffers without review and compliance with
Section 23.40.
Inconsistent with BAS and
internal code
No changes to 23.40. City to
make revisions to 18.45 per
ESA suggestion, which is the
more appropriate ECDC
chapter.
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 7 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
within wetland and stream
buffers. There is no reference to
Section 23.40.
The terms “environmentally sensitive site”
and “environmentally sensitive areas” should
be revised to refer to environmentally critical
areas for consistency.
23.40.230 Exemptions Could be brought closer
to consistency
No definition in Section C.2 to
clarify what actions constitute
operations and maintenance
activities for vegetation removal.
Revise Section C.2 to include: “Operation and
maintenance also includes vegetation
management performed in accordance with
best management practices provided that
such management actions are part of regular
and ongoing maintenance, do not expand
further into the critical area, are not the
result of an expansion of the structure or
utility, and do not directly impact an
endangered or threatened species.”
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change. Will
address lack of clarity
regarding vegetation
maintenance under
definitions.
See row 23.40.320 below.
23.40.240 Unauthorized
critical areas alterations
and enforcement
Generally consistent with
BAS, but can be
strengthened
Section E. references tree code,
which sets a penalty for tree
cutting, but other types of
violations are not covered.
Revise Section E. to include a daily penalty
per day per violation (this is the
recommended language used in the model
code).
Penalties could be included for tree cutting in
addition to violation penalty.
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012).
Both Lynnwood and Mountlake
Terrace have a fine of $1,000
and/or 90 days in jail. Snohomish
County has a penalty scale, with
a $500 penalty for the first 20
days and the penalty increasing
with time thereafter to a max of
$10,000 (SCC 30.85.170).
Revise Section E to include a
penalty equal to the cost of the
permit and a square footage
cost ($3/SF of impact) and a
per tree penalty where
applicable.
23.40.250 Critical areas
markers and signs
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.270 Critical areas Partially Inconsistent Section E: Use of herbicides is
prohibited; however, BAS
Section E. Update text to include herbicide
treatment (aquatic approved herbicides
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Make suggested change
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 8 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
tracts suggests several strategies
including but not limited to: hand
removal, chemical treatment,
shading, or other techniques may
be appropriate depending on the
species and situation. See
discussion in 23.40.220 and
23.50.020. These Sections should
all be consistent.
when wetlands and streams are present)
where recommended by the Noxious Weed
Control Board.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
New subsection No discussion of notice on title or
Native Growth Protection Areas
Include discussion of notice on title or Native
Growth Protection Areas for all lots, not just
subdivisions. ESA can provide example
language during code revision process.
CTED, 2007.
This informs subsequent
purchases of property of critical
areas present on their properties.
Make suggested change
23.40.280 Building
setbacks
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 Keep section except for
geologically hazardous areas
where buffer and setback will
be determined by geotechnical
report.
23.40.290 Bonds to ensure
mitigation, maintenance,
and monitoring
Could be brought closer
to consistency
Section D requires that a bond be
held for 3 years. The standard is
typically 5 years.
Revise Section D to reflect a 5 year period for
holding the bond, to ensure consistency with
5 year monitoring period.
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change.
23.40.300 Critical areas
inspections
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.310 Best available
science
Could be brought closer
to consistency
Section D mentions “anecdotal
information” but leaves out other
forms of nonscientific
Revise Section D to include “Non-expert
opinion and hearsay” as forms on
nonscientific information
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 9 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
information
23.40.320 Definitions
pertaining to critical areas
Generally consistent, but
could be brought closer
to consistency
Definitions out of date Update definitions of:
-Adjacent
-Compensatory mitigation (include re-
establishment and rehabilitation; update
definition of restoration)
-Geologist
-Habitats of local importance -Noxious
weeds
-Qualified critical area professional
-Storm Water Management Manual
Add definitions for:
-Footprint of Existing Development or
Footprint of Development
-In lieu fee program
-Normal maintenance of vegetation
-Wetland mitigation bank
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested changes.
23.50 Wetlands
23.50.000 Wetlands
compliance requirements
flowchart
Partially consistent The flow chart states that no
additional compliance is required
when a “reconnaissance
determines a wetland is not
jurisdictional.”
Revise this to state that the Corps
determines a wetland is not jurisdictional, or
revise text to clarify.
Wetland jurisdictional
determinations are made at a
federal level (Corps). Even if a
wetland is exempt under City
code, it may be regulated at a
federal and/or state level. An
applicant would need to request
a jurisdictional determination
from the Corps to get assurance
that a wetland is not
Make suggested change
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 10 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
jurisdictional.
23.50.010 Designation,
rating and mapping –
Wetlands
Not consistent Sections A, B, and E reference
outdated wetland delineation
and rating manuals.
Revise Sections A, B, and E to refer to the
approved federal wetland delineation manual
and applicable regional supplements and the
Washington State Wetland Rating System
for Western Washington, 2014 Update.
WAC 173-22-035, WAC 365-190-
090
The federal wetland delineation
manual and regional
supplements and updated 2014
wetland rating manual constitute
BAS for wetland identification,
delineation, and rating.
Make suggested change
Section B.1
Could be strengthened
to be more consistent
References wetland function
scores from the City of
Edmonds’s wetland field data
form, which is based on an older
version of the wetland rating
manual.
Revise Section B.1. to reflect the updated
wetland function scores for each wetland
Category based on the point system used in
the updated 2014 rating manual. Consider
revising the City’s wetland field data form or
referencing the appropriate state or federal
manual instead.
Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update.
Ecology Publication #14-06-029
(Hruby 2014)
Make suggested change.
Section E
Could be strengthened
to be more consistent
Does not specify how long a
wetland delineation is valid.
Section E could be improved for consistency
with BAS by specifying that wetland
delineations are valid for five years.
User-friendliness and clarity,
improved consistency with BAS
Corps of Engineers Regulatory
Guidance Letters RGL 05-02 and
08-02 set a five year standard on
wetland determinations.i
Make suggested change. Add
a provision regarding critical
area assessment reports and
statute of limitations earlier in
CAO chapter (23.40.090).
23.50.020 Allowed
activities – Wetlands
Section D
Could be revised to be
more consistent.
The Washington State Noxious
Weed Control Board has
recommendations and resources
for controlling state listed
noxious weeds and invasive
species.
Update Section D to include that those
noxious weeds listed on the Washington
State Noxious Weed Control Board list must
be handled and disposed of according to a
noxious weed control plan appropriate to
that species.
BAS suggests several strategies
including but not limited to: hand
removal, chemical treatment,
shading, or other techniques may
be appropriate depending on the
species and situation.ii
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Make suggested change
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 11 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
23.50.030 Special study
and report requirements –
Wetlands
Generally consistent with
BAS
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
None; consistent with BAS
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
Section F.1.
Inconsistent with BAS
Buffer widths are inconsistent
with BAS and with Draft SMP
buffers. BAS supports increased
standard buffer widths or
modified buffer widths based on
intensity of impacts from
adjacent land use or based on
wetland functions.
Revise Section F.1. to reflect recent BAS
updates for buffers (Ecology, 2013)iii. The
draft SMP uses Ecology’s Table “XX.1” for
wetland buffers in shoreline areas. Table XX.1
was recently revised in December 2014 based
on habitat scores used in the updated 2014
wetland rating manual. Ecology’s updated
Table XX.1 for standard buffer widths
requires additional measures (Table “XX.2”)
to minimize wetland impacts. The draft SMP
incorporates these measures. The CAO
should be revised to reflect these BAS
updates and to be consistent with the SMP
section F.2.
Wetlands in Washington State,
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
Make suggested change
Section F.1.
Supplemental material
Can supplement section by
expanding inadequate vegetation
to include previously disturbed
areas and also requiring
revegetation pursuant to an
approved planting plan.
Supplement F.1 with additional discussion of
previously disturbed areas. These are
generally considered those areas which are
not composed of an intact native vegetation
community, but still consist of pervious
surfaces. Previously disturbed areas would
include non-native vegetation, lawn, and
User-friendliness
Revise Section F1 to: “If the
vegetation is inadequate
buffer is composed of
nonnative vegetation, lawn, or
bare ground, then, at the
discretion of the director...”
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 12 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
gravel. Include requirement for revegetation
according to an approved planting plan.
Section F.2. Partially
inconsistent
Increased buffer widths required
in general when needed “to
protect other critical areas.”
This section can be revised to be more
specific by referencing federal or state listed
endangered, threatened, candidate,
sensitive, monitored or documented species
or habitats, or essential habitat (e.g., nesting
sites or rookeries).iv
Improve clarity regarding when
an increased buffer is needed.
Revise Section F2 to:
Add new subsection “d.”: “If a
wetland is occupied by a
federally listed threatened or
endangered species, a bald
eagle nest, a great blue heron
rookery, or at the discretion of
the director to protect species
considered locally important”
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
New subsection in F Create a new subsection for
“Buffer Modification” that
contains code for buffer
averaging and buffer reductions.
Create a new subsection that incorporates
criteria for allowing a buffer modification
(outlined in F.3.) and outlines the sequence
for preferred buffer modifications: buffer
averaging with enhancement, then buffer
reductions with enhancement.
User-friendliness and clarity. Will
improve internal consistency and
make criteria easy to follow.
Make suggested change
Section F.3
Inconsistent
A buffer reduction of up to 50
percent is allowed. Buffer
reduction with buffer
enhancement is not discussed in
BAS documents (Granger et al.,
2005; or Ecology, 2012).
However, the City’s code requires
that functions will be increased or
retained, which is consistent with
the state’s requirement of no net
loss.
Model codes typically allow up to a 25
percent modification through averaging,
which affords better protection to wetlands
than a 50 percent reduction. Recommend
revising code to only allow a reduction up to
25 percent of the standard buffer width with
buffer enhancement. The draft SMP includes
a 25 percent reduction; Revise code to be
consistent with draft SMP text. Since buffer
reductions are not discussed in BAS and
buffer reductions result in a net loss of area
(even if functions are improved or retained),
this step should follow after buffer averaging
in the sequence and be used only when
Inconsistent with BAS and City’s
SMP.
Wetlands in Washington State,
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
Make suggested change
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 13 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on-
site. This is also more consistent with the
wetlands review flow chart in 23.50.000
Section F.4.
Inconsistent
Code appears to allow reduction
and averaging. Buffer averaging
of up to 50 percent is allowed.
BAS does not support the use of
both tools in conjunction.
Revise Section F.4., first sentence, to exclude
mention of a “reduced” wetland buffer. Only
allow a reduction up to 25 percent of the
standard buffer width. Buffer averaging
should also include a requirement for buffer
enhancement, as many urban buffers are
degraded. The draft SMP includes a 25
percent reduction; revise code to be
consistent with draft SMP text. See
discussion above regarding prioritizing buffer
averaging before buffer reductions where
possible. ESA can provide example code
language during code revision stage.
Inconsistent with BAS and City’s
SMP.
Wetlands in Washington State,
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
Make suggested change
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
Section F.8.
Generally consistent, but
could be clarified.
Some of the uses allowed in
wetlands are not listed as buffer
uses, but would presumably be
necessary. Could be revised to
address applicable uses and
parallel treatment.
Revise to include uses allowed in wetlands
that would also be allowed in wetland
buffers. For example (not an inclusive list):
-Education and scientific research
-Normal and routine maintenance and repair
of public or private facilities within an
existing right-of-way
Improved internal consistency
Make suggested change
Section F.8. Inconsistent
Walkways and trails are allowed
in buffers with minimal
provisions. Scientific research
(Ecology, 2013; Granger, 2005)
indicates that human disturbance
in wetland buffers can affect
wetland functions.
Revise text to limit walkways and trails to the
outer 25 percent of the wetland buffer
perimeter and avoid trees. Revise text to be
consistent with draft SMP.
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Wetlands in Washington State,
Make suggested change, but
add clarification regarding
application. Revise F8 to
include a priority for limiting
trails to the outer 25 percent of
the wetland buffer perimeter
and avoid trees, or in cases
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 14 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
where the buffer is below the
regulatory minimum, trails
could be outer 25 % of existing
buffer. Specific language to be
developed during code revision
stage.
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
Section G.
Inconsistent
Permanent fencing is not
discussed as a form of wetland
protection.
Section G. Revise text to discuss perimeter
fencing. Perimeter fencing is mentioned as a
measure to avoid impacts in Ecology’s Table
“XX.2” and in the draft SMP. Clarify that
fencing, if required, should be designed so it
doesn’t interfere with wildlife migration and
should be constructed in a way that
minimizes impacts to the wetland, buffer,
and associated habitat.
Improve consistency with
internal code requirements and
consistency with BAS.
Make suggested change
Section H.
Inconsistent
Additions to structures existing
within buffers lists a sequence of
steps. Buffer reduction through
enhancement is prioritized
before buffer averaging. The
sequence also allows
development beyond the 25
percent reduction in the standard
buffer, which is not supported by
BAS. See discussion in Section
F.3.
Section H. Revise text to prioritize buffer
averaging before buffer reductions. Consider
a threshold for limiting the size of the
addition when occurring outside of the inner
25 percent (e.g., 150 square feet or another
number based on planning staff experience
and feedback). Include a requirement for
buffer enhancement and fencing or other
mitigation measures (e.g. LID, etc.) to avoid
further encroachment.
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Reduction beyond the 25 percent
standard buffer would be
considered an impact and
therefore requires mitigation.
Make suggested change
Section I:
Inconsistent
Scientific literature does not
support exempting wetlands
based on size or category alone
without mitigation. Small
wetlands may perform important
functions. However, Ecology has
developed a strategy for
Revise Section I to allow exemptions for
isolated wetlands under 500 square feet and
include additional provisions for considering
wetland functions/connectivity/habitat and a
requirement for mitigation. ESA can provide
example suggestions during code revision
Mitigation is required to be
consistent with BAS.
Wetlands in Washington State,
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
Make suggested change.
Also revise title of Section I to:
“Small, hydrologically isolated
wetlands”.
Revise I.2 to better define
“low-quality” by using scores
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 15 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
exempting small wetlands when
wetland functions are considered
and mitigation is required.
process.
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
from Ecology Wetland Rating
System.
Revise I.3 to include a wildlife
habitat score (value or range)
that defines “no significant
habitat value”.
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
New subsection New subsection to allow development within
the footprint of existing development (per
new definition) in exchange for enhancement
equivalent to the footprint of the new
development.
Development in the City of
Edmonds has occurred over
many years, much of this
development occurred prior to
the established of critical area
regulations. Allowing some
development within the footprint
of existing development in
exchange for enhancement of
the critical area and/or critical
area buffer will result in a net
benefit to the City’s critical areas.
Make suggested change.
23.50.050 Mitigation
requirements – Wetlands
Intro
Inconsistent with BAS
Introductory paragraph refers to
outdated mitigation guidance.
Revise introductory paragraph to include
latest mitigation guidance documents:
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part
2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology,
2006) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites
Using a Watershed Approach (Ecology, 2009).
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
Section A
Inconsistent with BAS
Mitigation preference is not
consistent with federal and state
guidance. Federal and state
agencies are requiring the use of
mitigation banks and ILF
programs.
Consider specifying that mitigation using
banks or ILF programs is preferred over
permittee-responsible mitigation (regardless
of location).
Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources.
Final Rule. (Federal Register
73(70): 19594-1970)
BAS indicates that mitigation
banks and ILF programs have a
Make suggested change, but
add prioritization for in-basin
mitigation followed by
mitigation within City limits.
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 16 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
significantly greater likelihood of
mitigation success, as opposed
to permittee-responsible
mitigation.
Section F. Mitigation
Ratios
Partially consistent
Mitigation ratios are appropriate
and generally consistent with
BAS. This section could be
clarified by adding a table with
mitigation ratios for each type of
mitigation action. As an
alternative to mitigation ratios,
the Credit/Debit method may be
used, and in some cases, may be
required by Ecology.
Include mitigation ratios in a table.
Include reference to the Credit/Debit
Method.
Clarity/user-friendliness
Improved consistency by
referencing
Calculating Credits and Debits
for Compensatory Mitigation in
Wetlands of Western
Washington: Final Report
(Hruby, 2012)
Make suggested change.
Section H.3. Wetland
Mitigation Banks
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
This section can be strengthened
with additional discussion of in
lieu fee programs. These
programs should also have a
system of calculating debits and
credits specified in the approved
instrument.
Incorporate text from model code (Ecology,
2012) to clarify the credit-debit process. ESA
can provide example code language during
code revision stage.
Improved consistency Make suggested change to
incorporate provisions from
model wetland code that allow
use of ILF programs only with
an approved instrument.
23.50.060 Performance
standards – Subdivisions
Consistent with BAS None; consistent with BAS
23.50.070 Wetland field
data form
Inconsistent with BAS The City of Edmonds’s wetland
field data form is based on an
older version of the wetland
rating manual.
Consider revising the City’s wetland field
data form or referencing the appropriate
state or federal manual instead.
The wetland rating manual was
updated in 2014 (Hruby, 2014)
Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update.
Ecology Publication #14-06-029
(Hruby 2014).
Make suggested change.
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 17 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
23.70 Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.010 Designation,
rating and mapping
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
Sub-section A references
currently effective FIRM panels,
and sub-section B notes that
newer and/or more restrictive
updated information would be
used. However, sub-section A
references an incorrect effective
date (January 30, 1998), only
notes inclusion of Zone A
floodplain areas, whereas
November 2014 draft flood zone
maps include both Zone A and
Zone V floodplains.
Revise Section A to reference the correct
effective date for FIRMs - “Snohomish
County, Washington and Incorporated
Areas” study and maps, effective date
November 8, 1999.
Revise Section A to state that both Zone A
and Zone V areas on effective FIRMs should
be designated as frequently flooded areas.
CTED 2007 guidance notes that
both Zone A and Zone V flood
hazard areas should be included.
Zone V areas are coastal
floodplains subject to inundation
by the 1-percent-annual-chance
flood event with additional
hazards associated with storm-
induced waves.
Make suggested change
23.70.020 Special study
and report requirements
Sections A thru D –
Consistent with BAS and
Guidance
CTED 2007; PSP 2010 None; consistent with BAS
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 18 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
IBC Appendix G –
Floodplain Subdivision
standards
Site Improvement
Standards (G401) and
elevation standards -
Inconsistent with BAS
Standards for coastal floodplain
development (coastal A zones
and V zones) are limited to
prohibiting development
waterward of “mean high tide”
and use of structural fill.
Additional standards are
available to significantly reduce
property damage and human
health and safety risks, including
an additional 1 to 2 foot
freeboard above base flood
elevation standard. This
additional protection is intended
to further minimize risk or
anticipate increasing flood risks
(either from increased runoff or
climate change).
Update EMC 19.00.025 (International
Building Code section amendments) to
require a minimum of 1 to 2 feet of freeboard
above the base flood elevation for coastal A
zones and V zones.
PSP 2009; FEMA 2013 City to consider revisions to
Title 19.
23.80 Geologically Hazardous Areas (Review conducted by Stratum Group, subconsultant to ESA)
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 19 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
23.40.090 Critical areas
report – Requirements
Inconsistent with BAS Language does not reflect the
applicable role of geologists and
engineers
Add language to clarify the role of geologists
and engineers in report preparation
Clarify the distinctive roles of
geologists and engineers in
preparation of reports
Make suggested change
23.40.280 General critical
areas protection measures
- Building setbacks
Code consistency Setbacks for geologically
hazardous areas are established
elsewhere in code
For geologically hazardous areas, remove the
additional setback distance of 15 feet.
For geologically hazardous areas,
setback widths are determined
based on other sections of the
code. This code section discusses
what is permissible in the
setback.
Revise section to read:
“Unless otherwise
providedExcept for
geologically hazardous areas
where setbacks are
determined by a geotechnical
report, buildings and other
structures shall be set back a
distance of 15 feet…”
23.40.320 Definitions Delete redundant language regarding
geologists
It should be up to the
Department of Licensing to
ensure that geologists licensed in
Washington have the
appropriate education, skills and
experience.
Make suggested change
23.80.010 Designation,
rating and mapping
Consistent with BAS and
Guidance
CTED 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.80.020 Designation of
specific hazard areas
Subsection A.2 -
Inconsistent with BAS
and Guidance
Additional language necessary to
include erosion hazard areas
related to stream and coastal
erosion.
Provide new section as follows:
A.2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which
are subject to the impacts from lateral
erosion related to moving water such as
stream channel migration and shoreline
retreat.
Suggested change reflects the
other type of erosion hazard.
Make suggested change
Section B - Generally
consistent with BAS and
Guidance
Add the word “potential” before landslide
hazard areas in the last sentence
Not all of the areas that should
require a landslide hazard
assessment are in fact a landslide
area.
Make suggested change
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 20 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Subsection B.1 - Add reference to more
recent report on Meadowdale Landslide
(Landau 2007)
The 2007 Landau report provides
further guidance on this specific
hazard area
23.80.020 Designation of
specific hazard areas,
continued
Subsection B.2 -
Inconsistent with BAS
and Guidance
Takes into account a broader
range of potential geology
hazards
Delete: current subsection 2, and replace
with new subsections 2 – 5 (keep existing
subsections 3 and 4):
2. Coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable),
uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable
recent slides) in the Department of Ecology
Washington coastal atlas; or
3. Areas designated as quaternary slumps,
earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps
published by the United States Geological
Survey or Washington State Department of
Natural Resources.
This captures a resource
recommended by guidance and
captures any new mapping that
may be completed in the future.
Make suggested change. For
#4 add detail that indicates the
provision excludes rockeries
that have been engineered and
approved by the engineer as
having been built according to
the engineered design.
Stratum notes that rockery
walls or engineered walls have
high potential for failure due to
poor construction, so provision
to approve as-built design is
critical here.
4. Any slope of 40 percent or steeper that
exceeds a vertical height of 10 feet over a 25-
foot horizontal runerosion
Simplifies and matches similar
approaches that do not include
determination of toe and top of
slope for determining the 40
percent slope
Excluding solid rock from #4 is
not applicable as there is no
bedrock in Edmonds
5. Areas with all three of the following
characteristics:
(i) Slopes steeper than fifteen percent;
(ii) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts
with a relatively permeable sediment
overlying a relatively impermeable sediment;
and
(iii) Springs or groundwater seepage.
Wet low angle slopes with
perched water may be
potentially subject to landslides
The list in section B is a list of
potential landslide hazard
areas. It is not to be used by
staff as determining where this
criterion is met (e.g, springs or
groundwater seepage). The
actual mapping is covered in
B.3.
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 21 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Subsection B.1, Figure 1 -
Inconsistent with BAS
and Guidance
See above Modify Figure 1 Match text changes Make suggested change
23.80.020 Designation of
specific hazard areas,
continued
Section C - Inconsistent
with BAS and Guidance
Revise section to read as follows:
Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas
are areas subject to severe risk of damage as
a result of earthquake-induced ground
shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil
liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface
faulting. These areas are designated as
having a high and moderate to high risk of
liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction
Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County by
the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources or areas located within landslide
hazard areas.
Make suggested change.. Also
add quotations around the
designations “high” and
“moderate to high”
Although no “moderate to
high risk” areas are mapped in
Edmonds, the definition
should be added as suggested
since both “high risk” and
“moderate to high risk” areas
as mapped make up the
definition. Designations will
be clarified by adding
quotations.
23.80.050 Special study
and report requirements
Inconsistent with BAS
and State Law
Geologic determinations must be
made by licensed geologists.
Engineered designed mitigation
should be designed by an
engineer in most cases.
Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A
critical areas report for assessing a potential
geologically hazardous area shall be
prepared by an engineer or geologist licensed
in the state of Washington, with experience
analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground
water flow systems, and who has experience
preparing reports for the relevant type of
hazard. If mitigation measures are necessary,
the report detailing the mitigation measures
and design of the mitigation shall be
prepared by an engineer licensed in the State
of Washington, with experience stabilizing
slopes with similar geotechnical properties.
State licensing –required by
State law.
Make suggested change
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 22 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Critical areas studies and reports on
geologically hazardous areas shall be subject
to independent review pursuant to ECDC
23.40.090
23.80.050 Special study
and report requirements
Section C - Inconsistent
with BAS
Guidance for preparing
engineering geology reports has
been prepared by the Geology
Licensing Board
Add new language consistent with Geology
Licensing Board; new language will have
added benefit of greatly simplifying this
section.
Geology Licensing Board
guidance
Make suggested change
Subsection F.2.e -
Inconsistent with BAS
Bluff retreat rate is likely not
applicable for most bluffs in
Edmonds
Add the phrase “or an estimate of the
percent risk of landslide area expansion”
Bluff retreat rate may be
appropriate for some slides, but
in some cases the percent risk of
expansion of the slide area may
be a better approach.
The bluffs in question all formed
by shoreline erosion processes
and are over steep due to past
landslides having been eroded by
waves. That process has been
discontinued with the
construction of the railroad, but
the railroad itself continues to
operate as a force of erosion at
the toe of these bluff slopes.
Each time there is a landslide,
the collapsed soil is removed
from the toe of the slope so the
higher bluffs are still a long way
from angle of repose and will
continue to retreat. Eventually
that will come to an end after
enough bluff failures. But the
railroad at the base of the slope
should not be viewed as a
Make suggested change,
which keeps the bluff retreat
rate phase in place, but adds a
second phrase to apply to
other bluffs.
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 23 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
protection of the toe as any
failures will be removed.
Subsection H. 1 -
Inconsistent with BAS
There are no known faults in
Edmonds
Delete H 1 “The site map shall show all
known and mapped active faults within 200
feet of the project area or that have the
potential to be affected by the proposal.”
No known faults and main
purpose is recognizing that
specific soil types are susceptible
to higher risk during seismic
events
Make suggested change
23.80.060 Development
standards – General
requirements
Generally consistent with
BAS and guidance; see
ECDC 23.80.070 for
details.
CTED 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.80.070 Development
standards – Specific
hazards.
Subsection A.1 -
Inconsistent with BAS
Does not match BAS Setbacks should meet specific criteria to
ensure the structure is not at risk for the life
of the structure (120 years). Term setback is
used to avoid confusion with buffers such as
riparian, wetland or habitat buffers.
A specific policy value should be
set for homes and homes are
considered to have a life of 120
years. Other values or periods
can be used dependent upon
policy consistency.
Separating setback and buffer
terms may reduce potential
confusion regarding activities
within the buffer.
Make suggested change
Subsection A.2 -
Inconsistent with BAS
BAS for geohazards Buffers requirements should be established
within the geology hazard assessment
report.
Buffer requirements will vary and
in some case no restrictions may
be needed in the buffer.
Make suggested change, but
need replace with a clear
trigger for City staff during
initial application review.
Language to be determined
during code revision stage.
23.90 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.000 Fish and wildlife Inconsistent Flow chart will need to be Change allowed buffer reduction from 50 Inconsistent with BAS; Internal Make suggested change
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 24 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
habitat conservation areas
compliance requirements
flowchart
updated to include change in
allowed buffer reductions and
mitigation measures.
percent to 25 percent of buffer. Mention
buffer reduction with enhancement and
buffer averaging with enhancement.
consistency with 23.90.040
23.90.040 Development
standards – Specific
habitats
Section A.3
Inconsistent with BAS
References outdated rules for
bald eagles.
Remove Section A.3. for bald eagle habitat.
Habitat protections are still captured under
Section A.2.
Bald eagles were federally
delisted in 2007 and downlisted
to a state sensitive species. WAC
232-12-292 has been revised
(effective May 29, 2011)
Make suggested change
Section C
Inconsistent with BAS
Vegetation retention as currently
required is not tied to BAS
Update retention of vegetation standard to
be:
• Applicable only for properties with
other critical areas ;
• Applicable only to portion of site that
supports existing native vegetation; and
• Not applicable for sites with no existing
native vegetation.
Intent is to provide increased
protection of fish and wildlife
habitat throughout the Edmonds
in areas where it currently
remains
Make suggested changes, with
details (including definition of
“existing native vegetation”
established during code
development.
23.90.040 Development
standards – Specific
habitats
(continued)
Section D.1.
Inconsistent with BAS
City’s standard buffers range
from 25 feet (Type Ns) to 150 feet
(Type S). BAS supports wider
standard buffer widths. BAS
suggests widths from 75 feet to
well over 300 feet to protect a
suite of ecological functions.
Upper ranges are likely not
feasible given existing platting
and development patterns.
Consider increases to standard stream buffer
widths, but at a minimum, increase the
stream buffer for Type Ns streams to 40 or 50
feet. Mountlake Terrace has the same buffer
for Type 1 streams (150 feet). Woodways’s
code requires larger standard buffers (250
feet for a Type 1 stream, 50 feet for a Type 4),
but has smaller buffers allowed as minimum
buffer widths for low impact land uses.
Where it is not feasible to achieve BAS-
recommended buffers due to existing
Source: Brennan et al. 2009, May
2003, Knutson and Naef 1997 all
suggest BAS based buffers wider
than those currently required.
Recommended approach
improves consistency with
neighboring jurisdictions such as
Woodway. Alternative strategies
to BAS-based buffers can provide
some of the ecological functions
provided by riparian buffers, and
Revise stream buffer widths as
follows:
Type Ns: change from 25 to 40
feet
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 25 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
conditions, specific alternative strategies
should be required (e.g., required use of LID;
elevated mitigation requirements for habitat,
longer-term maintenance and monitoring).
should be considered (especially
where narrow or reduced buffers
are allowed).
Section D.1.
Supplemental
Information
Does not include language
regarding intact native
vegetation and previously
disturbed buffers areas. See
Section 23.50.040.F.1
Section D.1. Include language regarding
intact native vegetation and previously
disturbed buffers areas so the concept of
buffers will be consistent with the language
in Section 23.50.040.F.1
Supplemental information to
improve internal code
consistency.
Make suggested change, but
also need additional discussion
of previously developed area.
Language to be developed
during code revision stage.
Section D.2.
Inconsistent
Stream buffer width reductions
greater than 25 percent are not
supported by BAS.
Section D.2. Revise section to allow
reductions no greater than 25 percent of the
standard buffer width with mitigation.
Suggest prioritizing buffer averaging with
enhancement before buffer reductions with
enhancement. See wetland buffer discussion.
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
23.90.040 Development
standards – Specific
habitats
(continued)
Section D.2.c.
Inconsistent
Requirement for 3 years of
monitoring. Five years is
considered the standard
monitoring period.
Revise Section D.2.c. to require 5 years of
monitoring.
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
Section D.3
Inconsistent
Code appears to allow stream
buffer reduction and averaging.
Section D.3. also allows a 50
percent reduction of the standard
buffer with no buffer
enhancement.
Revise Section D.3. to exclude the term
“reduced” in the first sentence. Revise the
section to allow buffer averaging reductions
no greater than 25 percent of the standard
buffer. Include buffer enhancement and
performance standards similar to Section
D.2. as a requirement for buffer averaging.
Suggest prioritizing buffer averaging with
enhancement before buffer reductions with
enhancement. See wetland buffer discussion.
Inconsistent with BAS, User-
friendliness.
CTED, 2007
Make suggested change
Section D.4
Inconsistent
Allows additions to existing
legally constructed structures
outside of the inner 25 percent of
Section D.4. See suggested revisions for
wetland buffers in 23.50.040.H.
Inconsistent with BAS. Reduction
beyond the 25 percent standard
buffer would be considered an
Make suggested change
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 26 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
the standard stream buffer. impact and therefore requires
mitigation.
Source: Bunten et al., 2012;
Ecology, 2013.
Section D.5.
Generally consistent but
can be strengthened
Can strengthen this section with
additional requirements that
protect fish and water quality.
Section D.5. Include provisions:
-An alternative alignment or location with
less impact is not feasible
-The crossing will be designed as near as
perpendicular with the water body as
possible.
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
Section D.6.
Inconsistent
Trails should be located along the
outer edge of the buffer. See
discussion in 23.50.040.F.
Section D.6. See recommendation in
23.50.040.F.
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
23.90.040 Development
standards – Specific
habitats
(continued)
Section D.7.
Partially Inconsistent
Storm water management
facilities should only be allowed
in the outer 25 percent of the
buffer
Revise D. 7 to include provision to allow
stormwater management facilities in the
outer 25 percent of the buffer.
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
ESA reviewed new stormwater
permit requirements and the
Stormwater Management
Manual for Western
Washington Guide Sheet 2 in
App I-D and confirmed that
this recommendation is not
inconsistent with those
standards.
Footnotes
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 27 of 27
i Regulatory Guidance Letters 05-02: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/app_f_rgl05-02.pdf and 08-02:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/pdf/RGL08-02.pdf
ii Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/
iii Ecology’s buffer recommendations (Table XX.1; Ecology, 2014) are based on a moderate-risk approach to protecting wetland functions. Buffer width recommendations in Table XX.1 are
based on the assumption that the buffer is well-vegetated with native species. A recent synthesis regarding buffer functions and required widths, titled Update on Wetland Buffers: State of the
Science (Hruby, 2013), recommends an approach to buffer widths based on buffer functions. Adequate performance of key buffer functions typically require the average buffer width ranges
(depending on the site and landscape setting): 100 feet to 1,000 feet for wildlife, 30 to 100 feet for sediment removal, 100-180 feet for nitrogen removal, and 30 to 100 feet for phosphorus
removal (Environmental Law Institute, 2008 in Hruby, 2013). Recent research indicates that fixed-width buffers may not adequately address issues of habitat fragmentation and population
dynamics; rather, buffer widths and fragmentation are only two of many variables that affect wildlife population dynamics (Hruby, 2013). Surrounding land use, plant community structure,
intensity of human disturbance are additional factors that affect wetland-dependent species (Hruby, 2013). Water quality and quantity factors may also be influenced by adjacent pollution
sources and stormwater inputs. Measures included in Table XX.2 are intended to further minimize the impact of these factors.
ivRecent buffer synthesis (Ecology, 2013) confirms that buffer width requirements for wildlife need to be targeted at the species of interest and their life requirements. Uplands surrounding a
wetland can serve as critical habitat for certain species, termed “core habitat” (Hruby, 2013). The concept of core habitat expands the idea of the wetland buffer from simply protecting the
wetland to protecting the species in the upland (Hruby, 2013).
the City Council also allows right-of-way trees to be removed if they interfere with either public or private structures or
infrastructure.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if the tree policy would also allow a tree to be removed it an arborist determined it had a shallow
root system and could fall on a nearby public or private structure. Mr. Lien said that, in this scenario, it would be considered
a hazard tree, which could be taken down. However, a tree risk assessment by a professional arborist would be required as
outlined in the draft Tree Code. The City would have the ability to deny an application for removal of a landmark tree if it is
neither hazardous nor damaging to structures and infrastructure.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands that it is illegal for property owners to place structures and/or landscaping
that restricts access within the rights-of-way. Therefore, she is unclear where the replacement trees would be located and
whether or not they could be counted as part of the adjacent property’s tree density. Mr. Lien answered that the right-of-way
trees would not count towards the adjacent property’s tree density requirement, and the draft Tree Code would require
replacement of all trees that are cut within the right-of-way. The replacement requirement would depend on the number and
size of the trees removed. However, he reminded the Board that the property owner may have the option to pay into a tree
fund in lieu of replacing any or all of the trees. Mr. Chave clarified that most of these situations occur in unopened rights-of-
way where there is a combination of landscaping, including trees. Oftentimes, adjacent property owners do not understands
that the property is considered public right-of-way.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board of his previous comment that the City does not currently have an Urban Forest Management
Plan, which would also address right-of-way trees. While trees in parks are identified in the City’s overall goal for canopy,
there is no policy in place to back it up.
Board Member Stewart said she has a number of reactions to the draft, and she hopes to have an opportunity to make some
comments and suggestions before the plan is presented for a public hearing. Rather than answering questions on the fly, Mr.
Lien suggested the Board Members forward their questions and comments to him. This would allow him to focus the next
Staff Report on specific issues. He said he anticipates the Board would have at least one more work session prior to
scheduling the draft Tree Code for a public hearing. Vice Chair Lovell noted that he already submitted written comments to
staff regarding the draft Tree Code.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Tree Board discussed the opportunity to adjust the fee schedule based on income or
age levels. Mr. Lien clarified that the fees identified in the draft Tree Code can only be adjusted by the City Council. He
suggested the Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council relative to the fee schedule.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Tree Board contemplated an effective start date for enforcement of the new Tree
Code if and when it is adopted. Mr. Lien said the effective date would be determined by the City Council. He acknowledged
that the draft Tree Code represents a significant change over the existing tree code, and significant public education will be
needed. Generally, when an ordinance is passed by the City Council, it becomes effective five days after it is published.
However, the effective date will be spelled out in the ordinance, and the City Council could choose a later date.
Mr. Chave explained that implementation of the draft Tree Code would require the City to hire a professional arborist. The
new plan would be much more difficult to administer and could not be implemented with existing staff.
Board Member Cloutier suggested that staff seek more input from other cities who have implemented stringent tree codes.
While it seems like a great idea to have at least 8 trees on every lot in the City, they must consider that property owners will
want to have vegetable gardens, solar panels, etc., which require sunlight. He does not want the Tree Code to penalize people
who are making good use of their land. The draft Tree Plan must account for and accommodate these other concepts. Board
Member Robles suggested the code should also consider the health benefits of having adequate sunlight. Once again, Mr.
Lien stressed the need for an Urban Forest Management Plan, which is one of the ultimate goals of the draft Tree Code.
Mr. Lien summarized that he would attempt to incorporate the Board’s comments into new draft code language for the
Board’s continued review on April 22nd.
INTRODUCTION OF CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
March 25, 2015 Page 7
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that all cities and counties in Washington State are required to adopt critical area regulations by
the Growth Management Act (GMA). In addition, all jurisdictions are required to review, evaluate, and if necessary, revise
their critical area regulations according to an update schedule. The City’s review and update is due in 2015. He explained
that “critical areas” include wetlands, areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. Most of the City’s critical
areas are geologically hazardous areas.
Mr. Lien reported that the City hired environmental consultants ESA to assist staff in updating the 2004 Best Available
Science (BAS) Report (Attachment 1) and evaluating the critical area regulations given the changes in science. He referred
the Board to Attachment 2, which contains the 2015 BAS Addendum and a Gap Analysis Matrix that was prepared by ESA
to illustrate the changes in science that have occurred since the last BAS Report in 2004. He advised that the City’s existing
CAO is largely compliant with BSA. However, there are a few areas where ESA has suggested some changes might be
needed:
• Change the City’s wetland regulations to be consistent with the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) Guidance for Small
Cities and the City’s recently adopted Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
• Update the geologically hazardous provisions. Rather than a standard buffer of 50 feet or the height of the slope, ESA is
recommending the City allow a professional to determine the appropriate setback from a geologically hazardous area.
• Change how landslide hazard areas are defined to be clearer.
• Rather than applying the native vegetation requirement based on zoning (RS-12 and RS-20), ESA is recommending the
requirement be tied to the existing habitat. He noted that language similar to the City’s current language was recently
struck down in court because it was site specific and not tied to any specific ecological value.
• Review the allowed activities, including development within physically separated and functionally isolated buffers and
development within a previously developed footprint.
Mr. Lien asked the Board Members to review the information in the Staff Report in preparation for a continued discussion on
April 22nd that will include draft code language.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the 2015 BAS Report and matrix are well written and fact rich. She particularly
appreciated the explanation provided relative to habitat areas and the importance of connectivity. She observed that, at one
point, a certain size was required in order to classify an area as a wetland, but that appears to have changed so that smaller-
sized wetlands are now being classified as long as interconnectivity can be demonstrated. Mr. Lien responded that in a
previous iteration of the CAO, wetlands under 120 square feet were exempt. As per the new criteria, no wetlands are exempt
based on size. However, a new category would be added with different standards for small, isolated wetlands, recognizing
that it might be possible to replace their functions. He emphasized that all wetlands would be regulated consistent with the
DOE’s requirements.
MARINA BEACH PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Ms. Hite advised that Marina Beach Park is one of the City’s highest used and well-loved parks. It is often crowded during
the summer months, and the off-leash area for dogs is a favorite that is used year round. There is nothing wrong with the
park, and the City would not likely be doing a master plan for the park at this time if it were not for a clearly expressed
community desire to restore the Edmonds Marsh (see Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and parks, Recreation and
Open Space Plan) and bring back the capacity for salmon habitat. After careful review and completion of a feasibility study
done by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., it was determined that the best way to accomplish this would be to daylight Willow Creek
from the Marsh into Puget Sound, through Marina Beach Park.
Ms. Hite stressed how important it is that the Master Plan reflects how the park is currently being used and identifies ways to
mitigate any impacts due to changes. She advised that the City hired the consulting firm Walker Macy, ltd. to help complete
the master plan, and Chris Jones from Walker Macy, ltd. was present to review the various alternatives with the Board. In
addition, a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was formed to work in an ad hoc role to help guide the master planning
process (see a list of participants in the Staff Report) and allow citizens to be involved early on. She reported that the PAC
has met twice with the staff and consultant, and the consultant and staff also spent two days holding interviews with key
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
March 25, 2015 Page 8
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 22, 2015 Page 8
would make it easier to find the tree regulations, it would not get the City where it ultimately wants to be relative to tree
preservation and tree canopy.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if it would hold up the code rewrite process if the Board were to recommend to the City Council that
they clean up the tree code provisions in conjunction with the overall code update but hold off on implementation of the
entire new tree code until a UFMP has been established. Mr. Chave answered no, but emphasized that what the City could
do under the code rewrite process would be fairly limited.
Board Member Robles commented that additional education is needed on the current tree cutting provisions before the Board
can make a recommendation on the draft Tree Code. For example, he was unaware of the current penalties for unauthorized
tree cutting. Mr. Chave agreed that the proposed changes would involve not only educating the public, but also the
businesses that do tree cutting in the City.
Mr. Chave announced that a public hearing on the draft Tree Code is scheduled for May 27th.
Vice Chair Lovell thanked the staff for their hard work on preparing and presenting the draft Tree Code. Board Member
Stewart thanked the Tree Board, as well.
Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding of the public hearing is that the public would be invited to come forward
and express their issues and concerns about what they understand the tree code would be or could be, but it would not be the
appropriate time for the Board to ask the public for feedback on specific issues. Mr. Lien said the public would be invited to
share their thoughts on the draft Tree Code, which includes a number of issues. Chair Tibbott said staff would provide an
overview of the draft Tree Code, and the public would have an opportunity to respond. The Planning Board would then have
an opportunity to ask questions of staff and respond to public comments. Mr. Chave suggested that staff could highlight
some of the specific issues discussed by the Board as part of their presentation.
THE BOARD TOOK A SHORT BREAK AT 8:30 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:38 P.M.
REVIEW OF DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board received an introduction of the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) update on March
25th and were provided copies of the 2015 Best Available Science Report (Attachment 2) and Gap Analysis Matrix
(Attachment 2). He reminded the Board that 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. Jurisdictions are
required to evaluate and revise their CAOs accordingly on a regular basis, and the City’s update is due in 2015. He reported
that the City selected environmental consultants ESA to assist in updating the City’s 2004 BAS Report (Attachment 1) and to
evaluate the City’s critical area regulations given the changes in science.
Mr. Lien advised that the City’s existing critical area regulations are largely compliant with BAS, but there are a few areas
where ESA has suggested changes to the CAO. He referred to Attachment 3, which is the working draft of a red-line/strike-
out version of the City’s critical area regulations and reviewed the proposed changes as follows:
Critical Area Determination (ECDC 23.40.080.D) and Critical Area Reports (ECDC 23.40.090.F). The City has
some critical area determinations and critical area reports dating back to the early 1990’s. This is a concern because
science and regulations relative to critical areas change frequently. These proposed amendments would make critical
area determination and critical area reports valid for a period of five years.
Innovative Mitigation (ECDC 23.40.140). This section would be amended to incorporate in-lieu-fee programs, off-site
mitigation, and payments towards an identified City project as alternative mitigation approaches.
Allowed Activities (ECDC 23.40.220.C.6.d). The code currently allows trails in critical area buffers, and the consultant
has recommended that this provision be revised to allow trails only in the outer 25% of critical area buffers. Where
existing, legally-established development has reduced the width of the critical areas buffer, trails can be placed in the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 22, 2015 Page 9
outer 25% of the remaining critical area buffer. Allowance for trails within the inner 75% of a critical area buffer are
provided for within applicable sections of ECDC 23.50 through ECDC 23.90.
Allowed Activities (ECDC 23.40.220.C.7). The current code allows for the removal of invasive and noxious plant
species without a critical areas report. However, removal of vegetation would be restricted to hand removal and the area
of work must be less than 1,500 square feet as calculated cumulatively over three years. All removed plant material must
be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of, and plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious
Weed Control Board’s list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan
appropriate for the species.
Unauthorized Critical Area Alterations and Enforcement (ECDC 23.40.240.E). The current code references the tree
cutting section of the code for applicable penalties for unauthorized tree cutting in critical areas, but it does not address
violations that do not involve tree cutting. This makes it difficult for the City to assess a fine. As per the proposed
amendment, violations would be subject to penalties equal to the cost of the permit, plus any applicable penalties, plus a
square footage cost of $3.00 per square foot of impacted critical area and critical area buffer. A per tree fine would still
be imposed and would likely be triple the fine imposed in the Tree Code.
Wetlands (ECDC 23.50.010). The consultant has recommended a number of changes in this section to bring it up to
standard with BAS. For example, the manuals used for delineating wetlands would be updated (ECDC 23.50.010.A) and
the wetland categories (ECDC 23.50.010.B) would be revised to be consistent with the latest criteria.
Wetland Buffers (ECDC 23.50.040.F). The buffer widths would be revised consistent with the Department of
Ecology’s (DOEs) guidance for small jurisdictions. The current code establishes a standard buffer width for Category I,
II, III and IV Wetlands. The draft code uses a different approach that allow the buffer width to change depending on
habitat score (See Table in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d). One of the functions of a wetland is to provide habitat, which is
why the consultant is recommending that the buffer be tied to the habitat score. The habitat score would be determined
by a wetland scientist as part of wetland delineation. Most wetlands in Edmonds are Category III and Category IV, and
the current code identifies a buffer of between 35 and 50 feet. The proposed amendment identifies a buffer of between
60 and 225 feet for a Category III Wetland, depending on its habitat score. The buffer requirement for Category IV
Wetlands would be a standard 40 feet and would not be based on habitat score. Category I Wetlands, which includes the
Edmonds Marsh, would require a buffer of between 75 to 225 feet, depending on the habitat score.
The table in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d.2 outlines required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands, and the standard
wetland buffer widths identified in the Table in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d assumes implementation of the measures where
applicable to a specific project. The listed measures include directing light away from wetland, locating activities that
generate noise away from wetlands, routing all new, untreated runoff away from wetlands, and retrofitting stormwater
detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development. It was noted that mitigation ratios would be
updated per guidance from the DOE.
Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses (ECDC 23.50.040.G). The current code allows for both buffer averaging and
buffer reduction, but the amendment would not allow both of them at the same time. An applicant could do either buffer
averaging or buffer reduction. The existing code allows buffer width reduction and/or buffer averaging up to 50% of the
buffer, and the proposed amendment would not allow reduction or averaging to reduce the buffer to less than 75% of the
standard buffer. The City is primarily developed and most of the buffers are not present. The City’s goal is to enhance
these critical area buffers over time. The current code requires that a property owner meet the functions and values of a
standard buffer if a modification is allowed. Because there is no buffer in many situations, requiring buffer averaging or
reduction to meet the standard buffer would be impossible. Consistent with the BAS Report, staff is proposing that
language be added that would require all buffer modifications to provide a buffer that is equal to a standard buffer or
improve upon the buffer that is present. This would result in an increased buffer in situations where no buffer is
currently present, and it would meet the City’s goal of increasing the function and value over existing conditions. In
other words, buffer averaging or width reduction would require enhancement of the buffer area to improve the overall
quality of the wetland. The City would be achieving more than no net loss by requiring enhancement in these situations.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 22, 2015 Page 10
Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands (ECDC 23.50.040.J). The intent of the current code is that these wetlands
would be exempt, but that is not really clear in the existing language. The existing code required that it be a low-quality
Category III or VI Wetland that is less than 500 square feet. Wetlands were only exempt if they did not provide
significant habitat value for wildlife, and filling of the wetland must maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and
values over existing site conditions. The last requirement is nearly impossible to meet. Rather than identifying these
wetlands as exempt, the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions calls them small, hydrologically isolated wetlands. These are
small wetlands (less than 1,000 square feet) with a low habitat value that are not connected to riparian or hydrological
corridors. They would not be exempt in the sense that they could be filled without mitigation, but they would be exempt
from a few of the criteria in the CAO. For example, they could be filled and still be exempt from the buffer requirement.
However, mitigation would be required as per the sequencing outlined in ECDC 23.50.050 in order to replace the lost
function and values.
Board Member Stewart asked what the buffer requirement would be for these small wetlands. Mr. Lien answered that,
as currently proposed, no buffer would be required for a wetland that is less than 1,000 square feet and has a low habitat
score. He noted that this language came directly from the DOE’s Guidance for Small Jurisdictions, which was last
updated in 2012.
Board Member Stewart expressed her opinion that a rain garden and most other mitigation would not sufficiently
duplicate the ecosystem that was present in the small wetland. Even though it is small, it still supports a web of life that
cannot be easily replaced. She would rather it not be filled at all. She noted that there are a number of small wetlands
throughout the City and they have value in terms of the wildlife they support. Mr. Lien emphasized that the exemption
provision would only apply to small wetlands that have very low habitat scores. Board Member Stewart said there are
wetlands in forested areas that used to be larger but have now been partially filled. Because they have become smaller,
they no longer have the higher value. She asked who would be responsible for making this assessment. Mr. Lien said
the assessment would be done by a qualified professional. Board Member Stewart asked if the assessment would
consider whether there had been any tampering with the land previously. Mr. Lien answered that the qualified
professional would consider previous conditions and altered wetlands to some degree, but they primarily look at what is
there now and whether it meets the criteria to be identified as a wetland. The habitat score will be based on the quality of
the wetland and the existing vegetation. Board Member Stewart said she is glad that the draft language recognizes that
even small wetlands have some value.
Chair Tibbott asked how the Edmonds Marsh would be classified. Mr. Lien answered that no delineation has been done
for the Edmonds Marsh, but the 2004 BAS Report identified it as a Category I Wetland. The required buffer would be
between 75 and 225 feet, depending on the habitat score it receives based on delineation. Board Member Stewart said
she hopes that the qualified professional will consider what has been done in the past to bring the score down. She
expressed her belief that the City’s goal should be to make up for some of the damage that has been previously done.
Mr. Lien explained that habitat scores and delineation are largely driven by the Corps of Engineers’ recommendations.
Wetland scientists take certification classes in order to qualify to conduct the delineation and identify a habitat score. He
does not believe that the habitat score for the Edmonds Marsh can be based on what the wetland used to be. Board
Member Stewart asked if jurisdictions have the authority to have stronger delineation and habitat score criteria than what
the Corps of Engineers recommends. Mr. Lien cautioned against having greater requirements than the Corps of
Engineers recommends relative to habitat values and scores. However, the City has the flexibility to establish greater
buffers based on the habitat scores.
Chair Tibbott asked where a human footpath could be located at the Edmonds Marsh if a 165-foot buffer is required.
Mr. Lien said he has had discussions with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff regarding this issue in light
of the plan to connect the existing trail all the way around the marsh. He reminded the Board that walkways and trails
are allowed activities in the outer 25% of a buffer area and no critical areas report would be required. A trail located
within the inner 75% of the buffer area would be permitted, but a critical areas report would be required and the standard
would be higher. He noted that the Director may allow a trail to be located in the inner 25% of a buffer area when
required to access viewing structures, fish access or connections to other trail facilities.
Designation of Specific Hazard Areas (ECDC 23.80.020.B.4). The proposed language changes how landslide hazard
areas are defined. Under the existing code, you have to look at the entire slope and it can be difficult to identify the top
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 22, 2015 Page 11
and tow of the slope and where it breaks. The proposed amendment would make the process more straightforward. As
proposed, any slope of 40% or greater that exceeds a vertical height of 10 feet over a 25-foot horizontal run would be
considered a landslide hazard area. Seismic hazard areas will be designated as having a “high” and “moderate to high”
risk of liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County or areas located within
landslide hazard areas.
Special Study and Report Requirements (ECDC 23.80.050.A). Some changes were made to the special study and
report requirements.
Minimum Building Setbacks (ECDC 23.80.070A.1). Currently, the standard setback for geologically hazardous areas
is 50 feet or the height of the slope from the top of the slope. As proposed, a geotech report would determine the setback
and buffer. In practice, that is basically what the City does now. There is a standard 50-foot buffer with a 15-foot
building setback. A geotech report would be required to do anything within the setback and buffer. With a geotech
report, the buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet. Staff is still struggling with when a geotechnical report
should be required. If there is no standard buffer, what distance would be used to establish when a report would be
required? The consultant has suggested that the City update its Landslide Hazard Areas Map. Currently, the City has a
good Landslide Hazard Areas Map, and any development within 50 or 100 feet of a designated landslide hazard area
would require a geotechnical report.
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors (ECDC 23.90.040.C). The proposed amendment would replace language that
currently exists in the CAO that requires 30% vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 zoned properties. The current language is
similar to King County’s provision, which the Courts struck down because it requires something that is not based on
habitat but is applied across the board. This provision is currently being applied on a 7-lot plat at the corner of 9th
Avenue and Caspers. The applicant is being required to establish 30% native vegetation as part of the project even
though there is no habitat present. Staff believes this part of the code needs to be revised, and they are proposing that the
requirement be tied to habitat. He referred to a map that identifies the biodiversity areas and corridors in the City where
the provision could apply, and briefly described each of the areas. The goal of the provision outlined in ECDC
23.90.040.C is to maintain continuity of the existing biodiversity areas and corridors throughout the City. Specifically,
ECDC 23.90.040.C.2.b would require an applicant to maintain the continuity of the existing biodiversity area/corridor by
not narrowing the width of the existing corridor by more than 10% or 20 feet, whichever is less, and not impacting more
than 10% or 2,000 square feet, whichever is less, of the existing biodiversity area/corridor occurring on the site. For
existing residential lots that are highly encumbered by existing biodiversity areas, a 3,000 square foot development
footprint may be allowed. Further work is needed on this provision to make sure it is workable and feasible.
Chair Tibbott asked if the City has identified any liquefaction areas. If so, do these areas correlate with the biodiversity
areas and corridors? Mr. Lien answered that he could provide an updated map of the liquefaction areas, which are
typically located by the waterfront and in the portions of the Edmonds Marsh that were filled in. He does not believe
there are any liquefaction areas uphill from the sound. Board Member Stewart asked if all of the biodiversity
areas/corridors are on public property. Mr. Lien answered that they are located on both private and public properties.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that it is possible to engineer to build on soils where there is potential for
liquefaction. Mr. Lien concurred and noted that these standards are addressed in the Building Code. Mr. Chave added
that there are very substantial Building Code provisions that would come into play.
Board Member Stewart asked if there are restrictions for single-family residential development within liquefaction areas.
Mr. Lien explained that, as per ECDC 23.80.040.B, the following would be allowed to occur without a geotech report:
construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are
not residential uses or places of employment; additions to existing single-story residents that are 250 square feet or less;
and installation of fences. All other activity in a liquefaction hazard area would require a geotech report. It would also
be required to meet all of the Building Code requirements. Mr. Chave added that, generally, liquefaction hazard areas
are also flood prone areas, for which another set of standards would apply.
Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 19). Mr. Lien advised that there is some flood plain around Lake Ballinger and near
the mouth of Shell Creek, but the majority of the City’s flood areas are waterfront. Currently, the only proposed change
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 22, 2015 Page 12
is to include new flood zones (Zones V and VE) for flood areas along the shoreline. However, the consultants have also
suggested the City consider requiring development within flood plains to be 1 to 2 feet above the base flood elevation.
Although the City currently only requires development to be at flood elevation, the consultant’s recommendation is
common practice in many jurisdictions. It is important to keep in mind that implementing the additional requirement
could have a significant impact on development along the waterfront because it would take one or two feet off of the
allowed building height. While he does not disagree with the recommendation, the City might also want to consider
allowing some flexibility in the height standards if buildings are required to be elevated above the base flood elevation.
Mr. Chave suggested that it is more a matter of where building height is measured from.
Board Member Stewart referred to Page 9 of the addendum to the BAS, which states that FEMA recommends, and many
communities have adopted, higher standards of either 1 or 2 feet above base flood elevation. If the City’s goal is to have
a longer life of buildings, they should consider taking a conservative approach and implement a requirement of 2 feet
rather than 1. Mr. Lien pointed out that while sea level rise is an issue relative to the waterfront, it is not applicable to
Lake Ballinger. Some jurisdictions have different requirements for building above the base flood elevation depending on
location and whether the buildings are commercial or residential. However, he suggested the change would be more
appropriate in ECDC 19 (Building Code) rather than in the CAO. The Board could discuss this issue further at a future
meeting, and it would be appropriate to invite the Building Official to participate in the discussion.
Mr. Lien said the consultant is also proposing that the City consider requiring compensatory storage mitigation for
development around Lake Ballinger. He explained that when compensatory storage mitigation is done, the floodway is
expanded out a little bit. The existing soil and topography around Lake Ballinger would make this approach difficult. In
addition, the level of the lake is controlled by the outlet of the stream. Again, he said this approach might not be a good
fit for Edmonds.
Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated. Mr. Lien provided photographs to illustrate a stream in the City of
Edmonds that runs between two houses. He explained that because the area on either side of the stream is developed, it
may not be appropriate to apply a standard buffer requirement where there is no opportunity to create a buffer. In this
situation, a property owner indicated a desire to do a small addition to extend the house out. However, because the lots
in the bowl area are typically 60-feet wide and the buffer for a stream is 75 feet, the house is technically located within
the stream buffer.
Mr. Lien recalled that a year and a half ago, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that dealt with physically
separated and functional isolated buffers and development within a previously developed footprint. It was decided to
shelf the discussion until the CAO update. He explained that, by definition, a buffer is identified as physically separated
and functionally isolated if it does not provide any value to the critical area (streams and wetlands). To make this clear,
the proposed update would change the definition of buffer (ECDC 23.40.320) by adding the following language: “Areas
that are functionally separated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established roadways, paved trails eight
(8) feet or more in width, or other legally established structures or paved areas eighth (8) feet or more in width that
occur between the area in question and the adjacent critical area shall be considered as functionally separated buffer.”
Again, he referred to the picture and explained how the proposed addition would be physically separated from the
stream. Activities within a physically separated and functionally isolated buffer would not require enhancement and/or
mitigation.
Footprint of Existing Development (ECDC 23.90.040.D.5 and ECDC 23.40.320). Mr. Lien advised that a new
definition has been proposed for “footprint of existing development” or “footprint of development.” As proposed in
ECDC 23.40.320, footprint of existing development “means the area of a site that contains legally established
buildings; concrete, asphalt or gravel paved roads; parking lots; storage areas or other paved areas; driveways;
walkways; outdoor swimming pools; and patios.” While activity within a previously developed footprint would be
permitted, a critical area report and enhancement would be required. He noted that the provisions would only apply to
streams and wetlands.
Mr. Lien referred to new language in ECDC 23.90.040.D.5, which states that:
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 22, 2015 Page 13
“New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a stream buffer,
provided that the following conditions are met:
a. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in
ECDC 23.40.320;
b. The proposed development within the footprint of the existing development is sited as far away from the stream
edge as is feasible;
c. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are
implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the stream and not represent an
undue burden given the scale of the proposed development.
d. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent remaining stream buffer in order to improve
functions degraded by previous development;
e. Enhancement is provided as buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed
development within the footprint of existing development occurring in stream buffer, or through an alternative
approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer; and
f. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the stream buffer shall be addressed through use of best
management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed
alteration.”
Mr. Lien summarized that the intent of the proposed language is to improve and enhance existing situations. Board
Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the provision would only apply to new development and would not be retroactive.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that critical areas become an issue when a property owner wants to develop a
new structure or remodel an existing structure. She said she was surprised to learn that the City does not record critical
area tracts or easements on the title when new lots are created. This would make it easier for a property owner to
understand the limitations of his/her property. Mr. Lien explained that the City does record critical area tracts or
easements related to subdivisions, and they are considering expanding this requirement to other activities as part of the
update.
Mr. Lien summarized that development within a previously developed footprint would be allowed, but enhancement
would be required at a ratio of 1:1. While the enhancement requirement is heading in the right direction, Board Member
Stewart suggested a greater enhancement ratio such as 1:1.5. Mr. Lien agreed the Board could discuss the appropriate
ratio, recognizing that the goal is to improve the existing conditions. Mr. Chave referred to the pictures provided by Mr.
Lien of a stream that runs between residential properties. He explained that, as written, a 500 square foot addition to one
of the homes would require a 500 square foot buffer enhancement where none currently exists. Rather than
compensating for lost buffer area, the property owner would actually be adding something that is not there now.
Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that, in the pictures provided, there would not be sufficient area to provide the required
buffer enhancement. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, as proposed, the applicant would have the option to contribute
to a fund that could be used to enhance a buffer elsewhere in the City if it is not possible to do the buffer enhancement on
the subject property.
Board Member Stewart suggested that a greater enhancement ratio should be required when an additional structure
would encroach into the required buffer area. Mr. Lien advised that the existing language in ECDC 23.90.040.D.4
allows additions to legally construct structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of development.
The proposed amendment would also allow a structure to expand the footprint of development within a buffer area, but
enhancement and mitigation would be required. The proposed language will actually result in an improved situation. As
proposed
“Provisions for standard stream buffers, stream buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions through
enhancements require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing:
a. Outside of the standard stream buffer;
b. Outside of a stream buffer averaged (with enhancement);
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 22, 2015 Page 14
c. Outside of stream buffer reduced (with enhancement);
d. Outside of the inner 25% of the standard stream buffer with no more than 300 square feet of structure addition
footprint within the inner 50% of the standard wetland buffer width provided that enhancement is provided at a
minimum 3:1 ratio;
e. Outside of the inner 25% of the standard stream buffer width with no more than 50% of the standard wetland
buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum 5:1 ratio and that stormwater low-impact
development techniques or other measures that enhance existing buffer conditions are included as part of the
stream buffer enhancement plan.”
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Tibbott referred the Board to the written report prepared by the Development Services Director. Board Member
Cloutier said he particularly appreciated that the number of public meetings and work sessions that took place as part of the
Westgate planning process were noted. Chair Tibbott said he also appreciated the summary of the various public meetings
that have occurred and will occur throughout the City. Vice Chair Lovell referred to an email the Board received from staff
indicating that, in addition to the changes outlined in the Development Services Director’s Report, the City Council’s
adoption of the Westgate Plan also included an amendment to the height limit in the QFC quadrant , which limits
development to three stories.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Tibbott advised that the public hearing on the draft Tree Code was moved to May 27th. This change will allow the
Board an opportunity to get the word out and invite members of the public to participate in the hearing.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott announced that he would attend the Puget Sound Regional Council meeting on April 30th. He noted that he is
very interested in the transportation plan and other regional planning activities.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rubenkonig said that, given the comments she provided concerning the Critical Area Ordinance, one of her
particular interests is related to the expert testimony. She requested that the Board Members read the part that refers to
hearsay and how it connects to scientific evidence when it comes to looking at these areas. She said she reacted to this
language and she wanted to see if other Board Members had similar concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
June 10, 2015 Page 12
property. As per the interim ordinance, if a second application is made on the same property as a previous application and
the two projects have locations or features that could be irreconcilable, the first application would be deemed withdrawn and
will not be processed further. To clarify the interim ordinance as it relates to irreconcilable applications that result in
withdrawal, he provided the following examples:
1. An applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particularly property. Subsequently, another
application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for
seven lots, the two applications would be considered irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats.
Hence the four-lot short plat application would be deemed withdrawn.
2. An applicant submits an application for design review of a 20-unit, multi-family development and subsequently,
another design review is submitted for a 30-unit development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the
footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy the same space,
they would be considered irreconcilable and the 20-unit application would be deemed withdrawn.
To clarify the ordinance as it relates to applications that may be inconsistent but are not irreconcilable resulting in
withdrawal, Mr. Lien provided the following examples.
1. An applicant submits a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is
submitted for a single-family home, the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the
proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the
footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application.
2. An applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site-improvement
plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a correct
version of at least one of the two plans, City staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to
occur.
Mr. Lien said a second part of the interim ordinance relocated a section that had to do with the resubmission of an application
after denial from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.07 (Closed Record Appeals) to ECDC 20.02
(Development Project Permit Applications). As per the language in this provision, an applicant could not be able to resubmit
an application within a 12-month period of denial unless there has been a significant change.
Vice Chair Lovell requested clarification of the provision that would be in ECDC 20.02.006. Mr. Lien said this provision is
already in the code, and the proposed change would simply relocate it from its current location in 20.07.007. The title to the
section would be changed, as well.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked who would be responsible for determining whether or not there has been significant
change. Mr. Lien answered that the decision would be made by the Planning Director. Board Member Rubenkonig also
asked why the first application, rather than the second application would be deemed withdrawn. Mr. Lien pointed out that
applications can only be submitted by property owners, and it is assumed that the most recent application would be the one
the property owner wants to put forward.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the draft ordinance would be scheduled for a public hearing on July 8th.
The Board took a break from 9:15 to 9:25.
CONTINUED REVIEW OF DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE
Chair Tibbott explained that Mr. Lien would present the Staff Report relative to the CAO Update. However, due to the
lateness of the hour, the Board Members would not be invited to comment and discuss the proposed changes following the
presentation. Instead, the Board Members can email their comments and recommendations directly to staff so they can be
incorporated into the final version that is scheduled for a public hearing in July.
Planning Board Minutes
June 10, 2015 Page 13
Mr. Lien reviewed that he introduced the CAO update to the Board on March 25th and presented modifications to the CAO on
April 22nd. At this meeting, staff will discuss proposed changes related to Frequently Flooded Areas (FFA), which are, by
definition, considered critical areas. They will also discuss the existing native vegetation requirement contained in Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.040.C, as well as a proposed new section in ECDC 23.40.215, which pertains
to Critical Area Restoration Projects.
Frequently Flooded Areas
Mr. Lien reported that the consultant is recommending the City require compensatory storage for development around Lake
Ballinger. He explained that because of existing geology, particularly the 25 feet of peat on the south side, it is not feasible to
do compensatory storage mitigation around Lake Ballinger. As such, staff is not proposing a compensatory storage
requirement at this time.
Mr. Lien said the consultant is also recommending that the City require that new residential structures within the floodplains
be elevated to provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), which is the elevation of the
100-year flood event). He pointed out that the City’s floodplains are largely contained in two areas: the downtown
waterfront area and around the shores of Lake Ballinger. He provided maps to illustrate the floodplains around the shores of
Lake Ballinger, as well as along the waterfront. He advised that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
completed a Coastal Flood Risk Review for Snohomish County in 2014. Although the map provided in the review is not
currently effective, it does illustrate the likely location of the floodplains along the waterfront. He noted that the floodplain
area was significantly expanded in the draft map, which also establishes the BSA at about 12 feet above sea level. There are
a few other floodplains identified in the City, including Shell Creek downstream of Caspers and a few more along the
shoreline to the north.
Mr. Lien noted that Lake Ballinger is a highly-controlled environment with the level of the lake controlled by a structure at
the McAleer Creek outlet of the lake, and it is not likely that the flood events that happened in 1997 and 2007 will occur in
the future around the lake. At this time, staff is not proposing any changes regarding construction being elevated above BFE
around Lake Ballinger.
Mr. Lien said sea level rise should be considered when allowing development within the FFA near waterfront area. He
provided a graph to illustrate the results of recent studies from the Mote Marine Laboratory and the National Research
Council (NRC) relative to sea level rise. As per the NRC study, the mean projection for sea level rise by 2050 is 6.5 inches,
and the mean project by 2100 is 24.3 inches. By the end of the century, there is likely to be a sea level change of two feet.
When considering development along the waterfront, the City should consider the life of the buildings and whether or not the
City should plan for potential sea level rise.
Mr. Lien explained that flood plain areas are largely regulated by the Building Code (ECDC 19.00.025), the International
Residential Code (IRC) for residential development, and the International Building Code (IBC) for commercial development.
He noted that the IRC does not require single-family residences to be elevated above BSE, but the IBC does require
structures to be constructed at or up to two feet above BFE, depending on the category of the structure. Staff is
recommending that the building code be amended (ECDC 19.00.025) to include a Design Flood Elevation (DFE) of 2 feet
above the BFE for all new structures within the Coastal High Hazard Ares and Coastal A Flood Zones. However, he
acknowledged that requiring structures to be constructed above the BFE would impact the overall height allowed. The
maximum allowable height is currently measured from an average level of the undisturbed soil as defined by ECDC
24.40.030. Where existing grade along the waterfront is at or below the BFE, requiring structures to be built 2 feet above
BFE would effectively eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain existing height
allowances, the Planning Board should consider whether to modify the development code to establish a new base elevation
from which the maximum height of the structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones are
measured. This could be accomplished through a modification to the definition of height in ECDC 2r.40.030 or through
specific allowances within the zoning code (ECDC 16).
Native Vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 Zones
Planning Board Minutes
June 10, 2015 Page 14
Mr. Lien said staff is proposing to change ECDC 23.90.040, which requires retention or establishment of a minimum of 30%
native vegetation on undeveloped or redeveloped property within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones. He explained that the
provision has characteristics of a provision in King County’s CAO that was struck down by Washington Court of Appeals.
Currently, the requirement is tied to the zone rather than to habitat. For example, he is working on an application for a 7-lot
subdivision at the corner of 9th Avenue and Caspers Street. It is currently a grass field that has no habitat, and the current
provision requires the applicant to provide a native landscaping plan to show how they will provide a 30% native vegetation
area. He reviewed that, initially, staff and the consultants drafted provisions that would replace this section with new
requirements for biodiversity areas and corridors. However, it is clear that more study is needed to fully develop standards
for retention and connection of biodiversity areas and corridors. Based on the current budget and time constraints, it is not
possible to fully flesh out new biodiversity areas and corridors code provisions. However, it could be addressed at a later
time with information developed in association with an Urban Forest Management Plan.
Mr. Lien said staff is now proposing changes to provide more definition to specific habitat features to be retained by the
provision such as indigenous species, native significant trees and snags. Additionally, a section would be added to allow the
Director to waive the provisions of ECDC 23.90.040.C where the habitat is nonexistent on a particular property. He
explained that the proposed revisions will provide continued protection for naturally vegetated areas of the City that are
important for wildlife habitat while also providing a more defensible code in line with the findings of the court case
mentioned previously.
Restoration Projects
Mr. Lien explained that the City does not wish to discourage restoration projects that would provide a net benefit to the City’s
critical areas. Therefore, staff is proposing a new section (ECDC 23.40.215) that would grant relief for restoration projects
not required as mitigation for a development proposal. The proposed relief would be a reduction to the standard buffer
otherwise required by the critical area regulations. He further explained that two types of projects would be eligible for relief
under ECDC 23.40.215:
Daylighting of a stream, or
Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or its buffer.
Mr. Lien advised that a restoration project may apply a buffer equal to 75% of the standard buffer. A restoration project
proponent may request a buffer be reduced to a minimum of 50% of the standard buffer if:
A 75% buffer would significantly limit use of the property.
It is the minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project.
There would be a net environmental benefit.
Granting relief is consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that a public hearing on the draft CAO has been scheduled for July 8th. He recalled that the
Board was scheduled to discuss the CAO at their May 27th meeting, but the discussion was postponed due to time constraints.
He invited Board Members to forward their comments and suggestions to him for consideration as he prepares a draft code
for the public hearing. He anticipates the Board will have an additional meeting after the public hearing to discuss the more
complicated provisions contained in the draft CAO further.
Vice Chair Lovell expressed his belief that it will be important for the draft CAO to provide specific language and
methodology for implementing the various provisions in the CAO prior to the hearing. He said this is particularly important
for the issue related to height of structures in Coastal Flood Hazard Zones given the currently proposed provision that would
require new residential structures to be elevated. Mr. Lien invited the Board Members to email him their thoughts on the
issue and said the draft CAO that is presented for public hearing will provide specific language to address this issue. He
reminded them that he previously presented two options for addressing height: through a modification to the definition of
height in ECDC 24.40.030 or through specific allowances within the zoning code (ECDC 16).
Planning Board Minutes
June 10, 2015 Page 15
Board Member Robles questioned if the City really wants to legislate the elevation of buildings in the Coastal Flood Hazard
Zones. Another option would be a “build at your own risk” approach. Developers know that sea level is rising. Mr. Lien
pointed out that the IBD already requires some structure to be built above the BFE.
Chair Tibbott reminded the Board Members to submit their comments and recommendations to Mr. Lien as soon as possible.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Tibbott announced that the Planning Board’s retreat is scheduled for June 24th in the Edmonds Swedish Hospital Board
Room, starting at 6:00 p.m. At least a portion of the meeting would involve a conversation with representatives from
Verdant Health regarding their future plans for the hospital property. He agreed to provide more detailed information about
the location soon. It was noted that the retreat would be open to the public, and staff would notice the meeting details as
appropriate.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott did not have any additional items to report.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Cloutier observed that a public comment earlier in the meeting appeared to suggest that the Planning Board
prepared and endorsed the draft Tree Code, which was the subject of a public hearing before the Board on May 27th. He
clarified that the Board reviewed the Tree Code in a public meeting, but it was not something the Board wrote. The fact that
people came to the hearing does not mean the Board is not doing its job correctly. The Planning Board fulfilled its
responsibilities by publicizing a public hearing and encouraging the public to participate.
Board Member Stewart thanked staff for their hard work on the heavy documents the Board has received in past months. She
also thanked the Board Members for taking time to review the documents and participate in the discussions. She asked that
staff date each draft that is prepared so the Board Members can easily identify the most recent version. She also suggested it
would be helpful for the Board to reach a consensus on whether they will work from the clean or marked up copies.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she is a Waste Warrior for the Snohomish County Extension’s Sustainable Community
Stewards Program. Her group recently worked at the Rotary Club’s Edmonds Waterfront Festival, diverting over 900 pounds
of organic waste from the landfill, and the are waiting for numbers for the amount of recyclable materials that was diverted,
as well. She concluded that they were able to improve over last year’s, and they plan to work at the Taste of Edmond, as
well.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 8, 2015 Page 4
applicant to choose between the first or second application. He noted that this applicant was notified of the interim ordinance
right after it was adopted.
Chair Tibbott asked staff to provide examples of “substantial changes” in conditions. Mr. Lien said that, in the case of a
rezone application, substantial changes could include changes in the rezone criteria, encroachment of additional development,
and changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that it would be difficult to cite specific examples of substantial
change in the code language because the provision applies to many different application types.
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that rather than coming up with specific examples of what would be considered
substantial change, it is more important to identify who would be responsible for making the determination. As currently
written, the Development Services Director would make the determination, and he/she would be required to act within certain
constraints as a representative of the City. The proposed amendment is intended to tidy up the code by placing the provision
in a more appropriate location. If the City experiences a rash of situation s, precedence could be established over time on how
to handle the issue.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the draft language is consistent with the language that was adopted as part of the interim
ordinance. Mr. Lien advised that the interim ordinance is outlined in Attachment 1, and the proposed language for the
permanent ordinance is contained in Attachment 2. Although the language in both attachments is consistent, t he Board is
only being asked to review the draft language in Attachment 2 and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Monroe asked how other cities address irreconcilable applications. Mr. Lien said he does not know how
other cities address the issue.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE CODE AMENDMENTS FOR IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATIONS AND
RESUBMISSION OF APPLICATION AFTER DENIAL AS CONTAINED IN ATTACHMENT 2. BOARD
MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board received an introduction to the CAO update on March 25 th and was provided copies of the
2015 Best Available Science (BAS) Report and 2015 Addendum, as well as a Gap Analysis Matrix (Attachments 1 and 2).
Staff reviewed potential updates to the CAO (Attachment 3) on April 22 nd and June 10th. He reminded the Board that all
cities and counties in the State are required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to adopt critical areas regulations. State
law also requires that the regulations be updated periodically. Critical areas include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat,
critical aquifer recharge areas (none in Edmonds), frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (erosion,
landslide and seismic hazard areas).
Mr. Lien advised that the City’s current CAO was last updated in 2005, and the BAS Report was last updated in 2004. The
City hired consultant, ESA, to assist in updating the 2004 BAS Report and identify changes that are needed in the CAO for
consistency with BAS. The consultant and staff reviewed the administrative procedures, as well. He highlighted the
proposed changes as follows:
Geologically Hazardous Areas. Changes to this section include revising how landslide hazard areas are defined and
updating the geotechnical report requirements. In addition, rather than establishing standard buffers and setbacks from
landslide hazard areas, appropriate buffers and setbacks will be determined by a geotechnical report.
Wetlands. Changes in this section include updating the delineation standards and wetland categories to be consistent
with the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) Guidance for Small Cities. Specifically, buf fer widths would be determined by
a combination of the category of wetland and habitat score. Required mitigation ratios were also changed to be
consistent with the DOE’s Guidance for Small Cities. In addition, the exemption section (ECDC 23.50.040(K) was
updated to address small hydrologically isolated wetlands (Category III and IV wetlands that are less than 1,000 square
feet). As proposed, certain wetland provisions would not apply to small isolated wetlands, but they would not be exempt
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 8, 2015 Page 5
from all wetland development standards as per the existing code. As proposed, small isolated wetlands could be altered
if lost functions are replaced.
Native Vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 Lots. Staff is proposing changes to ECDC 23.90.040(C), which requires
retention or establishment of a minimum of 30% native vegetation on undeveloped or redeveloped property within the
RS-12 and RS-20 zones. He noted that this provision has characteristics of a provision in King County’s CAO that was
struck down by the Washington Court of Appeals. To address the concerns raised in the court findings, the proposed
amendments provide more definition relative to the specific habitat features to be retained. In addition, a section was
added that would allow the Director to waive the provision where habitat is nonexistent on a particular property.
Mr. Lien recalled that staff and the consultants initially drafted provisions that would replace this section with new
requirements for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors. However, it later became clear that more study would be needed to
fully develop standards for retention and connection. Under the current budget and time constraints, it is not possible to
fully flesh out new code provisions at this time. However, the concept could be explored further when the City pursues
the development of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as currently being discussed in the draft Tree Code
review. He expressed his belief that the proposed revisions would provide con tinued protection for naturally-vegetated
areas of the City that are important to wildlife habitat, and also provide a more defensible code in line with recent court
findings.
Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers. BAS for critical areas is largely determined by rural areas
where streams and habitat exist. Applying BAS buffers in Edmonds, which is largely built out, does not always make
sense. The proposed provision in ECDC 23.40.320(C)(4) would allow development in areas that are functionally
isolated and physically separated from a wetland by impervious surface of at least 8 feet. For example, a property
located on the opposite side of a road from a stream could be within the proscribed buffer distance, but the road provides
a barrier to any benefit the site could provide to the stream. New language was added to the definition of buffer to define
a “functionally separated buffer” and a new paragraph was added in the allowed activities section (ECDC 23.40.220) to
allow for development within physically separated and functionally isolated portions of a stream or wetland buffer.
Development within the Footprint of Existing Development. Because Edmonds was developed prior to the
establishment of critical area regulations, many wetland and stream buffers extend into residential yards that have been
previously developed and provide limited function in terms of stream and/or wetland protection. Many buffers are
substantially developed and contain impervious surfaces and commercial or residential buildin gs. Simply applying the
standard buffers in situations like this will not provide the necessary characteristics to protect a stream and/or wetlands
function. In these situations, it can be better to restore the buffer through enhancement activities. To address these
situations, a new definition for “Footprint of Existing Development” (ECDC 23.40.320) was added and new sections
were added to the Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas that would allow development within the
footprint of existing development and require enhancement of the remaining buffer in order to improve functions of the
buffer. As proposed new development must be sited as far away from the critical area as possible, and an enhancement
ratio of 1:1 would be required.
Mr. Lien explained that language in the existing code also allows additions to structures in the critical area buffer that
expand the footprint based on a hierarchy of criteria. The proposed amendment would also allow for expansion of the
footprint, based on these same criteria. However, additional mitigation would be required as outlined in ECDC
23.50.040(I)(1). As proposed, expansion of the footprint outside the inner 25% of the standard wetland buffer by 300
square feet or less would require a 3:1 mitigation ratio. An addition of 500 square feet or less would require a 5:1
mitigation ratio. Again, he explained that the goal of the proposed change is to improve the critical areas and buffers
over what currently exists. Applying standard buffers to all properties would not result in an improvement. Allowing
some development within the developed footprint would result in some improvement to the critical areas and their
buffers over time rather than keeping the status quo.
Frequently Flooded Areas. While frequently flooded areas are, by definition, critical areas, development within the
flood zones in Edmonds (Lake Ballinger and the Puget Sound Shoreline) is guided by building code requirements:
ECDC 19.00.025, International Building Code (IBC), and International Residential Code (IRC). While the IRC does not
require single-family residences to be elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), the floors must be constructed to
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 8, 2015 Page 6
at least the BFE. The IBC requires structures to be constructed at or up to two feet above BFE, depending on the
category of the structure. He referred to Attachment 8, which contains the draft Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the downtown area, which were recent ly updated in 2014 and
will become effective in 2016. Another issue to consider in the Coastal Flood Risk Zones is the effect of sea level rise.
The most recent projection for sea level rise in the mid -Puget Sound Region is 24 inches by the year 2100 (N ational
Research Council 2012). Given the pending FIRM map update and projections for sea level rise in Puget Sound, staff is
recommending that the building code be amended to require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a
minimum of 2 feet above the BFE for all new structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood
Zones. He referred to Attachment 4, which provides draft language for incorporating the recommendation into ECDC
19.00.025.
Mr. Lien explained that requiring structures to be constructed above the BFE will have impacts on the overall height for
structures as allowed by the zoning code. The height of structures is currently measured from an average level of the
undisturbed soil. The existing grade along the waterfront is at or below the BFE, so requiring structures to be built 2 feet
above the BFE would effectively eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain the existing
height allowances, the Board should consider whether to modify the development code to establish a new base elevation
from which the maximum height of structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones are
measured. This could be accomplished through a modification to the definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030 or through
specific allowances within the zoning code. Attachment 4 provides examples of how this could be accomplished.
Restoration Projects. The City does not want to discourage restoration projects that would provide a net benefit to the
City’s critical areas. Therefore, a new section has been proposed (ECDC 23.40.215) to grant relief for restoration
projects that are not required as mitigation for a development proposal. The proposed relief is a reduction to the standard
buffer otherwise required by the CAO. Two types of projects would be eligible for the relief: Daylighting of a stream or
the creation/expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of a wetland and/or wetland buffer. As
proposed, a property owner may apply for a buffer that is less than 7 5% of the standard buffer to the restoration project
boundary. The buffer could be reduced to as little as 50% if a 75% buffer would significantly limit the owner’s use of
the property. The buffer reduction would have to meet the following criteria: mini mum necessary to achieve the
restoration project, provide a net environmental benefit, and be consistent with the purposes of the critical area
regulations.
Rebecca Wolf, Edmonds, said her home is located within a critical area on 2 nd Avenue South (Willow Creek). She said she
has attended the Marina Beach Master Plan workshops, at which daylighting of Willow Creek has been a significant topic of
discussion. She said she purchased her property because of the creek, and she would like the City to maintai n the current
buffers and not allow the footprint of development to increase. She shared examples in her neighborhood of how the creek
and its buffer have been impacted by activities that the City has allowed to occur. She said she is presently taking a college
course relative to the issue of sea level rise. Apparently, there are updated projections that sea level rise of up to one m eter is
anticipated by 2050 in some areas. She asked that the Board consider these newer projections.
Scott Blumenkamp, Edmonds, stressed that many of the City’s codes are vague and not enforced. He particularly referred
to a code provisions that prohibits developers from filling, excavating or storing equipment within the drip line of any tree to
be retained. However, the example he referenced earlier on 232nd Street illustrates that this requirement is not being enforced
by the City staff. He invited the Board Members to visit the property where the clearing occurred. Regardless of the code
provisions that are put in place, it is up to the City staff to enforce them fairly and consistently.
Ms. Wolf agreed that enforcement of the code provisions is important. She questioned if the City’s code prohibits property
owners from using chemical fertilizers, etc. within wetlands and their buffers. If so, she asked that the City do more to
enforce the requirement.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Board Member Stewart asked if the City has current maps of the critical areas inventory that are available to the public. Mr .
Lien said the City does have critical area maps that are available to the public, but they do not have them set up as a web -
based program yet. He emphasized that the maps are not intended to be regulations; they are more used to inform the staff.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 8, 2015 Page 7
If the maps indicate that a critical area may exist on a subject property, staff visits the site before making a final
determination on whether a Critical Area Report would be required. This report would specifically map the critical areas on
the property and would be submitted as part of a development application.
Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 23.40.270(D), which states that the Director may require that critical areas tracts be dedicated to
the City as a condition of approval of a subdivision application. This provision would require that the tract be recorded on
title. Vice Chair Lovell asked if all critical areas must be recorded on title. Mr. Lien answered that the requirement would
only apply to new development proposals.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if someone who wants to build a deck in a critical area or its buffer would be required to obtain a
permit. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively and said a critical area report would be required if it is determined there is a wetland
or its buffer on the site. He pointed out that critical area determinations and reports are only valid for five years. Beca use
BAS for critical areas changes over time, this time limit is important.
Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 23.40.110(A) and ECDC 23.40.120(A)(3) and said she would like the City’s
regulations to require more than just “no net loss.” The goal should be to improve the existing situat ion over time. Mr. Lien
explained that allowing some development within the buffers, with an enhancement requirement, can result in an improved
situation over time as opposed to applying a standard buffer. He noted that the mitigation sequencing (avoid t he impact,
minimize the impact, rectify the impact) contained in the current and dra ft CAO are standard across the board and consistent
with BAS and the DOE’s requirements. A qualified professional would have to show how the mitigation sequencing
provision has been met.
Mr. Lien specifically referred to 23.90.040(D)(3), which provides different scenarios based on how much a development will
encroach into the buffer. He explained that if the code provisions remain the same, there will be no improvements along
streams. Allowing development to occur within the buffer areas, with enhancement, will result in improvements that will not
likely occur otherwise. The goal is to improve the current situation, not just maintain the status quo; and language regard ing
this goal was added in various places throughout the draft CAO.
Board Member Stewart suggested that the enhancement ratio should be increased from 1:1 to 1.5:1 so there is always an
improvement expected of someone who wants to encroach into the buff er area. This would require them to do better than
just simply improving the buffer equal to the encroachment. Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 23.90.040(D)(3)(e), which applies
to buffers that have already been disturbed by existing development. A 1:1 replac ement ratio would result in greater than the
status quo because it would be enhancing an area that has been previously disturbed. Again, Board Member Stewart voiced
concern that requiring a 1:1 ratio would simply result in enhancing a buffer that is equal to the encroachment of new
development and would not result in a net gain.
Mr. Lien said the City frequently receives requests from property owners who want to add garages where paved areas exist.
The garage would not expand the footprint or increase the impact to the stream, but the City would require a 1:1 enhancement
somewhere else along the stream. This will improve the condition over what already exists. Board Member Stewart agreed
that the provision, as explained by Mr. Lien and Mr. Chave, make s sense.
Board Member Stewart asked staff to explain how the proposed definition for “footprint of existing development” came
about. Mr. Lien said staff’s first attempt was “legally established impervious surface area,” but that did not include packed
earthen materials. The current definition is the result of several iterations and includes not only structures and areas of
pavement, but also packed earthen materials, etc. As currently proposed “footprint of existing development” means “ It does
not include yards which are not necessarily in their natural condition.
Board Member Stewart suggested that a buffer that is separated from a wetland by an 8 -foot sidewalk should not be
considered physically separated and functionally isolated. She noted that there are numerous options for converting
impervious sidewalks to pervious pathways. Vice Chair Lovell felt that requiring a developer to replace an existing sidewalk
with pervious materials would be an unreasonable demand. Board Member Stewart said s he is not comfortable with
designating a buffer area as physically separated and functionally isolated if it is separated from the critical area by an 8 -foot
sidewalk. The separation should be 15 feet. Mr. Lien said it is important to provide a definition of what the width should be,
and the consultant has recommended that 8 feet of paved area provides sufficient separation where the area on the other side
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 8, 2015 Page 8
is not providing function to the critical area. He emphasized that the provision only applies to wetlands and not landslide
hazard areas. He suggested that perhaps the sidewalk width could be increased to 12 feet, which is the standard driveway
width in the single-family zones.
Board Member Stewart requested examples from other jurisdictions relative to the physically separated and functionally
isolated provision. She wants to ensure that the proposed language is consistent with the City’s values. Mr. Lien agreed to
talk with the consultant about whether or not the current driveway standard could be applied to sidewalks in this situation, as
well. However, he said it might be difficult to find examples from other jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions end the buffer
where the pavement starts and do not require enhancement, which is different than what the City envisions. Board Member
Rubenkonig asked if the Army Corps of Engineers has changed how they look at buffers. Roadways used to be considered
legal barriers.
Chair Tibbott asked if road ways that bisect critical areas and their buffers would be allowed to drain into the critical areas and
/or buffers. Mr. Lien answered that the City’s stormwater regulations require that stormwater runoff associated with new
development be contained on site, and it would not allow the water to drain into a stream. The City would not approve a
development that allows runoff to go across the street and into the critical area.
Board Member Stewart asked if eagles have been delisted as endangered species, a nd Mr. Lien answered affirmatively.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if redevelopment of an entire block would be required to meet the standard buffer provisions if there
is a stream or wetland present or would a developer be allowed to develop consistent with the footprint of existing
development. Mr. Lien answered that the standard buffers would apply. However, there are specific non -conforming
provisions that would allow a house that is destroyed by fire to be rebuilt using the same footprint. Board Member Robles
voiced concern that requiring redevelopment to meet the standard buffer would reduce property values significantly.
Board Member Stewart said her interpretation was that a property could be redeveloped using the existing footprint. Again,
Mr. Lien said that would only be allowed if the structure burns down. If a developer purchases an entire block for
redevelopment, development would be allowed within the critical area buffers but enhancement would be required.
Board Member Monroe observed that, as currently proposed, developing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that encroaches
into the buffer area would require enhancement. Mr. Lien agreed and referred to 23.40.040(D)(4), which outlines the
sequencing criteria for locating additions. He reminded the Board that the first choice is to locate the structure outside of the
standard stream buffer, followed by outside the stream buffer averaged with enhancement and then outside of a stream buffer
reduced with enhancement. The last choice would be outside the inner 25% of the standard s tream buffer. He noted that a
500 square foot ADU that is outside the inner 25% of the standard stream buffer would require a 5:1 enhancement ratio or
2,500 square feet of enhancement. Board Member Monroe asked what happens if there is not sufficient are a to provide the
required 2,500 square feet of enhancement. Mr. Lien said there are other enhancement options (ECDC 23.40.140) such as
removing some of the stream armament or paying into an in-lieu-of fund for an enhancement project elsewhere in the City.
Board Member Cheung asked how many properties in Edmonds are impacted by the CAO. Mr. Chave said that would be
difficult to identify.
Board Member Robles asked if a buffer would be required for the stream in his backyard, which is in a culvert. Mr . Lien
answered that if the stream is converted, no buffer would be applied to it. However, it would be great if the code language
included provisions that encourage people to open the culverts via restoration projects without being penalized by larger
buffers. He noted that some streams are both open and in culverts.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the critical area report that is done by a qualified professional would simply identify the
wetland and/or buffer that is on the subject property or if it would also identify how the wetland is part of a larger contiguous
area. Mr. Lien said the goal of the wetland determination is to determine whether or not a wetland delineation will be
required. If a critical area report is required, the qualified professional will identify whether or not all three conditions for a
wetland can be met. The analysis will also address the size of the wetland, which is part of the overall rating system. The
analysis may extend off site. While the consultant may not have the authority to go on neighboring properties, they can use
aerial photographs, etc. to make this determination.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 8, 2015 Page 9
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if a developer would onl y be required to address buffer requirements for the subject
property. Mr. Lien answered that the CAO requirements would only apply to the property that is proposed for development.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it is possible for portions of a wetland to be classified to a higher category. Mr. Lien
answered that a wetland would not likely have different categories.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 23.50.010(B), which outlines the proposed rating system for wetlands. She
suggested that the introductory paragraph be modified to identify the number of points that qualify wetl ands for the various
categories. For example, the higher classifications wetland classifications require 23 points, and the lower require just 16
points. Mr. Lien agreed to seek input from the consultant regarding this request.
Board Member Rubenkonig noted that there is no size connected with bogs. Mr. Lien explained that, as per DOE ’s
requirement, bogs are categorized as Type I Wetlands regardless of size, but there are no bogs in Edmonds currently.
Board Member Rubenkonig referenced ECDC 23.50.030(F)(1)(b) and suggested that the language could be worded to be a
more positive statement. Mr. Lien pointed out that ECDC 23.50.030(F)(1)(a) states what is required if the standard buffer is
applied, and the following item outlines what is required if an appl icant chooses not to comply with the mitigation measures.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that she finds the approach used for the proposed CAO update to be appropriate and
effective, as it merges all of the different authorities into one place. This will be less confusing for the residents of Edmonds.
Chair Tibbott asked staff to elaborate on the other innovative options for buffer enhancement when there is no reasonable
opportunity on site. Mr. Lien said the options include removing armament, pa ying into an in-lieu-of fund for another
enhancement project in the City, or participating in a state-certified wetland mitigation bank. He explained that both
Jacobsen’s Marine and American Brewing Company utilized the in-lieu-of option. In each case, the property owners paid
into the fund an amount commiserate with the size of the project. Chair Tibbott asked if it was easy to identify the mitigat ion
that was required. Mr. Lien answered that a 1:1 ratio is easy to apply.
Chair Tibbott asked what would happen if there is no City project to contribute to. Mr. Lien said applicants could contribute
a fee-in-lieu of fund for future City projects, or they could choose to participate in a mitigation bank. He explained that
mitigation banks have been established throughout the State, but it is difficult for the City to participate in the programs
because they are not really connected to the larger water sheds and all of the City’s drainage goes into Puget Sound. The Ci ty
would prefer that the mitigation funds be used for projects within the same watershed. While banks are an option, there are
no established banks that include Edmonds in their service area. The code, as written, would allow the City to participate i f
and when a bank is available. Chair T ibbott asked if the code promotes the establishment of mitigation banks, and Mr. Lien
said it does not necessarily promote banks, but it does allow them. Mr. Chave commented that he does not believe the City
will run out of enhancement projects with all o f the culverts and impacted streams throughout the City. The in-lieu-of option
would be superior to contributing to a vague mitigation bank
Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2), which requires the City to establish covenants limiting use of
pesticides within 150 feet of wetlands. Rather than a covenant, Mr. Lien said limiting the use of pesticides could be a
condition of project approval.
Chair Tibbott asked if herbicides and other chemicals can be applied within critical areas and/or their buffers. Mr. Lien said
the consultant recommended that language be added to the CAO to address this issue. He referred to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7),
which allows for the removal of vegetation with hand labor and hand -held equipment. It provides a list of vegetation that can
be removed to include: invasive and noxious weeds, English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, Evergreen blackberry, Scot’s
Broom and Hedge and Field Bindweed. ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7)(d) allows the application of herbicides, pesticides, organic
and mineral-derived fertilizer or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the City, provided that their use
shall be restricted in accordance with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Management. The consultant recommended
the provision because, in some cases, the use of herbicides is the best approach for controlling invasive species and noxious
weeds. Mr. Chave clarified that the City would not independently allow the use of herbicides. They will refer to the
regulatory authority to determine what types of herbicide are allowed for particular applications. Homeowners would not be
allowed to use herbicides that have not been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 8, 2015 Page 10
Board Member Rubenkonig asked what a citizen should do if they see someone using chemicals in wetland areas. Mr. Lien
suggested they submit a code enforcement request. Chair Tibbott asked if the property owner or the company applying the
chemical would be held responsible. Mr. Lien said that, ultimately, both the property owner and the company would be held
responsible. Board Member Robles asked if a citizen complaint would become part of the public record. If so, this wou ld
create a disincentive for someone to report a problem? Mr. Chave said the complainant can ask to remain anonymous,
recognizing that there is no guarantee that his/her name won’t be revealed through some type of subsequent action.
Mr. Lien referred to the list of plant species that can be removed via hand tools and/or herbicides as per ECDC
23.40.220(C)(7). He noted that the list does not currently include alder, which come up by the thousands as seedlings. He
suggested the Board consider adding alders to the list of species that can be removed. Board Member Stewart pointed out
that alders propagate well, but they also put nitrogen into the soil and provide shade for streams. Mr. Lien said he is not
talking about removing all alder trees in Edmonds, but just the seedlings. Board Member Stewart pointed out that if all the
seedlings are removed, no new alders will grow.
Vice Chair Lovell said he printed the DOE’s list of invasive and noxious weeds. He asked if Mr. Lien is suggesting that
alders be added to the list. Mr. Lien clarified that he is not proposing that alders be added to the list of noxious weeds.
Instead, they could be listed as a separate item in ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7). He pointed out that, as currently proposed, the
removal of vegetation would be limited to 1,500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over a three-year period.
Board Member Stewart asked if the City’s stream inventory is really as old as 2002. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively and
advised that the inventory is being updated by the consultant as part of the current update.
Board Member Stewart requested further explanation relative to provisions for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors, which were
struck from the most recent draft. Mr. Lien said the staff and consultant originally proposed Biodiversity Areas and
Corridors, but they struggled with the applicable criteria. During the Tree Code discussions, the Board discussed the concept
of creating an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), which could include an inventory of the City’s forested areas and
corridors. Creating provisions for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors will be a large project, and the City does not have the
time and/or money to complete the task as part of the CAO Update. Instead, the languag e was modified to protect the areas
in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones that are associated with streams and steep slopes. The new provisions are tied to the type of
habitat to protect throughout the City. He noted that future changes can piggyback with the UFM P.
Board Member Stewart asked if the City has maps that identify the corridors. If so, will these corridors be protected as the y
wait for the UFMP to be adopted? Mr. Lien said the provisions for protecting corridors will remain in the CAO via the
requirement that 30% of the native vegetation be retained. However, the new language that was proposed relative to
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors is no longer part of the draft proposal. He reminded the Board that the proposed language
is intended to tie the requirement to the specific habitats that are being protected. Board Member Stewart indicated support
for the proposed new language.
Mr. Lien requested Board feedback related to Attachment 4, which outlines options for amendments to the Frequently
Flooded Areas Code (ECDC 23.70). He reminded the Board that staff is recommending that the building code be amended to
require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of two feet above the BFE for all new structures within
the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. However, staff also recognizes that this requirement will create
issues relative to the height limit. Board Member Robles asked if the City is bound to the requirements of the IBC. And Mr.
Lien answered affirmatively. He explained that, depending on the category of structure, the current buildings are either at
BFE or two feet above BFE. The proposed ame ndment would not only be consistent with FEMA’s updated FIRM map that
will be effective in 2016, it will also address the anticipated sea level rise of 2 feet by 2100 as identified in the NRC’s 2 012
study.
Mr. Lien explained that the BFE elevation within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones is 12 feet, and a
survey of the Senior Center indicates it is at 11 feet. If the City requires structures to be built 2 feet above the BFE, they will
essential take away three feet of available height.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 8, 2015 Page 11
Board Member Robles commented that the construction industry finds ways to mitigate for the calamities that are anticipated.
He suggested that perhaps sea level rise should be handled the same way. Rather than putting a law in place to regulate it ,
they could leave it to the market. Mr. Lien responded that the best way to mitigate for sea level rise is to build up so
buildings do not get damaged in the future. He said he had a discussion with the Building Official about how to mitigate for
sea level rise. Options include building a wall around the building, but the height of the wall would have to be sufficient to
keep flood waters out. The building code requires that certain structures be built two feet abo ve the BFE now and the
recommendation is that this requirement should apply to all structures. Mr. Chave added that staff’s though t is that inserting
provisions relative to sea level rise is a first step. The Board can revisit the issue as additional science becomes availab le. He
summarized that a series of steps need to be taken to fully address the issue, and staff feels it is time to introduce the idea that
some sort of mitigation needs to be in the code.
Vice Chair Lovell commented that he not only supports the proposed provision, he believes it makes good sense for a city
that is very environmental conscious and observant. The City should not ignore this federal guideline and the
recommendation is based on BAS. He knows for a fact that not only the Senior Center, but the adjacent co ndominium
development, are flooded regularly. Other approaches are not viable given what science says. While the details of science
may change, sea level will continue to rise, and BAS says the City better do something to accommodate it. The only issue
left to decide for him is how to best address the height issue. He did not believe it would be viable to reduce the overall
height allowed for structures. While allowing additional height may rile some people in the City, he supports a proposal tha t
would measure the 30-foot height from the BFE. Mr. Chave agreed that if the base height of structures is increased by two
feet, then the height allowance should be increased accordingly. He emphasized that this would not allow a developer more
building.
Chair Tibbott asked how often FEMA updates its flood elevations. Mr. Lien said they are not updated often.
Mr. Chave explained that while there is a lot of information about sea level rise along the coast, it varies substantially. The
most generally accepted study for Edmonds is the 2012 study that was done by the NRC, which indicates the average rise
will be two feet. The City will monitor this going forward. If the science changes at some point, the City has an obligatio n to
revise codes to reflect the changes. The proposed amendment will introduce the subject into the code and get people used to
the idea.
Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that the proposed language does not address sidewalks, railroad tracks, roadways, etc., all of
which could be impacted by sea level rise. Perhaps sea level rise should be considered as the City studies options for
addressing access over or under the railroad tracks. Board Member Robles agreed and questioned how many other projects
need to address this same issue, such as the Marina Beach Park Master Plan. He questioned if there is a technological way to
mitigate things in a way that complies with future science but is not bound by the two foot above BFE requirement. Again,
Mr. Lien said the only other option offered by the Building Official was building a wall.
Mr. Lien noted that, as proposed, the BFE will be measured at the finished grade of the first floor of the structure. There are
certain building code standards for how the materials below the first finished grade must be treated. Board Member Robles
noted that, as proposed, a developer could construct a parking ga rage below the BFE.
Mr. Lien referred to the examples in Attachment 4 for addressing the height issue. One option would be to add a footnote to
the maximum height within the site development standards table for each zone impacted by the Coastal Flood H azard Zones
(CW, P, MP2, BC, BD2, OR, RM-2.4, RS-12, RSW-12, RS-20, OS and CG). Again, he noted that this same footnote would
need to be added to each zone. A second option would be to add the same language to the definition of height in ECDC
21.40.030. In either case, the language would read, “For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and
Coastal A Flood Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from
the applicable FEMA flood hazard map.”
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that any new language, either in the footnote or the height exception, should include a
reference to the applicable FEMA Flood Plan Map. It should be clear to the reader that the requirement is coming from
outside of the City.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 8, 2015 Page 12
Mr. Chave suggested that it would make more sense to add language in the height definition, and the Board concurred. Mr.
Chave said it is quite likely that the height definition will be relocated as part of the overall Develo pment Code Update.
Typically, the City avoids having regulations buried in the definitions. However, the way the code is currently set up, it
makes more sense to add the new language to the height definition.
Mr. Lien advised that the Board will have one more meeting regarding to the CAO on July 22nd. At that time, staff
anticipates the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. He summarized that the Board would like him to
work further on the language for “physically separated and functionally isolated” language, particularly relative to 8-foot
sidewalks.
Board Member Monroe said he would like more information about regulations pertaining to structures that are torn down and
redeveloped. He would like the Board to consider language that would allow these structures to be rebuilt if they are within
the same footprint. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the non -conformance standards address when structures are destroyed
by fire, but Board Member Monroe is interested in addressing replac ement of structures in general. He agreed to provide
additional information regarding this issue. Board Member Monroe said he is concerned that the proposed language would
result in housing of the 1970s, with nonconforming structures being maintained ins tead of taking advantage of new building
techniques.
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE PROCESS
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the written report prepared by the Development Services Director. He noted that the
consultant is working on code language and options, which will be presented to the Board for review in the near future.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Tibbott reminded the Board that they would continue their discussion relative to the CAO Update at their July 22 nd
meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott thanked the Board Members for their participation at the recent retreat. He felt it was worthwhile to hold the
retreat off site to give the Board Members a flavor for another location in the City where a lot of development activity is
occurring. He encouraged the Board Members to visit the Verdant site and take note of the projects that are in progress.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the June Economic Development Commission (EDC) Meeting. There
wasn’t a quorum present, so they were unable to conduct official business. The Director of the Chamber of Commerce
provided an update on the group’s activities, and there was some discussion about activities the Chamber sponsors. He said
he plans to attend the next EDC meeting on July 15th.
Board Member Robles said he accepted Verdant’s invitation to visit their facilities. The office and classroom space is a
fantastic resource for health care professionals who serve citizens in Snohomish County.
Board Member Stewart reported that she attended the open ho use for the Marina Beach Park Master Plan, which was held
just prior to the Board’s meeting. There is currently one option presented for public review, and the electronic open house
will start on July 9th via the City’s website. She encouraged the public and Board Members to participate.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 11
condition in this location. Mr. Hauss said the designs included in the study are preliminary and a lot more discussion is
needed before the projects move forward.
Vice Chair Lovell complimented the staff and consultant’s work. The study is very thorough and complete and should be the
basis for a lot of planning and implementation in the future.
Chair Tibbott said he also appreciates the fact that the analysis sets up Westgate as a gateway with signage. It will become a
place of interest for people coming through. The study does an excellent job of not only highlighting the intersection, but the
neighborhood, itself.
Mr. Hauss invited Board Members to email him their follow up questions. He reminded them that the City Council would
continue their discussion relative to the analysis in August. Still under debate is whether the City Council will formally adopt
the analysis. Because the projects identified in the plan will be transferred to the Transportation Plan, it is likely the plan will
need to be adopted. Chair Tibbott noted that some of the projects have already been identified in the Transportation Plan,
and the analysis can be used to inform future updates. The study provides a greater understanding of SR-104, and he
appreciates the work done by the staff and consultant.
THE BOARD TOOK A SHORT BREAK FROM 9:10 P.M. TO 9:17 P.M.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CRITICAL AREA
ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that this is their sixth opportunity to review the CAO Update, and the Board held a public
hearing on July 8th. After the hearing, the Board had some discussion about whether or not an 8-foot paved area was
sufficient width for a critical area buffer to be considered physically separated and functionally isolated. The Board
discussed that perhaps the separation width should be established at 12 feet, which is the standard width the City currently
requires for driveways. He said he discussed this option with the consultant, who agreed that a 12-foot separation would be
appropriate. He noted that other jurisdictions that have similar provisions do not specify width criteria. Some require studies
and others do not. Since the public hearing, the language that talked about an 8-foot paved area being automatically
classified as physically separated and functionally isolated was removed from the definition of buffer. Changes were also
made to the language in 23.40.220.C.4, to read: “Development Proposals within Physically Separated and Functionally
Isolated Stream or Wetland Buffers. Areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland
due to existing, legally established roadways, paved trails twelve (12) feet or more in width, or other legally established
structures or paved areas twelve (12) feet or more I width that occur between the area in question and the stream or wetland
may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. Once determined by the
director to be a physically and functionally isolated stream or wetland buffer, development proposals shall be allowed in
these areas. The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is
functionally isolated.”
Mr. Lien pointed out that the previous language automatically classified buffers that were separated by 8 feet or more as
physically separated and functionally isolated. The new language states that buffers that are separated by 12 feet may be
considered physically separated and functionally isolated. Once determined by the Director to be physically separated and
functionally isolated, development proposals can be allowed. The Director can require a site assessment to make the
determination.
Mr. Lien recalled that he provided some examples at the last meeting to illustrate the proposed new requirements for
development in frequently flooded areas. He reminded the Board that development in the flood zones is guided by building
code requirements: ECDC 19.00.025, the International Residential Code (IRC) for residential development, and the
International Building Code (IBC) for commercial development. While the IRC does not require single-family residences to
be elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), the first floor must be constructed to at least the BFE. The IBC requires
structures to be constructed at or up to two-feet above BFE, depending on the category of the structure. He reminded the
Board of staff’s recommendation that the City require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of 2 feet
above the BFE for all new construction within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. He referred to
Attachment 4, which outlines the proposed changes. As discussed by the Planning Board previously, the Building Code
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 12
would be amended to read, “For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal
A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined
from the applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map.” The Board also recommended that, rather than adding a footnote to each
zone impacted by the new provision for frequently flooded areas, the best approach would be to amend the definition for
height in ECDC 21.40.030 to read, “For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood
Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable
FEMA Flood Hazard Map.”
Chair Tibbott asked if the BFE would be identified by the then applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map. Mr. Lien said that
rather than identifying a specific map, staff is recommending that the language be changed to say, “The City will use the most
currently adopted FEMA maps in determining whether a property is located in a frequently flooded area.” This change will
allow the City to use the most current map.
Vice Chair Lovell noted that the IRC does not require that residential development be elevated two feet above the BFE. Mr.
Lien said that, with the proposed amendment, even single-family residential structures would be required to build at least two
feet above the BFE within the Coastal Flood Hazard Area. To clarify a question from the Board, Mr. Lien advised that, when
applicable, structures would still have to meet the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Mr. Lien recalled that, at the Board’s last meeting, Board Member Monroe asked for more information about non-conforming
buildings and if they could be reconstructed within a critical area or not. He explained that there is existing language in the
code with regard to permanent alterations to structure within the critical areas. ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 reads, “This provision
shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the ECDC relating to non-conforming structures in order to permit the
full reconstruction of legal, non-conforming buildings within its footprint.” He further pointed out that ECDC 17.40.020
establishes a 75% replacement cost threshold. If a structure is destroyed more than 75%, then redevelopment would be
required to conform to the current code. To illustrate how these two provisions would be applied, Mr. Lien explained that if a
house located within a stream buffer were to burn down, ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 would allow the house to be reconstructed
within its previous footprint. However, if someone wants to remodel or rebuild a home but retain the non-conforming aspect,
ECDC 17.40.020 would limit the remodel or redevelopment to the 75% replacement cost threshold. A property owner within
a stream buffer could tear down and replace up to 75% of an existing home and still redevelop within the existing footprint.
Mr. Lien recommended that the Board discuss any remaining concerns and then forward a recommendation to the City
Council to adopt the CAO Update as contained in Attachments 3 and 4.
Chair Tibbott said it appears that the definition for “Footprint of Development” has been changed from the “border of a
foundation” to include some of the landscaping around the facility. Mr. Lien reviewed that “Footprint of Existing
Development” is defined as “the area of a site that contains legally established buildings; concrete, asphalt or gravel paved
roads, parking lots, storage areas or other paved areas; driveways; walkways; outdoor swimming pools; and patios.” He
explained that developed lawns are not considered part of the footprint of existing development. However, crushed gravel
around a structure would be considered part of the footprint of development. Although gravel is considered impervious
material, theoretically, a property owner could pave over that section of crushed gravel and not expand the footprint of
existing development. The Board Members had questions about whether or not all gravel areas, even those that are
established in place of lawns, would be considered part of the footprint of existing development. Mr. Lien emphasized that
the definition would require that the footprint of development only includes areas that have been legally established.
Board Member Stewart commented that the CAO Update has evolved into a good document, and she thanked Mr. Lien for
his hard work. However, she voiced concern about ECDC 23.90.040.D.8.c, which allows stormwater dispersion outfalls,
bioswales and bioretention facilities anywhere within stream buffers. She recalled that when the Board first started
discussing the CAO update almost two years ago (September 24, 2013), a civil engineer representing the SnoKing Watershed
Council attended the Board’s meeting to talk about this particular point. He said, “No drainage structures or other
improvements should be allowed in any critical area or the buffer of any critical area. Critical areas should not be used for
stormwater treatment. Rather stormwater should be treated for proper flow control before it enters any critical area.” A
follow up comment, this same engineer said, “The City has the option to adopt more requirements more stringent than the
stormwater manual, if it so chooses, to protect local streams and wetlands.” Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that
buffers are supposed to be vegetated. They perform habitat functions for streams and wetlands, and they should not be used
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 13
for stormwater dispersion, outfalls, etc. Mr. Lien clarified that this section deals only with streams, which are allowed based
on the hierarchy of conditions outlined in ECDC 23.90.040.D.8. He reviewed the conditions and emphasized that stormwater
facilities are only allowed in streams if no other location is feasible. He reminded the Board that the City’s current
stormwater system is tied to streams.
Mr. Lien advised that the City’s Stormwater Engineer reviewed the CAO Update and proposed changes to make the language
consistent with the stormwater requirements. For example, ECDC 23.90.040.D.8.c, which applies to streams, and ECDC
23.50.040.F.8, which applies to wetlands, were added to address the requirements of the Phase II Stormwater Permit the City
is currently working on. Board Member Stewart recalled the Stormwater Engineer’s earlier comment that the City is working
to make the requirements stronger and even better than what is required.
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE AND
ASSOCIATED FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREA AMENDMENTS (ECDC CHAPTERS 23.40 THOUGH 23.90) AS
OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENTS 3 AND 4 OF THE PLANNING BOARD PACKET DATED JULY 22, 2015.
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Vice Chair Lovell commended the staff and consultant for their invaluable work. The documents presented to the Board
were first rate.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Tibbott reviewed that the August 12th meeting agenda will include a discussion on the Highway 99 Subarea Planning
Process and an update on the Development Code Update Process. It will also include a public hearing on the Marina Beach
Park Master Plan.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott reminded the Board Members of the City-sponsored volunteer picnic on August 9th. He also announced that he
and Vice Chair Lovell would provide an update to the City Council on Planning Board activities. He encouraged the Board
Members to review their contact information that that was provided in a recent email to make sure it is accurate.
Chair Tibbott reported on his attendance at the July 21st City Council meeting, where the City Council conducted a public
hearing relative to the turf fields at the Old Woodway High School site. He recalled that the project has been in the planning
phase for approximately four years and is now being disrupted just as it is being put into motion. He encouraged the
Planning Board Members to carefully review park projects that come before them in the future and attempt to avoid these
types of conflicts by providing the public early notification of issues that need to be addressed.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Lovell reported on his attendance at the July 15th Economic Development Commission Meeting, at which the
discussion focused on tourism, downtown business enhancement, and implementation of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP). It
was reported that the Tourism Committee is proposing to take a hiatus for a time. They have made a number of studies and
believe they have gone as far as they can for the time being. They made some recommendations, some of which are moving
forward and others that are more long term. There was significant discussion about the SAP, particularly how to keep the
public informed as to the status of the action items contained in the plan. Commissioner Haug has been working with the
City’s Economic Development Director to develop software to track the status of each of the action items for the public’s
information. The SAP Committee is working on ideas for increasing media attention and communication with the public.
Board Member Stewart said she listened to the video recording of the City Council’s July 21st meeting, particularly the public
hearing relative to the interlocal agreement with the Edmonds School District. Without offering her opinion on the matter,
she expressed her belief that synthetic fields are needed and have been part of the plan for a long time. Unfortunately, none
of the City Council Members or Planning Board Members were involved in the decision making process. The decision was
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
AE 12
AE 13
VE 17
VE 16
AE 13
AE 13
AE 13
AE 12
VE 16
AE 12
AE 13
AE 13
AE 12
AE 13
AE 13!(34
FEMA Region X SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTONPage 35 (35 of 37)February 2014
®
32
33 34
35 36
37
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
VEZone AEZone AO/AHZone ShadedZone X
Effective Coastal
New Coastal
Mapping AZone
A
AE 12
AE 12
AO 2
AO 2 0.2%
A
Limit of Coastal Study
VE 14
VE 14
Zone Break - Coastal Study
0.2%
AM-7967 6. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/08/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of an Agreement with Quiet Zone Technologies for the Wayside Horn project
Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at a future City Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Main St. and Dayton St. are two at-grade railroad crossings with on-going noise from the train horn with
the more than sixty daily train crossings from Sounder Commuter, Amtrak, and Freight (BNSF) trains.
The Wayside Horns would help reduce noise levels throughout the Edmonds Downtown area.
On July 7, 2015, a Selection Committee interviewed three project teams. The team from Quiet Zone
Technologies was selected by the Committee based on their experience with similar railroad projects. Staff
and the consultant have agreed on a scope of services and fee proposal in the amount of $48,223 for design
and $140,905 for installation of the horns and supporting equipment. A 10% management reserve for
services not identified in the scope of work is included in the agreement. The 2015 Budget includes
$50,000 to fund the design phase. The proposed 2016 Budget will include $300,000 in funding to pay for
the remaining costs including installation and BNSF costs to coordinate and complete the project. The
City will request an estimate from BNSF during the Diagnostic Team Review (Task 1) to determine their
cost to complete the installation.
The design phase is scheduled to start in October 2015 and the installation is scheduled to be completed by
December 2016. The initial fee for the agreement is $208,042 and includes the 10% management reserve.
Attachments
QZT Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 09/03/2015 05:31 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/04/2015 09:06 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/04/2015 09:16 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/04/2015 09:16 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/04/2015 11:49 AM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/04/2015 12:59 PM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/03/2015 10:04 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/04/2015
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
WAYSIDE HORNS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF
EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the CITY) and QUIET ZONE
TECHNOLOGIES (hereinafter QZT).
WITNESSETH: THAT WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that it requires detailed
information relating to the possible installation of wayside horns at two (2) at-grade railroad
crossings along the BNSF Railway Corridor (Main Street Crossing #085445K and Dayton Street
Crossing #085439G) (the Wayside Horns Project) before deciding whether to proceed with such
an installation; and
WHEREAS, in the event that the CITY decides to proceed with the Wayside Horns
Project, it requires detailed information relating to the design and installation of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has sought proposals for the design and installation of the
Wayside Horns Project; and
WHEREAS, QZT provided the CITY with a proposed scope of work to provide all of
the materials, supplies, tools, equipment, labor and other services necessary for the design and
installation of the Wayside Horns Project, and agreed to accept as payment in full therefore the
sums set forth in QZT’s proposed schedule of values; and
WHEREAS, the said proposed scope of work and schedule of values, copies of which
are attached hereto as Attachments A and B respectively, and incorporated herein by this
reference, full y and accurately set forth and describe the terms and conditions upon which QZT
proposes to furnish said materials, supplies, tools, equipment and labor, and perform said work,
together with the manner and time of furnishing the same;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that, in consideration of the terms and
conditions contained herein and in the attached, which are made a part of this Agreement, the
parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF WORK. QZT shall do all the work and furnish all the materials,
supplies, tools, equipment and labor necessary for the design and installation of the
Wayside Horns Project in accordance with and as described in the proposed scope of
Page 2 of 8
work (Attachment A), and shall perform and make alterations in, or additions to, the
work provided under this Agreement and every part thereof, as requested by the CITY.
2. CONTRACT PRICE. QZT shall perform the work set forth in the proposed scope
of work for the prices set forth in the proposed schedule of values (Attachment B).
Payment shall be made only for authorized work, and only after the work is accepted by
the CITY. 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 (3) years
after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon
execution by the parties. QZT agrees to commence work under this Agreement for the
design and installation phases of the project on dates to be specified in written "Notices to
Proceed" to be provided by the City, and to fully complete the project no later than
December 31, 2016.
4. CHANGES/MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND. The CITY may make changes to
the scope of work by negotiation of a formal written task order agreement at a mutually
agreed adjustment in the contract price. A management reserve fund (MRF) is being
established for the design and installation phases, to be used to allow QZT to perform
additional work outside of the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A. The maximum
MRF for both phases is set up as 10% of the cost of each phase. The CITY cannot
authorize the use of, and QZT cannot utilize, the MRF until a task order agreement is set
up. To set up a task order agreement, the CITY and QZT must negotiate the scope,
schedule and budget for the increase in direct salary and overhead costs, or the increase in
additional work, to use all or a portion of the MRF.
5. PROJECT CLOSE-OUT. QZT agrees to comply with all project close-out
requirements of the CITY, to include testing of equipment and maintenance training. All
materials installed in connection with the Wayside Horns Project will become the
property of the CITY upon project close-out.
6. DEFECTIVE OR UNAUTHORIZED WORK. The CITY reserves the right to
withhold payment from QZT for any defective or unauthorized work. Defective or
unauthorized work includes, without limitation: work and materials that do not conform
to the requirements of this Agreement, and extra work and materials furnished without
the CITY’S written approval. If QZT is unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete
any portion of the work, the CITY may complete the work by contract or otherwise, and
QZT shall be liable to the CITY for any additional costs incurred by the CITY.
Page 3 of 8
"Additional costs" means all reasonable costs incurred by the CITY, including legal costs
and attorneys’ fees, beyond the maximum contract price under this Agreement. The
CITY further reserves the right to deduct the cost to complete the work, including any
additional costs, from any amounts due or to become due to QZT.
7. WARRANTY. QZT shall correct all defects in workmanship and materials within
one year from the date of the CITY’S acceptance of the work. When defects are
corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one year from the
date such correction is completed and accepted by the CITY. QZT shall begin to correct
any defects within seven (7) days of its receipt of notice from the CITY of the defect. If
QZT does not accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time, the CITY may
complete the correction and QZT shall pay all costs incurred by the CITY to accomplish
the correction.
8. HOLD HARMLESS. QZT shall perform all work at QZT’s risk and QZT expressly
agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the CITY, its officers, agents and employees from
any and all claims, liability, loss, or damage(s), including costs and reasonable attorneys’
fees for defense of the same, that the CITY may suffer as a result of claims, liability, loss,
or damages to any and all persons or property, costs, or judgments against the CITY
which result from, arise out of, or are in any way connected with the work to be
performed by QZT under this Agreement. With respect to the performance of this
Agreement and as to any claim against the CITY, its officers, agents and employees,
QZT expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington,
the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees and agrees that the obligation to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to any claim
brought by or on behalf of any employee of QZT. This waiver is mutually negotiated by
the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to damage resulting from the sole negligence
of the CITY, its agents and employees. To the extent any of the damages referenced by
this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent negligence of the CITY, its
agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless is valid and
enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of QZT, its officers, agents and
employees. QZT 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.
9. INSURANCE. QZT shall procure and maintain at its expense during the term of this
Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through
sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW:
Page 4 of 8
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 not exceed 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,
the CITY will be named on all policies as an additional insured. QZT shall furnish the
CITY with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement prior
to the commencement of any work under this 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. QZT 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.
QZT’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 QZT’s professional liability to third parties
be limited in any way.
10. TERMINATION. The CITY may terminate this Agreement for good cause. "Good
cause" shall include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events:
A. QZT’s refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of properly skilled
workers or proper materials for completion of the work.
B. QZT’s failure to complete the work within the time specified in this
Agreement.
C. QZT’s failure to make full and prompt payment to subcontractors or for
material or labor.
D. QZT’s failure to comply with any federal, state, or local laws, regulations,
rules, or ordinances.
Page 5 of 8
E. QZT’s filing for bankruptcy or being adjudged bankrupt.
If the CITY terminates this Agreement for good cause, QZT shall not receive any further
monies due under this Agreement until the work is completed.
11. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS. All research, tests, surveys,
preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by QZT in
preparation for the services rendered by QZT under this Agreement shall be and are the
property of QZT, provided, however, that:
A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by QZT 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 QZT may be subject to public records request and
release under Chapter 42.56 RCW.
C. In the event that QZT 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 QZT, 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.
12. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED. QZT shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of age, sex, marital status, sexual
orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military
status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained
dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.
13. 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 QZT shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or
representative of the CITY for any purpose. QZT shall be solely responsible for all acts
of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of
this contract.
Page 6 of 8
14. INTEGRATION. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document
and the bid proposal letter and schedule of values attached hereto as Exhibits A and 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 Exhibit A or B, this Agreement shall control.
15. STANDARD OF CARE. QZT represents that QZT has the necessary knowledge,
skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. QZT and any
persons employed by QZT 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.
16. 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.
17. NON-ASSIGNABLE. The services to be provided by QZT shall not be assigned or
subcontracted without the express written consent of the CITY.
18. COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES. QZT warrants that he has not
employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working
solely for QZT, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he has not paid or agreed to
pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for QZT,
any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach or
violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to annul this Agreement 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.
19. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. QZT 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.
Page 7 of 8
QZT specifically agrees to obtain a City of Edmonds business license prior to beginning
any work on the Wayside Horns Project, as well as to pay any applicable business and
occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement.
20. 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 QZT shall be sent to the following address:
Quiet Zone Technologies
7471 Benbrook Parkway
Benbrook TX 76126
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 __________________, 2015.
CITY OF EDMONDS:
By
DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR
ATTEST:
SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Page 8 of 8
QUIET ZONE TECHNOLOGIES:
(PLACE CORPORATE SEAL HERE)
By
Title
STATE OF )
) ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 2015 before me personally appeared
known to be the (president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other authorized officer or
agent, as the case may be) of the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation,
for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and upon oath stated that he/she was authorized to
execute said instrument and that the seal affixed hereto is the corporate seal of said corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day
and year first above written.
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
Attachment A
Attachment B
AM-7964 6. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/08/2015
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie
Department:Human Resources
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
2015-2017 Teamsters collective bargaining agreement (contract)
Recommendation
Approval of the contract by Council in order to execute the terms of the contract. Teamsters has ratified
the 2015-2017 contract negotiated with the City on 9/2/15.
Previous Council Action
The contract has been discussed in executive sessions (as is appropriate for the collective bargaining
process) and is on consent for approval by full Council.
Narrative
The City began negotiating the terms of this agreement with Teamsters in July of 2014. There was a
tentative agreement reached between the City and Teamsters at the end of July 2015. The contract was
ratified by Teamsters on 9/2/15 and is awaiting final Council approval.
Attachments
2015-2017 Teamsters contract
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 09/03/2015 08:30 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/03/2015 12:19 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/03/2015 01:14 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/03/2015 03:06 PM
Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 09/02/2015 04:35 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/03/2015
A G R E E M E N T
by and’ between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
and
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763
(Representing the Public Works and Parks Department Maintenance Employees)
January 01, 20112015 through December 31, 20142017
ARTICLE SUBJECT PAGE
ARTICLE 1 RECOGNITION, UNION MEMBERSHIP AND PAYROLL DEDUCTION .............. 1
ARTICLE 2 NON-DISCRIMINATION ........................................................................................ 3
ARTICLE 3 UNION RIGHTS ..................................................................................................... 3
ARTICLE 4 HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME, CALLBACK AND WATERWATCH .................. 4
ARTICLE 5 PROBATION, LAYOFF, RECALL AND JOB VACANCIES ................................... 7
ARTICLE 6 WAGES ................................................................................................................ 10
ARTICLE 7 HOLIDAYS ........................................................................................................... 10
ARTICLE 8 VACATIONS ........................................................................................................ 11
ARTICLE 9 LEAVES ............................................................................................................... 12
ARTICLE 10 HEALTH & WELFARE AND INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE.................................... 15
ARTICLE 11 MISCELLANEOUS .............................................................................................. 16
ARTICLE 12 MANAGEMENT'S RIGHTS.................................................................................. 18
ARTICLE 13 NO STRIKE PROVISION ..................................................................................... 18
ARTICLE 14 CORRECTIVE ACTION ....................................................................................... 19
ARTICLE 15 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ................................................................................ 19
ARTICLE16 LABOR-MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ..................................... 20
ARTICLE 17 SAVINGS CLAUSE .............................................................................................. 21
ARTICLE 18 DURATION .......................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX "A" CLASSIFICATIONS AND RATES OF PAY ......................................................... 22
APPENDIX "B" LETTER OF INTENT (RE: SEASONAL & TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES) ........... 32
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 1
A G R E E M E N T
by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
and
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763
(Representing the Public Works and Parks Department Maintenance Employees)
January 01, 20112015 through December 31, 20142017
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to
as the Employer, and PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, hereinafter referred to
as the Union.
ARTICLE I1 RECOGNITION, UNION MEMBERSHIP AND PAYROLL DEDUCTION
1.1 Recognition - The Employer recognizes the Union as the sole collective bargaining
representative for all employees employed within the City of Edmonds Street-Storm
Water Division, Equipment Rental Division, Water-Sewer Division, Facilities Division,
Parks Division and Waste Water Treatment Plant in positions covered by the bargaining
unit.
1.2 Union Membership - It shall be a condition of employment that all employees of the
Employer covered by this Agreement who are members of the Union in good standing on
the effective date of this Agreement shall remain members in good standing and those
who are not members on the effective date of this Agreement shall, on the thirty-first
(31st) day following the effective date of this Agreement, become and remain members in
good standing in the Union. It shall also be a condition of employment that all employees
covered by this Agreement and hired on or after its effective date shall, on the thirty-first
(31st) day following the beginning of such employment, become and remain members in
good standing in the Union.
1.2.1 In accordance with RCW 41.56.122, employees who for bona fide religious tenets or
teachings of a church or religious body are forbidden from joining a Union shall contribute
an amount equivalent to regular Union dues and initiation fees to a non-religious charity
or to another charitable organization mutually agreed upon by the Employer and Union.
The employee shall furnish written proof to the Union and the Employer that such
payment has been made.
1.2.2 Summer seasonal help and temporary employees working less than one thousand
(1,000) hours in a twelve consecutive month period shall not be considered within the
terms of this Agreement. Temporary employees who work more than one thousand
(1,000) hours in a twelve (12) consecutive month period shall work under the terms of
this Agreement but shall not be required to pay the Union initiation fee until such time as
they become permanent employees.
1.2.2 Seasonal & Temporary Employees - For the purposes of this Agreement, a "Seasonal" or
"Temporary" employee shall be defined as an individual employed for more than one-
sixth the time of a regular, full-time employee (three hundred forty-seven [347] hours) and
less than one thousand and forty (1,040) hours in a twelve (12) consecutive month
period. The twelve (12) consecutive month period begins with the employee’s first day of
work. In the event an individual employed as a Seasonal/Temporary employee is
employed for more than one-sixth the time of a regular, full time employee (three
hundred, forty-seven [347] hours) in a twelve (12) consecutive month period, the
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 2
employee shall become a member of this bargaining unit, subject to the limitations set
forth below. In the event an individual Seasonal/Temporary employee is employed for
more than one thousand and forty (1,040) hours in a twelve (12) consecutive month
period, the employee shall be covered by this collective bargaining Agreement as a
regular employee.
Bargaining unit Seasonal/Temporary employees who have worked more than one-sixth
of a regular, full-time employee (three hundred forty-seven [347] hours in a twelve [12]
consecutive month period), but fewer than one thousand and forty (1,040) hours in a
twelve (12) consecutive month period will be covered by the following Articles of this
Agreement:
• Article 1 - Recognition, Union Membership and Payroll Deduction
• Article 2 - Non-Discrimination
• Article 3 - Union Rights
• Article 4 - Hours of Work, Overtime, Call Back and WaterWatch
• Article 6- Wages
• Article 12 - Management Rights
• Article 13 - No Strike Provision
• Article 15- Grievance Procedure
• Article 17 - Savings Clause
• Article 18 – Duration
• Appendix A – Seasonal/Temporary rate of pay (applies only after the
Seasonal/Temporary employee is employed for more than three hundred forty-
seven [347] hours and less than one thousand forty [1,040] hours in a twelve (12)
consecutive month period).
• It is understood that provisions of state, federal and local laws will dictate the
level of health and welfare benefits received by Seasonal/Temporary employees.
• Should the state or federal laws or other authority regulating the work of the
Seasonal/Temporary employees change during the term of this Agreement, the
City will comply with the law as changed.
• After working an initial three hundred and forty-seven (347) hours in any
dDivision or dDepartment covered by this Agreement, Seasonal/Temporary
employees become bargaining unit members and remain members upon the first
hour of subsequent re-employment, regardless of the dDivision or dDepartment
(so long as covered by this Agreement) in which the Seasonal/Temporary is
employed. If a Seasonal/Temporary employee has a break in service (separation
from employment with the City) for twelve (12) months or more, they will be
considered a new employee without representation from the Union. Once they
complete three hundred forty-seven (347) hours of work they will become
represented by the Union.
• The City is under no obligation to hire Seasonal/Temporary employees and
reserves the right to hire and manage Seasonal/Temporary employees based on
operational need. However, the City agrees that Seasonal/Temporary employees
are to be used to supplement the full-time work force, not supplant it.
• The Letter of Intent (re: Seasonal & Temporary Employees) agreed upon
between the City and the Union is attached to this collective bargaining
agreement (see “Appendix B”) and provides further definition and clarification of
Section 1.2.2.
1.3 Payroll Deduction - The Employer shall deduct from the pay of all employees the dues
and initiation feedelinquent dues and delinquent initiation fees (to the extent the City has
the capability or authority to do so) of the Union and shall remit to said Union all such
deductions monthly, except that all deductions for the above items must be uniform and
regular to accommodate the monthly machine processed payroll. Where laws require
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 3
written authorization by the employee, the same shall be furnished in the form required.
No deduction shall be made which is prohibited by applicable law. The Union shall
indemnify, defend and hold the Employer harmless against any claims made and against
any suit instituted against the Employer on account of any payroll deduction of dues,
delinquent dues or initiation fees or delinquent initiation fees for the Union. The Union
shall refund to the Employer any amounts paid to it in error on account of the payroll
deduction provision upon presentation of proper evidence thereof.
1.4 Union Notification - Within fifteen (15) days from the date of hire of a new employee, the
Employer shall forward to the Union the name and address and social security number of
the new employee. The Employer shall promptly notify the Union of all employees leaving
its employment.
1.5 Teamsters Retirement Plan - In the event that the bargaining unit elects to join the
Teamsters Pension Plan, the Employer agrees to withhold the appropriate amount from
each payroll and remit that sum to the aforementioned plan.
ARTICLE II2 NON-DISCRIMINATION
2.1 No employee shall be unlawfully discriminated against for upholding Union principles and
any employee who serves in a Union capacity shall not lose his/her job or be
discriminated against for this reason. The , provided suchparties agree, consistent with
Article 3.3, that the Union activities doshould not interfere with the employee's duties.
2.2 The Employer and the Union shall not unlawfully discriminate against any employee
because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation,
marital status, or physical, sensory or mental disabilities, or any other basis prohibited by
law; provided, however, that bona fide occupational qualifications are mutually
recognized.
2.2.1 Wherever words denoting a specific gender are used in this Agreement they are intended
and shall be construed so as to apply equally to either gender.
ARTICLE III3 UNION RIGHTS
3.1 Union Officials - A Union official who is an employee in the bargaining unit (Union
Steward and/or a member of the Negotiating Committee), at the discretion of the
department Department headHead, may be granted time- off while conducting contract
negotiations or grievance resolution on behalf of the employees in the bargaining unit
provided:
• They notify the Employer in writing at least forty-eight (48) hours
prior to the time-off period,
• The Employer is able to properly fill the employee's job duties
during the time-off period, and
• The wage cost to the Employer is no greater than the cost that
would have been incurred had the Union official not taken time-
off.
3.2 Upon request by the Union, and with consideration for divisional Divisional staffing needs,
employee(s) selected for training, delegate(s) to conventions or other needs of the Union,
may be granted leaves of absence with pay for up to ten (10) working days per year
without loss of seniority. The Employee’semployee’s salary and benefits will be
reimbursed to the City, by the Union. The Union may request additional time under
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 4
extenuating circumstances.
3.3 Union Investigative and Visitation Privileges - The Business Representative of the Union,
with the permission of the department Department head Head or his designee, may visit
the work location of employees at any reasonable time and location for the purpose of
investigating grievances. Such representative shall limit his/her activities during such
investigations to matters relating to this Agreement; provided however, he/she shall not
interfere with the operation or normal routine of any departmentDepartment.
3.4 Bulletin Boards - The Employer shall provide suitable space for a bulletin board to be
used by the Unionbulletin boards to be used by the Union in the dDepartments and
dDivisions covered by this Agreement. The Employer shall not use the Union bulletin
boards to post work schedules or other Employer notices; the Union shall limit its posting
of notices and bulletins to Union-related business.
ARTICLE IV4 HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME, CALLBACK AND WATERWATCH
4.1 Hours of Work – Each work section (Parks, Public Works, Street/Storm, Water/Sewer,
Facilities, Fleet and WWTP) shall establish and post a normal, regular work schedule(s)
for all employees within that areasection. The work schedule(s)), which shall be posted at
least monthly in prominent, designated areas, shall list the workdayswork days, starting
and ending times, lunch period, and scheduled holidays off. The posted schedule must
be approved by the Union and the Employer. The work hours established by this article
refersArticle refer to hours worked in a standard work week. The work week shall be the
equivalent of a “work period” under the Fair Labor Standards Act and may be
established, changed or amended in accordance with the Act’s requirements.
4.1.1 Normally scheduled work shifts shall be composed of not less than eight (8) nor greater
than ten (10twelve (12) consecutive hours (excluding the lunch period). ) unless
otherwise modified elsewhere in this Agreement. The normallyregularly scheduled
workweekwork week shall not total more than forty (40) hours. of straight time.
Employees shall be scheduled to work for three (3), four (4) or five (5) consecutive
calendar days and shall have two (2) or more consecutive scheduled days off inbetween
each calendar week. 9/80 work schedule is also, provided, however, employees with
mutual agreement with their supervisorSupervisor may on occasion work schedules that
modify this provision in regard to the number of consecutive days off between each
calendar week. The following schedules are recognized as an approved regular work
schedule under this Agreement. :
• 4.1.1.1 Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 4.1 and 4.1.1, the Union and
the Employer may mutually establish an alternative work schedule to meet
seasonal or other special needs. The alternative work schedule shall consist of
regularly reoccurring workdays, which total 40 hours within a fixed workweek.
The workdays shall be equal in length (if possible) and consecutive in orderA
schedule of five (5), eight (8) hour work days per week totaling forty (40) hours
per week.
• A schedule of nine (9) work days totaling eighty (80) hours in a two (2) week
period (week one = four [4] nine [9] hour shifts and one [1] eight [8] hour shift;
week two = four [4] nine [9] hour shifts)
• Forty (40) hours in a four (4) day work week, with ten (10) hour shifts.
• Eighty (80) hours in a seven (7) day schedule (week one = three [3] twelve [12]
hour shifts and one [1] eight [8] hour shift; week two= three [3] twelve [12] hour
shifts) by mutual agreement of the Employer and the employee.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 5
4.1.1.1 The Employer may change an employee’s schedule to meet business and operational
needs with two (2) weeks’ written notice; provided, however, the Employer has the right
to make schedule changes with less notice because of emergencies, natural disasters or
other unforeseen circumstances. If the Employer decides to change the regular schedule
of an entire work section or dDivision, the Employer agrees to notify the employees at
least four (4) weeks in advance.
. The schedule for each employee(s) shall be posted on the bulletin board and shall not be permanently
changed without the mutual consent of the Union and the employer. The posting shall
include the starting and ending date for the alternative work schedule. The Employer
shall give at least two (2) weeks notice before an alternative workweek is implemented.
4.2 Overtime - Any hours worked over the normal work schedule as established pursuant to
Section 4.1 and 4.1.1 shall be compensated at the overtime rate. Overtime worked in
excess of four (4) hours shall be paid at two (2) times the employee’s regular straight-
time hourly rate of pay, retroactive to the first hour; except that scheduled overtime on the
employee’s normally scheduled day off shall be paid at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the
employee’s regular straight-time hourly rate of pay.
4.2.1 The overtime rate shall be one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular straight-
time hourly rate of pay. The hourly rate of overtime shall be computed by dividing the
employee's annual salary by two thousand eighty (2,080) hours.
4.2.2 Overtime that is not consecutive with the regular scheduled shift shall be paid a minimum
of three (3) hours at the applicable overtime rate.
4.2.3 In the event of any temporary shift change, the employee shall be paid at the overtime
rate during those hours immediately preceding or following a regular work shift unless
notice shall have been given prior to his/her previous shift. A temporary shift change is
defined as two (2) consecutive working days or less.
4.3 Callback - An employee called back after completing his/her regular shift or called back
on his/her day or days off, shall be guaranteed three (3) hours compensation at the
overtime rate except when the callback is initiated between the hours of 12
Midnightmidnight and 5:00 A.M., in which case the minimum shall be four (4) hours. Call
back of employees on Water Watch, Street/Storm Watch and/or the Treatment Plant
Standby Operator are governed by the provisions of Appendix A, Paragraphs 9, 10 and
11 and its subsections.
4.3.1 An employee who is called back, and responds to the emergency callback within thirty
(30forty-five (45) minutes, shall be compensated two (2) times his regular straight-time
hourly rate of pay for the callback. For the purposes of this Section, the forty-five (45)
minute response time shall be measured from when the employee receives the dispatch
call and when he/she arrives at City facilities.
4.3.2 Whenever an employee is working under the overtime guaranteed hours understanding,
he/she shall be subject to working orders whether or not an emergency has terminated.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Sub-section, an employee shall not have the
option to work more than twelve (12) consecutive hours unless the Employer so orders.
4.4 All hours worked on Saturday or Sunday by any employee covered by this Agreement
with the exception of employees assigned to a regular workweekwork week which
includes Saturday and Sunday shall be compensated for at the overtime rate, regardless
of the hours worked by such employees during the immediate week.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 6
4.4.1 Employees of the Facilities and Park Division may be required to work more than an eight
(8) hour day on Saturdays and/or Sundays as part of their regularly scheduled forty (40)
hour workweekwork week on a regular, rotated or intermittent basis at his/her regular rate
of pay; provided however, unscheduled callbacks shall be paid at the overtime rate.
4.5 All work for which an individual is entitled to the overtime rate must be authorized in
writing by the individual's supervisorSupervisor. The supervisorSupervisor shall authorize
any overtime work which an employee undertakes as a result of emergency calls from
SNOCOM or any other emergency where the employee performed the work in
accordance with departmentDepartment guidelines. The department Department shall
establish and distribute to the employees guidelines outlining the procedures to be
followed for response to emergencies which require overtime work by
departmentDepartment personnel.
4.6 Overtime shall be paid no later than the first paycheck of the month following the month
in which the authorized overtime was worked. All paychecks shall include an itemization
of number of hours worked, rate of pay per hour, number of hours of overtime and
overtime rate.
4.7 Shift Differential – Employees who work between the hours of 6:00 PM and 12:00 AM will
be compensated five percent (5%) per hour in addition to their regular straight-time hourly
rate of pay. When the majority of an employee’s daily work shift is scheduled between
6:00 PM and 12:00 AM Monday through Friday or is on Saturday and/or Sunday they
shall be compensated five percent (5%) per hour for the complete daily shift in addition to
their regular rate of pay. If employees request shift start or end times as an
accommodation for concerns such as commuting by ferry, and such accommodation
would place the employee within the time of payment for shift differential, the employee
agrees to forego the shift differential for that period falling within the differential time
frame if approved by the supervisorSupervisor. It is further recognized that approval of
flexibility for starting and ending times is at the sole discretion of the Employer.
4.7.1 Employees who work between the hours of 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM will be compensated
ten percent (10%) per hour in addition to their regular straight-time hourly rate of pay.
When the majority of an employee’s daily work shift is scheduled between 12:00 AM and
6:00 AM Monday through Sunday they will be compensated ten percent (10%) per hour
for the complete daily shift in addition to their regular straight-time hourly rate of pay.
4.7.2 In no case shall pyramiding of shift differential rates be allowed.
4.8 Rest Period - Except in the case of emergency work, each employee shall receive a paid
fifteen (15) minute rest period during the first half of his work shift and another paid fifteen
(15) minute rest period during the second half of his work shift.
4.9 Meal Period - Employees shall receive a thirty (30) minute meal period which shall be on
the employees’ own time and which shall commence no less than three (3) nor more than
five (5) hours from the beginning of the shift.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 7
4.10 Compensatory Time – Overtime pay may be converted at the employee’s discretion to
compensatory time at a rate in accordance with Section 4.2. A maximum of one and
one-half (1 ½) WaterWatch, Street/Storm Watch or Standby Operator weekly minimum
shift pay may be converted to compensatory time on an annual basis. Maximum
accruals of compensatory time shall be limited to forty-eight (48) hours at any one time.
The maximum compensatory time usage is ninety (90) hours in a calendar year. All
hours in excess of ninety (90) hours will be paid at the overtime rate. Any compensatory
time earned on holidays shall not be included in the maximum annual usage allotment.
4.11 Cleanup Time – Employees shall be allowed sufficient time to cleanup just prior to the
end of a work shift. The amount of time necessary will vary and be dependent upon the
type of work performed and the particular shift working conditions. An additional 15
minutes will be allowed in cases where the employee needs to shower.
ARTICLE V5 PROBATION, LAYOFF, RECALL AND JOB VACANCIES
5.1 Probation Period - Employees shall be subject to a six (6) monthone (1) year probation
period commencing with their first date of regular employment in a position in the
bargaining unit. The Employer shall be under no obligation to retain in its employment an
employee on probation whose work is unsatisfactory. Discharge of an employee during
his/her probation period shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. When due to
illness, military leave or other similar absence which prevents the Employer from having
an opportunity to observe the job performance of a probationary employee, the
probationary period may be extended by the Employer, provided that the total
probationary period shall not exceed 1040two thousand, eighty (2,080) hours worked by
the probationary employee.
5.1.1 Promotion and Transfer Trial Period - An employee who has completed his probation
period and who applies for and is granted a transfer to another bargaining unit
classification with the Employer shall have a three (3) month trial period, during which the
employee and/or the Employer may evaluate the job performance of the employee and
all other circumstances related to the transfer. Should the employee and/or the Employer
determine during the three (3) month period that the transferred employee is not
performing the work satisfactorily, then the employee, at his option, and/or the Employer,
at his option, may return the employee to his previous position. All other position
assignments made because of the transfer shall be re-established to the status quo
where necessary to provide for the return of the transferred employee. For purposes of
this Section, "transfer" shall mean a promotion, voluntary lateral move to a position of
equal pay and/or a demotion.
5.2 Seniority - An employee's seniority shall be defined as that period from the employee's
most recent first day of regular full-time employment within the bargaining unit.
5.2.1 Break in Seniority - An employee's seniority shall be broken so that no prior period of
employment shall be counted and his seniority shall cease upon:
• Justifiable discharge.
• Voluntary quit.
• Layoff or approved leave of absence due to illness or injury for a period
exceeding twelve (12) months.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 8
5.3 Layoff - In the event of layoff, the Bbargaining Uunit and the Union shall be given at least
one forty-five (45) calendar day’s written notice in advance. The employee with the least
seniority within the bargaining unit as a whole then in the employ of that job classification
being reduced in force shall be the first to be laid off; provided however, such person
designated for layoff may bump a less senior employee in any lower job classification for
which the more senior employee is qualified to hold; provided further, those remaining on
the job can provide the skills and efficient operations. All bumping will be complete within
the forty- five (45) day notice period.
5.4 Recall - In the event of recall from layoff, employees in a job classification shall be
recalled in the inverse order from which they were laid off. The Employer shall have no
obligation to recall an employee after he has been on continuous layoff for a period of two
(2) years. The employer Employer shall send written notice, postage paid, certified U.S.
Mail to the last address provided in City employment records. The notice shall be
deemed received two (2) business days following its mailing. The employee must accept
the offer to rehire within five (5) consecutive business days following the receipt, not
including Saturdays and/or Sunday.
5.5 Bidding - When any position covered by this Agreement is open, the Employer shall
promptly notify the Union whether the Employer intends to fill the position and, if so, the
expected date for posting the vacancy. When any position covered by this Agreement is
to be filled, said position shall be posted for bidding. For the purposes of this Section, the
parties agree that the creation of a new position within the bargaining unit shall be
considered a position vacancy. The posted bid shall contain an adequate description of
the job duties, qualifications and classification involved. Bidding shall be based on merit
qualification assuming the employee meets the listed qualification and can perform the
listed duties. The listed qualifications may include a minimum period of time, not to
exceed twelve (12) months, that the employee must have served in his then current
position. When qualifications are equal and the provisions of Section 5.5.1 have been
met, the position shall be offered to the most senior employee within the Division,
provided however, for the Lead positions as represented by Pay Grade M, the Employer
shall determine the leadership qualifications of the applicants. The Employer may, at its
sole discretion, waive the twelve (12) month requirement on an individual basis. Notice of
permanent job vacancies shall be posted on the bulletin board for five (5) working days
excluding Saturdays and/or Sundays. Bids must be submitted in writing to the
Department Head within said five (5) working days of the first day of posting of the bid or
the bidder shall be deemed to have waived the position opening. The notice period shall
commence on the day of posting. Copies of the notice shall be sent to the Shop Stewards
and the Union, on the day of posting.
5.5.1 To assist the employee in seeking and obtaining alternative job opportunities within the
City, the Employer shall make available the training and educational foundation it deems
necessary to achieve a successful transition from one field of interest to another and is
consistent with the City’s needs.
A. Employees who desire to make such a change shall first provide the employer
Employer with advance notice of the employee’s desire during the annual appraisal
review process or present advance notice to the employer Employer in writing during
other times of the year. To be eligible, an employee must not have a pending
performance plan or been suspended without pay in the past twenty-four (24)
months.
B. If an opening can reasonably be anticipated within the year, the employerEmployer
shall:
1. Make in-house training available to interested employees. Training may be for
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 9
entry level or promotional positions.
2. Within the allocated training budget, make outside training available to the
interested employee. The employer Employer ultimately determines the training
needs of each divisionDivision.
3. Training under this section is not work time and shall be conducted on the
employee’s time off, unless classes are not offered after hours.
4. If more than one employee is interested in a classification or a position, training
shall first be offered to the most senior employee. This seniority right is limited to
the first time an employee requests a particular training.
C. If an entry level opening occurs, the employer Employer shall first test all qualified in-
house candidates. The testing shall be a standard test developed by the employer
Employer to ensure that the employee can perform the essential functions of the job.
If the employee passes the test, he or she shall be considered for the transfer to the
desired division Division before any outside candidates.
D. In-house candidates from other divisions Divisions who have indicated an interest
and satisfactorily completed training shall compete on an equal footing with
candidates from the division Division in which the promotional opportunity occurs.
E. This section shall not be interpreted to give preference over other qualified in-house
candidates.
5.5.2 If more than one (1) current employee fulfills the provisions for transfer as put forth in
Section 5.5.1, and all else is equal, the more senior employee shall be awarded the
position.
5.5.3 If no employee has fulfilled the provisions of 5.5.1 and a vacancy occurs, the Employer
may open the position to anyone who applies for it and may select the candidate it
considers best qualified.
5.6 Seniority List - The Employer shall provide the Union a list of all current employees within
the bargaining unit with their respective seniority dates on July 1st of each year and shall
post a copy of same on the Union bulletin board. The listed seniority dates shall be
binding on each employee unless the employee pursues any objection to the listed
seniority dates in a timely manner through the grievance procedure set forth within Article
XV15.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 10
ARTICLE VI6 WAGES
6.1 The classifications of work and the corresponding rates of pay covered by this Agreement
shall be as set forth within Appendix "A" to this Agreement, which by this reference shall
be incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
ARTICLE VII7 HOLIDAYS
7.1 The following days shall be considered holidays:
New Years Day Veterans' Day
Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday Thanksgiving Day
Presidents' Day Day After Thanksgiving Day
Memorial Day Day Before Christmas Day
Independence Day Christmas Day
Labor Day
"One (1) Floating Holiday" to be taken at a time agreeable to the Employer. In
the event of termination on or before June 30th, an employee who has completed
six (6) months of employment shall be paid for one-half (1/2) of that year's
floating holiday, if unused. If termination is after June 30th, an employee who has
completed six (6) months of employment shall be paid in full for that year’s
floating holiday, if unused.
7.1.1 One (1) “floating holiday”, for all Teamsters employees who took furloughs in 2009, to be
taken at a time agreeable to the Employer for calendar years 2012, 2013, and 2014; not
available for cash out, carry over, and should not result in overtime.
7.1.27.1.1 The Day Before Christmas Day shall be observed on the day after Christmas when
Christmas Day falls on a Thursday.
7.1.32 Whenever any of the afore-referenced holidays fall upon a Saturday, the preceding
Friday shall be the holiday. When any of the afore-referenced holidays fall upon a
Sunday, the Monday following shall be considered the holiday. For employees who are
regularly scheduled to work Saturdays or Sundays, holidays falling upon Saturday or
Sunday shall be recognized and paid pursuant to Section 7.3 on the actual day. Payment
pursuant to Section 7.3 shall be made only once per affected employee for any one
holiday.
7.1.4 Holiday Compensatory Time - Whenever7.1.3 Holiday Compensatory Time –This
Section applies to employees working in classifications at the Waste Water Treatment
Plant (WWTP). In order to ensure adequate plant staffing and minimal disruption of
employees’ work schedules, whenever the actual holiday and the observed holiday falls
on an employee's regularly scheduled day off, the employee shall be granted another day
off with pay at a time mutually agreeable to the employee and his supervisorSupervisor.
An employee may not accrue more than forty-eight (48) hours of holiday compensatory
time. Holiday compensatory hours accrued in excess of forty-eight (48) shall be cashed-
out at the employee's regular rate of pay. Employees shall be compensated for holiday
compensatory time as follows: (e.g., an employee working a four (4) ten (10) schedule
will be compensated for a ten (10) hour holiday, an employee working a schedule of nine
(9) hour days in an eighty (80) hour payroll period will be compensated for a nine (9) hour
holiday, etc).
7.2 Eligible full-time employees will be compensated based on the employees’ scheduled
work day at their straight-time hourly rate for each holiday. (e.g., an employee working a
four (4) ten (10) schedule will be compensated for a ten (10) hour holiday, an employee
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 11
working a schedule of nine (9) hour days in an eighty (80) hour payroll period will be
compensated for a nine (9) hour holiday, etc). Part-time employees will receive holiday
pay on a pro-rated basis. Employees are eligible for holiday pay if they are in paid status
on the regular business day preceding the holiday. Employees whose employment is
terminated immediately prior to a holiday are not entitled to holiday pay.
In all cases, a total of forty (40) hours per work week at straight time shall be accounted
and paid for on the time sheets.
7.2.1 For work sections that are required by the City to provide seven (7) days per week
operations and are required to work ten- (10-) hour shifts, eligible full-time employees will
continue to receive ten (10) hours of pay at their straight-time hourly rate in accordance
with the current practice at the Waste wW ater Treatment Plant.
7.3 If any work is performed by an employee on such holiday, additional compensation at the
overtime rate shall be paid, except for employees on Street/Storm Watch, WaterWatch
and Treatment Plant Standby, which is covered in Appendix A. No employee shall be
called on such holiday for less than the callback rate.
7.4 If a holiday occurs during an employee's vacation, the day shall be considered a holiday
rather than vacation day. If a holiday falls on a regularly scheduled day off, the employee
shall observe the workday immediately preceding or following as the holiday.
7.5 For dDepartments and dDivisions other than the WWTP, if a holiday falls on a regularly
scheduled day off, the employee shall observe the work day immediately preceding or
following as the holiday. With mutual agreement between the employee and the
sSupervisor, the day may be taken at another time within the same payroll period in
which the holiday falls.
ARTICLE VIII8 VACATIONS
8.1 All regular full-time employees shall receive vacation with full pay annually in accordance
with the following:
YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT HOURS OF VACATION
First 6 months 48 hours
Second 6 months 40 hours additional
2 through 4 years 88 hours
5 through 9 years 128 hours
10 through 14 years 168 hours
15 through 19 years 176 hours
19 through 25 years 192 hours
26 years and thereafter 200208 hours
8.2 Vacations shall be scheduled with consideration to divisional Divisional staffing
assignments. All employees shall submit their requests for vacation between January
first1st and March fifteenth15th, for the following twelve- (12-) month period, for seniority
to be used as the criteria for vacation selection preference. After March fifteenthThe
sSupervisor will act on and approve vacation requests within two (2) weeks following
March 15. After March 15th, vacation requests for the following twelve (12) months will be
considered by date and time of the submission of the written request, with those
submitted earliest receiving first consideration.
8.3 An employee shall be entitled to payment for his or her unused accrued vacation
following completion of the probationary period. Vacation leave is not available for use
during probation.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 12
8.3.1 In scheduling vacations, the Employer will consider a vacation week to include both the
employee’s regularly scheduled work shifts and the employee’s scheduled days off.
Employees may trade days off in order to accommodate vacation requests, as long as
the trades are approved by the sSupervisor before the trade takes place. Trading days off
and the resulting schedule changes shall not require the Employer to provide required
schedule change notice or posting of a new schedule as provided in Article 4 of this
Agreement.
8.4 The maximum vacation accrual available to any employee shall be twice the accrual rate
to which the employee is entitled under paragraph 8.1 above. Sufficient annual vacation
time will be scheduled in accordance with paragraph 8.2 so that any employee will not
exceed their maximum vacation accrual throughout the calendar year. Adjustments to
the annual vacation schedule will be allowed by the supervisor Supervisor as required
during the year if the employee identifies that the maximum twenty-four (24) month
accrual will be exceeded. If the maximum is attained, employees will be required to take
vacation within the current pay period to maintain the leave balance at or below the
maximum.
ARTICLE IX9 LEAVES
9.1 Sick Leave - Sick leave shall accumulate at the rate of eight (8) hours per month and
shall accumulate up to a total of one thousand (1,000) hours; provided however, for
Sections 9.1.1 through 9.1.3, a limit of eight hundred (800) hours shall apply. Provided
further, an employee who has accrued in excess of eight hundred (800) hours of sick
leave may convert the excess hours to a cash payment at a rate of three (3) hours of sick
leave for one (1) hour compensation, at the employees employee’s current rate of pay, up
to a maximum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per year. The Employer shall notify
the employees of their accrued sick leave hours November 1 of each year. The sick leave
cash-out shall be paid on the first check in January of the following year.
9.1.1 Employees must request optional sick leave cash-out within ten (10) working days from
their notice of accrued sick leave.
9.1.2 Upon honorable termination, active employees shall have their accrued sick leave, to a
maximum of eight hundred (800) hours, paid out in accordance with the following
formula:
(a) Fifty percent (50%) upon resignation upon providing two weeksweeks’
notice; or
(b) Fifty percent (50%) upon lay-off; or
(c) Fifty percent (50%) upon retirement; or
(d) One Hundred percent (100%) (payable to his beneficiary) upon death.
9.1.3 For purposes of this Article, "honorable" shall mean any termination other than discharge
for just cause.
9.1.4 In the event of death of the employee, payment of all unused sick leave shall be made to
the surviving spouse or to his beneficiary if there is no spouse, at his regular rate of pay.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 13
9.1.5 Accrued sick leave may be used for:
(a) The employee's own illness, injury or disability (including disability due to
pregnancy or childbirth);
(b) The need to care for a child or grandchild under eighteen (18) years of
age, or an older child or grandchild incapable of self-care, with a health
condition requiring treatment or supervision;
(c) The need to care for the employee's spouse, domestic partner, parent,
parent-in-law or grandparent with a serious health condition or
emergency condition;
(d) Healthcare appointments for the employee or a dependent child,
provided that the employee receives the advance approval of the
Department headHead; and further provided that employees must make
reasonable efforts to schedule such appointments at times when they will
not interfere with the scheduled work days;
(e) For other circumstances if authorized by the Department Head.
9.1.5.1 At their electionWith a Supervisor’s approval, employees may use other accrued paid
leave in place of or in addition to sick leave for any purposes described in Section 9.1.5.
9.1.6 The certificate of a physician and/or written report concerning the need for the sick leave
may be required by the Employer and if required, shall be supplied by the employee in
order to qualify for sick leave with pay.
9.1.7 In any instance involving use of a fraction of a day's sick leave, the minimum charge to
the employee’s sick leave account shall be one (1) hour.fifteen (15) minutes.
9.1.8 Employees who maintain a good attendance record shall be eligible for the following
incentive Annual Leave Days off for the corresponding annual sick leave usage. FMLA
leave and Washington Family Care Act leave shall not be counted as sick leave usage
for the purpose of this section:
Hours of Sick Leave Usage Per Year Annual Leave Hours Earned
0 24
8 16
16 8
24+ 0
Hours of Sick Leave Usage Per Year Annual Leave Hours Earned
0 24
8 16
16 8
24+ 0
9.1.8.1 Use of the earned Annual Leave Days shall be in the year following the year the
employee’s attendance record has been established.
9.1.8.2 Absences due to an accepted State Workman’s Compensation illness or injury shall not
be taken into consideration when applying the eligibility standards of Section 9.1.8.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 14
9.1.8.3 The Annual Leave Hours Earned correlating with Hours of Sick Usage as specified in
Section 9.1.8, shall be pro-rated to the closest full hour for purposes of establishing
employee eligibility standards.
9.2 Bereavement Leave - In the event of a death in the "immediate family" of an employee,
the department Department head Head shall upon request grant the employee
bereavement leave with pay. The maximum number of work days granted shall be three
(3); provided however, in the event travel is required to attend a funeral, additional time
not to exceed three (3) days may be granted. Such additional leave shall be deducted
from the employee's sick leave account.
The term "immediate family" shall include:
- Spouse, Domestic Partner and children, including step children of
the employee;
- Mother, Father, Brother, Sister of the employee or spouse;
- Grandparents or grandchildren of the employee or spouse;
- Guardian.
9.3 Jury Duty Leave - The City will provide employees time off with pay for jury duty service
up to a maximum of one (1) month each time they are called for jury service. If jury duty
extends beyond 174one hundred seventy-four (174) hours of paid leave in any one
instance, the additional leave will be unpaid. (Existing City policy - 8.6)
9.3.1 Payment provided by the courts during periods of paid jury duty must be paid over to the
City, excluding expense reimbursement, such as mileage. (Existing City policy - 8.6)
9.3.2 9.3.2 The following instructions are for employees serving jury duty: You must
provide your supervisorSupervisor with a copy of the jury duty summons as soon as
possible after receiving it. (Existing City policy - 8.6)
9.3.3 Upon completion of jury duty, you are required to provide your supervisor with proof of
jury duty service. (Existing City policy - 8.6)
9.3.4 If you are dismissed from jury duty service three (3) hours or more from the end of your
shift, then you are required to report back to work. You have the option of using vacation
or compensatory time for the remainder of your shift after subtracting travel time from the
court house to work.
9.3.5 If you are required to attend jury duty service on your regular scheduled day(s) off, the
City is not required to change your work schedule to assure that your jury duty service
and work schedule overlap each other.
9.3.6 If you are required to attend jury duty service and you are scheduled to work swing shift
or graveyard, you will not be required to report to work. Early dismissal from jury duty will
follow the same policies that apply to day-shift employees.
9.3.7 Employees who work swing shift or graveyard have the option of changing his or her
work schedule from swing shift or graveyard to working day shift while they are on jury
duty service.
9.4 Witness Duty - An employee who is required to serve as a witness as a result of official
public Public works W orks department Department duties is required to appear before a
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 15
Court, Legislative Committee or Quasi-Judicial body as a witness in response to a
subpoena or other legally binding directive, shall be permitted authorized leave with pay
less any amount received from the Courts or the subpoenaing party.
9.5 Leave of Absence - If approved by the Employer, regular employees may take up to six
(6) months leave of absence without pay. Such leaves shall not constitute a break in
service but no benefits shall accrue during the leave of absence.
ARTICLE X10 HEALTH & WELFARE AND INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
10.1 Health Insurance Plans
10.1.1 Coverage - The Employer shall make available to regular full-time and regular eligible
part-time employees, and their eligible spouses and dependents, an insurance program
that includes medical, dental, and vision insurance, and an employee assistance plan
(EAP) benefit. This insurance program includes the following:
10.1.2 Medical Insurance - Employees may choose between the following medical plans:
Association of Washington Cities ("AWC") Regence Health First Plan or AWC Group
Health Cooperative $10 Co-Pay plan on or about AugustJanuary 1, 2011 (or as soon as
practicable). A June 2012 Health Insurance Plans article reopener has been mutually
agreed to by both the 2015.The Employer and the Union.reserves the right to re-open
negotiations related to health insurance.
10.1.3 Dental Insurance - Dental insurance is provided through the AWC Washington Dental
Service Plan F with Option III (Orthodontia).
10.1.4 Vision Insurance - Vision insurance is provided through the AWC Vision Service Plan
($10.00 deductible).
10.1.5 EAP Benefit - The Employee Assistance Program is provided through AWC.
10.1.6 The Employer will provide an IRS 125 Flexible Spending Account with a debit card
allowing pre-tax deductions for medical, childcare and transportation expenses as
permitted by law by sixty (60) days after the effective date of the contract. For each
participating employee, there will be a five dollar ($5.00) per month charge.
10.2 Health Insurance Premiums
10.2.1 Full-Time Employees - For all eligible regular full-time employees and their eligible
spouses and dependents, the Employer will pay ninety percent (90%%) of the aggregate
premium costs of the benefits specified in Section 10.1.1.
10.2.2 Part-time Employees -For regular part-time employees normally scheduled to work a
minimum of twenty (20) hours per week and their eligible spouses and dependents, the
Employer's premium contribution described in Section 110.2.1 will be reduced on a pro
rated basis according to the part-time employee's budgeted FTE.
10.3 Changes to Health Insurance Plans
10.3.1 Change to Plan Benefits - In the event that AWC adopts the benefit changes to the health
insurance plans specified in this Article during the term of this Agreement, such changes
will be automatically incorporated into this Agreement. For health insurance premiums,
section 10.2.1 applies.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 16
10.3.2 Plan Changes - The Employer may change health insurance plans during the term of the
Agreement provided that any replacement plan provides materially equivalent or better
benefits. If the changes reduce the benefit or requires an additional contribution by the
employee, the employerEmployer agrees to bargain both the decision and the impact of
the change.
10.4 Life Insurance - The Employer will provide a life insurance benefit to eligible employees in
accord with its Personnel Policies.
10.5 State Industrial Insurance shall be provided for each employee covered by this
Agreement on the same basis as provided in the past. Additionally, when an employee is
injured at work and is released to light or modified work duties and the Employer has
determined it has light and/or modified work duty available for the employee, the
employee will return to work on light duty.
ARTICLE XI11 MISCELLANEOUS
11.1 The Employer shall furnish uniforms and laundry service so each employee will have up
to one (1) clean uniform each workdaywork day. The uniform provided will be clean,
safe, presentable, and appropriate for the work environment. The employee will also be
provided with coveralls and jackets if appropriate as needed. Each employee shall be
responsible for custody and return of the uniforms assigned to him or her.
11.1.1 As an alternative to vendor provided and laundered uniforms, with the approval of the
Divisional LMC and final approval by the Department Director, an alternative uniform to
that provided in 11.1 may be provided by the City. The cost of any authorized alternative
uniform shall not exceed the previous year Division’s cost to furnish a vendor supplied
uniform based on the standard set by 11.1. Uniforms purchased per this section will be
returned to the City when it is replaced with a new article of clothing. This alternative
11.1.1 does not apply to Parks and Fleet Maintenance Divisions.
11.1.2 Divisional uniform standards and replacement criteria will be defined by the divisional
Divisional LMC with final approval by the Department Director. Uniforms are to be used
for work related duties only.
11.2 Raingear - The Employer shall furnish raingear which shall include bib overalls, jacket,
gloves and steel-toed rubber boots, which shall be returned upon termination or upon
reassignment to a position not requiring raingear.
11.3 Footwear - When assigned to positions where safety footwear is required, the employee
shall purchase and replace such footwear as necessary. A safety footwear allowance as
set forth within Section 11.3.1 shall be provided in January of each year to each
employee assigned prior to July 1 of the preceding year to positions where such footwear
is required. A boot allowance equal to one-half of that amount set forth within Section
11.3.1 shall be paid in January to each employee assigned after June 30 of the prior year
to positions where such footwear is required. New employees will be provided a pro-rated
footwear allowance for the year based upon their month of hire. The employee shall not
wear Employer provided rain gear or safety foot protection except while on duty for the
Employer and while going directly to and from work. Failure to wear safety foot protection
where required shall be grounds for termination or other disciplinary action. Safety
footwear shall comply with the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standard for
Safety-Toe Footwear, Z41.1-1967 (ANZS Z41.1).
11.3.1 Effective January 1, 20112015, the safety footwear allowance shall be onetwo hundred
eighty three ($183 dollars ($200.00) annually. Effective January of each following year of
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 17
the Agreement2017, the safety footwear allowance shall be increased, to the nearest
dollar, by one hundred percent (100%) of the Consumer Price Index as established by
the calculations of Section A.1.46.
11.3.2 Employees may elect to use a City vendor purchasing account or include the allowance
amount as part of will receive their regular pay in order to purchaseannual safety
footwear. allowance each January in their paycheck. The City will inform employees of
where there are vendors with which the City receives a discount for safety footwear.
11.4 Supervisory Duties - The employees may at times and in some cases may at all times
perform some duties of a Supervisor. Nothing in this Agreement shall in any way interfere
with carrying out their duties.
11.5 Liability Insurance - In the event the Employer's public liability insurance premiums are
increased because of the actions of a particular employee or particular employees,
whether on or off duty, the Employer may exercise any of the following options, subject to
grievance procedures as set forth in this Agreement:
- Reclassify the employee or employees to a position out of the risk
area and at the rate of pay applicable to the new position; or
- Dismiss that particular employee or employees.
11.6 Safety Equipment - Employees shall be responsible for using the safety equipment and
clothing provided by the Employer.
11.7 Spouse/Domestic Partner Definition – Spouse is defined to be an individual married to
the employee or a registered domestic partner, registered in accordance with RCW
26.60.040.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 18
ARTICLE XII12 MANAGEMENT'S RIGHTS
12.1 The Union recognizes the prerogative of the Employer to operate and manage its affairs
in all respects in accordance with its responsibilities, and the powers and authority which
the Employer possesses.
12.2 The Employer has the authority to adopt rules for the operation of the Department and
conduct of its employees provided such rules are not in conflict with the provisions of this
Agreement or with applicable law.
12.3 The Employer has the right to schedule overtime work as required in a manner most
advantageous to the Employer and consistent with the requirements of municipal
employment and public interest.
12.4 Every incidental duty connected with operations enumerated in job descriptions is not
always specifically described, nevertheless, it is intended that all such duties shall be
performed by the employee.
12.5 The Employer reserves the right to discipline or discharge for just cause. The Employer
reserves the right to lay off for lack of work or funds, or the occurrence of conditions
beyond the control of the Employer, or where such continuation of work would be
wasteful and unproductive.
12.6 The Employer has the right to assign work and determine the duties of employees, to
schedule hours of work, to determine the number of personnel to be assigned at any
time, and to perform all other functions not limited by this Agreement.
ARTICLE XIII13 NO STRIKE PROVISION
13.1 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall permit or be construed to grant any employee
or group of employees the right to strike or refuse to perform his/her prescribed duties.
13.2 During the life of this Agreement there shall be no strikes or refusal to perform official
duties and there shall be no lockout.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 19
ARTICLE XIV DISCHARGE OR SUSPENSION14 CORRECTIVE ACTION
14.1 The Employer may discipline an employee for just cause. Discipline shall be progressive
in nature and appropriate for the offense. Formal discipline subject to the grievance
procedure shall start with a written warning notice; provided however, only disciplinary
actions greater than a written warning notice may be processed through Step III 3 of the
grievance procedure. Disciplinary
In general, the progression for discipline will be as follows, although it is understood that
each individual case must be judged on its own merits, and that corrective action shall be
dependent upon the seriousness of the situation:
• Oral Warning/Corrective Notice in writing
• Final Written Warning
• Suspension/Demotion
• Discharge
All notices for corrective action and/or discharge will be provided in writing to the affected
employee(s) within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the Employer became aware
of the violation alleged. Extensions of the time limit shall be on a case-by-case basis only
with mutual written agreement between the Employer and the Union.
All notices of corrective action shall remain in effect for a period of twelve (12) months.
from the date the corrective action was issued, except for corrective action for violations
of the Employer’s anti-harassment and workplace violence policies, which shall remain in
effect for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date the corrective action was issued.
If no other disciplinary action is taken during such twelve (12) month or eighteen (18)
month period, the disciplinary notice shall be removed from the employee's file. A copy of
any disciplinary action shall be mailed to the Union. Employees have the right to provide
a written rebuttal statement as an attachment to all corrective action notices, in addition
to their access to the grievance procedure. Disciplinary/corrective action notices removed
from employee personnel files are recorded into a discipline log in HR.
ARTICLE XV15 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
15.1 A "grievance" shall be defined as an issued raised relating to the interpretation,
application or violation of any terms or provision of this Agreement.
15.2 STEP I1 - When an employee has a grievance he shall immediately bring it to the
attention of his immediate Supervisor. The employee and Supervisor shall attempt to
settle the grievance. through informal discussion. If the grievance cannot be settled
through informal discussion to the satisfaction of the employee, the employee shall state
the grievance in writing and present it to his Supervisor/her Department Head in
accordance with the procedure set forth below.
15.2.1 STEP II2 - An employee and/or the Union, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
occurrence or knowledge forof the occurrence of an alleged grievance (but in no event
more than sixty (60) calendar days from the date of occurrence), may bring said
grievance to the attention of his immediate supervisorSupervisor in writing.
15.2.2 STEP III3 - The immediate Supervisor shall make every effort to resolve the alleged
grievance within fourteen (14) calendar days. Failure of the immediate Supervisor to
resolve the alleged grievance within the fourteen (14) calendar day period shall permit
the Union the right to submit a written demand for resolution for the alleged grievance to
the Department Head and the Mayor's designee, who shall rule on the merits of the
alleged grievance and respond in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 20
15.2.3 STEP IV4 - Failure of the Department Head and/or the Mayor's designee to satisfactorily
resolve the alleged grievance within the fourteen (14) calendar day period shall permit
the Union the right to submit a demand for arbitration to the Employer in writing within
fourteen (14) calendar days.
15.2.4 The Employer and the Union shall immediately thereafter select an arbitrator to hear the
dispute. If the Employer and the Union are not able to agree upon an arbitrator within
fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt by the Employer of the written demand for
arbitration, the Union may request a list of eleven (11) arbitrators from the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service. The list shall be limited to arbitrators who are from
the Washington and/or Oregon sub-regions. Within fourteen (14) calendar days after
receipt of same, the parties shall alternately strike the names of the arbitrators until only
one name remains who shall, hear the dispute. The party striking first will be the loser of
the flip of a coin.
15.2.5 The Arbitrator shall have no power to render a decision that will add to, subtract from,
alter, change or modify the terms of this Agreement, and his/her power shall be limited to
interpretation or application of the express terms of this Agreement, and all other matters
shall be excluded from arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator shall be presented in
writing, and shall be final and binding upon the parties.
15.3 Nothing herein shall prevent an employee from seeking assistance from the Union or the
Union from furnishing such assistance at any stage of the grievance procedure.
15.4 The expense for the arbitratorArbitrator, the cost of any hearing room and the cost of a
shorthand reporter, unless such are paid by the State of Washington, shall be shared
equally by the parties. Each party shall pay the compensation and expenses for its own
representatives and witnesses, including attorney's fees.
15.5 Time limits within the grievance procedure may be waived or extended by the mutual
agreement of both parties. Any grievance shall be considered settled at the completion
of any step if the employee is satisfied or deemed withdrawn if the matter is not appealed
within the prescribed period of time. If the Employer fails to respond within the specified
time limits, the grievance shall proceed to the next step of the grievance procedure.
15.6 By mutual agreement between the Union representative and the Mayor's Office, an
employee or the Union may initiate a grievance at the Department Head level.
ARTICLE XVIARTICLE16 LABOR-MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
16.1 Labor-Management Conference Committee (LMCC) - The Employer and the Union shall
establish a Labor-Management Conference Committee for each Division in Public Works
and Parks, which the function of the Labor-Management Conference Committee shall be
to discuss issues of mutual interest and/or concern for the purpose of establishing a
harmonious working relationship between the employees, the Employer, and the Union.
The Labor-Management Conference Committee shall meet as necessary and at times
that is mutually acceptable and shall be run according to a mutually developed agenda.
The Labor-Management Conference Committee shall not have the power to change the
provision of the Labor Agreement between the parties, negotiate new agreements or
resolve grievances beyond what has been agreed to within this Labor Agreement, except
as has been granted by the Union and the Employer.
The attendees of each of the LMCC meetings shall be agreed to by the City’s
Management LMCC representative and the Union Business Agent as determined by the
discussion items for the meeting Agenda.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 21
ARTICLE XVII17 SAVINGS CLAUSE
17.1 It is the intention for the parties hereto to comply with all applicable law and they believe
that each and every part of this Agreement is lawful. All provisions of the Agreement shall
be complied with unless any of such provisions shall be declared invalid or inoperative by
a court of final jurisdiction. In such event either party may request renegotiations of such
invalid provisions for the purpose of adequate and lawful replacement thereof; provided
however, such findings shall have no effect whatsoever on the balance of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE XVIII18 DURATION
18.1 This Agreement shall become effective January 01, 20112015, and shall remain in full
force and effect through December 31, 20142017, and shall remain in effect during the
course of negotiations on a new Labor Agreement.
18.2 At least five (5) months prior to December 31, 20142017, the Union and the Employer
shall have the right to open this Agreement for the purpose of negotiating changes in the
Agreement.
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-
CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
By By
DavidScott A. GrageSullivan
Secretary-Treasurer
Mike Cooper
David O. Earling
Mayor
Date Date
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 22
APPENDIX "A"
to the
A G R E E M E N T
by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
and
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763
(Representing the Public Works and Parks Department Maintenance Employees)
January 01, 20112015 through December 31, 20142017
THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, and PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-
CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS LOCAL UNION NO. 763, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, hereinafter referred to as the Union.
A.1 Effective January 01, 20112015, the monthly rates of pay for each classification covered
by this Agreement shall be as follows:
GradeG
RADE
CLASSIFICATIONClassificatio
n
STEP 1
STEP1
00-06m
STEP II
STEP2
07-18m
STEP
III
STEP3
19-30m
STEP IV
STEP4
31-42m
STEP
V5
43-54m
STEP
VI6
55 m+
M Plant OperationsWWTP Lead
Operator
WWTP Pre-Treatment/Safety
Coordinator
Stormwater Maintenance
Technician LeadpersonLead
Worker
Street Maintenance Lead Worker
Water Maintenance Lead Worker
Sewer Maintenance Lead Worker
Parks Maintenance Lead Worker
City Electrician
Leadworkers
Maintenance Technician
Lead Vehicle/Equipment Mechanic
$49115
258
$51555
519
$54145
797
$568660
88
$59696
391
n/aN/A
L WWTP Instrument
Technician/Plant Electrician
WWTP Lab Technician
WWTP Pre-Treatment Technician
$46695
000
$49115
258
$51555
519
$541457
97
$56866
088
n/aN/A
K Cemetery Sexton
Waste WaterWWTP Operator
Water Quality Control Technician
Waste WaterWWTP Senior
Mechanic II
Senior Mechanic
$44514
765
$46695
000
$49115
258
$515555
19
$54145
797
n/aN/A
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 23
GradeG
RADE
CLASSIFICATIONClassificatio
n
STEP 1
STEP1
00-06m
STEP II
STEP2
07-18m
STEP
III
STEP3
19-30m
STEP IV
STEP4
31-42m
STEP
V5
43-54m
STEP
VI6
55 m+
J PlantWWTP Maintenance
Mechanic
Mechanic
Traffic Control Technician
Building Maintenance Operator
Mechanic
Parks Maintenance Mechanic
Senior Storm Maintenance/GIS
Worker
$42384
539
$44514
765
$46695
000
$491152
58
$51555
519
n/aN/A
I Senior Sewer Maintenance
Worker II
$40354
321
$42384
539
$44514
765
$466950
00
$49115
258
$51555
519
I Maintenance Worker II
Nurseyperson
$4035 $4238 $4451 $4669 $4911 n/a
GH Treatment PlantSenior Storm
Maintenance IWorker
Sewer Maintenance I
Senior Water Maintenance
IWorker
Senior WWTP Maintenance
Worker
Senior Parks Maintenance Worker
Senior Parks Maintenance Worker
- Horticulturist
$36614
321
$38464
539
$40354
765
$423850
00
$44515
258
n/aN/A
G WWTP Maintenance Worker
Sewer Maintenance Worker
Water
Mainte
nance
Worker
$3920 $4118 $4321 $4539 $4765 N/A
F Street Maintenance Worker I
Parks Maintenance Worker I
Facilities Maintenance Worker I
Storm Maintenance Worker
$34843
730
$36613
920
$38464
118
$403543
21
$42384
539
n/aN/A
E Meter Reader $33193
555
$34843
730
$36613
920
$384641
18
$40354
321
n/a$453
7
D Maintenance Custodian $31633
387
$33193
555
$34843
730
$366139
20
$38464
118
n/aNA
C Custodian $30143
227
$31633
387
$33193
555
$348437
30
$36613
920
n/aN/A
B Seasonal/Temporary Worker $14.89 $15.63 $16.41 $17.21 $18.09
A.1.1 Employees in the Maintenance Worker I classification, STEP VStep 5, who have been at
STEP VStep 5 for at least six (6) months, shall be upgraded to the Senior Maintenance
Worker II classification that will provide for at least a five percent (5%) wage rate increase
upon completion of the minimum competence requirements as established by the Labor
Management Conference Committee (LMCLMCC).
A.1.2 Employees in the Custodian classification, STEP VStep 5, who have been at STEP
VStep 5 for at least six (6) months, shall be upgraded to the Maintenance Custodian
classification that will provide for at least a five percent (5%) wage rate increase upon
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 24
completion of the minimum competence requirements as established by the Labor
Management Conference Committee (LMCLMCC).
A.1.2.1 Employees who are assigned to work in the public Public safety Safety building Building
– Police Department, shall receive a premium pay of two percent (2%) for that day’s shift.
In order to perform work in the Police Department an employee shall be required to be
fingerprinted and pass a background check as required by the Washington State Patrol.
In order to pass the background check the employee must meet the requirements set
forth in the WSP policy. Only those who successfully complete the process would be
eligible for a two percent (2%) premium shift pay.
A.1.3 EmployeesEffective January 1, 2015, employees in the Meter Reader classification,
STEP V only, Step 5, who have been at STEP VStep 5 for at least six (6) months, shall
be upgraded to the Maintenance I classification Pay will have an additional Step 6Grade
G, that will provide for at least provides a five percent (5%) wage rate increase upon
completion of the minimum competence requirements as established by the Labor
Management Committee (LMC). above Step 5 in their classification grade.
A.1.4 Employees in the Mechanic classification, Step V5, who have been at Step V5 for at least
six (6) months, shall be upgraded to Senior Mechanic classification Pay Grade K, that will
provide for at least a five percent (5%) wage rate increase upon demonstrating and
maintaining skills, as established by the Labor Management Conference Committee
(LMCLMCC), showing ability to perform work on marine, motorcycles and motorcycle
engines and fire vehicles.
A.1.5 Effective January 01, 20122015, the monthly rates of pay for each classification covered
by this Agreement shall bewere increased by two percent (2%) (included in the current
wage matrix in A.1) with the exception of the Seasonal/Temporary classification.
A.1.6 Effective January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2017, the monthly rates of pay for each
classification covered by this Agreement shall be increased by one-half percent (.5%)
and one hundred percent (100%) of the percentage increase in the Seattle-Tacoma-
Bremerton Area Consumer Price Index semi-annual average from June to June of the
previous year, zero based with a minimum increase of zero percent (0%) and a maximum
of one and one-half percent (1.5%). Effective January 01, 2013 and 2014 the monthly
rates of pay for each classification covered by this Agreement shall be increased by one
hundred percent (100%) of the percentage increase in the Seattle Area Consumer Price
Index semi-annual average from June to June of the previous year, zero based with a
minimum increase of zero one percent (1.0%) and a maximum increase of two percent
(2.0%) and a maximum of two percent (2%).%). The Index used shall be the Consumer
Price Index for Urban EarnersConsumers (CPI-U), All Items Indexes, Revised Series
(1982-84=100)+100) for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton area, as published by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
A.2 The rates of pay set forth within Sections A.1 provides for the maximum time an
employee shall be employed in any one particular pay STEPStep. The Employer shall
have the right to place an employee in any pay STEPStep set forth within Sections A.1, in
which event advancement of said employee to each of the next higher pay STEPSSteps
shall be automatic upon completion of six (6) months in pay STEPStep I 1 and/or twelve
(12) months in each higher pay STEPStep.
A.3 Generally - Employees shall receive wages according to the Five-STEPStep Pay Plan
based upon longevity set forth in Section A.1. Each STEPStep (with the exception of the
first STEPStep which represents six (6) months) represents one (1) full year of longevity
with the Employer in a particular job classification.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 25
A.3.1 Longevity Increases - Increases to the next higher STEPStep shall be made after an
employee is paid at a given pay STEPStep for one (1) full year. If the completion of such
year occurs at other than the beginning of a semi-monthly pay period, the increase shall
be effective at the beginning of the next semi-monthly pay period.
A.3.1.1 Effective upon the first day in a Teamster covered position, employees will receive a
longevity incentive according to the following schedule. The longevity shall be rolled into
the employee's base rate of pay.
5 years 0.5% of base pay rate
10 years 1.0% of base pay rate
14 years 1.5% of base pay rate
19 years 2.0% of base pay rate
5 years 0.5% of base pay rate
10 years 1.0% of base pay rate
14 years 1.5% of base pay rate
19 years 2.0% of base pay rate
25 years 2.5% of base pay rate
A.3.2 Promotional Reclassification - An employee promoted from one classification to another
shall be placed into the lowest pay STEPStep of the higher classification which still
provides for a salary higher than that currently being received by the promoted employee;
provided however, an employee promoted to Leadperson, upon completion of one (1)
year in such position, shall be placed into the lowest pay STEPStep which provides for a
salary higher than that currently being received by the employees he leads.
A.3.3 Demotional Reclassification - An employee demoted from one classification to another
shall be placed into the STEPStep affording the same number of year(s) longevity the
employee had prior to demotion.
A.3.4 Working out of Classification - When an employee is assigned to the duties of a higher
classification involving the use of heavy equipment for a consecutive period of one (1) full
working day, the employee shall be compensated at the lowest pay step of the higher
classification which provides an increase of salary for those hours worked subsequent to
the first working day during the period of the assignment. Out-of-classification time shall
be claimed each workday on the daily employee report form as specified by the
Employer. This Section shall not apply to on-the-job training. An employee may request a
training status review to determine whether the employee has completed training. For the
purposes of this Section, "heavy equipment" shall be defined as backhoe, large loader,
grader, sweeper, tv-unit, mower, jet truck and vactor truck.
A.3.4.1 When an employee is assigned to the duties of a higher classification other than as set
forth in Section A.3.4, the employee shall be compensated at the higher rate of pay for all
consecutive scheduled hours worked after three (3) consecutive shifts worked. The
compensation shall be retroactive, beginning with the first hour of the assignment.
Employees who fill in for their Manager (a non-bargaining unit position) shall be
compensated for such duty at seven and a half percent (7.5%) above their regular hourly
rate of pay.
A.4 Education Policy and Tuition Reimbursement- Employees shall be eligible for
reimbursement paid for a job-related course of instruction in accordance with City policy.
A.4.1 All outside training and education must be pre-approved by management. Before
attending a class, workshop, or conference, a written request must be submitted and
must have an approval signature before attending the class, workshop or conference.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 26
A.4.2 If the pre-approved class, workshop, or conference falls on your scheduled day(s) off, this
will be considered overtime and you will be given one and one-half (1 1/2) times your
regular straight-time hourly rate of pay or compensatory time, at your choice. (Maximum
accrual of compensatory time applies.) Or, an alternative work scheduled will be
implemented.
A.4.3 If the pre-approved class, workshop, or conference is scheduled for evening hours, then
this will be considered your own time, unless management requires that you take the
class at which point it is viewed as overtime eligible per Article 4.2.
A.4.4 If you are dismissed from your class three (3) hours or more from the end of your shift,
then you are expected to report back to work. You have the option of using vacation or
compensatory time for the remainder of your shift after subtracting travel time from the
class location back to work.
A.4.5 If you are attending a class during the day and you are scheduled to work swing shift or
graveyard, you will not be required to report to work. Early dismissal from your class will
follow the same policies that apply to day-shift employees.
A.4.6 Employees who work swing shift or graveyard have the option of changing his or her
work schedule from swing shift or graveyard to working day shift while they are attending
classes, workshops or conferences.
A.4.7 When attending a conference or workshop, you are required to attend the classes being
provided.
A.4.8 Documentation for CEUs or credits must be turned in to your Supervisor upon completion
of the classes, workshops or conferences.
A.5 Treatment Plant Classification Premium - Employees who work at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant that can perform Operator duties and are available to be scheduled to
work weekends, holidays, swing shift and graveyard shifts shall be compensated three
percent (3%) per hour of their hourly rate of pay in addition to their regular straight-time
hourly rate of pay upon obtaining and maintaining a Washington State "Wastewater
Treatment Plant Operator" Certificate of Competency, Group III or higher.
A.6 Building Operator Premium - Employees assigned to this job classification shall be
compensated three percent (3%) of their hourly rate of pay in addition to their regular
straight-time hourly rate of pay upon obtaining and maintaining a Building Operator
Certification II as recognized by the State of Washington Department of General
Administration.
A.7 Employees shall be compensated for work related calls at home. The telephone call will
be paid at a fifteen (15) minute increment at a double- time rate. Calls which qualify for
pay will only be limited to either extremely urgent situations that cannot wait to be
addressed until the following working day or calls that are approved by the Division
supervisorSupervisor. When an employee is assigned to Street/Storm Watch
(Street/Storm), Waterwatch (Water/Sewer) or Stand-by Operator (Treatment Plant)
duties, compensation for calls at home shall be included as part of the minimum weekly
base pay. Time spent on a laptop computer connected to the City SCADA system shall
be considered a phone call and paid at the minimum rate and shall apply to staff
assigned to Waterwatch or Stand-by Operator duties.
A.8 Cell phones and pagers are not required to be carried by employees outside of the
employee's working hours except for employees assigned to Waterwatch or Stand-by
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 27
Operator duties. If the City, in the future, does require any employee to carry a cell
phone or pager outside of the employee's working hours, the employee will be
considered, "On-Call." Prior to implementing this requirement, the contract will be
reopened and the compensation negotiated.
A.9 Waterwatch (Water/Sewer Div) - Employees assigned to the Waterwatch shall be
guaranteed a minimum of twelve (12) hours pay per week at the overtime rate.
A.9.1 Employees assigned to Waterwatch shall not be required to perform duties normally
performed by Street Division personnel except in emergencies, in which case they shall
be compensated pursuant to the callback provisions of this Agreement; provided
however, this provision shall not apply when an employee on Waterwatch is called out to
perform Water/Sewer Division work and during said callback also performs less than one
(1) hour of work normally performed by Street Department personnel.
A.9.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement to the contrary, Waterwatch (WW)
duties for the Water and Sewer Divisions shall be performed and compensated in the
following manner:
A.9.2.1 The employee assigned WW shall answer and log all phone calls and state in the log
how each call was handled (examples - customer outside of city, see truck report,
suggested customer call plumber, etc.)
A.9.2.2 The employee shall first try to solve the customer’s need over the telephone if it is
possible.
A.9.2.3 The employee shall verify telemetry problems over the telephone or by use of the
Employer-issued lap top computer.
A.9.2.4 The WW employee should assess the situation by determining the following:
- Is or may the problem cause property damage?
- Can the problem wait to be repaired during business hours?
- Can I take care of the problem?
- Do I need to call a crew out?
- Is the problem Water/Sewer related?
A.9.2.5 If a crew is needed, the WW employee shall call additional employees. When time
permits the WW employee shall contact a Leadworker or Supervisor.
A.9.2.6 The WW employee should not only determine which course of action to take, but shall
also stay with the job until it is completed, unless another emergency call-out occurs
which requires the WW employee’s attention.
A.9.2.7 WW employees shall be compensated when they respond to a Call-out in the following
manner:
A.9.2.7.1 Call-out time for WW purposes startstarts when the WW employee enteredarrives at the
Edmonds City limitsfacilities, and ends when leaving the Edmonds City limitsfacilities at
the end of the job.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 28
A.9.2.7.2 A Call-out shall be paid at one and one-half times (1-1/2) the employee’s regular hourly
rate of pay, with a two (2) hour minimum (Example: If a Call-out takes one (1) hour, the
WW employee shall be paid two (2) hours at one and one-half (1-1/2) times his regular
hourly rate of pay. If a Call-out takes two and one-half (2-1/2) hours, the WW employee
shall be paid two and one-half (2-1/2) hours at one and one-half (1-1/2) times his regular
hourly rate of pay). Employees responding to call-outs shall receive an additional one (1)
hour of pay, paid at the straight-time rate for each call-out.
A.9.2.7.3 If a WW employee is called out on a job that lasts in excess of three (3) hours, the entire
time shall be paid at two (2) times his regular hourly rate of pay. This provision shall apply
only if a single Call-out requires an entire three (3) hour work assignment, and not for
multiple Call-outs that add up to more than three (3) hours.
A.9.2.7.4 If the WW employee receives several calls in a row that must be responded to in the field,
then the first call shall qualify for the two (2) hour minimum, as set forth in Section
A.9.2.7.2. If more calls are responded to within that two (2) hour time period, the work
shall be considered part of the original two (2) hours. If the work takes longer than two (2)
hours, then the WW employee shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times
his regular hourly rate of pay until its completion.
A.9.2.7.5 If a call needing a response is received after the two (2) hour minimum guarantee is
concluded and all the work associated with the Call-outs taken during the two (2) hour
period at issue are completed, then another two (2) hour minimum shall apply.
A.9.2.7.6 When the WW employee is responding to a call, and the problem is a Street Division
related problem, the WW employee should notify the priority person within the Street
Division. If the problem can be resolved within one (1) hour (i.e., such as storm grate
being plugged, a barricade needing to be set up, a minor roadway flooding, etc.,) the WW
employee shall perform the work and shall be compensated in accordance with Section
A.9.2.7.2 herein.
A.10 Stand-by Operator (Treatment Plant) - Employees assigned on “Stand-by” shall be
guaranteed a minimum of eighteen (18) hours base pay per week or an equivalent daily
pro-rated amount.
A.10.1 Agreement Term - This standby operator agreement will be in effect for this contract term
and may be terminated upon mutual agreement of both parties.
A.10.2 A Stand-by Operator must have the ability to respond in accordance with established City
policies.
A.10.3 Stand-by Operations are in effect during the hours that the plant is not staffed. If the
plant is scheduled to be in operation twenty-four (24)- hours a day (three (3)- shifts) the
Stand-by Operations duties are cancelled. Notice of cancellation must be given prior to
the last day worked or a minimum of twenty-four (24) hours.
A.10.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement to the contrary, Stand-by Operator
duties for the Treatment Plant Division shall be performed and compensated in the
following manner:
A.10.4.1 The employee assigned Stand-by shall answer and log all phone calls the next working
day.
A.10.4.2 The employee shall first try to solve the customer’s need over the telephone if it is
possible.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 29
A.10.4.3 The employee shall verify alarms over the telephone or by use of the Employer-issued
lap top computer.
A.10.4.4 The Stand-by employee should assess the situation by determining the following:
- Is or may the problem cause property damage?
- Can the problem wait to be repaired during business hours?
- Can I take care of the problem?
- Do I need to call a crew out?
- Is the problem Water/Sewer related?
A.10.4.4.1 If a crew is needed, the Stand-by employee shall call additional employees. When time
permits the Stand-by employee shall contact a Leadworker or Supervisor.
A.10.5 The Stand-by employee should not only determine which course of action to take, but
shall also stay with the job until it is completed, unless another emergency call-out occurs
which requires the Stand-by employee’s attention.
A.10.6 Stand-by employees shall be compensated when they respond to a Call-out in the
following manner:
A.10.6.1 Call-out time for Stand-by purposes starts when the Stand-by employee
acknowledgesarrives at the alarm on the plant SCADA terminalEdmonds City facilities
and ends when leaving the Edmonds City facilities at the alarming software is placed
inend of the “Unattended” position.job.
A.10.6.2 A Call-out shall be paid at one and one-half times (1-1/2) the employee’s regular hourly
rate of pay, with a two (2) hour minimum (Example: If a Call-out takes one (1) hour, the
Stand-by employee shall be paid two (2) hours at one and one-half (1-1/2) times his
regular hourly rate of pay. If a Call-out takes two and one-half (2-1/2) hours, the Stand-by
employee shall be paid two and one-half (2-1/2) hours at one and one-half (1-1/2) times
his regular hourly rate of pay). Employees responding to call-outs shall receive an
additional one (1) hour of pay, paid at the straight time rate for each call-out.
A.10.6.3 If a Stand-by employee is called out on a job that lasts in excess of three (3) hours, the
entire time shall be paid at two (2) times his regular hourly rate of pay. This provision
shall apply only if a single Call-out requires an entire three (3) hour work assignment, and
not for multiple Call-outs that add up to more than three (3) hours.
A.10.6.4 If the Stand-by employee receives several calls in a row that must be responded to in the
field, then the first call shall qualify for the two- (2) hour minimum, as set forth in Section
A.10.6.2. If more calls are responded to within that two- (2) hour time period, the work
shall be considered part of the original two (2) hours. If the work takes longer than two (2)
hours, then the Stand-by employee shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2)
times his regular hourly rate of pay until its completion.
A.10.6.5 If a call needing a response is received after the two- (2) hour minimum guarantee is
concluded and all the work associated with the Call-outs taken during the two (2) hour
period at issue are completed, then another two (2) hour minimum shall apply.
A.11 Street/Storm Watch (Street/Storm Div) - Employees assigned to the Street/Storm Watch
shall be guaranteed a minimum of twelve (12) hours pay per week at the overtime rate.
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 30
A.11.1 Employees assigned to Street/Storm Watch shall not be required to perform duties
normally performed by Water/Sewer Division personnel except in emergencies, in which
case they shall be compensated pursuant to the callback provisions of this Agreement;
provided however, this provision shall not apply when an employee on Street/Storm
Watch is called out to perform Street/Storm Division work and during said callback also
performs less than one (1) hour of work normally performed by Water/Sewer Department
personnel.
A.11.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement to the contrary, Street/Storm
(SSW) duties for the Street and Storm Divisions shall be performed and compensated in
the following manner:
A.11.2.1 The employee assigned SSW shall answer and log all phone calls and state in the log
how each call was handled (examples - customer outside of city, see truck report,
suggested customer call plumber, etc.)
A.11.5.2 The employee shall first try to solve the customer’s need over the telephone if it is
possible.
A.11.5.3 The SSW employee should assess the situation by determining the following:
- Is or may the problem cause property damage?
- Can the problem wait to be repaired during business hours?
- Can I take care of the problem?
- Do I need to call a crew out?
- Is the problem Street/Storm related?
A.11.5.4 If a crew is needed, the SSW employee shall call additional employees. When time
permits the SSW employee shall contact a Leadworker or Supervisor.
A.11.5.5 The SSW employee should not only determine which course of action to take, but shall
also stay with the job until it is completed, unless another emergency call-out occurs
which requires the SSW employee’s attention.
A.11.5.6 SSW employees shall be compensated when they respond to a Call-out in the following
manner:
A.11.5.6.1 Call-out time for SSW purposes start when the SSW employee enteredarrives at the
Edmonds City limitsfacilities, and ends when leaving the Edmonds City limitsfacilities at
the end of the job.
A.11.5.6.2 A Call-out shall be paid at one and one-half times (1-1/2) the employee’s regular hourly
rate of pay, with a two (2) hour minimum (Example: If a Call-out takes one (1) hour, the
SSW employee shall be paid two (2) hours at one and one-half (1-1/2) times his regular
hourly rate of pay. If a Call-out takes two and one-half (2-1/2) hours, the SSW employee
shall be paid two and one-half (2-1/2) hours at one and one-half (1-1/2) times his regular
hourly rate of pay). Employees responding to call-outs shall receive an additional one (1)
hour of pay, paid at the straight-time rate for each call-out.
A.11.5.6.3 If a SSW employee is called out on a job that lasts in excess of three (3) hours, the entire
time shall be paid at two (2) times his regular hourly rate of pay. This provision shall apply
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 31
only if a single Call-out requires an entire three (3) hour work assignment, and not for
multiple Call-outs that add up to more than three (3) hours.
A.11.5.6.4 If the SSW employee receives several calls in a row that must be responded to in the
field, then the first call shall qualify for the two (2) hour minimum, as set forth in Section
A.11.5.6.2. If more calls are responded to within that two (2) hour time period, the work
shall be considered part of the original two (2) hours. If the work takes longer than two (2)
hours, then the SSW employee shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times
his regular hourly rate of pay until its completion.
A.11.5.6.5 If a call needing a response is received after the two (2) hour minimum guarantee is
concluded and all the work associated with the Call-outs taken during the two (2) hour
period at issue are completed, then another two (2) hour minimum shall apply.
A.11.5.6.6 When the SSW employee is responding to a call, and the problem is a Water/Sewer
Division related problem, the SSW employee should notify the priority person within the
Water/Sewer Division. If the problem can be resolved within one (1) hour (i.e., such as
sewer manhole cover being reset, a meter needing to be turned off, minor landscaping
flooding, etc.,) the SSW employee shall perform the work and shall be compensated in
accordance with Section A.11.5.6.2 herein.
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-
CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
By By
DavidScott A. GrageSullivan
Secretary-Treasurer
Mike Cooper
David O. Earling
Mayor
Date Date
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 32
APPENDIX "B"
LETTER OF INTENT
by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
and
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763
(Representing the Public Works and Parks Department Maintenance Employees)
January 01, 2015 through December 31, 2017
THIS LETTER OF INTENT is entered into by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON (the
“City”) and PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS LOCAL
UNION NO. 763, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “Union”). It is understood
and agreed by and between the City and the Union as follows:
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached an agreement on the 2015-2017 Collective Bargaining
Agreement (“CBA”), which includes new provisions relating to the employment of Seasonal & Temporary
Employees; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that it will serve the interests of all parties to clarify the parties’
understanding with respect to such employees, and therefore wish to do so in this Letter of Intent, which
shall be incorporated into the CBA by reference;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, the City and Union hereby
agree as follows:
1. Definition of Seasonal & Temporary Employees. The provisions of Section 1.2.2 of the Union’s
CBA defining Seasonal & Temporary Employees shall be understood to mean as follows:
a. Such an employee who works less than 347 hours in a twelve (12) consecutive month
period shall not be considered a member of the Union and his/her employment shall not
be governed by the provisions of the CBA.
b. Such an employee who works between 347 and 1,039 hours in a twelve (12) consecutive
month period shall be considered a member of the Union, with limited application of the
CBA, and his/her employment shall be governed by the CBA articles specifically set forth
in Section 1.2.2 of the CBA.
c. Such an employee who works 1,040 hours or more in a twelve (12) consecutive month
period shall be considered a member of the Union and his/her employment shall be
governed by all of the articles of the CBA.
2. Accumulation of Hours From Year to Year. It is intended that, if a Seasonal or Temporary
Employee has a twelve (12) month break in service, beginning the day after his/her last day of
work at the City, before reemployment with the City, the twelve (12) consecutive month
calculation period referenced in Section 1.2.2 of the CBA shall be deemed to have terminated
and will begin again. If such an employee has such a twelve (12) month break in service, his/her
hours shall not accumulate from year to year for purposes of the calculation of hours worked
under Section 1.2.2 of the CBA. If such an employee does not have a twelve (12) month break in
service, his/her hours shall accumulate from year to year for such purposes.
3. Clarification of Rights of Seasonal & Temporary Employees. Seasonal & Temporary Employees
shall not at any time be deemed:
a. to be Regular Full-Time or Regular Part-Time employees of the City, as those terms are
defined in the City Personnel Policies;
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 33
b. to have completed the probationary period set forth in the CBA at any time;
c. to have been “laid off” at the end of each season, as that term is understood in the City
Personnel Policies and the CBA;
d. to have seniority or bumping rights as those terms are defined in the CBA.
4. Examples for Clarification. The following examples are provided for the purpose of further
clarifying the agreements set forth above.
a. Chris works 330 hours during the 2016 season (30 hours per week for 11 weeks from the
beginning of April to mid-June). Chris is rehired for eight weeks in July and August 2017.
Because Chris has had a twelve (12) consecutive month break in service between June
30, 2016 and July 1, 2017, Chris will not be considered a Union employee, and the
twelve (12) consecutive month calculation period begins again on July 1, 2017. Similarly,
if Chris works fewer than 347 hours in 2016 and is not rehired in 2017, but is rehired in
2018, Chris will not be considered a Union employee, and the twelve (12) consecutive
month calculation period begins again on the first day of work in 2018.
b. Shawn works 20 hours a week for 16 weeks in 2016, for a total of 320 hours. In 2017,
Shawn works the same schedule. After the first 27 hours in 2017, Shawn will have
worked more than 347 hours, and by the end of the season will have worked less than
1,040 hours within a 12 consecutive month period. Therefore, Shawn will be considered
a Union member, must pay Union dues and initiation fee, and will be covered by the
limited articles of the CBA set forth in Section 1.2.2 thereof.
c. Pat works 330 hours in 2016 and 700 hours in 2017. After reaching 347 hours in the
second year, Pat becomes a Union member whose employment is covered by the limited
articles of the CBA set forth in Section 1.2.2 thereof. After reaching 1,040 hours in 2017,
Pat will be considered a Union member whose employment will be covered by all of the
articles of the CBA until Pat’s employment ends or there is a twelve (12) consecutive
month break in service, after which the calculation period begins again.
d. Lynn works 700 hours in 2016 and again in 2017. Lynn will becom e a Union member
during 2016 (and covered by the limited articles of the CBA set forth in Section 1.2.2
thereof), and will remain a Union member during 2017 after reaching 1,040 hours (and
covered by all of the articles of the CBA) until Lynn’s employment ends or there is a
twelve (12) consecutive month break in service, after which the calculation period begins
again.
This Letter of Intent is effective upon signing and shall be incorporated by reference into the 2015-2017
CBA.
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-
CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
By By
Scott A. Sullivan
Secretary-Treasurer
David O. Earling
Mayor
Date Date
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
AGREEMENT 2011 - 20142015-2017
CITY OF EDMONDS (Public Works and Parks Maintenance Employees)
PAGE 34
By
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Office of the City Attorney